pc-minutes-sep-14-20
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, Noah
Orloff, 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 Segelbaum, seconded by Commissioner Pockl to approve the
agenda of September 14, 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 August 24, 2020.
Chair Blum noted a repletion of text in the minutes.
MOTION made by Commissioner Baker, seconded by Commissioner Brookins to approve the
August 24, 2020 meeting minutes after edits were made.
Staff called a roll call vote, Pockl abstained due to absence and the motion carried.
4. Informal Public Hearing – Zoning Map Amendment – Rezoning of Properties to Achieve
Conformance with eh 2040 Comprehensive Plan (Group 4)
Applicant: City of Golden Valley
September 14, 2020 – 7 pm
City of Golden Valley Planning Commission Regular Meeting
September 14, 2020 – 7 pm
2
Jason Zimmerman, Planning Manager, stated this item is follow up from a previous conversation
regarding the need to rezone for conformity of the 2040 Comprehensive Plan. Two groups are the
focus today: Group 1 was tabled on July 13 and Group 2 was tabled on August 10.
Group 1 includes 10 properties:
7831 Olson Memorial Highway 7830 Harold Ave
440 Winnetka Ave N 7732 Harold Ave
424 Winnetka Ave N 7724 Harold Ave
400 Winnetka Ave N 7720 Harold Ave
7840 Harold Ave 411 Rhode Island Ave N
Zimmerman gave a history of the rezonings per the Commission’s request in July. In 2010, these
same properties were guided for the same Medium Density Residential use; then in 2011 the city
moved to rezone them from R‐1 to R‐3. A traffic study was part of the item when presented to the
Planning Commission and the study recommended ROW improvements to mitigate potential
increases in congestion. A number of these ROW improvements have occurred and a few more will if
development occurs. At the time, the Planning Commission did not make a recommendation to the
City Council and then Council denied the rezoning and the Comp Plan at the time was amended to
reflect Low Density Residential use again.
Group 2:
1300 Douglas Drive 1100 Douglas Drive
1200 Douglas Drive 6212 Golden Valley Road
1170 Douglas Drive 6200 Golden Valley Road
Zimmerman gave a history of this group also as requested by the Commission. In 2000 these
properties were guided for High Density Residential Use as part of the 2020 Comp. Plan. There was a
development proposal for a Senior development in 2008, part of that PUD proposal required a
rezoning from R‐3 to R‐4. In 2008 the Planning Commission recommended approval but City Council
denied the PUD so the rezoning request was withdrawn. Three years later, the City proposed
rezoning to R‐3 and that was approved by City Council. Since then, Douglas Drive has been
reconstructed with a round about and the road itself has had improvements. The City Engineer
stated that all the Douglas Drive plans were based on that future land use map and includes that
high‐density residential use.
Zimmerman displayed a table defining the proposed Medium Density Residential (R‐3) Zoning
District with permitted uses, conditional uses, density ranges, and height restrictions. This was
displayed next to the same table defining current High Density Residential (R‐4) Zoning District.
State statute requires all zoning designations to be consistent with the land uses identified in the
Comp Plan within nine months of adoption.
City of Golden Valley Planning Commission Regular Meeting
September 14, 2020 – 7 pm
3
Should the City choose not to rezone any of these properties, the Future Land Use Map would need
to be amended with the Met Council.
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:
Rezoning the 10 identified properties in Group 1 from R‐1 to R‐3
Rezoning the 6 identified properties in Group 2 from R‐3 to R‐4
Commissioners asked clarifying questions and asked staff to expand on the potential R‐3 zoning
designation, the Land Use Map, and repercussions from not complying with Met Council’s
recommendation on the 2040 Comprehensive Plan.
Chair Blum opened the public hearing at 7:38pm.
Martha Johnson
7647 Harold Ave
Calling about Group 1, the rezoning seems out of character with the green space initiative by the
City. Additionally, that corner is prone to flooding and where would that go if the building was
changed? I would like point out Pockl’s comments about revisiting the Comprehensive Plan, just
because something was agreed on several years ago, doesn’t mean it can’t be revisited and opened
for further discussion.
Christopher Robinson
7650 Harold Ave
Calling about Group 1, our house is a new development in the area. Winnetka/55 intersection is
easily one of the busiest intersections regardless of if you’re entering or leaving the neighborhood.
Our street is one of the streets that cars use to bypass this intersection, speeding down Harold and
Winnetka is super common. This is after some of the traffic changes made. Rezoning will exacerbate
an already terrible traffic issue and will push more cars on roads near parks. Harold has a lot of
pedestrian traffic and an increase in zoning will increase traffic and be a danger to all of us. The size
of complex, this zoning would allow, doesn’t match this area of the city. I support adding people to
the community, I want people to enjoy our neighborhoods and it makes sense to embrace changes in
housing. I am happy to be part of the solution but rezoning this area from R‐1 to R‐3 doesn’t make
sense; rezoning to R‐2 makes more sense to me.
Dale Berg
7435 Ridgeway Road
I’ve lived in this area for 14 years. Finding a home that can meet the needs of families who live, work,
play, and vacation at home is challenging and who knows how long this will continue. Due to the
rezoning for R‐3 being denied in 2011, nine new homes were built and the original owners seem to
still be there. I encourage the Commission to keep this area as R‐1/R‐2 as voiced by the
neighborhood, traffic challenges were noted earlier. There are a lot of speeders. Maintaining the
City of Golden Valley Planning Commission Regular Meeting
September 14, 2020 – 7 pm
4
current zoning will encourage people to sell their homes to other single families or to a developer
who will keep the character of the area. Golden Valley should focus on housing for growing families
at all price points and apartment living doesn’t provide them with room to entertain or yards.
Mustafa Siddiqui
411 Rhode Island Ave North
I will be very disappointed with the density of R‐3. I am a senior citizen and this is my final home. I
have 8 grandchildren that visit and I think I would be very affected. I border a lot of houses behind
that if they go to R‐3, my privacy will be disturbed and my home value will decrease. I ask that you
reconsider and look in to R‐2; R‐3 will ruin my quality of life. The properties erected on Rhode Island,
even though they’re for higher density, they are very nice.
Eric Pederson
130 Louisiana Ave N
I called during the July meeting and was one of the organizers in 2011. It’s unfortunate that when the
Comp Plan was looking at this area for increased density they didn’t address this R‐1 to R‐3 dilemma.
The eastern part of Harold was zoned R‐2 and there are so it does work. The Rhode Island cul‐de‐sac
was also redeveloped. I believe if we rezone to R‐2, this are will be in line and possibly redeveloped in
5‐10 years. I also don’t think this should be done prior to any zoning changes of R‐3. You’re asking a
group that doesn’t even want to be R‐3 to potentially sign up for even more; it’s not the responsible
decision. I would appreciate if this is voted down and a recommendation goes to City Council to go
back to Met Council and rezone this to R‐1 or R‐2, I think you’ll meet less resistance and find
something that can match the neighborhood. I echo everything the other callers said about traffic,
not matching the area, and the removal of trees.
Commissioner Johnson said a lot of work went into the Comp Plan and took at least a year of
constant effort. The last caller did a great job illustrating how potentially out of place a large building
could be. The potential, with a CUP, is for a five‐story building to be built where there isn’t another
five‐story building for at least a quarter‐mile. Would this become a building we end up wishing isn’t
there, especially with the removal of so many trees? What about the bridge idea? It’s not built yet
but do we think elderly people will really use that in inclement weather? I think it needs to be
thought out more. I also don’t think we should be building roads based on things that may happen, it
presumes a lot and doesn’t sit well with me.
Commissioner Baker said what was done in the Comp Plan process was to take the big picture and
apply the larger view to the City, deliberately not thinking about detailed implication. He added
feeling torn between a good big picture decision and the nuance of knowing every detail and
implication of that decision; thinking then that a decision would never be made. There is value in
being cautious about reversing big picture decisions.
Commissioner Pockl asked the zoning of the area across the street, on Harold. Zimmerman
responded that it is R‐2 and there’s a PUD.
City of Golden Valley Planning Commission Regular Meeting
September 14, 2020 – 7 pm
5
Chair Blum started addressing caller comments and addressed potential flooding concerns. Staff
responded that the planning department isn’t aware of flooding but acknowledges the area to the
south being a wetland and does have floodplain, none of that floodplain extends north, across
Harold. That’s not to say flooding doesn’t happen but it’s not something the planning department is
aware of. Chair asked staff had recollection of a road closure due to water. Zimmerman responded it
may have happened but planning wasn’t in the loop.
Chair addressed traffic concerns from callers and asked how that intersection has changed.
Zimmerman addressed this question and went into detail on lanes, direction, turns, and capacity.
Chair asked about expanding another portion of the road to mitigate traffic and the intersection he’s
referring to expanding is in a floodplain. Baker asked if there was evidence to suggest the changes in
traffic was due to west end developments. Staff isn’t aware of studies that would have that
information.
Curtis Smith
7405 Ridgeway Road
Regarding Group 1, there’s been a lot of great discussion from callers and Commissioners. There’s
another safety issue, morning and afternoon commuters from 55 and 394 cut through the
neighborhoods at high speeds. I see kids waiting for busses and they’re going 55mph, this has
increased with the development along Laurel. I see this activity on Ridgeway, Louisiana,
Pennsylvania, and Jersey makes for a dangerous situation. Second, what will the impact on the
wetlands be? Last, there’s concern about traffic that leads past Meadowbrook to Glenwood.
Jason O’Shea
7701 Ewald Terrace
Before Covid, it was normal for Winnetka, south of 55, to back up all to and past Western. In order to
skip traffic, people cut through on Rhode Island, Laurel, and Sumter. There are a lot of kids in these
roads and the whole area has now become more congested, primarily in the evening. If we talk about
changing Group 1 from R‐1 to R‐3, increased density will add to this traffic issue. The area to the
south is R‐2 and that would be more consistent than R‐3.
Brian Lee
406 Rhode Island Ave
We have a lot of children in this cul‐de‐sac, my family walks every day and crossing the street is
already dangerous, even to get to the sidewalk. I’m concerned about the lack of research done
before these recommendations were made, specifically about flooding. There are a few homes,
north of Harold that flood every spring. Northbound Winnetka backs up to Laurel and drivers often
cut through on Western to avoid traffic. My family is on board with development in this area and can
appreciate R‐2 zoning but we don’t support R‐3.
Chair Blum asked staff to what extent the traffic concerns could be mitigated between highway 394
and 55. Zimmerman stated that if the area were to be redeveloped, a traffic study would likely be
required. That would look at the added density, likely added traffic, and allow a traffic consultant to
make targeted predictions of use and address mitigation. These are questions city engineers can
City of Golden Valley Planning Commission Regular Meeting
September 14, 2020 – 7 pm
6
really answer. Baker asked about flooding since numerous callers insisted it occurs and asked staff
about the dates on the most current floodplain map. Zimmerman wasn’t sure of dates but pointed
out that the floodplain map doesn’t consider where water floods and pools in resident yards.
Segelbaum asked about the size of Group 1 and if it meets the 2‐acre minimum for a PUD.
Zimmerman responded that it’s a 6‐acre site if all the properties were combined.
The discussion moved on to setbacks and building height as well as pedestrian traffic.
Being that the conversation was dominated by Group 1, Zimmerman asked if anyone had comments
on Group 2. Segelbaum stated that while a lot of feedback has come up from Group 1, it’s interesting
there hasn’t been more feedback on Group 2. The density change in Group 2 makes sense to spur
development. Pockl echoed this statement and added that traffic mitigation measures have taken
place in this area.
Dale Berg
7435 Ridgeway Road
Asked Adam Brookins to state who his employer is.
Commissioners encouraged Brookins not to answer that question as no Commissioner is required to
do so. Positions on the Commission are volunteer and members stated anecdotally that members are
upright, honest, and have the City’s best interest at heart.
Brookins asked staff if there were future development plans for Winnetka as the Douglas Drive
project was a county project. Zimmerman affirmed the county construction project and doesn’t see
the City engaging on a large‐scale study in the near future.
Chair Blum closed the public hearing at 8:58pm.
MOTION made by Commissioner Baker, and seconded by Commissioner Pockl to deny staff
recommendation to rezone Group 1 from R‐1 to an R‐3 and encourage the City to look at ways to
enhance infrastructure surrounding this area and/or other zoning of the properties.
Staff took a roll call vote.
Aye: Baker, Blum, Johnson, Pockl, Segelbaum
Nay: Brookins,
Motion passes, 5:1
MOTION made by Commissioner Brookins, and seconded by Commissioner Segelbaum to approve
staff recommendation and rezone Group 2 from R‐3 to R‐4.
Staff took a roll call vote and the motion passed unanimously.
5. Informal Public Hearing – Amendment to Conditional Use Permit No. 145
Applicant: Good Shepherd Church and School
Location: 145 Jersey Ave S
City of Golden Valley Planning Commission Regular Meeting
September 14, 2020 – 7 pm
7
Purpose: To allow for the addition of a second preschool classroom
Myles Campbell, Planner, started his presentation on the first amendment to CUP 145, the area is
zoned institutional and surrounded by R‐1 and a second Institutional parcel to the south.
The initial CUP was approved at the July 2, 2019 Planning Commission meeting which allowed for a
childcare center at the school/church for up to 20 children.
Several conditions were a part of the initial CUP
Must be licensed by MN Department of Human Services
Childcare center participants were to cap at 20 students or the amount DHS licensed,
whichever was less.
Hours of operation were limited to 7am‐6pm, Monday‐Friday
Any expansion of the center would require a CUP Amendment
Good Shepard is seeking an amendment so they may expand their child care program. The
amendment increases the cap to 40 students. Space for more children will be created by converting
another classroom in the existing school and no other exterior work or changes to the footprint have
been suggested at this time.
Campbell continued on existing conditions of the building size, use, parking, and uses surrounding
the building. Then listed operational zoning considerations and stated that another CUP amendment
is required for additional headcount in the childcare center and if that occurs, the school is exploring
a potential physical expansion via a master planning process.
Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of Conditional Use Permit 168, Amendment 1, allowing for a Child Care
Center in an Institutional I‐1 Zoning District at 145 Jersey Avenue South. Consistent with State
statute, a certified copy of the CUP must be recorded with Hennepin County.
The approval of this Conditional Use Permit Amendment is subject to the following conditions:
1. The child care center shall be limited to 40 students, or the amount specified by the Minnesota
Department of Human Services, whichever is less.
2. A proposal to increase the capacity of the child care center will require an amendment to the
CUP.
3. All necessary licenses shall be obtained and remain active with the Minnesota Department of
Human Services.
4. The hours of normal operation for the Child Care Center shall be Monday through Friday from 7
am to 6 pm.
5. The applicant will produce a traffic circulation plan for the site regarding drop‐off and pick‐up
procedures, to be reviewed by the City’s Engineering Staff.
The Chair opened the discussion.
Commissioners asked about enrollment, busing, traffic, and Covid procedures.
CityofGoldenValley PlanningCommissionRegularMeeting
September14,2020–7pm
8
ChairBlumopenedthepublichearingat9:32pm.
ChairBlumclosedthepublichearingat9:35pm.
MOTIONwasmadebyCommissionerBrookinssecondedbyCommissionerPockltofollowstaff
recommendationandapproveConditionalUsePermit168,Amendment1,allowingforaChildCare
CenterinanInstitutionalIͲ1ZoningDistrictat145JerseyAvenueSouth.
Stafftookarollcallvoteandthemotionpassedunanimously.
Televisedportionofthemeetingconcludedat9:38pm
6. CouncilLiaisonReport
CouncilMemberRosenquistprovidedanupdateonvariousitemsdiscussedatthelastCity
Councilmeeting,includingdetailsabouttheproposed2021Citybudget,anewtaskforcetolook
atreorganizingtheCivilServiceCommission,andanewmunicipalfacilitiestaskforcethatwillbe
examiningthefutureofallCityͲownedfacilities.CommissionSegelbaumaskedaboutthestatus
oftheCouncilChambersrenovation.Rosenquistrepliedthatitwaspostponedbutcouldbe
revisitedatsomepointinthefuture;atthistimeonlytheAVsystemswouldbeupgraded.
7. ReportsonBoardofZoningAppealsandotherMeetings
Nonegiven.
8. OtherBusiness
None.
9. Adjournment
MOTIONbyCommissionerBrookinstoadjourn,secondedbyCommissionerJohnson,and
approvedunanimously.Meetingadjournedat9:57pm.
________________________________
AdamBrookins,Secretary
________________________________
AmieKolesar,PlanningAssistant