pc-minutes-feb-24-20
REGULAR MEETING MINUTES
1. Call to Order
The meeting was called to order at 7:00 by Chair Blum
Roll Call
Commissioners present: Ron Blum, Adam Brookins, Andy Johnson, Ryan Sadeghi, and Chuck
Segelbaum
Commissioners absent: Lauren Pockl, Rich Baker, Ari Prohofsky
Staff present: Planning Manager Jason Zimmerman and City Planner Myles Campbell
Council Liaison present: Gillian Rosenquist
2. Approval of Agenda
Chair Blum, asked for a motion to approve the agenda.
MOTION made by Commissioner Brookins, seconded by Commissioner Johnson to approve the
agenda of February 24, 2020, as submitted and the motion carried unanimously.
3. Approval of Minutes
Chair Blum asked for a motion to approve the minutes from February 10, 2020.
MOTION made by Commissioner Segelbaum, seconded by Commissioner Johnson to approve the
meeting minutes from February 10, 2020, as submitted, and the motion carried unanimously.
4. Informal Public Hearing – Major PUD Amendment
Applicant: John Gabbert
Address: 1601 Noble Drive (Sweeny Lake Woods PUD No. 120)
Purpose: To subdivide properties within an existing PUD and incorporate some portions of
adjacent properties
Jason Zimmerman, Planning Manager, began the presentation with a recap that this request is
to amend the existing Planned Unit Development (PUD) No. 120. The original PUD was approved
in 2015 for three single‐family lots on Sweeny Lake, all using a private drive. This proposal would
expand the PUD boundary and reconfigure property lines to create additional buildable lots.
Utilizing maps for visual clarity, Zimmerman stated differences between the existing and the
proposed PUD.
February 24, 2020 – 7 pm
Council Chambers
Golden Valley City Hall
7800 Golden Valley Road
City of Golden Valley Planning Commission Regular Meeting
February 24, 2020 – 7 pm
2
Existing
3 lots inside the PUD (1 with a home, 2 vacant)
4 lots outside the PUD (2 with homes, 2 vacant)
Proposed
4 lots inside the PUD (1 with a home, 3 vacant)
3 lots outside the PUD (2 with homes, 1 vacant)
Regarding community engagement, Zimmerman informed the Commission that a public meeting
was held at City Hall in October 2019. This meeting addressed resident questions about lots,
stormwater management, and the pending variance at the time for the private street. The Board
of Zoning Appeals denied the variance request regarding the street but then was approved by
City Council, following an appeal. This approval included a condition that sprinkler systems be
installed for all new construction. Zimmerman listed the addresses of lots within and outside
both the existing and proposed PUD; all lots are above the minimum lot size of 10,000 square
feet.
Using environmental goals and water policies from the 2040 comprehensive plan as a guide, the
engineering department did a full analysis of this PUD. A construction phasing plan, storm sewer
construction plan, and a detailed tree/landscaping plan will continue to be developed.
When a PUD amendment is evaluated, it’s done so against a list of criteria from the city. The
original PUD met the criteria and the amendment does as well.
Zimmerman listed a number of next steps, such as review and approval from the Bassett Creek
Watershed Management Commission, DNR, and City Council. Existing easements need to be vacated
and new easements need to be dedicated.
Planning staff is recommending approval with the following conditions:
1. The plans dated February 13, 2020, are part of the approval
2. Existing easements are vacated and new easements dedicated as shown
3. City Attorney determines if a title review is necessary
4. Park dedication fee of $34,560 is paid
5. Deferred special assessment of $35,000 is paid
6. Conservation easement for 1640 Noble Drive is signed and recorded
7. Impervious surface area on each of the four undeveloped lots is limited to 10,000 sq ft
Commissioner Segelbaum asked why the Planning Commission isn’t deciding on the subdivision in
addition to the PUD. Zimmerman responded that the Commission is, however it’s already wrapped
up in the PUD approval. Even the lots outside of the PUD that are being subdivided are wrapped up
in the PUD approval.
Representatives for the applicant and project approached the Commission.
Matt Pavek, Civil Engineer, working on the project
City of Golden Valley Planning Commission Regular Meeting
February 24, 2020 – 7 pm
3
Jackie Day, Realtor, realtor for applicant
Pavek stated that staff presentation was thorough and from an engineering perspective, the plan is
fairly straightforward. The most complicated part is the stormwater component but his team worked
with city staff to create a low impact development plan.
Commissioner Johnson asked the representatives how they intend to mitigate construction noise
and prevent wet basements for owners.
Pavek responded that there are construction best practices through the city and when pulling a
permit, the builder shall adhere to that. Aside from that, it’s a little far down the line and Pavek
stated he couldn’t speak much more to it at this time. Day added that the lots have not even been
made marketable at this point but they’ll be sold individually and then folks will build as they care to.
Regarding stormwater, Pavek stated the groundwater levels are high in this area. New homes will be
built above that level and will have drain tile. Swales and ponds will be placed below the
groundwater level so water will flow away from existing properties.
Segelbaum asked the applicant why they’re developing the property. Day responded that the
property taxes are a part but the owner was waiting to sell to someone who would develop by
enhancing what was present. Pavek added that two current owners were interested in splitting a
plot and part of this amendment addresses that. The other lots needed to be reconfigured in order to
have street access.
Chair Blum opened the public hearing portion at 7:25pm.
Ammar Al‐Shash, 1807 Noble Drive, has three concerns:
1. Construction – There has not been neighboring construction but there is construction across the
street. With this plan in place, Al‐Shash stated he will have construction next to him as well as
behind him.
2. Density – Al‐Shash is concerned about the density and was behind the original PUD of three
homes along the private road past his home. Adding a fourth lot now is concerning as they are
being placed closer to him and further from the cul‐de‐sac at the end of the road.
3. Easement – Al‐Shash objects to the overburdening of his easement with additional traffic.
Steve Maddox, 1604 St. Croix Circle, in general supports the amendment. Maddox is to the west of
the filtration basin and his concerns are related to water flow and stagnant water.
Chair Blum closed the public hearing portion at 7:29pm.
Segelbaum asked staff to respond to the density concern with the original PUD planning for three
lots and the amendment introducing four. Zimmerman responded with slides from the presentation
and elaborated on the narrowness of those preliminary lots in addition to the setbacks. The same
amount of land is utilized. Blum asked about the easement concern and measurements. Zimmerman
responded that the easement came up when the variance was applied for, and the resident who
spoke at the public hearing understood he had an easement over part of the road. After legal
analysis, it was discovered that the easement allowed the 1807 resident to utilize the private road as
City of Golden Valley Planning Commission Regular Meeting
February 24, 2020 – 7 pm
4
it’s owned by the owner of the PUD. That means that the resident is granted access through that
easement, the access is not under that resident’s control.
Blum addressed the flow of water and the filtration basin. Zimmerman responded that the plans for
the basin were approved by the city and are under review with the Bassett Creek Watershed. If there
were an emergency water situation, the basin is set to flow in to the lake instead of backing up.
Segelbaum asked if the lots would meet requirements to possibly be subdivided one day.
Zimmerman stated that even though the lots were large, they likely wouldn’t be able to be
subdivided due to the frontage access and stormwater needs for that area.
Segelbaum stated that the density is shifting but it’s not overly dense with the modifications, while
another house is being added, the trade‐off is greater water quality in the stormwater and thus
Sweeny Lake. Blum echoed this approval.
MOTION made by Commissioner Johnson, seconded by Commissioner Sadeghi to recommend
approval of the PUD Amendment 120 to subdivide properties within an existing PUD and incorporate
some portions of adjacent properties. The motion carried unanimously.
5. Informal Public Hearing – Zoning Code Text Amendment
Applicant: City of Golden Valley
Purpose: Amending zoning districts to regulate tobacco sales
Myles Campbell, City Planner, started his presentation by recapping the February 10th meeting. After
reviewing a number of scenarios, commissioners generally preferred a limited definition of youth‐
oriented facilities. This met the goal of mitigating youth tobacco exposure over a broader restriction
based on a zoning category. Commissioners also wanted to preserve a good portion of eligible
commercial land and specifically commercial land in the downtown area. Campbell reminded the
group that the goal for tonight’s public hearing is to come to a consensus on restrictions regarding
tobacco retail establishments and to recommend ordinance language to the City Council for review
and approval.
Campbell continued by summarizing two parallel sets of zoning language: one restricting tobacco
retail establishments based on proximity to parcels zoned for assembly type uses, the other
restricting them based on proximity to a defined set of youth‐oriented facilities. Campbell followed
with proposed language changes to city code, varying slightly depending on the determination of the
commissioners. Campbell added that the zoning category of Assembly has yet to be adopted by the
City Council. In the interim, the existing Institutional designations will need to be utilized until that
code is amended to include Assembly as a zoning category. Commissioner Segelbaum asked for
clarification on those items and where a community center is categorized, staff responded it falls
under an I‐3 zone.
Campbell displayed 6 scenarios maps, three buffer examples for each of the two options.
Staff recommends that commissioners adopt language based on mapped scenario E. This will define
youth‐oriented facilities and establish 750‐foot buffer around any schools, playgrounds, and athletic
fields, within which a tobacco retail establishment would be restricted from locating.
Section 113‐1 would be amended to include a definition of youth‐oriented facilities
City of Golden Valley Planning Commission Regular Meeting
February 24, 2020 – 7 pm
5
Section 113‐92 would be amended to add tobacco retail establishments as a restricted use
subject to the following restrictions
Segelbaum asked why staff opted for specifically defining schools, playgrounds, and athletic fields
and not categorizing it as areas of assembly. Campbell restated the items from his presentation
regarding language and definition clarity. This direction was also advised from the City Attorney as
an area of assembly encompasses more than just youth oriented facilities.
Commissioner Sadeghi asked for clarity on if a tobacco retailer was able to transfer a license to
allow another retailer to utilize it in the event of a sale. Campbell responded that per the City
Attorney, the license is non‐transferable in a sale. Segelbaum asked what the tobacco retailers are
that fall within the buffers and risk potential loss of license if they lapse or sell. Staff pointed out
two gas stations, a tobacco retailer, and a pharmacy/convenience store.
Chair Blum asked the Commissioners if parks seemed like a youth oriented facility and Segelbaum
pointed out that they are added in the scenario chosen. Campbell restated that parks with
playgrounds and playing fields are included and reminded Commissioners that not including green
space/natural parks was part of a previous conversation. Blum stated some preserve areas may not
attract youth oriented activities but thinks Theodore Wirth Park should be under consideration for
inclusion.
The conversation continued on to the types of activities that take place at Theo Wirth and if those
activities are school or community sanctioned. The conversation also revolved around the
definition of playground and athletic field, as well as how the trailhead at Theo Wirth is defined. A
number of Commissioners expressed anecdotes of attending the nature park with families for
activities. Blum added that because water is near Theo Wirth, it should be added to the
amendment. Segelbaum stated he believes that Theo Wirth should be added but is against limiting
tobacco licenses for current retailers. Specifically gas stations, if the owner sells and can’t transfer a
tobacco license, that will negatively impact the business.
Commissioner Johnson chimed in that this determination has already been made.
Campbell showed a map that was reviewed at a previous Commission meeting, and that scenario
displays a buffer around Theodore Wirth. However, this scenario includes a buffer around
Brookview Park and that buffer really impacts possible retailers in the downtown area. Campbell
continued by referencing the conversation at the February 10th meeting when Commissioners
decided to distinguish between nature parks and recreation parks. Sadeghi added he is concerned
about creating a buffer that impacts gas stations and potentially prevents them from tobacco sales.
Segelbaum asked if there was a way to include a buffer around Theo Wirth but not around
Brookview. Zimmerman responded that there may be a way although this meeting was intended to
be a public hearing. Taking that possibility under consideration would mean postponing the public
hearing and reconfiguring scenario maps. Blum stated that he’s comforted by the fact that buffers
don’t impact current businesses. He added that he’s also comfortable including a buffer around
Brookview. Segelbaum stated a preference for a 500 ft buffer and thus scenario D. Campbell asked
for amendments or changes to the actual ordinance language.
City of Golden Valley Planning Commission Regular Meeting
February 24, 2020 – 7 pm
6
Johnson stated that the group was just notified that the ComprehensivePplan they all worked on
was approved. He reminded the Commissioners the portions they all worked on and what was
designated to their Commission and then to other Commissions. Johnson went on to state that the
group seemed to be struggling with a final decision because maybe health concerns aren’t within
their purview. He reminded the group that the tobacco retail requirements have already been
determined and that their buffer zones won’t help or hinder that process. Commissioner Brookins
added that he doesn’t care for the Commission’s approach to this issue and should look at it the
same way they looked at the 2040Ccomprehensive Plan. After more discussion about buffers and
chain of events after a determination, Zimmerman reminded the group that the goal is to support
the request of City Council.
Sadeghi suggested looking at where the group would like to see tobacco sales occur and then
create a buffer zone around youth‐oriented facilities to accommodate that. Segelbaum said that if
the Commission can’t come to a decision then they should provide the Council with what
information they uncovered through this process. Brookins stated his desire to table a
determination and to see a scenario where tobacco sales stay in Commercial districts 250 ft from
state highways. He added that he thinks the desired outcome will stay the same. Segelbaum said
they need to understand the parameters from council, the direction was to be from youth‐oriented
facility. Campbell reminded the group that an arbitrary ordinance can’t be put in place, there needs
to be a clear connection and justification. If the goal is to keep tobacco sales away from youth
oriented spaces, then the ordinance needs to written with that clear connection.
The scheduled Public Hearing was not called
MOTION was made by Commissioner Brookins to table the conversation and await more
information from staff and seconded by Commissioner Johnson.
The motion to table carried 4‐1.
Aye: Sadeghi, Brookins, Blum, Johnson
Nay: Segelbaum
Television portion of the meeting concluded at 8:37pm
‐‐Short Recess‐‐
6. Council Liaison Report
Councilmember Rosenquist provided an update to Commissioners on various topics and discussions
both at the City Council and throughout the City. She reminded Commissioners of the upcoming Joint
Board, Commission, and Council Meeting later in the week. She also provided an update on new Board
and Commission members of the City’s Rising Tides Equity Taskforce, Human Rights Commission, and the
Open Space and Recreation Commission.
CityofGoldenValley PlanningCommissionRegularMeeting
February24,2020–7pm
7
7. ReportsonMeetingsoftheHousingandRedevelopmentAuthority,CityCouncil,BoardofZoning
Appeals,andothermeetings
RosenquistupdatedCommissionersonarecentgrantawardedtotheCitybytheDepartmentofNatural
ResourcesandsomeoftheupcomingworkfortheCity’sHousingandRedevelopmentAuthority
surroundinganongoinghousingstudyoftheCity.
8. OtherBusiness
Commissionersandstaffreportednootherbusiness.
9. Adjournment
MOTIONmadebyJohnson,secondedbyBlumandthemotioncarriedunanimouslytoadjournthe
meetingat8:50PM.
________________________________
AdamBrookins,Secretary
________________________________
AmieKolesar,PlanningAssistant