Final Minutes 11.23.2020
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.
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, Noah Orloff, Lauren
Pockl, Ryan Sadeghi, Chuck Segelbaum
Commissioners absent:
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 Baker, to approve the agenda
of November 23, 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 November 9, 2020.
MOTION made by Commissioner Segelbaum, seconded by Commissioner Brookins to approve
minutes. Staff called a roll call vote and the motion carried unanimously.
4. Discussion – Modifying the Moderate Density Residential (R-2) Zoning District to Allow
Rowhouses
Jason Zimmerman, Planning Manager, started the presentation by reminding Commissioners this
is the second time addressing this subject. He went int to detail on reviewing R-2 regulations and
the potential for adding rowhouse regulation to existing R-2. Staff looked at surrounding cities to
review their language, and staff didn’t find any specific to rowhouses. Staff researched cities out of
state and included details from Denver and Cincinnati in Commissioner packets. Zimmerman
displayed and reviewed a chart with great detail on current R-2 regulations and potential rowhouse
regulations. After reviewing each line, Zimmerman displayed a rowhouse image from Denver, CO
November 23, 2020 – 7 pm
City of Golden Valley Planning Commission Regular Meeting
November 23, 2020 – 7 pm
2
with three side by side units. The image illustrates height and setback regulations. A second image
of a rowhouse was displayed with slightly different height and setback regulations to consider.
Zimmerman went on to Zero Lot Line Homes and discussed alterations to the subdivision
regulations. Images of current side by side units in Golden Valley were displayed for clarity.
Staff asked for feedback and direction on what to explore further that can help staff draft
formal language.
Commissioner Orloff asked what the pros/cons were of having units limited to 3-4 side by side
or going up to 6. Zimmerman responded that buildings get larger with the greater number of
units and that’s something to consider, especially when looking at integration in a
neighborhood. Minimum unit width is 20 feet and once 4-6 units are next to each other, it
becomes a very long building.
Commissioner Segelbaum asked how much Commissioners should factor in typical lot width in
this discussion and if driveways are permitted in the setbacks of a rowhouse. Zimmerman
stated he looked along Douglas and most of those lots are 80 feet wide so it would be ideal to
purchase two lots side by side for developing. Lots along Winnetka are about 100 feet each and
while 2 are needed, there may more room for additional units. Regarding driveways, they’re
allowed in the side yard setback as long as there’s 3 feet of pervious surface between the paved
area and the side lot line.
Commissioner Johnson mentioned R-2 and the transitional nature of that zoning. He added
that the images appear to be townhomes scaled down and he understood R-2 to satisfy the
need for more density than an R-1 but not feel like an R-3. He elaborated that different
setbacks to signal that transition may be beneficial. Zimmerman added that this zoning will still
be governed by max density allowed by the land use, in R-2 that’s 8 units per acre, R-3 has a
much higher max density. Zimmerman added that the exact setback numbers should be
discussed and that R-2 will be transitional in that it’s not quite single family (R-1) and not quite
an apartment (R-3). Chair Blum asked about potential visual buffers and considering style
recommendations so the transition to R-2 units is less abrupt. Zimmerman stated there are
some vegetated buffer requirements for some parking lots, while those requirements are not in
R-1, they can be added to R-2. Staff is also open to prescriptive styling/architecture to ensure
the rowhouses fit in the aesthetic of the neighborhood. Commissioner Sadeghi asked about
garages in the rear and how pervious coverage limits will be met if there isn’t front access. The
conversation moved on to preventing massing of vehicles on the street, how best to provide
garages on rowhouses, and driveway possibilities.
Zimmerman asked the Commissioners about height restrictions and the potential for increasing
them to accommodate tuck under garages. The conversation revolved around most
Commissioners feeling comfortable with the proposed heights, Commissioner Johnson asked
that they explore a stipulation of increased height being a result of a tuck under garage. He
added he’s like to avoid the added height as a by right and the property then having a detached
garage. This topic turned into a discussion about setbacks and height potentially shadowing R-1
homes. The discussion returned to the idea of R-2 as a transition area between R-1 and R-3.
Staff expressed perception that it is more to fill a gap where there’s an unmet need at the
City of Golden Valley Planning Commission Regular Meeting
November 23, 2020 – 7 pm
3
moment. The conversation continued on this topic and R-2 being a transition between
corridors. Commissioners discussed R-2 location and creating corridors or pockets of R-2
zoning. Staff clarified the three locations being discussed in the 2040 plan.
Recommendation from the Commission is not required at this time.
5. Discussion – 2020 Land Use/Zoning Study – Commercial Uses
Myles Campbell, Planner, reminded the group that the purpose of this discussion was to
update the zoning code to match the land use policies of the 2040 Comprehensive Plan.
Campbell reviewed the use types as well as provided a table to describe, in detail, old
categories and proposed new categories.
Commissioner Segelbaum reviewed permitted uses and asked about consolidation of
categories, specifically the clothing category and asked about shoes or accessories. Campbell
responded that while reviewing previous materials for this item, he notices that accessories
were separate from clothing.
Commissioner Johnson disagreed with removing trade schools and training centers from
Commercial districts. He added those categories lean more towards being service orientated
and not just educational, even though they say “training” in the title. Johnson added he didn’t
understand why the marine engine repair category was separate from another engine repair.
Segelbaum mentioned a mechanic who did marine/large engine repair in addition to auto
repair and was larger than a standard small engine repair mechanic. Campbell clarified that the
use as a whole would not be removed but potentially moved from Conditional use to Light
Industrial Use.
Commissioner Baker asked why retail items were broken down at all and why there wasn’t
even a larger umbrella retail category. Campbell responded that it’s helpful to have more
specific use categories listed, mainly for folks who are trying to understand how the code
impacts them and their business directly. Staff went on to explain other categorized uses and
code history. Commissioner Pockl asked about creating a larger cosmetology category to lump
uses together. Pockl also asked for clarification on certain uses when they offer food and
alcohol or don’t. Campbell responded that there are some uses that aren’t easy to categorize
but maybe a general entertainment use is a good idea also. Baker commented that he wants to
make sure the Commission isn’t creating unintended biases with restricted use categories. Staff
expanded on some specific restricted uses. The discussion continued regarding use categories
and particular use examples.
6. Discussion – Report on R-3 Density Bonuses
Jason Zimmerman, Planning Manager, started by reminding the Commission that they had
discussed the need to update density bonuses listed in the zoning code. Commissioners were
particularly interested in revising bonuses that revolved around sustainability and
environmental issues. Commissioners requested the Environmental Commission review the
City of Golden Valley Planning Commission Regular Meeting
November 23, 2020 – 7 pm
4
document and make recommendations to the City Council for adoption. Zimmerman included
their draft analysis in the memo and reviewed it for Commissioners.
The categories analyzed are:
x Underground Parking
x Green Certified Buildings
x Electric Vehicle Charging Stations
x Stormwater Facilities
x Renewable Energy
x Microgrids
The draft R-3 density bonuses provided to Commissioners from the Environmental Commission
may be adopted by City Council. This document isn’t part of the zoning code and therefore is
not subject to the multiple meetings and public hearing process. As sustainability evolves, staff
may return to this document to draft changes to match that evolution and present new
information to council.
Blum stated preference to have underground parking be worth more in terms of incentives, as
he saw this amenity as especially desirable for future development.
Televised portion of the meeting concluded at 8:50pm
7. Council Liaison Report
Council Member Rosenquist provided an update on two task forces that are meeting and also gave a
summary of the City’s budget decisions that are coming up in December, including the approval of an
HRA levy. Rosenquist touched on conversations with the Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board
regarding a new Memorandum of Understanding, efforts to restart momentum around Highway 55
BRT, and dialogue regarding fiscal disparities.
8. Reports on Board of Zoning Appeals and other Meetings
None
9. Other Business
None
10. Adjournment
MOTION by Commissioner Pockl to adjourn, seconded by Commissioner Johnson, and approved
unanimously. Meeting adjourned at 9:00 pm.
________________________________
Adam Brookins, Secretary
________________________________
Amie Kolesar, Planning Assistant