Loading...
PC_ Meeting Minutes - 08-26-24 CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Monday, August 26, 2024 – 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 6:30 p.m. and read the Land Acknowledgement • Regular Members Present: Barnstorff, Brookins, Cohen, Ruby, Sicotte • Regular Members Absent: Segelbaum, Van Oss • Student Member, Status: VACANT • Staff Members Present: Darren Groth, Assistant Comm. Dev. Director Jacquelyn Kramer, Senior Planner Christine Costello, Housing & Econ. Dev. Manager • Council Member Present: NONE 2. CONSENT AGENDA: Brookins motioned to approve the consent agenda, as presented. Barnstorff seconded. Commission voted 5-0 to approve. 3. STAFF INTRODUCTION • Groth introduced Jacquelyn Kramer, Senior Planner. • Kramer gave a brief bio to the commissioners. 4. INFORMAL PUBLIC HEARING: Minor subdivision (Boerner Addition) • Chair Ruby introduced this item and asked Kramer to present the staff report. • Kramer presented the Minor Subdivision Application and staff report recommending approval with conditions. • Commissioner Questions • Chair Ruby – Stated that Jacquelyn said there would be no cost to the city. How does the cut for the driveway impact existing infrastructure? • Jacqulyn Kramer- Stated when evaluating an application for minor subdivision eligibility, “will this require new infrastructure” we are talking about new roads or new sewer lines not cutting a new driveway. • Applicant Presentation • Applicant not present. CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Monday, August 26, 2024 – 6:30 p.m. | City Hall Council Chamber 7800 Golden Valley Road Golden Valley, MN 55427 • Public Hearing Opened by Chair Ruby at 6:39 p.m. • Steven Bennett (540 Varner Circle) lives next door to the proposed subdivision. Bennett opposes subdivision due to concerns of what will eventually be built there. How can it move forward without knowing that? Has additional concerns for parking on the cul-de-sac. Another concern is the unfinished renovations to the existing home and if that will be a potential issue with any new structure built on the newly created lot. Also has concerns about the trees on the newly created lot being removed. He expressed concern that the applicant is out of state and lacks the sense of community. Mr. Bennett had additional comments later in the public testimony portion regarding the rescheduling of the meeting and the hardship it created and that he was not able to attend the City Council meeting. He expressed that he didn’t believe it should have been moved because the applicant was not prepared. • Corby Harty (521 Varner Circle) lives across Varner Circle from the proposed subdivision. Opposes the subdivision due to concerns about the congestion on Varner Circle. Expressed that parking is already an issue and creates navigation issues in the cul-de-sac for waste haulers. He mentioned that there would be several new young drivers in the residences of Varner Circle and is concerned for their safety. Mr. Harty echoed Mr. Bennett’s concerns regarding the unfinished renovations at the existing home. • Blythe Stillwell (521 Varner Circle). Opposes the subdivision echoing the same concerns regarding parking and commercial vehicle passage on the cul-de-sac. Also has concerns about the effect on property values in the neighborhood. Stated that there are seven homes on the cul-de-sac and currently there are 14 percent of them are rentals and if the new lot becomes another rental this will increase the percentage to 25 percent on the cul-de-sac. Concerned that the property values may decrease if the renters do not take care of the homes. Also echoed Mr. Bennett’s and Mr. Harty’s concerns about the unfinished renovations on the existing home. She stated she moved to Golden Valley for the trees and quiet environment and is afraid home values will go down, there will be loss in the sense of community, and increased traffic issues. • Marcy Weslock (555 Varner Circle) lives at the end of Varner Circle. Expressed concerns about the loss of mature trees if the lot is developed. She is an engineer by training and concerned about the significant tree cut on the lot. Would like to hear more about the tree plan. • DeeAnn Meulpolder (525 Jersey Avenue North) lives directly behind the proposed lot. • Meulpolder’s testimony was interrupted by storm warning sirens and a suspension of the meeting while everyone sought shelter in the lower level of City Hall. • Meeting Resumed • Meulpolder was not able to stay and continue with her testimony. CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Monday, August 26, 2024 – 6:30 p.m. | City Hall Council Chamber 7800 Golden Valley Road Golden Valley, MN 55427 • Kimberly Surbaugh (6810/6820 Olson Memorial Highway) owns the duplex next door to the subject property. Opposes the subdivision. Expressed that there is already a parking issue in the area and that the current rental home does not have adequate parking especially during the wintertime. It has a steep driveway and forces tenants to look for parking options elsewhere. Had similar concerns to others who spoke to maintenance issues at the existing home, the loss of mature trees, and the increased problems created by more density in the area. • Steve Tatzman (555 Varner Circle) lives at the end of Varner Circle. Opposes the subdivision. Has concerns about the high inventory of multi-family and rental properties in the Schuler neighborhood. Noted that there are at least five nursing or group homes already in the neighborhood as well as condos. • Commissioner Questions • Chair Ruby asked how do we as a city control or what powers do we have to control what is built on the new site beyond the requirement we have in terms of setbacks and height? • Kramer stated that zoning prescribes the setbacks for the building, the building height, and how much impervious coverage is allowed on a lot. The zoning code does not dictate whether a property is a rental versus home ownership. It is outside the purview of what the zoning code can do. She also reiterated for the purposes of this application the subdivision ordinance does not take into consideration whether the proposal is a rental and down the road when building permits are submitted, they must meet all the building codes. • Chair Ruby asked if they do request a variance, that would go to the Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) for approvals? If they were to go outside of the requirements of the subdivision, they would have to come back in front of the Planning Commission? • Kramer confirmed that it would. • Chair Ruby stated that he didn’t think the purview of this meeting is to focus on the existing structure, but he does think it is important that if there are violations on the property that the City should look at them. He expressed that he believed there are requirements in terms of the number of driveway and garage space. • Groth confirmed that with new single-family homes it requires two off street parking spaces and depending on the lot width, a number of those that must be enclosed. He stated existing structures or parking are not germane to a subdivision, but people may reach out to planning at 763-593-8095 or planning@goldenvalleymn.gov to address any issues with existing homes. • Chair Ruby asked a clarifying question that if there are maintenance concerns can the city address that separately? • Kramer stated that she would follow up with the building inspectors on unfinished work that was addressed in the public comments and see if there any citations that can be issued. • Commissioner Brookins stated that with regards to parking brought up during public testimony that we do have a winter parking ordinance and that if people see that this is being violated to call in and report it to the City. • Chair Ruby asked if we have the fire department or other appropriate people look at the proposal to ensure that there is adequate space for larger vehicular maneuvering? • Kramer confirmed that both fire staff and engineering look at all our applications. CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Monday, August 26, 2024 – 6:30 p.m. | City Hall Council Chamber 7800 Golden Valley Road Golden Valley, MN 55427 • Chair Ruby asked if the City has any rules about how many driveways can be on a street? Is that not under or purview and just based on the number of houses? • Groth stated there are certain requirements for cul-de-sac length and the number of driveways before it becomes a public road versus shared access. This has been addressed as this is an existing plat. If there were any additional requirements needed this application would not meet the requirements for a minor subdivision. It would fall under the regular subdivision process. • Cohen brought up the question raised by several residents regarding how you can do a subdivision when you do not even know what is going to be on the new lot. He asked that during the permitting process when you decide to build is that when the issues come into play, you can’t build what you want to build there, it doesn’t fit the site in terms of setbacks, etc.? • Kramer stated that it was correct, the code language does not talk about or regulate the future build or whether it is a rental or home ownership. These are addressed at building permit submittal and if the home is being rented out it is addressed with a rental license process with the City. • Chair Ruby stated a conversation piece was tree management. It was mentioned that the plans need to be reviewed when they decide to build. He asked if someone could speak to the City’s requirements, is it financial responsibility, is it planting additional trees on the property? • Kramer stated that part of the requirement for any plat is a tree inventory or preservation plan. The applicant has submitted one, but it needs some revisions. A condition of approval for this subdivision is that the tree plan must be updated and pass staff approval before we issue any building permits. Nothing can happen on the site until that plan is updated in accordance with our tree preservation policy. • Groth added that if this was an existing lot and they pulled permits for a new building we would get a tree and landscape plan. It is a permitting requirement that 15 percent of the existing trees, if they are significant or legacy trees, be retained. There is a mitigation opportunity on any new single- family construction to plant three trees, at least one of them in the front yard. • Chair Ruby asked can the city to emphasize the maintenance of the existing, older trees on the property or is it up to the builder to determine what trees would go of that 15 percent? • Groth stated it is an opportunity for the staff to review and for the staff to make suggestions. Builders have reconfigured the lot or revised plans based off the preservation of a significant tree. As far as ongoing maintenance it is a property rights issue, the landscape package that is approved, or what happens with those trees long term. • Chair Ruby asked can you speak again to the requirements for this land to be split to ensure that everyone understands what requirements need to be met? • Kramer stated the first thing we looked at was whether the application qualifies as a minor subdivision. Is it part of an existing plat? Is it being subdivided into four or fewer lots? Will it necessitate additional city infrastructure such as new roads, new water lines or sewer lines? This application does meet all those eligibility requirements. Is the proposal going to be for a use allowed in the zoning district it is in? It is a single-family residential, a house, not an apartment or a commercial use. Is it meeting all engineering requirements for service capacity for city infrastructure, are they showing the appropriate easements that we require? Has the city attorney had a chance to review and approve the title? Which they have. Then calculating the park dedication fee, it is a little over $5,000 for this property. Nothing can happen on the site until the plat is recorded and they have paid the fees. CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Monday, August 26, 2024 – 6:30 p.m. | City Hall Council Chamber 7800 Golden Valley Road Golden Valley, MN 55427 • Chair Ruby stated there was comment/question about zoning. It is a big conversation we have often about when we are asked to switch the zoning of a certain area. We do not have time to go through all of it. He asked if someone could speak to how that is discussed and how that is part of the broader city plan? • Groth stated that you must start with your city’s comprehensive plan. It sets out the vision, it gets updated every 10 years and shows the various types of uses are identified within the city where they would best be located. It looks at the synergy and compatibility of uses on specific parcels. Having one type of possibly incompatible use, it still may be the best location for that use, based on certain factors, in meeting the vision of the comprehensive plan. The implementation of the plan is the zoning map and all the conditions of the map. The zoning map for this subdivision is R-1, it is mostly single-family. The process to make a change to what uses can go in there is a rezone request. The Board of Zoning Appeals cannot grant a variance for uses. It is a lengthy and detailed process based on the ten-year comprehensive plan to make any changes to the allowed uses. For a subdivision is a R-1 single-family residential zone you have a very high likelihood of knowing what can go in there based on the land use chart that identifies the allowable uses. • Chair Ruby encouraged anyone to contact city staff to walk you through the details. He had a comment for staff, he will insure during the monthly meetings that do our best not to schedule a meeting until all the I’s are dotted and the T’s are crossed so that we do not cancel meetings that community members want to attend. It is not just about the applicant. • Public Hearing Closed by Chair Ruby at 7:26 p.m. • Steven Bennett, (540 Varner Circle) requested to address the commission again. Asked a general question regarding tree regulations in the city. He stated that there is no way trees will not have to be cut. Is there a seasonal regulation or restriction so that trees aren’t being cut during oak wilt season? Relayed story of indiscriminate cutting happening on the applicant’s property. • Chair Ruby responded it is a worthwhile question that will be made note of when discussed with the applicant and that it is worthwhile talking to the environmental commission, utilizing their expertise on the best management practices. He then asked for any comments from commissioners. • Cohen stated that it is the classic “it fits all the requirements for a subdivision” in the role of the planning commission. The only thing we can look at is does it meet the requirements. Recognizing the points being brought up by the neighbors they are not necessarily a part of the deliberation base on the rules that are followed by the planning commission. The points are great things to be taken to the City Council either in person or by written or email communication that would be heard during their deliberation of the subdivision at an upcoming meeting. The issue has come up before that we do not know what will happen once the lot is subdivide. Unfortunately, the role of the commission does not allow them to take it into account in their decision. CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Monday, August 26, 2024 – 6:30 p.m. | City Hall Council Chamber 7800 Golden Valley Road Golden Valley, MN 55427 • Brookins stated it looks like there are some existing nonconformities on the existing property not related to the subdivision of the property. He encouraged staff to look at if there is anything we can hold against the property to rectify the issues on the several open building permits, encourage them to be good neighbors. Encouraged neighbors to reach out to the city for the existing issues. He stated he is comfortable approving the subdivision this knowing what is going in there and based upon the time taken of the last years to ensure we have a good decision. He believes it will be a win- win for the neighborhood. Most of the concerns that were heard were related to someone not running a great rental property. The proposal checks all the boxes and will be a great addition to the city. • Sicotte asked Is there a way to codify or consider the size or age of existing trees and their mitigation in a different way than is currently in the code? He stated the one for one approach may not be the best. • Chair Ruby stated that while not a part of this meeting can we talk to the City Council liaison to have the Council discuss rental versus homestead. It is worth the city council looking at the issue. Chair Ruby then asked about the issues brought up on the existing property, are there any requirements that before you do business with the city that all the permits are closed? • Groth stated that typically there is not. There are code provisions that may address this. It is hard to hold up an action when a building permit is not required. We can review it before we do issue any building permits. • Brookins stated he would encourage staff to look at the requirements for rental licensing and to move it up on the inspection list for the existing home. • Cohen stated he would echo Commissioner Brookins comment that if this is not a good neighbor to report it to the city. He encouraged residents to reach out to the City and they will help. • Chair Ruby – Thanked the residents for their testimony and encouraged them to attend the Council Meeting. • Chair Ruby asked for a motion. • Brookins moved to recommend approval of the Minor Subdivision for the property located at 6930 Olson Memorial Highway subject to the findings and conditions in the staff report. • Cohen seconded. • Commission voted 5-0 to recommend approval. 5. NEW BUSINESS: • User Experience Framework Plan Presentation • Chair Ruby introduced this item and asked Costello to present. • Costello spoke briefly about the plan and turned the presentation over to the consulting team helping the City on this project. • The consulting team briefed the Commission on the User Experience Framework Plan. CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Monday, August 26, 2024 – 6:30 p.m. | City Hall Council Chamber 7800 Golden Valley Road Golden Valley, MN 55427 • Planning Commission meeting schedule updates (2024/2025) • Kramer sought direction from the Commissioner on various scheduling conflicts for the regular meeting agenda. • Commissioners agreed to review the regular meeting dates and come back with any conflicts. 6. COUNCIL LIASION REPORT: NONE 7. STAFF COMMENTS: Groth commented on looking for a student representative for the upcoming year. 8. COMMISSIONER UPDATES: • Cohen mentioned that he did not chair the last meeting, and the minutes should be updated. • Chair Ruby gave kudos to Kramer for including details regarding the scope and purview of the commission in her presentation. Those details were helpful to commissioners and the public. 9. ADJOURNMENT: Chair Ruby adjourned the meeting at 8:13 p.m.