pc-minutes-nov-08-21
REGULAR MEETING MINUTES
This meeting was conducted in a hybrid format with in‐person and remote options for
attending, participating, and commenting. The City used Webex to conduct this meeting and
members of the public were able to monitor the meetings by watching it on Comcast cable
channel 16, by streaming it on CCXmedia.org, or by dialing in to the public call‐in line.
1. Call to Order
The meeting was called to order at 7:00 by Chair Pockl.
Roll Call
Commissioners in person: Rich Baker, Adam Brookins, Sophia Ginis, Andy Johnson, Lauren Pockl,
Mike Ruby, Chuck Segelbaum
Commissioners absent:
Staff present: Myles Campbell – Planner, Jason Zimmerman – Planning Manager
Council Liaison present: Gillian Rosenquist
2. Approval of Agenda
Chair Pockl asked for a motion to approve the agenda.
MOTION made by Commissioner Segelbaum, seconded by Commissioner Brookins, to approve the
agenda of November 8, 2021. Motion carried.
3. Approval of Minutes
Chair Pockl asked for a motion to approve the minutes from October 25, 2021.
MOTION made by Commissioner Brookins, seconded by Commissioner Ginis.
Abstain: Baker, Segelbaum
Motion carried.
1. Informal Public Hearing – Final Plan for Golden Valley Country Club Villas PUD No. 126
Address: 7001 Golden Valley Road
Applicant: Ron Clark Construction
Myles Campbell, City Planner, gave a summary on the property selling an unused portion of the Gold
Course and Ron Clark Construction was selected as the development partner. Campbell reviewed the
plans and discussed that this is the third time this item has appeared before Planning Commission for
three separate portions of this PUD process. The PUD background was discussed, Planning
Commissions role and recommendations, and the applicant’s work to address conditions.
November 8, 2021 – 7 pm
City of Golden Valley Planning Commission Regular Meeting
November 8, 2021, 2021 – 7 pm
2
Existing Conditions
No existing structures in the area
Heavily wooded, 229 total trees in project site, 165 significant, 4 legacy
Topography slopes south and east generally, sufficient grades to keep all above‐ground
structures out of modeled floodplains around the Creek
Bassett Creek to the south, much of the site falls in the shoreland area, smaller portion is in the
shoreland setback
Preliminary ‐> Final Plan Updates
Changes to Landscaping Plan and Tree Replacement
Changes to the public road stub
Modification of Storm Water Management
Removal of former Outlot B
Reworking of Public Amenities
Conservation Easement Dedication
Staff went in depth on each of the updates from the preliminary to final plan updates.
Campbell addressed staff’s analysis and review process with zoning and subdivision considerations,
fire safety and Engineering/Environmental considerations, public amenities, and the findings of fact.
Campbell answered Commissioner questions and offered clarification on items.
Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of the Preliminary Plan for Golden Valley Country Club Villas PUD No. 126,
subject to the following conditions:
1. The plans prepared by Ron Clark Construction, dated November 3rd and 4th 2021, shall
become part of this approval
2. The plans are subject to the review and approval of the Bassett Creek Watershed
Management Commission.
3. The required park dedication fee shall be paid prior to the release of the final plat.
4. The Final Plat shall include “PUD No. 126” in its title
5. Final Construction Plans and cost estimates for the site and public improvements must be
submitted to the City for review and approval.
6. Details as to the construction of site and public improvements shall be finalized prior to the
consideration of approval of the Development Agreement and Final Plat, and are subject to
the approval of the City Engineer
7. All required easements and agreements shall be dedicated or executed prior to the release
of the final plat, including but not limited to drainage and utility easements, public use and
access easements, development agreement, escrow and deposit agreement for public
improvements, and conservation easements.
City of Golden Valley Planning Commission Regular Meeting
November 8, 2021, 2021 – 7 pm
3
8. The impervious surface area on each of the residential lots shall be limited to listed square
footage in the plans dated November 4th 2021, in order to preserve open space within the
shoreland area and to remain consistent with the stormwater calculations that determined
the design of the stormwater management facilities.
9. Homes within the PUD will be restricted to a single story above grade as measured from the
front yard, with a maximum height of 25 ft
10. Overhead power adjacent to and within the development must be buried as well as all utilities
serving the site; joint trench for private utilities is preferred to maximize efficient use of the
right‐of‐way.
11. Sanitary sewer main in Pennsylvania Avenue must be lined for I&I compliance and any
existing sanitary sewer stubs to the site must be abandoned.
12. Applicant shall submit HOA documents and all other private easements, declarations,
covenants, and restrictions for the development prior to approval of the Final Plat.
Chair Pockl asked staff what the specific request of the Planning Commission is at tonight’s meeting.
Jason Zimmerman, Planning Manager, responded that general approval of the PUD is not since that
was done by City Council’s general approval of the preliminary plan. This group is asked to review for
consistency with what was presented in the preliminary plan and any conditions recommended by
Council.
Campbell answered a few clarifying questions from Commissioners on outlots and homeowners’
associations, plantings and future maintenance, old outlot B.
Commissioner Baker commented that this is a Country Club project and therefore benefits to the City
could occur anywhere on the Country Club and not this specific location. It was noted that the applicant
was representing the Country Club as the lot hadn’t been divided yet and the Club still owned it.
Zimmerman responded that if they were within a hundred feet or so of the location that would make
sense however beyond that there would need to be other considerations.
Baker followed by asking how many PUDs the City has approved in the last 10‐20 years. Zimmerman
responded that in the last 9 years there have been about 13 brand new PUD’s approved. The
conversations went on to understand approval rates beyond that.
Staff and Commissioners reviewed a few more items to understand conditions and continued
accountability. Commissioners asked numerous questions on traffic regulations, curb cuts, trees/tree
conservation, and landscape plans.
Chair Pockl invited the applicant to speak.
Mike Waldo ‐ Ron Clark Construction, Applicant, discussed conditions between the preliminary and
final PUD proposal, he specifically pointed out the HOA will be responsible for landscaping to remain
consistent with the PUD. Applicant stated that Ron Clark is the applicant, the current owner gave
consent for the application but they are applying for just the site that became the PUD. More trees on
other areas of the course didn’t make sense as it wasn’t part of the actual application.
City of Golden Valley Planning Commission Regular Meeting
November 8, 2021, 2021 – 7 pm
4
Commissioner Segelbaum stated they were proposing 70% of the mitigation requirement in the
preliminary but now are proposing 91% of the environmental mitigation and the remainder will be a
fee. Segelbaum asked why the applicant didn’t commit to 100% mitigation. The applicant had the
landscape architect navigate that process and the goal was larger, healthier, longer living trees rather
than a greater number of trees. The plantable space was decreased by the stormwater management
area as well.
Commissioners and the applicant discussed plantings, trees, and sapling sizes to be transplanted.
Chair Pockl opened the public hearing at 8:46pm.
There were no residents present for comment nor were there callers.
Staff presented a written comment that was received prior to the meeting, it was attached in the
agenda.
Chair Pockl closed the public hearing at 8:50pm
Chair Pockl opened the discussion. Commissioner Ginis stated general agreement with staff findings
and recalled the applicant to ask about articulation. Applicant responded that with side setbacks, the
articulation loses a lot of space.
Commissioner Baker stated the stormwater management approach combined with landscaping is a
big improvement, although he would like to see more opportunities to achieve green infrastructure in
the city. Baker added that the Planning Commission unanimously recommended action on this project
and is disappointed City Council disregarded that recommendation. He went on to review the
conservation and environmental items that he felt were missed opportunities by staff and Council as
part of this project.
Commissioner Johnson added comments regarding the tree plantings and the exception for the green
path; feeling both should be reconsidered. He continued with the general requirement for 26ft wide
streets through Golden Valley and finds the exception for this portion of road to be 28ft wide to be
inconsistent. Commissioner Segelbaum mentioned the applicant meeting the environmental
mitigation requirement at 91% and said he’d like to see 100%. He also discussed the roadway, the
frontage from each property, and the setback. Commissioner Brookins said while he’s disappointed,
the plan in front of the group represents what was asked of the applicant by the Council. He added
that this particular project type and size, doesn’t fit with what they had in mind when creating the
zoning and that may be why the group feels disappointed. The amenity points don’t satisfy him so
Brookins said he will vote against this project and recommend the Council amend the point scoring.
Baker added he will also vote to oppose the recommendation of approval, feeling the City Council
should reconsider their decisions.
Commissioner Ruby asked staff what the charge for the group is today.
Staff read the code language for the final PUD process:
Planning Commission shall review the final PUD plan for consistency with the preliminary PUD plan, as
approved by City Council and the conditions, if any, imposed by the City Council. The intent and
purpose provisions of subsection A of this and all other provisions of this section, principals and
standards adhere to in the City.
City of Golden Valley Planning Commission Regular Meeting
November 8, 2021, 2021 – 7 pm
5
Zimmerman added that there are two pieces, is this consistent with what the City Council was
approving and also the group could look at the larger intent and purpose and if it’s needed. Maybe
Council felt there was but maybe this group doesn’t.
Chair Pockl stated she was disappointed when she heard what the direction from Council was as she
doesn’t feel the PUD requirements are satisfied. She reiterated Johnson’s comments on consistency
and referred to the Comprehensive Plan and that this PUD isn’t consistent with the environmental
preservation portion. Commissioner Ruby added that in this development, he’s struggling to
understand the benefit of the PUD and how it differs from another home. Commissioner Ginis added
she’s struggling to see the difference between a PUD and if a developer bought the property outright.
She went on to say she wasn’t comfortable denying an applicant when they were directed to meet
conditions, did, and have now returned. She asked what the road to success looked like if this wasn’t
it. Staff went on to explain the history of the project, rezoning, the PUD, and when the request was
made.
Ruby asked to review the list of finding and comment on each one specifically to send comments to
the Council.
1. Quality Site Planning – Segelbaum thought it didn’t meet that considering the change from the stub
to flow, lot widths were not improved. It’s also unclear if full tree mitigation was met. Brookins
commented that amenities are not a good fit. Ginis said the lot width differs from home placement,
5ft is inconsistent on lots 6/7. Baker added that the conservation efforts are modest at best and
doesn’t meet this finding. The project could make a better contribution. Johnson stated there was
inconsistency in street width and the sidewalk extension.
2. Preservation – Segelbaum stated that tree mitigation falls under this category for the same reason.
Baker said conservation falls under this item for the same reasons (easement, old outlot, basset creek)
3. Efficient/Effective – Segelbaum stated the 5ft sideyard setback shouldn’t qualify as an efficient use
of property.
4. Consistency – Pockl stated the project isn’t consistent with a number of goals, documents, and
policies.
5. General Health – removal of a natural habitat impacts the general health of the plants and animals.
Ruby stated that moving a habitat should be discussed because it’s not actually moving. Segelbaum
added that the plot is private property, not a wetland conservation area so they can o what they’d like.
However, with the amount of deforestation in the plan, he feels it doesn’t meet this requirement.
6. Meets Requirements – No comments
Ruby asked where community art and bike lane falls. Campbell responded that it’s in the general
requirements for the public amenity point system.
MOTION made by Commissioner Baker, seconded by Commissioner Johnson, to recommend denial
of the final PUD 126 based on the observations on findings.
Motion passed unanimously.
City of Golden Valley Planning Commission Regular Meeting
November 8, 2021, 2021 – 7 pm
6
2.Discussion – 2022‐2031 Capital Improvement Program
Jason Zimmerman, Planning Manager, reminded the group that annually the City works on it’s Capital
Works Program. This outlines all the planned City investments in a 10year timeline. One piece of that
is for the Planning Commission is to review that CIP and to recommend to City Council if there is
consistency. Zimmerman broke down items, timelines, projects, and which area in the Comprehensive
Plan they fit under. Commissioner Johnson asked about Police Station, Public Works, and City Hall or
if those items are beyond the 10‐year plan. Zimmerman stated he wasn’t sure but Council is talking
about that the following day. The current plan doesn’t account for that, yet. Also, those items may not
be included in the Comp Plan. A few other clarifying questions were answered by Finance Director, Sue
Virnig.
MOTION made by Commissioner Baker, seconded by Commissioner Segelbaum, to recommend
adoption of findings that the CIP is consistent with the goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan.
Commissioner Johnson mentioned that the Council may want to have a discussion to include the police
station since it was a huge part of the facilities study.
Motion passed unanimously.
Chair Pockl ended the televised portion of the meeting at 10:00 pm.
4.Council Liaison Report
Council Member Rosenquist updated the Commissioners about the upcoming Council Work Session
at which the Municipal Facilities Study report would be presented and discussions were scheduled
around and update to the Sign Code, Temporary Outdoor Service Areas, and Accessory Dwelling Units
(ADUs). Commissioner Ruby asked if would be possible to have the City Council and Planning
Commission have a face to face conversation to ensure both groups are on the same page when it
comes to recent planning issues.
5.Other Business
Planner Campbell noted that there are four items on the agenda for the November Board of Zoning
Appeals meeting and that Commissioner Ruby would be representative.
6.Adjournment
MOTION by Commissioner Ginis to adjourn, seconded by Commissioner Johnson, and approved
unanimously. Meeting adjourned at 10:06 pm.
________________________________
Andy Johnson, Secretary
________________________________
Amie Kolesar, Planning Assistant