Loading...
05-23-05 PC Minutes Regular Meeting of the Golden Valley Planning Commission e May 23, 2005 A regular meeting of the Planning Commission was held at the Golden Valley City Hall, Council Chambers, 7800 Golden Valley Road, Golden Valley, Minnesota, on Monday, May 23, 2005. Chair Keysser called the meeting to order at 7 pm. Those present were Commissioners Cera, Eck, Hackett, Keysser, Rasmussen, Schmidgall and Waldhauser. Also present were Director of Planning and Development, Mark Grimes, and Administrative Assistant, Lisa Wittman. I. Approval of Minutes April 25, 2005 Joint Planning Commission and City Council Meeting Eck referred to the third paragraph on page one and asked what was meant by the word "intensification". Grimes explained that it means a developer may look at ways to increase density or possible levels of usage in a particular building. MOVED by Rasmussen, seconded by Cera and motion carried unanimously to approve the minutes from the April 25 Joint Planning Commission and City Council meeting as submitted. II. Informal Public Hearing - Final Plan Review - PUD No. 91 Amendment #1 - Rudy Luther Toyota Applicant: The Luther Company Limited Partnership e Address: 8801,8909 and 8989 Wayzata Blvd. Purpose: The amendment would allow for the redevelopment of the Luther properties including the demolition of the five existing buildings and construction of a new 70,000 square foot Toyota/Scion building and a 45,000 square foot Jaguar/Land Rover building. Grimes reminded the Commission that they reviewed the preliminary plans for this PUD on March 28, 2005. He stated that Luther has since submitted updated plans and staff feels it's a complete submittal and ready to go forward. He stated that the Council had a concern about the lighting on the site and that Luther has submitted a new lighting plan that shows a fairly significant reduction in the amount of lighting. He added that a consultant is in the process of reviewing the new lighting plan. Keysser asked if the lighting concerns are about the spillover of light into the neighborhood to the south. Grimes said the concerns were about the overall amount and intensity of the lighting. e Cera asked how the lighting compares with the Audi dealership next door. Grimes said Luther's new lighting plan is about a 40% less than the Audi plan. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission May 23,2005 Page 2 e Jon Baker, Architect for the project, stated that the only changes that have been made since the previous presentation to the Planning Commission is the addition of a pedestrian crosswalk near the proposed Jaguar/Land Rover building and the reduction in the level of lighting. Keysser asked if the light levels will be sufficient to the applicant. Baker stated that their original lighting plan was in the high range and the new plan would be in the lower range but it is still acceptable. Cera asked what would be done with materials from the demolition. Baker explained that the demolition contractors will salvage and recycle what they can. Keysser opened the public. Hearing and seeing no one wishing to comment, Keysser closed the public hearing. Schmidgall stated that he supported the proposal when they first saw it in March and with the changes they've made to the final plans he is even more so inclined to support the proposal. Rasmussen agreed. Cera stated he was impressed with the way the applicant addressed the Planning Commission's and City Council's concerns. e MOVED by Hackett, seconded by Cera and motion carried unanimously to recommend approval of the final PUD Plan for RL T Addition PUD No. 91, Amendment #1 with the following conditions: 1. The plan sheets for Luther Golden Valley - R.L. Toyota and Golden Valley Jaguar-Land Rover prepared by Baker Associates and dated April 22, 2005 shall become a part of this approval. There are 17 plan sheets. 2. The recommendations in the memo from City Engineer Jeff Oliver, PE, to Mark Grimes dated May 9, 2005 shall become a part of this approval. 3. The recommendations in the memo from Deputy Fire Marshal Ed Anderson to Mark Grimes dated May 10, 2005 shall become a part of this approval. 4. From the date of approval of the Ordinance giving approval to the Final PUD Plan for RL T Addition PUD 91, Amendment No.1, Luther shall complete construction within 36 months. 5. The Building Board of Review, as part of the building permit process, must approve the landscape plan. 6. The existing cellular tower on the site may remain. 7. No outside speaker system shall be used on the site. Informal Public Hearing - Preliminary Plan Review - PUD No.1 01 - Maywood Applicant: Kingman Building Company e Address: 5609 Olson Memorial Highway and 435 Turners Crossroad North Purpose: The Planned Unit Development would allow for the construction of 8 single family detached homes. e e e Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission May 23, 2005 Page 3 Grimes referred to a location map and noted that the property is located at the south west corner of Highways 100 and 55. He explained that there are four lots involved in this project which total approximately 1.72 acres total in size. He said that three of the lots used to be the old tree service property and one lot is the property located at 435 Turners Crossroad. Grimes stated that the property is designated low density (less than 5 units per acre) on the General Land Use Plan Map and that the applicant's proposal is less than that at 4.6 units per acre. Grimes noted the odd shape of the property and explained that the developer's original plans were to develop just the long, narrow tree service property that would have a private a cul-de-sac. The plans changed and the property at 435 Turners Crossroad was included in the proposal which allows for a road to loop around and provide better access to the proposed eight homes. Grimes stated that staff does have some concern about the house that will be left in the middle (5605 Olson Memorial Highway) and how it will be buffered from this development and how it will relate to the rest of the development once the other homes are built around it. He said there will be landscaping and fencing installed. Grimes referred to the proposed site plan and stated that the applicant is proposing a 24- foot wide street, with parking allowed on one side. He said that staff has suggested the street be a private street because there is not adequate width for the right-of-way required for a public street. He stated that this development would create about 80 trips per day so staff doesn't anticipate any traffic, pedestrian or parking problems. Grimes stated that another issue staff looked at is how close these proposed homes would be to the adjoining properties to the west and to the south. He explained that the PUD Ordinance states that homes must be at least their height away from any other single family residential development. He said it has been determined that the height of the homes, according to the City's building code, is 24 feet so the homes will be set back 24 feet from the property lines which means that no accessory structures such as decks or gazebos could be added to these homes once they were built. Grimes discussed the landscaping plans and stated that the developer has been working with adjoining property owners about the best way to provide fencing or landscaping along the property lines. Grimes referred to the proposed homes and stated that they will be three to four bedroom homes with three car garages and will be approximately $400,000 to $500,000. He stated that there will be a homeowner's association and one maintenance company in order to provide more consistency in the maintenance of the property. He stated that the Public Safety Department does have some concern about access to the homes and that there have been discussions with the developer about having sprinkler systems installed in the homes. Grimes stated that staff is recommending approval of this proposal with the recommendations listed in his staff report dated May 17, 2005. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission May 23, 2005 Page 4 . Rasmussen referred to the building code requiring that homes be set back the same distance as their height and asked if that setback is figured from the home to the lot line or from the home to a neighboring home. Grimes stated that it is measured to the lot line and that in this case there will probably be approximately 50 feet between the proposed houses and the homes on Valleywood Circle. Rasmussen referred to the existing home that will be staying and asked how far away it would be to the new road. Grimes said it would be approximately 30 feet away from the proposed new road. Waldhauser asked if the 4.6 units per acre density figure included the area for the road. Grimes said yes. Waldhauser asked if the densities were set anticipating that that was the buildable lot area on a public street normally. Grimes said he agreed that the lots are small, but the dilemma is that this property is only 100 feet wide, but 466 deep. He said it's difficult to be responsible stewards of the land and use it efficiently. By following the zoning code strictly, only two homes could be built on this property that is 1.72 acres in size. e Hackett asked Grimes to explain the basic requirements of the single family zoning district. Grimes said that normal, typical lots in the R-1 zoning district are supposed to be 80 feet wide and 10,000 square feet in area. He said the setback requirement from a public street is 35 feet and that the setback requirement from a private street is 15 feet, both of which are met in this proposal. Eck noted that this proposal has two lots that are landlocked and asked if there are other similar lots in Golden Valley that have no access. Grimes said there are a few properties that have shared driveways or narrow private access driveways but that this is an old plat. Eck asked what factors are considered in determining the appropriate density in a PUD development. Grimes said the Comprehensive Plan is used to determine the density. He explained that this developer could propose townhouses or double homes which may be more efficient but that they feel the market is for single family homes. He added that the Comprehensive Plan also calls for different types of life-cycle housing opportunities and that there is a need in Golden Valley for these types of homes with the master bedroom on the main level and a homeowner's association to take care of the maintenance and the landscaping. Eck said he understands the developer's interest in getting as many homes as they can on this property to maximize their return on investment he just questions how the City decides the appropriate density. e Waldhauser said she thinks it is appropriate to think about the housing stock for the future of Golden Valley but her concern is the size and expense of the homes. She said she really questions the demand for this type of housing and that long-term, she thinks the need is for single level, smaller homes that are conveniently located, not four bedroom, three garage stall homes with no lots which are not suitable for a family, but more for middle aged couples. She said she thinks there is a limited market for these homes. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission May 23, 2005 Page 5 e Cera asked about the procedure if someone would want to expand their home into the setback area. Grimes said the whole PUD would have to be amended and that he would require the developer to come up with a building envelope plan that would specify the size of house to be built on the lots. e e Keysser asked if four single-family homes could be built if there was a shared driveway. Grimes said it would still have to be a PUD and that he could talk to the City Attorney about how to do shared driveways but that there have been problems with them in the past. Rasmussen asked how big the single family lots are in the Hidden Lakes development. Grimes said they are probably in the 8,000 to 9,000 square foot range and that some lots on the lake side are very large. Keysser asked if there are any environmental issues on this land from the tree service business. Grimes said no. Dave Kingman, Kingman Building Company and Dave Reed, Landmark Development Group, applicants introduced themselves. Kingman gave a brief history of the site and stated that this site came to them from someone else who had originally bought the site from the tree service company in order to build nine or ten town homes on the site. He said when he took over the property he understood from meeting with staff that the density needed to stay at less than 5 units per acre so he was not going to try and push it or overload the property and he is trying to stay within the guidelines. He said that he thought a long cul-de-sac would be awkward and that the two access points being proposed would flow a lot better. He said he thinks townhomes would have looked sandwiched in amongst the other single family homes in the area and that his intent is to build nice single family homes that will enhance the neighborhood. He said he agrees with Waldhauser that the big market demand is for one level homes, however one level homes require a lot more land and with in-fill projects like this, it can't be done. He said if he cut the density down the price of the homes would go up. He said there is a market for this type of home and that there are a lot of people who don't want a big yard to care for and that he would be building them if there weren't a market for it. He showed a drawing of the homes they are proposing and stated that they will have a cottage feel with front porches and some stone on the exterior. Reed stated that they are trying to keep the garages back and not pushed forward toward the street like is often done on small lots. He said detached town homes are often built on lots that are 60 feet wide. He stated that there is a market for young families who also want this type of home. Waldhauser asked about the square footage of the homes. Kingman said the homes would be approximately 2,400 square feet. Grimes asked the applicants if they are proposing two or three car garages. Kingman said that they are showing two car garages with an attached breezeway that would be setback from the front of the home but that they would also offer the option of three car garages without the breezeway. e e e Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission May 23, 2005 Page 6 Cera asked the applicant to update the Commission on their discussions with the homeowner at 5605 Olson Memorial Highway. Kingman said he spoke with the Heilman's yesterday and that generally they are not in favor of the proposed street wrapping around their property. He said he talked to them about putting in fencing and buffering and that they've said they are going to feel like they are an island but that the tree service that was there before was a lot of old beat up trucks, wood chippers and burning piles. Keysser asked about the tree preservation plans. Kingman said that most of the trees in the interior of the lot would have to go. Grimes said that the applicants will have to meet the City's tree preservation ordinance. Keysser said this is a very dense proposal and asked what other options have been explored. Kingman said a townhome development would be more dense. He said this proposal is within the 5 units per acre guideline. He said they did look at having a narrower, one-way street, but the City didn't want that. Grimes said having a 24 foot wide street would be better for access and would allow for some on-street parking. Keysser asked the applicant if they've spoken to the homeowners at 425 Turners Crossroad about acquiring their property. Kingman said they did approach them and were told they wouldn't be able to pay them what they'd want for it. Hackett stated that according to the 10,000 square foot per lot requirement they would be able to get 7 homes on this site, not the proposed 8 homes. He said he knows Golden Valley is going to be increasingly under pressure for more and more density. He said he is concerned about the existing neighborhood and the patterns that are already established. He said if the City is going to modify the rules there needs to be a benefit to the city beyond the developer making more money. He said he understands greater density increases the tax revenue to the City but he is looking for something more than that and why the applicant feels the City should allow this development. Kingman said this proposal is an improvement over what was there and that the tree service was really a commercial use that was inappropriate for a residential area. Reed asked Hackett what specific rules he feels they should address. Hackett said the 10,000 square foot requirement, the 80 foot frontage requirement, the 35 foot front setback, etc. Kingman said those requirements aren't the requirements in a PUD. Hackett said the patterns that exist in the neighborhood now generally conform to the general single family requirements and that this development would start to change that pattern. He said he is looking for a reason to be convinced that this is the right thing to do. Reed said generally speaking, this development will be an improvement to the community as a whole and when people start to see that their property value can be significantly increased by this development they will be motivated and inspired to improve their properties. Kingman stated that he thinks the PUD ordinance was created to help in these kinds of situations where the property is really oddly shaped and that if the normal zoning code requirements were applied nothing could be done with two of the lots because they have no street frontage. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission May 23, 2005 Page 7 e Hackett said there are benefits to a development like this because the houses are closer to the street. Grimes added that the applicants are proposing front porches, which promotes a sense of community and with only 80 cars per day on that street walking there will be relatively safe on the private street. Keysser asked the applicants if they are proposing to install street lights. Kingman said he would talk to the Engineering Department about that but he could probably address the lighting with the lights on the homes. Keysser asked if the houses are being built on spec. Kingman said that they will probably build a couple of model spec homes but that each home will be a custom home. Grimes added that the utilities and the street would go in at one time. Reed stated that there are projects similar to this in the eastern suburbs, but not much in the western suburbs and he does have people that are interested in this type of development. Kingman added that people are starting to do teardowns of homes and re- building million dollar homes amongst the existing homes that are in the $350,000 range and he doesn't want to build that type of product or take that risk. He said he thinks that by building eight homes the lot price would be more appropriate. e Keysser said he always thinks of design in these types of project and that in this particular case the design of the project is going to be even more important because of the density and screening issues involved. Reed referred to the extensive landscaping plan and said he realizes it is going to be complicated and that they are planning to meet with the individual neighbors to discuss various options for screening and landscaping. Keysser opened the public hearing. Mark Heilman, 5605 Olson Memorial Highway, stated that he was excited about the project when he first met the developer and saw the first plans. When the second plan came out, he said he was not so sure he liked the road going around his property. He said he was offered $300,000 for his home, which seemed like a good deal, but he couldn't find a comparable house in Golden Valley for that price. He said that he has talked to the developer about fencing on his property but he is not sure if that is what he wants to do. He said he likes Mr. Kingman, but it is not his job to make him happy at his own expense. Grimes asked Heilman if he thought a road on one side of his property would be ok. Heilman said yes. Waldhauser asked Heilman if it would be ok with him if the applicant were to put landscaping or screening on his property. He said he is not sure if that would be ok and that he is just not sure he wants a road all the way around him. e Joan Peters, 5605 Woodstock Ave., stated that this plan is as good as anything that could go in this location. She said that when the homes on Valleywood went in the neighborhood gathered together and said they wanted single family houses with kids and dogs and that is what they would be getting with this proposal. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission May 23,2005 Page 8 e She said she is concerned about water run-off because of the hard surfaces and the small lots. Grimes explained that this proposal is below the threshold requirements for a pond but they are proposing to install an environmental manhole which will improve the water quality before it gets into the creek and sewer system. He stated that the City does have best management practices that the developer will have to follow in order to reduce and improve runoff from the site. James Murphy, 5610 Woodstock Ave., said he is concerned about losing some of the big trees that are on the property and stated that the developer needs to be careful around the trees that are along the power lines. He said he also is concerned about where the water will go but that he would much rather see single family homes go in on this property than town homes. Grimes referred to the site plans and discussed the draining patterns. He pointed out where the environmental manhole is proposed to be. e Jim Heidelberg, 489 Valleywood Circle, said he thinks this proposal is a terrific idea. He said there is no question that it will benefit the community. He said the empty lot is better than what was there before but this proposal is a whole lot better than an empty lot. He said there will be 8 tax paying units added to the school district and the City and that the proposed homes will be comparable to the homes in Valleywood Circle. He stated that placing only two or three $900,000 homes in this area doesn't seem to make sense but what is being proposed does make sense. He said he hadn't thought about the issue of water run-off but he is going to leave it to the experts and assume that it is not going to be a problem. He said Mr. Kingman has met with the neighborhood and had been very helpful and forthcoming and they are doing what they need to be doing as far as communicating with the neighborhood. He said he supports the proposal even though there are a few issues that still need to be dealt with. Heilman referred to the issue of drainage. He said water from the tree service property used to run right into his backyard and that he hopes that will change with this new plan. Keysser asked Heilman what his thoughts are regarding the design for his screening and buffering. Heilman said a combination of fencing and trees would be the best option. Michelle Tiedeken, 425 Turners Crossroad North, said she thinks this would be a good addition to the neighborhood even though it would change it some because of the higher density. She said she is concerned about having some landscaping or fencing installed because her house wouldn't be very far from the backyards of the new houses. She stated that she also did not want to sell her property because the amount they were offered wouldn't be enough to replace what they have. She said she is also concerned about keeping as many of the mature trees as possible. e Keysser seeing no one else wishing to comment closed the public hearing. Kingman referred to the issue of drainage and explained that there is a swale along the west side of the property and that the water flows from the south to the north to the Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission May 23,2005 Page 9 e proposed environmental manhole except some of the water on the east end of the property would flow out to Turners Crossroad. Reed discussed some other projects they've done in different communities. Hackett said he is in favor of the project with some conditions placed on it. He said based on the elevations the applicant has shown, the garages are set back further than the front of the homes and that is key to him. He said Golden Valley should no longer support garage forward design and that homes closer to the street are good because it creates more opportunities to meet and greet neighbors casually which is important in building community. He added that it is important to address the aspects of landscaping with the 5605 Olson Memorial Highway lot in particular. Eck stated that he was surprised and pleased by the support of the neighbors. He said he is concerned about the density but given the unusual shape of the property there really is no other feasible scenario. He stated that the applicant has done a good job of communicating with the neighbors and that he supports this proposal. Cera stated that he is concerned about Mr. Heilman's house becoming an island. He said it would set a precedent and might affect his property value. e Rasmussen said that she is not in favor of this proposal and is alarmed that the City would allow someone to build a road around someone's house. She said that there is some expectation of privacy when someone buys a home in a single-family residential area. She said this sends the wrong message on the backs of the Heilmans. She stated that the City doesn't have to give out PUDs. She said she realizes this is a difficult property to develop which is unfortunate, but the applicants have the right to build two homes on the property. She said this proposal is a travesty and that it sends the message to developers that anything is ok. She said that this proposal would be fine if it included the 5605 Olson Memorial Highway property but that this proposal is not ok and she can not vote in favor of it. Keysser said Rasmussen makes a good point. He said he is willing to vote for this proposal today but that he would like to see concessions made to the Heilman family. Schmidgall stated that he supports the proposal. He said they keep calling the street around the Heilman house a road but to him it is more of a drive or a lane and suggested that maybe a different type of material be used such as cobblestone to make it gentler or softer. He said that if this project is done sensitively, the Heilmans could benefit from some of the amenities such as the landscaping on their property and that this proposal is certainly better than the tree service. e Waldhauser stated that she supports the project as well and thinks the proposed homes are in scale with the neighborhood and won't be out of character. She said her main concern is isolating the Heilman house but that it could be done attractively with landscaping or fencing. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission May 23,2005 Page 10 e She said she can't help but think that that this proposal will significantly increase the existing homes value and financially this is a win-win for everyone in the neighborhood. e e Hackett stated that he thought it would be useful to visit some of the other locations that the applicant has developed. Waldhauser stated that this property does front on two busy streets and if the City is going to pick some transition areas for higher density this would be a suitable area to do that. Keysser asked Hackett if he wanted to add as a condition of approval that the garages need to be set back from the front of the homes. Hackett said yes and he would also like to reference the two renderings that the applicant presented. MOVED by Eck, seconded by Hackett and motion carried 5 to 2 to approve the PUD request with the following conditions. Commissioners Eck, Hackett, Keysser, Waldhauser and Schmidgall voted in favor of the proposal. Commissioners Cera and Rasmussen voted against the proposal. 1. The 6 plan sheets prepared by John Oliver and Associates for Maywood and dated 4/27/05 shall become a part of this approval. The plan sheets include the preliminary plat, grading, drainage and erosion control plan, utility plan, site plan, tree preservation plan and landscaping plan. 2. As part of the Final PUD Plan, the developer shall draft the documents for the homeowner's association. These documents shall be reviewed by the City Attorney. 3. The final plat of Maywood is subject to a park dedication fee as outlined in the Subdivision Code. The fee will be determined by the City Council at the time the final plat is approved. 4. The developer shall continue to work with the surrounding property owners to develop a suitable landscape plan to provide adequate screening and buffering. This revised landscape plan shall be submitted as part of the Final PUD Plan. 5. The recommendations found in the memo from City Engineer Jeff Oliver, PE, to Mark Grimes dated 5/16/05 shall become a part of this approval. 6. The recommendation found the memo from Deputy Fire Marshal Ed Anderson to Mark Grimes dated 5/10/05 shall become a part of this approval. 7. The garages are not to be built forward of the homes and should be similar to what was shown in the renderings during the applicant's presentation. IV. Informal Public Hearing - Preliminary Plan Review - PUD No. 100 - North Wirth Business Center Applicant: KRJ North Wirth LLO Address: Lot 1, Block 2, North Wirth Parkway - Located on Dahlberg Drive Purpose: The Planned Unit Development would allow for the construction of an office condominium project totaling 31,500 square feet comprised of six buildings, phased over time. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission May 23, 2005 Page 11 e Grimes reminded the Planning Commission that this same proposal came before them about a year ago. He explained that the HRA has entered into an agreement with the applicant to develop the 4.2 acre property into six office condominium buildings. He stated that the City Engineer has some concern about the location of a.few of the parking spaces shown on the plans. He referred to the proposed front yard setback along Dahlberg Drive stated that there has been an issue in the past with the setback requirement for parking lots along Dahlberg Drive and that those parking lots were allowed to be located 15 feet from the front property line. He referred to the site plans and discussed the odd shaped piece of property located across the railroad tracks, connected with a land bridge. He stated that at this time that piece of property will be a conservation easement. Keysser asked if the applicant has to buy the whole piece of property. Grimes said yes and explained that there are also some pollution issues on this property and the developer has been working with the Pollution Control Agency (PCA) and will have an environmental management plan. He added that this will be the last development in the North Wirth Redevelopment Area that involves land owned by the HRA. Rasmussen asked if retail uses would be allowed in this development. Grimes said no it would just be for office use. e Keysser asked for clarification on the railroad crossing issue. Grimes explained that the "land bridge" concept means that KRJ will own the land on which the tracks cross rather than the railroad owning the land. This allows KRJ or whoever owns the property the ability to put in a private railroad crossing. Keysser asked if there is much train traffic. Grimes said he thought there was one train per day. Rick Martens, Applicant, referred to the site plans and stated that the proposal is comprised of 31,500 square feet of office space in six buildings. He stated that the buildings will all be one-story buildings with no basements because there is too much pollution. He stated that they have a plan approved by the PCA and they will be spending one million dollars in remediation work. He stated that it is his intention to meet with staff regarding some issues including the City Engineer's concerns about a few of the parking spaces. Darrell Anderson, Design Partnership, Architect for the project, showed elevation drawings of the proposed buildings and discussed the building materials being proposed. Keysser asked what types of tenants they were expecting. Martens stated that they are anticipating office uses and that this is office/condo space not warehouse or storage space. e Eck asked if there is going to be an association. Martens said that this proposal is conceptually identical to a residential condominium situation. Keysser added that this type of product has been very successful. Hackett stated that he doesn't understand and is a little bothered by the residential nature of this proposal if this is a commercial building and all the buildings around it are Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission May 23, 2005 Page 12 e commercial buildings. He said there are certain cues that tell people this is a commercial property and he is confused why it is not more commercial in character. Martens explained that the market for office condos is a more residential feel and he doesn't think that there are any flat roof condo units in the Twin Cities. He said that the ownership thing relates back to people owning their own home. He added that it is eclectic and will fit in well with what is there. He said that they would still have commercial type signage and landscaping. He stated that the owners of these types of units are small attorneys, architects, dentists, etc. that are looking for something that is not so corporate looking. Hackett asked Martens if the idea is to have the buildings be more approachable. Martens said yes and that it is not a corporate headquarters type of look. Hackett said he is surprised that there aren't more windows being proposed because the buildings are fairly deep and it is going to be dark in the interior spaces. Grimes noted that this proposal will also have to go to the Building Board of Review for approval. Hackett said it seems to be kind of a nebulous, like a mediocre housing tract and he thinks they can do better. e Martens stated that there is a sense of identity with this type of building that this it is acceptable to this market. Keysser added that these are going to be small, 2 to 3 person types of businesses. Grimes asked Martens if there are ways to customize the units. Martens said yes, and discussed some of the various options that the owners would have. Keysser opened the public hearing. Hearing and seeing no one wishing to comment, he closed the public hearing. Keysser said he thinks it's a great idea and a great use of the property. He said the applicant has a sense of the market and knows what will sell. It is a great use of the property. Waldhauser referred to condition number five in Grimes' memo regarding the sodding and landscaping and said she thinks the intention was to include the north east end of the property. Grimes referred to the site plan and showed which areas he was referring to in his memo. e MOVED by Cera, seconded by Waldhauser and motion carried unanimously to recommend approval of the requested Planned Unit Development that would allow for the construction of an office condominium project totaling 31,500 square feet comprised of six buildings, phased over time with the following conditions: Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission May 23, 2005 Page 13 . 1. The following plans shall become a part of this approval: Site Plan dated 11/11/04 prepared by the Design Partnership; Landscape Plan dated 11/11/04 and prepared by the Design Partnership; Building Elevation Sheet dated 11/11/04 and prepared by the Design Partnership; Grading Plan dated 11/11/04 and prepared by Paramount Engineering; and Utility Plan dated 11/11/04 and prepared by Paramount Engineering. 2. The recommendations found in the memo from City Engineer Jeff Oliver, PE, to Mark Grimes dated May 16, 2005 shall become a part of these recommendations. 3. The recommendations found in the memo from Deputy Fire Marshal Ed Anderson to Mark Grimes dated November 24, 2004 shall become a part of these recommendations. 4. The plantings and sod indicated on the Landscape Plan shall be completed around each building after construction of the building. Prior to construction of the buildings, all areas shall be seeded with a seed mix acceptable to the City Engineer. The area that is seeded shall be maintained in a manner as to not allow the growth to exceed 8 inches in height. 5. The areas along Dahlberg Dr. (between the parking lots and the street and east of the southernmost building pad) shall have sod laid at the same time as the landscaping is done around the first building. e 6. The area north of the railroad tracks shall be placed in a conservation easement with the City of Golden Valley. Development of the area north of the tracks may only occur with an amendment to the PUD and amendment to the conservation easement. -Short Recess- V. Reports on Meetings of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority, City Council, Board of Zoning Appeals and other Meetings Waldhauser stated that the BZA would like clarification on the new fence ordinance, specifically regarding garden structures. VI. Other Business A. Revisions to City Code and Council Guidelines Related to Boards and Commissions. Waldhauser asked that a copy of the Planning Commission by-laws and a copy of the final PUD Ordinance be distributed. B. Board/Commission Recognition Dinner - Wednesday, June 29 at 6:30 pm Grimes told the Commissioners that their recognition dinner will be held on June 29 and that invitations will be mailed out soon. e VII. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 9:35 pm.