01-26-15 PC Agenda AGENDA
Planning Commission
Regular Meeting
Golden Valley City Hall, 7800 Golden Valley Road
Council Chambers
Monday, January 26, 2015
7 pm
1. Approval of Minutes
December 22, 2014, Regular Planning Commission Meeting
January 12, 2015, Joint City Council and Planning Commission Meeting
2. Informal Public Hearing — Property Rezoning — 6000 Duluth Street— King of
Grace Lutheran Church and School - Z011-15
Applicant: King of Grace Lutheran Church and School
Addresses: 6000 Duluth Street
Purpose: To rezone the properties from I-1 Institutional with a setback restriction
to I-1 Institutional without restrictions.
--Short Recess--
5. Reports on Meetings of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority, City
Council, Board of Zoning Appeals and other Meetings
6. Other Business
• Council Liaison Report
7. Adjournment
This document is available in alternate formats upon a 72-hour request. Please call
i' 763-593-800G (TTY: 763-593-3968)to r��ake a request. Exam�ales af�Iternate forn}ats '
` may irrclude {arge print,electronic, �raille,audiocassekte,etc.
Regular Meeting of the
Golden Valley Planning Commission
December 22, 2014
A regular meeting of the Planning Commission was held at the Golden Valley City Hall,
Council Chambers, 7800 Golden Valley Road, Golden Valley, Minnesota, on Monday,
December 22, 2014. Chair Kluchka called the meeting to order at 7 pm.
Those present were Planning Commissioners Baker, Blum, Cera, Johnson, Kluchka,
Segelbaum and Waldhauser. Also present was Planning Manager Jasan Zimmerman,
Associate Planner/Grant Writer Emily Goellner, and Administrative Assistant Lisa
Wittman.
1. Approval of Minutes
November 24, 2014, Regular Planning CommisSion Meeting
December 8, 2014, Regular Planning Commission Meeting
MOVED by Waldhauser, seconded by Johnson and motion carried unanimously to
approve the November 24, 2014, and December $, 2014, rn;inutes as submitted.
2. Informal Public Hearing — Conditional Use Permit— 5501 Glenwood Avenue —
Golden Valley Lutheran Church dba Loving Shepherd Early Learning Center
— CU-39, Amendment #1
Applicant: Golden Valley Lutheran Church dba Loving Shepherd Early Learning
Center
Address: 5501 Glenwood Avenue
Purpose: To amend and;update their existing Conditional Use Permit allowing
the existing daycare to serve up to 105 children.
Zimmerman explained th� Applicant's request to amend their existing Conditional Use
Permit in order#o increase the number of children they can serve. The original
Conditional Use Permit, appraved in 1989, limits the number of children served to 50.
He stated that the Applicant constructed a significant building addition in 2014, which
creat�d more �pace for the daycare facility, and allows the site to serve up to 105
children. How�ver, the applicant anticipates their enrollment to be approximately 75
children in 2015.
Kluchka asked for clarification regarding the number of trips per day for this site.
Zimmerman referred to a site plan and noted that there are two access points on the
site. He stated that each child would generate two trips per day and that the Applicant
could explain the timing of the trips. He added that there are approximately 8,000 trips
per day on Glenwood and that this use would have a fairly small impact.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
December 22, 2014
Page 2
Cera stated that the access point on Turners Crossroad is usually gated. Ken
Mestelle, representing Golden Valley Lutheran Church, stated that the gate on
Turners Crossroad is open on Sundays, and that the majority of the daycare traffic
enters on Glenwood Avenue.
Waldhauser asked why the City cares about limiting the number of children as long as
a daycare is licensed through the State. Segelbaum stated that the City considers
traffic issues and how the surrounding area may be impacted. Zimmerman agreed
that noise, traffic, etc, would be potential reasons to regulate a daycare use.
Johnson stated that the Board of Zoning appeals granted a variance far the recent
building addition and asked why the issue regarding the number vf childr�n in the "
daycare didn't get addressed at that time. Zimmerman stated that the variance '
request was in regard to the building and that the daycare is in regard"to the use. He
added that the two issues are reviewed by two different bodies and that the Applicant
wasn't aware of the limits on their daycare at the time they apptied for the variance.
Brenda Lovhaug, Director of Loving Shepherd Early Learning Center, stated that she
came to City Hall to pick up her final building perrnit paperwork regarding the addition
and was told she needed to update their Conditional Use Permit.
Segelbaum asked for an explanation of the drop-off�nd �ai�k-up route through the
parking lot. Mestelle stated that cars come in from Glenwood, park in a parking stall
and unload their children. He added that p�r�nts dor�'t line up to drop their kids off at
the front door because the kids are'infartts and toddlers, not school-aged kids.
Segelbaum asked Mestelle if he is concerned about the increase in traffic and
conflicts it may cause in their driVeway: Mestelle said there has never been an issue
with traffic. He added that Glenwood Avenue is wider in front of their driveway for the
left turn lane onto Xenia so that also helps with traffic flow. Segelbaum asked if the left
turn lane is marked. Mestelle said no.
Baker asked the Applicants if they are mindful of the timing with Meadowbrook
School's haurs. Lovhaug said their morning drop-offs occur between 7 and 8:30 am
and that Meadowbrook starts one hour later. She added that Meadowbrook is done at
3 pm and'fhat rnost of her daycare parents pick up their children at 5:30 pm, so there
hasn't been a conflict.
Kluchka opened the public hearing. Seeing and hearing no one wishing to comment,
Kluchka closed the public hearing.
Cera stated that this is a straightforward proposal, the Applicant is a good neighbor,
and they have added plenty of space to accommodate their daycare use. He
suggesting changing the City's ordinances to match the State ordinances regarding
daycare uses.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
December 22, 2014
Page 3
Segelbaum said he is a little concerned about not having the entrance/exit lines
painted on the driveway.
Kluchka asked Zimmerman if there have been any concerns expressed about access
or traffic on Glenwood. Zimmerman said he hasn't heard any complaints but he would
check with the Police Department and the Public Works Department. Baker said he is
concerned about people going west on Glenwood. Mestelle reiterated that there have
been no traffic problems in their parking Iot or on Glenwood. Baker said he would like
feedback before this proposal goes to the City Council because he doesn't know if
traffic is an issue or not.
Cera suggested requiring striping in the driveway. Kluchka stated that Staff has not
recommend striping, he just wants to make sure it is not an issue. Waldhauser said
she thinks a traffic issue would be much more obvious on Sundays, Segelbaum said
that Glenwood is not as busy on Sundays as it is on weekdays. Baker suggested that
the Applicant be mindful of striping if the need arises. Mestelle said he really doesn't
think there will be any issues because their daycare numbers have increased since
their original Conditional Use Permit was granted.
MOVED by Waldhauser, seconded by Baker and motion carried unanimously to
recommend approval of the Conditional Use Permit Amendment at 5501 Glenwood
Avenue to allow the existing daycare to serve up to 105 children subject to following
findings and conditions:
Findinqs:
1. The Golden Valley Lutheran Church has successfully operated the existing day-
care in this location since the CUP was initially approved in 1989.
2. A child day-care use in assvciation with a church is consistent with the Schools and
Religious Faciliti�s designation of this property on the General Land Use Plan Map.
3. Staff anticipates the continuation of this use would have no impact on the
surrounding property values.
4. 2013 Hennepin County traffic counts on this section of Glenwood Avenue show
appraximately 8,500 trips per day. Staff does not anticipate any additional negative
traffic impacts to the surrounding areas based on the small number of additional
trips generated by this amended use.
5. ' The amended use may generate a minor increase in the number of employees at
th:e location,.
6. The amended use may result in a slight increase in noise as a result of more
children`using the outdoor play area, but any increase is anticipated to have
minimal impact.
7. The amended use is not anticipated to cause an increase in dust, odor, or
vibrations.
8. The amended use is not anticipated to attract pests.
9. Because the amended use has already been relocated into the new building
addition, Staff does not anticipate any negative impacts on in the visual quality of
the property.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
December 22, 2014
Page 4
10. Staff does not anticipate any other negative effects of the amended use. Bringing
the use into the church building will allow for consolidation and increased
efficiencies on the property.
Conditions:
1. The plans by submitted by the Applicant on November 21, 2014, shall become a
part of this approval.
2. The recommendations and requirements outlined in the memo from Fire Chief John
Grelly to Jason Zimmerman, Planning Manager, dated December 16, 2014, shall
become part of this approval.
3. All signage must meet the requirements of the City's Sign Code (S�ction 4.20).
4. This approval is subject to all other state, federal, and local ordinances, regulations,
or laws with authority over this development. � '
3. Informal Public Hearing — Informal Public Hearing - Final PUD Plan Review
— Laurel Ponds, PUD #117
Applicant: Lake West Development, LLC
Address: 305 and 345 Pennsylvania Avenue South
Purpose: To allow for a 24-unit, detached townhome development
Zimmerman explained the Applicant's proposal to demolish the existing structures at 305
and 345 Pennsylvania Avenue South and cons#ruct 24 detached townhomes on the site. He
discussed the modifications frarn the Preliminary PUD plans including: the reduction in the
number of units from 30 tc� 24, keeping the drainage, open space and walkway easement 55
feet wide instead af reducing it, and rede�igning the internal street, Laurel Point, to align
with Quebec Avenue South.
Zimmerman refierred to a site plar� and explained the proposed layout which includes six
rows of homes with four single family homes in each row, accessed via Pennsylvania
Avenue. There will be one,private street (Laurel Point) to the south that would dead end with
emergency vehicle access over grass pavers via the WorkAbilities property. The two entry
points to fhe north would be connected with a private loop street (Laurel Curve), and all but
two homes would have access from the internal circulation system; the others would have
access via Pennsylvania Avenue. He stated that the lot widths and depths will vary from 36
feet to 53 feet in width, and from 80 feet to 100 feet in depth. The typical distance between
the homes would be 10 feet to the side and 25 feet to the rear, and the homes could
potentially have 4,144 to 6,286 square feet of living area. He added that there will be a
homeowner's association for maintenance and snow removal.
Zimmerman showed the Commissioners a comparison chart that illustrates how this
proposed PUD differs from the underlying R-3 Zoning District requirements. He explained
that the areas in which they differ are lot width, and front, side and rear yard setback
requirements.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
December 22, 2014
Page 5
Zimmerman discussed the on-site parking and stated that there will be two garage stalls for
each unit, plus two parking spaces on each driveway. He added that some parking bays will
be constructed along the internal streets, and that the parking will be limited to one side of
the street except along the east loop connection. He said there will also be four to eight
proof of parking spaces, and an area for guest parking through an easement, on the
WorkAbilities site next door.
Zimmerman discussed the landscaping on the site and stated that a stormwater infiltration
basin would be constructed within the City's easement along Laurel Avenue. Also, the
northernmost 10 feet of the easement would be available for back yard space without
structures. He added that sidewalks will be added along Pennsylva:nia Avenue and on the
east side of the site to connect the upper and lower portions.
Zimmerman stated that the platting of the property will be done in phases. The first plat will
allow for the demolition of the single family home and for the construction of a model home.
The second plat will create eight lots to the south and allow for the demoC'ition of the office
building. The third plat will create the final 15 lots. He added that the City will hold money in
escrow to ensure the existing building is demolished as'required.
Johnson asked about the difference between detached townhomes and single family
homes. Zimmerman stated that detached townhomes hav� a homeowners association.
Johnson asked if the space between the homes would have to be larger if they were single
family homes. Zimmerman said yes.
Waldhauser questioned the condition to preclude fencing on the site. Zimmerman said there
is language in the association covenants and in Staff's conditions of approval regarding
fences.
Baker noted that the R-3 Zoning District allows structures to be four stories or 48 feet in
height and asked if the homes proposed in this project could be built that tall. Zimmerman
stated that language applies when considering properties in the R-3 Zoning district, and
doesn't necessarily applyto a PUD proposal. He stated that the Applicant is only proposing
two and three story structures. Baker questioned how the City could prevent the Applicant
from building faur s#ory structures. Zimmerman explained that a PUD approval approves the
plans submitted with the application that are reviewed by the Planning Commission and City
Council. Baker said,he is concerned about a really tall, dense development. Kluchka said he
is more conscience of the building materials. Segelbaum asked if the applicant can go
beyond the height shown in their plans. Waldhauser reiterated that the plans submitted by
the Applicanf are what is being approved. Zimmerman stated that a more explicit condition
regarding height can be added.
Waldhauser asked if the homeowners will be able to have decks, and noted that the lack of
fencing may not allow for fencing around patios. Zimmerman said there is not much room
for decks, but some of the lots might have space for a patio.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
December 22, 2014
Page 6
Blum stated that the Bassett Creek Watershed Commission has some concern about the
stormwater infiltration basin and asked if the Applicant has done anything to address those
concerns. Zimmerman said the Engineers have been working together regarding the
infiltration basin and they feel comfortable recommending approval subject to the conditions
in the Staff reports. Baker asked if the approval of the Bassett Creek Watershed
Management Commission could be made a condition of approval. Zimmerman said he is
not sure of the Bassett Creek Watershed Commission's procedures, but he knows the
Applicant won't be able to obtain building permits without their approval.
Johnson asked if detached townhomes are a permitted use in the R-3 Zoning District.
Zimmerman said no. He added that detached townhomes are a fairly new product and that
they would only be allowed with a PUD.
Cera asked how variances would be handled. Zimmerman suggested creating a building
envelope as a condition of approval.
Cera stated that the width of the streets vary and asked if they could be more standard.
Zimmerman explained that the streets are wider when they are two-way and narrower when
they are one-way. He added that the Fire Department is comfortable with the proposed
width of the streets.
Kluchka asked Zimmerman to summarize the private street requirements. Zimmerman
' stated that PUDs require public streets unless a wai�rer is granted. Baker asked about the
minimum width for a one-way City street and noted that there is one point in this proposal
where the street is 16 feet wide. `He ques#ioned if that is wide enough. Waldhauser said she
thinks two vehicles could pass each other on a 16 foot wide street if needed.
Waldhauser asked if the homeowners could plant trees on their lots. Zimmerman said yes.
Baker asked about a possible walkway around the stormwater infiltration basin and asked if
the picture shown is just conceptual, or actually where trees will be planted. Zimmerman
referred to the landscaping plan in the agenda packet showing where trees would be
planted.
Segelbaum asked if 7 foot wide sidewalks are standard. Zimmerman stated that the City
typically asks for 8 foot wide sidewalks when possible, but realizes there are places where
that won't work, Kluchka asked if the sidewalk committee has reviewed the plans.
Zimmerman said they haven't yet reviewed the plans, and noted that the sidewalk dead
ends on the north of the site.
Kluchka asked if there have been additional neighborhood meetings held. Zimmerman said
no, but the Applicant has shared the current renderings, narrative, and how the project has
evolved with the neighbors.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
December 22, 2014
Page 7
Kluchka referred to the requirement regarding hip roofs for the houses on the north side of
the site. Zimmerman stated that a hip roof is lower than a house with a gable roof, and will
be less impactful on the properties to the north.
Don Jensen, Lake West Development, Applicant, showed the Commissioners a site plan of
his original proposal for 30 townhomes and discussed how that original plan evolved into
this current plan for 24 townhomes. He stated that the current parking requirements for the
R-3 Zoning District are one parking stall inside and one parking stall outside. This design
proposes two stall garages and two stall driveways for each unit and sorne on street parking
which equals almost five stalls per dwelling unit. He stated that the homeowner's
association would not allow fencing between units, but would not preclude privacy,fencing
for patios. He discussed the drainage patterns on the site and haw the bio-retentian
infiltration basin will work. He discussed the architectural style of the proposed homes and
showed the Commissioners photos and elevations of the potential houses. He referred to a
site plan and discussed the internal sidewalk system and the guesf'parking`on the
neighboring WorkAbilities site. He discussed his plan fdr the phasing of construction and
stated that construction would start on the south end of the property.
Cera asked about the price of the homes. Jensen said their'target market is empty nesters
and the cost of the homes will range from $300,OOQ to $400,000.
Waldhauser asked if the storm sewer and drainage are located in the back yards between
the houses that back up to each oth�r. Jensen said yes, and discussed the storm sewer
plans.
Kluchka asked for clarification regarding the fencing requirements. Jensen stated that
homeowners would not be'allow�d to fience in their entire yard, but a patio located within the
building envelope would be allowed. Baker stated that hedges could create the same effect
as a fence and asked if hedge� would be allowed. Jensen stated that the homeowner's
association documents would state what is allowed, or not allowed and added that they will
also have to preserve the drainage areas.
Blum asked Jensen how he can ensure there will be variability in the design of the homes.
Jensen stated fhat fihsre will be architectural controls in the homeowner's association
covenants such as no finro homes with the exact design or same color will be allowed next to
each other.
Baker said he is concerned about the potential height of the houses. Jensen reiterated that
the approval'will be consistent with the plans that were submitted. He said he sees no
reason to build a four story house.
Baker questioned if the cost of the homes would really be $300,000 to $400,000 if they are
4,000 to 6,000 square feet in size. Jensen stated that the 4,000 to 6,000 square feet is the
envelope size. Baker said he this the values will be higher, and questioned if someone
could build a million dollar home. Jensen said that would be highly unlikely because the
homes in the area average $200,000 to $400,000.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
December 22, 2014
Page 8
Kluchka asked who would be controlling the design standards. Jensen said that the
developer, along with the builders will control the designs. Cera asked if the homeowner's
association will have any design control. Jensen stated that the homeowner's association
will have an architectural review board.
Baker referred to the width of the streets and asked Jensen how he can rationalize that a 16
foot wide road, with a 6% grade and snow storage is viable. Jensen said that he can't say
that no one will ever get stuck, but they have designed a one way street in order to not have
excess pavement, and that the association will control the snow removal. H� added that the
streets will function the vast majority of the time.
Kluchka opened the public hearing.
Adam Hiler, 305 Pennsylvania Avenue South, said he is frustrated with the process. He said
the developer has done a lot of things and that the City has made it very difficult. He said he
is obviously trying to sell his house and he feels like the developer is having to jump through
a lot of hoops. He said he understands that the City is trying to make this project right for the
neighborhood, but it is frustrating hearing multiple,;quesfi�ans that have already been
answered.
Steve Devitt, 235 Pennsylvania Avenue South, asked if the project is restricted to just one
builder.
Seeing and hearing no else wishing to comment, Kluchka closed the public hearing.
Kluchka stated that this is the Final plan review and questioned if the Planning Commission
feels that the significant benefits of this plan exceed what will be given up by going beyond
the limits of the underlying zoning. Segelbaum said he thinks that question has been asked
and answered by approving the Preliminary plan. Kluchka said he doesn't think the question
has been answered. He said he thinks a lot of the issues have changed such as lowering
the density, and not building in the easement area. He said enough has changed that he is
re-evaluating whether it is enough anymore.
Waldhauser said she thinks this plan is significantly better than the Preliminary plan. She
said to get this level of density with quality construction is worthwhile, and that the developer
has done a good job meeting their concerns. Baker said he agrees, but if a precedent is set,
he thinks the City will likely see more of these very massive, densely constructed projects.
Segelba'um reiterated that the approach has been decided because the City Council gave
Preliminary plan approval. He said there however, are a number of issues that haven't been
addressed yet, that he thought they would see at this Final plan stage.
Kluchka said the first issue is determining the appropriate height of the structures.
Segelbaum said he would like the height of the homes be less than 40 feet. Cera noted that
the height limit in the Single Family Zoning District is 28 feet, so he wouldn't want to the
structures in this proposal to be much taller than that. Zimmerman noted that building height
is measured at the front of a structure. Baker said he would be in favor of restricting the
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
December 22, 2014
Page 9
height in this case. Kluchka questioned if there needs to be clarification regarding which
elevation will be on which street. He said he doesn't want the homes to be out of scale with
one another. Cera stated that the homes transition to a lower height when they get closer to
the single family homes to the north. Johnson said he appreciates the Applicant's effort to
transition the height of the homes, but questioned why these proposed homes wouldn't
have the same requirements as other single family homes. Waldhauser said there are many
home designs that would fit within the 28-foot height limit. Kluchka questioned if it would be
reasonable to measure the height of the homes in the back yard. Baker said he would like to
condition the front yard height. Segelbaum said he thinks it would be reasonable to apply
R-1 standards and if the applicant wants to deviate from them, he'll have to ask. Kluchka
suggested a condition stating that the height has to be the same as,allawed in the R-1
Zoning District, but not the setbacks. Johnson suggested requiring proportionality, or the
smaller the lot, the smaller the home allowed. Baker said he would be alright having 12 feet
between the homes, but not having tall homes.
Kluchka asked Jensen how he feels about adhering to the R-1 standards regarding height.
Jensen said the plans submitted have been the same request from the beginning of the
process. He said this isn't an R-1 area, it is meant to be a transition area that can be more
dense. Baker said he doesn't know what the Planning Cornmission's response would be to
an R-3 type of proposal and that doesn't affect hovu they are responding to this proposal. He
added that he is concerned about how this fits into this very visible community, and he
doesn't want it to be a "sore thumb." Kluchka said he thinks this is the right spot for a
transitional space, but he wants to say;something about the height. Cera noted that the
applicant could build the structures together like a typical townhouse, and would not have to
get planning approvals at all. Waldhauser stated,#hat this is somewhat of a closed
neighborhood and that the houses will all face each other except for the two homes on
Pennsylvania Avenue, so she doesn't think it will stick out as being too tall. Baker disagreed
and said the other houses'in th� area are mostly ramblers. He said he is nervous about the
maximum height shown on the plans and he'd like to limit it. Cera said comparing this
development to other houses in'the area isn't fair because they were built at a different time.
He suggested fimiting the height,of the houses on Laurel Curve to 28 feet and the ones on
Laurel Point to 35 feet.
Baker suggested limiting the entire PUD to 30 feet in height. Segelbaum suggested Lots 9-
24 be limited to 28 feet and the rest to 35 feet. Jensen said he would be comfortable saying
that the home dimensions will be the same as shown in the plans submitted. Waldhauser
stated that if the homes are truly aimed at empty-nesters they won't want large homes.
Kluchka said he doesn't want a house to be 35 feet tall in the front and 45 feet tall in the
back. He suggested that if the front of the house is on the downslope then the back of the
house should be limited to 35 feet. Waldhauser suggested language stating that one side is
limited to 28 feet, and one side is limited to 35 feet. Baker said he would rather specify the
maximum height for each lot. He suggested the maximum height be limited to 28 feet for
Lots 1-4, 9-12 and 17-20, and 35 feet for Lots 8-5, 13-16 and 21-24. The Commissioners
agreed.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
December 22, 2014
Page 10
Kluchka said the next issue is the building envelope. Zimmerman stated that patios could be
built beyond the building envelope, but decks could not. Segelbaum questioned if fences
should be allowed around patios. Baker said he thinks that should be up to the
homeowner's association. Cera suggested that a condition be added stating that no
variances will be granted for structures outside of the building envelope. He questioned if a
condition not allowing houses of the same design next to each other should also be added.
Waldhauser suggested that the Applicant bring an example of the restrictions to the City
Council meeting.
Kluchka stated that the closest condition related to design standards is humber six in the
staff report which states that the building materials shall be reviewed by the City prior to
Final Plan approval. Zimmerman explained that house designs can't be reviewed because
there aren't house plans to review at this point in the process. He stated that the
Commission could address materials, architectural guidelines and home styles.
Segelbaum referred to the question regarding the restriction to one builcler. Zimmerman
stated that the Applicant is not restricted to one builder. Baker asked if a buyer could bring
in their own builder. Jensen stated that projects like this typically have one or two builders
who are able to work together.
Kluchka referred to the proposed landscaping on the 5outhwest corner and said he is not
seeing a practical use when there is not a path proposed. He said he wants a more human
connection, and it would be more useful to have a path to the area, and the benches closer
to the sidewalk so people will use it. Waldhauser said it might be used more by the
residents, not necessarily the public. Jensen said there is time to make changes, and that
he agrees there should be a human connection.
Kluchka summarized that a condition regarding the height of the homes and a condition
regarding variances should be �dded. Also, condition number six in the staff report should
be modified regarding design and building materials.
MOVEQ by Baker, seconded by Cera and motion carried unanimously to recommend
approval of the.Final Plan for Laurel Ponds One PUD No. 117, subject to the following
findings and conditions:
Findinqs:
1. The PUD plan is tailored to the specific characteristics of the site and achieves a
higher quality of site planning and design than generally expected under
canvent'ional provisions of the ordinance.
2. The PUD plan preserves and protects substantial desirable portions of the site's
characteristics, open space and sensitive environmental features including steep
slopes, trees, scenic views, creeks, wetlands, and open waters.
3. The PUD plan includes efficient and effective use (which includes preservation) of
the land.
4. The PUD plan results in development compatible with adjacent uses and is
consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and redevelopment plans and goals.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
December 22, 2014
Page 11
5. The PUD plan is consistent with preserving and improving the general health, safety
and general welfare of the people of the City.
6. The PUD plan meets the PUD Intent and Purpose provision and all other PUD
ordinance provisions.
Conditions:
1. The plans prepared by EVS, received December 17, 2014, shall become a part of
this approval.
2. The recommendations and requirements outlined in the memo from the
Engineering Division to Jason Zimmerman, Planning Manager, da�ed December 16,
2014, shall become a part of this approval.
3. All principal buildings shall conform to the rear and side property setbacks when
adjacent to a single family zoning district as outlined in Section 11.55, Subd.
3(C)(1).
4. No buildings shall be located less than fifteen feet from the back of the curb line for
roads that are part of the internal road system as outlined in Section 11.55, Subd.
3(C)(2) unless adequate separation is provided tnrough additional landscaping,
berming or similar means.
5. The Applicant shall prohibit the installation of fences within the development.
6. Homeowners Association covenants regarding:design a�d building materials shall
be reviewed by the City prior to Final Plan approval.
7. All signage must meet the requirements of the City's 'Sign Code (Section 4.20).
8. Permits to construct parking bays Qn the property at 7400 Laurel Avenue shall be
obtained by that property owner and shall,not be located closer than fifteen feet to
the side property line, as required in 5ection 11.47, Subd. 6(B), unless a variance is
obtained.
9. Easement agreements related to parking and the retaining wall shall be reviewed
by the City and shall be recorded with the Final Plat.
10. A park dedication fee of$17,400, or 2% of the land value, shall be paid before Final
Plat approvaL
11. The maximum building height, as defined by City Code, shall be 28 feet for the
homes on Lats 1-4, 9-12 and 17-20, and 35 feet for the homes on Lots 5-8, 13-16
and 2'I-24.
12. There shall be no structures located outside of the building envelope area, and no
variances granted for structures to be located outside of the building envelape area.
13. The Final Plat shall include "P.U.D. No. 117" in its title.
14. This approval is subject to all other state, federal, and local ordinances, regulations,
or laws wifh authority over this development.
4. Informal Public Hearing —Zoning Code Text Amendment— Adding Brewery
and Taproom Language —ZO00-93
Applicant: City of Golden Valley
Purpose: To consider adding language to the Zoning Code regarding breweries
and taprooms.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
December 22, 2014
Page 12
Goellner reminded the Commissioners that they discussed options for permitting and
regulating breweries, taprooms and brewpubs at their March 10, 2014 meeting. She
discussed the definitions of a brewery, taproom, and brewpub. She stated that staff is
recommending that breweries and taprooms limited to less than 25% of the brewery floor
area, be a permitted use in the Light Industrial and Industrial Zoning Districts, and a
conditional use in the Mixed Use Zoning District. The staff recommendation for brewpubs
is that they be a conditional use in the Commercial Zoning District and a permitted use in
the Mixed Use Zoning District.
Goellner referred to the parking requirements and stated that a brewery has parking
needs similar to those of a manufacturing facility, 1 space per 500 square feet of gross
floor area, and a taproom would require parking similar to a Class ill restaurant, 1 space
per 60 square feet of floor area plus 1 space per 25 square feet of bar area.
Goellner referred to the distance regulations in the Light Industrial and Industrial Zoning
Districts and stated that staff is recommending 75 feet for uses facing R-1 and R-2 Zoning
Districts, 100 feet for uses adjoining R-1 and R-2 Zonin;g Districts and 50 feet for uses
adjoining R-3, R-4, Business and Professional OfFices, and Institutional Zoning Districts.
Goellner stated that issues such as hours af operation, outdoor patios, indoor/outdoor
entertainment, special events, maximum brewing capacity, growler standards, conduct
on the premises, violations, and fees wil) be addressed in the liquor licensing section of
City Code. She added that food trucks, and their partnering with taprooms, will be
considered in the future since food'trucks are not currently permitted or licensed.
Kluchka opened the public hearing.
John Keenan, Under Pressure Brewing, said he is concerned about limiting the size of
the taproom to 25% of:the brewery floor area. He said it seems restrictive and that 40%
to 50% would be better, but not overbearing, and would offer more community gathering
space. '
Kluchka asketl if this is a seasonal business with outdoor space.
Lori Ertl, Under Pressure Brewing, said there aren't many buildings in Golden Valley
that would allow outdoor space. She said limiting the size of the taproom space will limit
their ccustomer base, their business, and their profitability, and it will also limit the City's
tax base. She said they need the taproom space to be larger in order to make the
business viable. She added that they are not looking to make this into a bar scene, but
they need to have a larger taproom space.
Waldhauser asked Ertl to give examples of some local taprooms that operate how she
would like to operate. Ertl gave several examples, and said they would like to do a 7
barrel system which will give them 14 kegs at a time. Keenan said they may provide keg
sales to local restaurants as well.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
December 22, 2014
Page 13
Seeing and hearing no one else wishing to comment, Kluchka closed the public hearing.
Blum said he is concerned about establishments only serving alcoholic beverages
without offering a food component to help people regulate their alcohol content. He said
he feels more comfortable knowing that food could be brought in by the customers.
Kluchka suggested that the liquor license could require a food option to be offered.
Baker asked if the Zoning Code and liquor license changes could happen quickly
enough to allow Under Pressure Brewing to open fairly soon. Zimmerman stated that
consideration of the liquor licensing and Zoning Code changes will align at same City
Council meeting.
Baker questioned where the language came from regarding tapr�oms only being '
allowed in less than 25% of the floor space. Goellner stated that.she ca�me up uvit� that
number while researching other communities' requirements. She e�cplained that the
point is to keep the taproom accessory to the brewery. She suggested tha� if an
applicant wants to have a larger taproom a conditional u�epermit could be required.
Kluchka suggested that the ordinance language be changed to say taprooms larger
than 30% require a conditional use permit, Segefbaum at�reed that 25% or 30% is a
good place to start. Baker suggested a 60%-40% split between the brewery and
taproom spaees. Cera suggested the language be changed to "less than 50%" of the
floor space could be used for taproom space. The Commissioners agreed that they
would like the language to be changed to state that 30% of the floor space can be used
for the taproom, and if an applicant wants more than'fihat they can apply for a
conditional use permit.
Kluchka questioned what kind of.provisions, such as size, location, noise and odor, the
Commission should recommend. Blum suggested that these types of establishments be
located near public transportation.
Segelbaum noted that taprooms; and not breweries, are proposed to be a permitted use
in the Light Industrial Zoning District. He questioned if breweries should be a conditional
use. Baker questioned wh'ere bars are allowed. Goellner stated that Class III
restaurants {bars, nightclubs, taverns, etc.) are allowed with a Conditional Use Permit in
the Cornmercial Zoning District, and are a permitted use in the Mixed Use Zoning
District. '
Waldhauser referred to the proposed parking requirements and said that taprooms
seem to be more akin to fast food restaurants with very dense seating. She suggested
that there be a higher parking ratio for taprooms. Goellner suggested a higher parking
ratio for the bar and seating areas. The Commissioners agreed that they would like the
parking requirement to be 1 space per 40 square feet of gross floor area.
Segelbaum suggested the definition of taproom be changed to read as follows: A facility
accessory to a brewery that is licensed by the City to sell the malt liquors made at the
brewery for consumption on the premises. He said that changing the definition will keep
it consistent with the definition of brewery and clarifies that the consumption takes place
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
December 22, 2014
Page 14
on the premises. Kluchka asked if that means a taproom couldn't sell growlers.
Segelbaum stated that the taproom is accessory to the brewery, and that they would
have to be a brewery first in order to sell growlers. Goellner added that both on-sale and
off-sale licenses would be required to have a taproom and sell growlers.
Blum asked about the definition of malt liquor. Goellner said malt liquor is defined in the
liquor licensing section on the City Code as follows: Any beer, ale, or other beverage
made from malt by fermentation and containing not less than one-half of one percent
alcohol by volume. Kluchka suggested taking the words "such as beer and ale" out of
the definition of brewery in order to be consistent.
Segelbaum questioned if retail sales should be limited to taprooms, or if breweries
would also be allowed to sell accessory retail items. Goellner said she would speak with
the City Attorney regarding retail sales in a brewery.
Segelbaum asked if other communities have different haurs for taprooms Versus bars.
Goellner stated that most communities' hours for taprooms are Wednesday through
Sunday 4 pm to 11 pm. She added that hours of operation would be addressed in the
liquor licensing section of the City Code.
Kluchka stated that there are several bike trails�n Industrial areas and maybe they will
be a good fit with these proposed uses. :
MOVED by Segelbaum, seconded by Kluchka and motion carried unanimously to
recommend the Zoning Code text amendment regarding breweries, taprooms and
brewpubs subject to the following changes:
1. The parking requirement for a taproom shall be 1 space per 40 square feet of gross
floor area.
2. The definition of taproom shall be changed to read as follows: A facility accessory to a
brewery that is licensed by the'City to sell the malt liquors made at the brewery for
consumption on the premises.
3. The proposed langua�e shall be changed to allow 30% of the floor area to be used
for a taproom. If an applicant wants a taproom larger than 30% of the floor area a
conditianal use permit must be obtained.
4. Language shall be added regarding allowing retail sales in a brewery.
--Short Recess--
5. Reports on Meetings of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority, City
Council, Board of Zoning Appeals and other Meetings
Baker gave an update on the most recent Bottineau Station Area Planning Committee
meeting and stated that there will be a community meeting regarding the Bottineau Light
Rail project on January 7 at the Courage Kenny Rehabilitation Institute.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
December 22, 2014
Page 15
Kluchka gave a summary of the Community Center Task Force presentation given at
the December Council/Manager meeting.
6. Other Business
• Council Liaison Report
No report was given.
7. Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned at 10:32 pm.
Charles D. Segelbaum, Secretary Lisa Wittman, Administrative Assistant
Joint Meeting of the
Golden Valley City Council and Planning Commission
January 12, 2015
A joint meeting of the City Council and Planning Commission was held at the Golden
Valley City Hall, Council Conference Room, 7800 Golden Valley Road, Golden Valley,
Minnesota, on Monday, January 12, 2015. Council Member Snope called the meeting to
order at 7 pm.
Those present were Council Members Andy Snope, Larry Fonnest, Sfieve Schmidgall,
Joanie Clausen; Planning Commissioners Ron Blum, John Kluchka, Rich' Baker, Chuck
Segelbaum, David Cera, Andy Johnson; Physical Development DirEctor Marc Nevinski,
Planning Manager Jason Zimmerman, Associate Planner/Grant Writer Emily �aellner;
Jeff Miller and Rita Trapp, HKGi
1. Subdivision Moratorium Study's Findings for Potential Zoning/Subdivision
Changes
Jeff Miller from HKGi reviewed the meeting agenda, the timeline for the subdivision
study, and summarized the top concern� as expressed by the City Council, Planning
Commission, and residents.
Miller broke the concerns down into four cafi�:gories:
(a) Issues for which action is already being taken
Construction Management Agreement
(b) Issues for whieh no new action is being recommended
Stormwater draina�e and flooding concerns
Houses too tall, too close together
Dri�eway locations
Traffic
Private eovenants
Wildiife impacts
(c) Issues for which potential strategies could be developed
Tree preservation
Minimum lot area
Irregular lot shape
House to lot relationship
PUDs
(d) Issues that are outside of the scope of the study
House character
Quality of construction
Neighborhood character
Lot baundary changes
Sustainability
Minutes of the Joint City Council/Planning Commission
January 12, 2015
Page 2
Cera suggested looking at tear-down issues. Chuck Segelbaum suggested revisiting
notification distances.
The 10 members of the group discussed the issues under (c) and registered their level
of support for making changes to each within the City Code.
Level of Support for
Chan es
Issue 1' 2 3 4 5
Tree reservation 1 2 1 5 1
Minimum lot size 4 1 1 1 3
Irre ular lot sha e 2 0 0 4 4
House to lot relationshi 2 3 2 1 2
PUDs 1 2 1 4 2'
It was clarified that under "House to lot relationship" there was support far modifying the
way in which the rear yard setback is applied but not for reducing the amount of
impervious surface allowed. '
Segelbaum asked that the consultants look at if the conditions for appraval or denial of
subdivisions could be modified. Council ;Member Clausen asked that issues around
drainage be looked at further.
2. Adjournment
Council Member Snope adjourned the rn�eting at 9:04 pm.
Charles D. Segelbaum, Secretary Jason Zimmerman, Planning Manager
L.�����' t.�� � �.
�
��,. . �: a �. . a
�a�.. Planning Department
7fi3 593 8095/763 593 8109(fax)
Date: January 26, 2015
To: Golden Valley Planning Commission
From: Jason Zimmerman, Planning Manager
Subject: Informal Public Hearing
Rezoning Petition
6000 Duluth Street
King of Grace Lutheran Church and School, Applicant
. . , ���� � ������q,
Background and Proposed Use
The Applicant, King of Grace Lutheran Church and School, is proposing to rezone the property at
6000 Duluth Street to the standard "Institutional (I-1) Zoning District" in order ta remove a
restrictive condition on the north setback area of the property. The property is currently zoned
"Institutional (I-1)," but has a restrictive candition that requires a 120-foot front yard setback along
Kenneth Way. The standard front yard setback area for the Institutional (I-1) Zoning District is 35
feet.
The restrictive condition was placed on the property on August 5, 1969. At that time, King of Grace
rezoned four residential Iots along Kenneth Way to allow for expansion to its campus. The Village
Council placed the setback restriction on the property in response to resident concerns,
King of Grace petitioned for the same rezoning in 2013 but withdrew their request prior to a
hearing in front of the City Council. At that time they wished to create a playground within the
restricted area. They were also considering expanding a parking lot along Brunswick Avenue.
To accomplish these long-range plans, the Ordinance that was adopted on August 5, 1969, would
need to be replaced with a new zoning Ordinance that doesn't contain the setback restriction along
the north side of the property. The City Attorney has advised that in order to accomplish this, the
property must be formally rezoned. If the property is rezoned, it would still need to meet all of the
requirements of the Institutional (I-1) Zoning District.
In addition to the restriction contained within the Ordinance, a private covenant exists that also
limits development on the property. The Applicant is working separately to remove this
covenant.
Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of the Rezoning Petition, rezoning 6000 Duluth Street from
"Institutional (I-1)" with a restrictive northern setback to "Institutional (I-1)" with no special
restrictions in order to accommodate future site improvements.
Attachments
Location Map (1 page)
Ordinance No. 328 dated August 5, 1969 (1 page)
Declaration of Protective Covenants (4 pages)
Institutional Zoning District Section of City Code (6 pages)
Official Zoning Map (1 page)
2300 2305 --
1 6730 2255 g055 6025 6015 5505 5901 5825 ���.. \ / �
.
105 _� �.,� � � . -� ' S770
2230 - .'`-- _5785 ,•
900 500 . ` 6155 �,t�rooh ir,� 2230 � � /
�'A '�
*00 � � �'4`� G125 6101 2200 G020 G000 59T0 SSqO . 5775 "
-0 �'.. a 22�o j z2oo +,� .
� —2150 „ - - - ..... 5755 .
� � 2155 � ' �
�
_ { C 2130 2150 ��7 �005 59d5 5515 2155
C 2145
� 5
Z,os - 2,29 � Subject Property
2�22 , soso soso
, 2102 27 04 � _ 6000 5930 ' r' i .
� 21001120 2115 ... ... 5910
� 1
—I— 21 O7 ^ �--.�..�.,.e 2U30 fEt �
2U40'07 2645 � = ¢ t
200�103 2041 �' E G;
� � 2020
2020 2025 �
.. �. i ' �'213 0
2010 2010 �
2005 6000
2000 •
`v
1935 2000
fl:
1950 --
1885 * 1935 1570 �j
1950
i.`uiUtti`�t .
� 6155 �_.y - �___�_.
• 1930 6035>pg3 5750
�.��.. � 1928 � � 1933� " -.u,�.,, `-....,, �"
1930 �� 7931"�
w, ` 59275925 :•
�.�.`''-1 _. 14 � 192 0 19�1 7 92 0 `'�..�� ....
1900 21 18 � _,.. �
�� � 2.2101 1 �8 . ... . 58 51•.. .,,�,.,..,. ..
5801�--.�
.� j� 'S 6050 6020 6000 1910 30..2� L--- .:
,3 1�1318 ......109 I`� 3G:2`101�� �
1880 � �1�i u's
5 �t'�_
. j��'� 61 50� � �1801 t � 31'1 71 513
" '�,.+ '\ �' 1745 6055 G035 601 5 fi005 �.,— �3.�„..
� ��,�i, ,�� I 1860 t�218 106
�, �i50
.�
�\� r .�.-�-�. � 310,.
� � +�r ,���
����i�r ��y� .i�V
� Q�11T��ri3i �r�.i.ty{� t��ut�f Ci�cs�'
�Inst�:tv�t�.o�a1 Zc��ing Di�tr�.ct)
�fing of Gra�s L�z��r� Chux�c�)
� � Vil�.ags C��cil of �he �'illage t�P {3�°�r�en �'a��3� d�e�
�
crd�3s� as Pnll�rs s
�+����� 1. Ttze 2cmi�g Gcrde is err�e�sc3ed iari �eet.�►rt 11.O1
L�aez�ec� by �rciding; '�herstc> t.�e fc���g describ��3 ��r�cts +�f l�d
�i�.�h are �ereby e��abliehed as -a� ��1 :€r��i.tu��l �vn3�
�tr3��s '
� � ���� �„� �;, ,�s �, B�.o�I�� 2 s C����'��A�d������� ��
t�rl��t_ Ya�.��+"'� t��ast��;
grovid�d hc►�ever� �h�t a aatback a� c�za� hvndred twe��y {12+3}
fev� frrr� �b�e A�r��1y� line �o� sa3.d lots ��a11 be requ�ed artci
�t�a� a11 vf sai� re�,u�ired ee�back area at��11 b+� �requi�ed ta trs
lar�d�cap�d with no ��t�er a�tiv�.ty t�her�riYn.
Se��i.on 2. Thi� �r�i�artce s�tall �a�ce s�`��e�� ,us�i b� ir�
f�rc$ frcrm arid af'�er its pa�sa�e a�ci publica�3cn.
F��ed by the Yillage Cowe�cil t�i� �th d� vf �u�u�t, 19b9.
,
� � �� � �1"�� ,� �`�"`�� � � �
j1'�,�+��t►t
43X3 El�ti � , ��d g r
� , ROBERT M. SKA�iE . .. , " ,
Vi1.�►�� At�orrte�
-..-� �tX3 �"i.r�t Ns�io�a1 Baz�k Build�rig
M;i�+�apo�.�s, I��ie:a��'� 5�3tC?2
�� ,ti�'�_;343��
r
DECLA.R.A.TTON OF PROTECTIVE COVENANTS
WHEREAS, King of Grace Evangelical Lutheran Church, a
Minneaota corporation, is the ownex of Lots 1 thxough 4, incluaive,
Block 2, Clxurch Addition;
WHEREAS, said/owner is 'desirous of changing the zoning of '.
the subject lots eo as to pexmit the construction of a nnaximum of three
driveways ovex paxts of Lot 5, Block 2, Church Addition;
WHEREAS, the adjoining ownexs of property legally described
as Lots I through 6, inclusive, Block 1, Church Addi.tion, and Lote 1 khrough
6, inclusive , �lock 1, Fourth Addition of Brunawick Couxt are desirous o�
reta.ining the residential chaxacter of the neighborhood, and have withdrawn
theix objectzon to the charige and zoning upon the condition that the•.fol3owing
covenants and xeatrictione he declaxed.
THEREFORE, King of Grace Evangelzcal Lutheran Ghurch, a
Minnesota corporation, owner of Lots 1 thxough 4, Block 2, Church Adflition,
Hennepin County, hereby imposes the following covenants and xestrictions upon
tl-�e following described property;
The North 120 feet of Lote 1 through 4, inclusive,
Slock 2, Church Addition
1. Said premises shall be maintained as an open, green area, and
as such sodded and suitably landscaped so as to be compatible with the residential
character of the adjoining properties and be so mainta,ined by the owner, its
succeasors and assigns.
2. No buildings, structures, fettces, driveways or parking areas
shall be constructed thereon, nor shall. the subject pxoperty be put to any use
incompatible with the residential character of the adjoining residential propexties.
��•. � '� t<< ,
� 2 � .
�1 .
3, . Theee covenante and xeetxictions shall run with the }.and, and
,
,. '
be binding up;on the: ownex� its succeasore and asaigns fox a period of thixty
,
years from the date'�bf recoxding. Said covenants and restrictions shall continue
;.
fox an additional; thirty ysar period unless xeleased by a majority of the ownexs
of Lote 1 thxough 6,` inclusive, BTock 1, Ghuxch Addition, and Lots 1 through 6,
i,nclusive, Block` 1, Fouxth Addition of B�unswick Couxt.
4. The covenants and reatri ctiona contained herein are for the
benefit of the parties who may �xom time to time have an interest in premises
described in Paxagxaph 3 above and enforcement thereof againat any party ox
parti,ee wha shall viol.ate or attempt to violate them, shall be by proceedings at
law or in equity to prevent him ox them from so doing or to xecover damages for
such violations. Fai].ure to enforce an�y part of this declaration shall zn no ovent
be deemed to be a waiver of the xight to do so as to any subsequent violation.
5. Invalidation of any one of these covenants �r any part of any
covenant by judgment or couxt arder sha11 in no wise af�ect any of the other pro-
visions, which shall rernain in ful.7. force and effect.
Dated this cx�(� �day of August, 19b9•
In the presance of: � KING OF GRACE EVANGELICAL
LUTHERAN CHiJRCH, a
, ' Minnesota oxpoxatio
sy
.
� Its P esident .
�
.A,nd . G��
Its Secxetary
NO CORPC)RATE 5E.A,L
� 3 _
STATE OF MINNESOT.Pa )
) �S�
GOUNTY OF HENNEPIN )
/�
On thia �G day of August, 1969, before me,a notary pubJ.ic
within and fox eaid County personally appeaxed E 11 sw o r th Z ahl and
R o b e r t D e c h a i n e to be per sonally known, who being each by me duly
aw�orn did say that they are respectively the President and Secretary of tho
corporation named in the foregoing i.nstxument, and that said inatxument was
signed ar� in behalf of said corporation by authority of ita Board af
Truetees and s�idEllsworth Zahi andRobert Dechaine acknowledged
said instxument to be the free act and deed of said corporation.
" /-ti .
soaeAm r:, ecxria� ,.�,��+�,;�,,,,
MfOtnrp Puh�lo, Hennoytn couae�.�, �'1�`» . .
Nx .COinml�doa Expue� Peb,S!{r 1�,4���a � .,.. ,�.
��'��.�' �;�;^.v,,;,� ,
l...;'.
` ,v�� . ,,Sc�^.,i::
`(; ,'� i��. �
:-��. . ��;;..�f ..
- .T �.�.V�Y;i,��� .`.
. �.1� � �t��l�:r�i�}.l.~~N
.1!i ''��',''�• 4 t'�� , '
�'4�'{�"�u'�'�11�T>��1
'��.:Ij....'t�r_.�ni��:����i
!�' . . ..
f
�
�:'x�'������ �.
,
.��c��•�� � q �� ,� � a3,�G
,� �.
/ . �
�
� � � �
;:
�..�_....._...._ .:..�;.�.,..�.....--....
� tiGGIBTIIft O� DI:Cp6
►•11NI�CRt�7l�
TY oF HeNH�rrr� �
y certify th�ii #1�e witl�in Jnstr!tr�et�t +
>d for re�e��r� in th;- offtce ort the
��Y °f DEC A. c� �9�� af �-- -
M., an� w�,; d.:ly rtcorct�;d ir; I.�cok -
:�( I-Ie:nnif�ir County Records �
;
• �CC�"�,.����„ ;�
� �,, . ,
. �---�c�L"�..,, ;
�
� r�saier�rc oF c��t�y ,
1
i
dEAtITY R�G1dT8R�A�fiEDs 1
�
!
}
1
1
t
. i
/ �
§ 11.46
Section 11.46: Institutional Zoning District
Subdivision 1. Purpose
The purpose of the Institutional Zoning District is to establish areas where both
public and private institutional uses such as schools, hospitals, parks, golf courses,
nursing homes and public buildings may be located.
Subdivision 2. District Established
Properties shall be established within the Institutional Zoning District in the manner
provided for in Section 11.90, Subdivision 3 of this Chapter, and when thus
established shall be incorporated in this Section 11.46, Subdivision 2 by an
ardinance which makes cross-reference to this Section 11.46 and which shall
become a part hereof and of Section 11.10, Subdivision 2 thereof, as fully as if set
fortn herein. In addition the Institutional Zoning Districts thus established, and/or
any subsequent changes to the same which shall be made and established in a
similar manner, shall be reflected in the official zoning map of the City as provided
in Section 11.11 of this Chapter.
*Subdivision 3. Uses Permitted
A. The following uses shall be permitted in the I-1 Institutional Zoning Sub-
District:
1. Churches
2. Schools, public and parochial, excepting colleges, seminaries and other
institutes of higher educatian
Source: Ordinance No. 567
Effective Date: 5-28-82
3. Essential Services - Class I
Source: Ordinance No. 80, 2nd Series
Effective Date: 11-28-91
4. Seasonal Farm Produce Sales
Source: Ordinance No. 127, 2nd Series
Effective Date: 4-27-95
B. The following uses shall be permitted in the I-2 Institutional Zoning Sub-
District:
1. Public and private libraries
2. Museums
Golden Valley City Code Page 1 of 6
§ 11.46
3. Colleges, seminaries and other institutes of higher education
Source: Ordinance No. 567
Effective Date: 5-28-82
4. Essential Services - Class I
Source: Ordinance No. 80, 2nd Series
Effective Date: 11-28-91
C. The following uses shall be permitted in the I-3 Institutional Zoning Sub-
District:
1. Rest homes, sanitariums, nursing homes, clinics and other buildings
incidental to the operation thereof
Source: Ordinance No. 567
Effective Date: 5-28-82
2. Essential Services - Class I
Source: Ordinance No. 80, 2nd Series
Effective Date: 11-28-91
D. The following uses shall be permitted in the I-4 Institutional Zoning Sub-
District:
1. Golf courses, country clubs and polo fields, excepting thase carried on as
a business such as miniature golf courses
2. Parks, playgrounds, City offices, fire stations, and other lands incidental to
the operation of the City
Source: Ordinance No. 567
Effective Date: 5-28-82
3. Essential Services - Class I
Source: Ordinance No. 80, 2nd Series
Effective Date: 11-28-91
E. The following uses shall be permitted in the I-5 Institutional zoning Sub-
District:
1. Cemeteries
Source: Ordinance No. 567
Effective Date: 5-28-82
2. Essential Services - Class I
Source: Ordinance No. 80, 2nd Series
Effective Date: 11-28-91
*Subdivision 4. Conditional Uses
The following uses may be allowed in the following Institutional Zoning Sub-
Districts when approved by the Council in accordance with the provisions of this
Chapter:
Golden Valley City Code Page 2 of 6
� 11.46
A. Congregate Housing. Housing for the elderly, providing at least one (1)
prepared meal per day, in a common dining room. Such housing may also
provide certain medical and social services over and above what might be
provided in a standard elderly apartment complex. Congregate housing may
be allowed as a Conditional Use only within the I-3 Institutional Zoning Sub-
District.
B. Elderly Housing. Housing (either subsidized or unsubsidized) specifically
designed and built for occupancy by elder persons in much the same way
that standard multi-family dwellings might be built and managed, but not
providing the same services as congregate housing, may be allowed as a
Conditional Use only within the I-3 Institutional Zoning Sub-District.
C. Hospitals and out-patient surgical facilities may be allowed as a Conditional
Use only within the I-3 Institutional Zoning Sub-District.
D. Lodge halls and private clubs may be allowed as a Conditional Use only
within the I-3 Institutional zoning Sub-District.
Source: Ordinance No. 567
Effective Date: 5-28-82
E. Residential facilities only within the I-3 Institutional Zoning Sub-District.
Source: Ordinance No. 653
Effective Date: 4-12-85
F. Child day-care facilities may also be permitted as a Conditional Use within
the I-1, I-2, I-3 and/or I-4 Institutional Zoning Sub-Districts.
Source: Ordinance No, 567
Effective Date: 5-28-82
G. Heliports, as herein defined.
H. Such other uses which, in the opinion of the Council, are reasonably
compatible with the uses specifically described in Subdivision 3, above, may
be permitted as a Conditional Use in any of the four Institutional Zoning Sub-
Districts set farth above.
Source: Ordinance No. 643
Effective Date: 11-16-84
I. Adult Day Care Centers shall be permitted as a Conditional Use within the I-
1, I-2, I-3 and/or I-4 Institutional Sub-Districts.
Source: Ordinance No. 264, 2nd Series
Effective Date: 12-13-01
Golden Valley City Code Page 3 of 6
§ 11.46
*Subdivision 5. Height
No building or structure other than water tanks, water tank towers and lighting
fixtures, shall be erected to exceed three (3) stories in height in the Institutional
Zoning District. Church spires, belfries, chimneys and architectural finials may be
permitted to exceed the maximum provisions of this Section when erected in
accordance with this Chapter.
Source: Ordinance No. 609
Effective Date: 11-11-83
*Subdivision 6. Use of Land
For the purpose of maintaining the character of this Zoning District, no buildings or
structures shall occupy more than twenty-five percent (25%) of the area of the lot
or premises.
Source: Ordinance No. 567
Effective Date: 5-28-82
*Subdivision 7. Yard Requirements
Side and rear yards in the Institutional Zoning District shall not be less than fifty
(50) feet in width and depth, of which at least twenty-five (25) feet adjacent to the
property line shall be landscaped and maintained as a buffer zone.
Source: Ordinance No. 609
Effective Date: 11-11-83
*Subdivision 8. Front Yards
No building or structure in an Institutional Zoning District shall be located less than
thirty-five (35) feet from the property line abutting a public street. All portions of a
parcel of land abutting a public street shall be regarded as front yards. All front
yards shall be planted, and landscaped, and shall contain no off-street parking.
Source: Ordinance No. 567
Effective Date: 5-28-82
*Subdivision 9. Accessory Uses
The following are permitted accessory uses in this Zoning District:
A. Essential Services - Class I
B. Accessory Structures. The following regulations and setbacks shall be
required for accessory structures in this Zoning District:
1. Location. A Detached accessory structure shall be located completely to
the rear of the principal structure, unless it is built with frost footings. In
that case, an accessory structure may be built no closer to the front
setback as the principal structure. If an addition is built on to an existing
principal structure that would create a situation where an existing garage
or accessory structure would not be completely to the rear of the addition
to the principal structure, the addition to the principal structure may be
built and the existing garage or accessory structure may remain and be
Golden Valley City Code Page 4 of 6
§ 11.46
considered conforming as long as there is at least ten (10) feet of
separation between the existing principal structure with the addition and
the existing garage or accessory structure. Additions may be rnade to the
existing garage or accessory structure as long as the ten (10) feet of
separation can be met.
2. Front setback. Accessory structures shall be located no less than the
required setback for this Zoning District from the front property line along
a street right-of-way line.
3. Side and rear setbacks. Accessory structures shall be located no less than
the required setback for principal structures in this Zoning District from a
side or rear yard property line.
4. Separation between structures. Accessory structures shall be located no
less than ten (10) feet from any principal structure and from any other
accessory structure.
5. Alley setback. Accessory structures shall be located no less than ten (10)
feet from an alley.
6. Height limitations. No accessory structure shall be erected in this zoning
District to exceed a height of one (1) story. One (1) story may not exceed
ten (10) feet from the floor to the top plate. Attic space in accessory
structures shall be used only for storage and/or utility space.
7. Cornices and eaves. Cornices and eaves may not project more than thirty
(30) inches into a required setback.
8. Number and Size of accessory structures. Only one (1) accessory
structure shall be allowed on each property and no accessory structure
shall be larger in size than the principal structure. In no case shall an
accessory structure be greater than one thousand (1000) square feet or
less than one hundred-twenty (120) square feet in area. Accessory
structures include storage buildings, detached sheds, greenhouses,
gazebos and other shelters. Accessory structures nat used solely for
storage and related activities shail have open sides from floor to ceiling,
except that they may have railings and temporary screening (used only
on two (2) sides at a time), all constructed in accordance with the building
code.
9. Design. All accessory structures constructed after the construction of the
principal structure must be designed and constructed of similar materials
as determined by the City Manager or his designee.
10. Building Permits. All accessory structures located in this Zoning District
require a building permit.
Golden Valley City Code Page 5 of 6
§ 11.46
ll. Parking structures and garages. In this Zoning District, parking structures
and garages shall not be considered accessory structures if they are used
to meet the required number of parking spaces.
Source: Ordinance No. 344, 2nd Series
Effective Date: 05-25-06
*Renumbering Source (Subd. 3-9):
Ordinance 346, 2nd Series
Effective Date: 7-1-06
Golden Valley City Code Page 6 of 6
� ..� � �.�..�-----�-a--Y i u
. � � , Q Q Q �,..... � ;o z . . .
�� +1..�����2 I' � s � _ ,,. ���
� ��- & ^; r.� ;og .�.ry ��� Zoning Distrlcts
�.� � & �
rI � ..,� _ �, e i
� - ,
. . . ,, °�' �� , �� 8 a = � 0 Single Family(R-1)
Off�c�al Zon�ng Map a � oa�.wn. �����w� x '
� '� : � Moderate Density(R-2)Residential
��,,.,�•' � : = 0 Medium Density(R-3)Residential
(I P1 O7� N!N'1[OPE CI I Y O1 �IL�W HOPE I CITY OF CRYST?,L I �""MOOQ , oN ���
�;-� � - - --- �---------,�,-�..�--�---� � ------ ---1---T��, - ---- � ---- .— ---- w _ ens - ) esidentral
_ _ �. `Ar � High D ity(R
. �
, _ $� . . i��
, � �� _
�mn��
_ .,.,, � . � „�, � .,
.
'` = n '�6 ° � =H��- a ' °" % . � ' I-394 Mixed Use
,�
s SDAIF
� �I.-� ,.... " S 6 ^ - = a„m, i o � .�a _'—__---'�,i�rvY O F R O B B I N
� �SOA� .w.�«.r M.a.� �� `a ,,..��,. �� �"�.�� � � r����� � � � ,,.. � ' �...o _� 4„a4 �� �.�q.'----'---� � SUbC�1StT1Ct f�l �owR�se-iwtosatates
� ,�.1''' a,o- . � E � - . ,'.'^� �.,oEa�..bo.�. r.�ar.« � x � ; .. _ - _.. . � - " �. �.�
� w.,..,� �+ = e�.,=.,us , •••_��< i �a«ur �' ^ � SUbC�1StT'iCtB M�eaise-�vmestmies
. . �
, e .•
:
` c
„ i e
Y .. . N o e .. _ �a,o • o ' ` ..a �`�." ,, �a
,.s = 5 � �
�' �: .,,� � _.." n,,..., "` � �, .,� °< , _ � �,;L°`' �, - tW Subdistrict C Hi�t Rise- V fn 70 sWnee
'>
p o
5 �e a t
r , 1
..." ` = c#�u y�.�.� /......�,� r �I �,Z �
m :
> . � I
.. ,p ' a ' � S aW�m'Wio� -.,, . �a W W ,. o .x.� m Ps� I z
$ . � �e , :
.
� �,�� ' E�w,..,�. ,�
„ � 3 =... , w o t ; � �a ; _ , :' ._i P t _�,.,.� ,�.. .�..,�.�o�a. � . • "°� � ' � d �� Commercial
: �
.,.
,..,.. � � °
a
. , . � :
� ; < < . .. _ � ,
.�°� o
, �,. � . �,� . . . � m Subject � � � : a � � : ��F�
� � w:m,.. ro e r � f 9 ° �
.�
.
. o �.�..� �..�.a. �..�.Nw
�- _ : � p y ' ; : 8 = �� _ ; ': �x Li ht Industrial
,�� �.,�,o �, £ � �,:,,, ,..M�..,�., � � a - M..a> � .r � g
� M,a � - :�.m � �,;;'"�..<., .* � t� s, . _ .��� na�.o � ,�,�-�"".�� Industrial
ne ' , �. �° s ,� � ""° �,�, a °':^ �" '°�, �
� �, �„ , , ; �W� � , p
.. „ . <
�_ . .
� , .
.
, P�� ,s �� $ � g � ; ,"°�' � p �...°. �"°�� • x �` �'° Business&Professional Offices
� ,98 �... .gY� p .
� .� _ s ��'� ��� � ` ` 'r '�� � �s' _ . ��\ � � _7 �.ow�ma.�aso..�:e�ea�e��itirnroo�yw..
„�z vro,,., n a� s« .i n+,�.�..., � .e � �'A �- ,•��� ° �3 , ` � Gv w aa��o�.
m,`e. _` �° I }{. wsi P . I1lS�ltLlt1011eu a„q«iiam. coe..use�eu,ew �
' xn.0 3
� _ �,.,,a ; .««,� �.o ....�.,��....�, �Fs , N"'""M% . v w�� < . � ,..� ..�,o....�� �� ..... �"' � . � \.. i i - (I-1)Sub-District«,�,�,�.�,�.�,
,.� a.�o.,, a °S "_ ., a. «..�.. g o- .,ti , .o... a,�...<..� a . � `� j �I-2�Sub-DistPlCt�w��;e..�.,���a�aia�..aa�
i �� P ..d ` oN o.. . , w.ma.s,� � r fr : � �m r � _ � I � (I-3)Sub-District��,�,°�j es.v���wes�e
'i �,•'.a..sa � 'k .�.� a ` .,.,,� �...,.. �� � �ow� o % �_ �, .��,�. �„�,.H - �\" .. .� �+� ,..,. 7heodoreWMh #� a? j 0 �I-4)Sub-District��m�me�o�Ks,W�orounaane
� � 3 e , , -, g 8 $ . �`1 fteg(onal Park � , �� � /j-5�SUb-�1StI'1Cf 1«m�w�es.e�c)
o A =
a =
, .
••^,., �- ' .,.� ..,„„ � „�; ;: ''° . i;dPls Park S Rec Board7
, � � ,�o., .. � .
�,� w.w,... ' . : n.�aµ.. � �, W .. - � , ..^ . . �;'�, l
- . �
' . ° , .. ,, Q anne ru eve en )
:.. , ... u
, a � t U
� o �,..�fl,� ,�. � � .�,�., �, U D 1
N. ,
� _� _ . ,t a �_.._ g" ��� Pl d p �
� ���� � y,� s9 o m t P D
! � � � � � o�,.,�, a a �'�' - _ _ ' � �
. �.,.... P�,._, ,.
� '��.��"«'"" �� . ,,,� °� = : � '�� �, `'������������� - ` � + � t�`�., I-394 Overlay Zoi�1g Dvstrict(Zones A,B,C�
..-
, ��, . _
: e �
. .� ,:- R a � �
s
;
a
0
� . _ ���� 3 , « �
. :
:
;y . o. °�ao, � , � �
s .
. a ,
Ih p zz ,.., .M�N<.e i a
�P ..,,.,,,,z. ,,,, . ` � Flood Plain Management Zoning Overlay District
: . .�a'a.,....
_� : . . ,., ,.„� '
'"^,^" '.;,.� ` � �"`�'" 93 � E See the Ol�i al Fbotl Zone VrolAe aM Map o�rk wim u+a c�y-n,e�o�aon o�rooa aor�s
ya�'g ('"��` �� 98 ;,s ' � ° /� � i wne�.a-n me Fmoe m.�a���M�vdun..i oi 2 am s or z Hemedn courM exn,e.on.
g±, ` a
i �dN��X��4W�+ .w,m.n� i.- . `. : .... 2 .i i �„ � � _, / ^ . 1 aN�unaMctons EaleA SeWember 2 2004 ndUS�l9ihe FboC Inwrance Rale Ma%la ihe GiQ�
i'y > Av'� ` 51 -' ���aa c+5� . �6 46n � ,y�s��� '.s `� � ; P ,l 6lt,^[Rr.. 6t 84. �\a � 27054C0951 E'�neh 2�053C0194 E 27(153CO213 E,2]053G02/4 E 27053G0332 E.
t / - of 0ol0en Veley
' g- � 42 ` � ^h�f 27053C0352 E anE 2]053G0350 E.Cat<O Sephmber 2 2000
j � 5 � _ � w.,�� j
25 . . ... 5. ., �� ,� .- . . v.k
i - ;a$�� � J �y ��J � �s,aw1d17deOV�er�l�y DistfiCt
a
� �� 77 ' ' - 100 9 � /or a.�ea�ar,z.tro w eaea w+�.r+.
� .
' �+�^ -" ` � *. 5 33
j . ' � va , .. � � � �
,
= z '.�.o�
. _ - . a.. �. ,b,u,
� _�; ,,,� � .ss K ,.. - - .. �
�
;
• �e a..�. ... ,,,,,� 39 ,. „.� .
�
,,,,�
a �
� �. °""^^,e,,,,...,� � -...72 m 3 ` � .m. �+.. ..� � �' „ 2 `°'" ro.a, . , .. s�-�.a.�.; „�.�.r. Rr roaro�e�iwzoi+ m
� .
a
i. . � � 47 + •� � M ma(2 1
o,
:
; F s
. ° �- ,«M� ,1 �,a ��" � �.
�.+ s��,.�,.�'�e = -
� . ; > x .wa ,�,as
�,I. �, . _� ....., ""'E°"..' M«; " _ . ,ry coide�v y a��an. r .
f- _ ` � oRrnM,me�:k�n _ � _. „ �„r m
> > . . . ��.,s; , .�...
e
- ., > - ' 34 � - .
� �
% n.� . .. _ . .. ._. , = �o..
_ � � w�4.,e��� : , �„�. z v � �YUi ���I �
' C�o co on o�
, - o o � , �< � - �
; w.n9� . �
..
a . � ,� ' ,;� " ; ' r°' w^^�•^��•• . � � O a aoo�p^aoo� t eoo/ �x.aoo 3.zoo
S
wea
28
.-/i:� „ , � �, ti..a,�. 3 ..��;�:. ; g � ,.�a' ,��`` � t.8�f@ a . c. F.a
>
.a 1 ^
c g ,
4 a a
�' , � �-v,.; ',< e
'3 f?llei9tMifis x.�ie<.. aa� ��;.�@ �. o ` � �
i � - P
x 0 vre� � �i° 5 ..��a... o , � o d� b � �.,� Q .d.� £ a . � _
.,. ,.
] '� i � ... � .. e > o ,. � �s�� j rM.o� - ... � I Z
�� �`�� �, o��'� j&,a;� _ � `" � _ � � a 'a'." � ' � ,� � _ � .,,,, a � �� �. i ` APProved Amendments: Official Zoning Map
�.� _--- ,+r � �, a,�.,.�, 3 � ���` � � � � ..F�s��,�w � Cit Council
1
w N
;
.
,
,
�� . : _„ a.,,.�'��r�,,,. -. ��-: -'� . i "'" . � � � , � � OrdinanceNumber Y
�
r
�
. �
:
� �_--, � . :s , �o . � . 4!'3 . r Ado tion Date
>
s
� �
, � �
, �
„i` ..__ ...� �,>M,;,,. �' � �� "° . ,,, Ro_e,.�, -
,.�
<
_ ___ . � :
• �. .,..
,. �•<.
,< ,: ,
.�«^"
- �= w.�� �o�..�e,a '� . �. � � ° .. .� u omm
.e �' � ------------
. ; g a- !
Q i; . ,.. � � s: " co � ° ,o .. ' �W.n.d.o .� �.. . . . ... � . .. ..., �
�' 7is yy � q� T Y� �i : r - ro 8 = �:.� .„ c w N �oi...m<�.__'___'_'_' ___
o; i `+ _ ! ¢ _ , y F ...�,. a a a � '�� � <� B '�,.>,� ��
.
•.,, ,
; -
� ,
,
a
;
.
e
o � 'j g $ ;
r �- - o�.;�:.. q,� "'^e°-a^^ i ' ' 4„� � , p '�
F� ,.r " eauaw I o� i j w�,r . 6`� ... caom.lw �k�. R �� . i
..,,s RDINANC NO 271 2NDSERIES
. , ;.: � : t y. O
c, :,r �F 18-A ,� , �.�,..�.a I a E
��..� � .. . , ..:.�,,, , Aa ... � . `� w _ ....�
� �� -� ��� '" ,,. •' this is the Official Zoning Ma referted to in Section 71.11
„ ` �t. ,� �..,,..,��. �., , . ' w 4
� ,I� , �,�� j/�/�j// j//I j �>; ^^" �z of the ZoninglChapler of the City Code of lhe Cily of Golden Valley.
h � i.-
�,�,R �
..., e . ,. r .. ma
� �� ; /f / / � �$ a �,� Adopted this 22nd day of November 2002.
:�
-'�t 91 � � ,� °/ %. ���'���� .. . . ,/� ..�` ._ , �°i .?`�C :..'�L�
67 � � /=��y�._7 /''i% /%/ t � � O •y�, _,,,�..:. J�i.
. ,� „���. �.,�n�, ,/ . £ ��� !���;j i " �%/ �/ '-' � ��. J�':J'}' `Y/,,��
.. ,- 95 ,....��.y.�..: �,,.�,e ;j - � .�:.. . . j��,;/ �/� .�i �y?�. t�uh� n j F' -�j ��
�� .: ��,>. � / e s.�
- ( /� ���'- �/�/����i�////i. IG �,„�,,
8 � i
..� c�it'„(:�-.-_�--._._.w<�_� . �..-�--- --- - �� . ��'=-�-- /�/%////////////� '"�,1� �.,. � a LINDA R IOOMIS AYOR �
_ s�•A� q .-. '�.�t,.te,
_-_---_--- --------_= _.._..- -
�� � y {��
)F ...'y._' "_" _"_'_'_'_'_"_"'_'_ . .. , C-'� . . � . � � �'� �•�-
,p .
"^y 'U
�,
✓���:. (./�l!�!� � .:�v�.rnx �'[fGt� OlI�YL(d ,',�,��:.
9P.LOI;CS L_\0.L • 3 ;."_ I � � A � - �J.r,,,..a.L3
II �
_'___"__'_, �
Lake ,,,�,_, � , a =° ., .�
i crrt�oF sT.coo�s i�nax � � � � � � A �,�� ��
a { '`{
�,�� I �< ��� � a ,��, nnesc "c"'v �- �'$,,,�,�'"�
Ciry of Goldan Vallay _ �A� , � p DONALD G.TAYLOR, CITY CLERK '�xt„� ,;�,s��
�, t �G�:t%f�
PlannnqDepartment I" '�+ 't : ? � ' � BroNmie
7800 Golden Valley RoaA � � ;� ; F " 3
caas�v�iav MN 55427-0588 � � r' : � z � a +oe q ,w r�' � LBke
��` C�Maps�Zonin9�P.Ptl1
�_ .,,,rtb._ psM
www.goldenvalleymn.gov �+wau.a.�____,�__.— --_