2025-02-24 - AGE - Planning Commission Meeting February 24, 2025 — 6:30 PM
Council Chambers
Hybrid Meeting
1.Call to Order, Land Acknowledgement, and Attendance
Attendance by presence, not roll call
2.Consent Agenda
All matters listed under Item 2 are considered routine in nature and will be enacted by one
motion. Individual discussion of these items is not planned. A member, however, may remove
any item to discuss as an item for separate consideration under New Business.
2.A.Approval of Agenda
2.B.Meeting Minutes - January 27, 2025
3.Public Hearings
3.A.Minor Subdivision and Variance - 5111 Colonial Drive
4.New Business
5.Staff Updates
5.A.Planning Commission Recruitment
6.Commissioner Updates
7.Adjourn
PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING AGENDA
Planning Commission 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 the planned public comment sections. You may attend virtually by:
Watching on cable channel 16
Streaming on CCXmedia.org
Streaming on Microsoft Teams: meeting ID 297 731 355 148, passcode aQaE4J
Calling 1-872-256-4160 and entering conference ID number 738 266 392#
City of Golden Valley Planning Commission Regular Meeting February 24, 2025 — 6:30 PM
1
CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
Monday, January 27, 2025 –6:30 p.m.| City Hall Council Chamber
7800 Golden Valley Road Golden Valley, MN 55427
1.CALL TO ORDER AND LAND ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
Chair Ruby called the meeting to order at 6:32 p.m.and read the Land Acknowledgement
Regular Members Present: Gary Cohen,Mike Ruby,Martin Sicotte,Chuck Segelbaum,
Eric Van Oss
Regular Members Absent: Amy Barnstorff, Adam Brookins
Student Member,Status:Vacant
Staff Members Present:Maria Cisneros, City Attorney
Emily Goellner, Community Development Director
Chloe McGuire, Deputy Community Development Director
Jacquelyn Kramer,Senior Planner
Steven Okey, Associate Planner
Board of Zoning Appeals Member Present: Richard Orenstein
Council Member Present:None
2.CONSENT AGENDA:
Agenda Approval or Modifications
1.A Approval of agenda
2.A Approval of December 9, 2024, and January 13, 2025 meeting minutes
•Ruby asked for a motion to approve
•Cohen moved
•Sicotte seconded
•Approved unanimously
3.PUBLIC HEARINGS:-None
4.NEW BUSINESS:
4.A.New Staff Introduction: Chloe McGuire, Deputy Community Development Director
Kramer introduced Chloe McGuire and then Chloe gave a brief bio.
4.B. Annual Board and Commission Training
Goellner conducted the Annual Board and Commission Training along with Maria Cisneros.
5.STAFF UPDATES:-None
6.COMMISSIONER UPDATES:-None
7.ADJOURNMENT:Chair Ruby adjourned the meeting at 8:00 p.m.
Approved by:
Attest By:Commission Secretary
Jacquelyn Kramer,AICP
Senior Planner
2
Date: February 24, 2025
To: Golden Valley Planning Commission (PC)
From: Jacquelyn Kramer, Senior Planner
Subject: Request for Minor Subdivision and Variance to Golden Valley City Code:
5111 Colonial Drive
Summary
Lake West Development has applied for a minor subdivision and variance in order to subdivide
one single-family home lot into two single-family home lots. The applicant requests a variance
to allow a new single-family lot with an area less than 15,000 square feet. Relevant code
sections:
1. Minor subdivision - Chapter 109 Subdivisions, Division 4 - Minor Subdivisions and
Consolidations
2. Lot Size Variance - Section 109-121(i): The conditions spelled out in this section shall
provide the only basis for denial of a minor subdivision or consolidation except for the
additional conditions imposed on residential zero lot line homes later in this division.
Approval will be granted to any application that meets the established conditions.
Additionally, an applicant may request a waiver from specific conditions imposed in this
section by applying for a variance in accordance with this chapter.
3. Minimum Lot Size – Section 109-149(a)(1): All lots shall meet the minimum area
requirements of the zoning district in which they are located, 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.
Public Notification
A notice of the hearing was mailed to the owners of all property within 500 feet of the subject
property at least 10 days prior to the public hearing date. At the time of this report staff has
received no comments on the applications.
Meeting Dates
February 24, 2025: Public hearing and Planning Commission recommendation.
March 18, 2025: City Council action on minor subdivision and variance applications.
April 8, 2025 (tentative): City Council action on final plat application.
v
v
3
Subject Property
Location: 5111 Colonial Drive
Parcel ID Number: 3002924220016
Applicant/Property Owner: Lake West Development, LLC
Site Size: 0.76 acres, 33,002 square feet
Future Land Use: Low Density Residential
Zoning District: R-1 Single Family Residential
Existing Use: Single-family residence
Adjacent Properties: Single family homes
Site Image
The site contains an existing home built in 1955. The east side of the property is vacant with
trees and vegetation. A driveway provides vehicular access off Colonial Drive to the north. The
site contains steep slopes going down to the north property line.
Due to the steep grade changes along Colonial Drive, the applicant proposes a shared driveway
serving both new lots. This layout would allow sufficient distance for a new driveway with
minimized slopes. Staff is supportive of this layout with the condition that a shared access
agreement be recorded on the properties that guarantees permanent access for both lots to
Colonial Drive.
Colonial Drive
5111 Colonial Drive
4
Proposal
The applicant would like to subdivide the existing lot into two new lots. The existing home
would be renovated and a new home would be constructed on the eastern lot. The new lots
would exceed the dimensional requirements for the R-1 district as shown in the table below,
with one exception highlighted below and explained later in the report.
R-1 Standards Lot 1 (existing home) Lot 2
Lot Size 15,000 sq. ft. 19,331 ft. 13,465 sq. ft.
Lot Width (measured at setback) 80 ft. 129.47 ft 89.56 ft.
Front Setback 35 ft. 35ft 35 ft.
Side Setback 22.5 ft. / 15 ft. 22.5 ft. 15 ft.
Rear Setback 25 ft. 25 ft. 25 ft.
Normally lots in the R-1 district must have a minimum lot size of 10,000 square feet. Section 109-
149 requires new lots to be a minimum of 15,000 sq. ft. if the average lot withing 250 feet of the
parcels is 18,000 sq. ft. or larger. The lots within 250 ft. meet this requiremen t due to the size of
the parcel at 5001 Colonial Drive, which is 126,352 square feet.
The applicant is seeking approval for a minor subdivision to create two lots from the existing
lot. The applicant is also seeking a variance from Section 109-149(a)(1) to reduce the required
minimum lot size from 15,000 square feet to 13,000 square feet, in order to allow Lot 2 to be
13,465 square feet in size.
Planning Analysis – Minor Subdivision
Eligibility
In keeping with Minn. Stats. § 462.358, subd. 1a, which allows for the establishment of more
than one class of subdivision and more than one set of regulations, certain proposed land
subdivisions and consolidations may qualify for application as a minor subdivision. Each of the
following conditions must be met to establish eligibility:
1. The land to be subdivided or consolidated must be part of a recorded plat or a recorded
registered land survey (RLS). The site is part of an existing plat, Spring Green Addition.
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 . The applicant
proposes to subdivide one existing lot into two lots.
3. The subdivision or consolidation shall not necessitate any additional public investment
in new roads or utilities to serve the lots. Staff has determined the proposal requires no
new roads or utility lines.
Staff finds the request meets these three conditions to be considered a minor subdivision.
5
Evaluation Criteria
In reviewing this application, staff has examined the request in accordance with the standards
outlined in City Code Section 109-121, which provides the following eight (8) criteria for
granting a minor subdivision.
1. Minor subdivisions shall be denied if the proposed lots do not meet the requirements of
the appropriate zoning district. Lot 1 meets the area and width requirements of the R-1
Single Family Residential Zoning District. Lot 2 meets the width requirement and the
applicant has applied for a variance to allow lot size under 15,000 square feet.
2. A minor subdivision may be denied if the City Engineer determines that the lots are not
buildable. There is adequate space on the new lot for a home to be built 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. Staff finds there is sufficient service capacity of city utility
systems to serve the new lot.
4. Approval of the minor subdivision may require the granting of certain easements to the
city. Staff recommend a condition of approval that the final plat include standard
drainage and utility easements of 10 feet wide on exterior property lines and six feet
wide on interior lot lines.
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. Not
applicable.
6. The city may ask for review of title if required by the City Attorney for dedication of
certain easements. The applicant submitted title work for review and approval by the
City Attorney. The existing title contains a discriminatory racial covenant. While not
legally enforceable, the applicant may choose to have the covenant removed . The city’s
Legal Department has offered to start this process.
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 homeowners will benefit from public parks
and trails. The total amount charged for this subdivision is $9,405.
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. The
applicant has applied for a variance for minimum lot area, and all other conditions have
been met.
6
Staff finds that, with the exception of minimum lot area, the request meets all criteria for
granting a minor subdivision in accordance with the purpose and all applicable standards,
requirements, and procedures identified in Golden Valley City Code Chapter 109.
Planning Analysis - Variance
5111 Colonial is one parcel but contains two lots of record. If the lot was subdivided following
the existing lot of record lot lines, two parcels of approximately equal size and each over 15,000
square feet would be created. The applicant would only need a tax parcel division, which can be
administratively approved. However, this process does not allow for any nonconformities to be
created in the division, and splitting the 5111 Colonial lot down the middle creates an eastern
side setback from the existing house that is less than the minimum 22.5 feet required by city
code. After considering alternative plans, including the demolition of the existing house, the
applicant has decided to keep the existing house and apply for a variance to allow a new lot
that is less than 15,000 square feet.
The existing home at 5111 Colonial Drive. The height of the wall on the left side of the image and the slope of the
roof necessitates a 22.5 foot side setback. (Image: applicant)
In reviewing this application, staff reviewed the request against the standards in Section 113-
27(c) of the Code, which provides the variance standards in compliance with Minnesota State
Statute Section 462.357. The burden of proof is on the applicant to show that the request is in
harmony with the general purposes and intent of this chapter and consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan.
Each variance application must be reviewed based on the unique circumstance of the
application. For that reason, no variance sets a precedent because no two circumstances are
7
identical. However, if the city finds itself granting numerous similar variances, the City could
consider amendments to the city code.
Staff considered the following requirements in Section 113-27(c) when evaluating the variance
requests:
1. A variance may only be granted when the petitioner for the variance establishes that
there are practical difficulties in complying with this chapter. The term "practical
difficulties," as used in connection with the granting of a variance, means the applicant
shows compliance with the following:
a. The property owner must propose to use the property in a reasonable manner.
The applicant proposes to build a new single-family home on the new lot and
renovate the current home on the existing lot. The adjacent properties are
single-family homes.
Staff finds that the proposed use of a single-family home is a reasonable use of
the property.
b. The landowners’ problem must be due to circumstances unique to the property
that is not caused by the landowner.
The existing home, while meeting all minimum setbacks on the current lot,
would not meet the required setback if the lot was split down the middle .
Moving the eastern property line to the east to accommodate the existing home
creates a new lot that is less than 15,000 square feet as required by code.
New lots in the R-1 district must be at least 15,000 square feet if the average lot
size of all lots within 250 feet is 18,000 square feet or more. One property in this
buffer, 5001 Colonial Drive, is 126,352 square feet and brings the average lot size
up to over 22,000 square feet. When 5001 Colonial Drive is excluded from the
average lot size calculation, the average lot size is under 18,000 square feet. This
lot is significantly bigger than other single family lots in the neighborhood and
throughout the R-1 zoning.
Staff finds that there are unique circumstances on the property that were not
caused by the landowner. Specifically, the landowner did not construct the
existing house but wants to keep it on the lot; and the unusual size of the lot at
5001 Colonial Drive triggers a larger minimum lot size requirement than what
would otherwise be required at this property.
c. And the variance, if granted, must not alter the essential character of the locality .
The neighborhood is predominantly single-family homes, which is the proposed
use of the new lot. The smaller of the two new lots, while under 15,000 square
feet, is over the 10,000 square feet normally required in the R-1 district and is
comparable in size to most single-family lots in the vicinity.
8
Staff finds that variance, if granted, would not alter the essential character of the
neighborhood. The use is consistent with the rest of the neighborhood, and the
variance would allow two new lots that are consistent in size with other lots in
the neighborhood.
2. Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties. The applicant
argues the variance request is due to location and design of the existing house and an
unusually large single-family lot within 250 feet of the project site.
Staff agrees with the applicant and finds that the practical difficulties in the variance
request are not solely due to economic considerations.
3. The Board of Zoning Appeals may not grant a variance that would allow any use that is
not allowed under this chapter for property in the zone where the affected person's land
is located. The property is located in the Single Family Residential (R-1) zoning district.
The applicant proposes building a single-family house on the new lot, which is a
permitted use.
Staff finds the variance will not permit a use not allowed in the zoning district where the
property is located.
4. Variances shall only be permitted when they are in harmony with the general purposes
and intent of this chapter and when the variances are consistent with the Comprehensive
Plan. Staff finds that the variance is in line with the purpose of the R-1 district, which is
“to provide for detached single-family dwelling units at a low density along with directly
related and complementary uses.”
Staff also finds that the proposal to renovate the existing house is in line with the first
housing goal of the 2040 Comprehensive Plan which is to “Maintain Housing Quality -
Maintain a high-quality living environment, preserve stable residential neighborhoods,
and where necessary, improve of the condition of existing housing stock in the City.”
The applicant’s plans also support Objective 1 of this goal: “support the rehabilitation
and reinvestment of the housing stock as structures continue to age.”
Staff finds the variance request is in harmony with the 2040 Comprehensive Plan and
the R-1 Single Family Residence zoning district.
5. Finally, when reviewing a variance, the City must first determine whether or not there is
a practical difficulty and, if so, is the requested variance the minimum action necessary
to eliminate the practical difficulty? The applicant considered alternative plans
including demolishing the existing house, but ultimately decided to apply for a variance.
Staff finds demolition would be more costly to the applicant and less beneficial to the
neighborhood by removing an existing home, so the minimum action necessary to
eliminate the practical difficulty would be to grant a variance.
The Development Review Committee, which includes staff from planning, fire, building, public
works, engineering, and environmental resources, has reviewed the project plans. Engineering
9
requests a shared access agreement be required over the new shared driveway. City staff have
no other concerns or conditions.
Staff Recommendation
The Board should review the applicants’ request and the findings needed to grant the minor
subdivision and variance.
1. Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend approval of the variance
request for a reduction of 2,000 square feet to the minimum lot size, from 15,000 to
13,000 square feet, based on the finding that the city code standards have been met as
outlined in the Staff Report.
2. Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend approval of the minor
subdivision request to subdivide one lot into two new lots based on the finding that the
city code standards have been met as outlined in the Staff Report with the following
conditions:
a. The applicant shall provide drainage and utility easements on the final plat.
b. The applicant must provide a shared access easement over the new driveway to
allow permanent access for both lots.
c. Before the plat is recorded with the county, the applicant shall pay park
dedication fees.
d. All necessary city permits will be obtained prior to the start of construction,
including but not limited to the building permit and stormwater management
permit.
Recommended motion language:
1. Variance: “I move to recommend approval of the variance request to reduce the
minimum lot size from 15,000 to 13,000 square feet, subject to the findings and
conditions in the February 24, 2025, staff report.”
2. Minor Subdivision: “I move to recommend approval of the minor subdivision request to
subdivide the lot at 5111 Colonial Drive into two lots, subject to the findings and
conditions in the February 24, 2025 staff report.”
Next Steps
City Council will take action on the minor subdivision and variance applications on March 18,
2024. City Council will take action on the final plat application later this spring.
If the final plat is approved by the City Council, the subdivider shall then file it for recording
with the Hennepin County Recorder or the Registrar of Titles within 60 days of the date of the
resolution approving the final plat. If not filed within 60 days, the final plat shall be null and void
unless an extension is given by the Council.
10
When recording, request digital copies of the fully recorded final plat package be sent to the
Community Development Department at Planning@goldenvalleymn.gov. This is the proof of
filing that is necessary for the City to issue any building permits.
Staff Contact Information
Prepared by:
Jacquelyn Kramer
Senior Planner
jkramer@goldenvalleymn.gov
Reviewed by:
Chloe McGuire
Deputy Community Development Director
cmcguire@goldenvalleymn.gov
11
12
13
From: gfmatcbb@aol.com <gfmatcbb@aol.com>
Sent: Tuesday, February 18, 2025 1:23 PM
To: Planning <planning@goldenvalleymn.gov>
Subject: Subdivision of 5111 Colonial Dr.
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.
To Whom it May Concern,
As I will be out of town during the timeframe of the meeting on February 24th, 2025, I
thought I would send an email addressing my concerns as the owner of 5031 Colonial
Dr. which is directly below the proposed subdivision. I did have a meeting in which Mr.
Fretham wanted to purchase part of my lot so he could build 3 homes, after seeing the
proposed lot line I declined as we love our privacy and the wildlife we have in our
backyard. That being said, in looking at this proposal I have several concerns;
1) The watershed and where might the excess water run off in a heavy storm go, I
would like assurances, in writing please, that any damage caused as a result of this
construction will be remediated and or an escrow be held if indeed there is a problem.
2) I don't know what impact the Home will have on our privacy, but that was one reason
that we purchased 5031 Colonial 25 years ago, we love the privacy.
3) Concerns for the displacement of the wildlife in the area which we enjoy seeing
throughout the year.
4)The way the proposed house sits now it would seem to me that the garage placement
would best be suited on the other side of the home, again for watershed and privacy.
Those are my concerns and after being in Real Estate for 40+ years I believe they are
valid and once the damage is done, there's no easy way to undo it.
Thank you for your time, feel free to contact me with any questions/concerns you may
have.
Cordially,
Guy McDonald 612-720-3441
14