pc-minutes-mar-9-20
REGULAR MEETING MINUTES
1. Call to Order
The meeting was called to order at 7:03 by Chair Blum
Roll Call
Commissioners present: Ron Blum, Adam Brookins, Chuck Segelbaum, Lauren Pockl, Rich Baker, Ari
Prohofsky
Commissioners absent: Andy Johnson, Ryan Sadeghi
Staff present: Jason Zimmerman – Planning Manager, Myles Campbell – Planner
Council Liaison present: Gillian Rosenquist
2. Approval of Agenda
Chair Blum, asked for a motion to approve the agenda.
MOTION made by Commissioner Segelbaum, seconded by Commissioner Baker to approve the
agenda of March 9, 2020, as submitted and the motion carried unanimously.
3. Approval of Minutes
Chair Blum asked for a motion to approve the minutes from February 24, 2020.
MOTION made by Commissioner Brookins, seconded by Commissioner Segelbaum to approve
the meeting minutes from February 10, 2020, as submitted. Commissioner Pockl and
Commissioner Baker abstained due to not attending the February 10th meeting. The remaining
commissioners voted and the motion carried.
4. Discussion – Narrow Lot Regulation
Jason Zimmerman, Planning Manager, began the presentation with a recap of the request to the
Planning Commission from City Council. In order to accurately convey the Council’s direction,
Zimmerman introduced Councilmember Gillian Rosenquist to speak as the liaison.
Councilmember Gillian Rosenquist began her presentation by mentioning the Joint Board,
Commission, and Council meeting where a high‐level overview was given on how all three work
together. The duties of each group were reviewed and specifically how the Commission uses their
resident expertise to provide feedback on items as directed by Council. Related to this, Rosenquist
reviewed the history of narrow lots and the unique situation in Golden Valley of tax parcel
subdivision prior to a formal City Zoning code.
Council asked the Commission to address certain areas within the conversation around narrow lots.
The Commission was asked to focus on lots 50 feet wide or less and investigate possible zoning
March 9, 2020 – 7 pm
Council Chambers
Golden Valley City Hall
7800 Golden Valley Road
City of Golden Valley Planning Commission Regular Meeting
March 9, 2020 – 7 pm
2
modifications to the City Code for narrow lot development. They were asked to utilize resident
feedback as well as that from outside experts. The Council wanted recommendations before the
building season started in Spring of 2020.
Chair Blum thanked Councilmember Rosenquist for presenting and asked for clarification as he felt
she was telling the Commission to not consider neighborhood character when reviewing height
and massing but to then make sure those items fit in Golden Valley. Blum asked the
Councilmember if the comprehensive plan and how legislation is formed are important factors in
how the Commission comes to their decisions. CM Rosenquist agreed that those things are
important factors in the commission’s decision making, but reiterated that neighborhood character
can mean different things to different people and stated that the Commission should wrestle less
with neighborhood character and more with height, massing, and setbacks. Blum asked if the
comprehensive plan is the guide for how the Commission is to respond to height, massing, and
setbacks. CM Rosenquist responded that the comprehensive plan is the big picture and that the
Council recognizes this is a narrow question within that big picture.
Commissioner Segelbaum asked if the Council wasn’t satisfied with the current lot regulations and
if that was the motivation for a deeper dive from the Commission. CM Rosenquist responded that
the focus was 50 feet or less due to the number of non‐conformities created by reviewing lots
between 50‐80 feet wide. Looking at the areas with lots that are 50 feet wide or less, they’re legally
plated and are eligible for construction, what would the Commission like those areas of
construction to look like. If there’s a situation where all the lots are built on, make it so the buildings
fit into the comprehensive plan for the future.
Zimmerman reviewed the February 10th meeting, staff recommendations for narrow lot
regulations, and Commissioner feedback to see the “big picture”. Staff created a list of nine
proposed changes, what the staff recommendation is, and how that impacts the bigger picture.
The items are in black and staff recommendations are in blue.
1. Side yard setbacks
Minimum side yard setback of 5 feet
2. Garage stall requirements
Allow one‐car garages for lots 50 feet in width or less; limit garage width to 65%
of façade
3. Slope of “tent” portion of building envelope
Set vertical : horizontal slope of “tent” portion of building envelope to 2:1
4. Side wall height at side setback line
Lower wall height at side setback line to 13 feet
5. Second story dormers
Allow second story dormers to extend outside building envelope
6. Side wall articulation
Prohibit side wall articulation from extending into side yard setback; no principal
structures within 5 feet of property line
7. Secondary front yard setbacks
City of Golden Valley Planning Commission Regular Meeting
March 9, 2020 – 7 pm
3
Reduce secondary front yard setback to 15 feet for lots 65 feet in width or less;
maintain 22 feet of building envelope width
8. Lot coverage
Eliminate lot coverage allowance of 40% for lots under 5,000 square feet
9. Amount of impervious surfaces
No recommended changes
Commissioner Segelbaum asked about item 3 and why the ratio doesn’t have a qualifier.
Zimmerman stated the 2:1 ratio is the current regulation for lots 65 feet and wider, applying this
ratio to narrow lots would align the standard practice. Segelbaum followed up by asking if any
other item will impact lots over 65’ or wider. Zimmerman stated most items are for lots 50’ and
under, some items state up to 65’ wide lots and that’s to eliminate the gap between 50’‐65’.
Commissioner Baker asked if dormers will be regulated to lots 50’ wide or less and Zimmerman
responded that’s the focus as lots wider than that, tend to have the space for a full second story.
Commissioner Brookins asked if #4 would target all lots and Zimmerman stated it’s targeted for
lots 50’ wide and under.
The Commissioners proceeded to have a conversation around the items presented. The
Commissioners asked about zoning code history, past conversations about changes, and number
of lots impacted.
Commissioners Baker, Brookins, and Segelbaum stated that staff recommendations are
reasonable.
Blum mentioned the concept of buildability and mentioned a brochure by the MN Department of
Labor and Industry titled “Tiny Houses and the 2020 MN Residential Code”. Blum said the
document contemplates homes between 100‐400 sq feet. He asked staff if that size house is less
or more than what the Commission has been contemplating for the narrow lots. Zimmerman stated
it’s significantly less. Blum stated his point was to show that buildability could include a wide variety
of housing styles and sizes and that Commissioners consider what they determine to be a buildable
home
Baker stated his desire to see the pamphlet Blum referenced and reiterated the objectivity of the
term buildability. Zimmerman reminded the group of the difference between aesthetic: paint
color, siding, architectural style; and character: rhythm of housing‐massing and height. The goal of
the City is not to tell people what kind of home they can have but rather and height and scale so
rules for building are maintained.
The discussion continued and revolved around setbacks, how setbacks relate to the height of the
building envelope, changing the tent to be a 1:1 if it begins from the property line, and reviewing
mockups of some of the suggestions.
Commissioner Pockl asked staff if the City of Golden Valley has minimum house size requirements.
Staff responded that the code mainly revolves around a 22‐foot wide requirement for homes. The
City does not allow for tiny homes that exist on a trailer and then are wheeled on a property, mainly
because of utility needs and footings. Directly addressing tiny homes hasn’t been a priority for
Golden Valley thus far.
5. Discussion – Public Input Process
City of Golden Valley Planning Commission Regular Meeting
March 9, 2020 – 7 pm
4
Jason Zimmerman, Planning Manager, began the conversation by revisiting a document that has been
on the Planning Commission website which illustrates the public comment process for a meeting. This
particular document is similar to that which directs the same process at a City Council meeting.
Zimmerman sent the document to Commission members with the suggestion that the list be placed
on the podium and on the front table so everyone attending a meeting with public input knows what
to expect. Upon receipt of this procedure, the Chair suggested there be a public conversation.
During this introduction the Chair passed around a document to the Commission members.
Chair Blum stated he was handing out a model Planning Commission policy, and that it was his belief
that the procedure guidelines shared by staff were premature. Blum stated that guidelines summarize
a policy and believed that there wasn’t a policy set by the City to enforce the listed guidelines. Blum
listed specific items in the guidelines that he would like to see amended. Commissioner Baker first
thanked the Chair for his insights and that he looks forward to the amending process. Baker added his
uncertainty on if the Planning Commission is responsible for amending this process. Baker shared his
concern with the Chair handing out the model document to the Commissioners, due to the fact that
there wasn’t a way to share the document with the public and the lack of attribution. Baker stated
that he felt the Commission members should return the document to the Chair. Blum responded that
he requested this item be added to a future meeting and felt the guideline process was being rushed.
After some dialogue, the Chair asked what the intention of staff was with this topic. Zimmerman
responded the intention of staff was to receive feedback on a process that has been public for some
time, and if the current Commission wanted to make it the official process. Referencing the document
provided by the Chair, Zimmerman noted the document appearing to be a rewrite of the Planning
Commission bylaws. This would be outside the powers of the Commission, as the Council sets and
approves bylaws for all boards and commissions. Zimmerman noted that the City Attorney advised
staff that the Commission has the ability to create its own public process for taking input, just as the
Council did for their meetings. Commissioner Segelbaum stated that he moved to approve the agenda
as it was written in the beginning of the meeting and if the agenda was changing, the Commission
needed to follow the correct order of procedure to do that. Segelbaum added that the guidelines are
something the Commission has informally followed and it gives the public notice for process and how
to follow. He added that it’s the Chair’s prerogative to modify as they see fit and he’d like to adopt the
guidelines.
Baker, Segelbaum, and Commissioner Brookins agreed that the guidelines are in line with current
practice and Baker suggested the Chair revise the guidelines and present a new draft to the
Commission.
Brookins added that he is not comfortable not having a process to provide the public and made a
MOTION to move forward with the public input process as laid out in the guidelines on the website.
After further discussion, the Chair stated that the motion failed due to lack of a second. Blum
reiterated that he would like to know the origin of the guidelines and under what authority they were
established. Zimmerman stated the Commission does have under its authority, the ability to set the
public input process for the Commission. Segelbaum stated that a resolution may not occur this
evening and he didn’t second Brookins’ motion because he wasn’t certain a formal vote needed to
occur in order to approve the guidelines that are already public. Segelbaum added that if the Chair
CityofGoldenValley PlanningCommissionRegularMeeting
March9,2020–7pm
5
wouldlikeavotetoclarifyconsensus,heaskedtheChairmakethatdeterminationandholdavote.
BakeraddedthatiftheChairhaslegalquestionsthenheshouldconsultwiththeCityAttorney.
MariaCisneros,CityAttorneyfortheCityofGoldenValley,stoodbeforetheCommissionandstated
thetopicathandwasabout“RulesofProcedure”whichdifferfromtheBylaws.TheCouncilhastheir
ownRulesofProcedureforhowtheirmeetingsarerunasdoestheCommission.TheCityhasnot
historicallyadoptedstrictRulesofProcedureasothercitieshave.Cisneroshasn’tbeenabletoreview
allthemeetingminutesforpastPlanningCommissionmeetingsbutherbeliefisthatthecurrent
guidelinesarepubliclypostedbecausetheywereoncedeterminedbyapreviousCommission.Cisneros
saidit’swithintheCommission’sabilitytoadopttheguidelinesasthey’relistedortheymayeditas
theyseefitandadoptthose.BakerechoedCisneros’recommendationandCommissionerPockl
agreed.TheCommissionmadeafewimmediateeditsonwordchoices.
Televisionportionofthemeetingconcludedat9:11pm
6. CommissionerTraining–Variances
7. CouncilLiaisonReport
CouncilmemberRosenquistprovidedanupdatetoCommissionersontheStateoftheCityeventat
NewBohemia.SheprovidedanupdateontheJointBoardCommissionandsaidthatlackofattendance
wasnoted,therewillbeanincreasedefforttopromoteattendanceforthenextmeeting.
8. ReportsonMeetingsoftheHousingandRedevelopmentAuthority,CityCouncil,BoardofZoning
Appeals,andothermeetings
CouncilmemberRosenquistupdatedCommissionersonaproclamationissuedbytheCityCouncil
opposingconversiontherapy.TheCouncilwillalsobeencouragingrepresentativestosupportthebill
introducedbytheSenatetobanthepracticeofconversiontherapyinthestateofMinnesota.There
wasalsoabilltointroducerapidtransiton55andtheCouncilManagermeetingwilldiscussaffordable
housing.
9. OtherBusiness
MariaCisneros,CityAttorney,informedCommissionersthattheywillsoonreceiveemailaddresses
withtheCityofGoldenValleydomain.
10. Adjournment
MOTIONmadebyCommissionerPockl,secondedbyCommissionerBakerandthemotioncarried
unanimouslytoadjournthemeetingat9:57PM.
________________________________
AdamBrookins,Secretary
________________________________
AmieKolesar,PlanningAssistant