pc-minutes-02-13-2023
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, S. Ginis, L. Pockl, M. Ruby, C. Segelbaum
Commissioners absent:
Staff present: Jason Zimmerman – Planning Manager, Myles Campbell – Planner
Council Liaison: Denise La Mere‐Anderson
2. Land Acknowledgement
3. Approval of Agenda
MOTION made by Commissioner Ginis, seconded by Commissioner Brookins, to approve the agenda
of February 13, 2023.
Motion carried.
4. Approval of Minutes
MOTION made by Commissioner Brookins, seconded by Commissioner Ginis, to approve the meeting
minutes of January 9, 2023.
Motion carried
5. Informal Public Hearing – Zoning Map Amendments for Properties at Harold Ave / Winnetka Ave N /
Highway 55
Jason Zimmerman, Planning Manager, started with a summary of his presentation, the group would
revisit a proposal to rezone 10 properties in the SE quadrant of the Winnetka Avenue North and
Highway 55 intersection. The first consideration for this amendment was in 2020, but Council
requested more information of staff after Planning Commission recommended approval. This
rezoning would align the City’s Zoning Map with the Future Land Use Map from the 2040
Comprehensive Plan. Staff added that there are no development proposals pending with the City at
this location.
February 13, 2023 – 6:30 pm
Council Chambers
Hybrid
City of Golden Valley Planning Commission Regular Meeting
February 13, 2023 – 6:30 pm
2
Staff displayed a map of the city to show the locations impacted by this proposal:
7831 Olson Memorial Highway
7830 Harold Ave
440 Winnetka Ave N
7732 Harold Ave
424 Winnetka Ave N
7724 Harold Ave
400 Winnetka Ave N
7720 Harold Ave
7840 Harold Ave
411 Rhode Island Ave N
The properties were guided for Medium Density Residential in the 2030 Plan which was adopted in
2010, then rezoned R‐1 to R‐3 in 2011. Council denied rezoning and the Comp Plan was amended to
reflect Low Density Residential use again.
Properties designated as Medium Density Residential in the 2040 Comprehensive Plan and rezoning
from R‐1 to R‐3 was considered in 2020, but pending changes to the R‐3 zoning district caused a
delay. The Planning Commission eventually recommended denial (5‐1) due to resident concerns and
City Council tabled the rezoning and asked staff to revisit it with the Planning Commission when
additional information became available.
Staff analyzed three areas for this rezoning:
Downtown Traffic Study (2022)
o Townhomes generated the greatest number of trips
o Trip distribution showed negligible impacts on traffic congestion
No impacts to Level of Service during peak hours
Only 1 second of delay per vehicle during that time
o Utilized worst case scenario – eventual redevelopment may be less
Pedestrian infrastructure improvements (current)
o New signal installed for pedestrians crossing Winnetka near Harold
o Includes ADA compliant pedestrian median to provide refuge mid‐way across Winnetka
o Operational in early 2023
Hwy 55 BRT Study (still pending)
o No clear timing for start of the feasibility study so staff relied on Metro Transit target
densities for station areas
o At this point, the target location doesn’t meet the target Metro Transit densities
Building height
o Vallee d’Or – 2 ½ stories
o Valley Square Corporate Center – 3 stories
o Valley Creek Office Park – 4 stories + on a hill
o Calvary Apartments – 10 to 11 stories
o Proposed multifamily development within the downtown – 6 stories
Staff reviewed the zoning requirements for a Medium Density Residential (R‐3) Zoning District,
permitted uses, conditional uses, the density range, and building heights.
Staff reviewed community feedback received prior to the meeting as well as questions posed.
City of Golden Valley Planning Commission Regular Meeting
February 13, 2023 – 6:30 pm
3
Recommended Action
Staff recommends approval of an amendment to the Zoning Map to rezone the ten properties in
question from Single‐Family Residential (R‐1) to Medium Density Residential (R‐3).
Commissioner Segelbaum mentioned the change in the zoning map and asked if staff had a map of
contiguous properties to understand zoning of areas around the area for discussion today.
Staff responded the areas to the south are R‐2 and areas to the north are higher density residential,
commercial, and office. The only R‐1 area is along Rhode Island; however the lots are narrow and
built as if they’re zoned R‐2.
Segelbaum mentioned the comments about more cut throughs on Harold, noted the patterns of
folks going through the neighborhood to enter Winnetka. He asked what can be done to reduce the
speed of the traffic though that area. Engineering staff would need to be consulted but aside from
adding stop signs, speed bumps can be added or road narrowing could occur. Staff needs to consult
engineers and public works to determine steps in this process.
Commissioner Ginis mentioned the park land surrounding the area being discussed, she asked if
Brookview was in a timetable for federal money to pay back if the area changes. Staff will discuss
with the Parks and Rec division.
Chair Pockl asked why the Rhode Island properties aren’t included. Staff responded the homes were
build in 2011 and are on 50ft lots and thus meet the density goal for the City.
Chair Pockl opened the public forum at 7:08pm.
Chair Pockl noted the comments received via Golden Valley Speaks and are on record.
Ruth Paradise
8515 Duluth St
I attend many public hearings, the noise from highways is often a problem and I think having single
family homes along a highway is problematic. I support the feasibility study and development of a
new downtown area, I view this project as being a part of that. If you were to build a building for
senior citizens, those folks are generally retired and don’t often add to high traffic times. I drove
along Harold to see buildings, the row houses that face Harold are the back. The front of the
buildings are in the parking lot and are 3 stories high. I’m not sure how that impacts neighbors. I just
wanted to note in the single‐family area, 3 story buildings are already present. Rezoning and adding a
building for senior citizens is an economically sound decision.
Laurie Levin
240 Brunswick
I support changing the zoning, it’s clear that there’s a housing challenge and this provides Golden
Valley with an opportunity for housing. I understand the people directly impacted may be upset but
if you look at the city as a whole, this change can only be to our benefit and really help folks who
need housing.
City of Golden Valley Planning Commission Regular Meeting
February 13, 2023 – 6:30 pm
4
Theresa Belden
2937 Orchard Ave N
I support the rezoning to R‐3, the plans for the City and our city goals are for more affordable and
diverse housing. I support those changes. I support adding rapid transit and this is an important step
to those goals.
Kathy Waldhauser
3220 Orchard
I support this rezoning and I recall the conversations over the last 15 years. I understand the traffic
concerns as I also don’t like to cross 55 at Winnetka. I hope things can be done to improve that. I
would encourage the City to put more pressure on Met Council and the County to do something to
reconfigure the roads. This area is ripe for more density and their road configuration isn’t helping. I
would like to see more housing variety on the south side of Golden Valley. Highway 55 has created
an economic division, school district division, a property tax division, and a services division. I would
like to see more variety of housing and that includes affordable and family housing in the south side
of 55. I don’t think that will happen without this project.
Mark Boemer
7529 Harold in the Vallee D’or Complex
I oppose this rezoning and I want to understand the use of the city property. I’d like to understand
the use of city property. I recall a conversation about the community center and hotel going there,
I’m confused why we’re now concerned about the watershed when that was all restricted the to golf
course. We consistently use the term “affordable housing”, when the Rhode Island development
occurred, that was supposed to offer a percentage of affordable housing. Eight years ago, when that
complex was built, the least expensive home sold there was $650k. We need to be careful when we
use the term “affordable housing”. Numerous housing options were placed on Xenia, why wasn’t
affordable housing included there? When the liberty property was built with tax increment financing,
under the guise that there would be affordable housing. From what I understand, there’s not a single
“affordable housing” unit in that complex. To say we want to rezone to R‐3 so as to include
affordable housing, we know a developer will come in and there won’t be actually affordable housing
options. Regarding downtown and the rapid bus transit, I think we’re building these words to present
a grandiose picture. Our downtown consists of two blocks, this isn’t a real downtown area. When you
discuss this complex and folks walking from there to downtown, I’m sure some will a few times but
what will be the actual use? Will all 200 people parade across 55, multiple times per day? BRT hasn’t
been approved and we found out with the light rail, that can be moved at any time. I’m sure they’d
update 394’s BRT before adding a whole new line along 55. If everything south and east is R‐2, why
disrupt the whole neighborhood with R‐3 and not maintain consistency.
Martha Johnson
7647 Harold Ave
My concern is with the BRT, it’s speculative. To rezone based on speculation seems not adequate.
There is a bus stop, have we studied that usage. If folks don’t use that, why do we think a new bus
line is needed.
City of Golden Valley Planning Commission Regular Meeting
February 13, 2023 – 6:30 pm
5
Bev Weinberg
7523 Harold
Regarding housing for seniors, if they’re living in that new complex, they’re unlikely to cross
Winnetka to use the downtown area. Seniors may not drive as much, however families, staff,
vendors, and all other folks to support seniors living in that complex will be using those roads.
Mark Friederichs
7501 Western Ave
I’ve been around long enough to see the Vatican Council, Kennedy assassination, Vietnam War, and
about 50 of these traffic studies. The staff that keeps recommending to change the zoning, it’s folks
outside of our neighborhood. We are the most welcoming neighborhood in the city already. We have
Brookview, the gold course, Lion’s Club – we welcome folks in constantly. Maybe the City should
leave the composition of out neighborhood. Instead of a study, staff should canvass the neighbors
and do what they say.
Tina Prokosh
7601 Harold
I live in a corner complex of the Vallee and this rezoning and project would ruin my view of treetops
from my living room and bedroom. I would instead look at a building and a parking lot, I bought my
unit because of the neighborhood feel and this change would remove that.
Marty Micks
90 Louisiana
This project doesn’t impact me directly but it seems the traffic study was done during covid. (staff
chimed in that the study was done at the end of 2022). Golden Valley Speaks wasn’t accessible today
(staff added that GV Speaks window closes 24 hours in advance of the meeting so staff and
commissioners have time to review). This property has been looked at by developers since the 90’s
and since that time, Harold has been narrowed, the road is less welcoming than before to more
housing. The Xenia has about 300 units with hardly any rented out. New construction costs more so
we are often removing older houses to build new that cost more. We need more creative solutions to
create housing affordable to the average person.
Adam Moench
7710 Harold
I just bought my house and I’ve been working on the house to return it to what it used to be. We
have huge oak trees on our land, we cherish that there was an opportunity for us to be first time
homeowners in this area. There’s a lot of weight to the other comments about affordability and the
rezoning impacts that for us.
Mary Munsterteiger
My daughter is Adams partner and I was their realtor. They are excited for their new home and the
neighborhood. Please consider how this impacts current homeowners.
City of Golden Valley Planning Commission Regular Meeting
February 13, 2023 – 6:30 pm
6
Brian Li
406 Rhode Island
I am against this rezoning. I have a 3‐year‐old and crossing Harold can even be dangerous. We have
16 grade school kids in the area and we need to coordinate to make sure it’s safe for them to cross
the street. I’m concerned that even now the road is hard to cross and this would make that worse. Is
the traffic study public? Are there height restrictions in case the R‐3 is approved.
Aaron Matuseski
407 Rhode Island
I’m a new resident to Golden Valley and I’m also concerned about my son crossing Harold. I would
imagine the development would increase traffic and I suppose it would go to whatever economically
benefits the neighborhood the most. That could be a high rise instead of senior living. My question is
if there has been analysis on meeting the desired density by parceling out the lots similar to how
Rhode Island was done to meet R‐2?
Mike Pikus
7724 Harold
I’m part of the affected rezoning, I’ve lived here since 1991. My question is, once this is rezoned,
what controls if this parcel is developed as one unit or is parceled out individually? The property next
to me is owned by one of the original developers and divides the map in half. What is stopping an
apartment building from being placed in a similar fashion and removing any other possibilities.
Andy Johnson
7645 Harold
The comp plan was a massive document that discussed the general vision for the city. Since then,
many changes have occurred and that’s our City’s plan. It was submitted to Met Council but that
doesn’t mean it can’t change, it’s been changed several times. The Comp Plan envisions many things
working together, this R‐3 is predicated on things that haven’t occurred. The Golden Valley Mall will
not change as long as the current owner is there, it’s documented. The east side of 55 may or may
not change, it’s up for debate. With an R‐3 and a CUP, which only requires 8 items are met, they
could have a 5‐story building. The parking lot will remain, the SW corner will remain, the trees to the
north side of the buildings will be replaced by a structure that could be 5‐stories tall; that’s the one
thing that will change. The bus route is predicated by Met Council and is a guess, they’re also 1million
dollars over budget on the light rail. To have a structure on that corner, there is no viable way to get
over 55 except for the bridge. I live there, I don’t see a lot of traffic there, it’s not a viable option. The
seniors in Calvary don’t even like to go to McDonalds because crossing is too hard in the winter.
Finally, we shouldn’t treat the Comp Plan like a software program where you put an algorithm in and
it spits out an answer. This is our community and we have a right to think about how we want it and
make changes. My last pitch is that we are potentially putting folks out of their homes in the name of
greater density. How can we make these renters move and force them to find an affordable place to
live when they already have one? I don’t think that’s the spirit of Golden Valley.
City of Golden Valley Planning Commission Regular Meeting
February 13, 2023 – 6:30 pm
7
There were no more in person commenters.
Chair Pockl invited remote callers to speak at 7:43pm
Eric Pederson
130 Louisiana Ave N
This is the 3rd time since I’ve lived here, 2010, 2020, and now that we’ve had to organize the
neighborhood. It’s disappointing we have to continue organize the neighborhood to get City Council
to listen to us. Last time we had a petition with over 150 signatures opposing this rezoning. No one
can support the traffic here. We haven’t seen the full impact of traffic yet from Xenia and our areas is
a cut though when Glenwood backs up. We’ve asked for speedbumps near Lion’s park, the City said
before we couldn’t because of the plows so why is it an option now when the rezoning is on the
table. Nothing adjacent has an r‐3 density, downtown isn’t even that dense. Most of the high‐density
buildings are along the corridor where it’s mixed zoning already. Creating this zoning doesn’t make
the bus come through and it doesn’t create a change for downtown. Once this is rezoned, the city
loses control over all development that meets r‐3. It could be 5 stories, it could be dense, it doesn’t
match the neighborhood and it’ll ruin the new houses that were built as well as the townhomes on
Harold. Let’s propose R‐2 for this land, it’ll promote development that matches the neighborhood
and attract folks that would use the park. My final comment is that we were told by the City that
nobody would develop the Rhode Island area and the Harold area but it was because we were sitting
on this rezoning decision that we wouldn’t make. When it was decided, 8 new houses were built. The
same thing will happen now.
Chair Pockl closed the public comment portion at 7:50pm
Staff and commissioners addressed questions from the comment period.
Traffic Study
o The pages of the traffic study, related to this project are in the agenda packet. There
was a larger report done and you may reach out to planning staff and they will provide
that.
o R‐2 traffic study was not included in the traffic study, the number of trips generated is
different.
R‐3 Designation
o R‐3 governs what uses can be there, multi‐family, townhomes, both senior/non‐senior
builds, 4‐story height is by right, for a senior building 5 stories are allowed with a CUP.
o If this were rezoned, how it’s developed, depends on who owns the property and do
the proposals meet the minimum standards. A smaller single‐family lot is not sufficient
for an apartment building. If all 6.2 acres were purchased, 1‐2 multi‐family buildings
could go there. Most of the existing properties are too small to meet the threshold.
Watershed
o There are restrictions related to the water conservation funding and there isn’t
interest in turning Brookview Park into a developed area.
Bus
City of Golden Valley Planning Commission Regular Meeting
February 13, 2023 – 6:30 pm
8
o There is probably ridership data for the bus routes along Winnetka. However, Highway
BRT is very different than standard bus routes or even limited stop buses. It does not
include separate lanes but the pull over on the shoulder and you get on at a station
that resembles a light rail station. It would attract a user from downtown and the
suburbs.
Affordable Housing
o The City cannot zone for affordable housing however it can be part of a proposal if a
developer wanted to include it.
o When the Xenia and Liberty Townhomes were built, the City didn’t have the authority
to require affordable units and maintain them over time. The City does now have a
mixed income policy to make this a requirement for a private developer requesting a
zoning change.
Commissioner Brookins stated that in the past he has supported zoning this lot R‐3, he still supports
that zoning. He can’t predict what will go there but believes it’s best for the City if the area is zoned
R‐3 and what may come because of that. Prior to joining the Planning Commission, I too approached
the group about traffic concerns. In the 30 or so years I’ve lived here, traffic hasn’t changed much
outside of the area around Meadowbrook and that’s a school. I don’t think traffic will be a concern
with a R‐3 zoning. If it doesn’t go to R‐3, I would prefer it stay R‐1 and if someone approaches the
group with a PUD then that can be a conversation later.
Commissioner Ginis echoed many of Brookins’ comments. This rezoning matches the long‐term
vision for the city and pedestrian safety should continue to be prioritized. Ginis added she plans to
stay in Golden Valley forever and would like to live in an accessible facility in her senior years. No
downtown won’t change overnight, but planning/redevelopment around downtown will then
support uses in downtown as they change. Golden Valley should be intentional about transit in the
City an I am an active transit user and living in Golden Valley without a car is not possible. Access to
amenities via transit and aging in place is viable when transit is accessible. Tonight, we’re talking
about one parcel but overall we’re looking at an overall plan and a vision.
Commissioner Ruby stated the 55 corridor cuts off a residential area and it’s a shopping area, not a
downtown. He added he doesn’t see the benefit of re‐zoning the parcel to an R‐3 with the hope it’ll
attract a bus line and other businesses. This parcel should either be a R‐2 or a R‐1 with a PUD.
Commissioner Brenna stated the Comp Plan is important and the City should stick with their plan
and goals. Staff has done a good job following through on the extra items asked of them by council
and addressing concerns from residents. She added that she agrees the trees are beautiful but it’s
also private property and the City can’t control what’s done there. As a forester, she understands
that once old growth trees are gone, they don’t just come back. Additionally, the cut throughs
concerns are valid and usually speedbumps aren’t approved, especially in Minnesota. Brenna asked
staff about the 1.68‐acre parcel and the odds of an apartment complex being built. Staff added the
owners have been there for 10 years and have made no inquiries about rezoning but should there be
momentum, maybe a buyer would be interested in buying multiple properties. Brenna added that
City of Golden Valley Planning Commission Regular Meeting
February 13, 2023 – 6:30 pm
9
she recommends R‐3 be approved with the caveat that extra remediations are done with Harold
traffic.
Commissioner Segelbaum acknowledged this topic has been addressed numerous times; he added
it’s a difficult issue for council. Most areas surrounding this parcel are R‐2, even though Rhode Island
is R‐1, it was built on as R‐2. This parcel should be at least R‐2 however it’s different from the
adjacent lots. It’s across the street from Brookview and it could support R‐3. It’s speculative to
consider BRT or assume that folks would walk to the downtown area. This area is heavily utilized and
the traffic is a concern but given the property’s proximity to Brookview and the long‐term goals, it
makes sense for this are to be re‐zoned R‐3. However, the residents here are saying they have no
intention of selling their home and they want to continue to live here. He added that he hopes
people continue to invest in their homes but if one day it becomes economically unfeasible, then
maybe that will lead to a redevelopment. Segelbaum added that he would like to see traffic calming
opportunities explored and if there are large pieces of information put together before, the
homeowners shouldn’t have to do that again.
Chair Pockl added she struggled with the decision last time It came before the Planning Commission.
There needs to be a balance between what would give Golden Valley a vibrant downtown and the
people directly impacted by this rezoning. The Comp Plan proposal to make this R‐3 was due to the
proximity to Downtown, the downtown study, and the ability to have BRT on 55. These reasons are
too hypothetical to support changing this zoning at this time.
Commissioner Ruby added that the traffic study says there won’t be a traffic concern so in the event
R‐3 is approved, there will be no other recourse to amend traffic or the road because this part of the
data has been collected. This is counter to what the residents are already saying is an issue.
Commissioner Ginis stated the concerns related to pedestrian safety are existing conditions. If the
concern is that highway 55 is too difficult to cross now and prevents folks from walking to the
downtown area that is a block away, that should be an issue City Council is fixing regardless of the
rezoning. If the Harold is a major cut through now and folks don’t feel safe, that should be remedied
regardless of the rezoning. Pedestrian safety is a concern but it’s not a concern related to the
rezoning. If the concern is some factors are too hypothetical, this will continue to come before the
group.
Staff chimed in that the traffic study at this stage is high level and reviews volume. Regardless of how
it’s zoned, there’s another layer of detail analysis that occurs when a development project is
proposed.
MOTION made by Commissioner Ginis, seconded by Commissioner Brenna, to recommend approval
of an amendment to the Zoning Map to rezone the ten properties in question from Single‐Family
Residential (R‐1) to Medium Density Residential (R‐3).
Commissioner Segelbaum commented that he encourages further study of traffic calming and to
forward information previously submitted by residents. Commissioner Ginis supported this
suggestion.
City of Golden Valley Planning Commission Regular Meeting
February 13, 2023 – 6:30 pm
10
Aye: Brenna, Ginis, Segelbaum
Nay: Pockl, Ruby
Motion Carried: 3‐2
6.Discussion – TPT Video: Jim Crow of the North
Jason Zimmerman, Planning Manager, provided time for an informal discussion among
Commissioners regarding their recent viewing of the TPT documentary “Jim Crow of the North.”
General observations were that the racist actions of the past continue to have ripple effects today
and that while urban planning has always been intentional, it is clear that it has predominantly
benefited one group. It was noted that seeing data mapped was very powerful. Commissioners
agreed that issues of equity should be discussed when considering future applications, as
appropriate.
7.Council Liaison Report
Council Member LaMere‐Anderson gave an update on the search for a location for a new remote
fire station, the status of the staffing levels within the Police Department, and noted that a new
Planning Commissioner would be appointed at the next Council meeting.
8.Other Business
Zimmerman noted that Commissioner Brookins was up next to attend the February BZA meeting. He
also announced that the City had hired a new Community Development Director, Alma Flores, who
would be starting on March 13.
9.Adjournment
MOTION by Commissioner Ruby to adjourn, seconded by Commissioner Segelbaum and
approved unanimously. Meeting adjourned at 9:20pm.
________________________________
________________________________ Secretary, Sofia Ginis
Amie Kolesar, Planning Assistant