The URL can be used to link to this page

PC Agenda Packet_05.12.25 May 12, 2025 — 6:30 PM Council Chambers Hybrid Meeting 1.Call to Order, Land Acknowledgement, and Attendance Attendance by presence, not roll call 1.A.Oath of Office for Amy Barnstorff 1.B.Election of Officers 2.Consent Agenda All matters listed under Item 2 are considered routine in nature and will be enacted by one motion. Individual discussion of these items is not planned. A member, however, may remove any item to discuss as an item for separate consideration under New Business. 2.A.Approval of Agenda 2.B.April 14, 2025 Meeting Minutes 3.Public Hearings 4.New Business 4.A.Review of Planning Commission Bylaws 5.Staff Updates 6.Commissioner Updates 7.Adjourn Regular Meeting 8.Work Session (not broadcast) 8.A.Planning Commission Meeting Norms 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 May 12, 2025 — 6:30 PM 1 City of Golden Valley Planning Commission Regular Meeting May 12, 2025 — 6:30 PM 2 CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Monday, April 14, 2025 – 6:30 p.m. | City Hall Council Chamber 7800 Golden Valley Road Golden Valley, MN 55427 1 1. CALL TO ORDER AND LAND ACKNOWLEDGEMENT • Chair Ruby called the meeting to order at 6:31 p.m. and read the Land Acknowledgement • Regular Members Present: Amy Barnstorff, Adam Brookins, Gary Cohen, Mike Ruby, Martin Sicotte, Eric Van Oss • Regular Members Absent: Chuck Segelbaum • Student Member, Status: Vacant • Staff Members Present: Chloe McGuire, Deputy Community Development Director Jacquelyn Kramer, Senior Planner Steven Okey, Associate Planner Kendra Lindahl, Consulting Planner Michael Ryan, City Engineer • Council Member Present: None 2. CONSENT AGENDA: a. Meeting Minutes: March 14, 2025 • Ruby asked if there was any discussion or requested changes. • Ruby asked for a motion to approve. • Brookins moved. • Cohen seconded. • All voted in favor, and the motion passed. 3. NEW BUSINESS: a. Information on the HOPE Program • Ruby stated the parameters of the public hearing portion of the new business. • McGuire clarified that this item on the agenda is not a public hearing but just information on the program. • McGuire presented the information on the HOPE Program. • Sicotte asked how many houses the program has developed since its onset in 2022. • McGuire stated that only 1 is developed, 5 are on the agenda tonight, and 16 in total. • Cohen asked if there were similar programs in other neighboring communities. • McGuire stated she is unaware of any other communities that are using previously condemned properties to be turned back into residential. Other communities are looking at Golden Valley for guidance on how this is being handled. • Ruby asked if there were any other questions or comments. 4. PUBLIC HEARINGS: a. Conditional Use Permit Amendment for Daycare at 4735 Bassett Creek Road • Kramer presented the proposal. • Ruby asked if there were questions for the staff. • Cohen asked about the number of children and clarified that this would not exceed the State limit. • Kramer confirmed that the State has extremely strict standards on how many children are allowed in the building; therefore, the City does not need to stack on top of this CUP because 3 CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Monday, April 14, 2025 – 6:30 p.m. | City Hall Council Chamber 7800 Golden Valley Road Golden Valley, MN 55427 2 it is already regulated. • Ruby asked if there were any traffic concerns in the area. • Kramer stated there were no traffic concerns, and the applicant supplied a circulation plan. • Ruby asked if all renovations would be internal. • Kramer noted this was correct and that nothing would be done on the outside of the building. • Ruby asked the applicant to come up and speak if interested. • Pat McGraw with Valley of Peace Lutheran Church spoke. • McGraw thanked the staff for their support and help in the process. Stated that if neighbors needed anything to please reach out. • Ruby asked if there were any questions for the applicant. Ruby opened the public hearing and noted there was not anyone from the public in attendance who wished to speak. Then he asked if there was anyone on the phone or virtually who would like to comment. • Okey confirmed there was no one on the phones or virtually. • Ruby closed the public hearing and opened the item for discussion. • Cohen noted that there is a need for daycare in the community, and the numbers show this. • Ruby asked if there were any other questions or comments on the CUP. He then asked for a motion. • Barnstorff made the motion. • Brookins seconded the motion. • All voted in favor, and the motion passed. b. Conditional Use Permit for Indoor Entertainment (Jump Start Adventure Park) at 8325 10th Avenue. • Kramer presented the proposal; however, due to scheduling issues, the applicant has not met with staff. Staff is recommending this application be tabled. Staff also recommended opening the public hearing and then continuing it to next month to allow time for a full analysis. • Ruby asked if there would be a full review at the next meeting. • Kramer said that it is correct. • Ruby asked if the public hearing was to be opened. • Kramer stated that it is correct and that if anyone was there, they could comment or come to the next meeting. The next meeting is when the public hearing will close, and the Commission’s recommendation will take place. • Ruby opened the public hearing and noted there was no one from the public in attendance to speak on this. He then asked if anyone was present virtually. • Okey noted there was no one virtually. • Ruby asked if they needed a motion. • Kramer stated they will need a motion to continue the public hearing for next month. And staff recommends leaving the public hearing open, so no further notification is needed. • Brookins motioned to table the discussion on 8325 10th Avenue. • Sicotte seconded the motion. • All voted in favor, and the motion passed. • Okey noted that the next meeting is Wednesday, May 28, due to the Memorial Day holiday. c. Comprehensive Plan Amendment, Rezoning, and Preliminary Plat for 504 Lilac Drive 4 CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Monday, April 14, 2025 – 6:30 p.m. | City Hall Council Chamber 7800 Golden Valley Road Golden Valley, MN 55427 3 • Ruby stated that the next 5 public hearings are for properties in the HOPE program. Kendra Lindahl, with Landform, would present the staff reports for a site, then the Planning Commission would hold a public hearing, discuss each application, and vote on each application separately. Comments should be kept to the parcel in question. • Lindahl presented the proposal. • Ruby asked if there were any questions for the staff. • Ruby asked about the current status of the site. If MnDOT is completely off the site and it is ready to go, if voted on to do so. • Lindahl stated the site is the City’s, MnDOT is no longer on it, but site work will need to be done before a home is built. • Ruby asked for further questions, seeing none, he opened up the public hearing for specifically 504 Lilac Drive. • Resident Ruth Paradise, 8515 Duluth Street, spoke. • Paradise stated that she felt it was unique that this sort of thing could be done because usually things are all built up, and she supported the building of a single-family home on this property. • Resident David Scheie, 360 Brunswick Avenue South, spoke. • Scheie stated he is in favor of the plan. He suggested that maybe it be a twin home or row home, to open it up to more home buyers. • Resident Adam Hagen, 5530 Golden Valley Road, spoke. • Hagen asked for a copy of the land trust because he felt they had not seen it before this meeting. He is worried that it could become a rental property. He wants to know more about the sale of the property. • Ruby asked if there were any virtual questions and confirmed there were not. • Ruby then took public hearing questions to the staff. He asked if there was an opportunity to build more than one family structure on this, or if that was up to the builder, and whether the site would allow this. • Lindahl stated that the City looked at the site as a single-family home because of the shape of the site. • Ruby asked if the site could be left to be either a single-family or a multiple-family home. • Lindahl stated the request is to rezone it to R1, which would only allow single-family. If the City were to decide to go to a multi-family, it would need to be brought back to the Commission for rezoning, then work with a builder, and be brought back to do a minor subdivision. The request is for a single-family home. • Ruby asked if they could ask for it to be a different type of development. • Lindahl affirmed this question. • Ruby asked about literature access. • McGuire stated there is one property in the land trust. She is unsure if this is public data or not and would need to talk to the City Attorney. She clarified that the land trust lasts for 99 years and needs to be owner-occupied. • Ruby asked that with the land trust, even if the owner purchases, they cannot re-rent it. • McGuire stated that this is outside the scope of the Planning Commission, but that it is correct that the property would need to be maintained as owner-occupied for at least 99 years. • Ruby asked if staff could answer the question about how builders are chosen. • McGuire stated that the builders are chosen through the RFQ process. Not all the lots have 5 CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Monday, April 14, 2025 – 6:30 p.m. | City Hall Council Chamber 7800 Golden Valley Road Golden Valley, MN 55427 4 builders chosen, but there is a scoring criteria, the RFQ is public, and questions and answers are public during that period. One of the developers that was chosen is Habitat for Humanity. • Ruby asked if there were any other questions for the staff. • Cohen asked if the acronym RFQ could be stated for the benefit of the audience. • McGuire stated Request for Qualifications. • Cohen stated that the HRA is the City Council, and they meet as the Housing and Redevelopment Authority. • Ruby closed the public hearing and opened the item for discussion. • Ruby stated that he agreed with the resident that maybe it needs to be looked at to be more than just a single-family home, given that one of the major goals is to identify more opportunities for housing in the community at an affordable price. He is curious if R1 is the right path. • Brookins added that R1 is the best fit for the neighborhood and the other things that are around it. He has no objections to the R1 proposal. • Cohen stated that he is in favor of the R1 proposal due to the odd shape of the lot, and it makes the most sense for the neighborhood and the lot. • Ruby asked for the slide with the three separate pieces for the motion to be put back up. • Brookins stated that, looking at various parcels, he would encourage the future developer to think about something more harmonious with the other lots. • Brookins moved to make a motion for 504 Lilac Drive to recommend the amendment to the future land use, changing the guided land use from right-of-way to low-density residential based upon the findings in the packet and comments. • Barnstorff seconded the motion. • All voted in favor, and the motion passed. • Brookins moved to rezone the property to R1. • Cohen clarified that it is rezoning the property from right-of-way to R1, to follow the specific wording of the recommendations. • Barnstorff seconded the motion. • All voted in favor, and the motion passed. • Brookins made a motion to recommend the primary plot for the Hope Second Addition. • Cohen seconded the motion. • All voted in favor, and the motion passed. d. Preliminary Plat for 4707 Circle Down • Lindahl presented the proposal. • Ruby asked if there were any questions for the staff. • Brookins asked if anything had changed, in terms of the plat, from the previous application in 2023. • Lindahl stated it was the same plat as 2023. • Sicotte noted that a drainage and utility easement is going through the site at a diagonal; he questioned how this would impact the buildable area on the site. • Lindahl noted that the City Engineer did sign off on it and that the drainage and utility would limit where the house could be built, but it does not make the lot unbuildable. • Sicotte noted that it cuts through at a diagonal, and there is a portion of buildable area that is disconnected from where the house is shown as buildable. 6 CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Monday, April 14, 2025 – 6:30 p.m. | City Hall Council Chamber 7800 Golden Valley Road Golden Valley, MN 55427 5 • Lindahl stated that it could be lawn and would not allow any structures, but it does pose a challenge, but not unheard of. • Ruby asked if there were any other questions for the staff. • Ruby opened the public hearing for 4707 Circle Down, clarifying how this would work. • Resident David Scheie, 360 Brunswick Avenue South, spoke. • Scheie stated that he is in favor of homes being built here. He would like developers to be able to build multi-family homes without having to jump through additional hoops of coming back before the Commission. He believes that, given its location, it would still be harmonious with the other homes around it. • Ruby asked if there were any further comments or questions, seeing none, he asked if there were any virtual. • Ruby closed the public hearing and opened the item for discussion. • Ruby asked to look at using the space as a duplex. He also asked if R2 allows for single family- homes. • Lindahl stated that single-family homes are permitted in both R2 and R1. The City has just asked that it be single-family; there is no rezoning request tonight, it is just the plat. Feedback from the Commission to the Council could be shared that would support something different, but for tonight, it is just the preliminary plat. • Brookins asked how an accessory dwelling unit may relate to these uses. • Lindahl said that in terms of single-family homes in general, it can be answered; she does not know that anything in the HOPE Program would prohibit an accessory dwelling. • Okey stated that there is nothing in the HOPE Program, but it would only be on any single- family dwelling, not on any duplex or twin home. • Barnstorff asked if these are to be owner-occupied, and if there is an accessory unit, would that then have to be someone in that family living there and not renting out that accessory dwelling. • Lindahl stated that they would have to look into the ADU question for the council meeting, because this is a single-family home, and in general, an ADU is allowed within the code. She is not aware of anything in the HOPE Program that would prohibit it, but she does not want to speak to it. She will work with staff and have the update at the council meeting. • Cohen stated that he will be abstaining from this vote because he is very familiar with people who live right across the street and has a conflict with this vote. • McGuire stated that this is fine because they are still at quorum. • McGuire noted that there are some issues with calling in. It appears that Teams is having the issue. So, some alternatives may need to happen. • Ruby asked if there were any other questions or comments for the staff. He opened it up for the Commissioners’ deliberation. • Sicotte felt it was remarkably similar to the last one. He noted it was a large site, but because of the easement cutting through it makes it much smaller. • Ruby noted that in 2023, the building area was moved closer to the street to further separate it from that component on the plat. • Ruby asked for further comments. • Brookins moved to recommend approval of the preliminary plat for addition. • Barnstorff seconded the motion. • 5 in favor, 1 abstention, and the motion passed. (In favor: Barnstorff, Brookins, Van Oss, 7 CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Monday, April 14, 2025 – 6:30 p.m. | City Hall Council Chamber 7800 Golden Valley Road Golden Valley, MN 55427 6 Ruby, Sicotte. Abstain: Cohen) e. Rezoning and Preliminary Plat for 1611 Lilac Drive North • Lindahl presented the proposal. • Ruby asked for a definition of a resident zero lot line home. • Lindahl defined a zero-lot line as units that are side by side and along the common wall; there is a lot line. This allows for the ownership of the unit, being that there are two separate lots of record down that common lot line. • Ruby asked if there was need for community ownership or a homeowner’s association. • Lindahl stated there is not. It does not preclude that, but it is not a requirement for that because there is a firewall building code separation between the two units. • Brookins asked if there were any examples of zero lot line within Golden Valley currently. • Okey affirmed that there is one just south of 1131, it is at Lilac and Lindsay, 5510 and 5520. • Cohen confirmed that he could not buy both of the twin homes and then rent out one side. • Lindahl stated that it is correct; it is owner-occupied for-sale housing. • Van Oss asked if the access is directly onto Lilac for both driveways. • Lindahl stated that on this concept that is correct. The buildings are concepts only, but the access drives would be only onto Lilac. • Ruby asked if there was any follow-up, seeing none, he asked if he needed to provide a phone number for the public hearing. • McGuire stated that for residents listening at home, there are three options: you can call a friend in the audience and the friend can put you on speaker phone, you can email planning@goldenvalleymn.gov, or you can call 763-593-8095. • Ruby opened up the public hearing to in-person comments first. • Resident Sheri Robertson, 5555 St. Croix Avenue, spoke. • Robertson appreciated the explanation of harmonious land use. She said she was at the meeting that discussed it remaining R1. She is concerned with the overuse of the land and does not like the rezoning to R2. She is concerned with traffic and the busyness of Lilac Drive. She likes the HOPE home at 6300 Olympia. • Resident Stephen Trull, 1600 Welcome Ave North, spoke. • Trull stated that his concern is due to the high density. He is concerned that a developer will go to a four-plex high and create 8 units. He stated that the frontage road is very narrow, and the driveways would be incredibly unsafe. He adamantly wants it to remain R1. • Resident Ruth Paradise, 8515 Duluth Street, spoke. • Paradise stated that she is in favor of changing it to R2. She feels the City needs to look at more density. She does understand the problems, but she feels the City needs to create R2 as often as possible in order to meet the housing needs. She stated there is an apartment complex near this plat. • Resident Marilyn Miller, 1316 Welcome Ave North, spoke. • Miller wanted to echo what others said about traffic concerns and the narrowness of the frontage road. She strongly requests that it stay zoned as R1 due mostly to the driveway and traffic situation. • Resident Ellorie Roske, 5615 St. Croix Avenue, spoke via phone. • Roske spoke in favor of more twin homes; she commented on the housing shortage and the need for more affordable housing in Golden Valley specifically. 8 CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Monday, April 14, 2025 – 6:30 p.m. | City Hall Council Chamber 7800 Golden Valley Road Golden Valley, MN 55427 7 • Resident Brian Arm, 5601 St. Croix Avenue North, spoke. • Arm stated his concern with on-street parking. He is also concerned that if there is a basement dwelling, how are you going to shore the back lot because of the 15-foot drop to the neighbors? He is also concerned with the stop signs not being used properly, the street size, and the sidewalk situation. • Resident Adam Hagen, 5530 Golden Valley Road, spoke. • Hagen talked about the history of the area, the rezoning that took place in the past. He would like it to stay R1, he is concerned with the spot zoning that is taking place in the City. • Resident Robert Johnson, 5510 Phoenix Street, spoke. • Johnson stated he feels like in 2017 they were assured it would stay R1, he feels it is wrong of the City to change it. He is not in favor of changing the zoning. • Resident Jamie Nelson, 5605 Phoenix Street, spoke. • Nelson stated she is opposed to R2. She feels the frontage road is too busy, and the sidewalks are not great. She would like it to stay R1. • Resident David Scheie, 360 Brunswick Avenue South, spoke. • Scheie stated that he is appreciative of the problems, but he feels there are ways for the City to address the concerns. He thinks it is important to bring in affordable housing and work out a way to make it R2. • Resident Dan Supalla, 5505 Phoenix Street, spoke. • Supalla stated that one of the issues is cramming more people into a neighborhood that already has difficulties for the current residents. It is not a suitable place to raise children in the area. He is opposed to rezoning it to R2, he wishes there would be more consideration from the people who live there. • Resident Georgeann Wobschall, 1503 Welcome Avenue North, spoke. • Wobschall stated she is worried about the four driveways on Lilac and that it will cause problems that will come up in the future. She is opposed to R2. • Resident Terrence Price, 5540 Golden Valley, spoke. • Price stated he is opposed to rezoning R2. He feels the traffic concerns, the volume, and the safety. • Resident Justin Culter, 5505 Phoenix Street, spoke. • Culter stated his concern with the noise pollution and air quality data that is being used. He said that this area is already a concern, and he would like to see more updated information on the map. He is opposed to rezoning R2. • Ruby stated that any questions would be posed to the staff. • McGuire asked that the public hearing remain open while doing this in case anyone wanted to virtually chime in. • Ruby asked if the property could be sold outside of the HOPE Program, as it is currently zoned. • Lindahl stated the property was bought to be used for the HOPE Program, and she did not think this could be done, but she would defer to Chloe on this. • McGuire stated that the City Council could sell it outside of the HOPE Program, but this has not been the direction to date. Land cannot be sold without the approval of the City Council. • Ruby asked if any study had been done on Lilac Drive, given that four additional driveways and additional cars and what impact that would have in terms of traffic concerns. • Lindahl stated that the City Engineer is present to speak to these concerns. • City Engineer Ryan stated that the footprint concept that was shown has 4 driveways, which is 9 CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Monday, April 14, 2025 – 6:30 p.m. | City Hall Council Chamber 7800 Golden Valley Road Golden Valley, MN 55427 8 sufficient for each unit. In addition, parking that is available on adjacent streets connects to a sidewalk that is on the near side of the street to the lots that are proposed. He continues to say that Lilac has no parking restrictions on both sides. The total number of vehicles for this property per day would be about 10-20 out of 2,000, which is about 1%, not causing any additional traffic concerns. When looking at surrounding traffic, there is more visibility (100 feet) and more distance (170 and 380 feet) to this intersection than a substantial number of homes in Golden Valley. • Ruby asked about environmental impact and noise pollution, and if it is taken into account at all during this process. • City Engineer Ryan defers to the planning staff because, at this point in the process, this would not normally be done. • Ruby asks about the commitments made in 2017, that this property would remain R1. He would like some history on this. • McGuire stated that no [current] staff were around in 2017, staff is trying to be very transparent going forward, and apologized for any lapses. This took place before 2022, which is when the HOPE Program started. Each project is taken individually as the applications come in. She stated that things change, and right now staff’s direction is to move forward with the HOPE Program. What was committed to in 2017 was reviewed under a different comprehensive plan and a different City Council. • Ruby asked if anything was missing from the public hearing portion. • Sicotte stated that a few comments about potentially allowing R2 versus R1 and what is allowed in R2. He asked if R2 is single-family dwellings, two-family dwellings, or row houses with up to 4 attached units. • Lindahl stated that it is correct. • Ruby asked for further questions. • Barnstorff asked for clarification on the difference between a twin home, a duplex, or a row home. • Lindahl stated the code allows two family homes, and there are two different types of two- family homes depending on ownership. A duplex is a two-family dwelling designed to be occupied by two families, but it is a single lot. A twin home, each unit is a different lot separated by a firewall and includes separate ownership. Twin homes are owner-occupied for- sale housing. A duplex may be a rental. On these lots, they are talking about twin homes. • Ruby asked that this is because HOPE requires individual ownership. • Lindahl affirmed this to be correct; this is the goal. • Barnstorff asked if there were height restrictions in R2, in terms of how many stories a building can be. • Lindahl asked Okey to look at the number for sure. • Okey stated that it is 28 feet. • Lindahl stated that it is 28 feet and would not be a 4-story building. • Ruby asked if there were any emails or calls. • McGuire referenced an email from Ryan Thompson, dated April 14, 2025, that was read into the record as part of the public hearing. • Ruby closed the public hearing and opened the item for discussion. • Barnstorff asked staff if there was any information on the impact on trees. • Lindahl stated she does not have the exact number but that there would be tree impacts, as there is with any development, but new trees would be planted in consistency with other 10 CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Monday, April 14, 2025 – 6:30 p.m. | City Hall Council Chamber 7800 Golden Valley Road Golden Valley, MN 55427 9 developments. • Barnstorff noted that the City has a requirement with how many trees are removed that many trees need to be replanted. • Lindahl affirmed this comment. • Brookins asked if the City Engineer, in regard to the traffic, would be able to give some better context in terms of traffic counts and how that may relate to the other roads that may have homes on them, such as Winnetka or Douglas, or Duluth Streets, for a comparison. • Barnstorff added that she was curious about other driveways onto the road. • City Engineer Ryan stated there are other driveways onto roads that are close by, such as Lilac and St. Croix. When comparing Lilac Drive to others that exceed 2,000 or 3,000 vehicles per day on average, this has a lower posted speed limit than most of those because those are primarily county and state highways and other major roadways. Because of the straightness of the road here, this can lend itself to driving in a different manner, which the City is looking into. The narrowness of the road in this spot is a technique used to reduce traffic speeds. Lilac Drive has fewer traffic concerns than the other streets that were mentioned. • Brookins asked if this road is identified as a collector road, and if there is any opinion as to whether driveways should not be put on collector roads. • City Engineer Ryan confirmed that it is a collector road. He stated that driveways are very frequently put onto other roads, which have much higher volume and speeds, it is not a unique situation. • Sicotte asked if any data would support that just by changing the perception of the area to being more developed rather than open, would this help with traffic concerns. • City Engineer Ryan confirmed that the presence of homes, driveways, and people in an area are calming compared to undeveloped areas. Having residential land use present in this area is beneficial to regional traffic. • Cohen stated that traffic concerns very often are heard when talking about rezoning, but Lilac Drive is not unique in this. He stated that driver’s behavior is awful, and this is not unique to Golden Valley. This may be an area that needs a little extra enforcement. He asked what the speed limit is on Lilac Drive. • City Engineer Ryan stated it is 30 miles per hour. • Ruby asked what are the thoughts of the commission. • Barnstorff recognized the traffic issues in the area. She stated that there is a need for housing, and it is important to be looking at opportunities. She feels there are these types of houses in the area, and she is in support of rezoning. • Cohen stated that he attended the State of the City presentation, and the City is pushing this sort of thing. He feels that for the community to work, affordable housing needs to be provided, especially in following through on the goals of the comprehensive plan. He is supportive of this change. • Brookins stated that he was part of the rezoning in 2017. That Council did not go with the Commission’s recommendation at that point, but he feels like this rezoning is beneficial to the neighborhood, whether it be R2 or R1 it would be a similar outcome. • Sicotte stated he feels like it is a good location to have a little more density because of access to existing commercial areas in that zone. He is favorable. • Ruby said he is struggling because of listening to the community and seeing that everything around is R1. He is concerned with R2 because of the locality and what else is around it. Why is R1 not enough to meet the needs? 11 CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Monday, April 14, 2025 – 6:30 p.m. | City Hall Council Chamber 7800 Golden Valley Road Golden Valley, MN 55427 10 • Brookins noted that it is not directly in the neighborhood, and the comments regarding the missing middle and having that step down are well received by him, with the ability to provide twice the amount of housing without changing the character of the neighborhood. • Barnstorff stated that she disagrees that the area is only single-family because half a block away, there is an apartment building in the surrounding neighborhoods. • Ruby asked to see the map, because it is mostly R1 in the area, and he is concerned by R2 because it does not fit. He is inclined to vote no to R2. • Van Oss asked if there is a reason the lot was not just split for two single-family homes, because the minimum lot size would accommodate two single-family homes while maintaining R1. • Lindahl stated that the Council’s goal is to provide more affordable housing and that R1 and R2 are both compatible with the underlying land use, and so this was an opportunity to provide four affordable housing units as opposed to 2, as was the Council’s vision. • Brookins added that it could be zoned as R1, sell it to the open market, someone could come in and build a house with an accessory dwelling unit that is detached, and we would have the equivalent of 4 units. • Ruby stated that it would be put into the HOPE Program, so that this would not be able to be done. • Brookins stated that in terms of the rezoning of the land, it is not really about the HOPE Program; it is about the character of the neighborhood, the land use fitting into the land. He is looking into every one of these parcels in that way. • Cohen asked if there is a methodology for removing it from the HOPE Program, or is this how it will stay. • McGuire answered that the City Council would have to make that decision. • McGuire added that there are some R2, R3, and R4 within the area of the land. • Brookins asked if it was possible that the map does not fully represent what is offered in the neighborhood and that maybe some of the lots are nonconforming. • McGuire stated that the maps do not always fully represent what is there. She said that originally in this area many of the homes were duplexes, multi-generational living. • Ruby asked if staff could share what the size would be and how much land would be used for each house. • Lindahl stated that Lot 1 is 14,000 square feet and Lot 2 is 15,000 square feet, so each lot would be 7,000 square feet. • Ruby asked what the average is in the neighborhood. • Lindahl stated she did not know that number. • McGuire stated that the lots for each town home are approximately 0.16 acres. Within a quick neighborhood search, many lots are 0.2, 0.25, or 0.3 acres. It is difficult to tell the difference between these sizes. • Van Oss stated that the Commission is a technical body and that a lot of these questions are out of the purview. He is supportive of it based on the direction of the Council and the voters who chose them. • Ruby asked for confirmation from the staff as to what the Commission’s purview in voting is, to make sure that they are doing the correct thing. • McGuire stated that for the rezoning, the Commission has the decision to make if it aligns with the comprehensive plan. There are findings that are written in the staff report to recommend approval of the rezoning. She reiterated that R1 and R2 zonings are consistent with the 12 CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Monday, April 14, 2025 – 6:30 p.m. | City Hall Council Chamber 7800 Golden Valley Road Golden Valley, MN 55427 11 comprehensive plan. Within the preliminary plat, the Commission is extremely limited; if the minimum is met, then the Commission must recommend approval of that. If the Commission wanted to recommend denial, then they would have to make findings that are contrary to the staff’s report of the preliminary plat. • Ruby asked that the rezoning permit is more in line with the interpretation of the comprehensive plan. • McGuire confirmed the thought. She said that within the comprehensive plan, guiding is listed to help with the interpretation. • Ruby asked that, according to the current comprehensive plan, this is zoned as R1, or what is recommended. • McGuire stated this property is guided as low-density residential. • Ruby asked which could be R1 or R2. • McGuire affirmed this thought. • Cohen asked if they denied the rezoning and it would remain as R1, does this preliminary plat and final plat then fit for R1, or would that plat then have to be redone? He is thinking if that number is not done, then number 2 cannot be done either. • McGuire confirmed his thought. The Comprehensive Plan leads to zoning, the zoning leads to the platting. • Ruby stated that based on the comprehensive plan fitting both R1 and R2, which clarifies some things for him, and he feels that it makes sense to move forward based on the City plan. • Ruby asked if there was a motion. • Brookins moved to recommend rezoning 1611 Lilac Drive from R1 to R2. • Barnstorff seconded the motion. • All voted in favor, and the motion passed. • Ruby asked for a second proposal. • Brookins moved the preliminary plat for 1611 Lilac Drive for the Hope Fifth Avenue, 5th Addition. • Van Oss seconded the motion. • All voted in favor, and the motion passed. f. Comprehensive Plan Amendment, Rezoning, Preliminary Plat, Final Plat, and Minor Subdivision for 1131 Lilac Drive North • Lindahl presented the proposal. • Ruby opened up for questions for the staff. • Brookins asked about the setback and how it varies by building height. The table that was proposed showed a 20-foot setback for R1, for a side yard, and R2, it was a 15-foot but it varies. He asked that the staff describe what that would be for a two-story building. • Lindahl stated that this is the most challenging part of the code; the setbacks change depending on the height of the building. The side yard setback is determined by both the lot width and the height. So, in the case of R2, for row house lots, the side setbacks are 20 feet if the height is 20 feet or less. If a portion of the structure is greater than 20 feet, it is stepped back an additional 15 feet from the side lot. For twin homes, there are no specific setbacks. For single-family homes, the ratio is based on a sloping plane; for a structure greater than 15 feet in height, it is at a ratio of 2 to 1, beginning at 15 feet directly above the site setback line. It varies for lots 65 and 100 feet. There is a gap in the ordinance for single-family and row homes, but this lot is being treated as a twin home in terms of side yard setback. 13 CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Monday, April 14, 2025 – 6:30 p.m. | City Hall Council Chamber 7800 Golden Valley Road Golden Valley, MN 55427 12 • Ruby asked if there were any other questions for staff, seeing none, he opened it to the public for questions and comments. • Resident Dan Supalla, 5505 Phoenix Street, spoke. • Supalla stated that this property is in his backyard. He gave a history of the property showing that it was recommended to be a single-family home in 2021 and 2022, then in 2023 it was proposed to be a twin home, and the HRA has already selected a developer for the property. He does not see any reason why the staff is recommending going from a single-family home to building a twin home. He is concerned about the setbacks and what will be seen in his backyard with the height of the twin home, and what this will do to the property evaluation. He is asking it not to be rezoned to R2. • Resident Adam Hagan, 5530 Golden Valley Road, spoke. • Hagan spoke to Minnesota giving money to cities, he feels that the spirit of that is not to rezone a bunch of things around it to feel quite different from the rest of the homes in the area. He spoke to twin homes, and there are not a lot of regulations. He feels that no one cares about single-family homes, however, he feels the City is not doing the correct thing with the rezoning of the properties, and that it would need an HOA, but this is not possible. • Resident Jamie Nelson, 5605 Phoenix Street, spoke. • Nelson stated that she and her husband were drawn to the neighborhood because of the feel of nature. She stated that 13 trees would need to be removed, opening it up more to the highway and the noise; this property would be seen very easily from her house. She is overly concerned about the number of trees that would be taken down and the environment. • Resident David Scheie, 360 Brunswick Avenue South, spoke. • Scheie spoke in favor of the twin homes, he valued the green space as well, but that this could still be achievable. He talked about neighborhoods close by that had multiple zonings within them, and that twin homes could still have good character. • Resident Justin Culter, 5505 Phoenix Street, spoke. • Culter stated that building a twin home next to him would take away privacy and security. He spoke to HUD and said that neighborhood compatibility is a legitimate planning consideration, and there are only single-family homes in the area. He said parking would be a big concern as well, and he would need to park in front of his property. • A Resident (no name given) feels that the neighbors are not being heard, and what is being proposed would destroy the character of the neighborhood. • Resident Chris Tweedy 5510 Phoenix Street. • Tweedy spoke to the low traffic density and the average number of cars over a 24-hour period, that maybe the density is low, but during rush hour, there is a much higher density, and cars move faster. He does not feel that the house in the back of the neighborhood, facing the sound wall, would be very inclusive. He is against rezoning to R2. • Resident Ryan Thompson, 1200 Welcome Avenue, spoke. • Thompson stated some concerns: poor governance on behalf of the Council or the Planning Commission of staff in changing from R1 to R2. He is opposed to R2. He feels people are attracted to the area because of the land and the single-family rambler homes, which building this sort of thing would not go along with neighborhood compatibility. He urged to zone R1. • Ruby closed the public hearing and opened the item for discussion. • Cohen asked about tree removal and if someone could talk about the tree replacement plan that the City has in place, and if it would come into play for this property. • Kramer stated that she could speak to general requirements of the policy. She stated that 14 CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Monday, April 14, 2025 – 6:30 p.m. | City Hall Council Chamber 7800 Golden Valley Road Golden Valley, MN 55427 13 every single-family development, before it is built, has to submit a tree and landscape permit. The City Forester and the staff look at the types of trees and how many will be cut down, to determine how many will be replaced based on a formula. There are also minimum tree and shrub requirements for every lot. • Cohen clarified that if a bunch of trees are torn down, the City will make you replant X number of trees to replace them. • Kramer affirmed this answer and stated that it may not be a 1 to 1 ratio, but there is a set policy. • McGuire said that for a R1 or R2 development, 15% of the trees can be removed without any sort of penalty; after that, it is based on species and size. • Ruby asked about the design of the home and concerns about privacy and views to the neighbors. Is that something that can still be discussed and transitioned to meet the needs of the neighborhood so that the home is within the neighborhood and/or facing a different direction? • McGuire noted that the staff decided not to have the developer present tonight, due to the purview of the Commission for tonight’s meeting being just the rezoning and the plat. The commission does not have the scope to talk about which direction the developers face. Because of the nature of many neighbors opposing this, staff felt that if the developers were there, individual negotiations would take place, and this was not appropriate for this meeting. She said they are aware of the neighborhood’s concerns. There are many twin homes close by and will be pointed out to the developers. She noted that the height requirement is the same for R1 and R2. • Sicotte questioned if the setbacks were also the same. • McGuire confirmed that it is correct. • Barnstorff asked for the screen to be shown of the plat again. With that, she asked if the buildable area would be the same for a single-family home versus a twin home. • Lindahl stated that the buildable area would be the same for both, with the caveat of the side yard setback. • Ruby asked that it be documented as to how each Commissioner was feeling within the discussion. • Brookins noted that if he could choose, he would put a single-story rambler here. Zoning does not allow for this, and that is not what the Commission is here to choose. He stated that the buildability and the total impervious surface are going to remain the same either way; he feels at a loss and could probably go either way. • Van Oss is concerned that people have been trying to be involved in the process but have not been heard. He stated that with the turnover in positions, what is being done going forward to make sure that people not only know what’s going on but have appropriate lead time to form an opinion. • McGuire stated that there are many HOPE properties in this process. For the five in question tonight, they have had an open house, sent mailings related to it, and put additional information on the City website. The staff is open to additional feedback on the process. There has been tabling done with additional information as well. She hopes residents as of now have been notified, she believes that the room being full shows this as well. She talked about the closeness of the neighborhood and how they have talked. Open to other ideas as well, but does not want to treat affordable housing differently than any other development. • Ruby does not feel that the concerns are around the HOPE Project. He feels the concerns are 15 CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Monday, April 14, 2025 – 6:30 p.m. | City Hall Council Chamber 7800 Golden Valley Road Golden Valley, MN 55427 14 around how early the public is hearing about the R1 versus R2 and the criteria that come along with that. He feels that the earlier the information, the better, because many are stating that the decision is already being made when it is in front of the Planning Commission, and no notice was received of the change from R1 to R2. He stated that this needs to be an aside for now, and the Commission needs to talk about what they are leaning towards. • Cohen stated that there is a local perspective and there is a city-wide perspective, as local officials, he feels the Commission needs to have the citywide perspective, even if no agreement. He feels that in these City properties, the right thing is being done for the City, and he would vote in support of the staff recommendations. He noted that none of the parcels are ideal, but the Commission needs to focus on the citywide perspective, even if the residents feel different. • Barnstorff felt that the concerns were the same, even if it were an R1 versus R2, and what could be built there, she feels there is a need for additional housing and that she would be in support of it. • Sicotte is in support of this being R2, based on what the other commissioners have said and the other parcels. • Van Oss stated that he would prefer to keep it R1 but would agree that many of the issues would be the same no matter what it is zoned. He noted that you are not entitled to land you do not own, so it is great while it is there, but if it is not yours, then not much can be done. He is concerned with the height in particular to the grade, but in terms of the purview, he feels it is legally sound. • Ruby stated that, ignoring the developer and the purpose as to why the Commission is there, he stated that any developer would be held to the code and they would want to make a home that would fit with the neighborhood, so that anyone would want to buy them. He is inclined to agree with the motion because if it is R1 or R2, they still need to be held to the code. He has similar concerns about the height of the home, however, this cannot be controlled by the Commission. • Brookins stated that the density of the lot will naturally increase the density of the height. • Ruby asked if it were to be R1, would it be spread out further? • Brookins stated that you would be more inclined to because you do not have to go vertically, but he does not know what the future property owner would do. Square footage would not have to be reached by going higher. • Ruby stated, but not the intended number. • Brookins stated the intended number is not his concern. • Van Oss stated that he agrees, housing is housing. He also agrees with staff that these projects should not be held to a higher standard than any other project, but at the same time, the Commission does have the ability to shape these projects for the future and conform to the existing neighborhood. • Brookins stated that the developer matters and that if it were “Get Rich Building,” he would be more inclined to vote no. The other parcels he felt they did correctly, but this one he is just not there. • Ruby asked if Brookins would have an alternative motion or would he just vote no. • Brookins stated that he would just vote no, unless there is no motion, then he would be the maker of the motion. • Ruby asked if his proposal could be to not go right-of-way to R2, but right-of-way to R1. • Brookins confirmed this as correct. Zone it to low-density residential, rezone the property 16 CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Monday, April 14, 2025 – 6:30 p.m. | City Hall Council Chamber 7800 Golden Valley Road Golden Valley, MN 55427 15 from right-of-way to R1, and then it would be a different plot. • Lindahl stated that you would recommend the approval of the first and then recommend denial of the next 3, as there is no option to modify it because they are all tied together. She stated that the Commission would recommend approval of number one and recommend denial of the rezoning and provide findings for that, and then you would recommend denial of the preliminary plat, final plat, and minor subdivision because the rezoning did not pass. • Ruby asked if that would still go to City Council for interpretation, and then they could still find that R1 and R2 fit under low density and could go with R2, or would it come back to the Commission. • Lindahl stated that the recommendation would go to the Council, staff would continue to present the other option to the Council, and the Council could choose to approve or deny the application. • McGuire stated that the Council would not be able to zone it R1, and the Commission cannot recommend R1 because there is no application for that. She stated that the Commission would have to make findings that R2 is not compliant with the low-density residential guiding for that motion. • Ruby asked how other Commissioners feel. • Cohen stated that they need to vote on number one to guarantee that it is going to low- density residential, and then the question becomes, is the Commission in support of number two, if not then 2 through 4 fail. • Van Oss stated that since there is disagreement, this should be done as a roll call vote. • McGuire confirmed this will be done. • Brookins moved to amend the future land use map, changing the guided land use from right- of-way to low-density residential for 1131 Lilac Drive. • Cohen seconded the motion. • Kramer took a roll call for the vote. • All voted in favor, and the motion passed. • Ruby asked if there was a motion on number two. • Cohen moved the recommendation to rezone the property from right-of-way to R2. • Barnstorff seconded the motion. • Kramer took a roll call for the vote. • 3 in favor, 3 opposed, and the motion failed. (In favor: Cohen, Sicotte, Barnstorff. Opposed: Brookins, Van Oss, Ruby.) • Kramer called a point of order and stated the Commission needs to provide staff with findings. • McGuire stated that it depends on the next motion, which presumably will fail because of the split. But in order to deny the rezoning of the property from right-of-way to R2, then findings need to be made as to why the Commission is denying that. • Ruby asked if that would be provided to the City Council. • McGuire confirmed that. • Brookins stated that his finding would be that he does not feel the adjoining density is supportive and is not a good fit. • Ruby stated that he had similar feelings around the neighborhood fit, and feedback from the community that R1 is a better fit. • Van Oss agreed. 17 CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Monday, April 14, 2025 – 6:30 p.m. | City Hall Council Chamber 7800 Golden Valley Road Golden Valley, MN 55427 16 • McGuire stated that a second would be needed if Brookins were making a motion. • Brookins stated it was not a motion. • Kramer stated that a motion is needed to deny number 2 and then the commission would do another roll call vote. • Ruby asked for a motion to deny number 2 based on the findings. • Van Oss asked if the findings would need to be stated within the motion. • McGuire stated that the findings are clear for the record. When approving or denying rezoning, certain things can be looked at: the impact of the rezoning on the neighboring properties, the traffic, sewer, and water capacity, and the comprehensive plan. She would recommend that if Mr. Brookins is looking to make a motion to deny the zoning to R2. Those findings would have to be that it does not comply with the comprehensive plan, that it does not fit with the character of the neighborhood, that it would cause traffic impacts, more firm things than feelings, and neighborhood opposition. The findings are related to consistency with the comprehensive plan and adequate infrastructure, so the Commission's findings need to be related to those. • Ruby asked about the number 2 finding, about the fit with the character of the neighborhood. • McGuire stated that it could be included. Does not fit with the character of the neighborhood, impacts on City infrastructure and traffic, and does not comply with the comprehensive plan. • Brookins stated that it goes against the character of the neighborhood. • McGuire stated that the density of R2 is not consistent with the character of the neighborhood, should be sufficient for the motion this evening, and staff could work on additional data for the Council meeting. • Brookins moved to deny the rezoning of the property from right-of-way to R2. • Van Oss seconded the motion. • Kramer took a roll call for the vote. • 3 in favor, 3 opposed, and the motion failed. (Opposed: Cohen, Sicotte, Barnstorff. In favor: Brookins, Van Oss, Ruby.) • Brookins moved to table the matter. • McGuire stated a point of order, in order to table, you need to ask for additional information from the staff that will help guide the decision. She asked what information you are referring to. • Brookins asked that the definition of twin homes be further defined, because of the lack of definition within the code, that maybe there needs to be amendments made to the zoning code to better clarify where twin homes fall. He stated that the only thing that he could find was in regard to building permits and how long they last. • Lindahl clarified that the code does talk a lot about two-family homes, and two-family homes are twin homes and duplexes, so there are several references to two-family homes and specifically allowing those as permitted use. She wanted to clarify that two-family homes are talked about in the code. • Brookins stated that it is two separate plots. So, it is not two homes on a plot, it is a twin home. • Lindahl stated that two-family homes are either a duplex or twin homes. • Brookins asked why it references the word twin and building and not two family, he is not seeing clarity in building code. • Lindahl stated she would not debate clarity on zoning code for the most part, but that one is stated in that twin homes are two-family homes. 18 CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Monday, April 14, 2025 – 6:30 p.m. | City Hall Council Chamber 7800 Golden Valley Road Golden Valley, MN 55427 17 • McGuire asked Commissioner Brookins if his concerns would be the same if it were a duplex. • Brookins stated that one of his concerns is the density, the setbacks, and the size. So, he wishes to ensure it is more restrictive or at least the same restrictiveness as single-family. • McGuire asked if he would be comfortable with the rezoning of the property from right-of- way to R2, so long as the setbacks are consistent with or the same as an R1 property. • Brookins stated he would still vote no because of the character of the neighborhood. • Barnstorff asked about the property to the south, and that it is a twin home, which would be an example of the lot line down the middle. • McGuire stated that it is correct and there are three of them just south of this property. • Barnstorff asked what it was zoned. • McGuire stated that it is R2. • Brookins asked that by tabling it and with another member present, would there be more direction. • McGuire stated that it is a great idea, however, it is not an adequate reason to table. • Ruby asked what the staff would recommend in this situation. • Kramer stated that we have to table, or we have to pass some sort of motion on this item. If the Commission can provide more information as to what is needed from staff that has not been provided, then that is an adequate reason to table. • McGuire stated that if further information would not change the Commission’s decision, then that is not a reason to table. It could be moved forward with no recommendation. • Kramer stated that the Commission is making a recommendation, not a decision, so staff would bring verbatim minutes to the Council, and they would be able to hear the discussion. The Council would then decide on going to R2. • Ruby stated that he is inclined not to table it, and the rational is the character, and then it goes before the City Council. • Kramer stated that there does need to be a motion. • Sicotte suggested that if those who are opposed to this are pushing the character mode, then the zoning map is not helping the argument, so he would suggest a way to counter the map. • Kramer noted that the minutes from the meeting would be provided to City Council along with the Planning Commission report and a staff report, within the staff report, staff could emphasize something even if it does not come out in the final motion, as was done with the discussion around the cannabis ordinance. • Brookins moved to move it forward on a split vote. Reiterating that the adjoining density does not support two, more specifically, the vertical density of the lot. He understands that by right, someone could come and put a single-family home on the lot that would be the same as a two-family home, but he does not feel this will happen. • Cohen asked if a motion would be in order to say that for this property, we forward this property with no recommendation. • McGuire stated you would recommend moving items 2, 3, and 4 to the City Council with no recommendation. • Ruby asked if they could still add comments or findings to it. • Kramer stated no, but the Council would have the minutes and the video. • McGuire stated that you cannot add conditions or recommendations on a no recommendation. • Cohen moved that Commission forward 1131 Lilac Drive with no recommendation on items 2, 19 CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Monday, April 14, 2025 – 6:30 p.m. | City Hall Council Chamber 7800 Golden Valley Road Golden Valley, MN 55427 18 3, and 4. • Brookins seconded the motion. • Ruby asked if there was any discussion on the motion. • Kramer took a roll call for the vote. • All voted in favor, and the motion passed. Ruby recessed the meeting at 9:32 p.m. The meeting was reconvened at 9:42 p.m. g. Comprehensive Plan Amendment, Rezoning, and Preliminary Plat for 1211 Lilac Drive • Lindahl presented the proposal. • Ruby asked if there were any other questions for staff, seeing none, he opened it to the public for questions and comments. • Resident Ryan Thompson, 1200 Welcome Avenue North. • Thompson talked about three things: spot rezoning and how this property is on an island of R1s, and how this is abhorrent to spot rezone parcels and eat away at the neighborhoods that characterize the City. He then went on to talk about the ecological impact. He stated that this is a portion of the neighborhood that absorbs runoff, so it does not flow into the Bassett Creek watershed, which is extremely important to the City. He stated that none of the staff thought of engaging the Bassett Creek watershed to the extent necessary to evaluate the impacts to this property. He talked about the fill that would be necessary for the property; he had calculated it to be well in excess of 4,000 yards of dirt, and what kind of impact this would have on the community. He stated that all of these things are well within the realm of the Commission, and he urged the Commission to think about these things and to oppose it. • McGuire asked that the first resident come back up because the recording was muted, and she would like to make sure that his comments are in the recording. • Resident Chris Tweedy, 5510 Phoenix Avenue, spoke. • Tweedy stated he did not remember everything that he said, but he commented on the drop and the angle. He also talked about the trees that are present, and that many of them are old trees, and this would be criminal to cut them down. He feels that the logistics of the spot make it so that it should not even be considered. • Resident Jeanne Iverson, 1437 Orkla Drive, spoke. • Iverson stated that she had never been to a Planning Commission meeting before, but she felt it was important to come to protect the rights of people. She went on to say that there is a shortage of homes in the metro area and that it is incumbent upon residents to help people who do not have reasonable homes and have no opportunity. She commends the staff and the thoughtful way the Commission has considered these parcels. She feels people come first. • Resident Bob Johnson, 5510 Phoenix Avenue, spoke. • Johnson stated that he agreed that people come first, but he feels that the people who live in the area should also be taken into account. He feels that building on that lot is stupid and that it would be exorbitantly expensive to do so. It is the chief source of any wildlife in the neighborhood, and replacing trees takes a long time to happen; it is not an overnight process. • Resident Adam Hagen, 5530 Golden Valley Road, spoke. • Hagen commented on the precedent of the whole thing. He talked about how someone could come in and increase density and rezone many places to R2. He stated that this could be done in other areas as well to increase density, as he feels is wanted, but that would change the City. He is concerned that if this is done, how do you ever say no to anyone else? 20 CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Monday, April 14, 2025 – 6:30 p.m. | City Hall Council Chamber 7800 Golden Valley Road Golden Valley, MN 55427 19 • Resident Dan Supalla, 5505 Phoenix Street, spoke. • Supalla commented that he and his neighbors do not have a problem with the HOPE Program, that the neighborhood would be welcoming no matter what ends up being built there but that they just want the houses to look like their houses. He commented that this particular spot is a giant hill and that nothing would be able to be built there, the cost does not make sense to plan for it. • Resident David Scheie, 360 Brunswick Avenue South, spoke. • Scheie stated he was inclined to trust the City building code as to whether it is feasible if a developer would ever choose to build there, and that it would be something of quality that meets the City standards. He commented that it does sound very steep and that maybe no one would ever want to build there. He said that it does point to the importance of maintaining wildlife all over the City, not just on this parcel but all over the City. • Resident Jamie Nelson, 5605 Phoenix Street, spoke via phone call in. • Nelson stated that the structure of this property does not make sense. She commented on the welcoming neighborhood, but this property would not make sense structurally. • Ruby closed the public hearing and opened the item for discussion. • Ruby asked about runoff issues with Bassett Creek or just runoff issues in general, given the complexity and the steepness of this property. • Lindahl stated that she would let the City Engineer speak more directly to it, but that all developments need to meet requirements with city stormwater as well as watershed requirements. • City Engineer Ryan spoke to the complexities of the site, which is not a 45-degree slope but about half of that. He said it is around 80 feet of run over 18 feet of drop. Stormwater management is required with every residential home construction. There are several techniques that can balance stormwater drainage, and it would be feasible to do so on this site. • Ruby asked if a developer would even find it feasible to want to build on this piece of the land. • Lindahl stated that her firm also has a development arm and that they have some challenging sites. Due to the housing shortage, it is feasible that a developer will want to build on this site because there are worse sites that are being built on. • Brookins has a slight concern with it being a twin home, and that there could be potential issues that would need to be solved with the adjoining homeowner. • Ruby stated that this is similar to the comment made about a single foundation, two owners. • Ruby asked if it was in their purview to ask about the legal challenges that may come up because of the single foundation, two owners and the potential for something to happen. • Lindahl clarified that he was asking about the foundation. • Ruby stated that if there were to be foundation issues with the building, how would that be accounted for and dealt with? • Lindahl commented that, from a building code, they are a single structure, but they are essentially two buildings under the Minnesota building code. So, if something comes up in the South building, it is dealt with by the South homeowner, not the North homeowner. It can pose a bit of a challenge, but they are two individual homeowners who need to work together. • Brookins commented that he does not feel extremely reassured. • Van Oss stated that, particularly if they are already financially burdened and have to buy a subsidized home, they may not have the money to deal with these things. • Lindahl commented that she did not feel that this lot or any twin home would be more at risk 21 CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Monday, April 14, 2025 – 6:30 p.m. | City Hall Council Chamber 7800 Golden Valley Road Golden Valley, MN 55427 20 for foundation issues. They are working with builders that responded to the RFQ and met the qualifications of the City. If the issue is just maintenance, then every day, many twin homeowners are maintaining homes, and twin homes are being built in the metro area. So, this is being done. • Ruby stated that this is not the issue rather given that it is not a duplex, and there is no HOA, how are these situations handled, and could it be an even bigger issue because of the piece of land that is being dealt with. • McGuire commented that staff have been working through some of these issues, and that currently there is no builder, but it could be required to have an HOA, which is not typically done. The City Attorney is not concerned about this side of it. She feels the shared wall is the least concern for this site. She commented on the HOPE Program residents and that they would be making 60 to 80 percent AMI, which is $75,000 to $100,000 per year, but staff is thinking about this and making sure that there is no further burden given to the residents. She stated that this is just for the plat and rezoning and that there is quite a bit of time to work through the logistics if a developer is interested. She stated that developers do not want to take the risk, so having a property ready, legally described, zoned, and guided appropriately removes a lot of risk for a developer and would hopefully increase interest in the site by reducing the costs. • Ruby asked about the wildlife and trees. He said how does the Commission respond to the concerns, and what is the City's plan to offer these types of spaces for wildlife in particular. • McGuire responded that the City has a robust sustainability and environmental department, with four staff members dedicated to this. There is an energy action plan, the City is a Green Step City, which just received step 5. She does not feel that these one-off sites are likely to be providing the habitat protection that the larger preserves and park spaces are. Staff does not feel this is removing significant habitat, but rather helping with the problem of affordable housing. • Cohen commented about the City task force to reduce the number of deer in the City and how this task force was not successful, and that the wildlife from this property will find a place. • Ruby asked where the Commissioners were leaning on this particular piece of land. • Cohen commented that to be consistent, they either don’t approve number one or approve number one and also do what was done on the last plat. He feels this site seems to be the most problematic. • Sicotte stated that issues with the site are there, whether it is R1 or R2. • Ruby asked if he was leaning in a certain direction. • Sicotte stated that he is torn because there is not a lot of R2 around it, and it is truly just R1 around it, making a different thought. • Barnstorff agreed that it is the most challenging of the sites, and she does not know. • Ruby stated that he is leaning towards if someone wants to build on this, R1 or R2, there are still going to be the same challenges. He is still on the fence. • Van Oss stated that he is on the fence. He does not feel the wildlife portion matters, but rather that the obligation is to people to have housing to live in. He is inclined to vote no, but the arguments that are presented have not been very good. • Brookins stated it is buildable. • Ruby asked if he had other concerns or if he was leaning towards approval. • Brookins stated he has no major concerns. • Ruby asked for a motion. 22 CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Monday, April 14, 2025 – 6:30 p.m. | City Hall Council Chamber 7800 Golden Valley Road Golden Valley, MN 55427 21 • Barnstorff moved to approve the amendment to the future land use map, changing the land use from right-of-way to low-density residential. • Brookins seconded the motion. • Ruby asked if there was discussion on the motion. • Kramer took a roll call for the vote. • 5 in favor, 1 opposed, and the motion passed. (In favor: Van Oss, Brookins, Sicotte, Barnstorff, Ruby. Opposed: Cohen.) • Ruby asked if there was another motion. • Van Oss motioned to rezone the property from right-of-way to R2. • Brookins seconded the motion. • Ruby asked if there was discussion on the motion. • Kramer took a roll call for the vote. • All voted in favor, and the motion passed. • Ruby asked if there was another motion. • Cohen moved that we approve the preliminary plat and final plat for the HOPE 3rd Addition at 1211 Lilac Drive. • Van Oss seconded the motion. • Ruby asked for any discussion on the motion. • Kramer took a roll call for the vote. • All voted in favor, and the motion passed. • Ruby thanked the members of the community and is very appreciative of the feedback. 5. STAFF UPDATES: • Kramer updated the Commission on 5111 Colonial Drive, the minor subdivision and variance, which was approved by the Council, and staff is waiting for final approval so that they can file with the county and go for building permits, which are anticipated in the next couple of weeks. Otherwise, it has just been variances, which is not for the Commission. She went on to talk about the consulting team, Stantec, which was to help update the sign code, which will come before the Commission shortly, and then the Council in May or June for final approval. She talked about other codes that are being updated that will come before the Council, and spoke more about the missing middle housing. There is also a parking update that is being worked on. She said that Commission Brookins will be done soon, and moving on to the BZA. • Ruby thanked the fellow board members and staff for the meeting. • Sicotte asked about the public hearing side of things, and if it is now officially being done in the way that was voted upon. • Kramer stated that the Commission is the official hearing body, but the Council always has the option of taking public testimony. • Ruby stated that there is an open forum where anything can be spoken about, not just what is on the agenda at the Council meetings. • Cohen asked about a second April meeting. • Kramer stated that it would probably be a work session on process improvements. • Sicotte asked when the Jumpstart applicant would be coming. • Kramer stated it would hopefully be at the second meeting in May. 6. COMMISSIONER UPDATES: None 23 CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Monday, April 14, 2025 – 6:30 p.m. | City Hall Council Chamber 7800 Golden Valley Road Golden Valley, MN 55427 22 7. ADJOURNMENT: Chair Ruby adjourned the meeting at 10:18 p.m. 24 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Community Development 763-512-2345 / 763-512-2344 (fax) Golden Valley Planning Commission Meeting May 12, 2025 Agenda Item 4.A. Review of Planning Commission Bylaws Prepared By Jacquelyn Kramer, Senior Planner Summary The Planning Commission bylaws provide a list of duties and specific direction for the Commission to carry out their work as required in City Code Section 2-126. The Commission is required to review the Planning Commission bylaws no later than the second meeting after May 1 every three years. The Commission may review the bylaws more frequently as needed. Planning Commission last amended and approved the bylaws on January 17, 2023. Tonight, staff would like to review the current bylaws and provide an opportunity for Planning Commission members to present recommendations for changes and amendments. These bylaws can be altered or amended at any regular monthly Commission meeting with a majority of members present, provided that notice of the proposed changes and amendments is provided to each member at least 10 business days before the meeting. The Council must review and approve any changes to, and has final authority regarding, these bylaws. Recommended Action Please provide staff with feedback on potential amendments to the Planning Commission bylaws. If changes are proposed, staff would bring amendments to the Commission for a vote in June. Supporting Documents Planning Commission Bylaws 25 Amended and approved January 17, 2023 BYLAWS – Planning Commission 2 BYLAWS Planning Commission Article I: Purpose, Mission, and Prescribed Duties The City Council, by motion, approves the following list of duties which amplifies and/or gives more specific direction to the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission shall: •review and make recommendations on specific development proposals made by private developersand public agencies •review and make recommendations on proposed rezoning, subdivision plans, amendments to the zoning text, platting regulations, and variances and similar items having to do with administration and regulatory measures •conduct special studies dealing with items such as renewal, civic design, maintenance of a suitable living and working environment, economic conditions, etc. (these studies may be conducted at the initiative of the Planning Commission and/or specific direction from the City Council) •review major public capital improvement plans against the policy and goals stated in the Comprehensive Plan for the area •advise and make recommendations relative to housing, new development, and redevelopment projects proposed by the HRA prior to the final commitment of such projects by the HRA, which shall also relate to such responsibilities as: o making recommendations to the City Council and/or HRA on the use of Federal and State funds received for housing and community development o making recommendations to the City Council on the City’s participation in other Federal, State, Metropolitan Council, County, and Multi-City Housing and Community Development programs •advise and make recommendations in matters relating to and affecting the environment, such as: o taking into account environmental concerns and the impact on the environment of any Planning Commission recommended action o to cooperate with and coordinate environmental proposals and programs with other City groups and Federal, State, Metro, County, and other municipal groups o to make such reviews of land reclamation, filling, excavation, and grading applications as are required by City ordinance or referred to the Commission by the Council, provided that no review or recommendation shall remove or limit the right of a property owner in accordance with City ordinances and the statutes and constitution of the State of Minnesota Article II: Membership, Appointments, Terms, and Officers A.Membership The Commission shall consist of seven regular members and one non-voting youth member. Regular members shall be residents of the City. Youth members shall live or attend school within Golden Valley, the Robbinsdale Area District or Hopkins School District and be enrolled in school grades 9 through 12. 26 Amended and approved January 17, 2023 BYLAWS – Planning Commission 2 B.Appointment and Terms Appointments shall be made by the Council at its last meeting in April, effective May 1, except for youth appointments, which shall be made by the Council at its last meeting in September, effective October 1. The Council shall appoint regular members of the Commission for three-year staggered terms and one youth member to serve a one-year term. The Council shall appoint the members of the Commission and may fill vacancies for unexpired terms. A vacancy shall be deemed to exist if a member resigns or ceases to meet the membership requirements. Commissioners shall be subject to the term limit requirements in City Code § 2-125. C.Officers The Commission shall elect officers of Chair, Vice Chair, and Secretary from the Commission membership by its voting members at its regular annual meeting (no later than the second meeting after May 1 in each year). The Chair and Vice Chair positions rotate and members may only serve two consecutive years as the Chair or Vice Chair. Should the office of Chair or Vice Chair become vacant, the Commission shall elect a successor from its membership at the next regular meeting and such election shall be for the unexpired term of said office. Officers may also delegate the duties of their position to other Commissioners as deemed appropriate by the Commission. Chair responsibilities: •work with staff liaison to develop meeting agendas •conduct and preside at all meetings in a productive and time-efficient manner •ensure the Commission conducts its activities within the stated mission and bylaws of the Commission •appoint Commissioners to subcommittees •monitor and ensure the progress of the Commission •report to the City Council Vice Chair responsibilities: •perform the duties of the Chair in the absence or incapacity of the Chair •perform all other duties as prescribed by the Commission Secretary responsibilities: •sign the minutes and perform all other duties the Commission may prescribe •in the absence of the Chair and Vice Chair, conduct and preside over the meeting Article III: Meetings and Attendance A.Meetings All meetings of the Commission shall be conducted in accordance with the Minnesota Open Meeting Law and City code. This means all business and discussion occurs at a meeting which has been posted and is open to the public. The presence of a majority of all regular voting members currently appointed to the Commission shall constitute a quorum for the purpose of conducting its business and exercising its powers and for all other purposes. In the event a quorum is not reached, a smaller number of members may meet to have informal discussion; however, formal action shall not be taken and must be reserved for such time as when a quorum of the Commission is reached. 27 Amended and approved January 17, 2023 BYLAWS – Planning Commission 3 A quorum of the members should not discuss Commission business by email, forms of social media, telephone, or informal meetings. Commission meetings may be cancelled by the staff liaison if there are no items on the agenda for discussion. The proceedings of meeting should be conducted using standard parliamentary procedure. i.Regular Meeting The regular meeting of the Commission shall be held on the second and fourth Monday of the month at City Hall at 7 pm. The Commission may, by a majority vote, change its regular meeting dates for any reason provided proper public notice of the changed meeting is provided. ii.Annual Meeting The Annual Meeting of the commission shall be a regular meeting, typically the first meeting after May 1 of each year, at which time elections will be held. iii.Special Meeting A special meeting may be called by the Chair or whenever three members request the same in writing. •Staff shall give notice to each Commissioner, at least three days prior to any special meeting, of the time, place, and purpose of the meeting. •No business shall be transacted at any special meeting other than that named in the call thereof, except by consent of two-thirds of the entire Commission, or by unanimous consent if fewer than two-thirds, but at least a quorum are present. If such consent is obtained, any measure adopted by a vote of a quorum shall have the same effect as if adopted at a regular meeting. •The members may adjourn from time to time, absentees being notified. If no quorum is present on the day fixed for a regular, continued or special meeting, the members present may adjourn until a quorum is obtained, or may adjourn said meeting without a definite day fixed. B.Attendance Members are expected to attend all meetings, including the annual board and commission joint meeting. If a member is unable to attend a meeting, they should contact the staff liaison, who will inform the chair. If a quorum cannot be attained, the meeting will be canceled. Staff liaisons will track attendance at each meeting. Each April, the City Manager’s office will review attendance records for the preceding calendar year (April-March) and send a standardized letter of warning to any member that has missed: •two consecutive or three total meetings for groups that meet once a month; or •two consecutive or five total meetings for groups that meet twice a month. Because attendance is so important to the work of the City’s boards and commissions, the City Manager may ask the member to explain the reasons for their absences. If circumstances prevent the member from committing to consistently attending future meetings, the member may be asked to step down. The City Manager will not ask the member to step down if their inability to attend meetings is due to health reasons. If the member’s attendance does not improve within 3 months after receiving a warning, the City Manager or their designee shall ask the member to step down. If the member chooses not to step down, the Council may take action to remove the member. 28 Amended and approved January 17, 2023 BYLAWS – Planning Commission 4 Article IV: Rules A.Representative to Board of Zoning Appeals A Planning Commissioner shall be the sixth member of the Board of Zoning Appeals. All voting members of the Planning Commission are alternates to the Board. In the absence of any voting member of the Board, any member of the Planning Commission may serve as an alternate. At least one voting member of the Planning Commission shall be present at each meeting of the Board of Zoning Appeals. B.Ad Hoc Committees The Chair may appoint ad hoc committees unless the Commission shall otherwise direct, and shall be an additional member ex officio, of all committees. The Chair shall appoint a Planning Commission member to chair each ad hoc committee. All committees shall consist of at least three members, except as otherwise ordered by the Commission. Three members of any committee shall constitute a quorum of such committee. If a quorum is not present at a meeting, the members present may prepare reports and submit them to the Planning Commission on behalf of the committee, in which case the report shall name the committee members who prepared it. Nothing in the foregoing shall be construed as waiving the rights of the Commission at any time to increase or curtail the duties of any committee and/or to direct or control its actions. C.Recordkeeping A person will be provided by the City to take minutes for the advisory boards and commissions. Minutes serve the dual function of making an historical record of commission proceedings and of informing the Council regarding the commission’s activities. The minutes should, therefore, contain an accurate report of the sequence of events and names of citizens who appear and are heard. In addition to the formal action of the commission, a summary of the reasoning underlying such action should be included in the minutes. All minutes and resolutions shall be in writing and shall be kept in accordance with City procedures, Minnesota Statute and Rules regarding preservation of public records and the Minnesota Data Privacy Act. D.Annual Report The Commission shall submit an annual report to the City Council summarizing the past year's activities. The report may highlight information the Commission feels appropriate to convey to the City Council. E.Performance of Duties Commissioners are expected to adequately prepare for meetings. Commissioners unable to complete an assigned task should notify the commission chair or subcommittee chair as soon as possible. The Commission staff liaison may ask the City Council to review a Commissioner’s appointment based upon its assessment of significant non-performance of duties. 29 Amended and approved January 17, 2023 BYLAWS – Planning Commission 5 Article V: Amendments and Revisions The Commission will review these bylaws no later than the second meeting after May 1 every three years. Members may present recommendations for changes and amendments. These bylaws can be altered or amended at any regular monthly Commission meeting with a majority of members present, provided that notice of the proposed changes and amendments is provided to each member at least 10 business days before the meeting. The Council must review and approve any changes to, and has final authority regarding, these bylaws. 30 7800 Golden Valley Road | Golden Valley, MN 55427 763-593-8012 | TTY 763-593-3968 | 763-593-8109 (fax) | www.goldenvalleymn.gov Planning Commission To enhance community understanding during public hearings; the Commission will adhere to the fol-lowing protocol during a Planning Commission meeting. • The Commission Chair will introduce the proposal and staff recommendation. Commission mem-bers may ask questions of staff. • The applicant will be invited to describe the proposal and answer any questions from Commis-sioners. • The Chair will open the public hearing, gauging the number of persons who may wish to speak. If a large number of persons wish to speak, the Chair may set a time limit for individual questions and comments. Spokespersons for groups may be granted a longer time for questions and com-ments. • Speakers must clearly state their full name and address when recognized by the Chair. Remem-ber, questions and comments are for the record. • Direct all questions or comments to the Chair. The Chair will determine if any question will be ad-dressed immediately or if it will wait until the public hearing is closed. They will also indicate who will answer each question. • No one will be given the opportunity to speak a second time until everyone has had the opportu-nity to speak initially. Please limit second presentations to new information, not rebuttals. • When public comments are complete, the Chair will close the public hearing. The Commission will then discuss the proposal and take appropriate action. The audience is welcome to listen qui-etly to the discussion but is requested not to make further comments. • In-Person Meetings—Those wishing to speak should raise their hands and approach the podium when recognized by the Commission Chair, then clearly state full name and address for the re-cord. Spokespersons for groups may be given more time for presentations. • Virtual Meetings—To address the Commission during a Public Hearing, call the City's open forum and public hearing participation line at 763-593-8060 and follow the prompts. 31