pc-minutes-mar-14-22
REGULAR MEETING MINUTES
This meeting was conducted in a hybrid format with in‐person and remote options for attending,
participating, and commenting. The City used Webex to conduct this meeting and members of the
public were able to monitor the meetings by watching it on Comcast cable channel 16, by streaming it
on CCXmedia.org, or by dialing in to the public call‐in line.
1. Call to Order
The meeting was called to order at 6:30 pm by Chair Pockl.
Roll Call
Commissioners in person: Adam Brookins, Sophia Ginis, Lauren Pockl, Chuck Segelbaum
Commissioner remote: Mike Ruby, Andy Johnson
Staff present: Jason Zimmerman – Planning Manager, Myles Campbell – Planner
Council Liaison present: Denise La Mere‐Anderson
2. Approval of Agenda
Chair Pockl asked for a motion to approve the agenda.
Commissioner Johnson commented on meeting length depending on the PUD discussion length.
MOTION made by Commissioner Brookins, seconded by Commissioner Ginis, to approve the agenda
of March 14, 2022.
Staff took a roll call vote. Motion carried.
3. Approval of Minutes
Chair Pockl asked for a motion to approve the minutes from February 28, 2022.
MOTION made by Commissioner Ginis, seconded by Commissioner Johnson to approve.
Staff took a roll call vote. Motion carried.
Informal Public Hearing – 428 Sunnyridge Lane – Replat (Lot Combination) with Variance
Applicant: Greenwood Design Build, LLC
Address: 428 Sunnyridge Lane
Myles Campbell, Planner, started the presentation by introducing the request, displaying a map of the
home, location in the city, and history of the corner lot. The homeowner is petitioning for a lot
consolidation and variance on lot width. The applicant wanted to develop both smaller lots but the
community responded that lead the developer to amend and develop the lot as one.
Staff discussed the lot area, typical sizes in R‐1, requirements for corner lots vs standard and as such
the corner lot requirement triggered the need for a variance. Engineers note that the site has multiple
March 14, 2022 – 6:30 pm
Hybrid
Council Chambers, City Hall
City of Golden Valley Planning Commission Regular Meeting
March 14, 2022 – 6:30 pm
2
utility connections currently (for both underlying lots) so no new infrastructure will be needed to serve
the site, although they will likely require unused stubs to city systems be removed at time of permitting
for the new home.
Tree mitigation and replacement requirements will apply towards the redevelopment, although no
formal comments at this time.
No comments or concerns from the fire department relating to the subdivision.
The site has been a single‐family property since 1920, and staff sees the continuation of this use as a
reasonable one. Because of the code requirements for replacing a legally non‐conforming use, a
consolidation of the parcels is both a necessary step to take to build a new single‐family home, but
also impossible without the variance.
The absence of a variance from the lot width requirement would prevent the consolidation of the
property, depriving the property owner of a substantial property right to replace the existing dated
single‐family home.
Granting the variance would not be injurious to other property in the neighborhood, as the proposed
home after consolidation would improve the existing setback situation along Woodstock. In addition,
this consolidation and variance is being sought due to pushback on plans to develop the underlying 40‐
foot lots.
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of a variance of 20 feet off of the required 100 feet to a lot width of 80
feet.
If the variance is approved, then based on the findings, staff recommends approval of the minor
consolidation at 428 Sunnyridge Lane subject to the following conditions:
1. Engineering staff will determine if the dedication of new drainage and utility easements are
necessary prior to approval of the final plat.
2. The City Attorney will determine if a title review is necessary prior to approval of the final
plat.
If the variance is not approved, the lot width requirement cannot be met and therefore staff
recommends denial of the minor consolidation with a finding that the proposal does not meet the
Minimum Dimension Requirements of the Subdivision Code.
Commissioner Johnson commented on the two year “lookback” and discussed the trees and asked
for details on the tree mitigation regulations. Staff responded that the City Forester is the expert but
staff looks at the history of trees on properties and detailed tree mitigation language is in the city
code. This language isn’t triggered often. Commissioner Ginis asked for details on the 100ft
requirement for corner lots. It’s in part to do with the zoning code as Golden Valley doesn’t have a
secondary front yard clause aside from as it relates to a narrow lot.
Staff and commissioners discussed the future home design as well as utility connections.
Chair Pockl invited the applicant to speak.
City of Golden Valley Planning Commission Regular Meeting
March 14, 2022 – 6:30 pm
3
Greenwood Design Build, Applicant, purchased this lot in 2019. The applicant elaborated on the
initial goal to develop the two underlying parcels but after neighbor feedback decided to develop it
as a single property. The home will face Sunnyridge and Woodstock will feel like a side yard. No staff
questions for the applicant.
Chair Pockl opened the public hearing at 7:03 pm.
There were no in person commenters.
There were no callers.
Chair Pockl closed the public hearing at 7:05 pm
Chair Pockl opened the discussion guiding the subdivision request to start. Commissioner Ginis
commented she supports the request and added that the 100ft rule is silly, Commissioner Johnson
seconded this comment. Johnson commended the applicant for listening to community input.
MOTION made by Commissioner Brookins and seconded by Commissioner Ruby recommend
approval of a variance of 20 feet off of the required 100 feet to a lot width of 80 feet.
Staff took a roll call vote. Motion carried.
MOTION made by Commissioner Brookins and seconded by Commissioner Ginis recommend
approval of the minor consolidation at 428 Sunnyridge Lane subject to the conditions listed in the
staff memo.
Staff took a roll call vote. Motion carried.
4. Informal Public Hearing – Meadowbrook School PUD No. 90 – Future Land Use Map Amendment,
Zoning Map Amendment, Major PUD Amendment
Applicant: ISD #270 – Hopkins Public Schools
Address: 5300 and 5400 Glenwood Avenue
Jason Zimmerman, Planning Manager, started by displaying maps of the property and elaborated
that this request is broken into three portions:
1. Future Land Use Map amendment for 5300 Glenwood Avenue
2. Zoning Map amendment for 5300 Glenwood Avenue
3. Major PUD Amendment for PUD 90
Staff reviewed the history of this request, the original PUD was approved in 2000, Amendment 1 was
granted in 2012 for a small addition, Amendment 2 was that November for modifications to the
parking area, Amendment 3 in October 2013 consolidated the campus with the Nursery site next
door, Amendment 4 in May 2018 allowed another addition, parking changes, and groundwork for
incorporating of the 5300 building into the PUD. In 2021 Amendment 5 was considered but
withdrawn and was almost identical to current Amendment 6.
Amendment 6 addresses traffic concerns, excess ROW, and offers future space for special
educational programing.
City of Golden Valley Planning Commission Regular Meeting
March 14, 2022 – 6:30 pm
4
There was a virtual neighborhood meeting on March 14 and staff received no comments.
Staff gave commissioners a history of the lot, school, and traffic accommodation experiments.
A 2021 traffic study raised no major concerns regarding proposed use but it may require some limits
on hours of operation. The change in Future Land Use is consistent with the Comp Plan.
Findings
The property is adjacent to significant I‐A zoned property so would not be out of character
with neighborhood
Pending PUD amendment can include conditions to mitigate future traffic impacts
Allows Meadowbrook to expand its campus and meet goals and objectives of the Comp Plan
Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of the Future Land Use Map amendment to reguide 5300 Glenwood
Avenue from Office to Institutional ‐ Assembly.
Rezoning the property from Office to Institutional – Assembly would be a better fit for the planned
use for educational programing. This is consistent with proposed change to the land use in the Comp
Plan.
Findings
Adjacent to significant I‐A zoned property so would not be out of character with
neighborhood
Pending PUD amendment can include conditions to mitigate future traffic impacts
Allows Meadowbrook to expand its campus and meet goals and objectives of the Comp Plan
Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of the Zoning Map amendment to rezone 5300 Glenwood Avenue from
Office to Institutional ‐ Assembly (I‐A).
The current proposed amendment will expand the boundary of the existing PUD to incorporate 5300
Glenwood Avenue. It will include excess right‐of‐ways along Highway 100, Glenwood Avenue, and
near the exit ramp as well as improve existing parking lots to provide a more direct circulation
pattern. This plan includes construction of new stormwater treatment infrastructure, replacing and
adding new lighting, as well as the planting of new trees, shrubs, and perennials.
Land Use and Zoning Evaluation
Very little flexibility needed – primary modification is the expansion of the internal access drive
connecting the two properties
Would allow for an improved circulation pattern for student drop‐offs and pick‐ups at peak
times
City of Golden Valley Planning Commission Regular Meeting
March 14, 2022 – 6:30 pm
5
Continuation of some parking setbacks at less than 25 feet, but impact is internal to the campus
Little change to impervious or open space percentages
Traffic Evaluation
Utilization of the longer queueing lane a major impetus for the proposal
Would ensure back‐ups do not occur on Glenwood Avenue
2021 traffic study raised no major concerns regarding proposed use; may require some limits
on hours of operation
Stormwater Evaluation
New stormwater treatment infrastructure would be added under the parking lot – no
treatment in place today
Lighting Evaluation
New lighting for 5300 Glenwood and along the east Meadowbrook parking lot must comply
with the City’s “dark skies” standards
Some revisions needed prior to approval of the PUD Permit by the City Council
Landscaping Evaluation
New trees, shrubs, and perennials would meet the City’s replacement requirements for trees
removed as part of the site improvements
Platting Evaluation
Planned incorporation of excess right‐of‐way would transfer responsibility for some
infrastructure from the City to the school district
New walkway easements along Glenwood Avenue also proposed
Enrollment and Operations
In reaction to a condition of approval from Amendment #4, an ongoing annual method of
communication regarding enrollment and operations will be shared with the City
Engineering and Fire Safety
A handful of comments regarding City permits and review by the Bassett Creek Watershed
Management Commission are included
Engineering and Fire staff support the proposed amendment
Previously Identified Issues
Concerns over continued loss of green space
The proposal increases impervious coverage for the site by 4,117 square feet. The applicant
indicates that 3,530 square feet of this is to accommodate pedestrian and bicycle access via
City of Golden Valley Planning Commission Regular Meeting
March 14, 2022 – 6:30 pm
6
sidewalks that will connect the east and west campus, the 5400 Glenwood building, and the
trail along Glenwood Avenue. To help offset this additional coverage, 19 parking space will
be removed as well as a remnant portion of the old entrance drive to the site just to the
east of the 5400 building.
Lack of bike/pedestrian improvements
As noted, new bike/ped connections are proposed to be added to the site in response to
requests that the campus be accommodating of non‐vehicle trips.
Challenging site grade changes
Three areas of concern regarding steep grades were noted by the City Council – the
driveway connection between Glenwood Avenue and the east parking lot, the connection
between the east parking lot and the south‐central lot, and the exit drive from the south‐
central lot onto Glenwood.
Given the fixed elevations of Glenwood Avenue and the two parking lots, there were limited
options to modify the grades. A small adjustment was made to the driveway slope allowing that
change in grade to be reduced and the connecting drive between the two parking lots was
increased in length in order to reduce the average slope, but the presence of the tunnel connecting
the 5400 and the 5430 buildings presents an immovable object, thereby preventing the steep slope
of the exit drive from being reduced.
Findings
Quality Site Planning: The PUD amendment is tailored to the specific characteristics of the site by
providing a beneficial circulation plan that ensures vehicles are queueing off of the public right‐of‐
way to avoid creating back‐ups and congestion on Glenwood Avenue. Other improvements to the
parking lot provide a needed update to older infrastructure.
Preservation: Minimal tree removal required as part of the project is mitigated through replanting.
No sensitive site features are impacted.
Efficient; Effective: The proposed amendment would utilize land efficiently by consolidating nearby
excess right‐of‐way and opening up an existing building for additional school operations.
Consistency: The proposal is consistent with the current use of the existing PUD and there are no
known impacts to the surrounding residential neighborhood. The proposal is consistent with the
City’s Comprehensive Plan, which calls for the support of non‐residential growth opportunities and
utilizing the PUD process as a way to achieve zoning flexibility.
General Health: The PUD amendment would improve general health by providing water quality
improvements to the Sweeney Lake sub‐watershed through new stormwater management
infrastructure, and would improve safety and welfare by ensuring continued improvements to the
traffic flow on Glenwood Avenue.
City of Golden Valley Planning Commission Regular Meeting
March 14, 2022 – 6:30 pm
7
Meets Requirements: The creativity and flexibility provided under the PUD section of the Zoning
Code allows for the coordinated use of a long driveway across two properties in order to provide
congestion reduction. The PUD amendment meets the Intent and Purpose provision of the City Code
in that it creates a public benefit in exchange for this flexibility.
Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of Amendment #6 to Meadowbrook School PUD No. 90, subject to the
following conditions:
1. The photometric plans must be updated to conform to City standards for lighting levels.
2. Information on enrollment, staffing, and program activities shall be provided to the City
annually by October 1st.
3. Programming at the 5300 Glenwood Avenue building should end by 3:00; City may require
additional future adjustments if concerns arise.
4. Walkway easements along Glenwood Avenue shall be recorded as separate documents.
5. The City will vacate any interest in the MnDOT turnback area with the exception of certain
easements over City utilities; the school district will own and maintain all other
infrastructure.
6. The existing stormwater maintenance agreement shall be updated, including the district’s
existing chloride management plan.
Commissioners asked questions regarding school start and end times, parking, and traffic in the
parking lot. Commissioner Johnson asked about inherited pervious/impervious surface and bike
lanes. Staff reviewed the discussed boundaries and the sidewalk connections between the main
sidewalk and the parking lot. The conversation went more in depth on these topics. Johnson asked if
the City is losing value in land by allowing the PUD to absorb some of the ROW. Staff pointed out that
the City retains ownership of the stormwater infrastructure but by releasing the section of land to
the applicant, the City no longer is responsible for mowing and maintaining that portion of land.
Commissioner Brookins pointed out a dumpster staging are and asked about screening as well as the
original PUD’s reference to a loading zone.
Chair Pockl invited the applicant to speak.
Kevin Neuman: Hopkins Public Schools, and Neil Tessier: Engineer Consultant, introduced
themselves. Applicants stated that staff correctly and clearly laid out all the details and added details
regarding their online learning community and its growth pattern in admission. The district hopes to
address this with the 5300 building and its accredited online learning program. The applicants went
on to discuss their parking lot and stormwater plans for 2022.
Commissioners asked questions about building use, the special education bussing needs in
conjunction with the Meadowbrook pick up que, and bussing on the North side of Meadowbrook.
This evolved into admission questions, 6th grade moving buildings, admission numbers, and a
potential staggered start/end times for buildings. Landscaping, greenspace, and outdoor recreation
use spaces were discussed. The applicant mentioned Brookins’ question about the dumpster and
screening and added they can install screening if it’s needed. The applicant commented on Johnson’s
City of Golden Valley Planning Commission Regular Meeting
March 14, 2022 – 6:30 pm
8
inquiry about ROW being taken/given and using a map, explained the spaces being exchanged
between Hennepin County, MNDOT, the City, and the applicant.
Chair Pockl opened the hearing at 8:30 pm.
There were no in person commenters.
There were no callers.
Chair Pockl closed the hearing at 8:02 pm.
Chair Pockl opened the discussion and started by checking in with staff on level of specificity allowed
in the PUD. Commissioner Johnson stated that if the applicant wants to reduce traffic, they need to
build a road and expand the PDD. He added the new building appears to be underutilized and
expanded on how he looks at the PUD and addressing issues one at a time. Staff responded that
expanding the PUD is not dependent on the use becoming educational. Commissioner Ginis added
that education uses have a variety of uses to ensure the needs of students are met. Commissioner
Segelbaum added that the amendment in 2021 has concern with including the new building without
a use specified and now that’s been remedied. It makes sense for the applicant to integrate this
building in their PUD.
MOTION made by Commissioner Brookins and seconded by Commissioner Segelbaum to
recommend approval of the Future Land Use Map amendment to reguide 5300 Glenwood Avenue
from Office to Institutional ‐ Assembly
Staff took a roll call vote and the motion passed unanimously.
MOTION made by Commissioner Brookins and seconded by Commissioner Segelbaum to
recommend approval of the Zoning Map amendment to rezone 5300 Glenwood Avenue from Office
to Institutional ‐ Assembly (I‐A).
Staff took a roll call vote and the motion passed unanimously.
Commissioners discussed the PUD, student cap, trash and screening, and adding or rolling in
conditions. The group went on to discuss other conditions and how the applicant would approach the
city if they have other desired changes, wither through a minor or administrative amendment.
MOTION made by Commissioner Segelbaum and seconded by Commissioner Brookins to
recommend approval of Amendment #6 to Meadowbrook School PUD No. 90, subject to the
conditions listed and add those around enrollment cap, traffic changes to be an administrative
review, and ensure trash screening is in compliance with zoning code.
Staff took a roll call vote and the motion passed unanimously.
5. Informal Public Hearing – Central Park West PUD No. 121 – Major PUD Amendment
Applicant: Metropolitan Council
Address: 1653 Utica Avenue South
City of Golden Valley Planning Commission Regular Meeting
March 14, 2022 – 6:30 pm
9
Jason Zimmerman, Planning Manager, reviewed the proposal to subdivide the current Outlot and
create a new outlot for the MCES lift station to sit. The new outlot will be 0.064 acres and there are
no physical changes. The request is in conjunction with St Louis Park and they approved the
preliminary and final plats on February 7th.
Findings
Quality Site Planning: The original PUD plan is tailored to the specific characteristics of the site, such
as the proximity to high retaining walls and highway traffic to the north and east and high‐density
development to the south and west. With flexibility under a PUD in uses allowed, setbacks, height,
parking requirements, number of buildings on a lot, and similar requirements, the quality of site
planning and design is of higher quality than if each parcel was designed individually under
conventional provisions. The PUD encourages creativity and flexibility in land development. The
proposed amendment does not alter this finding.
Preservation: The current PUD development has replaced a vacant and mostly impervious site with
new buildings and extensive landscaping, including a privately‐owned but publicly‐accessible park
complete with public art. The proposed amendment does not alter this finding.
Efficient; Effective: The PUD plan includes efficient and effective use of the land, and provides
development appropriate for a location constrained by highways and other intense developments.
The proposed amendment does not alter this finding.
Consistency: The PUD Plan results in development compatible with adjacent uses and is consistent
with the Comprehensive Plan and redevelopment plans and goals. High‐density office, commercial,
and residential uses surround the site to the south and west. Low‐density residential uses are
separated from this proposed PUD site by significant highway development. Additional office
development in anticipated in the near future. The proposed amendment does not alter this finding.
General Health: The PUD Plan results in development compatible with adjacent uses and is
consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and redevelopment plans and goals. High‐density office,
commercial, and residential uses surround the site to the south and west. Low‐density residential
uses are separated from this proposed PUD site by significant highway development. Additional
office development in anticipated in the near future. The proposed amendment does not alter this
finding.
Meets Requirements: The PUD plan meets the PUD Intent and Purpose provision and all other PUD
ordinance provisions. The PUD provision permits flexibility from other provisions in Chapter 113 of
the City Code. This flexibility is permitted in order to promote the intent and purpose of the PUD
section of the City Code. The proposed amendment does not alter this finding.
Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of Amendment #5 to Central Park West PUD No. 121, subject to the
following conditions:
1. The address number 1600 shall be installed on the east end of the north façade of the
existing lift station building in conformance with Section 103‐5 of the City Code prior to
release of the final plat.
2. The applicant shall verify that access to the water service is located within the platted
easement prior to release of the final plat.
City of Golden Valley Planning Commission Regular Meeting
March 14, 2022 – 6:30 pm
10
Commissioner Segelbaum if any details in the amendment differ between Golden Valley and St Louis
Park. Staff has discussed this with St Louis Park and balancing different requirements but this
proposal is solely in Golden Valley.
Chair Pockl invited the applicant to speak;
Jason Howard, Met Council representative, stated that staff covered the request well.
No questions for the applicant.
Chair Pockl opened the hearing at 9:28 pm.
There were no in person commenters.
There were no callers.
Chair Pockl closed the hearing at 9:30 pm.
MOTION made by Commissioner Brookins and seconded by Commissioner Ruby to recommend
approval of Amendment #5 to Central Park West PUD No. 121, subject to the conditions listed.
Commissioner Ginis abstained from voting as Met Council is her employer.
Staff took a roll call vote and the motion passed.
Chair Pockl ended the televised portion of the meeting at 9:32pm
6.Council Liaison Report
Council Member La Mere‐Anderson updated the Commission around a recent conversation with the
Three Rivers Park District regarding the Canadian Pacific rail master plan and their Parks to People
master plan. The OSCR shared their work plan with the Council at the most recent Work Session. She
previewed the upcoming Council meeting, including votes on some zoning text amendments and next
approvals for the Artessa project. Finally, she noted that the City Manager had extended an offer of
employment for Police Chief to Virgil Green and that he had accepted.
7.Other Business
Planner Campbell informed the Commission that staff was working with the Communications
Department to develop a survey around ADUs to help inform the conversation around legalizing them
in Golden Valley. The May City Newsletter was being targeted for sharing information around the
online survey as well as providing some educational materials.
8.Adjournment
MOTION by Commissioner Brookins to adjourn, seconded by Chair Pockl, and approved
unanimously by roll call vote. Meeting adjourned at 9:43 pm.
________________________________
Andy Johnson, Secretary
________________________________
Amie Kolesar, Planning Assistant