pc-minutes-06-12-2023
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 6:30 pm by Chair Brookins.
Roll Call
Commissioners present: A. Brookins, M. McCormick, M. Ruby, C. Segelbaum
Commissioners absent:
Staff present: Jason Zimmerman – Planning Manager, Myles Campbell – Planner
Council Liaison: Denise La Mere‐Anderson
2. Land Acknowledgement
3. Approval of Agenda
MOTION made by Commissioner Ruby, seconded by Commissioner McCormick, to approve the
agenda of June 12, 2023.
MOTION CARRIED
4. Approval of Minutes
May 8, 2023, Regular Meeting
MOTION made by Commissioner Ruby, seconded by Commissioner McCormick, to approve the
minutes of May 8, 2023.
MOTION CARRIED
May 22, 2023, Regular Meeting
MOTION made by Commissioner Ruby, seconded by Commissioner McCormick, to approve the
minutes of May 22, 2023.
MOTION CARRIED
5. Informal Public Hearing – Zoning Map Amendment
Address: 208 Meander Road
Applicant: City of Golden Valley
June 12, 2023 – 6:30 pm
Council Chambers
Hybrid
City of Golden Valley Planning Commission Regular Meeting
June 12, 2023 – 6:30 pm
2
Myles Campbell, Planner, started with a summary of the request from the City. The City is seeking
the rezoning of an existing vacant parcel of land in order to redevelop the property into a single‐
family lot as part of its Homeownership Program for Equity (HOPE).
The lot was originally platted in 1939 and was intended for a single‐family home development. The
lot has been zoned differently since then, is an irregular shape, and to the rear is a railroad right of
way. In 2022 Council identified this and two other properties for the first round of HOPE. Staff would
like to rezone this lot from its existing Institutional ‐ Parks and Natural Areas (I‐P) to Single‐Family
Residential (R‐1).
Rezoning Analysis
Zoning Code gives broad latitude to Planning Commission and Council to determine if a zoning map
amendment is consistent with the purpose of the zoning code, adjacent uses, and the City’s
Comprehensive Plan. Staff compared the two zoning districts and elaborated on discussions held
with Parks and Rec that this lot was not part of the park system nor was it intended to be. Most
homes in the surrounding area are single‐family homes and even though there is a railroad nearby,
there are many homes on both sides of the tracks.
As part of the Land Use Plan for the City, this parcel was guided for future use as “Low Density
Residential” and as such rezoning the property would bring the current and planned land uses into
better conformance. HOPE was created in part due to the recognition in the Housing Chapter of the
Comprehensive Plan that the City lacked quality affordable housing options and given the Twin Cities
Metro‐wide gap in homeownership between white and BIPOC households. Staff continued on to
explain how this request is consistent with the goals and objectives of the comp plan.
Staff Findings
City would benefit from utilizing the property for affordable single‐family home as part of
HOPE.
The proposed zoning of R‐1 returns the parcel to a residential use similar to when it was
originally platted.
The proposed zoning would match the guided land use in the 2040 Comprehensive Plan as well
as that of surrounding properties.
Utilizing the site for affordable housing is in line with a number of goals and objectives from the
Comprehensive Plan.
The parcel is not planned to be utilized as parkland in the City’s long‐term plans and has no
other role in providing governmental services.
Recommended Action
Based on the findings above, staff recommends approval of the amendment to the Zoning Map,
changing the zoning for 208 Meander Road from Institutional ‐ Parks and Natural Areas (I‐P) to
Single‐Family Residential (R‐1).
Commissioner Ruby asked if a new build would impact the electrical lines and staff stated it’s
unlikely as the easement is 10ft wide and the home can’t be built in an easement.
City of Golden Valley Planning Commission Regular Meeting
June 12, 2023 – 6:30 pm
3
Commissioner Segelbaum noted the request and the intention to build a HOPE property, then
clarified the recommendation is on the rezoning regardless of what’s built. Staff affirmed this and
added that the City owns the lot and would need to approve anything built on it and the HOPE build
is the intention. The conversation continued around buildability, setbacks, and rezoning.
Chair Brookins opened the public hearing at 6:40.
Chair Brookins noted there were no Golden Valley Speaks comments left prior to the meeting and
that staff did not receive comments otherwise in advance.
Chair Brookins invited in person commenters to speak first.
Melissa Caulfield
4720 Circle Downs
There was a point on the presentation where staff said the City will benefit from this project and I’d
like clarification on that. Additionally, a comment was made about “working around the railroad
tracks” and the area being undesirable and working around that, I’d like to know how that happens.
Linda Gieser
5924 Glenwood
When I moved here 20 years ago, I did so because of the greenspace. 13 houses were built in this
neighborhood since I moved in, there’s little greenspace aside from yards. I don’t understand selling
this lot and if it was a part of my own property, is it big enough to sell to a builder. It seems like the
building envelope is tricky to meet. I understand affordable housing, I was a single mom and
struggled for the first 40 years of my life. I understand not being able to afford someplace that is nice
but it’s possible if you work hard. I don’t object to helping others, but I think putting them on that
plot of land, one that doesn’t seem desirable to build a house, doesn’t help them or the
neighborhood. I’m also wondering why the newsletter of the month said they were breaking ground
in July if this hasn’t been approved yet.
Mark Westby
204 Meander Road
I live next door to this property, on the south side. I think the current zoning does align with the
intended use for this property. The Golden Valley speaks presentation noted that Parks and Rec said
this area acted more as an “open space” and there are several other open spaces and nature areas in
the City that share the I‐P zoning code. It would be inappropriate to compare these properties to the
intended R‐1 zoning code, it’s absurd to say they can’t fit a golf course on the property so it shouldn’t
be designated I‐P. These open spaces are an integral part to our City’s 2040 comp plan, it emphasizes
Golden Valley’s commitment to preserving parks and nature areas. Goal 5 of the Land Use Chapter
focuses on environmental protection and aims to preserve and enhance land that supports existing
trees and plants. The implementation action plan further highlights the prioritization of natural
resources enhancement and protection through the use of inventory of remnant parcels. The project
HOPE documentation states that the preparation on meander would require the removal of a
substantial number of trees and shrubs. Moreover, the two lots north of 208 Meander, used to be a
part of the same natural space and they have been renovated and rezoned within the last 10 years.
City of Golden Valley Planning Commission Regular Meeting
June 12, 2023 – 6:30 pm
4
The City has already decimated the natural spaces in our area. Suggesting that the Parks Department
lacks plans to create a park justifies this development is disingenuous. They haven’t maintained that
property in 50 years, I maintain the property right now and the owners of my property before me
maintained it. They maintained that lot since 1963 when the house was built and even had a shed on
208 Meander that was placed in 1963 and it stayed in place until December 2021 when we bought
the house.
You cannot build a house on this lot right now. The August 10, 2022 meeting minutes from the HRA
work session, Cherie Shoquist noted this site would require significant variances to be developed. So
why should we rezone if this property can’t fulfill its intended use.
Chair Brookins invited remote callers to speak.
There were no remote callers.
Chair Brookins closed the public comment portion at 6:27pm.
Staff responded to the comments and reminded everyone the homes in the HOPE program are
targeted for folks who make 60‐80% of the Area Median Income (AMI). Staff went on to stat that
specifically is a household making between 75k/year to 95k/year and the goal of this program is for
folks to gain housing who have been otherwise priced out. Golden Valley home prices have increased
and this year houses eclipsed 400k for the average cost of a single‐family home in Golden Valley. This
price point is unattainable for many members of the community.
Yes, the home will be placed near the rail road tracks and there’s no way around that. Staff discussed
the easement, ROW, and there’s about 50‐60ft from the railroad. Additionally, this isn’t the only
home in the City adjacent to the railroad ROW, and if the City had other properties available they
would present those options.
The July newsletter was likely referring to 1605 Douglas Drive as it did not have any entitlements to
get through first and Habitat for Humanity has targeted a July state date.
Tree mitigation was mentioned and there are a number of mature trees on the south side of the lot
and it’s also the most buildable area on the lot. There are a number of trees that could potentially be
removed or damaged during redevelopment and we would require the City’s tree mitigation
standards to be put in place. A prospective developer also mentioned adding trees along the ROW to
create a natural buffer. The goal is not to clear cut this lot and not replace trees.
Jason Zimmerman, Planning Manager, noted an email that was forwarded from someone who spoke
regarding pollution related to being near highways and high traffic areas. He supposed the
implication is that living in these high traffic areas may not be especially healthy.
Commissioner Ruby supports HOPE, affordable housing, and his concerns about this particular lot
may not be a factor for this particular recommendation. He asked staff if that was part of the
discussion and he added if it was appropriate to request building plans to assist in a recommendation
to Council. Segelbaum added that there have been situations in the past where a builder offers plans
and there have been other situations where the group is to determine if the lot is buildable and
where it’s buildable. If another committee stated it would need variances, we don’t know if that’s
true. Chair Brookins noted that the lots in this neighborhood are different sizes and don’t fit the
City of Golden Valley Planning Commission Regular Meeting
June 12, 2023 – 6:30 pm
5
current standard. It seems that most of the houses in the area would require variances if they were
built today. There’s also no way to know if this lot will require a variance.
The discussion went on to review the height requirements, building envelope, and how potential
variances could factor in.
Staff noted that if the Commission couldn’t make a recommendation, tabling would be the next
reasonable choice as there’s no way to add a condition to a zoning map amendment.
Commissioners requested a map to see the buildable area.
Staff added that during subdivisions that part of the presentation includes buildable areas; during
rezoning requests it’s less typical. In this situation it could be done since staff knows the setbacks,
and easements.
MOTION made by Commissioner Ruby, seconded by Commissioner Segelbaum, moved to table this
item until later in the agenda so staff can draw up a buildable area to complete the presentation.
MOTION CARRIED
6. Informal Public Hearing – Zoning Map Amendment and Future Land Use Plan Amendment
Address: 4707 Circle Downs
Applicant: City of Golden Valley
Myles Campbell, Planner, summarized the three pieces to this request:
The City is seeking three related entitlements in order to redevelop a vacant portion of ROW into a
single‐family lot as part of its Homeownership Program for Equity (HOPE):
1. Amend the Future Land Use Map to guide it Low Density Residential
2. Amend the Zoning Map to zone the property to Single‐Family Residential (R‐1)
3. Review and approve the Preliminary Plat that would create parcel boundaries through
subdivision
Staff provided a background of the area, MnDOT acquisition, easements, and the topography.
Proposal
City Council identified this and two other properties for the first round of HOPE in late spring of
2022, the program targets City‐controlled sites to develop homes affordable to households
making 60‐80% AMI
After entitlements are finalized, site would be transferred to Greater Metropolitan Housing
Corporation to be developed as a single‐family home
Redevelopment would require new utility connections to City facilities located in existing ROW
Tree protection and replacement standards would apply for the redevelopment
Given the existing stormwater infrastructure on‐site and a desire to mitigate highway impacts,
staff expects the home would be located closer to the northeast portion of the lot
Staff Findings on Zoning and Land Use
The proposed single‐family classification is consistent with surrounding neighborhood
City of Golden Valley Planning Commission Regular Meeting
June 12, 2023 – 6:30 pm
6
The proposed use would help to achieve a number of goals from the Comprehensive Plan
The parcel is no longer needed by MnDOT for highway purposes, and has no anticipated use
within city park or public works governmental services
Utilizing the land for affordable homeownership as part of HOPE would benefit the City’s
variety of housing opportunity
Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of the requested amendment to the Future Land Use Map, guiding 4707
Circle Down to Low Density Residential.
Staff recommends approval of the requested amendment to the Zoning Map, zoning 4707 Circle
Down to Single‐Family Residential (R‐1).
Staff recommends approval of the minor subdivision and preliminary plat, subject to the following
conditions:
1. The applicant shall modify the final plat to accommodate corrections form City Engineering
Staff
2. The City Attorney will determine if a title review is necessary prior to approval of the final plat.
Commissioner Ruby asked staff about stormwater drain and staff responded the drain would remain,
and the buildable area is still a large triangle, not impeding the easement. Staff went on to explain
city easements, private easements, and the homeowner’s property lines. Commissioner Segelbaum
noted the lot’s wooded area, and staff expanded on the tree ordinance. Chair Brookins asked about
the removal of City ROW at the rear of the property and staff responded that it was to increase the
lot size and remove ROW parcel fragments.
Chair Brookins opened the public forum at 7:32pm.
Chair Brookins invited in person commenters to speak first.
Melissa Caulfield
4720 Circle Downs
I’ve lived across the street from this property for 30 years and that field hasn’t been touched in that
whole time. It’s disingenuous for the City to say selling this property prevents them from having to
care for it because they never have. I believe the City got this property back from DOT 5‐6 years ago
and nothing has ever happened. The area along the south wall is a deer passageway so I’m not sure
what will happen to that if it all becomes private property. It feels like the City is identifying any
green space that isn’t a park and placing something on it. Just because something is a DOT remnant,
doesn’t mean it should be developed. All the vegetation you saw prevents noise and air pollution for
us and it’s not just trees. The urban report said that the effectiveness of noise barriers is up for
debate but are more effective when constructed alongside mature vegetation. Those of us in the
neighborhood know that when a tree comes down, our noise goes up and when that happens, our
property value goes down. The same report says that property values go down 4‐10% the closer they
are to a freeway and I think this is hurting current owners by doing anything in that space. You can
City of Golden Valley Planning Commission Regular Meeting
June 12, 2023 – 6:30 pm
7
talk about not disrupting the part next to the sound wall but anything in the area will be an impact.
According to the Urban Institute there should not be new construction that close to a highway for
reasons of health and home values. Their expertly sourced paper states that with every 1000ft closer
to a highway you are, there’s an 8% increase in stroke mortality and a 5% increase in heart attack,
from pollution and noise. You’re talking about a vulnerable population, families of color, that you
want to put in that house, who are already at increased risk for cardiovascular and pulmonary
disease. Of course, a family wants to take advantage of a discounted house, but at what risk to their
own health. My next‐door neighbor put her house on the market last week because her realtor told
her the noise will go up and her property value will go down and she should get out while she can.
She lives in a 1.7 million historic home, she’s been there for 7 years, and it’s now for sale because of
the work of the City. I don’t think that’s the intended effect of this. Have you visited these
properties? On Meander, only a few need to be visited. If you don’t live there you don’t understand
the nuance of noise. Arguments that say this isn’t the first house by a freeway wall or railroad track
are hard to accept because we’ve learned a lot more about noise pollution in the last 30 years. Again,
you’re talking about a vulnerable population, families of color, and putting them in places that will
impact their health. I think Golden Valley can do better than that. I asked someone why we’re doing
this program on these properties and the said because it’s the cheapest. Do we always only take the
cheapest vendor bids? Do we buy the cheapest equipment and vehicles for the police department?
I’m all for diversifying Golden Valley. If a neighbor of mine sold their house and moved, maybe
there’s another program the City can participate in where they can buy that house and use if for this
purpose. I think the City has taken a short‐sighted approach to these properties and not using them
well.
Mary Winter
609 Ottawa
I object to this because of what it’s going to do to my property value. The previous speaker is my
neighbor and I agree with everything they said. I want to know how many of you live next to
“affordable housing”. That’s all.
Chair Brookins invited remote callers to speak.
There were no remote commenters.
Chair Brookins closed the public comment portion at 7:39pm.
Commissioner Ruby asked for clarification on the request and it’s a whole recommendation, there
isn’t an ability to negotiate an aspect of the recommendation. The subdivision is happening.
Staff responded that the requirements for a subdivision were laid out in the memo and unless the
Commission found they were not met, there isn’t a negotiation. Commissioner Segelbaum added
that voting on the subdivision doesn’t occur until the rezoning is approved.
Segelbaum reminded everyone that the Commissioners are volunteers and residents of Golden
Valley, most of whom have lived in the City for a long time. He added that he understands impacts to
a neighborhood and this body’s job is to protect the interests of those coming before them and those
that are not. That consideration is weighed with the City’s interest and they are to find the balance.
Segelbaum continued that he doesn’t have concern about this property other than it is green space
City of Golden Valley Planning Commission Regular Meeting
June 12, 2023 – 6:30 pm
8
that folks have gotten used to; he understands it’s easy to assume things will remain the same
indefinitely. Ultimately it is the City’s choice to do what they’d like with their property and it’s the job
of this body to determine if that use is reasonable based on the factors before them. When the
factors are applied, this meets the standards.
Chair Brookins echoed these statements. The lot is significant, it’s buildable, there are protections in
place for tree mitigation, the buildable area barely has a tree in it. Segelbaum added it’s in their best
interest to maintain trees. The discussion continued on specifics of tree mitigation.
MOTION made by Commissioner Segelbaum, seconded by Commissioner McCormick, to
recommend approval of the requested amendment to the Zoning Map, zoning 4707 Circle Down to
Single‐Family Residential (R‐1).
MOTION CARRIED
MOTION made by Commissioner Segelbaum, seconded by Commissioner Ruby, to recommend
approval of the requested amendment to the Future Land Use Map, guiding 4707 Circle Down to
Low Density Residential.
MOTION CARRIED
MOTION made by Commissioner Segelbaum, seconded by Commissioner Ruby, to recommend
approval of the minor subdivision and preliminary plat, subject to the following conditions:
1. The applicant shall modify the final plat to accommodate corrections form City Engineering
Staff
2. The City Attorney will determine if a title review is necessary prior to approval of the final plat
MOTION CARRIED
7. Informal Public Hearing – Minor Subdivision of 7324 Harold and Associated Subdivision Variance
Address: 5317 Glenwood
Applicant: Lake West Development
Myles Campbell, Planner, noted this item includes two approvals, a subdivision and a subdivision
variance. Staff noted the property’s location in the City and reviewed its current zoning. The current
home was built in 1926, on the east side of the lot, and is lower when compared to the topography of
surrounding areas. This slope adds to stormwater and runoff challenges.
The proposal is to subdivide and create two R‐1 lots, the existing home would stay but be remodeled
to increase livability. A new home would be built on the other portion and subject to current zoning
standards. Both lots would exceed the area requirements for new R‐1 parcels, but both fall slightly
short of the required 80’ in width, necessitating the subdivision variance.
Staff reviewed existing and proposed drainage patterns as well as lot size details.
Staff discussed the public meeting that was held in May and reviewed some of the comments. Staff
noted the subdivision requirements, other staff that was involved in the review, and the Fire
Department did not have concerns.
City of Golden Valley Planning Commission Regular Meeting
June 12, 2023 – 6:30 pm
9
Staff continued to review the subdivision standards, the conditions, and noted that the Council and
Commission may also consider surrounding uses, resulting population density of the
subdivision/consolidation, and traffic impacts.
Recommendation
Based on the findings, staff recommends approval of a variance of 6.56 feet off the required 160 feet
to a width of 153.44 feet for the lot’s width before subdivision.
If the variance is approved, then based on the findings above staff recommends approval of the
minor subdivision at 5317 Glenwood Ave, 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 of $5,415 shall be paid before release of the Final Plat.
If the variance is not approved, the lot width requirement cannot be met and therefore staff
recommends denial of the minor subdivision with a finding that the proposal does not meet the
Minimum Dimension Requirements of the Subdivision Code.
Chair Brookins opened the public forum at 8:02pm.
Chair Brookins invited in person commenters to speak first.
There were no in person commenters.
Chair Brookins invited remote callers to speak.
There were no remote commenters.
Chair Brookins closed the public comment portion at 8:03pm.
Commissioner Ruby noted he appreciates the ability to maintain the current home, he added he’s
concerned about how approving this request may open to more requests of this nature. Ruby
asserted he’s in favor of this request. Commissioner Segelbaum noted much of the same and added
the approval should specify the circumstances that lead to approval. Chair Brookins said much of the
same and added the benefits that will come to all the neighbors by the improved drainage.
MOTION made by Commissioner Ruby, seconded by Commissioner Segelbaum, to recommend
approval of a variance of 6.56 feet off the required 160 feet to a width of 153.44 feet for the lot’s
width before subdivision.
MOTION CARRIED
MOTION made by Commissioner Ruby, seconded by Commissioner McCormick, to recommend
approval of the minor subdivision at 5317 Glenwood Ave, 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 of $5,415 shall be paid before release of the Final Plat.
MOTION CARRIED
City of Golden Valley Planning Commission Regular Meeting
June 12, 2023 – 6:30 pm
10
Commissioners returned to the previously tabled item, 208 Meander Road.
Jason Zimmerman, Planning Manager, displayed an image he created to clarify the building
envelope for 208 Meander Road. Staff discussed the setbacks, the building envelope, and
superimposed other homes in the area that roughly fir within the building envelope for comparison
and clarity. Before this item goes before City Council, the image and measurements could be refined.
Chair Brookins noted that the road is offset from the ROW and that the ROW is larger than average.
He asked if BZA takes those things into account when reviewing variances. Staff asserted they do
take it into account and that Meander was likely reconstructed and there is additional boulevard
space. This particular ROW is around 20ft and the average in Golden Valley is 10‐15ft.
Commissioner Segelbaum said the building envelope is present but it feels like a stretch since the
depth is narrower. He added that until he sees the detailed envelope, he’s not sure how he can
recommend approval. Commissioner Ruby said the neighborhood is R‐1 and if a house can fit there,
it makes sense. The struggle is the building envelope looks like a hallway and it’s hard to see this
development without a lot of variances. The conversation continued around the homes in the
neighborhood, variances, and current regulations.
Staff added that if this item were moved on to Council, there would be more information on the
exact envelope, a conversation with a developer could occur to understand what style of house
would meet the envelope requirements without a variance, or there would be an understanding of
what variances would necessitate a build. The conversation continued around staff’s general
recommendation and how the HOPE program factor’s in to the decision, and that this lot is
appropriate to receive an R‐1 designation.
MOTION made by Commissioner Segelbaum, seconded by Commissioner Ruby, to recommend
denial of the amendment to the Zoning Map, changing the zoning for 208 Meander Road from
Institutional ‐ Parks and Natural Areas (I‐P) to Single‐Family Residential (R‐1).
Commissioner Segelbaum added his denial is based on his uncertainty around how realistic it is to
place a home in the building envelope.
Commissioner Ruby echoed that statement, and added that this decision isn’t based on negativity
towards the HOPE project or similar opportunities in Golden Valley.
MOTION CARRIED
– End of Televised Portion of Meeting –
8. Council Liaison Report
Council Member La Mere‐Anderson let the Commission know that the off‐street parking updates
had been approved by the City Council and that former Planning Commissioner Ginis has been sworn
in as a Council Member. She noted that June was proclaimed as Pride Month and that Juneteenth
City of Golden Valley Planning Commission Regular Meeting
June 12, 2023 – 6:30 pm
11
was now a city holiday. The Douglas Drive / Highway 55 project had its groundbreaking and
interviews for new Commissioners were scheduled for July.
9. Other Business
None.
10. Adjournment
Meeting adjourned at 8:37 pm.
________________________________
________________________________ Secretary, Mary McCormick
Amie Kolesar, Planning Assistant