Loading...
2025-03-24-AGE-Planning Commission Meeting March 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.February 24, 2025 Meeting Minutes 3.Public Hearings 4.New Business 4.A.Sign Code Update Listening Session 5.Staff Updates 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 March 24, 2025 — 6:30 PM 1 CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Monday,February 24, 2025,–6:30 p.m.| City Hall Council Chamber 7800 Golden Valley Road Golden Valley, MN 55427 1.CALL TO ORDER AND LAND ACKNOWLEDGEMENT Vice Chair Cohen called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m.and read the Land Acknowledgement Regular Members Present: Amy Barnstorff,Adam Brookins, Gary Cohen,Chuck Segelbaum, Martin Sicotte, Eric Van Oss Regular Members Absent:Mike Ruby Student Member,Status:Vacant Staff Members Present:Chloe McGuire, Deputy Community Development Director Steven Okey, Associate Planner Council Member Present:Sophia Ginis 2.CONSENT AGENDA: a.Agenda Approval or Modifications •Cohen asked for a motion to approve •Brooks made the motion •Van Oss seconded •Approved unanimously 3.PUBLIC HEARINGS: a.5111 Colonial Drive Subdivision and Variance. McGuire presented the proposal. Cohen asked if there were any questions for staff. Segelbaum asked has the city very often granted variances in combinations with subdivisions and that to his recollection there have not. McGuire stated that she didn’t have that information at hand but could get it for the Commissioners. Segelbaum asked if the tree information is relevant to the variance decision when typically,it is not relative to subdivisions. McGuire stated Segelbaum was correct that it isn’t relevant to subdivisions as they are pretty straightforward and that the tree and stormwater requirements are a part of the City Code. Segelbaum noted he brought it up as it may come up as a public concern. Brookins asked if there was precedence in the code for shared driveways. McGuire noted generally staff is opposed to shared driveways but the slope challenges of this lot make it the only choice for access to the newly created lot. She stated a shared access agreement be recorded and we would work with the developer to make sure it is in place. Van Oss asked what is the purpose of the 15,000 square foot lot when our minimum lot size in most cases is 10,000 square feet. Okey stated that he believes it was in response to public feedback that in areas with lots larger than 10,000 square there was a desire to raise that minimum based on the surrounding lots. He stated that is how the average of the lots within 250 feet exceeding 18,000 square feet triggers the minimum 15,000 square feet. He also noted that in the case of the 5111 Colonial property there were some unusually large lots. Cohen stated he felt there was no other option than a shared drive with the sloping lot after driving by the lot. He also stated he felt it was important to spell it out clearly why there is a shared driveway and to insure there is a requirement that an agreement be put in place. Cohen asked the applicant to come up and speak. 2 CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Monday,February 24, 2025,–6:30 p.m.| City Hall Council Chamber 7800 Golden Valley Road Golden Valley, MN 55427 Kelsey Thompson with Lake West Development spoke. Thompson touched on the following points: o They originally didn’t realize that the lot would require the variance for the smaller size. They didn’t realize the over 123,000 square foot lot would be included in the calculations for the larger lot requirement. o They did contemplate tearing the home down but felt it was better to preserve the home in keeping with the City’s goals to preserve existing housing stock. o They are improving the stormwater runoff conditions on the new lot. Cohen asked if there were questions for the applicant. Segelbaum asked if they had considered other configurations for the lot to create a larger than 15,000 square foot even though it would have required a side setback variance. Thompson stated that they did consider alternatives but it would have necessitated two variances and that the staff would likely have not supported that path. Sicotte noted that the plans by his rough estimates are not meeting a 15-foot setback requirement and wondered if this would require another variance down the road. Thompson noted that the setback for the lot as proposed is 12.5 feet and that they would meet that so that they do not have to come back for a second variance. Cohen asked how the owner of both properties will codify the shared access agreement. Thompson confirmed both properties have the same owner and they would spell out the details in a shared access agreement so that it doesn’t create issues in the future. Cohen asked if there were further questions, seeing none, he opened the public hearing. Resident Nancy Nelson 535 Turnpike Road spoke. Nelson stated that she needed to disclose she is the Chair of the Board of Zoning Appeals and is very familiar with variances.She stated she has concerns about the positioning of the new home and if it would meet the setback standards. She asked what the rear setbacks would be, from what she was seeing it looked like it was 15 feet. Brookins commented it looks like it is approximately 38 feet from the rear property line. Nelson stated the setbacks were her main concern but she did state a concern the plans as submitted may not get built and something else will be built that may affect the neighbors. Cohen asked if there was anyone online who wished to testify. Okey confirmed there was no one online who wanted to testify. Cohen closed the public hearing and opened the item up for Commissioner’s deliberation. Segelbaum stated he wanted to follow up on Ms. Nelson’s comments about the plans that are submitted with the variance and if they are germane to the discussion on the variance. He asked if they would be something we would require holding the applicant to those plans. McGuire stated that the request in front of them is a subdivision and a variance for minimum lot size. She noted that we generally hold the applicants to the plans that are a part of the proposal because we need to see that the site works. She stated having said that as long as what is submitted meets the variance and the other zoning requirements it would be approved. She noted that we can add conditions as they pertain to the variance. Then she flagged the lot is less than 100 feet so the side setback per code would be 12.5 feet. Van Oss stated he is inclined to go with staff’s recommendation but that the minimum lot size section of code be looked at since there are probably many other lots that are subject to these issues and if we keep having to grant variances what is the point of having the minimums. Segelbaum stated he wanted to follow up on Van Oss’ comments. He wondered if there could be another way to address the varied sizes of lots and could there be maximum size and a minimum size that get removed from the calculations for the minimum lot size. He wondered if that would help with the outliers.He stated that instead of creating a situation where there may 3 CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Monday,February 24, 2025,–6:30 p.m.| City Hall Council Chamber 7800 Golden Valley Road Golden Valley, MN 55427 be an onslaught of applications for variances from the standards,he prefers we change the code so there may be more by right development and less need for variances. Brookins stated his concern regarding setting the lot frontage at less than 100 feet that allows for a 12.5 foot side yard setback versus the 15 foot setback and that creates more of an encroachment to a neighboring property. He also requested that on future applications that the building setbacks be shown on the plan so that it is clear. Segelbaum asked for clarification on Commissioner Brookins comment, if it was a concern about the side setback of the existing home or the proposed home. Brookins clarified that it was the side setback on the east side of the proposed home that was his concern. Van Oss asked if Commissioner Brookins would prefer that the existing lot be split down the middle and the variance would be for the side yard setback between the existing home and the proposed home. Brookins confirmed he would prefer that rather than granting something that could negatively affect the neighboring property. Segelbaum asked if Commissioner Brookins would be satisfied with a condition that no additional variance for a side yard setback would be granted for the new home. Brookins noted that by allowing an undersized lot under 15,000 square feet with a frontage less than 100 feet is creating a by right side yard setback of 12.5 feet. Segelbaum stated that if the lot has to be buildable and meet all the requirements then the home could be configured on the lot by the applicant so it meets the standards and then we could say that no additional variances would be granted. Brookins stated that if they approve the variance as proposed then it is allowing for a 12.5 foot side yard setback. Cohen asked if staff could provide some clarification. McGuire stated the existing lot of record is 100 feet wide and by granting the variance to allow a 90 foot wide lot they would be inherently allowing a 12.5 foot setback for the proposed structure. She noted that the house is proposed at 15 feet off the eastern property line. Cohen asked if the subdivision and the variance would both need to be approved for it to move forward. McGuire confirmed that Commissioner Cohen was correct. Cohen asked if the commission could add some language to the variance that makes it clear that this is not precedent setting or that the City Council needs to look more closely at the lot size questions this proposal raises. McGuire stated that the minutes from the meeting would be included in the findings of fact as a part of the official record. She also stated that staff was willing to look at minimum lot sizes in the code. She noted she thinks the motion should not include references to it being precedent setting since it is inherently how variances function. She also noted that the steep grades on the lot the building footprint would be more restricted than the setback standards. Cohen asked if that would be in the minutes the applicant is locked in on what could be built by some of the site issues. He then asked for additional comments. Brookins asked if the commission could approve the subdivision then the applicant could come back at a later date to request a variance for the existing home and meet the requirements for having two 15,000 square foot lots. McGuire stated that they two need to be brought forward together as the City Council could not approve a subdivision that does not meet the minimum lot size requirements and that adding a condition not allowing variances is not allowable since property owners have the right to apply for variances at any time. 4 CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Monday,February 24, 2025,–6:30 p.m.| City Hall Council Chamber 7800 Golden Valley Road Golden Valley, MN 55427 Van Oss stated he thinks the simplest solution is to have two 15,000 square foot lots in compliance with the code and to have the applicant come back for a variance for the side yard setbacks on the existing and the proposed new home. That way the burden is on the owner of the two lots and not adjacent properties. Segelbaum pointed out it isn’t what the applicant has requested and there is not a motion for that. Van Oss suggested it could be tabled. Applicant Kelsey Thompson stated that they would be open to moving the lot line and noted that staff felt the lot size was a more desirable outcome for a variance. She pointed out that the way the proposed new home is laid out it would be pretty much similar to a 15 foot side yard setback. McGuire stated staff prefers not to create nonconforming structures and staff felt that the lot is not undersized when compared to the other lots in the area. She stated it would be reasonable to add a condition that the primary wall of the eastern side of the home meets a 15 foot setback standard to address the concerns expressed by the commissioners. Barnstorff asked if the lot line were moved to make a 15,000 square foot lot would it be over or under a 100 foot wide lot. McGuire stated she was not 100% sure but that it may still result in a less than 100 foot wide lot. Van Oss stated it would be a 112 foot wide lot. Cohen noted there was a question from Nancy Nelson from the audience and asked her to approach the podium. Nancy Nelson stated that the lots around there are larger than 15,000 square feet and was supportive of adding the 15 foot setback condition to the variance. She asked for confirmation on the other setbacks. McGuire confirmed the front setback would still be 35 feet and the rear yard would be 25 feet. Cohen closed the public hearing portion again after Nancy Nelson’s questions. He then asked if someone was willing to make a motion with the additional condition for the 15 foot setback. Segelbaum stated he feels that it would be better to reexamine the code but he understands this would push back the proposal. He noted that a motion was forthcoming but he wanted to make it clear he would prefer to delay things and have staff reexamine the code since it will impact future subdivision requests. Cohen stated Commissioner Segelbaum could motion to table it if he wanted to, that they have two options. One is to table it and have it come back for review at a future date and the other is to vote on it tonight. Van Oss stated the commission owes the applicant to vote tonight if they are comfortable with staff’s recommendations of the new condition being added. He noted he also feels minimum lot size is a policy issue that the City Council should address at some point. Sicotte stated he was generally supportive of the proposal, he thinks adding the requirement for the 15 foot setback just on the east side is a good compromise and he would be supportive of the commission going that route. Brookins noted he felt the commission could not condition what was in front of them. Segelbaum stated he thought it was acceptable to add a condition to a variance and it is something that the Board of Zoning Appeals has done in the past. Cohen asked if staff could address this question. McGuire stated it was reasonable to add a condition to the variance. Cohen asked if someone would craft a motion. Brookins made the motion to recommend the approval of variance request to reduce the minimum lot size from 15,000 to 13,000 square feet subject to the findings and conditions in the 5 CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Monday,February 24, 2025,–6:30 p.m.| City Hall Council Chamber 7800 Golden Valley Road Golden Valley, MN 55427 February 24, 2025 staff report with the addition of a requirement for a 15 foot side yard setback on the Eastern property line. Van Oss seconded the motion Cohen brought it to a vote Barnstorff, Brookins, Cohen, Sicotte and Van Oss voted Aye. Segelbaum voted Nay. Motion passed. Brookins made the motion 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. Barnstorff seconded the motion. Cohen brought it to a vote All voted Aye Motion passed. 4.NEW BUSINESS -None 5.STAFF UPDATES: a.Virtual option for testimony. McGuire notified the commissioners that City Council was removing the online option for testimony for their meetings but still having an option open if it is the only way for someone to provide their testimony. They would have to notify staff in advance if they wanted to testify remotely. She asked if this is something the commissioners would be open to. Commissioners felt it was still necessary to keep the online option for all meetings due to the new process where the only public hearing is at the Planning Commission meeting. It was agreed we would monitor the number of people who join remotely and revisit this at a later date. b.Boards and Commissions Recruitment. McGuire discussed the City Manager’s Office request for quotes from the Board and Commission members on why they serve and how it affects the City and its residents. The request is coming as they are beginning recruitment for boards and commissions. The topic of term limits came up and it was noted the Commissioner Barnstorff and Commissioner Brookins terms expire in April of 2025. 6.COMMISSIONER UPDATES:None 7.ADJOURNMENT:Vice Chair Cohen adjourned the meeting at 7:39 p.m. Approved by: Attest By: Commission Secretary Chloe McGuire, AICP Deputy Community Development Director 6 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Community Development 763-512-2345 / 763-512-2344 (fax) Golden Valley Planning Commission Meeting March 24, 2025 Agenda Item 4.A. Sign Code Update Listening Session Prepared By Jacquelyn Kramer, Senior Planner Summary The City hired Stantec Consulting Services to assist with updating Golden Valley's sign code requirements. With active collaboration from City Staff, Stantec will conduct an update of Chapter 105 - Signs with an emphasis on user-friendliness, consistency, and compatibility with state statutes and relevant case law. In tonight's work session, the consultant team will lead a discussion with Planning Commissioners on current sign regulations in Golden Valley. This listening session is one of several meetings with City Staff and community members as we prepare a draft zoning code amendment for a public hearing and City Council action in the next few months. Recommended Action Provide City Staff and the consultant team with feedback on the sign code update. Supporting Documents Sign Code Update Listening Session Memo 7 Memo To: Planning Commission Members Golden Valley From: Erin Perdu, AICP Minneapolis Project/File: Golden Valley Sign Code Update Date: March 18, 2025 Reference: Planning Commission Listening Session Project Overview Stantec staff is excited to partner with the City to update your sign code. The existing sign code was adopted in 1988 and, while it has been revised several times, it has not been comprehensively evaluated since its adoption. Our scope begins with a comprehensive review and diagnosis of issues with the current sign code. Our diagnosis includes listening sessions with you, staff, and key stakeholders. We are working with City Staff to identify key stakeholders to invite, but they will include businesses, commercial property owners, and sign companies. Our listening sessions will be focused on identifying issues and possible solutions. We will also create and maintain a project website, where we will communicate In addition to hearing from others, we will be reviewing the code with an eye toward eliminating inconsistencies, bringing the code up to date with current trends and technologies in the sign industry, and ensuring that the code is in line with current case law and statutes. Next, we will draft the code based on the diagnosis. Once we have a draft of the language, we will review with staff, the Planning Commission, and reach back out to those who participated in the first phase for reactions and feedback. Based on feedback received, we will revise and create a public hearing draft of the code. Finally, following the public hearing, we will finalize the code for City Council adoption. Schedule The following is a summary of our schedule and touch points / deliverables to share with the Planning Commission. Phase Approx. Finish Date Deliverables Planning Commission meetings Kick-off and Outreach Strategy March 21 Outreach strategy Code Diagnosis April 11 Website materials Diagnostic Report March 24 (work session) Code diagnosis – date TBD 8 March 18, 2025 Planning Commission Members Page 2 of 2 Reference: Planning Commission Listening Session Phase Approx. Finish Date Deliverables Planning Commission meetings Code Draft May 23 Draft Code Website materials/additional outreach Public Hearing Code Draft PC review of draft code, date TBD Final Code June 20 Final Code Public Hearing May 26 Listening Session – Guiding Questions For your work session on March 24, we would like to have a conversation with you about the sign code and your observations about what is working and what is not. To guide the conversation, we would like you to consider the following questions: 1. Challenges a. Is the sign code ever an obstacle for a sign project/type supported by the City? If so, when and what is the obstacle? b. Thinking about sign variances where you have recommended approval, are there parts of the code you have found overly restrictive? 2. Local successes a. What areas/projects in the city are good examples for what the City wants to achieve with the code? b. What types of signs do you want to promote? 3. Guardrails a. What are some examples of signs you want to prevent? I look forward to meeting you all next week! Respectfully, Stantec Consulting Services Inc. Erin Perdu AICP Principal, Senior Urban Planner Phone: (612) 712-2006 erin.perdu@stantec.com 9