Loading...
2025-05-28 MIN PC Regular Meeting-DraftCITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Wednesday, May 28, 2025 – 6:30 p.m. | City Hall Council Chamber 7800 Golden Valley Road Golden Valley, MN 55427 1. CALL TO ORDER AND LAND ACKNOWLEDGEMENT • Chair Ruby called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m. and read the Land Acknowledgement • Regular Members Present: Gary Cohen, Mike Ruby, Chuck Segelbaum, Martin Sicotte, Eric Van Oss, David Hill • Regular Members Absent: Amy Barnstorff • Student Member, Status: Vacant • Staff Members Present: Jacquelyn Kramer, Senior Planner Chloe McGuire, Deputy Community Development Director Steven Okey, Associate Planner Kendra Lindahl, Consulting Planner Mike Ryan, City Engineer • Council Member Present: None 1.A. Oath of Office for David Hill • Kramer instructed David Hill to read the Oath of Office, and after the meeting, they would sign it. • Hill read the Oath of Office. 2. CONSENT AGENDA: 2.A. Approval of agenda 2.B. Adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 25-01 Certifying Land Conveyance of 1131 Lilac Drive North is in Compliance with the Comprehensive Plan • Cohen asked why they did not have minutes from the May 12 meeting. He acknowledged that it was mostly a closed meeting, but that there were election of officers that took place. • Kramer stated that the minutes would be brought before the Planning Commission on June 9 because it includes the notes about the bylaws and the bylaws will be updated at that meeting as well. • Ruby asked for a motion to approve. • Sicotte moved. • Van Oss seconded. • All voted in favor, and the motion passed. 3. PUBLIC HEARINGS: 3.A. Comprehensive Plan Amendment, Rezoning, and Preliminary Plat for 504 Lilac Drive • Hill recused himself from the vote because he is an employee of Twin Cities Habitat for Humanity, and they are under consideration to potentially redevelop 504 Lilac Drive. • Kramer explained that due to an error in the mailings, this property was already before the Commission but would need to be done again to allow a public hearing on this property, and then, based on what the Commission recommends, would go before the Council. • Kramer presented the proposal. • Ruby asked if there were questions for the staff. • Ruby asked if the entirety of the land would be included in what is developed or sold. • Kramer stated that this was correct and that the house would have to go on the northern portion of the property because of setbacks, but the southern portion of the property would be able to be used for other purposes. • Segelbaum asked if a picture of the buildable area was included in the presentation. CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Wednesday, May 28, 2025 – 6:30 p.m. | City Hall Council Chamber 7800 Golden Valley Road Golden Valley, MN 55427 • Kramer directed him to a slide that included a picture of the buildable area. • Segelbaum stated that the picture was a proposed layout of the land, but was curious as to what area was the buildable area. • Kramer pointed out the area in which the structure could be built. • Cohen asked if the Staff could give a brief overview of what the HOPE Program is. • Kramer gave an overview of the HOPE Program. • McGuire stated more information about the HOPE Program. • Ruby asked about the 99-year piece of the program and what happens with the property owner’s ability after the 99 years, or even what happens after the first homeowner sells to a second homeowner. • Kramer stated that when the second homeowner buys the home, they must meet the same income requirements for the HOPE Program. She was not sure what would happen after the 99 years, other than the terms could be extended. • Ruby asked if the City would continue to track the houses in the HOPE Program. • Kramer stated that it would definitely be tracked. • Ruby opened the public hearing. • Residents Patrick and Rita Wilson, 524 Lilac Drive North, spoke. • Wilson stated that he has three concerns: the community land trust model, the diversity objective of the HOPE Program, and the safety issue. He gave more information about the community land trust model, stating that he feels this property would have a diminishing effect on his property, which is next door. He stated that the HOPE Program is creating more problems than it is fixing. • Resident Renee Head, 501 Clover Lane, spoke. • Head stated that she is opposed to the amendments. She said that not enough information has been received by the community about the HOPE Program. She stated that she and her husband were interested in buying the property, but were told that it was being bought by the City, but they were unsure of what for at the time. Head went on to say that she feels, at this time, they should put a hold on the HOPE Program to give the constituents more time and information on it. • Resident Charles Head, 501 Clover Lane, spoke. • Head commented on the shape of the property and its close proximity to the house that is next to it. He continued to say that the property runs a long distance along Lilac, where many cars pass by in a very fast manner. He requested that if this does move forward, the City would take part of the land and make a shoulder that would create a buffer to the house and provide street parking. • Resident Natalie Schaefer, 517 Clover Lane, spoke. • Schaefer commented on the safety concerns within the neighborhood. She stated that because the children within the neighborhood are within one mile of the school, they will not receive busing to school. Therefore, they will have to walk, but there are no sidewalks, which makes it not very safe to do so. She stated that within affordable housing, she feels there should be public transportation, but there is none in this neighborhood. Schaefer feels that, from an environmental perspective, they should look at existing houses to use for the HOPE Program instead of building new ones. She also feels that how the house is owned, with the land not being owned by the homeowner, makes it difficult for others in the neighborhood to build generational wealth. • Resident Dean Colinbuck, 455 Cloverleaf Drive, spoke. • Colinbuck commented on generational wealth, as well, stating that he feels it is problematic if the City is maintaining the deed to the land, and he feels they should just go all in. He asked how much the City paid for the land when they got it from MnDOT, and how that payment is CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Wednesday, May 28, 2025 – 6:30 p.m. | City Hall Council Chamber 7800 Golden Valley Road Golden Valley, MN 55427 being factored into this proposal for affordable housing. • Resident Otto Pfefferle, 505 Clover Lane, spoke. • Pfefferle commented on how well taken care of the property is at present, and he said that if it were used for a community garden, it would be well maintained. He also commented on the safety concerns, especially the lack of sidewalks, and that this should be kept in mind when thinking about what to do with the property. • Resident Mike Parker, 516 Clover Lane, spoke. • Parker asked how HOPE became the developer for this project; he wondered if there was any bidding that took place from other developers and if there is any way for other developers to get access to these properties. He also stated his concerns with community land trusts, and he feels from experience that they bring the property value down in a neighborhood. • Resident Paul Robera, 315 Cloverleaf Drive, spoke. • Robera stated that he feels that it is a terrible lot to be developed and that he likes that right now it has mature trees that help with the noise pollution in the neighborhood. He is in support of what his fellow neighbors are saying. • Ruby asked the Staff to answer any pertinent questions about this property. • Kramer stated many of the questions were about the HOPE Program, however, this application is not about the HOPE Program. She also stated that the HOPE Program is not the developer for this property. The Program is run by the City Council, and it is a way for the City to identify lots and then work with a developer to sell them. For the Comprehensive Plan Amendment, Rezoning, and Preliminary Plat, she stated that who owns the property is irrelevant to the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission would need to focus on whether the application meets the criteria that are laid out, which is very narrow for them. However, she continued that if there are specific concerns about the HOPE Program, they would need to go to their council member, because they are the ones who created the HOPE Program. • City Engineer Ryan noted that many of the concerns had to do with accessing Meadowbrook Elementary School and other places in the area, he commented that this was true of many places in the City because the City has prioritized sidewalks in other areas, but it has been applying for grants and hopes to fix this in the future as it is a high priority. He commented on the suggestion to change the roadway in the area of this property, but he noted that this can be more hazardous to change a small section of roadway to accommodate this property. He stated that there is no parking on both sides of the street in this spot. He commented that the speed limit in the area is 30 miles per hour, there are many structural and geometric changes as well, and there are also many other traffic safety features in the area. He noted that in this area, there have been two crashes in the last ten years and that the driveway has just over 100 feet of visibility, which is more than other homes in the neighborhood. • Ruby asked about how to flag this area as an area of traffic concern going forward. • Ryan stated that if there is a concern in the area about traffic safety, members of the community can talk to the City Council. He commented on his passion for sidewalks and safety in the community, and how there are many options for seeing some of this done, such as grants, programs, or policy changes. He noted that with over 100 miles of roads to be concerned with, they do prioritize those that have the biggest safety issues, but the City Council just approved a pedestrian crossing policy in the City where the pedestrian crossings meet warrants in the City. • Ruby asked if there were any more comments from the staff. • McGuire asked if there were any more questions about the HOPE Program. • Ruby stated that there were questions about how the property was acquired from MnDOT and how the property was paid for. CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Wednesday, May 28, 2025 – 6:30 p.m. | City Hall Council Chamber 7800 Golden Valley Road Golden Valley, MN 55427 • McGuire stated that the property was purchased from MnDOT at the appraised value, and that is public data. After the purchase, the City puts out a call for qualified developers who are part of the HOPE Program. She stated that there is no developer for this property at this time, but if it were to be Habitat for Humanity, they would sell the land to them as well, and it would not be a land trust property. She stated that at this point it is not a plat even; so, if the Planning Commission recommends this for approval, then it will go before the Council to become a plat. After that, they would then be able to start the process for who the developer would be, and more information would become available as to how the property would be sold. • Ruby asked if there were further questions or comments for the Staff. • Segelbaum asked on behalf of the public questions about what restrictions there are for persons coming in to remove the trees, and also the regulations for setbacks, could this house be put too close to neighbors. • Kramer stated that this property needs to follow the same rules as any other property; for setbacks, it is the rules for the R-1 zoning areas. As for trees, there is a tree mitigation policy; up to 15 percent of trees can be removed, and then if more are removed, there is a formula that needs to be followed for either replanting or paying a fee. • Ruby asked if the developer for the HOPE Program would have to follow the same rules for trees as would any other developer. • Kramer stated it does not matter who does it, but that the requirements are still the same. • Segelbaum asked whose responsibility it is to care for the land in a land trust property. • Kramer noted that this property will likely not be a land trust property, but the homeowner will own the land as well and be responsible for it. • Segelbaum asked if, based on the criteria that the Staff has presented for approval of the recommendation for the property, should the Planning Commission factor in the statistics about the value of homes depreciating based on this type of home in the neighborhood. • Kramer noted that the Planning Commission needs to look at all relevant criteria in the Comprehensive Plan to decide on approval or not. • Segelbaum noted that it seemed pretty relevant to note the impact the home would have on the value of the surrounding homes in the neighborhood. • Kramer stated that evaluating the impact on neighboring home values from the Comprehensive Plan Amendment is beyond the scope of the Planning Commission. • Segelbaum asked if the impact on the surrounding neighborhood was a valid criterion on which to gauge the decision. • Kramer noted that the Comprehensive Plan puts more weight on the physical impacts that this property could have on the neighborhood. • Segelbaum stated that it would be more appropriate to make a decision based on whether they should be putting R-1 in the neighborhood or not. • Kramer agreed that it would be more appropriate to evaluate what impact putting an R-1 zone into an R-3 zoned neighborhood would have. • Ruby closed the public hearing and opened the item for discussion. • Cohen noted that with the City being almost fully developed, it will be hard to find a perfect lot. However, he noted that it is a goal of the City to create more housing, especially affordable housing and that they need to find a way to do that. He noted that the lack of busing in the neighborhood would need to go before the relevant school boards. • McGuire read an email from Michelle Tufts, 355 Clover Lane. Tufts is concerned that the house will become a rental, and that it would depreciate the value of the neighboring homes, she feels there are many safety issues, and she strongly disagrees with the development of this parcel. CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Wednesday, May 28, 2025 – 6:30 p.m. | City Hall Council Chamber 7800 Golden Valley Road Golden Valley, MN 55427 • Ruby asked for a response to the question of can the property be rented. • Kramer stated that under the HOPE Program, the house must be owner-occupied and not rented out. • Ruby stated that he feels it is very important that all Commissioners speak to have their opinions heard for the record. • Segelbaum stated that he felt it was great that the neighborhood came together to address their concerns and that even though some of the concerns were beyond the scope of the Planning Commission, it was important to do so because the notes would be passed along to the City Council. He noted that the City Council has made it a priority to create more affordable housing, but as a Planning Commission, they are just looking at land use. He noted that they are looking at three things: how is it guided, they are changing the property from nothing to low-density and this seems fitting, zoning seems to be appropriate for R-1, and looking at preliminary plat, that whoever builds it will need to meet the criteria and there are many protections in place to make sure it is done correctly. He feels that it fits the neighborhood from a technical standpoint. • Sicotte agreed with many of the things that the previous Commissioner noted, and he added that it is an appropriate fit for the neighborhood, and as long as all of the setback requirements are met, he is in favor of it. • Van Oss stated that, from a technical standpoint, it does seem sound. He has driven Lilac many times recently and does not feel it is any busier than any other comparable street. He said it was a sound application and that he would be voting in favor. • Ruby stated that he is inclined to vote in favor as well, with the City making it a point to find additional housing, he feels that this is a perfect lot for that. • Ruby asked if there were any other questions or comments. He then asked for a motion. • Van Oss moved to approve the preliminary plat that lays out the potential subdivision of one new lot, to recommend approval of a single-family R-1 zoning district, and to recommend approval of the preliminary plat. • Sicotte seconded the motion. • 5 in favor, 1 abstention, and the motion passed. (In Favor: Segelbaum, Sicotte, Ruby, Cohen, Van Oss. Abstain: Hill.) • Segelbaum asked when the Council would look at this. • Kramer stated that on June 17th, the Council would look at the Comprehensive Plan Amendment, the Rezoning, and the Preliminary Plat. If they approve, the final plat would go before Council in July, and then after that, at some point, the land conveyance would go through, which includes going to the Planning Commission to confirm compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. 3.B. Preliminary Plat for 4707 Circle Down • Kramer presented the proposal. • Ruby asked why a plat expires. • Kramer stated that in the City code, there are some applications that, if not acted upon, expire, and then you would need to reapply. She added that the plat was not filed with the County, so it is not recorded, making it not legal. • Ruby asked if it was a preliminary plat by a specific builder. • Kramer stated that it was an application by the City, but that there were some issues with the developer not being ready, and that is why they are not bringing the final plat to the Planning Commission until the developer is ready. • Ruby asked if they were allowed to discuss why a developer chose not to build on it. • Kramer stated that she did not know the specifics, but she feels that it was not because of the CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Wednesday, May 28, 2025 – 6:30 p.m. | City Hall Council Chamber 7800 Golden Valley Road Golden Valley, MN 55427 preliminary plat itself, but rather an outside factor. • Van Oss noted that in his professional experience, it is quite common for plats to lapse and not necessarily out of the ordinary. • Hill stated that the size of the lot was very large, and he asked if the developer would get all of it or if would some be able to be left for nature or anything like that. • Kramer noted that part of the size has to do with setbacks, leaving only one particular area for the house to be built and that the property owner would own the whole thing. • Ruby asked if they were held accountable for the tree requirement of the entire property. • Kramer confirmed that to be true. • Hill asked if it were a land trust or not. • Kramer stated she could not say what the details of the contract would be because they have not finalized it yet, but likely, it would not be a land trust model but rather affordability requirements written in the contract, and the owner would own both land and property. • Van Oss asked how it is decided if the property is a land trust or just owned by the property owner. • Kramer stated that there would be negotiations between the City and the developer. • Van Oss asked if the Council has shown a preference as to whether the properties should be land trusts or not. • Kramer stated that she was not sure what the Council’s preference would be. • Ruby asked if the City owned other pieces of land like this in trust. • Kramer noted that the City does own other pieces of property, not necessarily in trust, such as the other HOPE projects. • Ruby clarified to ask if there were any land trust properties in the City. • Kramer stated she did not believe that was an active program in the City at this time. • Ruby opened up the public hearing and noted that there wasn’t 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. • Kramer confirmed there was no one on phones or virtually who would like to comment. • Ruby closed the public hearing and opened the item for discussion. • Van Oss stated that it is technically correct and within the confines of the codes, so he would be voting in favor. • Hill noted that the shape and size were similar to the past discussion, so he sees no issues and would be voting in favor. • Sicotte stated that he agreed and that it fits much of the same criteria as the last application. • Segelbaum stated that, from his perspective, the application meets the City's criteria and requirements, and he would vote in favor. • Ruby agreed that it meets the requirements and he will be voting in favor. • Ruby asked for a motion. • Van Oss motioned to recommend approval of the preliminary plat. • Hill seconded the motion. • 5 in favor, 1 abstention, and the motion passed. (In Favor: Segelbaum, Sicotte, Ruby, Hill, Van Oss. Abstain: Cohen.) • Ruby asked if all that was needed was the approval of the preliminary plat. • Kramer stated that it is correct because the rezoning and the comprehensive plan amendment already happened in 2023. • Segelbaum asked if this would go to the Council as well. • Kramer stated it would go to the Council on June 17. CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Wednesday, May 28, 2025 – 6:30 p.m. | City Hall Council Chamber 7800 Golden Valley Road Golden Valley, MN 55427 3.C. (withdrawn) Conditional Use Permit for Indoor Entertainment Use of 8325 10th Avenue • Kramer stated that the public hearing was opened for this application on April 14, 2025, but due to construction supply delays, the Applicant has opted to remove their application until a later date. She noted that the Staff is recommending closing the public hearing at this time. • Ruby closed the public hearing. 4. NEW BUSINESS • Kramer stated that the next Planning Commission meeting on June 9th, 2025, would be a joint safety training with the Board of Zoning Appeals. • Ruby asked about the Breck Neighborhood and the meeting that took place recently about it. • Kramer stated that Breck does not have a former application at this time. • Kramer stated that on May 20th, 2025, the Council approved the final plats for 1131 Lilac Drive, 1211 Lilac Drive, and 1611 Lilac Drive. • Ruby asked how the City is communicating that the Planning Commission is no longer accepting online or virtual call-ins at the meetings. • Kramer stated that the website and agendas have been updated to reflect this. • Van Oss clarified that call-in is still available, but it needs to be scheduled, not just on an open line. • Kramer stated that people can always contact the Staff and they can set up a way for those people to be a part of the meeting, whether it is on the phone or virtually. They are also able to send an email that will be read aloud during the meeting. • Van Oss asked if the information on how to contact the meeting is on the agenda that goes out to the public. • Kramer stated that she believes it does. • McGuire noted that it is not in the packet, but they are slowly adjusting to this new policy, so they are still monitoring old ways of doing things, such as Teams. • Ruby asked that they highlight that email as it is a great way to share information at that meeting. • Kramer stated that they could also note this in the newspaper notifications as well. • Segelbaum asked how Teams was working now. • Kramer stated that meetings are broadcast via CCX and that this is not changing; however, remote spontaneous participation is changing and is no longer available. 5. STAFF UPDATES: -None • Hill gave a brief bio. • Segelbaum asked if the HOPE Program is specific to a certain race. • Van Oss stated that the point is to reduce homeownership disparities, but preferring a sale based on a racial category is illegal. • McGuire noted that all of the RFPs in the city are through a DEI lens, meaning the City chose developers who have experience working with underserved communities. • Cohen stated that for further insight into the HOPE Program and where the Council and Mayor stand on it, watch the last council meeting which will help to provide more information. • Van Oss stated that looking closer at the income requirements shows that it is very solidly middle-income, not so much low-income families. • Kramer stated that housing is expensive everywhere, and this is also true of Golden Valley. • Ruby asked if there are additional properties that the City has the first right of refusal on from MnDOT, that would be brought to a meeting coming up. • Kramer stated other properties have been identified, but she is not aware of the timeline for CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Wednesday, May 28, 2025 – 6:30 p.m. | City Hall Council Chamber 7800 Golden Valley Road Golden Valley, MN 55427 them. She commented that there will be more to come, but not in the next month or two. • Ruby asked if the HOPE Program would be able to use currently available housing as part of the program, rather than building new. • Kramer stated that an essential part of the HOPE Program is to build with a developer, but that is not to say that the City would not have an interest in purchasing existing homes or assisting in existing homes becoming affordable homes. • Van Oss noted that the County has a program called naturally reoccurring affordable homes which is using existing homes as affordable housing, so maybe not at a City level at this time but there are other programs. • Ruby asked if the City would look at the home stock and decide to buy the land and then use the home as affordable housing. • Kramer stated that the City does not have a program like that currently, and there has been no City Council direction to create such a program. • Cohen asked if there was a requirement for MnDOT to take care of the property until they convey it to the City. • Kramer stated that she thought MnDOT would have to follow the same vegetation requirements that everyone else in the City would have to, but maybe as right-of-way property requirements are different. 6. COMMISSIONER UPDATES: -None 7. ADJOURNMENT: Chair Ruby adjourned the meeting at 8:04 p.m.