pc-minutes-11-28-22
REGULAR MEETING MINUTES
This meeting was conducted in a hybrid format with in‐person and remote options for attending,
participating, and commenting. The City used Webex to conduct this meeting and members of the
public were able to monitor the meetings by watching it on Comcast cable channel 16, by streaming it
on CCXmedia.org, or by dialing in to the public call‐in line.
1. Call to Order
The meeting was called to order at 6:30 pm by Chair Pockl.
Roll Call
Commissioners present: E. Brenna, A. Brookins, A. Johnson, L. Pockl, M. Ruby
Commissioner absent: S. Ginis, C. Segelbaum
Staff present: Jason Zimmerman – Planning Manager, Myles Campbell – Planner
Council Liaison absent: Denise La Mere‐Anderson
2. Land Acknowledgement
3. Approval of Agenda
MOTION made by Commissioner Brookins, seconded by Commissioner Brenna, to approve the
agenda of November 28, 2022.
Motion carried.
4. Approval of Minutes
MOTION made by Commissioner Brookins, seconded by Commissioner Ruby, to approve the meeting
minutes of November 14, 2022.
Chair Pockl: Abstained.
Motion carried
5. Informal Public Hearing – Amendment to Conditional Use Permit No. 163
Applicant: Shapco Printing, Inc.
Address: 1109 Zane Avenue North
Proposal: To amend the existing CUP to postpone the requirement to provide screening for
automobile inventory storage on the surface lot east of Zane
Jason Zimmerman, Planning Manager, began by summarizing the current CUP approved by City
Council in 2018. The applicant is now requesting a delay in planting the screening that was part of
the CUP until they can secure a new lease for inventory storage.
November 28, 2022 – 6:30 pm
Council Chambers
Hybrid
City of Golden Valley Planning Commission Regular Meeting
November 28, 2022 – 6:30 pm
2
Staff reviewed the existing zoning, parking, and went into detail on the restrictive deed prohibiting
anything other than employee parking that was removed by Council as part of the 2018 CUP
approval.
Staff reviewed the conditions required for approval of the CUP and highlighted condition 5.
5. Vegetative screening must be maintained in a strip 60 feet wide along the eastern property
line as a visual buffer for the adjacent single‐family homes. The applicant shall submit a
landscape plan to City staff for approval and shall maintain the vegetative screening consistent
with the approved landscape plan.
Staff reviewed the history of actions as they relate to preparing for the planting condition. Cleanup
began in 2019 but during Covid there was growth of invasive vegetation. In 2021, staff and the
applicant had a lengthy email exchange and landscape review was performed; no action by the
applicant was taken. In 2022, site work was conducted to remove vegetation, but again nothing
was planted and the applicant cited financial challenges in watering and maintaining the new
vegetation. As such, the applicant is requesting the screening requirement to be paused until
another auto dealer is interested in utilizing the lot for storage.
Staff reviewed the initial CUP meeting and discussed the impacts of the applicant failing to comply
with conditions. Staff added that absent an amendment, the City’s remedy for non‐compliance is to
revoke the CUP allowing auto inventory storage.
Currently, the natural resource staff support installation of the vegetative screening and prefer that
the existing invasive vegetation be managed.
Recommended Action
Based on the finding above, staff recommends denial of the amendment to Conditional Use Permit
No. 163 which would suspend the screening requirement pending future use of the lot for auto
inventory storage.
Commissioner Johnson clarified that the amendment is to continue storage but the applicant is
requesting a pause on the condition listed to create a vegetative screening until they obtain a new
storage tenant. Staff confirmed.
Commissioner Brookins asked about the deed restriction on the property and how the zoning will
change if the CUP is removed. Staff replied that it would return to a light industrial zoning. Staff
reviewed the history of the deed restriction being enveloped in the CUP, noxious weed regulation,
and the screening regulation. The discussion moved on to the potential CUP revocation and
Council’s participation in that decision.
Chair Pockl invited the applicant to speak.
Joel Shapiro, applicant, addressed the Commission and staff. He started by saying the tenant they
had, left when Covid started and thus there’s no inventory to hide with the requested vegetation.
The area is cleared but not planted because the applicant states there’s not a water resources
nearby and if planting had occurred it would have died from drought. The applicant added
City of Golden Valley Planning Commission Regular Meeting
November 28, 2022 – 6:30 pm
3
concerns about new construction across the street and added that city staff once told him he could
use the fire hydrant for his watering. The applicant added that staff today did not address that. The
applicant added that before his company purchased the building, it was empty and dilapidated; it’s
now very improved.
Commissioner Brenna asked if the applicant has a landscaper as they often have water trucks that
come in and water vegetation. The applicant responded that is too expensive.
Commissioner Brookins stated it has been 3‐4 years since the original CUP was granted and asked
the applicant if they submitted a written plan to the City. Staff responded that a few plans were
submitted but staff does not have a current plan approved as the request is to pause. Brookins
added that most applicants present a plan formulated by their own experts noted this particular
CUP has provisions stating the applicant is to submit a plan to the City for review and approval.
Commissioner Johnson asked the applicant if the issue of watering ever came up when the original
CUP was approved and it was determined the applicant only realized it was a concern recently. The
applicant offered alternatives, such as neighbors watering the vegetation. The applicant added the
neighbors have historically used that area to dump.
Chair Pockl confirmed with the applicant that he was the original applicant for the CUP, that he
originally agreed to the condition to maintain the greenspace/vegetation, and she asked if he ever
intended to fulfill that condition. The applicant states he did but Covid and planting concerns arose
and then he realized there wasn’t a water source. The applicant added he does not own the
property but rather is a tenant of the property.
Chair Pockl opened the public forum at 7:04pm.
Chair Pockl noted that two comments were received via Golden Valley Speaks and are on record.
Andrea Johnson
105 Welcome Cir
The property was well maintained until 2018, there is a storm drain in the area so the vegetation
does receive moisture. The areas where the vegetation was removed thistle grew. I regularly check
that area as I have a small child and want to make sure there isn’t anything dangerous and I want
to make sure the wild animals can pass through easily. Now the area is overrun with thistle and
they’re forced to go through my yard. My question is, if the CUP was allowed because of the
maintenance agreement, why were the old trees removed when there wasn’t a watering plan for
new trees. The buffer is gone, we’re exposed to early noises and lights at night. The area was
destroyed when it was supposed to be maintained.
Richard Dubiak
1109 Welcome Circ.
I’m new to the neighborhood but I’m concerned over the delay in the applicant fulfilling the
maintenance agreement on the vegetation. The applicant states he’ll fulfill the steps when he has a
new tenant but why shouldn’t he have the area maintained before seeking new business. The area
is poorly maintained and the vegetation encroaches and falls on our fences. We maintain what we
can but there are a few trees that need to be removed due to ash borer.
City of Golden Valley Planning Commission Regular Meeting
November 28, 2022 – 6:30 pm
4
Anne Bennion
1125 Welcome Cir
I was here when the CUP was issued, I was against it because the neighborhood had protection
with the deed restriction. Now we’re in a situation where we will be exposed if the CUP is removed.
We’re mentioning the plantings but maybe a fence is more appropriate. There’s an area west of us
and the have a buffer that is doing extremely well. They maintain it but there isn’t excessive
watering occurring. The CUP should remain until trees are planted or a fence is put up, regardless
the neighbors should have some protection. Additionally, the lights are not dimmed at night.
Mike Nelson
1310 Welcome Ave N
I can appreciate the applicant’s comments and have even done business with Shapco. If the
Commission allows the applicant to not have the conditions of the CUP enforced, it will set a
precedence for future CUPs.
Mary Pat Gibbs
1113 Welcome Cir.
32 years ago, the area behind us was beautiful with lilacs, trees, and bushes. I take issue with the
applicant comments on the neighbors not maintaining the area. I used to mow the area until we
installed a fence. I have planted trees and evergreens. Every spring many of us pick up trash from
over the winter and I’ve never seen a boat as the applicant stated. The area now looks stark and I
don’t understand how the applicant can make an agreement with the City and then not follow it.
As a resident, I have to follow City Ordinances otherwise I receive notice in the mail.
William Gibbs
1113 Welcome Cir.
I take issue with the applicant accusing the neighbors of throwing trash in the green space. I’ve
maintained the area, picked up trash, planted trees, and maybe the junk he found is from others
coming in his parking lot. The applicant states water is an issue but I don’t think it’s a valid excuse
for not maintaining the agreement as that should be part of his landscaping plan. Small plants and
shrubs won’t screen so we’d like to see bigger plantings.
Pam Wandzel
1220 Welcome Ave N
I’ve been here 31 years and our neighborhood has come before the commission a few times due to
zoning. Our neighborhood is a tight community and I would hate to see anything destroy the
integrity of that community. When the Council agrees to certain requirements for a CUP, those
agreements should be followed.
Ryan Thompson
1200 Welcome Ave N
There were a lot of promises made with the original CUP and it would be disappointing if the
City of Golden Valley Planning Commission Regular Meeting
November 28, 2022 – 6:30 pm
5
Commission and Council allowed the applicant to go back on those promises. I hope the group will
take that precedence under consideration.
John Giese
1132 Welcome Circle
I know the balance of residential and commercial, I used to live on Golden Valley Road so this isn’t
my first experience with the combination. It’s possible to have a good working relationship
between residents and business owners, it’s not an “us against them” situation. If the applicant
would talk to the residents, they’d see we’re reasonable. Established native species don’t require a
lot of water, they flourish. There were agreements made with the CUP and they should be
enforced.
There were no remote callers/commenters.
Chair Pockl closed the public hearing at 7:28pm.
Staff addressed some of the concerns stated by neighbors. The lights on site are compliant as they
were addressed in the original CUP. The sign on the building has always been lit but it’s visible now
due to the lack of buffer. New zoning codes are addressing overnight lights.
When the original CUP was created, there was a landscaping plan that the City attorney and the
applicant’s attorney worked out, it was a three‐phase plan. This was to address invasive removal
but the plan was not to clear cut all vegetation. Originally 15‐16 spruce trees were supposed to be
planted, then when the cutting occurred, planting did not follow. The lack of new plantings left
space for new invasives to grow and then further cutting occurred. After all this, the water issue
was raised.
The applicant called staff the morning of this meeting to discuss using the fire hydrant as a water
source. Staff engineers did have a conversation with the applicant and they told the applicant use
of the hydrate is not an option. There is a water hook up on the Shapco site and staff informed the
applicant that could be used. It’s not the City’s responsibility to create a plan for the applicant to
maintain the landscaping they agreed to at the original CUP as it’s included in the agreement.
Additionally, the Council felt vegetation was a better barrier than a fence and the cost of a fence
could have been prohibitive.
Staff and the Commission discussed what would happen if the CUP was revoked and how
vegetation would be regulated.
The applicant requested to address the Commission one more time and Chair Pockl granted him
one last comment.
The applicant apologized for offending the residents who spoke today. He added that he
appreciated the comment from the last resident about working together to find a solution and
challenged staff to take that into consideration. The applicant stated the reason the vegetation
City of Golden Valley Planning Commission Regular Meeting
November 28, 2022 – 6:30 pm
6
agreement hasn’t occurred is because Planning staff has not worked with him to come to an
agreement. The applicant stated he warned staff that if they took down as many trees as they did
that the neighbors would be upset but staff told him that the vegetation would grow. The applicant
followed up by stating they did as they were told and now he’s not surprised by the comments
received at the hearing.
Chair Pockl stated that when an applicant requests a CUP and agrees to the conditions, it’s the
applicant’s responsibility to abide by the agreement. There is non‐compliance by the applicant and
does not seem to be the fault of the City as it appears there was a plan in place. There needs to be
compliance in place with the CUP that was granted in 2018. Commissioner Brenna echoed this and
added that as a forester, the watering is not a barrier. Based on the 2018 agreement there are 16
6‐foot spruce trees and they don’t require extensive watering. There is a water source on site that
can be used and the applicant agreed to the plan and there should be follow through.
Commissioner Johnson added that from his years on the BZA they reviewed the attempts the
applicant made prior to requesting a variance. Based on that data, it was clear to the Board if a
request was warranted. In this case, not everything has been attempted and staff’s responsibility is
to interpret the rules and share that. Johnson continued that in the end, staff is trying to enforce
the City rules, the applicant is looking out for his business, and thus far CUP requirements have
never been waived and this isn’t a good time to start; therefore, he recommends denial of the
request.
Commissioner Brookins noted that the CUP agreement states if there is a pause after 12 months
prior to completion, the CUP is void.
Staff responded that the original CUP was agreed on in early winter 2018 so they knew it wouldn’t
be acted on until the following spring. Then Covid started and when things were starting up again,
staff had a plan in place with the applicant. The site was cleared in the spring and by late summer
2022 it was clear to staff the planting wasn’t happening. Staff was doing their best to work with the
applicant and staff does not have the authority to deviate from the CUP agreement as mandated by
City Council.
Commissioner Brookins noted that in meeting minutes from the original CUP agreement, the
screening requirement was a topic of conversation and not an afterthought; the applicant seemed
to be aware of the requirements.
MOTION made by Commissioner Brookins seconded by Chair Pockl to recommend denial of the
amendment to Conditional Use Permit No. 163 which would suspend the screening requirement
pending future use of the lot for auto inventory storage.
Motion Passes
Brookins added he would encourage the Council to consider enforcing the zoning language or
provide direction on when they will enforce the requirements in the code/CUP.
6. Informal Public Hearing – Zoning Text Amendment – Updates to the Mobile Use Code
Applicant: City of Golden Valley
Proposal: To adjust the requirements related to permitting for mobile vending uses
City of Golden Valley Planning Commission Regular Meeting
November 28, 2022 – 6:30 pm
7
Myles Campbell, Planner, reminded members that the mobile vending code was recently
amended to include mobile uses beyond food trucks.
Additionally, the fee schedule was reviewed due to these changes, specifically the permit fees
around trucks attending local businesses or reoccurring events. Staff reviewed the specifics of
the fee schedule. By updating the fee schedule, staff updated the City Ordinances surrounding
these permits and fees as well.
Commissioners and staff reviewed historical fees and the new proposed fees by comparison.
Recommended Action
Staff recommends approval of the zoning text amendment for Sec. 113‐31 Temporary Uses in order
to update the text to match the Master Fee Schedule.
Chair Pockl opened the public hearing at 7:59pm.
There were no in person commenters.
There were no remote commenters.
Chair Pockl closed the public hearing at 8:02pm.
Commissioners and staff reviewed the budget impacts of these fee schedule changes and staff
time.
MOTION made by Chair Pockl and seconded by Commissioner Brookins to recommend
approval of the zoning text amendment for Sec. 113‐31 Temporary Uses in order to update the text
to match the Master Fee Schedule.
Motion Passes
7. Informal Public Hearing – Zoning Text Amendment – Amending Membership Requirements for
Board of Zoning Appeals
Applicant: City of Golden Valley
Proposal: To expand the term lengths for BZA members from one to three years
Myles Campbell, Planner, reminded the group that the City was reviewing the Board and
Commission term limits. The Board of Zoning Appeals already has designated one‐year term
limits and the new three‐year term limits require an amendment and approval. Staff called out
the rotating PC member as well as the BZA Youth Member.
The proposed language also matches what the other Boards and Commissions will follow, thus
creating continuity.
Recommended Action
Staff recommends approval of the zoning text amendment for Sec. 113‐27, amending the
membership requirements for the Board of Zoning Appeals.
City of Golden Valley Planning Commission Regular Meeting
November 28, 2022 – 6:30 pm
8
Chair Pockl opened the public hearing at 8:09 pm.
There were no in person commenters.
There were no remote commenters.
Chair Pockl closed the public hearing at 8:11 pm.
MOTION made by Commissioner Brenna and seconded by Commissioner Johnson to
recommend approval of the zoning text amendment for Sec. 113‐27, amending the membership
requirements for the Board of Zoning Appeals.
Motion Passes
8. Informal Public Hearing – Zoning Text Amendment – Updates to the Official Zoning Map
Requirements
Applicant: City of Golden Valley
Proposal: To update the requirements of items included on the Official Zoning Map
Jason Zimmerman, Planning Manager, stated the official zoning map is defined in the zoning code
and indicates a number of additional requirements such as a city seal, signatures of both the Mayor
and City Clerk. These requirements are not State statute, they were a local designation. The City
Attorney and staff suggest that removing these elements help maintain clarity moving forward. Staff
noted the Zoning Code where these details are outlined and the edits to mirror the zoning map
changes.
Recommended Action
Staff recommends approval of the zoning text amendment for Sec. 113‐56 ‐ Official Zoning map in
order to update the requirements associated with the map.
Commissioner Johnson thanked staff for the work they’ve done on making the zoning code easier to
read and asked about tying the code amendments to the map. Staff responded they’d have to talk to
IT and see if the technology is there and to see what that possibility is.
Chair Pockl opened the public hearing at 8:15 pm.
There were no in person commenters.
There were no remote commenters.
Chair Pockl closed the public hearing at 8:17 pm.
MOTION made by Commissioner Brookins and seconded by Commissioner Ruby to recommend
approval of the zoning text amendment for Sec. 113‐56 ‐ Official Zoning map in order to update the
requirements associated with the map.
Motion Passes
City of Golden Valley Planning Commission Regular Meeting
November 28, 2022 – 6:30 pm
9
9.Discussion – 2023‐2032 Capital Improvement Program
Jason Zimmerman, Planning Manager, reminded the group that the Planning Commission is uniquely
charged with reviewing the 10‐year Capitol Improvement Plan (CIP). The CIP identifies capital
projects and outlines the associated timing and financing. Every city in the metro is required to adopt
a CIP and only address physical infrastructure, other goals and objectives advance through policy
decisions and budget allocations.
Staff reviewed the sections of the CIP, and highlighted park improvement objectives, stormwater
infrastructure, water and sanitary sewer infrastructure, and improving the functionality and safety of
streets and the pedestrian network.
Recommended Action
Staff recommends adopting a finding that the 2021‐2032 Capital Improvement Program is consistent
with the goals and objectives of Golden Valley’s 2040 Comprehensive Plan.
Commissioner Ruby mentioned resident concerns on certain roads or infrastructure and asked how
that feedback is integrated as this is a 10‐year plan. Staff replied that the CIP is reviewed and
renewed annually.
Sue Virnig, Finance Director, elaborated on the CIP process. Virnig discussed the potential for the
City to receive Federal Funding to help alleviate some of the CIP dollars. Commissioner Brookins
asked about pond maintenance and asked if it was an investment or ongoing. Staff responded the
DeCola pond project is a multi‐phase project. The conversation continued around specific projects,
restoration, general maintenance, electric vehicles, and parks. Commissioner Johnson mentioned
fiscal disparities around the 7‐county metro and asked Virnig what that fiscal disparity cost is. Virnig
responded it’s around $4 million net and there has been legislative movement to change that
number. Staff went on to discuss the PMP process after Commission questions regarding the PMP
roads, utilities, and process.
10.Council Liaison Report
Planning Manager Zimmerman on behalf of Council Member La Mere‐Anderson updated the
Commissioners on planning items on the upcoming Council meeting.
11.Other Business
12.Adjournment
MOTION by Commissioner Ginis to adjourn, seconded by Commissioner Ruby and approved
unanimously. Meeting adjourned at 8:38pm.
________________________________
________________________________ Andy Johnson, Secretary
Amie Kolesar, Planning Assistant