11-18-13 PC Minutes Regular Meeting of the
Golden Valley Planning Commission
November 18, 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,
November 18, 2013. Chair Kluchka called the meeting to order at 7 pm.
Those present were Planning Cammissioners Baker, Cera, Kluchka, McCarty, and
Segelbaum. Also present was Community Development Director Mark Grimes, City
Engineer Jeff Oliver and Administrative Assistant Lisa Wittman. Commissioners
Boudreau-Landis and Waldhauser were absent.
1. Approval of Minutes
October 14, 2013 Regular Planning Commission Meeting
McCarty referred to the second sentence on Page 10 and stated that the word "run"
should be changed to the word "ruin."
MOVED by McCarty, seconded by Segelbaum and motion carried unanimously to
approve the October 14, 2013 minutes with the above noted correction.
2. Informal Public Hearing — Final Plan Review— Planned Unit Development
(PUD) #113 — The Xenia
Applicant: Slosburg Company
Address: 700 & 800 Xenia Avenue South
Purpose: To construct a 5-story, 372-unit market rate apartment building.
Grimes stated that this proposal is the Final Plan review phase of the applicant's PUD
proposal. He explained that the proposed PUD would allow for the construction of a
372-unit apartment building located at the vacant, northwest corner of the Golden Hills
Drive and Xenia Avenue South intersection. He noted that this is the last site in the
Golden Hills District to be developed.
Grimes referred to the site plan drawings and stated that there have not been any
significant changes from the Preliminary PUD plans. He noted that the applicant has
changed the fa�ade of the parking ramp to include more articulation per the Planning
Commission's discussion during the Preliminary Plan review.
Grimes explained that the applicant plans to begin construction of the parking ramp in
the spring of 2014, with the first units opening in mid-2015 and full completion by early
2016.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
November 18, 2013
Page 2
Kluchka asked about the City Council's discussion when they approved the Preliminary
Plans and asked what was added or changed to the proposal since the Planning
Commission's last review. Grimes stated that the Council did not add any additional
conditions to their approval and that the only significant change was the articulation of
the parking ramp wall. Kluchka asked if the parking ramp wall really articulates or if
horizontal and vertical design elements are just making it look articulated. Grimes stated
that the applicant has brought interest to that fa�ade and that there will be vertical
columns that break up the look of the long parking ramp wall.
Jerry Kavan, Slosbug Company, Applicant, said he hopes the Final Plan narrative and
drawings have addressed the Planning Commission's concerns from their Preliminary
Plan review. He referred to a drawing of the proposed parking garage and explained
that the vertical columns will protrude out from the wall. He added that it is difficult to
support a parking ramp with walls that have a lot of articulation. He added that several
trees have been added along the west elevation as well to enhance the look of the
parking ramp.
Kluchka noted that the landscaping plans and the drawings aren't the same in regard to
the trees along the west elevation. Kavan stated that the landscape plan will be
modified to correspond with the drawings before City Council review.
Kluchka opened the public hearing.
Steve Schmidgall, 6534 Olympia Street, said he understands that the light-colored
material shown on the drawings is EFIS. He was under the impression that it was cast
concrete or stone. He noted that the Zoning Code states that a certain percentage of a
building in this zoning district needs to be limestone and he is concerned about the
amount of EFIS being used and the fact that it goes all the way to the ground which isn't
ideal for snow removal. He said brick may be a better choice because it is important to
keep EFIS away from grade so it isn't damaged. He stated that EFIS can look nice, but
it can also look kind of cheap and he hopes the City gets a nice looking product.
Juanita Lussenhop, 6051 Laurel Avenue #202, said she is concerned because she
hasn't heard anything about this proposal other than rumors that it will be really tall and
really busy. She said she wishes that she had more input or knowledge about what is
going on and that her main concern is traffic. She added that the proposed new building
will be better than what was there previously.
Seeing and hearing no one else wishing to comment, Kluchka closed the public hearing.
Kluchka asked Grimes to explain the requirement regarding the use of limestone.
Grimes stated that the I-394 Mixed Use zoning district has guidelines that developers
are asked to follow. He stated that this proposal is a PUD so the City can vary from the
requirements in the Zoning Code and added that this applicant is an experienced
developer who knows what will work and what will be feasible economically. He noted
that the I-394 Mixed Use zoning district also states that there are other ways to achieve
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
November 18, 2013
Page 3
the development desing standards. Kluchka said he would like the applicant to list all of
the requirements in the I-394 Mixed Use zoning district that aren't being met and why.
Kavan showed the Commissioners a photo of a property they own in Dallas. He pointed
out that the fa�ade on that building is EIFS that was made to look like stone. He
explained that the newer type of EIFS is very durable and much different than older
types of EIFS. He further explained that EIFS can be patched if damaged and doesn't
have to be replaced like stone so he feels it is a good selection for this type of project.
He stated that there is no such thing as "Kasota limestone" as referred to in the Zoning
Code because it has been bought out so it would be difficult to comply with that
requirement of the Zoning Code. He stated that Slosburg owns their properties long-
term and that they also don't want to use a product that lasts only a couple of years.
Oliver stated that the Golden Hills Drive and Xenia intersection has been a big concern
for a long time and has been studied extensively. He explained that the proposed
residential use is significantly better in regard to traffic than an office use would be. He
discussed the number of trips and the service level of the intersections in the area and
stated that approximately 75% of the trips would utilize the access on Laurel.
Segelbaum stated that having opposite entrances on the building is also helping to
avoid conflict as well. Oliver agreed. Kluchka asked Oliver if he knows how many cars
go through that intersection. Oliver said no and explained that there are a number of
factors that go into figuring out capacity issues.
Grimes stated that pedestrian connections will be enhanced as well. Kluchka asked if
there are sidewalk plans available. Oliver stated that the sidewalk plans are very
conceptual at this point.
Cera asked if there has been any discussion about additional access over I-394. Oliver
said there have been discussions with MnDOT. Baker asked about potential solutions
regarding access over 1-394. Oliver stated that staff is in the very preliminary stage of
discussions with MnDOT and that the solution would most likely be an expansion of the
pedestrian bridge which is very expensive. Grimes added that the next Comprehensive
Plan update will also address this issue.
Kluchka referred to the resident concern regarding not receiving any communication
and asked about communication planning. Grimes explained that there have been two
Preliminary Plan hearings with mailed notices to property owners within 500 feet, there
has been notice published in the newspaper and that the applicant had a neighborhood
meeting. Baker asked if there are standards regarding notification that the City has to
follow. Grimes said yes and explained that the requirement is that hearing notices have
to be sent to property owners within 350 feet of a proposal, but that the City sends
notices to properties within 500 feet. Kluchka asked if there might be a way to do
additional communication to the Laurel Hills condominiums. He suggested asking the
applicant to provide a communication plan to the condominiums. Grimes stated that
newsletters have been done by developers on past projects. Segelbaum asked, other
than the City's public hearing notices, how people can get information on proposals.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
November 18, 2013
Page 4
Kluchka said they can look on the City's web site and they can also come in to City Hall
for information. He said he thinks that the developer should take ownership of
communication during construction. Kavan said they could do a newsletter and email it
to people who sign up to receive it. Kluchka asked the Commissioners if they would like
to make that a condition of approval. McCarty suggested that the City could provide a
link on its web site to the applicant's web site. Baker stated that it might be a good time
for the City to take a look at the standards on how we communicate. Segelbaum said he
doesn't think a communication plan needs to be added as a condition of approval and
he thinks the developer is working hard to communicate with residents.
Kluchka asked the Commissioners if they would like to add a condition of approval
regarding the type of EFIS product to be used. Segelbaum stated that instead of a
condition regarding EFIS maybe the developer could put together a table showing how
and why they are deviating from certain areas of the Zoning Code. McCarty said he
doesn't think there needs to be a table created or a condition regarding EFIS because
the minutes will reflect the discussion. Grimes suggested reviewing the specific design
standards in the I-394 Mixed Use zoning district.
MOVED by Segelbaum, seconded by Cera and motion carried unanimously to
recommend approval of the of the Final Plan for PUD #113, The Xenia subject to the
following conditions and findings:
Conditions
1. The Final Plan packet submitted by Slosburg Company and received by the City and
date stamped October 18, 2013 shall become a part of this approval. These plans
include architectural and engineering details.
2. The recommendations and requirements outlined in the memo from Deputy Fire Chief
John Crelly to Mark Grimes, Community Development Director 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, Community Development Director, dated November 13, 2013,
shall become a part of this approval.
4. The applicant is assessed a Traffic Management Fee of$57,809.40 per City Code.
Payment of half of the fee ($28,904.70) is required prior to approval of the Final PUD
Plan. (The remaining half of the fee is required to be paid prior to the issuance of a
Building Permit.)
5. No storage of snow shall be allowed on the site.
6. The applicant is assessed a Park Dedication fee of $38,200 per City Code. Payment is
required prior to the City Council's approval of the Final Plat.
7. The Plat name shall inc(ude "PUD No. 113" in its title.
8. All signs on the property shall meet the requirements of the City's Sign Code.
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
November 18, 2013
Page 5
Findin s
1. The PUD plan is tailored ta 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.
3. Informal Public Hearing — Minor Subdivision —4824 Triton Drive -A.K.A.R.E.
Companies LLC, Applicant
Applicant: A.K.A.R.E. Companies LLC
Address: 4824 Triton Drive
Purpose: To reconfigure the existing one single family residential lot into two new
single family residential lots
Grimes explained the applicant's request to subdivide the lot directly east of his recently
approved PUD at 4900 Triton Drive. He referred to a site plan of the property and explained
that Lot 5 in PUD #109 is not a part of this subdivision proposal as it was shown an the
plans submitted by the applicant. The current subdivision proposal includes only the
property at 4824 Triton Drive and that the current proposal is to subdivide that lot into two
new lots. He added that the Council will also be reviewing a Minor PUD amendment for
PUD #109 that will reconfigure the south lot line of Lot 5 and remove the existing Outlot A,
however, Lot 5 will remain a part of PUQ #109.
Kluchka asked if Outlot A will be absorbed into this proposed subdivision. Grimes said yes.
McCarty asked if reconfiguring the property line between Lot 5 in PUD #109 and the 4824
Triton Drive property is making the new lots conform to the subdivision requirements.
Grimes said no and explained that reconfiguring the property line on Lot 5 just makes that
lot function better.
Rob Eldridge, Applicant, said it was always his intent to develop this property but the
owners didn't want to sell at the time he developed PUD #109 at 4900 Triton Drive. He
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
November 18, 2013
Page 6
added that reconfiguring the property line on Lot 5 will give that property a better front yard
and will allow more trees to be saved.
Segelbaum asked Eldridge if he owns the property at 4824 Triton Drive. Eldridge said yes.
Segelbaum asked Eldridge how the construction has gone thus far. Eldridge said he hasn't
talked to any of the neighbors directly. He stated that one lot is sold and he is planning to
build a model home on another lot. He added that the weather in the spring really hurt their
construction plans.
Kluchka opened the public hearing.
Peter Lenagh, 4920 Normandy Place, said his main concern is that it has taken a year to
sell and build one house so he is looking at seven more years of construction. He said he
thinks Mr. Eldridge has gotten in over his head. He said it bothers him to see what's been
done to the land. They've cut down large oaks and maples and more will have to be cut
down. He said he fears for a heavy rain because there is a 40 to 45 degree slope and it is
going to be a nightmare to live through this for another seven years. He said that the
proposed new homes will cost $700,000 when most other homes in the area are only worth
$200,000 to $300,000 and this will change the whole dynamic of the neighborhood. He said
it seems like the City has gotten into bed with the developer in hopes of making tax revenue
when in reality this is just ruining the fabric of the neighborhood.
Jack Terrio, 3139 Orchard Avenue North, said the developer stated that the first house built
(in PUD #109) would be a single story house and it is not. He said he is looking at a pile of
dirt and questioned why the concrete wall that was supposed to go up hasn't. He asked if
anyone knows what kind of soils are in this development. He said he would have no
concern over this current request if the developer had all of the other houses done and then
wanted two more. He said if the developer had done his original plan, the first house would
have blended in and that none of this makes sense and he is tired of it. He asked if he sold
his house today if he would have to have his well capped and his water tested. He said the
City seems to have a different set of rules for this developer and that this was not supposed
to cost the taxpayers any money. He asked why it took so long to build the cul-de-sac that
was just completed two weeks ago and what kind of deal was made on the installation of
the cul-de-sac because the people who dug the cul-de-sac weren't the same people who
paved it. He asked if he could do the same thing and if the developer was billed for the
work. He stated that the developer should get his act together with the five properties he
has now and then come back with a proposal for this property.
Seeing and hearing no one else wishing to comment, Kluchka closed the public hearing.
Segelbaum asked about construction timing issues and rules related to that. He also asked
if piles of dirt can be left indefinitely. Grimes explained that the homes Mr. Eldridge is
building are custom homes so they won't be built until there is a buyer. He stated that there
are requirements regarding erosion control and tree preservation He agreed that it is
unfortunate that it is taking a while to construct these homes but it has been dependent on
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
November 18, 2013
Page 7
the market. He added that once a building permit is issued there has to be progress made,
but there is not a timeline applicants are required to follow. Segelbaum asked if Mr. Eldridge
is in violation of any requirements. Grimes said no.
Kluchka asked for clarification regarding the construction of the cul-de-sac. Oliver stated
that the cul-de-sac was originally going to be private, however that was changed and the
City built it as a public street with 100% of the cost assessed to the developer. He added
that the wet spring did cause a significant delay in the construction.
Kluchka asked about the requirements for neighborhood ground water testing. Oliver said
he is not aware of any specific requirements regarding groundwater.
Segelbaum stated that this subdivision proposal was somewhat expected and he is pleased
to see it go forward. He said this proposal will make the PUD properties next to it more
attractive because there won't be strange-shaped lots and outlots which should improve the
chances of the houses being built faster.
MOVED by Segelbaum, secanded by Cera and motion carried unanimously to recommend
approval of a Minor Subdivision at 4824 Triton Drive to allow the existing one single family
residential lot to be reconfigured into two new single family residential lots subject to the
following conditions:
1. The City Attorney will determine if a title review is necessary prior to approval of the
final plat.
2. A park dedication fee in the amount of $880 shall be paid prior to final plat approval.
3. A Subdivision Agreement will be drafted for review and approval by the City Council
that will include issues found in the City Engineer's memo dated November 13,
2013.
4. The recommendations and requirements outlined in the memo from City Engineer
Jeff Oliver to Mark Grimes, Community Development Director dated November 13,
2013 shall become a part of this approval.
5. Approval is contingent on the approval by the City Council of a Minor PUD
Amendment for Eldridge 3`d Addition PUD No. 109 which adds Outlot A from PUD
No. 109 to Eldridge 7th Addition and allow a portion of the north part of the 4824
Triton Dr. parcel (about 1,200 sq. ft.) to be added to Lot 5, Eldridge 3�d Addition PUD
No. 109.
6. The developer shall amend proposed Eldridge 7t" Addition to reflect the changes
proposed by the Planning staff. This amendment keeps Lot 5, Eldridge 3�d Addition
PUD No. 109 within the PUD. Eldridge 7t" Addition will only be a two lot subdivision
comprising the 4824 Triton Dr. parcel and Outlot A of Eldridge 3�d Addition PUD No.
109. This amendment shall be made prior to review of the minor subdivision of
Eldridge 7th Addition by the City Council.
7. All applicable City permits must be obtained prior to the development of the new lots.
8. 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
November 18, 2013
Page 8
--Short Recess--
4. Reports on Meetings of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority, City
Council, Board of Zoning Appeals and other Meetings
Grimes stated that the next Bottineau LRT Planning Advisory Committee meeting will be
on December 5, 2013.
5. Other Business
• Council Liaison Report
Council Member Schmidgall stated that the City Council has discussed the possibility of
planning further into the future with the next Comprehensive Plan update. He said he
envisions the Planning Commission having a lead role in the process and that he would
like to plan ahead 25 to 50 years in the future. He stated that he would like to consider
several ideas including: areas that have development potential, discussions regarding
"right size" lots and lots that have the potential to be subdivided, making Hennepin
County roads more pedestrian friendly and ways to knit the areas north and south of
Highway 55 together, and the connection between the Bottineau LRT stations and the
downtown area. Grimes added that the Metropolitan Council is also looking further
ahead in their planning. The Commissioners agreed that planning further ahead in the
Comprehensive Plan is a good idea.
6. Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned at 9:18 pm.
Charles D. Se elbaum, Sec ei�