pc-minutes-jul-27-20
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 Vice‐Chair Pockl.
Roll Call
Commissioners present: Rich Baker, Adam Brookins, Andy Johnson, Lauren Pockl, Ryan Sadeghi, Chuck
Segelbaum
Commissioners absent: Ron Blum
Staff present: Jason Zimmerman – Planning Manager, Myles Campbell – Planner
Council Liaison present: Gillian Rosenquist
2. Approval of Agenda
Vice‐Chair Pockl asked for a motion to approve the agenda.
MOTION made by Commissioner Baker, seconded by Commissioner Brookins to approve the agenda
of July 27, 2020. Staff called a roll call vote and the motion carried unanimously.
3. Approval of Minutes
Vice‐Chair Pockl asked for a motion to approve the minutes from July 13, 2020. Commissioner
Johnson asked for edits and requested two comments of his be added, one on each Public Hearing
item.
MOTION made by Commissioner Johnson, seconded by Commissioner Brookins to approve the
July 13, 2020 meeting minutes, after edits were made. Staff called a roll call vote and the motion
carried unanimously.
4. Informal Public Hearing – Zoning Text Amendment
Architectural and Material Standards for Mixed Use Properties
Applicant: City of Golden Valley
July 27, 2020 – 7 pm
City of Golden Valley Planning Commission Regular Meeting
July 27, 2020 – 7 pm
2
Jason Zimmerman, Planning Manager, stated that he did not have a presentation as that portion of
the discussion occurred at the previous meeting. He reminded Commissioners that in 2019, 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. These regulations addressed
many aspects of building façades, opening, entrances, and screening, as well as the types of materials
allowed in construction.
At that time, the Mixed Use zoning district had not been finalized or adopted, so standards were not
included for that district. With the adoption of the Mixed Use district early in 2020, it is now
necessary to amend the architectural and material standards section of code in order to address
buildings that may be developed in those areas.
Zimmerman reminded Commissioners about the material standards classification and what is
prohibited. He reviewed the standards set for each zoning district and that staff believes the Mixed
Use is most comparable to the Commercial, Office, and Institutional zoning districts and therefore
recommends similar standards.
Commissioner Brookins asked why concrete brick was prohibited. Zimmerman responded that there
was concern about plain concrete walls as the exposed face of the building. This is a prohibited use
across zoning districts.
Vice‐Chair Pockl opened the public hearing at 7:12 pm.
Commissioner Johnson stated consistency across zoning districts is important and a good idea, and
added his support of this item. Brookins echoed this statement and added that concrete brick can be
classified as a specialty concrete block, class II material; and it can be a tasteful finished product.
Brookins added it could be struck from this item and the language may be cleaned up in the other
zones at a later date. The conversation continued on to specifics about concrete brick versus block
and if this material is generally residential or commercial. Zimmerman asked if the prohibition on
concrete brick should be removed and specialty concrete block stay listed as a class II. Through
discussion, the Commissioners agreed that was a reasonable change to make, across districts.
Vice‐Chair Pockl closed the public hearing at 7:21 pm.
MOTION made by Commissioner Brookins and seconded by Commissioner Sadeghi to modify City
Code Section 113‐157: Architectural and Material Standards list by striking concrete brick from the
list of prohibited materials. Staff took a roll call vote and the motion carried unanimously.
5. Informal Public Hearing – Zoning Map Amendments
Revising the Density Range of the Medium Density Residential (R‐3) Zoning District
Applicant: City of Golden Valley
Jason Zimmerman, Planning Manager, started with a presentation and reminded Commissioners
that the conversation began at the last meeting and was tabled in an attempt to gather more
City of Golden Valley Planning Commission Regular Meeting
July 27, 2020 – 7 pm
3
information. He reiterated that when the City adopted the 2040 Comprehensive Plan, they
committed to considering certain text amendments in order to fulfill policy objectives included in the
plan; this is part of that required process.
Based on Commissioner feedback from the last meeting, staff is proposing a slightly different plan
with more oversight from the city:
Up to 15 units per acre
Increase to 20 units per acre with a Conditional Use Permit
Senior/disability housing up to 20 units per acre
Increase to 30 units per acres with a Conditional Use Permit
These items with also bring all R‐3 zoned properties into conformance.
Zimmerman displayed a list of properties to illustrate their current zoning and their proposed zoning,
he expanded on units per acre, density, as well as if the property had an existing PUD‐as that requires
a separate process to add units.
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, as detailed in the attached document
(Underline/Overstruck language for Sec. 113‐90 of the City Code).
Commissioner Baker asked if there was a correlation between density and affordability. Zimmerman
responded there isn’t a single answer to that question, Golden Valley has seen a very dense units
built that are also considered luxury apartments. That’s generally not the main goal however, with
more units in place, the average cost of rent can come down because of the sheer number of units.
The conversation evolved into density ranges, and accommodating Met Council’s predictions for
density growth. Baker asked why the concept of density bonuses was eliminated with the 2040 Comp
Plan. Zimmerman stated that the bonuses were so specific, that there wasn’t flexibility, they were
also limited to certain areas, limited to certain types, and limited to structured parking. Baker added
that other city priorities should be included as incentives as opposed to striking bonuses all together.
Zimmerman responded that it’s a good idea and should be worked on in collaboration with other
departments and then applied to multiple zoning districts. Commissioner Johnson asked if Golden
Valley has a lot of PUDs comparatively and what rezoning to an R‐3 solves if so many already are
PUDs. Zimmerman stated that cities use PUDs differently, many of the R‐3 properties are PUDs
because they were developed to almost resembled campuses, 3‐4 buildings with parking. By‐right is
one building so using a PUD, in those situations, made more sense. Additionally, Met Council realizes
that PUDs create unknowns for what density they actually create.
Vice‐Chair Pockl opened the public hearing at 7:56 pm.
Segelbaum said he liked the incentives to help provide added density and would like to lower the by‐
right number and then apply new incentives across zoning districts. The old incentives aren’t as
City of Golden Valley Planning Commission Regular Meeting
July 27, 2020 – 7 pm
4
applicable so finding new ones may help improve developments in Golden Valley. Baker echoed this
statement. Johnson added that a CUP is pretty straightforward and he doesn’t support that. The city
has a good level of growth and there seems to be a challenge with this central plan. Adding that if the
density increased to 15 units per acre that it seems to be in a landlord’s best interest to sell a
property and potential displace those living in the complex. Johnson reiterated that he struggles to
understand why the City needs to rezone to meet Met Council’s expectations when it appears the
City does a good job managing density already. Commissioner Sadeghi asked how the by‐right
number was raised to 15 and Zimmerman responded that it’s higher than the current number with
room to increase more with a CUP or PUD and then requires an extra city review. Sadeghi stated his
support for 15 units and 20 for senior housing. The conversation continued on whether or not to
keep the proposed number of units per acre or to drop it down and come back to discuss incentives.
The conversation then moved on to Met Council’s expectations and the growth projections for
Golden Valley.
Vice‐Chair Pockl closed the public hearing at 8:25 pm.
Brookins stated he’s not in favor of density bonuses. Adding that trying to predict what the
community needs is difficult and while may provide comfort isn’t generally successful. Pockl asked
staff how they determine what the community needs, in order to create incentives. Zimmerman said
he would go back to the Comp Plan and review goals in the plan. Baker added that the City has a
responsibility to incent the things they want to see happen, and would strengthen the incentives.
MOTION made by Commissioner Baker and seconded by Commissioner Brookins to table this item
so staff may prepare suggestions on incentives. Staff took a roll call vote and it passed unanimously.
6. Discussion – Fences, Screening, and Garden Structures
Myles Campbell, Planner, stated that this was a continued conversation from last meeting and
reminded Commissioners this discussion will be to introduce the proposed revisions as well as the
initial draft language for each.
There are three items for discussion and the first two were discussed at length at the previous
meeting:
Should lots indirectly adjacent to principal arterials have a front yard fence height
exception?
What is the best method to administer an exception to commercial/industrial screening
requirements as requested by GV Police?
Do the rules and definition of garden structures need to be refined to prevent their use as
screening extensions?
Arterial Road Fence Height Exception
Under the existing code, residential properties can have a fence up to a maximum of 4 feet in their
front yard.
City of Golden Valley Planning Commission Regular Meeting
July 27, 2020 – 7 pm
5
There is one exception to the 4 ft. height limitation, from § 113‐152, Subd. (d)(2)
A wall or fence not exceeding six feet in height is permitted in the front yard of all properties directly
adjoining a minor arterial street, as designated by the City.
The exception refers only to minor arterials, staff has recently seen an influx of variance requests for
lots that indirectly abut principal arterials. Principal Arterials are larger and have a greater impact on
properties from their heightened activity. Generally, staff and the BZA have found these requests
reasonable given the exception from § 113‐152, Subd. (d)(2) making 6 feet in height allowed for
lower impact roads. The number of variances, lead staff to believe this should be a code change.
Suggested Revision: Add the following underlined language to § 113‐152, Subd. (d)(2)
A wall or fence not exceeding six feet in height is permitted in the front yard of all properties directly
adjoining a minor arterial street or adjoining the frontage road of a principal arterial, freeway or
expressway; as designated by the City.
Public Safety Screening Exception
During review of a recent fence permit application by a self‐storage facility, Golden Valley Police
requested a section of screening be waived or built at a lower opacity to allow visibility into the site.
This is a fairly unique request, but staff would like to modify the existing code for screening
exceptions to allow for similar requests in the future.
Suggested Revision: Add the following exception to § 113‐152, Subd. (d)
A portion of the required screening for properties in the Commercial, Light Industrial, and Industrial
Zoning Districts may be waived for enhanced security and public safety purposes at the discretion of
the City Manager or his/her designee, and only upon request by the Golden Valley Police Department
Garden Structures
In 2010, Planning Commission modified the zoning code to allow for expanded use of garden
structures on residential lots.
Included a new definition, and a separate set of standards from other accessory structures.
The modifications were intended to allow for the use of garden structures to enhance the
aesthetic appeal of a garden or landscaped area.
§ 113‐1. – Definitions
Garden Structure: A permanent outdoor fireplace or grill, or a freestanding or attached structure
such as a pergola or arbor, which serves a primarily aesthetic purpose customarily incidental to the
principal structure.
§ 113‐88 R‐1 Zoning District, Subd. (g)(8)
Garden Structures. Garden structures shall be located no closer than five feet to any lot line. Garden
structures shall not exceed 10 feet in height.
Identical Restriction in § 113‐89 R‐2 Zoning District, Subd. (g)(8)
City of Golden Valley Planning Commission Regular Meeting
July 27, 2020 – 7 pm
6
Staff has encountered cases where garden structures are being used to achieve taller screening
structures than normally allowed.
Staff reviewed the zoning code language of neighboring communities to see how pergolas and
trellises were handled in other cities:
Garden Structures were not commonly highlighted in code.
o They were considered accessory uses in St. Louis Park, but no regulation other than the
restrictions for all accessory structures were given.
o Trellises were an allowed setback encroachment in Robbinsdale.
Greenhouses were listed as accessory structures in Edina and Robbinsdale, but these were not
considered part of the Golden Valley definition of Garden Structures.
After review, staff thinks modifying the definition of garden structures makes the most sense for
addressing the issue:
Maintains the existing flexibility in locating garden structures.
Clarifies that that the definition does not include greenhouses, gazebos, and more significant
roofed accessory structures.
o Would raised beds and smaller food production uses be considered garden
structures?
Explicitly removes fencing from the definition of garden structures.
Suggested Revision: Add the following underlined language to § 113‐1. – Definitions:
Garden Structure: A permanent outdoor fireplace or grill, or a freestanding or attached structure such
as a pergola or arbor, which serves a primarily aesthetic purpose customarily incidental to the
principal structure. Garden structures do not include greenhouses, gazebos or fencing.
Pockl, Sadeghi, and Segelbaum voiced support of the amendments and Pockl added that a motion
and a vote will be made at the next meeting.
Televised portion of the meeting concluded at 8:46 pm
7. Council Liaison Report
Council Member Rosenquist reported on a Virtual Town Hall meeting that was scheduled for July
28 around Building and Equitable Golden Valley. She also encouraged Commissioners to view a
CCX story on removing racially restrictive covenants. Rosenquist commented on a letter that had
gone out urging the Governor to take action on the Blue Line Extension project. She noted that
the Narrow Lot regulations had been approved at the City Council and that the Council also
approved directing $100,000 in grant money to PRISM to assist with rent and food support.
Finally, she stated that the City Council had approved a city‐wide mask ordinance only to have it
superseded by the Governor’s announcement the next day.
CityofGoldenValley PlanningCommissionRegularMeeting
July27,2020–7pm
7
8. ReportsonMeetingsoftheHousingandRedevelopmentAuthority,CityCouncil,BoardofZoning
Appeals,andothermeetings
CommissionerPocklwasassignedtobethePlanningCommissionrepresentativeatthenextBoardof
ZoningAppealsmeeting.
9. OtherBusiness
Nootherbusinesswasdiscussed.
10. Adjournment
MOTIONbyCommissionertoadjourn,secondedbyCommission,andapprovedunanimously.
Meetingadjournedat9:02pm.
________________________________
AdamBrookins,Secretary
________________________________
AmieKolesar,PlanningAssistant