07-02-24 City Council Agenda July 2, 2024 — 6:30 PM
Council Chambers
Hybrid Meeting
1.Call to Order
1A.Pledge of Allegiance and Land Acknowledgement
1B.Roll Call
2.Additions and Corrections to Agenda
3.Consent Agenda
Approval of Consent Agenda - All items listed under this heading are considered to be routine by
the City Council and will be enacted by one motion. There will be no discussion of these items
unless a Council Member so requests in which event the item will be removed from the general
order of business and considered in its normal sequence on the agenda.
3A.Approval of City Check Registers
3B.Licenses:
3B.1.Gambling License Exemption and Waiver of Notice Requirement - Church of St. Margaret
Mary
4.Public Hearing
4A.Public Hearing Regarding a Request for Approval of a Minor Subdivision for Paisley
Edgewood, Resolution No. 24-041
5.Old Business - None.
CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING AGENDA
City Council meetings are being conducted in a hybrid format with in-person and remote options for
attending, participating, and commenting. The public can make statements in this meeting during
public comment sections, including the public forum beginning at 6:20 pm.
Remote Attendance/Comment Options:
Members of the public may attend this meeting by watching on cable channel 16, streaming on
CCXmedia.org, streaming via Webex, or by calling 1-415-655-0001 and entering access code 2632 084
0010 and webinar password 1234. Members of the public wishing to address the Council remotely
have two options:
Via web stream - Stream via Webex and use the ‘raise hand’ feature during public comment
sections.
Via phone - Call 1-415-655-0001 and enter meeting code 2632 084 0010 and webinar password
1234. Press *3 to raise your hand during public comment sections.
City of Golden Valley City Council Regular Meeting July 2, 2024 — 6:30 PM
1
6.New Business
6A.Review of Council Calendar
6B.Mayor and Council Communications
1. Other Committee/Meeting updates
7.Adjournment
City of Golden Valley City Council Regular Meeting July 2, 2024 — 6:30 PM
2
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Administrative Services
763-512-2345 / 763-512-2344 (fax)
Golden Valley City Council Meeting
July 2, 2024
Agenda Item
3A. Approval of City Check Registers
Prepared By
Jennifer Hoffman, Accounting Manager
Summary
Approval of the check register for various vendor claims against the City of Golden Valley.
Document is located on city website at the following location:
http://weblink-int/WebLink/Browse.aspx?id=1037405&dbid=0&repo=GoldenValley
The check register(s) for approval:
06-18-2024 Check Register
06-26-2024 Check Register
Financial or Budget Considerations
The check register is attached with the financing sources at the front of the document. Each check has
a program code(s) where it was charged.
Legal Considerations
Not Applicable
Equity Considerations
Not Applicable
Recommended Action
Motion to authorize the payment of the bills as submitted.
3
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
City Administration
763-512-2345 / 763-512-2344 (fax)
Golden Valley City Council Meeting
July 2, 2024
Agenda Item
3B.1. Gambling License Exemption and Waiver of Notice Requirement - Church of St. Margaret Mary
Prepared By
Theresa Schyma, City Clerk
Summary
Church of St. Margaret Mary, 2323 Zenith Avenue North, has applied for a Gambling License
Exemption to conduct gambling (bingo and raffle) for their outdoor Fall Festival event on September
15, 2024.
As per State Statute organizations that conduct gambling within the City limits have to submit an
application for a lawful gambling permit to the State after the permit has been approved or denied by
the City. Depending upon the timing of the permit the applicants may request the City to waive the
30-day waiting period.
Legal Considerations
This item does not require legal review.
Equity Considerations
Approving lawful gambling exemptions gives nonprofit organizations the opportunity to create
relationships within the community and make connections that can help provide unbiased programs
and services to those in need.
Recommended Action
Motion to receive and file the gambling license exemption and approve the waiver of notice
requirement for Church of St. Margaret Mary, 2323 Zenith Avenue North, to conduct gambling (bingo,
pull-tabs, and raffle) at their Fall Festival event on September 17, 2023.
4
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Community Development
763-512-2345 / 763-512-2344 (fax)
Golden Valley City Council Meeting
July 2, 2024
Agenda Item
4A. Public Hearing Regarding a Request for Approval of a Minor Subdivision for Paisley Edgewood,
Resolution No. 24-041
Prepared By
Kendra Lindahl, Planning Consultant
Alma Flores, Community Development Director
Darren Groth, Assistant Community Development Director
Summary
The applicant is proposing to subdivide two lots to create three lots. The two lots have existing homes
that would remain (on Lot 1 and Lot 3) and Lot 2 would be created in the rear of 200 Edgewood Lane
for a new home. Access to the new lot would be from Paisley Lane.
The Planning Commission (PC) held an informal public hearing on March 25, 2024 and voted
unanimously to recommend approval of the request. On June 4, City Council remanded this item back
to the Planning Commission for a second informal hearing and to ensure the applicant sent the
required second notice in addition to the mailed notice from the City. The applicant sent the notices
and held a neighborhood meeting at City Hall on June 10. On June 24, 2024, the Planning Commission
held their second hearing and voted unanimously again to recommend approval. There are draft PC
minutes attached to this item since the meeting occurred on June 24, 2024 and thus, provided as
background to the discussion.
As a subdivision request, City Council is acting on this item in a quasi-judicial capacity. When serving
this role, the City Council is acting in a judge-like manner to determine the facts associated with the
application and must apply those facts to the legal standards and specific criteria contained in City
Code and relevant state statutes. In cases such as this one, City Council is called on not to determine
what the law should be, but to apply current law to the specific subdivision request. In acting in such a
role, the City Council has less discretion and must confine its consideration of the application to the
existing approval standards and criteria. In general, if an applicant meets the relevant legal standards
and specific criteria in City Code and relevant state statutes, then the application likely must be
approved, and the City usually has no basis to deny such a land use application.
Financial or Budget Considerations
N/A
Legal Considerations
5
The City Attorney has reviewed and approved the title work for the subdivision.
The City Attorney has not reviewed the individual resolution; however, they were created using an
approved template without changes to the template.
Equity Considerations
The applicant's request was part of an informal public hearing at the June 24, 2024 Planning
Commission meeting which provided in person and remote options for residents to participate in the
process consistent with Equity Pillar 2 for Inclusive and Effective Community Engagement.
Recommended Action
Motion to adopt Resolution No. 24-041 approving Minor Subdivision for Paisley Edgewood.
Supporting Documents
2024-06-24 PC Packet_Paisley Edgewood.pdf
2024-06-21 email from Jake Hartman.pdf
2024-06-24 letter M.Anderson-Edgewood-Paisley Statement of Concerns for 6-24-24 PC.pdf
2024-06-24 email from Julie Johnson_Subdivision 220 Edgewood Ave N.pdf
2024-06-24 email from Tom Berscheid_227 Paisley.pdf
Planning Commission_ Meeting Minutes - 06-24-2024 (draft).pdf
RESO_24-041_-_Approval_of_Plat_-_Paisley_Edgewood.docx
6
1
Date: June 24, 2024
To: Golden Valley Planning Commission
From: Kendra Lindahl, AICP
Consulting City Planner
Subject: Informal Public Hearing – Minor Subdivision at 227 Paisley Lane and 200
Edgewood Avenue North
Property address: 227 Paisley Lane and 200 Edgewood Avenue North
Applicants: Brian D. Walvatne Property owners: Brian D. Walvatne and
Emily Kuhmuench
Zoning District: Single Family Residential (R-1) Lot size: 0.552 and 0.674 acres
Current use: Single family Residential Proposed use: Single Family Residential
Adjacent uses: Single family Residential
2018 aerial photo (Hennepin County)
7
2
Summary of Request
The applicant is proposing to subdivide the two lots to create three lots. The two lots have
existing homes that would remain (on Lot 1 and Lot 3) and Lot 2 would be created on the rear of
200 Edgewood Lane for a new home. Access to the new lot would be from Paisley Lane.
Existing Conditions
The subject property is zoned R-1 Single Family Residential and is also guided for the same zoning
classification in the City’ s Comprehensive Plan (Low Density Residential).
Neighborhood Notification and Public Comments
An informal public hearing was held on March 25, 2024. As required by ordinance, a
neighborhood notice was sent on sent on March 14th. The City Council held formal public hearing
on June 4, 2024. As required by ordinance, a neighborhood notice was sent on sent on May 22nd
and published in the paper. Two residents spoke at the public hearing. A written request was sent
by residents asking the Council to table the item because the applicant did not send a separate
notice as required by the City’s Neighborhood Notification policy. The Council tabled the item and
directed it back to the June 24th Planning Commission and July 2nd City Council meeting.
A neighborhood notice of the 2nd informal hearing at the June 24th Planning Commission was sent
on May 22nd.
The applicant send a letter to meet the City Neighborhood Notification Policy requirements and
held a neighborhood meeting on June 12th, which was not required by the policy for a minor
subdivision.
Minor Subdivision Eligibility
In the City’ s subdivision code (Section 109-119) there are three conditions laid out for a request
to be considered a minor subdivision action:
1. The land to be subdivided or consolidated must be part of a recorded plat or a recorded
registered land survey (RLS).
2. Consolidations may involve any number of parcels, but subdivisions shall be limited to the
creation of four or fewer lots from one or more original parcels
3. The subdivision or consolidation shall not necessitate any additional public investment in
new roads or utilities to serve the lots.
The proposed subdivision meets all three standards.
8
3
Figure 1 - proposed plat
Staff Analysis
The lots would exceed the dimensional requirements for the R-1 district as shown in the table
below:
R-1 Standards Lot 1 (existing
home)
Lot 2 Lot 3 (existing
home)
Lot Size 15,000 sq. ft.* 15,741 sq. ft. 15,000 sq. ft. 22,638 sq. ft.
Lot Width
(measured at
setback)
80 ft. 99.5 ft 99.5 ft. 100+ ft.
Front Setback 35 ft. 41.1 35 ft. 39.7 ft.
Side Setback 15 ft. (varies) 18.8 ft. 15 ft. 23.7 ft.
Rear Setback 25 ft. 25 ft. 25 ft. 25 ft.
Maximum
Impervious
50% TBD TBD TBD
Coverage
Maximum
40% TBD TBD TBD
*All lots shall meet the 10,000 sq. ft. minimum area requirements of the R-1 zoning district, except that lots in the Single-family
Residential (R-1) District created through subdivision after 2014 must be at least 15,000 square feet if the average of the R-1
single-family lots within 250 feet of the subject parcel have an average lot area of 18,000 square feet or greater, excluding from
the calculation the subject parcel and lots less than 4,001 square feet.
The applicant will need to provide the impervious surface and lot coverage calculations for the
existing homes. There are no plans for the new lot at this time, but any new construction will be
required to show compliance with these standards at building permit.
The two existing homes are connected to sewer and water and Lot 2 will connect to utilities on
Paisley Lane. This would not require any new routing for sewer/ water service. Engineering will
require the hydrant to be removed/relocated by the applicant when the service is extended to
the north side of the cul-de-sac for the new lot.
9
4
The lot new lot (Lot 2) does have some sloping topography falling from north to the southeast
corner approximately 11 feet. This should not impact the buildability of the lot, but may
require some regrading to better manage stormwater runoff.
As required by the Subdivision Code, a tree inventory was performed in order to document all
existing trees. This inventory will be reviewed by the City Forester and used to calculate any
required tree replacement as the lots are redeveloped. A Tree and Landscape permit is required
for the construction of a new single family home. Applicants are encouraged to preserve existing
significant and legacy trees to the extent feasible.
A City Stormwater Management permit is required for the construction of a new single family
home.
The existing sanitary sewer line is currently compliant for the City’s Inflow and Infiltration
requirements. At the completion of construction for the new home, the new sewer service would
also be inspected to ensure compliance.
As part of the development review meeting, staff from all departments met and reviewed the
application. Staff found that the application meets ordinance requirements and there are no
outstanding comments or concerns.
Qualification Governing Approval as a Minor Subdivision
According to Section 109-121 of the City’s Subdivision Regulations, the following are the
regulations governing approval of minor subdivisions with staff comments related to this request:
1. Minor subdivisions shall be denied if the proposed lots do not meet the requirements of
the appropriate zoning district. The three proposed lots would meet the area
requirements of the R 1 Single Family Residential Zoning District.
2. A minor subdivision may be denied if the City Engineer determines that the lots are not
buildable. The City Engineer finds that the lots are buildable. There is adequate space on
the new lot for a home in compliance with setback requirements.
3. A minor subdivision may be denied if there are no sewer and water connections
available or if it is determined by the City Engineer that an undue strain will be placed
on City utility systems by the addition of the new lots. One additional set of sewer and
water connections will be necessary. Engineering does not believe the addition of the new
lot will place an undue strain on City utility systems.
4. Approval of the minor subdivision may require the granting of certain easements to the
City. Easements required by the City are not shown and the plat must be updated to show
the standard lot perimeter drainage and utility easements.
10
5
5. If public agencies other than the City have jurisdiction of the streets adjacent to the
minor subdivision, the agencies will be given the opportunities to comment. N/A
6. The City may ask for review of title if required by the City Attorney for dedication of
certain easements. The City Attorney is currently reviewing the title work and is expected
to complete the review prior to Council action.
7. The minor subdivision may be subject to park dedication requirements. A park
dedication fee of 6% of the estimated land value with 50% credit for existing units is
required for this subdivision based on the finding that home owners will benefit from
public parks and trails.
8. The conditions spelled out shall provide the only basis for denial of a minor subdivision.
Approval will be granted to any application that meets the established conditions. All
conditions have been met.
Recommended Action
Staff recommends approval of the Minor Subdivision, subject to the findings and conditions in
this report.
Attachments:
Location Map
Preliminary Plat “Paisley Edgewood”
Final Plat
Minutes from March 25th Planning Commission Meeting
Email from Matt Vlahos dated March 21, 2024
Email from Jake Hartman dated May 30, 2024
Email from Brian Walvatne dated June 2, 2024 with letter to neighbors
Email from Marcia Anderson dated June 4, 2024 with attachments
Neighborhood notification policy
11
BCWMC Mode le d1% C hanceInundation
BC WMCJurisdiction
City Jurisdictio n
Sh orelan dOverlay Zo ningDistrict
FEMA FloodInsurance Ra teMap
1% C hance(1 00-yr)Floo dpla in
0.2 % Ch ance(5 00-yr)Floo dpla inMarch 12, 2024
1 inch = 376 feet
I
12
323334353637383940414243444546N00°46'48"W 99.50 136.8136.8227 Pa
i
s
ley
Lane
220 Edgewood Ave
N59°01'17"E29.9378.28Δ=128°09'06"R=35.00N61°21'54"E
110
.19N34°19'35"W 175.36N89°29'31"W 65.04S00°43'57"E 205.77N89°10'41"W 294.92S89°11'51"E 294.99LO
T
4
B
LO
C
K
2
Pais
ley
Ln
Edgewood Ave N
SHEDLOT 1LOT 2LOT 3S00°46'48"E 99.55
99.5
53.03N81°28'19"EDESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY SURVEYEDLot 4 Block 2 Tralee, Golden Valley, MinnesotaSqFt = 24027 Acreage = 0.552the South 100 feet of the North 600 feet lying East of Edgewood AveN being part of Lot 3 of Auditor's Subdivision No. 322, HennepinCounty, Minnesota.SqFt = 29352 Acreage = 0.674Survey Notes1.Bearings are based on the Hennepin County Coordinate System.2.Site Address: 227 Paisley Lane, 220 Edgewood Ave3.This survey is based on the legal description as provided by theClient4.This Surveyor has not abstracted the land shown hereon foreasements, rights of way or restrictions of record which mayaffect the title or use of the land5.Do not reconstruct property lines from building ties6.Watermain and sanitary sewer information shown from recorddrawings provided by the City of Golden ValleyFOUND IRON MONUMENTLinetype & Symbol Legend MINNESOTA LAND SURVEYOR CERTIFICATIONI hereby certify that this survey, plan or report was prepared byme or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly LicensedLand Surveyor under the laws of the State of Minnesota.Dated this 10th day of March, 2024.___________________________________________________Kelly D Ness Minnesota License No. 45847SET IRON MONUMENTPRELIMINARYPLAT5775 Wayzeta Blvd #700St Louis Park, MN 55416info@skysurv.usTree Inventory: (Rod Rodman, ISA Certified Arborist)Tag # 32-White Oak 32" DBH-rating 3. two large cuts and a large tear-out on main leaderopen to decay, cavity and shear crack at attachment of large lead to southTag # 33-White Oak 16" DBH-rating 5Tag # 34-White Oak 21" DBH-rating 5Tag # 35-Red Pine 17" DBH-rating 5. 50% live crown ratioTag # 36-Red Pine 18" DBH-rating 5. 80% live crown ratioTag # 37-White Pine 12" DBH- rating 4. 40% live crown ratioTag # 38-Red Pine 16" DBH-rating 5. 50% live crown ratioTag # 39-Silver Maple 36" DBH-rating 5. several weak branch attachmentsTag # 40-Eastern Larch 10" DBH-rating 4. Main leader has been damaged by adjacent treeTag # 41-Cottonwood 30" DBH-rating 5Tag # 42-Cherry 18" DBH-rating 4. Damage to trunk at ground level-25% of cambiummissing with some decayTag # 43-Colorado Spruce 23" DBH-rating 3. 40 % live crown ratio with fungal infectionTag # 44-Red Oak 41" DBH-rating 4. Poor branch attachments throughoutTag # 45-Black Hills Spruce 10" DBH-rating 3. 30% live crown ratio with fungal infectionTag # 46- Basswood 41" DBH-rating 5. several minor stem girdling rootsPRELIMINARY PLAT: PAISLEY EDGEWOODAREASS.F.ACRESPROPOSED LOT 115,7410.36PROPOSED LOT 215,0000.34PROPOSED LOT 322,6380.52Draft copy - not for submittal2022-10-25 227 Paisley SkySURV-227 Paisley-Plat.dwg
13
14
15
1
Kendra Lindahl
From:Matt Vlahos <mlvlahos@gmail.com>
Sent:Thursday, March 21, 2024 3:06 PM
To:Planning
Cc:Darren Groth; Alma Flores
Subject:Re: 227 paisley lane and 220 Edgewood ave n
Thank you Kendra,
Apologies for not geƫng you this email sooner, I am planning to have 5-10 people in our neighborhood sign my leƩer in
agreement to not have this addiƟonal property created. I have already spoken to Peter who lives on the other side of 220
and he is of the same opinion as I am on not wanƟng this property created/passed.
This will definitely devalue my property and Peter’s along with other older homes on the block.
If this does get passed we will want the property to be staked and restric Ɵons on where the home will actually sit on the
property as it slopes.
I will be in aƩendance in some capacity on Monday as well.
Thank you,
MaƩ vlahos
612-812-7133
230 Edgewood ave n
> On Mar 18, 2024, at 12:36 PM, Planning <planning@goldenvalleymn.gov> wrote:
>
> MaƩ,
>
> You can aƩend the Planning meeƟng on the 25th to voice your objecƟons or you may submit a leƩer or email outlining
your objecƟons and I will share that with the Planning Commission. If items are received by Thursday at noon, I will be
able to include the leƩer/email in the packet. If comments are received aŌer that date, they will be provided to the
commissioners the night of the meeƟng.
>
> The Planning Commission will make a recommendaƟon that will be shared with the City Council. The City Council will
make the final decision and is expected to act at the April 16th meeƟng.
>
> Kendra Lindahl, AICP
> ConsulƟng Planner
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: MaƩ Vlahos <mlvlahos@gmail.com>
> Sent: Sunday, March 17, 2024 10:17 AM
> To: Planning <planning@goldenvalleymn.gov>
> Subject: 227 paisley lane and 220 Edgewood ave n
>
> EXTERNAL EMAIL ALERT: This message originated from outside the City of Golden Valley. Do not click links or open
aƩachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
16
2
>
>
> Hello,
>
> I received the noƟficaƟon of informal public hearing to create another property out of the lot next to my house.
>
> I would like to know the formal process for this and how objec Ɵons are considered.
>
> If I need to file something or give you noƟce of objecƟon please consider this email my request for objecƟon to this
proposal.
>
> Thank you.
> MaƩ Vlahos
> 230 Edgewood ave n
> 612-812-7133
17
From:Alma Flores
To:Kendra Lindahl; Darren Groth
Cc:Theresa Schyma
Subject:FW: Minor Subdivision of 220 Edgewood Ave. N & 227 Paisley Lane
Date:Thursday, May 30, 2024 1:34:34 PM
Attachments:Outlook-zx33ouvn.png
image001.png
For the record.
Thank you,
Alma
Alma Flores | Community Development Director | City of Golden Valley 7800 Golden Valley
Road | Golden Valley, MN 55427 | P: 763-593-8008
C: 612-930-6357 | TTY: 763-593-3968 | E: aflores@goldenvalleymn.gov
Pronouns: She/Her/Hers
Book time with Alma Flores
From: Noah Schuchman <NSchuchman@goldenvalleymn.gov>
Sent: Thursday, May 30, 2024 1:33 PM
To: Alma Flores <AFlores@goldenvalleymn.gov>
Subject: Fw: Minor Subdivision of 220 Edgewood Ave. N & 227 Paisley Lane
FYI
Noah Schuchman, ICMA-CM | Interim City Manager | City of Golden Valley
7800 Golden Valley Road | Golden Valley, MN 55427 | P: 763-593-8003
| TTY: 763-593-3968 | E: nschuchman@goldenvalleymn.gov
Pronouns: he/him/his
From: Gillian Rosenquist <GRosenquist@goldenvalleymn.gov>
Sent: Thursday, May 30, 2024 12:34 PM
To: Noah Schuchman <NSchuchman@goldenvalleymn.gov>
Subject: Fwd: Minor Subdivision of 220 Edgewood Ave. N & 227 Paisley Lane
FYI
Gillian Rosenquist
Golden Valley City Council Member
763-529-9279
She/her
From: Jake Hartman <jjhartman07@gmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, May 30, 2024 12:23:37 PM
To: Roslyn Harmon <rharmon@goldenvalleymn.gov>; Maurice Harris <MHarris@goldenvalleymn.gov>; Denise
LaMere-Anderson <DLaMere-Anderson@goldenvalleymn.gov>; Gillian Rosenquist
<GRosenquist@goldenvalleymn.gov>; Sophia Ginis <SGinis@goldenvalleymn.gov>
Subject: Minor Subdivision of 220 Edgewood Ave. N & 227 Paisley Lane
EXTERNAL EMAIL ALERT: This message originated from outside the City of Golden Valley. Do not click links or open attachments
unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
18
Dear Mayor Harmon & City Council Members:
My name is Jacob (Jake) Hartman. I live at 301 Edgewood Ave N., within 500 feet of the proposed
subdivision, and I am writing you today to express my hope that you will deny the proposed
subdivision for the following reasons:
1. This neighborhood, and specifically Paisley and Edgewood, have recently undergone a
tremendous amount of redevelopment. I fear that the rapid change in the type of housing available in
this area, and the rapid increase in property values will ultimately force many long time residents out
of their homes as they become unable afford the taxes and associated costs of living in what is
becoming a "wealthy" neighborhood. The city seems espouse a desire for inclusion and diversity of
all types, including income levels. The proposed subdivision, and the those that are sure to
follow, ultimately end up in increasing property values and forcing out of those that can't keep
up.
2. Subdivisions have a large impact on the way that immediately adjacent neighbors are able to
enjoy their properties. As the rules currently stand, the surrounding neighbors really have very little
ability to stop a subdivision, no matter what the visual and privacy impacts, use impacts, etc. may
be.
3. Many lots considered "buildable" have large mature trees that are often removed or eventually lost
as a result of root damage from the use of heavy equipment. Environmental impacts should weigh
more heavily on the city's decision of whether to approve a subdivision. In an age of Climate
Change, mature trees are important for the reprieve that they provide from the heat, their ability
to help reduce flooding during heavy rain years and retain water in soils during droughts, and of
course for their CO2 reducing ability.
4. I believe that many residents of Golden Valley love their community specifically because of the
open spaces, the large lots, the mature trees, and the ability to be near Minneapolis while living in a
community that feels quite different than a major city. I believe that subdividing lots in Golden
Valley is both short-sighted and robs current residents that have chosen to live here (and
already pay taxes here) of the amenities that originally drew them to the community.
Having said all of the above, I understand that the city may have little ability to prevent the property
owner from subdividing the lot as long as it meets the criteria as it currently stands. If the
surrounding neighbors are not able to appeal to the owner's sense of community and better
nature, I would suggest that the city attach contingencies to the approval. For example:
1. A Study of how storm water flow will be impacted based on the owner's hypothetical plan to
develop the lot. This neighborhood already has a terrible problem with wet basements, and it
should be the owner's responsibility to ensure surrounding neighbors will not be impacted.
2. A limitation on the number of mature trees that may be removed.
3. A plan to add fencing or provide for the planting of vegetation to maintain the privacy that
neighbors currently enjoy.
4. A study showing how property values and taxes will be impacted by the subdivision.
Lastly, it's my understanding that Golden Valley's rules for subdivisions were loosened several years
19
ago. The reason was to allow new residents and increase the city's tax base. Now that many lots in
this area have already been subdivided, I would propose that the Council consider a moratorium
on subdivisions until the City can determine if such subdivisions still fit with the City's overall vision
for the community. At a minimum, the city should revise the existing rules to make them more
community friendly and to allow surrounding neighbors additional input and weight in determining
the approval of future subdivisions. No single property owner should have the ability to so easily
impact and upset the micro-community that has taken years to develop on Edgewood Ave N
and Paisley Lane.
Sincerely,
Jake Hartman
515-979-0754
20
From:Brian Walvatne
To:Kendra Lindahl; Alma Flores; Maurice Harris; Sophia Ginis; Gillian Rosenquist; Denise LaMere-Anderson; Roslyn
Harmon
Subject:Paisley Lane Subdivision Neighborhood Engagement
Date:Sunday, June 2, 2024 8:06:01 PM
Attachments:Paisley Lane Subdivision Letter To Neighbors.docx
EXTERNAL EMAIL ALERT: This message originated from outside the City of Golden Valley. Do not click links or open
attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Dear Planning & Council,
I am writing to you regarding our minor division on the cul de sac of Paisley Lane. To take into
consideration potential concerns regarding this change, I did walk the neighborhood and talked to as
many as possible residents in proximity to the subdivision as possible. Additionally, I left a letter (copy
enclosed) welcoming those that were not home to contact me by either email or phone with their
feedback.
The result of these efforts was very positive. I was able to have discussions, talk about plans in further
detail and gain an awareness of what resistance there might be to this proposal and why. Additionally, we
met for over an hour with the only neighbor that reached out--standing at the site of the proposed
subdivision, talking through her concerns.
My wife and I are committed to our neighborhood, and the Golden Valley community. Our hope is that we
will be able to do so by building a home on the proposed lot that meets our needs for our next stages of
our lives. Thank you for your time to look this over. We very much appreciate it.
Sincerely,
Brian Walvatne & Emily Kuhnmuench
227 Paisley Lane
612-251-9503
21
22
From:Darren Groth
To:Kendra Lindahl
Subject:FW: Resident Requests about Process and Issues Re: Minor Subdivision Application
Date:Tuesday, June 4, 2024 2:39:34 PM
Attachments:Edgewood-Paisley Neighborhood Requests to Council 5-28-24.docx
Endorsements as of 5-31-24_Edgewood-PaisleyStatement.pdf
FYSA
Darren Groth, AICP, CPM
Asst. Comm. Dev. Director
763-593-8099
dgroth@goldenvalleymn.gov
Book time to meet with me
From: Marcia Anderson <marcia.d.anderson@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, June 4, 2024 1:04 PM
To: Sophia Ginis <SGinis@goldenvalleymn.gov>; Roslyn Harmon <rharmon@goldenvalleymn.gov>;
Maurice Harris <MHarris@goldenvalleymn.gov>; Denise LaMere-Anderson <DLaMere-
Anderson@goldenvalleymn.gov>; Gillian Rosenquist <GRosenquist@goldenvalleymn.gov>
Cc: Alma Flores <AFlores@goldenvalleymn.gov>; Darren Groth <dgroth@goldenvalleymn.gov>
Subject: Resident Requests about Process and Issues Re: Minor Subdivision Application
EXTERNAL EMAIL ALERT: This message originated from outside the City of Golden Valley. Do not click links or open
attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
City Council Members Ginis, Harmon, Harris, LaMere-Anderson, and Rosenquist:
I write to alert you to multiple transparency and due process issues around the
application and review of the Minor Subdivision proposal titled Edgewood-Paisley,
and to request your urgent consideration of ways the City and Council can take
corrective and proactive action.
Residents of the Edgewood-Paisley neighborhood have many concerns about this
subdivision proposal, in terms of the process, the criteria to be met and lack of
information provided, and the impact on the neighborhood, the environment, and the
general character of Golden Valley neighborhoods as valued in the City
Comprehensive Plan.
Multiple residents within and beyond 500' of the proposed subdivision have jointly
developed the attached Statement and Requests for action. I am sending this to you
on behalf of all the residents/property owners who have endorsed the statement so
far. Additional endorsers will be updated for the June 4 Council meeting.
We ask the City of Golden Valley and the Council to consider our requests
June 4 and delay a vote on the application until the transparency, due-process,
23
and substantive-information issues can be addressed. We have offered
suggestions that have neighborhood support. Plus we trust that you and Council
members will also have ideas and will want to address the issues, leading toward
balanced and fair resolutions that support neighborhood harmony.
We implore you to review the statement and attachments in detail, and to consider
our requests in relation to the planned Public Hearing on the application Tuesday,
June 4.
Please note that residents only began to receive notice of this hearing Friday, May
24, the beginning of a long holiday weekend. Also please note that no Minutes of the
Planning Commission hearing on March 25, 2024 seem to be posted online in writing
(or any other written minutes in 2024), other than in the June 4 Council packet. Here
is the link to the CCX video, which shows questions by Planning Commission
members and statements from two residents who expressed initial concern, before
other residents were aware of the application enough to respond.
We are aware that there are/have been some discrepancies between the city
code, notification guidelines, and guidelines/regulations published on the website (see
attached) that will need to be addressed, in addition. We made some mitigation
suggestions.
We would welcome any questions or suggestions you have in response, and/or an
opportunity to talk with you about our concerns before the Public Hearing and final
vote stages. Please feel free to contact me as an informal representative of the
neighbors sending you these requests, at 763-732-2697 (cell), or via email
here: marcia.d.anderson@gmail.com.
We are also very open to meeting with any interested Council members, possibly in
the neighborhood to be able to see the setting that concerns so many of us.
Thank you for your time, expertise and leadership around our concerns and requests,
and for Golden Valley.
Marcia Anderson (On behalf of Edgewood-Paisley neighbors listed)
130 Edgewood Ave. N.
Golden Valley, MN 55427 (33-year-resident)
763-732-2697
marcia.d.anderson@gmail.com
Attachments:
-Statement of Concerns and Requests
-Screen Shot of published notification process (seen in late March; taken 5-16-24,
shaded emphasis added; re-photographed 5-28-24 to show original screen shot date)
-Endorsements of Statement as of 5-31-24
24
RESOLUTION NO. 21-61
RESOLUTION RESCINDING RESOLUTION NO. 16-13 AND
ADOPTING A NEW NEIGHBORHOOD NOTIFICATION POLICY
WHEREAS, development of land can result in visual and physical impacts to
neighboring properties; and
WHEREAS, developers and property owners have an obligation to share potential
changes with neighboring property owners; and
WHEREAS, open communication with an opportunity to provide feedback in a timely
fashion is a priority; and
WHEREAS, it is appropriate for this communication to be accessible to a wide
audience and need not involve solely an in -person meeting; and
WHEREAS, the current Neighborhood Notification Policy does not allow for remote
attendance.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council for the City of Golden
Valley rescinds Resolution No. 16-13 and adopts a new Neighborhood Notification Policy
dated August 17, 2021, which provides for a virtual option.
Adopted by the City Council this 17th day of August, 2021.
Kimberly Sanberg, Mayor Pro Tempore
ATTEST:
Theresa Schyma, City Clerk
DocuSign Envelope ID: 6B342044-096C-436D-A91E-1EA6D4AB9E05
25
City of Golden Valley Planning
Neighborhood Notification Policy
Adopted August 17, 2021
Purpose Statement: Neighborhood notification is an additional effort on the part of the City to
enhance the communication and education of residents regarding submitted Planning applications in
advance of the public hearings already required by State statute and City code.
Neighborhood notification shall be conducted whenever a proposal is located within or adjacent to a
residential zoning district, or when, in the option of Planning staff, the potential impact is great
enough to warrant such a notification. Proposals for Conditional Use Permits (CUPs), subdivisions,
rezonings, and Comprehensive Plan amendments shall require the notification be through a mailing.
Proposals for Planned Unit Developments (PUDs) and major amendments to PUDs shall require the
notification be through a neighborhood meeting and shall include a virtual option (hybrid).
Mailings (CUP, subdivision, rezoning, Comprehensive Plan amendment)
The applicant shall prepare a mailing regarding the proposal in order to provide information to
residents and allow them time to give feedback to staff prior to the public hearing.
Mailing Guidelines:
1. Mailings shall be sent out by the applicant after the formal application has been received by
the City and deemed to be complete. Mailings shall be sent out to the same properties that
will be notified for the public hearing, or to a larger area if staff feels it is warranted, and shall
be received at least 10 days prior to the date of the Planning Commission meeting. If Planning
staff feels additional time is warranted to solicit neighborhood input, mailings may be
required to be sent out earlier.
2. A draft of the entire mailing must be reviewed by Planning staff prior to sending.
3. A copy of the mailing shall be sent to Planning staff, who will forward it to members of the
Planning Commission and the City Council.
Mailings shall include the following:
Applicant name, address, and phone number
Location of proposed project (map)
Narrative describing the proposed project and specific application request
Copies of any relevant plans
Outline of expected process (i.e., informal public hearing at Planning Commission followed by
formal public hearing at City Council, etc.)
Contact information for Planning staff
The following circumstances describe situations in which the potential exists for there to be
relatively greater impacts to residential neighborhoods. In these cases, staff shall require a meeting
in place of the usual mailing in order to fully engage neighbors early in the process:
Conditional Use Permit – a request for a CUP that indicates a significant impact to a residential
neighborhood with respect to an increase in traffic, population density, or other CUP factors
Subdivision – a subdivision proposal that involves a variance; a subdivision proposal that follows
or results from a lot consolidation
DocuSign Envelope ID: 6B342044-096C-436D-A91E-1EA6D4AB9E05
26
Rezoning – a proposal that involves one of the following changes:
1) Any property zoned residential (R-1, R-2, R-3, or R-4) to a non-residential zoning
2) R-1 or R-2 zoned property to R-3 or R-4 zoned property
3) Any property zoned Institutional to a non-Institutional zoning
Comprehensive Plan amendment – a proposal that involves one of the following changes:
1) Any property designated Residential to a non-Residential designation
2) Any property designated Low Density Residential to a Medium Low, Medium High, or High
Density Residential designation
3) Any property designated Open Space, Schools & Religious Facilities, Public Facilities, or
Semi-Public Facilities to any other designation
Meetings (PUD, major PUD amendment)
The applicant shall hold the neighborhood meeting at City Hall or another public location approved by
staff in order to provide information to residents and to gather feedback prior to the public hearing.
Meeting Guidelines:
1. The meeting shall be scheduled after the formal application has been received by the Planning
Division but at least 7 days prior to the informal public hearing at the Planning Commission.
Notices shall be sent out by the applicant to the same properties that will be notified for the
public hearing, or to a larger area if staff feels it is warranted, and shall be received at least 10
days prior to the meeting date. If Planning staff feels additional time is warranted to receive
neighborhood input, meetings may be scheduled prior to the submission of a formal
application.
2. Meetings shall be held between 6:30 and 8 pm, Monday through Thursday. Meetings shall not
be held on holidays. The applicant is required to check potential meeting dates with Planning
staff.
3. The applicant shall host the meeting and make the presentation. A City representative shall be
in attendance to observe and to answer questions about City policy and process. An option to
attend the meeting remotely shall be provided.
4. A copy of the neighborhood meeting notice shall be sent to Planning staff, who will forward it
to members of the Planning Commission and the City Council.
5. A sign-in sheet shall be kept and a copy provided to Planning staff, along with a summary of
the meeting, after its conclusion.
Notices shall include the following:
Applicant name, address, and phone number
Location of proposed project (map)
Narrative describing the proposed project and specific application request
Meeting date, time, and location
Outline of expected process (i.e., informal public hearing at Planning Commission followed by
formal public hearing at City Council, etc.)
Contact information for Planning staff
DocuSign Envelope ID: 6B342044-096C-436D-A91E-1EA6D4AB9E05
27
From:Jake Hartman
To:Planning
Subject:Paisley - Edgewood Minor Subdivision
Date:Friday, June 21, 2024 12:11:38 PM
EXTERNAL EMAIL ALERT: This message originated from outside the City of Golden Valley. Do not click links or open
attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Good morning,
I'm writing to express a few concerns that I have about the proposed Paisley - Edgewood
Minor Subdivision:
1. Based on the Preliminary Plat provided by the applicant, the lot is likely encumbered by a
steep slope per state definition. The proposed width of the lot is 99.5 ft, and the elevation
change shown on the Preliminary Plat shows a change over that width of 11 ft (Elevation
change of 917 to 906, or 917-906 = 11 ft elevation change). Therefore, 11ft divided by 99.5 ft
= 11% grade.
A steep slope by state definition is anything over 12% over a distance of 50 ft or greater. The
buildable envelope on the lot is likely to be less than 99.5 feet. The elevation change within
the buildable envelope is likely to be steeper than over the width of the entire lot.
Therefore, I would request that the Planning Committee require additional information about
the slope of the lot, and that an engineering study be completed to explain how the lot is
buildable given the steep slope.
(Refernce: Per Chapter 6106, Part 6106.0050, Subp. 72., "Steep slope" means a natural
topographic feature with an average slope of 12 to 18 percent, measured over a horizontal
distance equal to or greater than 50 feet, and any slopes greater than 18 percent that are not
bluffs.)
2. Based on my own experience living on Edgewood avenue and those of my neighbors, this
lot is likely to have issues with excessive wetness, or will contribute to existing problems with
wet basements for the surrounding neighbors. The city does not define "Excessive Wetness",
therefore, anecdotal evidence of surrounding neighbors should be considered. In my own
home, we had to have a sump pump installed to keep the basement dry, even during relatively
normal summers. I was told by a neighbor that at one time they had been in my home prior to
the sump pump installation when the basement had 6" of water in it prior to when I purchased
it. I know that others have had the same experience.
I propose that additional study or planning by a certified engineer be provided to place
conditions on any new building so that the neighbors can be assured that their properties will
not be damaged by construction on this property.
We should also consider the role that mature trees play in mitigating flooding and the impacts
removal will have on neighboring property simply from a water management standpoint.
Section 109-121 (b) gives you the right to deny an application, and I believe the city would be
within its rights to do so given the following language from the city ordinances:
28
"Minor subdivisions may be denied upon the City's determination that the buildable portion of a resulting
new lot is encumbered by steep slopes or excessive wetness. Alternatively, approval of the minor
subdivision may be conditioned on the applicant's submittal of a certified engineer's study showing how
the lot may be so reconditioned as to allow development without adversely affecting adjacent sites."
At a minimum, the Planning Commission should consider the strong opposition of the surrounding
neighbors, and every effort should be made PRIOR TO APPROVAL to ensure those neighbors that water
damage will not result from construction at this site, and that the site is in fact "buildable" given the steep
slope.
Thank you for your time and your work on this matter. I do appreciate your careful efforts in reviewing
this proposed minor subdivision.
Thank you,
Jake Hartman
301 Edgewood Ave N
Golden Valley, MN 55427
.
29
Marcia Anderson
130 Edgewood Ave. N.
Golden Valley, MN 55427
June 23, 2024
Golden Valley Planning Commission and
City Departments: Community Development, Engineering, City Manager
Planning Commission Members and City Staff:
I’m writing to ask you to consider several technical, procedural and policy issues that
emerge from the proposed Edgewood-Paisley subdivision on the Commissions’ agenda for
6/24/24. The technical and procedural issues relate to the requirements in code for platting
and applying for a new subdivision. The policy issues relate to broader concerns about how
subdivisions affect our residents and city as a whole. I apologize in advance for the length
of this letter, but I found it necessary given the complexities and multiple interests involved.
Background:
Residents in the Edgewood-Paisley neighborhood have sought information about the
proposal since finding out about it just a few days before the 3/25/24 Planning Commission
hearing. There was no initial notification from the applicant before that.
As neighbors conferred about our concerns, we discovered some process discrepancies in
notifications and with what had been published online. We brought these to the attention
of Planning, the City Manager and the Council just before the Council Public Hearing June
4. Twenty neighbors endorsed a Statement of Concern requesting a delay and re-do of the
process. City staff suggested a “reset,” which the Council approved 6/4/24, setting up a
neighborhood meeting agreed to by the applicant, 6/12/24, and a return here 6/24/24.
Neighborhood residents greatly appreciate that correction and the added opportunity to
learn more from the applicants, who to their credit had also started to walk the neighborhood
with information about their plans, and who were willing to attend the neighborhood meeting
to share further. Some questions were put to rest. Many neighbors, including myself, were
relieved to read or hear that the applicants plan an environmentally low-impact home for
themselves for the Lot 2 site, and that they value and seek to preserve as much as possible
of the treed lot. The applicants committed to continuing to inform neighbors about plans,
and to listen to concerns and suggestions. These were significant positive outcomes.
Yet, overall opposition to this area being subdivided remains, from at least 20 people in
surrounding area, and particularly among the seven nearest households along Edgewood.
Our back yards face the proposed new Lot 2 and the as yet un-sited future building there,
where we have historically treasured shared open space and trees.
The open space of the back yards was part of the reason we chose to purchase a home
here--similar to many Golden Valley residents. Any new building will change the views and
green space we have enjoyed, for 33 years in our case.
30
The subdivision/platting code and procedures affirm the property owner’s rights to sub-
divide and build. The code and process provide no recognition of the changes to neighboring
property owners’ enjoyment and use of their properties, and no potential for requesting or
receiving mitigation for visual impacts or adverse effects, or additional mitigation for tree
loss. Close neighbors are concerned about effects from construction related to water-run-
off, water table issues, grading/compaction, etc. Again, no provision requires conditions be
set to protect neighbors from adverse effects, but conditions may be set in some situations.
It will be a significant environmental change for the entire neighborhood—even a loss—and
we are therefore reluctant to let it happen without comment. I invite you to look at this
photo taken of our current view, from our backyard at 130 Edgewood looking northeast
toward the proposed Lot 2:
Imagine the changed look from the addition of a home there, somewhere on that hill at
center left. Even if intended as a well-designed house, it will forever change the view and
use up tree- and green-space. The tallest tree in the picture is a legacy red oak, one of the
last remnants of an oak forest in this area. It will be felled, along with other trees not yet
specified, according to the applicants. That loss cannot be regained in most of our lifetimes.
The change diminishes the quality and enjoyment of all the nearby Edgewood neighbors, but
apparently, we have no “rights” recognized in city code, other than notification.
Other questions remain about the application for the preliminary plat, and whether it is
actually a “complete application.” This is primarily due to the absence of any plan for a Lot
2 building site/pad to date—an omission raised originally by Planning Commission
members 3/25/24—as well as the lack of any specific planning around the potential
adverse effects on neighboring properties, e.g. from grading and run-off issues.
31
The applicant has said they are not ready to provide that information, and also repeated
what city documents seem to use as a refrain—it’s legal to subdivide and build, and there is
nothing [in code or procedure] that requires the applicant to address such concerns at this
stage. That may be so, legally, but it is that information which will support a sound review
of the proposed subdivision and any potential adverse effects on adjoining properties,
as well as allay legitimate neighbor concerns. It would also be in the interests of the
applicants as well as the city and neighbors to identify any issues as early as possible.
Technical Issues/Conditions for correction:
Because legal or technical criteria seem to be the only elements that can be considered by
the city, and therefore the Planning Commission, here are three technical questions
stemming from city code language, quoted verbatim below, that still raise concern about
the application. We ask the Commission to consider these in its quasi-judicial role of
deciding whether the application qualifies for consideration as “complete,” and thereby
qualifies for approval if other criteria are met. I apologize if these misunderstand the code,
which I find significantly challenging to understand.
City Code, Platting, Sec. 109-66, Necessary Data for Preliminary Plat
(1) [Plat Map] [Identification and description]
(2) “Existing Conditions.
(d) Location of…permanent buildings and structures…within the tract and to a distance of
100’ beyond the tract.
(f) Boundary lines of adjoining unsubdivided or subdivided land, within 100 feet, identifying
by name and ownership.”
(3) “Subdivision Design Features.
(i) The preliminary plat shall incorporate a grading plan establishing yards or site elevations,
with sufficient proposed elevations indicated thereon to provide proper control of the
development to ensure proper building grades, site drainage, and conformance to
established street grades.”
The above cited components under (2) and (3) may be missing from the preliminary plat map.
Would this mean that the application is not in fact “complete”?
“Div. D Minor Subdivisions and Consolidations
Sec. 109-120. - Components of Application.
“…The applicant shall also furnish copies of a sketch showing the following:
“(7) A grading plan establishing yards or site elevations, with sufficient proposed elevations
indicated thereon to provide proper control of the development to ensure proper building
grades, site drainage, and conformance to established street grades.”
Unless such a grading plan was provided only to city staff rather than in the Planning
Commission packet, there does not seem to be a grading plan in the application. Would
this mean that the application is not “complete”?
“Div. D Minor Subdivisions and Consolidations
“Sec. 109-120. - Components of Application.
“(8) Any other information specific to the particular site and required for the complete evaluation
of the application. Such information shall be supplied at the expense of the applicant.”
32
The above clause appears to allow the city to request identification of a building site/pad in
the application materials/plat map, as has been done in previous minor subdivisions found
in Planning Commission minutes (as recently as June 12, 2023, for a minor subdivision
application at 5217 Glenwood Ave). Planning Commission members at the 3/25/24 hearing
on Edgewood-Paisley also mentioned that seeing a building site/pad on the plat plan was
typical. And in order to indicate grading plans establishing “yards or site elevations”
(Application Item #7) it seems as if a tentative building pad would also be indicated.
It seems prudent for sound analysis and judgment to routinely expect identification of the
tentative building site/pad information, or to request it as a condition of the application.
This need is reinforced in this situation, in which many residents nearby, including the two
adjacent property-owners, have raised concerns about the buildability of the lot (slope,
run-off and water table issues), and potential adverse effects (expressed in comments for
the 3/25/24 hearing and in multiple emails, conversations and statements since then).
Plus, commission members themselves indicated that tentative building-site information
would be valuable in their decision-making, and the past-precedents of previous
applications having included this information.
It also seems prudent to expect building-site information in order to assure due process
and equal treatment of minor subdivision applicants, such that all applicants should be
held to the same standard.
Issues beyond the limited subdivision qualification criteria in code
Many neighbors near the proposed Lot 2 oppose the subdivision and proposed building for
multiple reasons. The reasons are rational, important, valid, concerning, and heartfelt.
They just are not factors deemed “allowable” for reviewing or approving/denying any
subdivision in Golden Valley, apparently.
Still, they are important to acknowledge, and for the applicant and the city to honor as
significant in some way. These concerns matter for the sake of transparency, and for what
they reveal is needed for an improved balance of interests in future.
1) If the lot is subdivided and a new house built, the shared open space across the Edge-
wood back yards enjoyed as an amenity for the last 70+ years by multiple property
owners will be disrupted. The loss will be experienced by all, including the applicants
themselves, who will need to remove some or most of the full-grown trees. Nearest
owners will experience a significant change in their environment and in the quality of life
for which they purchased their home and lot, and possibly in monetary property value.
2) The tree canopy and green space will be significantly diminished, along with the wildlife
it supports. The loss of trees in this lot adds to the loss of other legacy and full-growth
trees already experienced in the 19 or so subdivisions in the adjacent Tralee
neighborhood, which included a swath of old oaks. That is a loss to the wider
community, to the city’s overall tree canopy (in a “Tree City”), and to the needs of birds
and insects in the migration pattern from Theodore Wirth and Eloise Butler.
3) The applicants describe their plan as a goal to build their “dream home.” But their
dream conflicts with our existing reality and our dreams for our homes and yards.
33
4) This change will benefit only one of the thirteen properties in this stretch of Edgewood
and Paisley Lane whose yards back on the open space—the applicants’.
5) Once one home is built in the open space, there will be increased pressure to build
more. Developers will smell opportunity, and pressure to sell will increase, setting up
a potential cycle of further loss of open space and environmental amenities. If so-
called “redevelopment” proceeds one lot at a time, there is no opportunity to plan, to
maintain the neighborhood’s affordability, nor influence the kind of character that the
neighborhood is known for and stated as valued in the Comp Plan: individually
designed homes with large lots and mature trees.
6) All the neighbors I’ve talked with think the subdivision application is premature, if the
applicants really do not intend to build for 3-5 years. Many of us wish the applicants
had talked with neighbors before applying. These reactions point to what might be
improved practices for the planning of subdivisions in the future, so that neighbors are
not blind-sided, and proactive neighborhood communications are encouraged.
Process clarification online in easy-to-understand language (with code “translation”)
would improve transparency and mutual understanding.
Among those neighbors who were able to talk with the applicants, some suggested they
“do the right thing” and either withdraw the proposal or agree to a delay. The applicants
have been willing to hear concerns and did commit to taking neighbor concerns into
consideration in further planning. They still repeatedly said they had a legal right to
subdivide and build, and no legal requirement to listen or plan accordingly.
Indeed, most neighbors have acknowledged those legal rights, but pointed out that the
issue is also about what should be done, about values and balancing of interests, rather
than about what can legally be done, under current law and code.
My sense is that neighbors do greatly appreciate the applicants’ willingness to share their plans
so far. Some hope that the applicants will invite near neighbors to suggest exterior design and
landscaping from their literal perspectives onto the new side yards, will design exteriors with
neighbors’ concerns in mind as possible, and share plans when ready. Neighbors legitimately
worry, though, that current plans could all change, or that the lot could be sold to a developer
with no neighborly commitments; they are wary about what can happen once subdivision and
plat approval are achieved, because current codes require no accountability to tentative plans.
This particular subdivision application is nearing its conclusion in current city code and
procedure. If the application is deemed technically complete as judged by staff/planning
commission, and the code criteria met, I recognize it will go forward to Council for likely approval.
Perhaps the Commission will see fit to specify some allowable conditions, based on further
information and concerns raised at this stage, such as identification of a tentative building
site/pad and related grading and excavation plans, and/or a storm-water run-off and water table
study, both to ascertain potential adverse effects on adjacent properties.
Policy Issues for the Future
Citizen-neighbors have been surprised and disappointed at the limited focus of city
subdivision codes, and the severe imbalance of protections of interests in code and
34
procedures. There is abundant protection of interests of a property owner who seeks to
subdivide and build on a new lot, within certain reasonable zoning, building and design
parameters set by the city. Others—from property owners nearby and surrounding
neighbors, to the interests of the wider community and city as a whole—have no
consideration at all, and zero protection or balancing of rights, except for being notified of
the applicant’s plans and the city’s hearings and being able to submit comments or speak.
This does not seem right, fair, just or even prudent for the balancing of values and interests,
or the promotion of city interests and housing goals long-range. It does not preserve and
protect the kinds of core character elements and amenities like open space, large lots, tree
canopy and environmental qualities that draw homebuyers to Golden Valley.
The Comprehensive Plan describes these characteristics as worthy of maintenance and
preservation, and they are qualities that in areas like Edgewood Av. N have been financially
accessible to middle-income homebuyers, as well. The Plan also acknowledges that
balancing of interests is a needed policy and procedure objective (see below). But nothing
in our experience as residents demonstrates any balancing of interests achieved so far.
“Comprehensive Plan 2040, Chapter 3, Housing:
“Key Points:…“The benefits and impacts of construction activities in single-family
neighborhoods must be balanced with proper City oversight, especially since it is
expected to continue or increase in future years.”
Questions for future policy consideration:
Having delved into the details of the code and how it operates in reality, I see significant
opportunities for improvement and balancing of interests.
Why is the city code written with primary-–almost exclusive—focus on the interests of a
property owner seeking to subdivide and prospectively build? How could it be revised to
recognize interests of others, along with community-wide interests?
How could the code and the implementation of the code promote improved early, proactive
and collaborative communications between the applicant and neighbors, and between
neighbors and the city staff and officials?
Why, after approval of the subdivision, is the property owner effectively on the “honor
system” to complete what was submitted or stated as “planned” for the property? There is
little to no penalty for changing, and no protection for neighbors from an adverse change.
How could the code be revised to hold the applicant accountable, possibly outlining
additional city oversight, conditions, constraints or mitigation options?
I urge the Commission to take a leadership role in subdivision policy
recommendations, ideally through studies and collaboration with citizens to develop
new and revised legislation and procedures. I recognize this will be apart from their
“quasi-judicial role” to be exercised on this application.
For example: What is the best-case set of information the subdivision/plat application
should request? If Commissioners are able to make better decisions with a building-
35
site/pad identified on the preliminary plat map, that should be standard in the application
packet, for important related context and understanding of the specific criteria. The
Commission should discuss as policy what information is needed to make sound and
informed judgments, once they reach the stage of the quasi-judicial roles for subdivision
and plat applications. Both Commission and Council bodies can decide to legislate
requiring additional information, as has apparently been a practice in the past, such as
requiring a building site/pad to be identified before a subdivision application is “complete,”
or as part of the review process.
What can concerned citizens do to prompt revision of these policies, rebalancing of these
policies? What can we do to help the effort?
Should we advocate for a task force? For studies of the impact of subdivisions, surveys of
residents on their opinions, analysis of the impacts on neighborhoods, property values,
changes in neighborhood housing accessibility, affordability, and amenities?
Do we need to lobby for a moratorium on subdivisions until the inequities are resolved and
the code and procedures updated and improved?
Please consider for future Planning Commission study and discussion:
What can/will you do as planning leaders to improve the code and the procedures, so
they are more fair, equitable, just and balanced for multiple interests?
Your fellow citizens are ready to work with you.
Learning about the subdivision code and procedures in Golden Valley has been a
challenging educational experience over the last several months. I am grateful for the
responsiveness of everyone I have contacted, sent questions to, talked with or had email
exchanges with. Your professionalism and good intentions have been on display.
I am also deeply impressed by the level of concern, neighborhood values, critical thinking
and communication, and authentic effort to learn more and understand competing
interests among my neighbors around Edgewood-Paisley, including the subdivision
applicants. We all have been trying to be good citizens, I think, and to be good neighbors as
well. I hope that has been evident to the city staff, this commission, and the City Council,
and that our efforts and suggestions might lead to improvements for all of us in the city over
time.
Respectfully submitted,
Marcia Anderson
(33 -year resident)
130 Edgewood Ave, N.
Golden Valley, MN 55427
763-732-2697
36
From:DANIEL JOHNSON
To:Planning
Subject:Lot Subdivision 220 Edgewood Ave N
Date:Monday, June 24, 2024 2:21:51 PM
EXTERNAL EMAIL ALERT: This message originated from outside the City of Golden Valley. Do not click links or open
attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Hello Planning Commission - My name is Julie Johnson and I live at 300 Edgewood
Ave N. I'm writing to you because I'm concerned about the proposed subdivision of
220 Edgewood Ave N.
While I'm sympathetic to the owner wanting to build his dream home on the back of
the property, I'm strongly opposed to dividing the lot.
We recently completed a large remodel of our house & have committed to staying in
this neighborhood that we love. I was dismayed that someone wants to start dividing
the lots that make our neighborhood so special.
I'm concerned about changing the quality of life issues for us as well as specific
concerns like changing the water run-off on the hill where they would like to build.
I'm unable to attend the meeting tonight as I'm working. Our neighbor, Marcia
Anderson, has submitted a statement and will be speaking at the meeting. I support
her and her statement 100%.
Thanks so much,
Julie Johnson
37
From:Thomas Berscheid
To:Planning; Planning
Subject:220 Edgewood Ave. N. subdivision proposal
Date:Monday, June 24, 2024 2:49:28 PM
EXTERNAL EMAIL ALERT: This message originated from outside the City of Golden Valley. Do not click links
or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Dear Planning Commission members:
I previously sent an email documenting my opposition to the above proposed subdivision. I wish to STRONGLY,
and once again reiterate my opposition to the proposal. The planning commission's decision to approve the
subdivision was weak, misguided, and wrong. The decision by the commission needs to be retracted and a
recommendation to NOT approve the subdivision needs to be made.
Sincerely,
Tom Berscheid
217 Paisley Lane
Golden Valley,MN 55416
38
CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
Monday, June 24, 2024 – 6:30 p.m. | City Hall Council Chamber
7800 Golden Valley Road Golden Valley, MN 55427
1. CALL TO ORDER
• Vice-Chair Cohen called the meeting to order at 6 p.m. & read the Land Acknowledgement
• Regular Members Present: Barnstorff, Brookins, Cohen, Segelbaum, Sicotte, Van Oss
(arrived 6:31)
• Regular Members Absent: Ruby
• Student Member, Status: VACANT
• Staff Members Present: Darren Groth, Assistant Community Development Director
Kendra Lindahl, Contract Planner
Michael Ryan, City Engineer
• Council Member Present: CM Sophia Ginis
2. CONSENT AGENDA: Brookins motioned to approve the consent agenda, as
presented. Van Oss seconded.
Commission voted 6-0 to approve.
3. PUBLIC HEARINGS:
Informal Public Hearing – Minor subdivision at 227 Paisley Lane and 200 Edgewood Avenue North
• At 6:34 p.m., Vice-Chair Cohen introduced this item and asked Planning Consultant Lindahl to
present the staff report.
• At 6:37 p.m., Vice-Chair Cohen asked Lindahl to explain why this item was back in front of the
commission. Lindahl mentioned the City’s Neighborhood Notification Policy and since the
applicant was not asked to send a notice of the first Planning Commission meeting, the
required duplicate notice was not sent. When the project got before City Council, they
remanded the application back to the commission and reset the process to ensure that both
the City’s notice and the identical applicant’s notice were mailed to the same people. After
Lindahl’s reply, Vice-Chair Cohen asked if other commissioners had any questions.
Commissioner Segelbaum asked Lindahl to show the approval conditions for a minor
subdivision. Lindahl explained the criteria. Commissioner Segelbaum mentioned that those
criteria seemed cut and dry but asked Lindahl to define what buildable means. Lindahl
explained the review process and identified that buildable means the proposed lot meets the
size, setback, and frontage criteria. Commissioner Segelbaum asked if there was a code
required test for those criteria or if the Commission could determine those criteria on a case-
by-case basis. Lindahl responded that there is code that describes the criteria and that the City
Engineer and the entire development review team checks each application for compliance with
applicable City codes.
• At 6:45 p.m., the applicant, Brian Walvatne was invited to speak. Brian Walvatne told the
commission that he owned both properties and wanted to build a new home for him and his
wife on the new Lot 2. He mentioned that access was proposed from Paisley Lane and would
39
CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
Monday, June 24, 2024 – 6:30 p.m. | City Hall Council Chamber
7800 Golden Valley Road Golden Valley, MN 55427
not come from Edgewood. He sent the required mailer, volunteered to hold a neighborhood
meeting, went door to door to talk with neighbors, and plans to live in the neighborhood so he
wants to build responsibly. Commissioner Segelbaum asked about the applicant’s plans for
Lots 1 and 3. Walvatne replied that his mother-in-law lives on Lot 1 and is planning to stay and
that the home on Lot 3 is also planned to remain. Vice-Chair Cohen asked if Walvatne had any
current plans for the Lot 2 home. Walvatne responded he did not and that he anticipated it
would take about 2-5 years before they could move into this new home because he needed to
plat, hire an architect, and then start the building process.
• At 6:49 p.m., Vice-Chair Cohen opened the public hearing. Jake Hartman was the first to speak.
He mentioned that he thought the subdivision ordinance was flawed. He stated that it does not
give weight or consideration to public opinion. He rhetorically asked what it takes to change an
ordinance and that the City should take that action to allow more public input. Hartman
thanked the applicants for holding the neighborhood meeting and claimed that the most
impacted neighbors do not want this project.
• At 6:53 p.m., Roberta Patten spoke about owning the house with the big garden. She mentioned
reading the handout and asked if the property was surveyed properly because satellite surveys
are not always accurate. She claimed that she needed data to verify staff’s review because the
City Engineer also makes errors. She asked the commission to deny the request because she
needed more details. She informed the commission that the most prevalent answer to any
question during the neighborhood meeting was I don’t know. She accused the applicant of not
being aware of what it means to cut down trees and proceeded to read a white paper from the
USGS about trees. She also read a Bassett Creek Watershed Management Commission
(BCWMC) paper she shared with commissioners. She concluded by stating that the applicant
doesn’t have any building plans and that he must submit to citizens detailed plans and
descriptions of how he intends to meet code.
• At 7:01 p.m., Marcia Anderson mentioned submitting a written statement to the commission
and wanted to share additional thoughts. She mentioned that this has been an intense short
course on subdivisions and that she learned a lot during this process. She admitted to learning
that a strict reading of the code matters, even though neighbor concerns are not recognized.
She stated that the code only points to technical requirements. She mentioned that she was
not able to see all the items submitted for this application and shared that she did not think it
was a complete application. She also asked about the definition of buildable and why the plat
did not show a building location. She mentioned seeing a Glenwood plat in 2023 that showed
the building details. She mentioned meeting with the applicant on the site and stated that they
shared their plans and value trees and the environment and that they would share additional
information as they know it. She mentioned that platting is a complex process, but the code
does not address the complexity of applications. She rhetorically asked what about the rights
and interests of other property owners. She stated that this seems out of balance and unjust
and is not what she wants to see in city government. She urged the planning commission to
bring code improvements through the legislative process. She volunteered to participate in the
process if the city were to start. She closed by saying that the code is complex and not easy to
read and should be improved.
• At 7:09 p.m., Peter McCalister stated that he owned the adjoining property, and he did not want
to reiterate some of the concerns already shared, but he mentioned that he has noticed
40
CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
Monday, June 24, 2024 – 6:30 p.m. | City Hall Council Chamber
7800 Golden Valley Road Golden Valley, MN 55427
additional water on his lot since the new home was built behind his property. He stated that his
tractor already sinks in the grass on his lot when it is wet, and this request will make it wetter.
He claimed that the city did not do enough due diligence to ensure others are not harmed. He
admitted Walvatne spoke with him, but that he got a false sense of the sentiment because he
just popped in and most people won’t be contentious during a surprise visit from their neighbor.
• At 7:13 p.m., Vice-Chair Cohen closed the public hearing and asked if there were any
commissioner questions. Commissioner Segelbaum mentioned that he was keeping track of
questions raised during the public hearing and asked if staff could answer them. First, he asked
if the provided survey was prepared by a licensed surveyor. Groth responded yes.
Commissioner Segelbaum then asked if the commission typically gets to see the City
Engineer ’s report. Lindahl explained that the review process is performed by the professional
staff hired by the City and each discipline reviews in conjunction with the others, but most do
not prepare a formal report. Next, Commissioner Segelbaum asked if this development
proposal followed the BCWMC’s guidelines. Lindahl mentioned that his site is not within their
jurisdiction, but all development must follow their stormwater permit. Commissioner
Segelbaum then asked if applicants are required to show their building plans during the platting
process to which Lindahl replied, no. Commissioner Segelbaum asked if tree mitigation is
required when someone cuts down a tree. Lindahl mentioned yes, the city requires a tree and
landscape permit for plats. Commissioner Segelbaum then asked how the city requires
applicants to address runoff during construction. Lindahl indicated that water currently flowing
off a piece of land is allowed to continue flowing in that same direction and volume after
construction. Commissioner Van Oss asked if the city reviewed ground water levels in a
building report. Lindahl answered yes, through a stormwater permit that is required prior to
construction. Commissioner Van Oss then asked how the city addresses the issue of lots being
identified as buildable on a plat, but later identified differently under the stormwater permit.
Lindahl mentioned that plats go through a preliminary stormwater review to identify if a holding
pond or other water retention measures are needed, but the stormwater permit handles the
specifics per lot. Vice-Chair Cohen asked about the next steps for the applicant. Lindahl listed
all the additional permits and reviews that are needed prior to construction and the inspections
performed during the construction. Vice-Chair Cohen asked if all those permits are required in
this instance. Lindahl replied yes. Commissioner Segelbaum mentioned that Golden Valley
recently had a moratorium on subdivisions, which allowed the city to study the platting process
and then the city made the suggested revisions around 2014 or 2016. Commissioner
Segelbaum indicated that the topic of platting comes up a lot at the Planning Commission and
notes that many of the standards are cut and dry and that while there may be an opportunity to
approve the code in the future, the Planning Commission cannot legislate a code change on
one application. Commissioner Brookins echoed Commissioner Segelbaum’s sentiments.
Commissioner Van Oss stated that he also agreed, and that the applicant is only asking for
what they are currently legally allowed to do under the measurable standards in place, which
reduces the subjectivity. Vice-Chair Cohen stated that he was in that same boat in that the city
has rules and the Planning Commission’s job is to identify if the applicant meets those rules;
and if so, they must approve. Vice-Chair Cohen mentioned that further discussion may be
warranted regarding the code and whether they like the rules or not, they are what must guide
the decision tonight. Commissioner Van Oss mentioned that he could sympathize with the
comment that the code was complex and should be simplified.
41
CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
Monday, June 24, 2024 – 6:30 p.m. | City Hall Council Chamber
7800 Golden Valley Road Golden Valley, MN 55427
• At 7:31 p.m., Vice-Chair Cohen asked for a motion. Commissioner Brookins moved to
recommend approval based on the findings and conditions of the staff report presented by
Lindahl. Commissioner Van Oss seconded. The Planning Commission voted 6-0 to approve.
4. NEW BUSINESS: NONE
5. COUNCIL LIASION REPORT:
At 7:32 p.m., Councilmember Ginis briefed the commission on the progress of the search for a new
City Manager. She mentioned making the three finalist’s names public last Thursday with a public
meet-and-greet that evening and City Council deliberated on the candidates both on Saturday and
this evening. All three candidates will be invited to present a specific scenario on July 1, 2024, and
the City Council is anticipated to make their decision that day. Ginis also provided an update on the
last City Council meeting where they recognized Juneteenth and concurred with the Planning
Commission’s recommendation to approve the CUP at Culver’s. She concluded by sharing details
regarding the Market in the Valley and Ice Cream Social. Vice-Chair Cohen asked if she had any
sense whether City Council would be interested in clarifying the City’s subdivision regulations.
Councilmember Ginis replied that is not a topic they ’ve broached, so she cannot speak on behalf of
the entire council. She agreed that clarifications in code are good city business, but the City
currently has a lot of priorities, and some issues may just need to be a part of future years. Vice-
Chair Cohen gave her and City Council some kudos on the process to hire the new City Manager.
6. COMMISSIONER TRAINING: NONE
7. STAFF COMMENT:
At 7:39 p.m., Groth introduced City Engineer Ryan and briefed the commission on various staffing
updates by sharing that a new Associate Planner is scheduled to start on July 1 and the Senior
Planner position was offered and accepted by the top candidate and will also start in July. In
addition, Groth mentioned that Director Flores resigned, and the City is beginning the process of
hiring her replacement.
8. COMMISSIONER COMMENT: NONE
9. ADJOURNMENT: Vice-Chair Cohen adjourned the meeting at 7:41 p.m.
Approved by:
Atest By: Commission Secretary
Darren Groth, AICP, CPM
Community Development Asst. Director
42
RESOLUTION NO. 24-041
RESOLUTION FOR APPROVAL OF PLAT
PAISLEY EDGEWOOD
WHEREAS, the City Council for the City of Golden Valley, pursuant to due notice,
has heretofore conducted a public hearing on the proposed plat to be known as “Paisley
Edgewood” covering the following described tracts of land:
Lot 4, Block 2, Tralee, Golden Valley Minnesota
Torrens Property
Together with
The South 100 feet of the North 600 feet lying East of Edgewood Ave N being part of
Lot 3 of Auditor’s Subdivision No. 322, Hennepin County, Minnesota.
Abstract Property
WHEREAS, all persons present were given the opportunity to be heard.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council for the City of Golden
Valley, that said proposed plat be, and the same hereby is, accepted and approved, and
the proper officers of the City are hereby authorized and instructed to sign the original of
said plat and to do all other things necessary and proper in the premises.
Adopted by the City Council this 2nd day of July, 2024.
_____________________
Roslyn Harmon, Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
Theresa Schyma, City Clerk
43
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
City Administration
763-512-2345 / 763-512-2344 (fax)
Golden Valley City Council Meeting
July 2, 2024
Agenda Item
6A. Review of Council Calendar
Prepared By
Theresa Schyma, City Clerk
Summary
The Council will review upcoming city meetings, events, and holiday closures.
Legal Considerations
This item does not require legal review.
Equity Considerations
This item does not require equity review.
Recommended Action
No action is required on this item.
Supporting Documents
Review of Council Calendar
44
Review of Council Calendar
Event Event Time Location
JULY
Monday, July 1
Special City Council Meeting 5:00 PM Hybrid - Council Conference
Tuesday, July 2
City Council Meeting 6:30 PM Hybrid - Council Chambers
Thursday, July 4
City Offices Closed for Observance of Independence Day
Sunday, July 7
Market in the Valley 9:00 AM - 1:00 PM City Hall Campus
Tuesday, July 9
Council Work Session 6:30 PM Hybrid - Council Conference
Sunday, July 14
Market in the Valley 9:00 AM - 1:00 PM City Hall Campus
Tuesday, July 16
City Council Meeting 6:30 PM Hybrid - Council Chambers
Sunday, July 21
Market in the Valley 9:00 AM - 1:00 PM City Hall Campus
Sunday, July 28
Market in the Valley 9:00 AM - 1:00 PM City Hall Campus
AUGUST
Thursday, August 1
Golden Valley Business Connections 8:00 AM - 9:30 AM
MRA - The Management
Association, 5980 Golden Hills
Drive
Sunday, August 4
Market in the Valley 9:00 AM - 1:00 PM City Hall Campus
Tuesday, August 6
National Night Out 6:00 PM - 9:00 PM Various Locations/In-Person
Wednesday, August 7
City Council Meeting 6:30 PM Hybrid - Council Chambers
Saturday, August 10
City Hall Open for Absentee Voting 9:00 AM - 3:00 PM City Hall
Sunday, August 11
Market in the Valley 9:00 AM - 1:00 PM City Hall Campus
Tuesday, August 13
Primary Election Day 7:00 AM - 8:00 PM City Precincts/Polls
Wednesday, August 14
HRA Work Session 6:30 PM Hybrid - Council Conference Room
Council Work Session 6:30 PM Hybrid - Council Conference Room
Sunday, August 18
Market in the Valley 9:00 AM - 1:00 PM City Hall Campus
Tuesday, August 20
City Council Meeting 6:30 PM Hybrid - Council Chambers
Sunday, August 25
Market in the Valley 9:00 AM - 1:00 PM City Hall Campus
Sunday, September 1
Market in the Valley 9:00 AM - 1:00 PM City Hall Campus
Monday, September 2
City Offices Closed for Observance of Labor Day
Tuesday, September 3
City Council Meeting 6:30 PM Hybrid - Council Chambers
45