08-27-12 PC Minutes Regular Meeting of the
Golden Valley Planning Commission
August 27, 2012
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,
August 27, 2012. Chair Waldhauser called the meeting to order at 7 pm.
Those present were Planning Commissioners, Cera, Kisch, Kluchka, McCarty,
Schmidgall, Segelbaum and Waldhauser. Also present were City Planner Joe Hogeboom
and Administrative Assistant Lisa Wittman.
1. Approval of Minutes
August 13, 2012 Regular Planning Commission Meeting
Waldhauser referred to the fifth paragraph an page 4 and stated that the word "south"
should be replaced with the word "north."
MOVED by Schmidgall, seconded by Cera and motion carried unanimously to approve
the August 13, 2012 minutes with the above noted correction. Kluchka abstained from
voting.
2. Informal Public Hearing — Planned Unit Development (PUD) — 600 Boone
Avenue North — Boone Avenue Convenience Center— PU-110
Applicant: Linn Investment Properties, LLC
Address: 600 Boone Avenue North
Purpose: To allow for the construction of a retail/service facility on the east side
of the site.
Commissioner McCarty recused himself from discussion of this item.
Hogeboom referred to a location map and explained that this property is currently a BP
gas station at the intersection of Highway 55 and Boone Avenue North. He stated that the
property is under new ownership and they would like to add a retail building on the east
part of the site. He explained that this proposal is being considered as a PUD because
the two sites will essentially act like one and it will allow the existing berm and creek to be
better protected. He noted that this proposal will also be reviewed by the Bassett Creek
Watershed Management Commission in order to make sure best practices are being met.
He added that the property is guided and zoned for Commercial use and the proposal
meets all of the requirements of the PUD ordinance, therefore staff is recommending
approval.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
August 27, 2012
Page 2
Kluchka asked Hogeboom to further clarify why this project is a PUD. Hogeboom stated
that the two lots will function together in regard to access, parking and pedestrian
movement. Kluchka asked if the lots could be sold separately. Hogeboom said yes.
Kisch noted that the lot coverage and the amount of parking seem high. He questioned
what the lot coverage requirements and parking requirements would be if this proposal
was not a PUD. Kluchka said it would make sense to clearly articulate which things the
applicant couldn't do if this wasn't a PUD. Hogeboom explained that the City's parking
ordinance requires a minimum number of parking spaces, not a maximum number, so the
applicant does comply with rules regarding parking. He stated that the project would
exceed the lot coverage requirements if it were one lot but staff feels it would be
appropriate to exceed the lot coverage requirements in this case since the property is
closer to the downtown area which has many PUDs and many properties that exceed lot
coverage requirements. Waldhauser asked if the proposal exceeds the lot coverage
requirement for the Commercial zoning district. Hogeboom explained that the lot
coverage requirement in the Commercial zoning district is 50%. This proposal has a lot
coverage of 63.3% which exceeds the requirement by 13.3%. He added that much of the
green space in the area is Highway 55 right-of-way so that is affecting the lot coverage as
well. Waldhauser asked if there is plan showing the existing berm and how much this
proposal would intrude on it.
Segelbaum asked which sidewalks will remain and questioned if there is a sidewalk on
Boone Avenue. Hogeboom said there is a sidewalk along Boone Avenue which will
remain. There is also a sidewalk on the north side of the praperty. He added that all of the
sidewalks on the property will meet City standards.
Kluchka asked if there are regulations regarding LED signage. Hogeboom said yes, the
City's sign ordinance addresses LED signs and added that variances cannot be obtained
from the sign ordinance.
Stephen Linn, CEO Linn Companies, Applicant, showed the Planning Commission photos
of other properties he has recently developed and would like to use as a model for the
Golden Valley property. He said it is his desire to only own and operate first class facilities
that enhance the community. He said his plan is to build the retail center to the east in
conjunction with remodeling the existing building to "dress up" the current site. He stated
that the gas station may be re-branded in the future but that can't happen contractually
until 2014 at the earliest. He explained that they are proposing to replace all the sidewalks
around the entire site along with replacing almost all of the concrete and blacktop. He
stated that he is also proposing an addition to the car wash, changing it to a "tunnel" car
wash in order to process more cars per hour.
Waldhauser asked the applicant how important it is to upgrade the gas station in order to
market the proposed new retail building. Linn said it is very important. He added that it
would look awkward to have a nice convenience center next to a plain gas station. He
added that in most cases he exceeds cities' standards.
Waldhauser asked the applicant if he has a plan showing the existing berm and what will
happen along the creek as a part of this proposal. Linn said yes. He referred to the site
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
August 27, 2012
Page 3
plan and noted that the civil engineer for the project is also in attendance to answer
questions.
Waldhauser asked the applicant what types of tenants they are expecting in the new retail
space. Linn said they don't know at this point but they have had some preliminary interest
in this site because it is a highly visible site on a "high traffic" corner.
Kisch asked the applicant if the proposed number of parking stalls was derived from the
target market they are aiming for, or if the parking lot was laid out for what fits on the site.
Linn stated that food-based users will require more parking stalls. He added that the
market will be limited if the parking isn't adequate. Kisch asked if the majority of the
parking spaces are for the convenience store or for the retail building. Linn stated that the
retail building will require more parking spaces than the gas station, but it is important that
the parking be convenient for the customers.
Kisch asked about the number of employees at the gas station. Linn said there are four
employees during the day, four employees in the evening and three employees in the
middle of the night. Hogeboom added that Golden Valley has double the population
during the daytime, than it does at night.
Kisch said he wants to try to mitigate some of the impervious surface. Linn expressed
concerned about limiting the number of parking spaces because too few spaces won't be
good for the businesses or for the customers. Segelbaum asked if each use/building is
considered separately when figuring the number of parking spaces. Hogeboom said each
use would typically be considered separately, but not in a PUD proposal. Segelbaum
asked if there are different parking requirements for different types of retail uses.
Hogeboom said no and explained that there are different parking requirements for gas
stations and retail uses but not for different types of retail uses. Segelbaum questioned if
a food chain goes into the retail spaces and doesn't have enough parking spaces if
customers would start taking the gas station's parking spaces.
Cera asked about the construction schedule. Linn said he hopes to start construction next
spring.
Kluchka said he is sensitive to how buildings look on all sides and asked the applicant if
he is willing to upgrade the facades with some articulation or windows, even if they are
non-functioning, so there aren't just plain brick walls. Linn said he is proposing to upgrade
all the walls. He noted that the back side of the proposed new building would be up
against a wooded area along the creek so having windows along that side wouldn't be
practical and could cause safety issues. Kluchka asked the applicant if he is open to
design enhancements. Linn said yes, it if they are for practical reasons.
Kluchka asked the applicant if he would limit the number of empty spaces on the
proposed pylon sign because he is concerned about the sign showing empty tenant
space. Linn said he would ultimately build the pylon sign for the number of tenants that
are in the building.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
August 27, 2012
Page 4
Segelbaum asked the applicant if he has built combination gas station/retail stores in the
past. Linn said yes, he has built several.
Kisch asked the applicant if any thought had been given to alternative stormwater
management techniques given the site exceeds the impervious surface requirements.
Linn said it is his intent to add tanks underground that would re-use most of the car wash
water and substantially reduce water usage.
Jared Jones, Civil Engineer, MFRA, said he would be working with the Bassett Creek
Watershed Management Commission (BCWMC) regarding the stormwater management
on the site. He said there is currently an environmental manhole on site for the gas station
and they are proposing to add a filter manhole for the retail portion of the site to bring the
property into conformance with BCWMC requirements. Kisch asked Jones if they have
considered adding bio-swales or other mechanisms to help with filtration as well. Jones
said yes, but due to the soils some mechanisms have been ruled out, however they will
continue to work with BCWMC. Waldhauser referred to the plans and asked if the
retaining wall shown will direct water from the parking lots into the manholes. Jones said
yes.
Kisch asked the applicant if he would be open to adding more trees to the site. Linn said
yes, he would be willing to work with staff to revise his landscape plan.
Waldhauser opened the public hearing. Seeing and hearing no one wishing to speak,
Waldhauser closed the public hearing.
Cera said he likes the proposal and thinks it will be a great enhancement to the property.
Kluchka questioned if language regarding specific design materials should be required to
be included in the PUD plans. Cera suggested adding language to their recommendation
which states that equivalent materials to what the Planning Commission was shown
should be used. Kisch said specific materials can be addressed during the Final PUD
Plan review. Kluchka said the Planning Commission has been burned in the past when
things weren't required at the Preliminary stage. He added that he wants specific samples
listed in the design documents. Kisch said he is hesitant to require specific design criteria
at this stage because he knows how much designs can change, He suggested requiring a
design plan be submitted with the Final PUD plan.
Segelbaum said he is concerned about whether the parking requirements have been
studied enough. Kisch said the site looks like it is maxed out to parking capacity and there
isn't much room to add more parking spaces. Segelbaum questioned if the site is suitable
for retail uses.
MOVED by Cera to recommend approval of the Preliminary PUD request to allow for the
construction of a retail/service facility on the east side of the property located at 600
Boone Avenue North subject to the following conditions:
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
August 27, 2012
Page 5
1. Design consideration be discussed in the Final PUD plan review including materials
and the PowerPoint presentation given at this meeting become a part of the
presentation to the City Gouncil as an example of the materials to be used.
2. Further Discussion of the parking requirements. How the applicant came to the
proposed number of parking spaces and consideration of having fewer parking spaces
in relationship to amount of impervious surface.
3. Cansideration of additional alternative stormwater management beyond the
environmental manhole.
4. An enhanced landscape plan, recognizing the need for visibility of the site and
signage.
Kluchka said he is concerned about the unarticulated walls on the north and south sides
of the buildings. He said the fronts of the buildings are pleasant but the other walls are
not, especially when considering that this intersection is a gateway to the City.
Cera added another condition that there be a discussion of enhancing the facades on all
sides of bath buildings.
Linn noted that there is a berm on the east side and a good porkion of the east side will be
blocked from view. He added that he is willing to work with the City regarding these
concerns but he doesn't think there will much enhancement made by adding a lot of
decorative items. There will just be more expense and more maintenance. Kluchka said
his main concern is the pedestrian view of the north elevation. Kisch agreed that the
elevation on the north side of the proposed new building could be enhanced.
Cera restated his motion with the following conditions and findings:
Conditions
�. The plans submitted with the application shall become a part of this approval.
2. The recommendations and requirements outlined in the mema from Deputy Fire
Marshal Ed Anderson to Mark Grimes, Director of Planning and Development dated
July 30, 2012, shall become part of this approval.
3. The recommendations and requirements outlined in the memo from City Engineer Jeff
Oliver and Public Works Specialist Eric Eckman to Mark Grimes, Director of Planning
and Development, dated August 22, 2012, shall become a part of this approval.
4. All signs on the property must meet the requirements of the City's Sign Code.
5. There shall be further discussion of the design and design specs, including materials,
as part of the Final PUD Plan. Also, the buildings are to look like the ones shown in
the applicant's PowerPoint presentation.
6. There shall be discussion between staff and the applicant regarding the appropriate
amount of parking for the site.
7. There shall be discussion between staff and the applicant regarding alternative storm
water management options.
8. An enhanced landscape plan shall be considered.
9. This approval is subject to all other state, federal, and local ordinances, regulations, or
laws with authority over this development.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
August 27, 2012
Page 6
Findinqs
1. The PUD plan is tailored to the specific characteristics of the site and achieves a
higher quality of site planning and design than generally expected under
conventional provisions of the ordinance.
2. The PUD plan preserves and protects substantial desirable portions of the site's
characteristics, open space and sensitive environmental features including steep
slopes, trees, scenic views, creeks, wetlands and open waters.
3. The PUD plan includes efficient and effective use (which includes preservation) of
the land.
4. The PUD Plan results in development compatible with adjacent uses and is
consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and redevelopment plans and goals.
5. The PUD plan is consistent with preserving and improving the general health, safety
and general welfare of the people of the City.
6. The PUD plan meets the PUD Intent and Purpose provision and all other PUD
ordinance provisions.
The motion was seconded by Schmidgall and carried unanimously.
3. Informal Public Hearing — Minor Subdivision — 1540 and 1550 St. Croix Circle
— Golden View Addition — SU06-04
Applicants: Dave & Cindy Fellman and Jeff& Heidi Haines
Addresses: 1540 and 1550 St. Croix Circle
Purpose: To allow the applicants to reconfigure three existing single family
residential lots into three new single family residential lots.
Hogeboom referred to a location map and explained that the applicants are proposing to
subdivide their praperties at 1540 and 1550 St. Croix Circle (along with the parcel to the
east) into three new residential lots. He stated that the house at 1540 St. Croix Circie will
be removed and two new hames will be built. He referred to the survey of the properties
and noted that the remnant property to the east will become part of 1550 St. Croix Circle
and the sizes of the new lots will be as follows: Lot 1 will be 52,180 sq. ft. Lot 2 will be
43,620 sq. ft. and Lot 3 will be 99,790 sq. ft.
Hogeboom explained that this subdivision request will require a variance from the
Subdivision Code because the lots don't have 80 feet of width at the front setback line.
The applicants could construc# a half cul-de-sac in arder to make the lots wider at the
front but staff has requested that not be done because it will create more impervious
surface and maintenance issues.
Waldhauser asked if there has been any consideration of requiring a larger/deeper front
yard setback since the lots are narrower at the front. Segelbaum noted that in order to
meet the side yard setback requirements the homes will have to be set back further from
the front property line.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
August 27, 2012
Page 7
Hogeboom stated that staff is recommending approval of this proposed subdivision with
the variance discussed. He added that the City Engineer is working with the applicants on
creating a natural buffer along the shoreline.
Waldhauser asked about custom grading for each lot. Hogeboom stated that there will be
custom grading for each individual lot, as there will only be two lots developed.
Cera stated that in the past the Planning Commission has been told that they can't
recommend approval of variances for subdivisions where the need for the variance is
caused by the applicant. Hogeboom clarified that the applicants have not asked for a
variance. The City's recommendation in this case is to waive the lot width requirements
so as to not add more impervious surface and street maintenance.
Segelbaum said he is concerned that the house at 1540 St. Croix Circle would be left as a
non-conforming structure if this subdivision doesn't end up being completed. Hogeboom
said the house at 1540 St. Craix Circle would be considered conforming if doesn't end up
being removed.
Jacqueline Day, representing the applicants, showed illustrations of the subject properties
before and after the proposed subdivision. She explained that ultimately the owner of
1540 St. Croix Circle will own Lots 1 & 2. The home on 1540 St. Croix Circle will be
removed, both lots will be sold and finro new homes will be built. She added that this is the
lowest density that could be added on these properties.
Waldhauser opened the public hearing.
Carol Parry, 1530 St. Croix Circle, said she has no objection to the splitting the property
but she is concerned about the narrowness of the lots along the street. She questioned if
the lots could share a driveway because 1540 St. Croix Gircle has a row of huge, old pine
trees and she hopes the driveways won't take out those trees. Jacqueline Day stated that
ultimately the homeowner will decide where the garage and driveway will be located. She
stated that the trees shouldn't have to be removed and she assumes the intent of the
homeowner would be to keep the trees.
Seeing and hearing no one else wishing to comment, Waldhauser closed the public
hearing.
Waldhauser stated that the tree preservation plan should address the concerns about the
trees. She added that she agrees with staff that adding a half cul-de-sac doesn't add
anything to the project.
MOVED by Kisch, seconded by Kluchka and motion carried unanimously to recommend
approval of the Minor Subdivision at 1540 and 1550 St. Croix Circle subject to the
following conditions:
1. The City Attorney will determine if a title review is necessary prior to approval of the final
plat.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
August 27, 2012
Page 8
2. A park dedication fee of$14,370 shall be paid before final plat approval.
3. The City Engineer's memorandum, dated August 22, 2012 shall become part of this
approval.
4. A Subdivision Agreement will be drafted for review and approval by the City Council that
will include issues found in the City Engineer's memorandum.
5. All applicable City permits shall be obtained prior to the development of the new lots.
The Planning Commission also recommends approval of a waiver to Section 12.20,
Subdivision 5(A) of City Code allowing Lot 1 to be 60 feet in width along the northeast front
setback line and allowing Lot 2 to be 62 feet in width along the northeast front setback line
per staff's recommendation.
4. Informal Public Hearing — Planned Unit Development— Final Plan — 4900
Triton Drive (Eldridge 3rd Addition) — PU-109
Applicant: A.K.A.R.E. Companies, LLC — Rob Eldridge
Lakewest Development Co, LLC — Curt Fretham
Address: 4900 Triton Drive
Purpose: To allow the applicant to divide one single family residential lot into
five single family residential lots.
Hogeboom stated that this is the Final PUD Plan proposal for the property located at 4900
Triton Drive. He stated that the plans in this proposal haven't changed since the City
Council gave Preliminary PUD approval last spring. He added that there has been a
mediation meeting with the neighbors and the developer as directed by the City Council.
He referred to a concern expressed at previous meetings regarding the Bassett Creek
Watershed Management's recommendation to construct a pond as part of this proposal.
He explained that there were negotiations befinreen the developer and the neighbors to
the north of the subject property to sell them some of the property in order to bring the
size of the development under two acres so a pond would not be required. However, the
sale of the land did not happen so the pond is still being required by the Bassett Creek
Water Management Commission.
Segelbaum said he was hoping to see a tree preservation map that might show
justification for allowing the lots to have a 25-foot front yard setback. He asked if moving
the homes further forward on the lots was one of the items discussed at the neighborhood
meeting. Hogeboom said he couldn't recall if the front setback requirements were
discussed at the meeting. He added that the reason the homes are proposed to be set
further forward on the lots is to pull them away from the surrounding homes and to save
more of the trees on the property. Kisch recalled discussion that included requiring a
larger rear yard setback in exchange.
Cera asked if there has been any further discussion regarding the use of sewage pumps
in some of the homes. Waldhauser said she thinks another reason to set the home further
forward on the lots was to help alleviate the need for the pumps.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Gommission
August 27, 2012
Page 9
Waldhauser questioned if the custom grading plans and subgrade drainage plans shouid
be mentioned in the Planning Commission's recommendation to the City Council.
Hogeboom stated that those items are addressed in the City Engineer's staff report which
will become part of the PUD approvaL
Kluchka asked about typical rear yard setback dimensions. Hogeboom said the rear yard
setback requirement is 20% of the lot depth. Kluchka asked if there has been any
resolution on trying to get more rear yard setback area since they are giving less front
yard setback area. Waldhauser said she thought the intent was to have larger rear yard
setbacks on Lots 1 and 2. Cera questioned if the Planning Commission is ok with allowing
smaller rear yard setbacks on some of the lots. Hogeboom noted that these are the same
plans/setbacks that the Council gave preliminary approval for last spring.
Kisch asked if the Planning Commission has any authority to discuss any changes given
that this same plan was approved preliminarily by the City Council. Hogeboom said the
Planning Commission can discuss the proposal with the applicant and hear the residents'
comments. However, the City Attorney has said that the City is obligated to give Final
PUD approval because Preliminary approval has already been given and there are no
significant changes befinreen the two plans.
Waldhauser noted that there was a change in the plans regarding the utilities across the
back (north) of the property. Hogeboom stated that the City Engineer had originally
requested that the power lines along the north be buried because he didn't want the lines
to go across the water but he has recently stated that the poles could be moved instead
of buried, as long as they don't go across the water.
McCarty asked if the developer has submitted a plan that indicates which trees would be
removed if the 35-foot front yard setbacks were maintained. Hogeboom stated that the
applicant has shown a plan that conforms to setback requirements and which trees would
be removed. Kisch recalled discussion about building the houses to suite the site and not
making the site suite the houses. Waldhauser stated that there were other reasons for
moving the houses further forward on the lots besides tree preservation. There were alsa
grading issues and sewer issues among others.
Peter Knaeble, Terra Engineering, representing the applicant, explained that the intent of
this PUD is to exceed the standard typical setback requirements. He noted that the rear
yard setbacks will be greater than 20% of the depth of the lots. He explained that five to
six additional trees would be removed if the front yard setbacks were pushed back to 35
feet. There would also be more impervious surface if the driveways were longer and the
new homes would be 10 feet closer to the existing homes. He clarified that three of the
homes will have basement sanitary sewer pumps.
Rob Eldridge, A.K.A.R.E. Companies, LLC, Applicant, added that another reason for
moving the houses further forward on the lots is to eliminate the need for retaining walls.
Waldhauser opened the public hearing.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Gommission
August 27, 2012
Page 10
Mike Ernst, 4845 Lowry Terrace, said he has two issues. The first issue is the pond. He
has concerns about safety, nuisance and long term maintenance. He said he doesn't
believe the idea of adding bio-filtration and catch basins at the top of the hill on Triton
Drive has been fully explored. He said he doesn't believe that the Bassett Creek Water
Management Commission is requiring a pond because the Commission requires best
management practices be put into place. The second issue is the position of the power
lines. He believes the power lines should go underground. He referred the City Engineer's
staff report which discusses the cost implications for property owners to the north with
burying the power lines. He said he thinks the property owners to the north should be
given the consideration of being asked whether they want to participate in sharing the
costs to bury the power lines. He said he is concerned about where the power lines will
be moved to and the affect that would have on trees.
Mark Brenny, representing the homeowner at 4920 Triton Drive, said he is the property
owner's son-in-law and his mother-in-law, Hannelore Jopp has been trying to sell her
property and they've been having problems because of this proposed development. He
said everybody that has walked through the house has said this development isn't Golden
Valley it's a new development. It is taking away the integrity of what young, professional
people are looking for. He said the developer that developed this property 65 years ago
didn't do it this way because it just didn't work but the current development is getting
shoved down people's throats and they are being told this is not your community, this is
the way it's going to be done. He said there has been a lot of support from people who do
not like this proposal and questioned when it will stop. He asked if everybody's home
value will depreciate because the integrity is gone and this isn't Golden Valley like it used
to be.
Ray Anderson, 3142 Quail Avenue North, said he has a request for four specific changes
to the PUD documents. The first request is to require that the developer revise their
project narrative to eliminate references to a six-lot conforming plat because the narrative
includes several direct references to the traditional six-lot conforming plat in order to
support the alleged benefits of the PUD plan. He added that viability of the traditional six-
lot plan is questionable and that the developer is using the six-lot conforming plan as a
bully-pulpit to suggest what they would do if the PUD plan is not approved. The second
request is to require that the developer revise their narrative to eliminate or correct
statements that appear to conflict with various point of the City Code. The third request is
to require that the final utility plan clearly and completely defines how electrical power will
be rerouted to the homes adjacent to the PUD site. He stated that Xcel Energy has a long
history of failing to maintain existing poles and lines safely and reliably. The fourth request
is to require that the plans detail how trees and other vegetation adjacent to the PUD site
will be preserved and protected throughout the development process. He discussed the
viability of the traditional six-lot conforming plat. Waldhauser questioned if the six-lot
proposal needs be discussed given that the proposal being reviewed is for five lots.
Anderson said the plans do not appear to be valid.
Barbara Reiter, 3146 Quail Avenue North, said they have been waiting patiently for a long
time to speak and she would like respect shown to the people who have put their sweat
and time into their concerns.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Pianning Commission
August 27, 2012
Page 11
Fred Reiter, 3146 Quail Avenue North, referred to the PUD application and said he
naticed the authorized representative is Curt Fretham. He asked who has the authority to
appoint an authorized representative. Waldhauser stated that the applicant decides who
their representatives will be. Reiter referred to the Preliminary PUD application and stated
that it was signed by Karen Fretham as the property owner. However, the real estate
agents' website shows that this property was sold on February 1, 2012. He asked how the
property could be owned by the Frethams in 2011. He asked that a certified copy of the
recorded deed transferring ownership of the property from the Shallbetter's to Karen
Fretham be produced in order for the Planning Commission, City Council and the public
to review. Hogeboom explained that the City Attorney's office will do a title review of the
property.
Barbara Gaasedelen, 3026 Perry Avenue North, said Mr. Reiter wasn't asking for a title
review of who owns the property now, rather who owned it when the process was started.
Jack Terrio, 3139 Orchard Avenue North, said he is concerned about the power lines
because the poles are owned by Qwest and the lines are owned by Excel and that he
frequently loses power because he is at the end of the line. He said another thing that
bothers him is no one has been honest. A six-lot plan has never been viable and they
were told the house at 4900 Triton Drive was unsound but someone is living in it. He
questioned why no one can be upfront and honest about this development.
Seeing and hearing no one else wishing to comment. Waldhauser closed the public
hearing.
Segelbaum asked Hogeboom to clarify the Planning Commission's obligation or function
at this meeting given that the City Council has approved the Preliminary plan. Hogeboom
explained that the five-lot Preliminary PUD plan was approved by the City Council so it is
his understanding the Planning Commission is obligated to approve the same five-lot
proposal. He added however, that the Planning Commission can discuss issues and add
conditions.
Segelbaum asked if the size of the building envelopes could be discussed. Kluchka stated
that since the Preliminary PUD plan has been approved and no changes have come forth,
there is nothing for the Planning Commission to discuss except possibly the utility issues
that have been brought forward.
Waldhauser asked if there have been continued discussions regarding the catch basins
on Triton Drive versus the pand. Hogeboom stated that the City Engineer has reviewed
the plans and that the Bassett Creek Watershed Management Commission has
recommended the pond.
Segelbaum said the electrical plans should be further explored by staff and that should be
an added condition to the Planning Commission's approval. Kisch agreed and said he
thinks before the Final PUD plan goes onto the City Council there should be some
definitive resolution as to how the power lines are going to be handled and there should
be outreach to the neighbors who have a stake in the issue of where the power poles will
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
August 27, 2012
Page 12
be located. Hogeboom stated that it would be difficult for the City to impact what Excel
does. He also noted that the City's interest is to not have the power lines crossing the
pond.
Waldhauser suggested that the Planning Commission add a condition of approval
requiring that the adjacent property owners, the applicant and Excel work out an
acceptable plan before the Final PUD plan goes on to the City Council. Hogeboom said
he is not sure if the City could get Excel to commit to that. Segelbaum said he would like
to see a better definition of what could be done regarding the power line issues.
Eldridge said he has had communication with Excel and there has been no definitive
answer from them as to what they are going to do in this situation. He said it will be
difficult to get Excel agree to anything before the Final PUD plan goes to the City Gouncil
for review.
Kisch asked Eldridge if he is intending to bury the power lines on his property. Eldridge
said the power lines will be buried on his property but he can't say what Excel will do with
the lines on other properties. He added that power lines are typically located in an
easement area along a property line. Hogeboom said he would ask the City Engineer to
further explain the power line issues and policies when the City Council reviews the Final
PUD.
Waldhauser re-opened the public hearing. Commissioner Cera left the meeting.
Mark Brenny, representing the homeowner at 4920 Triton Drive, asked the Planning
Commissioners if they are 100% supportive of this development without any doubt and if
they all believe that everything has been done correctly as it should be for all the citizens
of this community. He said he can't believe that this proposal could move forward when
there is nothing set in stone.
Barbara Gaasedelen, 3026 Perry Avenue North, suggested the developer pay for the
neighboring property owner's power lines to be buried.
Mike Ernst, 4845 Lowry Terrace, said he is in the construction industry and he knows the
City can get Excel will put something in writing. He reiterated that the Bassett Creek
Watershed Management Commission doesn't require ponds they require stormwater
management and sediment control.
Seeing and hearing no one else wishing to comment, Waldhauser closed the public
hearing.
Segelbaum said he's not sure if there is any sort of demand that could be put on Excel
regarding the power line issues but he would like highly encourage the developer to seek
out additional clarity on the electrical plan.
Kluchka suggested two recommendations. First, reconsideration of design standards and
service based on the neighbors requests for electrical service and second, reconsider the
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
August 27, 2012
Page 13
water management plan based on neighborhood interest and requests. Kisch added that
he thinks the City can push Excel to come up with a more definitive plan regarding the
power line issue and the onus can be put on the developer to take ownership of what will
be done.
MOVED by Schmidgall, seconded by Kluchka and motion carried unanimously to
recommend approval of the Final PUD Plan for Eldridge 3`d Addition based on the
following conditions and findings:
Conditions
1. The recommendations and requirements outlined in the memo from Deputy Fire
Marshal Ed Anderson to Mark Grimes, Director of Planning and Development dated
December 28, 2011, shall become a part of this approval.
2. The recommendation and requirements outlined in the memo from City Engineer
Jeff Oliver, PE, and Engineer Eric Seaburg, to Mark Grimes, Director of Planning
and Development dated August 22, 2012, shall become a part of this approval. If
the applicant does not agree with all conditions of the City Engineer's memo, the
staff recommends denial of the Final PUD plan.)
3. All signs on the property must meet the requirements of the City's Sign Code.
4. The Final PUD packet for PUD No. 109 prepared by Terra Engineering and dated
March 13, 2012 shall become a part of this approvaL
5. All homes within the PUD shall not exceed 28 ft. in height.
6. The building setback lines are drawn on the Final PUQ Packet. The frant yard
setback along Triton Dr. shall be 35 ft. All other front yard setbacks shall be 25 ft.
The side yard setback shall be 10 ft. and that setback is not required to increase
with the height of the structure (up to a maximum of 28 ft.). The rear yard setback is
noted on the Final PUD plan.
7. The final plan for PUD No. 109 is cansistent with the Intent and Purpose provision
found in Section 11.55: Planned Unit Development, Subd. 1; and other PUD
requirements, principle and development standards adhered to by the City.
8. A model home may be constructed prior to completion of the street if it is approved
by the Building Official and Director of Inspections.
9. The approval of the PUD is also subject to other state, federal, and local
ordinances, regulations, or laws with authority over the PUD.
10. A park dedication fee, as determined by the City Council, shall be paid prior to final
plat approval.
11. Prior to issuance of any building permits for construction within PUD No. 109, the
applicant shall submit a final plat to the City for approval and the staff will prepare a
PUD permit for City Council approval.
12. Staff should re-evaluate overhead utility connections and on-site stormwater
management mitigation.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
August 27, 2012
Page 14
Findinqs
1. The PUD plan is tailored to the specific characteristics of the site and achieves a
higher quality of site planning and design than generally expected under
conventional provisions of the ordinance.
2. The PUD plan preserves and protects substantial desirable portions of the site's
characteristics, open space and sensitive environmental features including steep
slopes, trees, scenic views, creeks, wetlands and open waters.
3. The PUD plan includes efficient and effective use (which includes preservation) of
the land.
4. The PUD Plan results in development compatible with adjacent uses and is
consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and redevelopment plans and goals.
5. The PUD plan is consistent with preserving and improving the general health,
safety and general welfare of the people of the City.
6. The PUD plan meets the PUD Intent and Purpose provision and all other PUD
ordinance provisions.
--Short Recess--
5. Reports on Meetings of the Housing and Redevelopment Autf�ority, City Council,
Board of Zoning Appeals and other Meetings
No reports were given.
6. Other Business
No other business was discussed.
7. Adjoumment
The meeting was adjourned at 9:53 pm. ,
�� �
David A. Cera, Secretary