06-10-19 PC Minutes 7800 Golden Valiey Road�Golden Valley,MN 55427 � ° � � �:� v'�"�
763-593-3992�TTY 763-593-3968�763-593-8109(fax)�www.goldenvalleymn.gov !'�����
�l,/
. . . Y �� � ��
Plann�ng Commiss�on �=�
June 10,2019—7 pm
REGULAR MEETING MINUTES CouncilChambers
Golden Valley City Hall
7800 Golden Valiey Road
Call to Order
The meeting was called to order at 7 pm by Chair Blum.
Roll Call
Commissioners present: Rich Baker, Ron Blum, Adam Brookins, Andy Johnson, Chuck Segelbaum
Commissioners absent: Lauren Pockl, Ryan Sadeghi
Staff present: Planning Manager Jason Zimmerman, Senior Planner/Grant Writer Emily
Goellner
Council Liaison present: Steve Schmidgall
Approval of Agenda
MOTION made by Baker, seconded by Brookins to approve the agenda of June 10, 2019, as submitted
and the motion carried unanimously.
Approval of Minutes
MOTION made by Brookins, seconded by Johnson to approve the May 29, 2019, minutes as submitted
and the motion carried unanimously.
Public Hearing—Conditional Use Permit
Applicant: Good Shepherd School
Address: 145 Jersey Avenue South
Purpose: Child Care Center in the Institutional (I-1) Zoning District
Goellner referred to a location map and explained the applicant's request for a Conditional Use Permit to
allow for a Child Care Center (preschool) for up to 20 children. She stated that the applicant plans to
remodel an existing classroom to use for a preschool that will be licensed as a Child Care Center by MN
Department of Human Services. She added that there are no exterior changes planned and the proposed
Child Care Center would share parking spaces with the church and school.
She referred to an aerial photo of the property and discussed the points of entry and exit to the site and
the pickup and drop off location for the students.
Goellner stated that Good Shepherd church and school are 59,101 square feet in size on an 8.9 acre site
surrounded by residential and institutional uses and that the school includes 15 classrooms for grades K
through 6.
This tlocument is available in alternate formats upon a 72-hour request. P►ease call
763-593-8006 (TTY: 763-593-3968)to make a request. Examples of alternate formats
may include large print, electronic, Braille, audiocassette,etc.
City of Golden Valley Planning C:ommissior� Regular IVl�eting 2
June 10, 2019
Goellner discussed the parking requirements for this site and explained that the Child Care Center
requires four parking spaces. She stated that the entire site currently has 263 parking spaces and that
they are required to have 284. However,the Zoning Code allows for a reduction in parking when uses are
shared or operate on different days or at different times which is the case with this proposal so staff is
comfortable with the number of parking spaces on the site at this time.
Goellner discussed other zoning considerations and stated that the school currently has 27 employees,
the church has 7 employees, and an additional 2 or 3 employees would be added for the Child Care
Center. She added that there are currently 265 students and that the child care hours would be 7 am to
6 pm Monday through Friday. She referred to drop offs and pickups and said they would occur at the
east entrance and queue in the L-shaped parked lot with no overflow into the streets, and that no
deliveries would be made during this time. Goellner added that there is a feasibility analysis and master
planning underway for future expansion and if that occurs a CUP Amendment would be required.
Goellner stated that staff is recommending approval of the proposed Conditional Use Permit as it meets
all of the requirements of the Zoning Code.
Baker questioned if there is a permitted maximum number of students allowed at the school. Goellner
said there would be a permitted maximum number of students allowed as defined by the Building Code.
Baker asked if the physical capacity and permitted capacity would be the same. Goellner said there could
be a slight difference between the two. Zimmerman referred to the architectural plans and noted that
the educational occupancy is limited to 704 occupants. Baker said he was thinking about the implications
to the parking. Goellner explained that for parking regulations staff used the occupant loads that were
noted on the site plans.
Johnson asked if the parking needs to be formally reevaluated. Goellner said staff is happy to accept
input about parking but doesn't feel that a parking study is needed at this point. If the applicant were to
come back in the future with plans to expand staff would likely ask for a parking study then.
Johnson referred to the floor plans that specifically call out the rooms being used and asked if that
information was required with the application or if that was above and beyond. Goellner said the City
requires an interior floor plan but that the plans submitted were more detailed than what the Planning
Commission typically reviews.
Blum said he sees several positive things in this application including the independent licensing through
another government agency because it gives him reassurance in regards to appropriate capacity. He said
the L-shaped parking lot is particularly conducive toward managing traffic flows, and there have been no
complaints about the present uses which are very similar to what is proposed. He said the proposed
parking allowance is consistent with past decisions in terms of the quantity and the rationale for the uses
which is that they are uses at different times and days of the week at the same facility and he is glad to
see a proposed condition about future expansion of the use.
City of Golden Va(fey Flanning Cammission Reguiar trtleeting 3
lune 10, 2019
Mike McGinty, Principal of Good Shepherd School, said that for many years their enrollment has been
approximately 330 kids and that has been declining by 10 to 15 per year for the last five years so even
with the addition of the proposed preschool they will be well below what they have had for many years.
He said the proposed preschool is needed and healthy, and parents have been asking for it for a long
time.
Baker asked if the addition of the preschool would bring enrollment back. McGinty said they think it
might help maintain enrollment where it is at.
Blum opened the public hearing. Seeing and hearing no one wishing to comment Blum closed the public
hearing.
Baker said he thinks it is a quirk of the Institutional Zoning Districts that schools are a by-right use but
preschools are not. He said they seem to be the same thing with different names and he is supportive of
approving this proposal. Segelbaum agreed.
MOTION made by Baker, seconded by Johnson and motion carried unanimously to recommend approval
of Conditional Use Permit 168 allowing for a Child Care Center in the Institutional (t-1)Zoning District at
145 Jersey Ave S subject to the findings and conditions listed below.
Findin�s:
1. Demonstrated Need for Proposed Use: Standard met. Child care is a necessary service for many
members of the community. The applicant notes that families attending the K-6 school on site have
requested a child care center for several years. Additionally, the applicant notes that the spaces for
up to 20 children have been reserved. It is also noted that expansion may occur in the future.
2. Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan: Standard met. The proposed use is consistent with the
Institutional designation in the Comprehensive Plan, which allows for child care centers.
3. Effect upon Property Values: Standard met. The proposed use is not anticipated to affect property
values in a substantial way.
4. Effect on Traffic Flow and Congestion: Standard met. Traffic flows are not anticipated to be
substantially different from those that currently exist. Employees of the child care center would
arrive between 7 and 8 am and depart between 3 and 6 pm on weekdays. The amount of additional
cars coming through the parking lot because of the added number of children is not expected to
significantly impact traffic flow. The church does not currently have a problem with overflow into
the streets and city staff do not anticipate this issue to begin to occur because of the added child
care center for up to 20 children.
5. Effect of Increases in Population and Density: Standard met. The School currently has 27
employees, which would grow by 2 to 3 new employees. The Church currently has 9 employees and
that would not increase with this proposal. There are currently 265 students enrolled at the K-6
school. The preschool (child care center) would allow for 20 additional children in the building. The
site is able to accommodate this growth in population without negatively affecting neighboring
property owners.
6. Compliance with the City's Mixed-Income Housing Policy: Not applicable.
�ity of Golden Vafley Planning Cornmissian Regular Meeting 4
lune 10, 2019
7. Increase in Noise Levels: Standard met. The proposed use is not anticipated to generate excessive
noise.
8. Generation of Odors, Dust, Smoke, Gas, or Vibration: Standard met. The proposed use is not
anticipated to generate excessive odors, dust, smoke, gas, or vibrations.
9. Any Increase in Pests or Vermin: Standard met. The proposed use is not anticipated to attract pests.
10. Visual Appearance: Standard met. No exterior improvements are associated with this proposal.
Future improvements to the parking lot will need to incorporate minimum standards in City Code.
11. Other Effects upon the General Public Health, Safety, and Welfare: Standard met. The proposed
use is not anticipated to have any other impacts on the surrounding area.
Conditions:
1. The Child Care Center shall be limited to 20 students, or the amount specified by the Minnesota
Department of Human Services, whichever is less.
2. A proposal to increase the capacity of the Child Care Center will require an amendment to the
CUP.
3. All necessary licenses shall be obtained and remain active with the Minnesota Department of
Human Services.
4. The hours of normal operation for the Child Care Center shall be Monday through Friday from 7
am to 6 pm.
Discussion—Mixed Use Zoning District
Zimmerman reminded the Commission that they've had several discussions about the proposed new
Mixed Use Zoning District. He said he would now like to discuss setback regulations for when a Mixed
Use property is adjacent to or across the street from an R-1 or R-2 Zoning District, height regulations
including minimum height requirements, and height limits when a Mixed Use property is within a certain
distance of R-1 or R-2 properties. He added that he would also like to discuss transparency regulations.
Zimmerman referred to previous discussions which included the pros and cons of having smaller
setbacks which promote walkability and larger setbacks that provide more open space. He referred to
some of the pros and cons of having a minimum height requirement and stated that requiring a second
story may help spur more activity, density, and diverse uses, but may preclude one story retail or
restaurants without a variance.
Zimmerman referred to the 2040 Land Use Plan, pointed out all of the Mixed Use areas, and discussed
the current and the proposed front, side and rear yard setbacks for each of the subdistricts.
Zimmerman referred to the existing I-394 Mixed Use District height regulations and explained that it
states that buildings located within 75 feet of a residential zoning district can't exceed the maximum
height permitted in that residential district and that buildings occupying 5,000 square feet or more must
be two stories in height. It also states that a one-story wing of a taller building may be permitted if it
comprises no more than 25% of the length of the facade. He stated that these current regulations are
complicated for developers and for staff to evaluate. He said staff is proposing language that says
buildings must match the height of adjacent single family districts within 50 feet of a residential parcel
City �f Goiden �falfey F�lanning Commissian Regular fVleeting 5
lune 10, 2Q19
boundary. He added that the proposed new language also includes that a building stepback is required
for upper stories that are 15 feet from the facade of the story below to help transition the two districts.
He showed the Commissioners examples of different setbacks and building heights and how they relate
to residential properties.
Segelbaum asked if the examples shown of a 60-foot right-of-way were typical. Zimmerman referred to
the areas targeted to be Mixed Use and stated that none of them abut typical single family streets and
that most of them have 60 feet of right-of-way or more.
Baker said he thinks it is important to have a pretty sizable setback between mixed use buildings and
single family houses because it can really change the ambience of a neighborhood. Zimmerman said the
areas targeted for Mixed Use don't really have an intimate neighborhood setting but in the future
someone could ask to rezone their property to Mixed Use so the City needs to think about the
appropriate setbacks and height regulations.
Zimmerman said another issue the Commission has discussed is if a second story should be required on
all mixed use buildings. He referred to pictures of severat buildings in Minneapolis where the City asked
for the buildings to be taller in order to keep with the neighborhood and surrounding buildings and to
have a more pedestrian scale. He questioned if a second story use is important as vvell, or if it is just the
additional height that is important.
Baker said he isn't convinced that by requiring two stories the City would be chasing away restaurant or
retail uses. Zimmerman noted that the current I-394 Mixed Use language requires a second story.
Segelbaum asked how to avoid the idea that these areas might become strip malls. He said he is
concerned about that effect in demanding a second story. Zimmerman said language could be added
that says the second story has to be an active use and not just a facade that creates that height.
Zimmerman referred to the current I-394 Mixed Use requirements related to transparency and the
recently approved code language regarding transparency in other zoning districts. He asked for feedback
on how much the Commission wants to build on the language already in the Zoning Code and if there
should be even more transparency requirements in the Mixed Use District compared to other districts.
Baker said the data shown lacks a pattern so he questions if they should add to the lack of pattern or if
there is other data available that might inform a smarter approach. Zimmerman said one good way to
consider this data is to visit places in neighboring communities that are zoned for mixed use to see how
each one feels, but this is new enough that redevelopment hasn't occurred yet and these areas haven't
been built out to the codes that have been adopted over the past 10 years so it is hard to see where any
of these types of standards have been implemented.
Brookins referred to the proposed language regarding height and asked about the 50-foot measurement
as it relates to parcel boundaries and right-of-way boundaries. Zimmerman explained that the zoning
district boundaries go to the edge of the street and that right-of-way includes the boulevard areas on
City of Galden Valley Planning Commissior� Regular MeetMng 6
lune 10, 2019
both sides of a street and the street itself in the middle. Brookins said he likes the way the proposed
language regarding height is written.
Baker said 50 feet does not seem like a large enough area between buildings and adjacent single family
properties. Brookins said he is comfortable with the 50-foot setback as proposed because to him the
point of these districts is trying to make them walkable and places people want to go to and walk
through that they are not getting other places in the City.
Segelbaum noted that most residential properties have a 35-foot front setback which doesn't seem like a
lot at times so to have a potential four story building within residential areas seems excessive in his
mind. He suggested that maybe the stepback start at 50 feet but that four stories would require a 75-
foot setback from abutting residential properties.
Baker said they've been talking about walkability and people walk along streets not usually the sides or
backs of buildings. Blum asked if there would be no rear setbacks abutting residential properties in most
of the Mixed Use districts. Zimmerman said parking would likely be to the rear or side of the buildings.
Johnson referred to St. Louis Park's code where it says the height can be the same as the minimum lot
width or twice the height if the lot is double the minimum lot width. He said that seems easy to
understand and the odds are that a residential building not an office tower would be built. Zimmerman
agreed that is one way to determine height regulations. He added that a four story building is
approximately 62 feet in height. Baker said he likes the stepback idea.
Segelbaum asked if there is consensus on what sort of setback is needed for any type of building
abutting residential properties. Brookings said Segelbaum's suggestion sounds reasonable and if the
option is setbacks or a larger total distance he would prefer setbacks. He added that he would rather see
a 50-foot setback requirement with a stepback at two stories than to require a 75-foot setback.
Zimmerman said he can take these numbers and create some visuals or find some examples.
Baker said he would like to know which Mixed Use Districts directly abut residential properties.
Zimmerman referred to the 2040 Land Use Map and pointed out the districts that abut the back yards of
residential properties, are across the street from residential properties, or are across railroad tracks from
residential properties.
Blum asked if they should focus more setbacks from properties across the street. Segelbaum said there
are few instances where there would likely be a towering building across the street with a 60-foot right-
of-way from an R-1 Zoning District. Zimmerman said staff could do an analysis of the properties and
right-of-way widths. Baker said there would be almost 100 feet from a home and the front of a building
across the street. Segelbaum said requiring a stepback seems like it would be less objectionable. Baker
suggested having a tour or a list of some examples so they could see what these proposed setbacks look
like.
City af Gralden V�Iley Piar�r�ing Commissian Regular Nfeetir�g 7
June 1d, 2019
Blum asked the Commissioners their thought on the proposed height requirements. Segelbaum said
requiring two stories seems to be a nice requirement but maybe not for a small property or building.
Baker questioned if the City really wants freestanding, small businesses in these areas. He said he wants
to see small lots adjacent to each other reach some agreement to provide a continuous facade rather
than have a small alley between buildings. Segelbaum said he hasn't seen too many instances where
property owners decide to build at the same time. Zimmerman said properties could be bought and
combined as they are redeveloped.
Blum asked Zimmerman if he knows of any difficulties other cities have had that require two-story
buildings. Zimmerman said he doesn't.
Segelbaum asked about buildings that just have a facade or a certain height rather than having two
stories. Zimmerman said that is one of things that should be considered. Segelbaum said it seems
satisfactory to him and there may be less concern as long as buildings are close to the street, parking is
behind the buildings, and they don't look like a typical strip mall.
Blum asked if there is any desire to limit the height of a floor. Zimmerman said the draft code language
includes a maximum height for the first floor and maximum heights for additional floors in order to
create a taller first floor for retail or office space.
Zimmerman asked if the consensus is to require a second story. Johnson said he agrees with Segelbaum
and would prefer using height rather than a number of stories. Brookins agreed. Segelbaum asked what
the concern is about the maximum number of stories. Blum said he thinks is would prevent a warehouse
type of building.
Zimmerman said the next topic is transparency and asked the Commissioners if they think the Mixed Use
district requirements should go above and beyond what is required in the other zoning districts. Baker
said he doesn't see any reason to. Blum said he thinks the proposed regulations are well written.
Segelbaum and Johnson agreed.
Johnson said it would be a shame to go through all this work just to have cars zipping by so he hopes
they can do something creative with the car/pedestrian design to complete the picture of these areas.
Zimmerman agreed that there might be an opportunity with the Downtown Study to make other areas
more interesting and walkable as well.
--Short Recess--
Council Liaison Report
Schmidgall updated the Commission on the most recent City Council meeting, including the approval of
Architectural and Material standards and hiring a consultant to conduct Phase II of the Downtown Study.
He also informed the Commissioners that an Open House would take place on June 12 to discuss the
implementation of certain bike routes as part of the City's new Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan.
City of Galden Valley Planning Commission Regular Meeting 8
June 10, 2019
Reports on Meetings of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority, City Council, Board of Zoning
Appeals, and other meetings
No reports were given.
Other Business
No other business was discussed.
Adjournment
MOTION made by Segelbaum, seconded by Baker and the motion carried unanimously to adjourn the
meeting at 8:30 pm.
.r��
�
, Adam Brookins, Secretary
Li Wittman, Administrative Assistant