pc-minutes-jul-13-20
REGULAR MEETING MINUTES
This meeting was held via Webex in accordance with the local emergency declaration made by
the City under Minn. Stat. § 12.37. In accordance with that declaration, beginning on March 16,
2020, all Planning Commission meetings held during the emergency were conducted
electronically. 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. The public was able to participate in this
meeting during public comment sections, by dialing the public call‐in line.
1. Call to Order
The meeting was called to order at 7:00 by Chair Blum.
Roll Call
Commissioners present: Rich Baker, Ron Blum, Adam Brookins, Andy Johnson, Lauren Pockl, Chuck
Segelbaum,
Commissioners absent: 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 Brookins, seconded by Commissioner Johnson to approve the
agenda of July 13, 2020. Staff called a roll call vote and the motion carried unanimously.
3. Approval of Minutes
Chair Blum asked for a motion to approve the minutes from June 22, 2020.
MOTION made by Commissioner Brookins, seconded by Commissioner Pockl to approve the June
22, 2020 meeting minutes. Staff called a roll call vote and the motion carried unanimously.
4. Informal Public Hearing – Zoning Text Amendment
Revising the Density Range of the Medium Density Residential (R‐3) Zoning District
Applicant: City of Golden Valley
Jason Zimmerman, Planning Manager, introduced this item as a required follow‐up from the
approved 2040 Comprehensive Plan. When Met Council approves the Comp Plan, the future land use
map needs to show development patterns at certain density thresholds. This showing, ensures each
community in the metro area can accommodate its share of projected growth. Once the plans are
adopted, the zoning maps and text must be updated to come into alignment. Zimmerman displayed
July 13, 2020 – 7 pm
City of Golden Valley Planning Commission Regular Meeting
July 13, 2020 – 7 pm
2
a chart for the Commissioners comparing the current zoning code to the language in the 2040
Comprehensive Plan. Most of the items align but the current R‐3 code language needs updating in
order to align with the 2040 Plan. Zimmerman expanded in greater detail and listed all the multi‐
family buildings to see how they matched the zoning designation; during this process, staff
discovered 14 buildings that were non‐conforming. After more research, staff discovered older
zoning policies that lead to this non‐conformity but once the R‐3 language is updated, this will be
remedied and the buildings would match their zoning designation. The exiting R‐3 language has
Density Bonuses which included underground parking, a building being near public transit, and
offering a private recreation facility for its residents. Most of these items were in place when Golden
Valley was developing, now that the City is built out so staff believes the density bonuses should be
removed so the R‐3 district will align with the other zoning districts.
Staff Recommendation
Amend the text of the Medium Density Residential (R‐3) Zoning District to revise the allowed density
range and strike the density bonus provisions.
Commissioner Segelbaum asked if the buildings listed were rezoned, could they be re‐developed
into 20 units per acre. Staff confirmed and added that they could be up to 20 units or if they were a
senior building, they could be 30 units. Chair Blum asked staff what extent does the current PUD on
any of the properties create another step in the process if there’s a change in zoning. Zimmerman
responded that if there are existing PUDs, that reigns over the zoning designation. The conversation
continued into the possibilities of negotiating re‐development with PUDs and PUD amendments. The
discussion evolved into requirements and process for new or re‐developments after re‐designating
the zoning.
Chair Blum opened the Public Hearing at 7:30pm
Rick Gripentrog
7533 Harold Ave
I’m curious about the area we’re talking about, this area is south of Highway 55, east of Winnetka,
north of Harold Ave, and west of Rhode Island Ave.
Zimmerman responded to the caller and informed him that this call is referring to the second item
on the agenda; the caller continued with his comments.
I understand that you can have up to 20‐30 units per acre and is this area 6 acres?
Zimmerman wasn’t certain as the details were not in front of him.
I’m concerned about the density, doing this development imposes livability issues and traffic issues.
This proposal was brought up before and there were similar concerns about livability and traffic then.
I don’t want to see 2 story apartments with underground parking, it’s not conducive to good livability.
The Chair opened the discussion on this item and stated underground parking doesn’t need to be
tied to density and it can be a nice amenity; it also may leave room for green space. This led the
conversation into developing properties with the largest density and the least cost. Incentives can be
useful as it leads to a more livable building for longer. Segelbaum expressed his concern over making
City of Golden Valley Planning Commission Regular Meeting
July 13, 2020 – 7 pm
3
a such a large decision without a deeper dive in repercussions. The discussion moved in to projected
population growth and city development as well as the Comp Plan and what that means with the
approval from Met Council. Commissioner Johnson recalled conversations around the
comprehensive plan and growth of the city outpacing the projections of the Met Council. He added
that growth has been sustained and managed, specifically through PUDs, and doesn’t understand
how aligning with Met Council’s projections will improve Golden Valley’s current plan. Commissioner
Baker asked staff to expand; Zimmerman clarified that this wasn’t an alignment with another plan
but rather ensuring Golden Valley’s zoning and land use will meet the density projections in Golden
Valley’s comp plan. Without that action, the City won’t have the correct zoning to match its density
projections.
Paula Pentel
941 Angelo Drive
Calling about the new R‐3 density, this is a wonderful for the city to consider doing. It brings
conformity and I don’t think we need to worry about current units because they aren’t going
anywhere or changing. Being consistent about what we want to see moving forward, is a very good
idea. I was on the Council when the area across 55 was rezoned, the various neighbors riled up and
the existing Council backed down. We sit just to the west of Minneapolis and we have a great
obligation to provide good density of housing.
Commissioner Pockl cited attachment language on section of code 113‐90, “within the principle uses
under the medium density residential zoning district that 1,2,3,4 are required to be consistent with
the City’s mixed income housing policy” and asked how the City would be inconsistent with the
mixed income housing policy. Zimmerman responded that the phrase was added when the policy
was passed and wanted to be clear that new multi‐family units were required to have a certain
number of affordable units.
Edward Chesen
7507 Harold Ave
This proposal to rezone came up 10 years ago and I was president of our townhome association and
had been a member of the board of building review, I was also a caller that was riled up, but for good
reason. The reasons stand today, I don’t know if the Commission has considered what has happened
in that area since the proposal was turned down. The developers that wanted to develop the area
backed out and some smaller developers came in and developed a number of units into single family
housing. There’s a lot more to this than the serenity of the neighborhood. I wonder if the property
owners in light of the rezoning turn down would have legal recourse to have their property zone
changed again.
Zimmerman added that the latest call is related to the second public hearing.
The Chair added that he doesn’t like the idea of the City losing its leverage to make the kind of
development happen that it wants to see happen, including amenities or tweaks to specific
properties. Zimmerman said a number of Commissioners have agreed that there needs to be a way
that this complies with the Comp Plan but this may not be the best approach. He added that if
City of Golden Valley Planning Commission Regular Meeting
July 13, 2020 – 7 pm
4
Commissioners are open, this item be tabled so they can find a way to comply per Met Council but
create a broader list of checks and balances. Brookins stated his support for what’s presented and
believes it’ll benefit Golden Valley in the long‐term. He added that he’d hate to see this item go
through another 10‐year cycle before it’s addressed again. Commissioner Baker stated his support
for tabling the item in order to collect additional information. Segelbaum and Pockl echoed Baker’s
statement.
MOTION made by Commissioner Baker, seconded by Commissioner Brookins to table this agenda
item and discuss at a later meeting with additional information. A roll call vote was made and passed
unanimously.
5. Informal Public Hearing – Zoning Map Amendments
Rezoning Properties to Achieve Conformance with the 2040 Comprehensive Plan
Applicant: City of Golden Valley
Jason Zimmerman, Planning Manager, stated the request to continue rezoning properties in order to
conform with the Future Land Use Map in the 2040 Comp Plan. Staff reminded Commissioners that
this started with the rezoning of the I‐394 Mixed Use properties. A map was then displayed of the
existing zoning map and the future land use map, in order to illustrate how rezoning will take place
as the City comes into conformity with the comp plan.
Zimmerman expressed that there are NO active development proposals for any properties that are
currently under consideration for rezoning, this item is strictly administrative.
There are six groups being addressed in this rezoning and includes 18 properties. Majority of them
are being rezoned to match what is currently on the ground. A few are being rezoned in anticipation
of future plans.
Group 1
9201 Olson Memorial Highway
8900 Betty Crocker Drive
Rezoning Office to Institutional Subdistrict I‐4
Group 2
1 General Mills Boulevard Rezoning Industrial District to Office District
Group 3
7831 Olson Memorial Hwy
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
Rezoning Single‐Family Residential (R‐1)
Medium Density Residential (R‐3)
Any development proposals in this area would require a traffic study.
City of Golden Valley Planning Commission Regular Meeting
July 13, 2020 – 7 pm
5
Group 4
5635 Glenwood Ave
5701 Glenwood Ave
Rezoning Single‐Family Residential (R‐1) to
Medium Density Residential (R‐3)
Group 5
501 Theodore Wirth Parkway Rezoning High Density Residential (R‐4) to
Medium Density Residential (R‐3)
Group 6
5073 Wayzata Boulevard Office to Commercial
1513 Utica Ave S Office to High Density Residential (R‐4)
Zimmerman closed his presentation by stating State statute requires all zoning designations to be
consistent with the land uses identified in the Comp Plan within nine months of adoption.
If the City chooses not to rezone any of these properties, the Future Land Use Map would need to be
amended with the Met Council.
Staff Recommendation
Following the provisions of State statute (sec. 473.858, subd. 1) and the requirements of the
Metropolitan Council with respect to comprehensive planning, staff recommends the 18 identified
properties be rezoned as indicated.
Commissioner Pockl asked if some of the groups could be approved and others tabled, considering
the previous agenda item was tabled. Staff said each group could be looked at separately and
approved or tabled.
Chair Blum opened the public hearing at 8:24pm.
Tina Prokosch
7601 Harold Ave
I’m calling about group three, was this considered to be rezoned to an R‐2? That would align with the
other areas around here are an R‐2 zoning and I’m concerned what an R‐3 zoning will do to this area.
Martha Johnson
7647 Harold Ave
Why does Golden Valley seem to think rezoning group three is beneficial? The answer cannot be to
increase density as I believe Golden Valley has met our density requirement. It would appear rezoning
this area is out of character with surrounding areas.
Colin
City of Golden Valley Planning Commission Regular Meeting
July 13, 2020 – 7 pm
6
7511 Harold
Calling in general support of the rezoning movement across the city and specifically related to the
Winnetka and 55 intersection. I think there are a lot of city infrastructure that can support that type
of development. If we’re going to be a sustainable and economically viable city, we need to be
progressive see these types of changes as good.
The Chair asked staff if the area was considered for R‐2 designation. Zimmerman showed a map and
said that during Planning Commission meetings, the lots addressed were not considered for R‐2 as
those are small single‐family lots or duplexes. The discussion moved into the number of units per
acre, building size limits, storm water regulations, and open space requirements.
Eric Pederson
130 Louisiana Ave N
A giant building on the intersection of Harold and Winnetka would make an already busy traffic area,
a disaster when Covid ends. Not to mention I think we’ve done a good job building high density
housing, including the monstrosity on Xenia that seems to be taking 5 years to build. My point is that
we had an organized group 9 years ago, we gathered hundreds of signatures against a 5‐story
building in our neighborhood when nothing is taller than really 2 stories. I would ask you to see notes
from this time and we were told no developments on Rhode Island and this neighborhood would
occur and it had to be re‐zoned to be re‐developed. The area stayed as R‐1 and R‐2 and houses were
built there. This area should remain R‐2 to stay consistent with the neighborhood. We will organize
again to prevent this re‐zoning.
Tara Fini
7517 Harold Ave
I support the ordinance, we live in very nice area; the city has a lot to offer in terms of multi‐family
housing that isn’t an eyesore. Maybe the city should do work to help residents understand what the
project is and what it isn’t. Doesn’t seem like there’s enough understanding of what this will look like.
Commissioners discussed this item and the history of it as it was brought up by callers. Commissioner
Segelbaum stated he’d approve the groups but wants to look closer at group three before deciding.
Commissioner Pockl echoed this and wants to discuss more details around group three.
Commissioner Brookins stated his support of all the groups but would leave group 5 as a R‐4, he
doesn’t see a change occurring. The Chair asked staff what their direction is. Zimmerman stated the
Council would like a recommendation but group three can be tabled for further discussion.
Commissioner Johnson made final comments regarding the potential inability to preserve trees and
green space with building 4‐5 story buildings. As well as assuming people will utilize land bridges just
because of their existence.
MOTION made by Commissioner Segelbaum and seconded by Commissioner Pockl to approve the
rezoning designations for groups 1,2,4,5,6. A roll call vote was made and passed unanimously.
City of Golden Valley Planning Commission Regular Meeting
July 13, 2020 – 7 pm
7
MOTION made by Commissioner Segelbaum and seconded by Commissioner Brookins to table the
designations relative to group 3 for further discussion. A roll call vote was made and passed
unanimously.
6. Discussion – Architectural and Material Standards for Mixed Use Properties
Jason Zimmerman, Planning Manager, reminded the group that when the City adopted architectural
and material standards for new developments in the R‐3, R‐4, Commercial, Office, Institutional, Light
Industrial, and Industrial zoning districts; the Mixed‐Use district had not been finalized or adopted.
This discussion will be to revisit the regulations that were adopted previously and to begin to outline
the parameters for standards in the Mixed‐Use zoning district. Details regarding the elements are in
the memo. Chair Blum stated he recalls the conversation, likes the list, and supports the need for
consistency. Commissioners Brookins, Segelbaum, and Pockl echoed the Chair’s statement.
7. Discussion – Fences, Screening, and Garden Structures
Myles Campbell, Planner, stated that last year staff identified a number of areas in which the
existing code language regarding screening, and specifically fencing, could be improved upon.
Campbell expanded that the revisions are largely based on resident feedback and observed patterns
in how properties are utilizing fences and garden structures. The three items addressed surround
arterial road fence height exceptions, garden structures, and public safety screening exceptions.
Arterial Road Fence Height Exception
Current zoning code for residential properties limits the height of fences to 4 feet in the front yard of
homes. Fences up to 6 feet in height are allowed in rear and side yards, this allows for some privacy
between properties and to mitigate the carrying of noise. There is an existing exception for front yard
fences to extend beyond 4 feet in height and is based upon the property’s proximity to a major
roadway. A large number of variance requests have come before the BZA for properties that do not
adjoin a minor arterial, but which are separated by a frontage road from a large principal arterial
roadway. These properties experience similar or greater noise impacts and still need to pursue
variances. Calculating the number of variance requests, and that these requests are almost
unanimously found to be reasonable, staff feels a new exception should be included in the code for
homes that are adjacent to or directly across a frontage road from a principal arterial. Specific
language to follow.
Chair Blum asked if ROW plantings could be put in place instead of taller fences. Campbell recalled a
variance that utilized fencing and plantings but a greater conversation could occur. However, many
plantings won’t create enough mitigation for residents. Most of these examples are facing highways
or frontage roads, the fences generally won’t face neighbors or other houses.
Garden Structures
In both the R‐1 and R‐2, garden structures are required to be no less than 5 feet from any property
line, including the front property line, and the garden structure shall not exceed 10 feet in height.
City of Golden Valley Planning Commission Regular Meeting
July 13, 2020 – 7 pm
8
This was to allow these structures in front yards to provide decorative accents to residents’ gardens
and landscaping, and to make a delineation between these structures and sheds or detached
garages. Recently, staff noticed the use of substantial garden structures to provide screening above
the allowed 6 feet of fencing in residential neighborhoods. Staff is seeking some discussion and
feedback from the Commission on what action they’d like to take.
Chair Blum asked if the structure’s primary use is to screen, should it be removed from the code.
However, there’s a wide range of interpretation and altering dimensions of the structure may be
more concrete than stating a primary use. The conversation continued around possible dimension
and location restrictions, and how restrictive language should be regarding a specific number or a
certain percentage of the lot size.
Public Safety Screening Exception
For Commercial and Industrial properties, the City has strict restrictions on screening the property
and any outdoor storage. The goal was to promote greater cleanliness and order within the City’s
Commercial and Industrial districts. Recently, the Chief of Police raised an unintended consequence
of these stringent screening requirements. An outdoor storage facility opening in the City applied for
a fence permit, and presented a plan that would meet the City’s requirements; however, Police
asked if a portion of the screening requirement could be waived or reduced along the main street‐
side of the property due to safety monitoring. Staff feels that while one of the central tenants of the
zoning code is to promote the welfare of the City and its property owners, another equally important
consideration is the safety of the City. Staff’s initial thought is to treat this exception as an
administrative decision given that the decision to reduce the screening may be based upon different
sets of circumstances.
Televised portion of the meeting concluded at 9:37 pm
8. Council Liaison Report
Council Member Rosenquist reported that the agreement for Phase III of the Downtown Study
was approved by the City Council. Work will begin over the summer and continue into the fall.
The Council also accepted a bench donation from the family of Lisa Wittman. Rosenquist gave a
preview of the upcoming Council/Manager meeting which will focus on issues of equity and
policing. She encouraged Commissioners to visit the Mapping Prejudice website to see how the
use of racially restricted covenants spread across Golden Valley.
9. Reports on Meetings of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority, City Council, Board of Zoning
Appeals, and other meetings
10. Other Business
11. Adjournment
CityofGoldenValley PlanningCommissionRegularMeeting
July13,2020–7pm
9
MOTIONbyCommissionerBrookinstoadjourn,secondedbyCommissionBaker,andapproved
unanimously.Meetingadjournedat9:47pm.
________________________________
AdamBrookins,Secretary
________________________________
AmieKolesar,PlanningAssistant