Loading...
2025-09-08 MIN PC Regular MeetingCITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Monday, September 8, 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: Amy Barnstorff, Adam Brookins, Gary Cohen, Mike Ruby, Chuck Segelbaum, Martin Sicotte, David Hill • Regular Members Absent: Eric Van Oss • Student Member, Status: Vacant • Staff Members Present: Jacquelyn Kramer, Senior Planner Steven Okey, Associate Planner • Council Member Present: None 2. CONSENT AGENDA: 2.A. Approval of agenda 2.B. Approval of August 25, 2025, meeting minutes • Hill noted that his name was not included in the last meeting minutes. • Ruby asked for a motion to approve with the adjustment. • Barnstorff moved. • Cohen seconded. • All voted in favor, and the motion passed. 3. PUBLIC HEARINGS: 3.A. Minor Subdivision at 641 Westwood Drive • Kramer presented the proposal. • Ruby stated that there was an email that was submitted that was in approval of the application. • Kramer noted that he was correct that there was an email. • Ruby asked if there were any questions for the Staff. • Kramer noted that the homeowner was in attendance as well, if there were any questions. • Segelbaum noted that the memo mentioned the lot widths for lot one and lot two being 166.37 and 188.12, respectively. He asked to be shown which dimensions those are. • Kramer stated that in the zoning code, lot width is taken from the street. She noted them on the screen and stated that they are not the same cardinal directions for the two lots, but that is the width. • Segelbaum noted that lot two on Westwood has 188 feet, and though not in the scope of this application, there would be potentially room for the lot to be subdivided because there is enough frontage. • Kramer clarified that in the future, they could ask if they could subdivide. • Segelbaum stated he was looking to see what the number is, and knew that there had to be 80 feet of frontage; however, either way, it is fine. • Kramer noted that she was not sure, but it had not been proposed to the Staff and therefore not looked at. • Ruby asked if this was brought to the City’s attention because the homeowner brought it to the City. • Kramer stated that it was correct. • Ruby noted that with the absence of this being brought to the City, this possibly would have waited until the sale of one of the properties or a request to build something on the lot. He CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Monday, September 8, 2025 – 6:30 p.m. | City Hall Council Chamber 7800 Golden Valley Road Golden Valley, MN 55427 asked how this could have been discovered by the City otherwise. • Kramer stated that it would not have necessarily been discovered. She added that in the future, for example, if the current or future homeowner at 641 wanted to expand to the North, they would not have been able to because it is legally nonconforming. She noted that then a similar process or variance would have been necessary. • Applicant, Jane Haugen Olsen, spoke. • Olsen stated that they approached the City about 12 years ago, when a project was done in the back pool, and part of the retaining wall and pool deck is on the property of 512 Janalyn Circle. She added that they had to come to the City to obtain approval to work on the deck, which would reinforce the pillars underneath. She noted that it is a 1940’s house, with a swimming pool that was put in in the 1980’s, with a retaining wall that is starting to fail, so the concern is that once the other house is sold and someone comes in and puts in a fencing or something on the property line, it would be harder for the Applicant to make necessary repairs. She noted that the property is on a really high hill, and it is a very complicated lot, so this is a way to clean things up for potential future issues. • Barnstorff noted that this application seems like it should be something that could be done administratively. She asked if it would be looked at with the code updates. • Kramer stated that it is something that is being looked at with the subdivision code update. She added that other cities do lot line adjustments administratively, so there is more to come on it. • Ruby opened up the public hearing and noted there wasn’t anyone from the public in attendance. • Ruby closed the public hearing and opened the item for discussion. He noted that he would like everyone to voice their opinion for the record. • Cohen noted that as a resident of Kennedys South Tyrol Hills Addition and having looked at the sites, he notes that Kennedys West Tyrol Hills Addition has much bigger lots. He added that it seems a very reasonable way to address the issues. He added that if, in the future, there is an administrative way to approve this, he would support it. He stated that he is fully supportive of this proposal. • Hill noted the size of the lots as well and that there are plenty big enough for future discussion. He noted that the Applicant’s points on the pool and the deck make good sense, along with the neighbor’s approval, and then he is in full support of it. • Sicotte stated that there are no issues, and he appreciates the neighbors coming together to collaborate and work through it, and being forward-thinking so there are no issues down the road. He added that he does not see any issues and is supportive of it moving forward. • Segelbaum noted that the code says that there are certain bases for analyzing minor subdivisions, and if these bases are met, which they are, fairly objective and not subjective, then we shall not deny it. He added that the Staff’s memo shows that the conditions are met, so he will support it. • Barnstorff noted that she is supportive of it and looking forward to future code amendment updates. • Ruby stated that he is in agreement with the rest of the commission and will be recommending approval. • Ruby asked if there were any other questions or comments on the motion. He then asked for a motion. • Barnstorff moved to recommend approval of the minor subdivision at 641 Westwood Drive, subject to the findings and conditions in the Staff report. • Hill seconded the motion. • All voted in favor, and the motion passed. CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Monday, September 8, 2025 – 6:30 p.m. | City Hall Council Chamber 7800 Golden Valley Road Golden Valley, MN 55427 4. NEW BUSINESS: -NONE 5. STAFF UPDATES: • Kramer stated that she included the slides from the last meeting, which included the Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA, meeting rotation, upcoming code amendments and their respective co- champions, and the schedule for the rest of the year. She added that if there were any questions, or if someone was not able to attend to just let her know. • Ruby noted that on December 23rd, he would probably not be able to attend the meeting. • Kramer stated that it is starred because she is hoping to cancel it. 6. ADJOURNMENT: Chair Ruby adjourned the meeting at 6:45 p.m.