pc-agenda-apr-13-20
REGULAR MEETING AGENDA
This meeting will be held via Webex in accordance with the local emergency declaration made by the
City under Minn. Stat. § 12.37. The public may monitor this meeting by watching on Comcast cable
channel 16, by streaming on CCXmedia.org, or by calling 1‐415‐655‐0001 and entering the meeting
code 807 954 799. The public may participate in this meeting during public comment sections by
calling 763‐230‐7454. Additional information about monitoring electronic meetings is available on
the City website. For technical assistance, please contact the City at 763‐593‐8007 or
webexsupport@goldenvalleymn.gov. If you incur costs to call into the meeting, you may submit the
costs to the City for reimbursement consideration.
1. Call to Order
2. Approval of Agenda
3. Approval of Minutes
March 9, 2020, Regular Planning Commission Meeting
4. Informal Public Hearing – Minor Subdivision
Applicant: Taylor Ward
Address: 1421 Rhode Island Ave N
Purpose: To subdivide an existing lot and create two new lots
– End of Televised Portion of Meeting –
To listen to this portion, please call 1‐415‐655‐0001 and enter meeting access code 807 954 799
5. Council Liaison Report
6. Reports on Meetings of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority, City Council, Board of Zoning
Appeals, and other meetings
7. Other Business
8. Adjournment
April 13, 2020 – 7 pm
REGULAR MEETING MINUTES
1. Call to Order
The meeting was called to order at 7:03 by Chair Blum
Roll Call
Commissioners present: Ron Blum, Adam Brookins, Chuck Segelbaum, Lauren Pockl, Rich Baker, Ari
Prohofsky
Commissioners absent: Andy Johnson, Ryan Sadeghi
Staff present: Jason Zimmerman – Planning Manager, Myles Campbell – Planner
Council Liaison present: Gillian Rosenquist
2. Approval of Agenda
Chair Blum, asked for a motion to approve the agenda.
MOTION made by Commissioner Segelbaum, seconded by Commissioner Baker to approve the
agenda of March 9, 2020, as submitted and the motion carried unanimously.
3. Approval of Minutes
Chair Blum asked for a motion to approve the minutes from February 24, 2020.
MOTION made by Commissioner Brookins, seconded by Commissioner Segelbaum to approve
the meeting minutes from February 10, 2020, as submitted. Commissioner Pockl and
Commissioner Baker abstained due to not attending the February 10th meeting. The remaining
commissioners voted and the motion carried.
4. Discussion – Narrow Lot Regulation
Jason Zimmerman, Planning Manager, began the presentation with a recap of the request to the
Planning Commission from City Council. In order to accurately convey the Council’s direction,
Zimmerman introduced Councilmember Gillian Rosenquist to speak as the liaison.
Councilmember Gillian Rosenquist began her presentation by mentioning the Joint Board,
Commission, and Council meeting where a high‐level overview was given on how all three work
together. The duties of each group were reviewed and specifically how the Commission uses their
resident expertise to provide feedback on items as directed by Council. Related to this, Rosenquist
reviewed the history of narrow lots and the unique situation in Golden Valley of tax parcel
subdivision prior to a formal City Zoning code.
Council asked the Commission to address certain areas within the conversation around narrow lots.
The Commission was asked to focus on lots 50 feet wide or less and investigate possible zoning
March 9, 2020 – 7 pm
Council Chambers
Golden Valley City Hall
7800 Golden Valley Road
City of Golden Valley Planning Commission Regular Meeting
March 9, 2020 – 7 pm
2
modifications to the City Code for narrow lot development. They were asked to utilize resident
feedback as well as that from outside experts. The Council wanted recommendations before the
building season started in Spring of 2020.
Chair Blum thanked Councilmember Rosenquist for presenting and asked for clarification as he felt
she was telling the Commission to not consider neighborhood character when reviewing height
and massing but to then make sure those items fit in Golden Valley. Blum asked the
Councilmember if the comprehensive plan and how legislation is formed are important factors in
how the Commission comes to their decisions. CM Rosenquist agreed that those things are
important factors in the commission’s decision making, but reiterated that neighborhood character
can mean different things to different people and stated that the Commission should wrestle less
with neighborhood character and more with height, massing, and setbacks. Blum asked if the
comprehensive plan is the guide for how the Commission is to respond to height, massing, and
setbacks. CM Rosenquist responded that the comprehensive plan is the big picture and that the
Council recognizes this is a narrow question within that big picture.
Commissioner Segelbaum asked if the Council wasn’t satisfied with the current lot regulations and
if that was the motivation for a deeper dive from the Commission. CM Rosenquist responded that
the focus was 50 feet or less due to the number of non‐conformities created by reviewing lots
between 50‐80 feet wide. Looking at the areas with lots that are 50 feet wide or less, they’re legally
plated and are eligible for construction, what would the Commission like those areas of
construction to look like. If there’s a situation where all the lots are built on, make it so the buildings
fit into the comprehensive plan for the future.
Zimmerman reviewed the February 10th meeting, staff recommendations for narrow lot
regulations, and Commissioner feedback to see the “big picture”. Staff created a list of nine
proposed changes, what the staff recommendation is, and how that impacts the bigger picture.
The items are in black and staff recommendations are in blue.
1. Side yard setbacks
Minimum side yard setback of 5 feet
2. Garage stall requirements
Allow one‐car garages for lots 50 feet in width or less; limit garage width to 65%
of façade
3. Slope of “tent” portion of building envelope
Set vertical : horizontal slope of “tent” portion of building envelope to 2:1
4. Side wall height at side setback line
Lower wall height at side setback line to 13 feet
5. Second story dormers
Allow second story dormers to extend outside building envelope
6. Side wall articulation
Prohibit side wall articulation from extending into side yard setback; no principal
structures within 5 feet of property line
7. Secondary front yard setbacks
City of Golden Valley Planning Commission Regular Meeting
March 9, 2020 – 7 pm
3
Reduce secondary front yard setback to 15 feet for lots 65 feet in width or less;
maintain 22 feet of building envelope width
8. Lot coverage
Eliminate lot coverage allowance of 40% for lots under 5,000 square feet
9. Amount of impervious surfaces
No recommended changes
Commissioner Segelbaum asked about item 3 and why the ratio doesn’t have a qualifier.
Zimmerman stated the 2:1 ratio is the current regulation for lots 65 feet and wider, applying this
ratio to narrow lots would align the standard practice. Segelbaum followed up by asking if any
other item will impact lots over 65’ or wider. Zimmerman stated most items are for lots 50’ and
under, some items state up to 65’ wide lots and that’s to eliminate the gap between 50’‐65’.
Commissioner Baker asked if dormers will be regulated to lots 50’ wide or less and Zimmerman
responded that’s the focus as lots wider than that, tend to have the space for a full second story.
Commissioner Brookins asked if #4 would target all lots and Zimmerman stated it’s targeted for
lots 50’ wide and under.
The Commissioners proceeded to have a conversation around the items presented. The
Commissioners asked about zoning code history, past conversations about changes, and number
of lots impacted.
Commissioners Baker, Brookins, and Segelbaum stated that staff recommendations are
reasonable.
Blum mentioned the concept of buildability and mentioned a brochure by the MN Department of
Labor and Industry titled “Tiny Houses and the 2020 MN Residential Code”. Blum said the
document contemplates homes between 100‐400 sq feet. He asked staff if that size house is less
or more than what the Commission has been contemplating for the narrow lots. Zimmerman stated
it’s significantly less. Blum stated his point was to show that buildability could include a wide variety
of housing styles and sizes and that Commissioners consider what they determine to be a buildable
home
Baker stated his desire to see the pamphlet Blum referenced and reiterated the objectivity of the
term buildability. Zimmerman reminded the group of the difference between aesthetic: paint
color, siding, architectural style; and character: rhythm of housing‐massing and height. The goal of
the City is not to tell people what kind of home they can have but rather and height and scale so
rules for building are maintained.
The discussion continued and revolved around setbacks, how setbacks relate to the height of the
building envelope, changing the tent to be a 1:1 if it begins from the property line, and reviewing
mockups of some of the suggestions.
Commissioner Pockl asked staff if the City of Golden Valley has minimum house size requirements.
Staff responded that the code mainly revolves around a 22‐foot wide requirement for homes. The
City does not allow for tiny homes that exist on a trailer and then are wheeled on a property, mainly
because of utility needs and footings. Directly addressing tiny homes hasn’t been a priority for
Golden Valley thus far.
5. Discussion – Public Input Process
City of Golden Valley Planning Commission Regular Meeting
March 9, 2020 – 7 pm
4
Jason Zimmerman, Planning Manager, began the conversation by revisiting a document that has been
on the Planning Commission website which illustrates the public comment process for a meeting. This
particular document is similar to that which directs the same process at a City Council meeting.
Zimmerman sent the document to Commission members with the suggestion that the list be placed
on the podium and on the front table so everyone attending a meeting with public input knows what
to expect. Upon receipt of this procedure, the Chair suggested there be a public conversation.
During this introduction the Chair passed around a document to the Commission members.
Chair Blum stated he was handing out a model Planning Commission policy, and that it was his belief
that the procedure guidelines shared by staff were premature. Blum stated that guidelines summarize
a policy and believed that there wasn’t a policy set by the City to enforce the listed guidelines. Blum
listed specific items in the guidelines that he would like to see amended. Commissioner Baker first
thanked the Chair for his insights and that he looks forward to the amending process. Baker added his
uncertainty on if the Planning Commission is responsible for amending this process. Baker shared his
concern with the Chair handing out the model document to the Commissioners, due to the fact that
there wasn’t a way to share the document with the public and the lack of attribution. Baker stated
that he felt the Commission members should return the document to the Chair. Blum responded that
he requested this item be added to a future meeting and felt the guideline process was being rushed.
After some dialogue, the Chair asked what the intention of staff was with this topic. Zimmerman
responded the intention of staff was to receive feedback on a process that has been public for some
time, and if the current Commission wanted to make it the official process. Referencing the document
provided by the Chair, Zimmerman noted the document appearing to be a rewrite of the Planning
Commission bylaws. This would be outside the powers of the Commission, as the Council sets and
approves bylaws for all boards and commissions. Zimmerman noted that the City Attorney advised
staff that the Commission has the ability to create its own public process for taking input, just as the
Council did for their meetings. Commissioner Segelbaum stated that he moved to approve the agenda
as it was written in the beginning of the meeting and if the agenda was changing, the Commission
needed to follow the correct order of procedure to do that. Segelbaum added that the guidelines are
something the Commission has informally followed and it gives the public notice for process and how
to follow. He added that it’s the Chair’s prerogative to modify as they see fit and he’d like to adopt the
guidelines.
Baker, Segelbaum, and Commissioner Brookins agreed that the guidelines are in line with current
practice and Baker suggested the Chair revise the guidelines and present a new draft to the
Commission.
Brookins added that he is not comfortable not having a process to provide the public and made a
MOTION to move forward with the public input process as laid out in the guidelines on the website.
After further discussion, the Chair stated that the motion failed due to lack of a second. Blum
reiterated that he would like to know the origin of the guidelines and under what authority they were
established. Zimmerman stated the Commission does have under its authority, the ability to set the
public input process for the Commission. Segelbaum stated that a resolution may not occur this
evening and he didn’t second Brookins’ motion because he wasn’t certain a formal vote needed to
occur in order to approve the guidelines that are already public. Segelbaum added that if the Chair
City of Golden Valley Planning Commission Regular Meeting
March 9, 2020 – 7 pm
5
would like a vote to clarify consensus, he asked the Chair make that determination and hold a vote.
Baker added that if the Chair has legal questions then he should consult with the City Attorney.
Maria Cisneros, City Attorney for the City of Golden Valley, stood before the Commission and stated
the topic at hand was about “Rules of Procedure” which differ from the Bylaws. The Council has their
own Rules of Procedure for how their meetings are run as does the Commission. The City has not
historically adopted strict Rules of Procedure as other cities have. Cisneros hasn’t been able to review
all the meeting minutes for past Planning Commission meetings but her belief is that the current
guidelines are publicly posted because they were once determined by a previous Commission. Cisneros
said it’s within the Commission’s ability to adopt the guidelines as they’re listed or they may edit as
they see fit and adopt those. Baker echoed Cisneros’ recommendation and Commissioner Pockl
agreed. The Commission made a few immediate edits on word choices.
Television portion of the meeting concluded at 9:11pm
6. Commissioner Training – Variances
7. Council Liaison Report
Councilmember Rosenquist provided an update to Commissioners on the State of the City event at
New Bohemia. She provided an update on the Joint Board Commission and said that lack of attendance
was noted, there will be an increased effort to promote attendance for the next meeting.
8. Reports on Meetings of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority, City Council, Board of Zoning
Appeals, and other meetings
Councilmember Rosenquist updated Commissioners on a proclamation issued by the City Council
opposing conversion therapy. The Council will also be encouraging representatives to support the bill
introduced by the Senate to ban the practice of conversion therapy in the state of Minnesota. There
was also a bill to introduce rapid transit on 55 and the Council Manager meeting will discuss affordable
housing.
9. Other Business
Maria Cisneros, City Attorney, informed Commissioners that they will soon receive email addresses
with the City of Golden Valley domain.
10. Adjournment
MOTION made by Commissioner Pockl, seconded by Commissioner Baker and the motion carried
unanimously to adjourn the meeting at 9:57 PM.
________________________________
Adam Brookins, Secretary
________________________________
Amie Kolesar, Planning Assistant
1
Date: April 13, 2020
To: Golden Valley Planning Commission
From: Jason Zimmerman, Planning Manager
Subject: Informal Public Hearing on Preliminary Plan for Subdivision of
1421 Rhode Island Ave N
Property address: 1421 Rhode Island Ave N
Applicant: Taylor Ward Property owners: Taylor, Charles, & Linda Ward
Zoning District: Single‐Family (R‐1) Residential Lot size: 21,402 sq. ft. (0.49 acres)
Current use: Single‐family home Future land use: Low Density Residential
Adjacent uses: Single‐family homes
2018 aerial photo (Hennepin County)
2
Summary of Request
Taylor Ward, along with Charles and Linda Ward, is proposing to subdivide the property located at
1421 Rhode Island Avenue North into two lots. There is one existing single‐family home on this lot,
which would remain, and one new lot is proposed to be created. In order to allow the subdivision to
occur, a variance from the lot width requirement is needed.
Background
In 2008, the subject property consisted of three lots that were combined for tax purposes. Two lots
were 60 feet wide and the third was 40 feet wide (with the last 20 feet owned by the property
directly to the north). An existing home on the property was being demolished and in order to legally
construct a new home, the three platted lots needed to be combined. This was approved by the City
Council late in the year and in 2009 a new home was constructed on the south portion of this lot,
leaving sufficient room for a future second home to be constructed on the north portion.
The property is guided for Low Density Residential use in the 2040 Comprehensive Plan and zoned
Single‐Family Residential (R‐1). It sits in the middle of an established single‐family neighborhood.
Existing Conditions
There is an existing home on the lot, which would remain, and a detached garage on the north
portion of the property. With the proposed subdivision, the detached garage would also remain and
support the new home, which would continue to have access off of Rhode Island Ave N.
A new survey conducted in January of 2020 shows that the lot width at the front setback line (35 feet
into the lot) is only 159.92 feet and only 159.82 feet at a point 70 feet into the lot. While this
dimension was intended to be 160 feet, it is approximately two inches shy of the width needed to
divide the lot – likely due to the use of less accurate surveying equipment when the block was first
platted. Regardless, the slight shortfall will require a subdivision variance be approved in order to
move forward.
Engineering staff have reviewed the site and believe there are three sanitary service lines on the
property. One is being utilized by the existing home. As part of this proposal, one of the two
remaining lines would need to be verified as compliant with the City’s Inflow and Infiltration
standards. Staff also believes there are two existing water services to the property. The existing home
utilizes the southern service and the northernmost service is available for a new home.
Staff Review
Changes to the minimum lot area requirement of the Subdivision chapter in the City Code made in
2015 require a calculation of the average lot size of all residential lots within 250 feet of the subject
property in the Single‐Family Residential (R‐1) Zoning District. If the average is greater than 18,000
square feet, the new required minimum lot size increases to 15,000 square feet. If the average is less
than 18,000 square feet, the required minimum lot size remains at 10,000 square feet.
For 1421 Rhode Island Ave N, the average size of the lots within 250 feet is approximately 11,708
square feet. Therefore, the required minimum lot size of each new lot remains at 10,000 square feet.
3
At 21,402 square feet, there is sufficient area to subdivide. The proposed Lot 1, to the north, would
be 10,715 square feet. The proposed Lot 2, to the south, would be 10,687 square feet.
City Code requires that each non‐corner lot have a minimum of 80 feet of width at the front setback
line and maintain 80 feet of width for 70 feet of depth. Lot 1 would have 80.02 feet of width at the 35
foot setback line and 80.02 feet of width at a point 70 feet into the lot. Lot 2 would have 79.9 feet of
width at the 35 foot setback line and 79.8 feet of width at a point 70 feet into the lot. As mentioned
above, this width falls short of the requirements of the City Code and a variance is necessary for the
subdivision to be approved (see Evaluation of Variance Request below).
The sanitary sewer service to the existing home is compliant with the City’s Inflow and Infiltration
requirements. The applicant must work with Engineering and Utility staff to determine which of the
other two existing sanitary lines are best suited to serve the new home.
As required by the City Code, a tree inventory was performed in order to document all existing trees.
This inventory has been reviewed by the City Forester and will be used to calculate any required tree
replacement as part of the Tree and Landscape permit for the development.
The Engineering Division has reviewed the application and has the following comments:
Right‐of‐Way Management – There is an existing driveway immediately north of the house at
1421 Rhode Island Ave N. This second driveway straddles the proposed shared lot line
between the two new lots. The driveway does not meet city code as it does not lead to a
legally constructed garage. In addition, upon subdivision, the driveway will not meet the
required 3‐feet setback from the side lot line. As a condition of subdivision, staff recommends
that the driveway, curb cut, and apron be removed and replaced with barrier curb in
compliance with City standards as part of the Right‐of‐Way Management permit for the
development.
Stormwater Management – The existing conditions survey shows that a portion of the
stormwater runoff from the north lot flows toward the west and south. As a reminder, city
code states that runoff from residential property shall be minimized to the maximum extent
practicable. To ensure this, the City has a Stormwater Management permit that requires the
submittal of a stormwater plan that meets City standards.
The Fire Department has reviewed the application and has no comments or concerns.
If approved, a park dedication fee of $3,270 would also be required prior to release of the Final Plat.
Neighborhood Notification
A letter describing the proposal was sent to properties within 500 feet in late March. To date, staff
has received no comments or questions.
4
Evaluation of Minor Subdivision
According to Section 109‐121 of the City Code, the following are the regulations governing approval
of minor subdivisions:
Factor/Finding
1. A minor subdivision shall be denied if the proposed lots do not meet the minimum area
and dimensional requirements for the Zoning District in which they are located, or if vehicular
access is not provided from an abutting improved street.
Standard met for Lot 1, which meets the requirements of the Single‐Family Residential (R‐1)
Zoning District. Lot 2 does not have sufficient width and a variance is needed in order to grant
approval. Both lots have access from an improved street.
2. A minor subdivision may be denied upon the City’s determination that a resulting new lot
is encumbered by steep slopes or excessive wetness.
Standard met. Neither lot is encumbered by steep slopes or excessive wetness.
3. A minor subdivision may be denied if sewer and water connections are not directly
accessible by each proposed lot.
Standard met. One lot is already served with sewer and water; connections are directly
accessible for the development of the second lot.
4. Approval shall be conditioned on the granting of easements for necessary public purposes.
Standard conditionally met. Existing utility easements must be vacated and new utility
easements must be dedicated as shown on the preliminary plat.
5. Approval may be conditioned on the requirements of outside public agencies with
jurisdiction.
Not applicable.
6. Approval shall be conditioned on the resolution of any title issues raised by the City
Attorney.
Standard conditionally met. The City Attorney will determine if such a title review is necessary
prior to approval of the final plat.
7. Minor subdivisions of nonresidential parcels may be denied if new development will cause
undo strain on adjacent roads or on public utilities or will adversely affect adjacent uses.
Not applicable.
8. Approval shall be conditioned on the payment of a park dedication fee, sewer and water
access charge, and pending or levied deferred assessments.
5
Standard conditionally met. A park dedication fee of $3,270 is required for this development
and must be paid prior to the release of the final plat by the City.
9. The conditions spelled out shall provide the only basis for denial of a minor subdivision.
Approval will be granted to any application that meets the established conditions.
Standard met.
Evaluation of Variance Request
The proposal requires a variance from the following section of City Code:
Section 109‐121, Subd. (a)(2) Minimum Dimension Requirements
The City’s Subdivision Code requires a minimum lot width of 80 feet at the 35 foot setback line
and at a point 70 feet from the front lot line. The applicant is requesting 0.2 feet off of the
required 80 feet to a width of 79.8 feet on Lot 2.
The City, through its Planning Commission and City Council, may grant variances from the Subdivision
chapter of the City Code if all of the following conditions outlined in Section 109‐5 (a)(1) exist. In
addition, the Council must consider the nature of the proposed use and of the existing use of land in
the vicinity, the number of persons to reside in the proposed subdivision, and the probable effect of
the proposed subdivision upon traffic conditions in the vicinity. In granting a variance, the Council
may prescribe conditions necessary to protect the public interest.
1. There are special circumstances so that the strict application of the requirements would create
unusual hardship and deprive the applicant of reasonable use of the land. Economic difficulty or
inconvenience shall not constitute a hardship. The need for a variance from the minimum lot
width requirement appears to be due to a special circumstance in that while the original 1914 plat
established lots that were shown to be exactly 60 feet wide, a slight deviation in the demarcation
of the property corners – perhaps due to inexact surveying equipment – resulted in a small deficit.
Disallowing the subdivision under these circumstances would create an unusual hardship.
2. The variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of
the petitioner. The absence of a variance from the lot width requirement would prevent the
intended subdivision of the property, depriving the property owner of a substantial property right.
3. The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other
property in the neighborhood. The granting of the variance would not be injurious to other
property in the neighborhood, as the difference between an 80 foot wide lot (the width required
by City Code) and a 79.8 foot wide lot (the available width of Lot 2) would be indistinguishable and
would have no impact on adjacent properties.
Staff believes the proposed use of land is consistent with the Low Density Residential guidance of the
2040 Comprehensive Plan and with the surrounding single‐family residential properties. The addition
of one household on this residential block would not impact the neighborhood and would not have a
negative effect on traffic conditions in the vicinity.
6
Recommended Actions
Based on the findings above, staff recommends approval of a variance of 0.2 feet off of the
required 80 feet to a width of 79.8 feet on Lot 2.
If the variance is approved, then based on the findings above staff recommends approval of the
minor subdivision at 1421 Rhode Island Ave N subject to the following conditions:
1. The applicant shall remove the existing driveway, apron, and curb cut located directly north of the
home at 1421 Rhode Island Ave N and replace it with a barrier curb.
2. The applicant shall vacate existing easements and dedicate new drainage and utility easements as
shown on the preliminary plat.
3. The City Attorney shall determine if a title review is necessary prior to approval of the final plat.
4. A park dedication fee of $3,270 shall be paid prior to the release of the final plat.
If the variance is not approved, the lot width requirement cannot be met and therefore staff
recommends denial of the minor subdivision with a finding that the proposal does not meet the
Minimum Dimension Requirements found in Section 109‐121, Subd. (a)(2).
Attachments:
Location Map (1 page)
Certificate of Survey (1 page)
Preliminary Plat (1 page)
Email from Neighbor received April 3, 2020 (1 page)
SUBJECT PROPERTY
Friday, April 3, 2020
I will not participate in the GV Planning Commission’s Informal Public Hearing April 13, 2020
with regard to my backyard neighbor’s proposal, but happy to go on record with the following.
My only request for the subdivision of property and eventual construction is for everyone to
follow city, state, county codes and processes, etc., and that there be no special considerations.
Quite a while ago and with the previous owner of the Rhode Island lot, and last time we
neighbors signed off on proposals directly impacting our quality of life, turns out naively, we
supported special requests and ended up with a huge garage on my backyard property line, which
is visually suffocating and radiates noise that can be heard inside our homes, plus the building of
a really big house.
My initial draft today was a really lengthy one, and not succinct and more about sour grapes than
productive facts, and about the failures of the City and me and the neighbors allowing the
previous owner to manipulate us all.
I support Taylor Ward to improve his quality of life, but ask all involved play by the rules.
Thank you.
**********************************************
Thomas J. Beagan, III
1440 Sumter Avenue North
Golden Valley, MN 55427