06 24 24 PC Packet
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AGENDA
Remote Attendance/Comment Options: Meetings are conducted in a hybrid format
with in-person and remote options for attending, participating, and commenting. You
may attend virtually by watching on cable channel 16; streaming on CCXmedia.org
or Webex; or by calling 1-415-655-0001 and then entering access code 2634 986
5553 and password 1234 from phones and video systems.
1. Call to Order:
a. Land Acknowledgement
b. Attendance (by presence, not roll call)
i. Commissioners: Amy Barnstorff, Adam Brookins, Gary Cohen, Mike Ruby,
Chuck Segelbaum, Martin Sicotte, and Eric Van Oss
ii. Youth Member: Vacant
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.
a. Agenda Approval or Modifications
b. Approve Planning Commission Minutes from June 10, 2024
3. Public Hearings:
a. Informal Public Hearing – Minor Subdivision at 227 Paisley Lane and 200 Edgewood
Avenue North
4. New Business: None
5. Council Member Report
6. Commissioner Training: None
7. Staff Comments
8. Commissioner Updates
9. Adjourn
June 24, 2024 – 6:30 pm
Council Chamber
Hybrid Meeting
CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
Monday, June 10, 2024 – 6:30 p.m. | City Hall Council Chamber
7800 Golden Valley Road Golden Valley, MN 55427
1. CALL TO ORDER
• Chair Ruby called the meeting to order at 6 p.m. & read the Land Acknowledgement
a. Regular Members Present: Cohen, Ruby, Segelbaum (arrived 6:34), Sicotte, Van Oss
b. Regular Members Absent: Barnstorff, Brookins
c. Student Member, Status: Benjamin Fricke, Present
d. Staff Members Present: Darren Groth, Assistant Community Development Director
e. Council Member Present: None
2. CONSENT AGENDA: Cohen motioned to approve the consent agenda, as
presented. Van Oss seconded.
Commission voted 4-0 to approve.
3. PUBLIC HEARINGS: NONE
4. NEW BUSINESS:
1. Review of Planning Commission Bylaws – updated in 2023
a. At 6:36 p.m., Vice-Chair Cohen reminded the commission that Council Member
Ginis briefed the Planning Commission on May 13 about a revision of the bylaws,
but they were not published online. Groth indicated that he was able to research
and find the latest bylaws that were updated in 2023. Groth told the commission
that he published this version online to the Planning Commission webpage. Groth
further indicated that the new bylaws did not change the Planning Commission’s
meeting time and still reflected a 7 p.m. start time. Commissioner Segelbaum
mentioned that he recalled the meeting start time changing to 6:30 p.m. as an
informal change that was not updated in the bylaws. Chair Ruby reiterated that
was how the time changed and asked if it would be beneficial to formally make the
revision in the bylaws. Groth advised that since it has been changed per all the
commissioners and on the City’s website, then it may just be a technicality to
update the bylaws but should occur. Vice-Chair Cohen recommended that the
bylaws be amended to show the correct start time and made a motion to reflect
the Planning Commission’s desires as a recommendation to City Council. Sicotte
seconded the motion. The commission voted 4-0-1 (Commissioner Segelbaum
abstained) to recommend changing the meeting start time in the bylaws from 7
p.m. to 6:30 p.m.
2. New Commissioner Welcome Items
a. At 6:43 p.m., Groth mentioned the items included in the packet that could serve
as a resource and reference for the commissioners.
CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
Monday, June 10, 2024 – 6:30 p.m. | City Hall Council Chamber
7800 Golden Valley Road Golden Valley, MN 55427
5. COUNCIL LIASION REPORT: NONE
6. COMMISSIONER TRAINING
At 6:45 p.m., Groth started the Land Use Regulation Mini-Course offered by the League of
Minnesota Cities (LMC). This training was provided online through a link to the LMC website at:
https://www.lmc.org/learning-events/learnings/land-use-mini/.
7. STAFF COMMENTS
At 7:28 p.m., Groth briefed the commission on various staffing updates regarding open positions on
the planning team. A new Associate Planner is scheduled to start on July 1 and a promising
candidate will interview for the Senior Planner opening next week.
8. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS
1. Student Member Fricke informed the commission that this would be his last meeting
because he joined the Air Force and will be reporting to the Air Force Academy near
Colorado Springs, CO within the next couple of days.
2. Commissioner Segelbaum updated the commission on the Board of Zoning Appeals
schedule for the remainder of the year.
3. Chair Ruby reminded everyone of the joint meeting with City Council happening [on
June 11, 2024].
9. ADJOURNMENT: Chair Ruby adjourned the meeting at 7:42 p.m.
Approved by:
Atest By: Commission Secretary
Darren Groth, AICP, CPM
Community Development Asst. Director
CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY
PLANNING COMMISSION
AGENDA ITEM COVER PAGE
Date: June 24, 2024
Title: Minor Subdivision at 227 Paisley Ln and 200 Edgewood Ave N
Attachments: 1) Staff Report with exhibits
Submitted By: Darren Groth, AICP, CPM, Asst. Comm. Dev. Director
Background:
Per Minn. Stats. §462.358, subd. 1a, the purpose of a subdivision is “To protect and promote the
public health, safety, and general welfare, to provide for the orderly, economic, and safe
development of land, to preserve agricultural lands, to promote the availability of housing
affordable to persons and families of all income levels, and to facilitate adequate provision for
transportation, water, sewage, storm drainage, schools, parks, playgrounds, and other public
services and facilities…” In keeping with Minn. Stats. § 462.358, subd. 1a, City Code Section 109-
121 identifies the conditions for approval or denial of a minor subdivision.
Like a zoning ordinance, a subdivision ordinance can be a powerful tool to help cities implement
their comprehensive plan. Subdivision ordinances may cover similar topics and are often confused
with zoning regulations. However, there are important differences between zoning regulation and
subdivision regulation. Subdivision and zoning ordinances are similar in that they seek to regulate
private use of land. Zoning regulations and subdivision regulations may both impose regulations as
to lot size, location and improvements. Subdivision is different from the more familiar zoning in that
it usually is imposed at the initial development phase of a project, whereas zoning is applicable
through the development phase of a subdivision and through the life of the completed subdivision.
In cities that contain certain natural resources such as lakes and rivers, or are in a floodplain, the
subdivision ordinance must also conform to the following state standards:
• Floodplain requirements: State law sets minimum requirements and standards for
development in flood plains. City subdivision ordinances must be consistent with state
standards to preserve the capacity of the floodplain to carry and discharge regional floods
and minimize flood hazards.
• Wild and scenic rivers development requirements: Cities with shoreland located within the
Minnesota Wild and Scenic Rivers System are subject to additional state law restrictions
when developing a subdivision ordinance. Subdivision ordinances in these cities must
comply with minimum state standards set by the commissioner of Natural Resources.
• Shoreland development requirements: For cities that contain shoreland, state regulations
control the use and development of shorelands. City shoreland subdivision regulations must
be at least as restrictive as state standards and are subject to the review of the
commissioner of Natural Resources.
CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY
PLANNING COMMISSION
AGENDA ITEM COVER PAGE
Standard of Review:
When drafting and adopting a subdivision ordinance, cities have a lot of discretion in choosing their
language and setting design standards. When drafting and adopting a subdivision ordinance, the
city is said to be utilizing its legislative (or law-making) authority. When using its legislative authority,
the only limits on the city’s authority is that action must be constitutional, rational, and in some way
related to protecting the health, safety, and welfare of the public. This is known as the “rational
basis standard” and it is generally a relatively easy standard for cities to meet.
In contrast, when administering an existing subdivision ordinance by reviewing a preliminary or final
plat application, the city’s discretion is much more limited. Generally, when reviewing a subdivision
application, the city is no longer acting in its legislative capacity. When reviewing subdivision
applications, the City is exercising a quasi-judicial (judge-like) function. Rather than legislating for
the broad population, the city is deciding on an individual subdivision application regarding whether
the application meets the standards of the city ordinance.
In quasi-judicial circumstances, the city must follow the standards and requirements of the
ordinance it has adopted. If an application meets the requirements of the ordinance, generally it
must be granted. If an application is denied, the stated reasons for the denial must all relate to the
applicant’s failure to meet standards established in the ordinance. In sum, the city has a great deal
of liberty to establish the rules, but once established, the city is as equally bound by the rules as the
public. In these situations, a reviewing court will closely scrutinize the city’s decision to determine
whether the city has provided a legally and factually sufficient basis for denial of an application.
In quasi-judicial situations, due process and equal protection are the main reasons for the more
stringent scrutiny. Due process and equal protection under the law demand that similar applicants
must be treated uniformly by the city. The best process for ensuring similar treatment among
applicants is to establish standards in the ordinance and to provide that if standards are met, the
subdivision application must be granted. An application may generally only be denied for failure to
meet the standards in city ordinances. A reviewing court will overrule a quasi-judicial city
subdivision decision if it determines that the decision was arbitrary (failed to treat equally situated
applicants equally or failed to follow ordinance requirements).
Recommendation
Hold an informal hearing and make a recommendation of APPROVAL to the City Council for this
Minor Subdivision, in accordance with the findings and recommendations contained in the attached
staff report.
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)
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.
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.
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.
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
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
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
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.
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
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.
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
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
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
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,
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
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
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
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
From:Darren Groth
To:Marcia Anderson
Subject:RE: Paisley Edgewood Neighborhood Meeting
Date:Monday, June 17, 2024 11:23:00 AM
Good morning Marcia,
Thanks for joining the meeting. I’m glad you thought it was productive. To answer your
questions, Brian did not have a handout. The ‘informal’ term for the Planning Commission
meeting is due to state law only allowing cities to hold one public hearing on subdivision
applications. As a way around this law, Golden Valley calls the meeting with the Planning
Commission an “informal public hearing” because the official, formal meeting that is required
for approval is conducted by the City Council. The Planning Commission takes public input too,
but the record stays open through the close of City Council’s hearing. The Planning
Commission’s recommendation is forwarded to City Council for the public hearing on July 2.
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: Friday, June 14, 2024 2:37 PM
To: Darren Groth <dgroth@goldenvalleymn.gov>
Subject: Re: Paisley Edgewood Neighborhood Meeting
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.
Thanks for setting up the Edgewood-Paisley neighborhood meeting, Darren, and for being there
to staff it. I think it was productive, and started or continued lines of communications that I
hope will remain open. I was glad to be able to attend, even with the technical issues, after
having had to change my meeting schedule on my trip this week.
I had trouble hearing via the phone-only connection I ended up with, though, so here's a follow-
up question: I heard Brian read some FAQ answers, but didn't hear everything clearly. Did he
have a hand-out or something that could be emailed to me? I would like to report to others in
the neighborhood who could not attend, but I don't want to only rely on my sketchy notes, due
to the connection issues. If so, please send it to me. I also asked for it from Brian.
Secondly, we need clarification about the Planning Commission meeting June 24, please.
-- Do not delete or change any of the following text. --
When it's time, join your Webex meeting here.
Join
meeting
More ways to join:
Join from the meeting link
https://logis.webex.com/logis/j.php?MTID=m0675ff7d438ca447c436367bc8b786dd
Join by meeting number
Meeting number: 2630 865 5568
Meeting password: We994vmKKPm
Connect to audio
Connect to audio using the computer.
Join from a video system or application
Dial 26308655568@logis.webex.com
You can also dial 173.243.2.68 and enter your meeting number.
What does "informal meeting" mean, in terms of the subdivision proposal? Is there going to be
an opportunity for public comment, officially or informally? Is it an actual public hearing as part
of the Council's "reset" action on this application process? I thought I understood from Mr.
Schuchmann that it was a repeated public hearing.
Thanks for getting back to me/us as soon as possible on the above follow-ups.
And thanks again.
-Marcia
Marcia Anderson
130 Edgewood Ave. N.
763-732-2697
On Mon, Jun 10, 2024 at 4:46 PM Darren Groth <dgroth@goldenvalleymn.gov> wrote:
If you are a host, click here to view host information.
Need help? Go to https://help.webex.com
From:Jake Hartman
To:Darren Groth; Sophia Ginis
Subject:Fwd: Paisley - Edgewood Minor Subdivision
Date:Friday, June 21, 2024 12:27:18 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, Ms. Ginis and Mr. Groth:
I sent the email below to the general email for the planning council, but given that you are
meeting on Monday, I wanted to ensure that it made it to you prior to the meeting.
Thank you,
Jake
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Jake Hartman <jjhartman07@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, Jun 21, 2024 at 12:11 PM
Subject: Paisley - Edgewood Minor Subdivision
To: <planning@goldenvalleymn.gov>
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:
"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
.
From:Michael Ryan
To:marcia.d.anderson@gmail.com
Cc:Darren Groth
Subject:RE: Edgewood-Paisley Subdivision Application
Date:Friday, June 21, 2024 3:16:24 PM
Marcia,
Thank you, and it’s nice to meet you via email. Please refer to my responses below, which are
indicated with red text and a sub-list format.
1. Is it typical for the city engineer's office to state that a proposed new lot is "buildable"
without having a proposed building site identified by the applicant? What is the precedent for
this?
Per Minn. Stats. §462.358, subd. 1a, the purpose of a subdivision is to protect and
promote the public health, safety, and general welfare, to provide for the orderly,
economic, and safe development of land, to preserve agricultural lands, to promote the
availability of housing affordable to persons and families of all income levels, and to
facilitate adequate provision for transportation, water, sewage, storm drainage, schools,
parks, playgrounds, and other public services and facilities. In keeping with Minn. Stats.
§462.358, subd. 1a, City Code Section 109-121 identifies the conditions for approval or
denial of a minor subdivision. Neither state law nor City Code requires the City Engineer
to state whether a proposed new lot is “buildable.”
For reference, “buildable lot” is described in City Code Section 113-88.
2. Has a certified engineer done a study of the site for buildability, and for potential affects of
building on adjacent sites? If so, was that study available to the city and placed in public
record?
Please refer to the response to Question #1 above.
3. What investigation did the city engineering office do on the proposed Lot 2 site, prior to
recommendation? On what data sources was the investigation and analysis done--the
submitted plat survey, other documentation, on-site measurements and observation, or
other? How is this data accessible?
In addition to the criteria in City Code Chapter 109 - Article II - Division 4, plats must also
comply with City Code Chapter 109 - Article III. City engineering reviewed the submitted
application in accordance with Code requirements. Copies of these documents are
typically included in the materials forwarded to the Planning Commission; documents
are available from the City through a public records request.
City reviews applicable City Codes, definitions, and State Statutes.
4. How is the "buildability" of a proposed lot determined when no building site is identified by
the applicant? Does the city identify the "buildable" portions of the lot for the applicant?
A buildable lot for this application is described in City Code Section 113-88 Single
Family Residential (R-1) Zoning District, which requires conformance to zoning
standards, including minimum lot sizes and widths.
5. What data/facts provide evidence that the proposed Lot 2 would be buildable?
The submitted application was reviewed for compliance with applicable City Code and
regulations. The application and preliminary plat contain data/information pertinent to
the definition of “buildable lot”.
6. What areas of the proposed lot would be the "buildable portion" based on city code and
state law, and why? On what evidence or calculations, actual or estimated, is this based?
The “buildable portion” of a lot is the area defined in City Code Section 113-1 as
“Buildable Area (Building Envelope): That portion of a lot which is exclusive of all yards,
below the established maximum height, and within which principal and accessory
structures may be constructed.”
City Code Section 113-88 describes the “Building Envelope” as: Taken together, the
front, rear, and side setbacks and the height limitation shall constitute the building
envelope. No portion of a structure may extend outside the building envelope, except as
described in the list that immediately follows this definition in City Code.
The Building Envelope is explicitly defined terminology.
7. What is the "average slope measured over a horizontal distance equal to or greater than 50
feet" on the proposed lot, and where on the lot was this slope-average measured? Does
this slope need to be measured within a proposed building site to meet the intent of the
definition of "steep slope" that might "encumber" building?
The State has various definitions of steep slope, typically applicable to bluffs,
shorelands, lakes and streambanks, etc. The proposed lot is not located on a bluff,
shoreland, or bank. The average slope does not need to be measured within a specific
building site. Refer to Question #8 response for more information.
8. Was the "approximately 11 feet of grade change across the lot" mentioned in an email from
Ms. Lindahl meant to be the "average" addressed in the code to determine "steep slope"?
How was the "11 feet" figure calculated? We see elevation ranges from 917 to 905, which
results in a range of 12' rather than 11' (from the Preliminary Plat Survey, with a magnifying
glass!). We do not know where the "average slope" was determined.
No, the grade change is not meant to be the “average” slope of the lot. The greatest
elevation change on Lot 2 occurs from the northwest corner (elev. 917’) and the
southeast corner (elev. 905’), over a distance of approximately 170’, which corresponds
to an average slope of approximately 7.1% between these lot corners.
9) For purposes of understanding how a "steep slope" condition is determined or ruled out,
please respond to a nearby resident's estimates that suggest either a steeper possible grade or
a longer run needed:
"Without knowing the full dimensions of the lot, or of the area that is 'buildable', it's hard to
figure out the exact slope of the areas in question. For discussion's sake: 11 feet rise/50 feet of
run = .22 (or 22% grade if my math is correct), which is well above the definition of 'steep
slope.' The email also says the applicant meets the 80-foot lot width [at front setback]. If we
assume the run of the slope is actually 80 ft, then 11/80 = .1375 (13.75% slope, still within the
definition of a 'steep slope'). If we reverse engineer to get the max distance (11 divided by 12%)
we get approximately 92 feet of run. In other words, that change in 11 feet of grade would have
to be over a distance of greater than 92 feet not to be considered a steep slope by state
definition.
"Is it accurate that the slope in the proposed subdivision is not a 'steep slope' by the state
definition?"
Relatedly, where is the front set-back line and where on the proposed plat is the minimum
width of 80' documented? (FYI: the paper copy sent to nearby residents is mostly unreadable.)
Please refer to responses above for more information related to steep slopes, average
slopes, buildable lots, etc. It is accurate that the average slope of the lot is lower than
the State’s definition of steep slope cited in your inquiry.
The proposed lot width at a 35’ setback is explicitly identified down and left of the “LOT
2” label on the preliminary layout. The text reads “Proposed lot width at 35 ft setback”
and the arrow points to a dimensional line indicating a 99.5’ width.
9. What has been done to assess the water table on the proposed Lot Two property and
potential impacts of Lot Two building on adjacent properties? Has a percolation test been
performed, and if so, what are the results?
Water table evaluations and percolation tests are not conditions of approval for a minor
subdivision. Please refer to City Code Sections 109-120 and 109-121.
11) What has been done to assess the projected excavation and grading required for building
on the proposed Lot 2 site, particularly given the slope and nearby water table and run-off
issues? (See historical references to water issues in Tralee and nearby Paisley subdivisions,
and testimony of adjacent neighbors.)
A builder or developer typically identifies excavation and grading requirements during
design, and prior to construction. Neither assessment is required for a minor subdivision.
Please refer to City Code Sections 109-120 and 109-121.
12) Given the lack of identification of a building site in the application, and the potential
impacts on adjacent sites from as yet unspecified Lot 2 construction and building addition(s),
such as from grading, excavation, storm-water run-off, water-table changes, and building
height affects, would the city staff consider recommending to Council that the application be
denied without further building-site information, OR, that approval of the minor subdivision
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?
Potential impacts of planning and development are addressed throughout the City’s
Zoning Code, and/or other portions of the City Code and Ordinances pertaining to land
development. The City’s Subdivision Regulations do not allow a recommendation of
denial, as the application materials received comply with criteria for approval.
Best,
Michael Ryan, PE, CPSWQ | City Engineer | City of Golden Valley
7800 Golden Valley Road | Golden Valley, MN 55427 | P: 763-593-8043 | C: 763-438-4975
TTY: 763-593-3968 | E: mryan@goldenvalleymn.gov
Pronouns: he/him/they
From: Marcia Anderson <marcia.d.anderson@gmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, June 20, 2024 12:46 PM
To: Michael Ryan <mryan@goldenvalleymn.gov>
Subject: Edgewood-Paisley 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.
Mr. Ryan:
Welcome to Golden Valley and your new position!
I am part of a neighborhood group near the proposed Edgewood-Paisley subdivision. Several of
us have questions and concerns about the application and the "buildability" of the proposed
lot, which we hope you will be able to clarify and address. One neighbor received some
information previously from consulting city planner Kendra Lindahl on this question, mostly
quoting city code. We understand that you are new to the City Engineer position, and that
previous staff may have been involved in the earlier stages of the application process for this
subdivision.
We request more information about the "buildability" data, evidence and analysis that the city
staff and planning commission use/used for considering approval or denial of the application,
based on city code. Please respond with information about the following questions, ideally
before the Planning Commission Monday, June 24, or for the Commission members and
participants at that informal meeting.
Resident questions include:
1) Is it typical for the city engineer's office to state that a proposed new lot is "buildable"
without having a proposed building site identified by the applicant? What is the precedent for
this?
2) Has a certified engineer done a study of the site for buildability, and for potential affects of
building on adjacent sites? If so, was that study available to the city and placed in public
record?
3) What investigation did the city engineering office do on the proposed Lot 2 site, prior to
recommendation? On what data sources was the investigation and analysis done--the
submitted plat survey, other documentation, on-site measurements and observation, or other?
How is this data accessible?
4) How is the "buildability" of a proposed lot determined when no building site is identified by
the applicant? Does the city identify the "buildable" portions of the lot for the applicant?
5) What data/facts provide evidence that the proposed Lot 2 would be buildable?
6) What areas of the proposed lot would be the "buildable portion" based on city code and
state law, and why? On what evidence or calculations, actual or estimated, is this based?
7) What is the "average slope measured over a horizontal distance equal to or greater than 50
feet" on the proposed lot, and where on the lot was this slope-average measured? Does
this slope need to be measured within a proposed building site to meet the intent of the
definition of "steep slope" that might "encumber" building?
8) Was the "approximately 11 feet of grade change across the lot" mentioned in an email from
Ms. Lindahl meant to be the "average" addressed in the code to determine "steep slope"? How
was the "11 feet" figure calculated? We see elevation ranges from 917 to 905, which results in
a range of 12' rather than 11' (from the Preliminary Plat Survey, with a magnifying glass!). We do
not know where the "average slope" was determined.
9) For purposes of understanding how a "steep slope" condition is determined or ruled out,
please respond to a nearby resident's estimates that suggest either a steeper possible grade or
a longer run needed:
"Without knowing the full dimensions of the lot, or of the area that is 'buildable', it's hard to
figure out the exact slope of the areas in question. For discussion's sake: 11 feet rise/50 feet of
run = .22 (or 22% grade if my math is correct), which is well above the definition of 'steep
slope.' The email also says the applicant meets the 80-foot lot width [at front setback]. If we
assume the run of the slope is actually 80 ft, then 11/80 = .1375 (13.75% slope, still within the
definition of a 'steep slope'). If we reverse engineer to get the max distance (11 divided by 12%)
we get approximately 92 feet of run. In other words, that change in 11 feet of grade would have
to be over a distance of greater than 92 feet not to be considered a steep slope by state
definition.
"Is it accurate that the slope in the proposed subdivision is not a 'steep slope' by the state
definition?"
Relatedly, where is the front set-back line and where on the proposed plat is the minimum
width of 80' documented? (FYI: the paper copy sent to nearby residents is mostly unreadable.)
10) What has been done to assess the water table on the proposed Lot Two property and
potential impacts of Lot Two building on adjacent properties? Has a percolation test been
performed, and if so, what are the results?
11) What has been done to assess the projected excavation and grading required for building
on the proposed Lot 2 site, particularly given the slope and nearby water table and run-off
issues? (See historical references to water issues in Tralee and nearby Paisley subdivisions,
and testimony of adjacent neighbors.)
12) Given the lack of identification of a building site in the application, and the potential
impacts on adjacent sites from as yet unspecified Lot 2 construction and building addition(s),
such as from grading, excavation, storm-water run-off, water-table changes, and building
height affects, would the city staff consider recommending to Council that the application be
denied without further building-site information, OR, that approval of the minor subdivision
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?
Thank you for responding to these questions with as much urgency as you can muster, given
the tight "reset" timeline on this subdivision application provided by the City Council June 4 to
allow more complete neighborhood information and city transparency/due process.
Please reply in writing so that I may share with the residents in our neighborhood who have an
interest in this subdivision decision, and whose properties will or may be affected. If you have
any questions, please feel free to call me at 763-732-2697.
And most definitely, welcome again to our lovely and vibrant city of Golden Valley, with, as you
can tell, an engaged citizenry!
Respectfully,
Marcia Anderson
130 Edgewood Ave. N.
Golden Valley, MN 55427
763-732-2697
marcia.d.anderson@gmail.com