Loading...
09-09-13 PC Minutes Regular Meeting of the Golden Valley Planning Commission September 9, 2013 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, September 9, 2013. Chair Kluchka called the meeting to order at 7 pm. Those present were Planning Commissioners Baker, Boudreau-Landis, Kluchka, McCarty, Segelbaum and Waldhauser. Also present was Community Development Director Mark Grimes, City Planner Joe Hogeboom and Administrative Assistant Lisa Wittman. Commissioner Cera was absent. 1. Approval of Minutes August 12, 2013 Regular Planning Commission Meeting MOVED by Waldhauser, seconded by McCarty and motion carried unanimously to approve the August 12, 2013 minutes as submitted. 2. Informal Public Hearing — Property Rezoning — 6000 Duluth Street— King of Grace Lutheran Church and School -Z011-14 Applicant: King of Grace Lutheran Church and School Addresses: 6000 Duluth Street Purpose: To rezone the properties from I-1 Institutional with a setback restriction to I-1 Institutional without restrictions. Hogeboom referred to a site plan of the property and explained that it is currently zoned Institutional with a restrictive condition requiring a 120-foot "landscaped" setback area along the north property line. The applicant is proposing to rezone to property to the standard Institutional zoning district without the restrictive setback condition. He explained that this setback was established when the northern partion of the church property was rezoned from residential and added that conditions on a rezoning request are not allowed today. He showed the Commissioners an illustration of the applicant's master plan and explained the applicant's proposal to construct a portion of a new playground within the 120-foot restricted setback area. He stated that staff is recommending approval of the applicant's request. Waldhauser said she understands that restrictions can no longer be placed on rezoning proposals and questioned if a PUD wauld be an option in this case. Hogeboom said a PUD could be used, however PUDs are typically used when there is more than one building on a property. Baker asked Hogeboom if there is any record regarding the nature of the resident's concerns in 1969. Hogeboom stated that the nature of the concerns was that an institutional use would be too close and too impactFul ta the single family residential properties to the north resulting in the restriction. Waldhauser noted that there are also Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission September 9, 2013 Page 2 single family residential properties to the east and asked why there were no restrictions placed on that side of the property. Hogeboom explained that the property along the north side (the 120-foot setback area) of the applicant's property was originally platted as single family residential lots so when the applicant replatted the property for an institutional use that is when the restriction was placed on the property. So the church pre-dates 1969 and this property was zoned Institutional before 1969. McCarty asked if all four property lines are considered to be front yards and if any of the setback requirements are being met on this property. Hogeboom explained that this property does have four fronts and if the property were rezoned to the standard Institutional zoning district, any structure or parking lot would have to meet the 35-foot front yard setback requirement. Segelbaum asked how the 120-foot setback area is currently being used. Hogeboom suggested the applicant respond to that question. Gregg Prest, Director of Trustees for King of Grace Lutheran Church and School, Applicant, stated that they don'fi really use the 120-foot setback area at all except occasionally for a picnic or event. He said the church has tried to abide by the neighbor's desire that it not be used. He explained that their current playground area is located in a traffic circle on the east side of the property which is not the best place for it, so they would like to move it to the north side of their building where a portion of it would be in the 120-faot setback area. He added that the proposed playground would be an asset for the neighborhood and would be available for everyone to use. He referred to the illustration of the church's master plan and noted that the parking lot shown is not part of their plans at this time. He added that there is no plan at this time to expand the church, schaol or parking lot areas at all. Baker referred to the illustrated plan and asked if the lawn area shown is currently open lawn. Prest said yes. Baker asked if the church uses that area regularly. Prest said no. Segelbaum asked the applicant if they envision installing fencing or no trespassing signs around the playground. Prest said no and reiterated that the proposed playground is intended for everyone to use. Waldhauser asked the applicant if they had considered putting the proposed playground in a location that would be within the setback requirements. Prest said yes and explained that the property is wetter to the south, there wouldn't be enough room to squeeze the playground in and it would cause the playground to be further away from the north entrance to the building. Waldhauser asked if they had considered using the southern portion of the open lawn area. Prest said there is a hill and topography issues in that area. Baker said he likes the idea of allowing the neighborhood use of the playground but he is concerned that it will be enclosed with plantings according to the illustration. He suggested that the applicant consider a more open design for the playgraund. Prest said that the plans aren't yet final. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission September 9, 2013 Page 3 Kluchka noted that the illustrated drawing is titled "Plan B" and asked about other concepts that were considered. Prest said they have thought about other concepts and said that one concept included putting in a ball field, but they decided not to go with that plan. Kluchka asked if they intend to have any outdoor services that may impact the neighborhood. Prest said no, outdoor services are not their style. He added that they had considered an amphitheater for teaching, but decided against that as well. Kluchka opened the public hearing. Joel Hendrickson, 6000 Kenneth Way, referred to what was said earlier about the church predating the 1969 setback restriction agreement and said he disagrees and asked that the City go back and look at the public record. He said there have been plans like this before throughout the history of the agreement, none of which have happened. He said when he bought his house the person selling it said good luck with your neighbor meaning the church and that they never did what they promised to do. He stated that neighbors have called the City and have been told that the City doesn't have a copy of the restriction from 1969 that was registered at Hennepin County. He distributed copies of the restrictive covenant to the Commissioners and stated that the church imposed the covenant on themselves. He said there was previous dialogue about the location of the playground when they built the gymnasium in 1993 because they cut down the trees and he asked them what they were doing and they said that is where they are putting a playground. He said the church said in 1984, when they built their sanctuary that they were going to put in a parking lot and extra egresses on Kenneth Way and the neighbors got together and reminded the City of the covenant and the proposal was taken off the table because they realized the foolishness. He stated that in the covenant there is also a damages clause and he doesn't think he would have a hard time rallying his neighbors to seek damages. He said it's been great to have a place for his kids to play. When the church installed a basketball caurt his son would tell him about the kids they played basketball with and he called it the law of unintended consequences because kids from Golden Valley Road would come to this basketball court to play because there were hoops with nets. He said his son would tell him about the language these kids used and where they were urinating and he thaught the church never anticipated that. He said that did affect the neighborhoad and it caused them to be more vigilant about calling for supervision when that was occurring. He said he would like the church to abide by the covenant and added that the original church was not this church. It was an apostolic Lutheran church and the reason the covenant was put into place was to allow the streets to be put in for residential lots. He said he always finds it ironic that he has to remind the church of the covenant. He added that when he moved in he realized the "green plan" for the property had never been done so rather than argue he planted three large, substantial trees with white pines in between, at his cost. Now the white pines have been cut down and the church is proposing to cut down the remaining balsams. He asked for a tax receipt, but the church wouldn't give him one, which he finds interesting. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission September 9, 2013 Page 4 Grimes asked Mr. Hendrickson if the covenant was extended beyond 1999. Mr. Hendrickson stated that the covenant was initially 30 years with an additional 30 years if there was agreement with the 12 affected properties so in reality it is a 60-year covenant that can be broken with an agreement of the neighbors so he is appalled that this proposal has gotten to this stage. He said he wants the City to go back into the files and realize there was a change in ownership from an initial sleepy apostolic Lutheran church that outgrew their facility and sold it. It was then converted to residential and he hopes the covenant will be upheld. Barbara Patterson, 2040 Adair Avenue North, said she begs to differ with the church saying that the open space is not used because the kids use it every single day. They play baseball, they have Phy Ed and they play field hockey and soccer. She said she is also concerned about traffic because the more things that are put there the more traffic there will be. Also, they have a tendency to use the streets all the way around the property which she feels is unsafe. They put out orange cones and run along the edge of the street so there should be signs installed stating there are children at play. Pastor Ekhoff, King of Grace Lutheran Church and School, said he would like to clarify that they did not cut trees down. They had to be removed by law because a chemical that was used on the property ended up killing them. He said the few times that the kids do run on the street is to fulfill the requirements of the Presidential Fitness Program. He explained that they notify the Police Department as best they can when that is happening. He referred to the gym addition they built and stated that some trees were cut down for that, but he doesn't believe any other trees were taken out other than a cottonwood that fell into the street and had to be removed. He clarified that they are a part of the Evangelical Lutheran Synod and not the Wisconsin Synod as Mr. Hendrickson mentioned. Seeing and hearing no one else wishing to comment, Kluchka closed the public hearing. Grimes stated that he has never seen the covenant agreement distributed by Mr. Hendrickson. He noted that the City is not listed as a party in the agreement but he would like to review it with the City Attorney before this proposal moves forward. Kluchka questioned how a zoning restriction and a covenant differ. Grimes said it is unclear to him how the covenant and ordinance have worked in this case. Boudreau-Landis asked if the covenant applies to the current property owner. Segelbaum said he thinks it does. Baker asked if the City is obligated to honor the covenant. Grimes said he is not sure and would like to talk to the City Attorney about it. Baker asked how the City typically responds to the existence of covenants. Grimes explained that if this property were zoned standard Institutional without restrictions and there was a covenant and the Church wanted to expand a neighbor, or someone party to the covenant, would probably inform the City and the City would have to decide if it wanted to get into that type of legal circumstance. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission September 9, 2013 Page 5 Waldhauser asked if it is up to the neighbors to enforce the covenant. Grimes said he thinks it is because he doesn't think the City is a party included in the covenant. Kluchka referred to covenant and asked what "no other activity therein" means and if it means that there can be no programing in the 120-foot setback area in question. Waldhauser stated that if the covenant is outside of the Planning Commission's purview than the activity that takes place within the 120-foot setback area is even more outside their purview. Baker said he thinks it is within their purview because of the ordinance that was adopted by the City regarding the restriction. Segelbaum said the decision before the Planning Commission is to eliminate the restrictive condition regarding the zoning, not to interpret or modify the ordinance or the covenant. Kluchka said he is concerned about enforcement issues and if people are doing what they are supposed to be doing. He asked Grimes if there have been any complaints regarding the applicant. Grimes stated that over the years there have been concerns about the church expanding and he has received typical traffic related questions, but he has not received many complaints. He added that the Church does do a good job in following the Sign Code rules. Baker questioned if they should pursue the complaints they've heard further with law enforcement staff. Kluchka said he thinks more research about complaints would be good, but that is a moot point right now in the Planning Commission's current review of the proposal. McCarty agreed with Segelbaum that the covenant may be up to the neighbors to enforce and that the Planning Commission is looking at the proposal as a rezoning at this point. Grimes stated that the City Attorney wasn't aware of the covenant agreement. He stated that conditioning a rezoning like the City did in 1969 is not legal today. Waldhauser asked about the down side of leaving the zoning as it is keeping the restrictive zoning condition in place. Grimes said the covenant would stand until it expires in 2028. He said the zoning could be changed to the standard I-1 Institutional zoning district and the covenant would continue it if is a legitimate legal document. Waldhauser stated that if the property is not rezoned it would just stay as it is and questioned why the City would want to rezone it. Baker stated that if the City were to persuade the neighbors that the covenant can be removed then the combination of the rezoning and removal af the covenant would allow the Church to do what they are proposing to do. Waldhauser stated that the neighbors don't want to remove the covenant. Baker noted that they have only heard from two neighbors. Kluchka said if the Church and neighbors came to together and decided that they don't want the covenant anymore that would be a good indication to the City that this is something everyone wants. Baker suggested that the Church look into eliminating the covenant before they come back to the City for approval of their rezoning proposal. Kluchka asked if there is a time limit as to when the Church can come back. Grimes said there is a 60-day time frame to consider rezoning requests. Segelbaum said he thinks the Planning Commission can vote on this proposal regardiess of the covenant, but he would support tabling the request. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission September 9, 2013 Page 6 McCarty stated that the proposed playground could be moved closer to the Church or to the north side of the Church without the need to rezone the property or change the covenant. Kluchka agreed that there are other ways to accomplish this proposal and said he is inclined to deny this request. McCarty agreed that he would rather deny the request instead of tabling the item in order to discuss covenants that don't affect them. Boudreau-Landis agreed there are other options as well. MOVED by McCarty, seconded by Backer and motion carried 5 to 1 to recommend denial of the request to rezone the property located at 6000 Duluth Street from I-1 Institutional with a setback restriction to I-1 Institutional without restrictions. Segelbaum voted no. 3. Informal Public Hearing — Preliminary Plan Review— Planned Unit Development (PUD) #113 — The Xenia Applicant: Slosburg Company Address: 700 & 800 Xenia Avenue South Purpose: To construct a 5-stary, 372-unit market rate apartment building. Hogeboom referred to a location map and discussed the applicant's proposal to construct a 5-story, 372-unit apartment building that will include 742 parking spaces on the 5.88 acre site located at 700 & 800 Xenia Avenue South. He discussed some of the major amenities including an indoor pool/fitness center, outdoor pool/courtyard, media room, business center, observation deck, dog run area and upscale in-unit amenities. He stated that he receives many calls regarding this property because it is a vacant, highly visible site. He stated that staff is recommending approval of the Preliminary Plan for The Xenia proposal. Segelbaum asked if this property is in a TIF district. Hogeboom said no, it is not part of a TIF district however, it was at one point. Segelbaum asked if there have been other serious requests about developing this property. Hogeboom stated that there was an office/retail proposal in 2009 but that project was never done. Waldhauser asked how this proposal compares to the 3.9.4 apartment proposal. Hogeboom stated that this project is smaller than the 3.9.4 proposal and is more comparable to the Arcata apartment project. Baker asked if this proposal has a senior component. Hogeboom said no. Waldhauser asked why this development is a PUD. Hogeboom stated that multi-family developments are traditionally done as a PUD to allow more flexibility in setbacks in order to fit the site. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission September 9, 2013 Page 7 Kluchka asked that future presentations for this proposal include a comparison of all the ways this PUD differs from the requirements in the I-394 Mixed Use zoning district. Hogeboom noted that this proposal does meet several of the I-394 Mixed Use requirements including setback requirements. Grimes added that there is also an option for a materials review in the I-394 Mixed Use zoning district requirements. Kluchka said he would like to preserve the opportunity to do a materials review. Baker asked to what extent the I-394 Mixed Use zoning district requires developments to provide more mixed use than this proposal provides. He questioned if the City is precluding opportunities for retail that might serve that community or other types of land uses that might create a more sustainable district than just lots of apartments everywhere. Hogeboom said there are a couple of ways to look at mixed use. One is multiple uses within one building and another is multiple uses functioning as one site such as shared parking. He explained that the I-394 Mixed Use zoning district was created in 2008 and the City hasn't seen any true mixed use proposals because the market is just not there for that type of use. He added that mixed use works well but not in very many places and that staff will probably be reviewing the I-394 Mixed Use zoning district at some point in the future. Waldhauser said that mixing uses in a building is very difficult so developers don't want to build them and people don't always want to live in them. However, mixed uses in the sense of the neighborhood having mixed uses is something that is being left to the side so the whole area becomes apartments and offices and there is nothing more deadly than an office area that happens to have places for people to sleep at night and streetscapes and sidewalks that are just dead. Baker agreed and asked how much potential there is for mixed use in this zoning district. Hogeboom said this is one of the last undeveloped sites but there are many under-developed sites that could be developed in the future. McCarty said that's good, but questioned if they shouid be trying to get mixed uses now on these prime properties because the area is starting to fill up with office and apartment buildings. He said it seems like the opportunity is here to get mixed use in this district. Hogeboom said the reality is that the financing just isn't available for those types of mixed uses unless cities help with financing. Baker stated that maybe the City should be incenting developers in order to get more mixed use developments. Boudreau-Landis said he is hearing concerns and comments about the connectivity to the West End development and said perhaps that is another issue to consider. Kluchka asked if the major categories for consideration in the I-394 Mixed Use zoning district are setbacks, height, lot coverage, mixed uses and materials. Hogeboom said yes. Boudreau-Landis noted that the Zoning Code allows for 65% lot coverage and stated that the narrative for this development states that the lot coverage is 64%. He said it seems like this proposal has a lot more coverage than 64%. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission September 9, 2013 Page 8 Jerry Kavan, Slosburg Company, Applicant, gave a presentation regarding the propased project. He stated that Slosburg Company is a full service real estate owner and developer. They do acquisition, construction, leasing and property management all in-house and they own their properties long term. He discussed the amenities in the apartment units including: 10 foot ceilings, imported porcelain tile floors, island kitchens, stainless appliances, stone countertops, washers & dryers in every Apartment, stone vanities, linen closets, walk-in showers with separate soaking tubs, large bedrooms, walk-in closets, finely appointed common areas, resident hospitality areas, grand foyers, concierge services, elegant corridors, electronic access, cyber cafes with free Wi-Fi and fully elevatored buildings. He showed interior and exterior photos of several of their other properties. He stated that the size of the apartments will range from 500-1,500 square feet in size and each unit will have two parking spaces for a total of 745 parking spaces. He discussed some of the site difficulties including the proximity of the railroad, soil contamination, storm water requirements, and a Met Council force main easement along the east property line. He stated that they are planning on starting construction of the parking ramp first in spring 2014, with the first units opening mid-2015, and full completion early 2016. Richard Slosburg, Slosburg Company, Applicant, referred to the earlier comments regarding mixed use developments and said he doesn't think there is a developer in the country who wouldn't want to do a mixed use development, but there are very few places mixed use works and this site would not work. He said the traffic and pedestrian connections just aren't there for a mixed use development and it is better ta have a thriving residential development than a mixed use develapment that sits vacant. He added that they would not be interested in this site if a mixed use was forced. McCarty questioned where mixed use is struggling. Slosburg referred to the property at Excelsior and Grand and said it is an outstanding development but is has proved challenging and the turnover is great. Segelbaum noted that the subject property is zoned to allow for 10 stories and asked the applicant why they are proposing five stories. Slosburg said the economics for 372 units works for them and that 372 units is a more livable number of units. He added that the thing they like about this site is its transitional use with offices and condominiums nearby. Segelbaum asked the applicant how they've integrated the things they've learned from the other Minneapolis area projects into this project. Slosburg stated they acquired one of their properties and that the site is what is driving this proposal. He noted that the livability has been desirable in other markets. Waldhauser asked the applicant if any of their other, similar properties have been converted to condominiums. Slosburg said no and stated that they tend to own their properties and really understand the rental product. Waldhauser asked if their properties have remained filled. Slosburg said yes, they have had great success. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission September 9, 2013 Page 9 Waldhauser asked about the rental rates. Slosburg stated that rates will range from approximately $1,200 to $2,500 per month. Baker asked the applicant if they have discussed ways to improve the pedestrian access to the West End development. Slosburg said he doesn't think there is an answer to that question and they don't have a way to get their residents from this location to the West End area. McCarty asked where the tenants will be coming from. Slosburg said they will have a variety of unit sizes and prices and they don't think it will be strictly a young or senior community. He added that there will also be several people who want to sell their homes and stay in Golden Valley and there will be people who haven't bought their first home yet. Baker referred to the parking ratio and asked if what is being proposed is a typical ratio. Slosburg said no, the ratio they're proposing is excessive and a more typical ratio is 1.5 to 1.7 spaces per unit. He explained that the parking garage was designed to buffer the property from the railroad tracks. Kluchka asked about bicycle storage. Kavan stated that there will be secure bicycle storage areas in the parking garage. Kluchka stated that the fa�ade on the west side of the parking garage is big and asked how it could be broken up or made more interesting. Slosburg said he understands and added that the views from the west are important. He stated that making the west faCade more architecturally pleasing will be addressed in the final plan stage of the proposal. Kluchka suggested that bicycle storage and the west fa�ade be addressed in their ne� presentation before the City Council. Kluchka asked the applicant how they have proposed to make their building compatible with the neighboring buildings. Slosburg stated that this is the first product they've done with a flat roof in order to have a similar look to the office buildings. Baker said he is concerned about sustainability and said his is disappointed that no mention has been made of any efficiency efforts and given our climate extremes it would be nice to hear about a project in terms of insulation, energy use, etc. Slosburg said they do think about sustainability throughout the entire process and will have many green efforts including car charging stations, the materials they are choosing and the density of the project. McCarty asked about the type of roaf system being used. Kavan said they will explore the different options available depending on the design and how the architect structures the roof. Kluchka opened the public hearing. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission September 9, 2013 Page 10 Jane (last name not given), Laurel Estates and Laurel Terrace Apartments, said she is intrigued with all of the additional apartments and wants to know where they will be in five years when the City is inundated with so many high end apartments and what will happen if there is another downturn in the economy. She said this is a beautiful proposal but questioned where all the residents will come from. Segelbaum asked if there is a waiting list at her apartments. Jane said yes, Laurel Terrace has a waiting list with four or five people on it. Seeing and hearing no one else wishing to comment, Kluchka closed the public hearing. Grimes stated that the Met Council has said that Golden Valley's population will grow to 25,000 people by 2030 and the only way to achieve that is to have higher density, multi- family developments because Golden Valley doesn"t have the land for additional single family homes. He said that the City's Comprehensive Plan calls for a variety of housing options and there is a demand for this type of development. Kluchka said he appreciated receiving the traffic report in the agenda packet. Grimes noted that these types of developments are usually more positive in regard to traffic compared to an office use. Kluchka agreed that from a traffic perspective this is a perfect situation with the peak hour traffic. Waldhauser agreed that the studies the Planning Commission has seen show that this site can handle a higher traffic generating use than the proposed project. She said as this development goes through and as other projects develop in this area it will be nearing the sewer capacity limits. Grimes stated that there are improvements planned for the sewer capacity issues in the area. Baker noted that the City Code allows a maximum of 65% impervious surface coverage and that this development is proposing 64% impervious surface coverage. He asked if it is typical that developers go right up to the maximum amount allowed. Kluchka said yes. Grimes discussed the ponding on the north side of Laurel and explained that there will also be other water quality treatment requirements. Baker referred to the staff report regarding potential traffic issues where staff states that the City reserves the right to address the issues in the future. He asked what those issues are and why they can't be addressed now. Mike Kotila, Traffic Engineer Consultant, SEH Inc., stated that the congestion that would be monitored is the westbound approach on Golden Hills Drive towards Xenia and the length of the queue that occurs at that signal. He said they want to manage that queue so it is not blocking driveways along Golden Hills Drive. He added that the City is planning some intersection improvements, outside of this development, in order to make traffic work better during peak and off peak hours. Kluchka asked about the type of improvements proposed. Kotila explained that the improvements would include signage, traffic signal operations and striping. Baker noted that the traffic information refers to an estimate of 130 trips in the morning and 163 trips in the afternoon and asked how those numbers are possible in a 372 unit Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission September 9, 2013 Page 11 building. Kotila explained that the numbers take into consideration the peak hour of the morning �raffic and the peak hour of the afternoon traffic and doesn't take into account the non-peak hour trips. Grimes added that there will also be a number of people who take transit or bike or walk as well. Kluchka asked if there would be a gate at the entrance/exit of the parking garage. Kotila said no, a residential use would not warrant that. Baker asked if the building will be constructed over the existing force main. Grimes said no and stated that the force main is along the west side of Xenia. Baker asked if access to it will be preserved. Grimes said yes. Baker asked what options are available if the sewer system reaches capacity. Grimes stated it is a Met Council line and when it gets to a certain point it will have to be upgraded. Segelbaum said he thinks the proposal is an impressive design on an important property and commended the applicant on the size of the project. Waldhauser said she understands the developer's point of view regarding mixed use and she appreciates that they will build, own and manage the property because that meant their interests are similar to the City's. She said she also appreciates that there will be a range of ages in the building. McCarty agreed and said he is disappointed that there isn't mixed use but he understands and appreciates the applicant's comments regarding the financing of mixed use developments. Boudreau-Landis agreed. Kluchka also agreed and reiterated that he wants the design to be consistent and compatible with other in the area and not stand alone. MOVED by Segelbaum, seconded by Waldhauser and motion carried unanimously to recommend approval of the Preliminary Plan for PUD #113, The Xenia subject to the following conditions and findings: Conditions 1. The plans submitted with the application shall become a part of this approval, 2. The recommendations and requirements outlined in the memo from Deputy Fire Chief John Crelly to Mark Grimes, Director of Community Development dated August 20, 2013, shall become part of this approval. 3. The recommendations and requirements outlined in the memo from City Engineer Jeff Oliver to Mark Grimes, Director of Community Development, dated September 5, 2013, shall become a part of this approval. 4. The City Attorney shall determine if a park dedication fee is required for this project prior to Final PUD approval. 5. All signs on the property shall meet the requirements of the City's Sign Code. 6. This approval is subject to all other state, federal, and local ordinances, regulations, or laws with authority over this development. 7. A design plan shall be reviewed by the City prior to Final PUD approval. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission September 9, 2013 Page 12 Findin s 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 Pian 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-- 4. Reports on Meetings of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority, City Council, Board of Zoning Appeals and other Meetings Kluchka stated that the City Council made a decision to limit the terms of the Chair on each Board and Commission to one year and the Chair and Vice-chair cannot serve consecutive terms. The Planning Commissioners expressed concern about maintaining consistency and agreed that it takes time for a new chair to get up to speed. 5. Other Business • Council Liaison Repart - No report was given. 6. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 9:20 pm. � harl s D. egelbaum, Se etary