pc-agenda-jul-13-20REGULAR MEETING AGENDA
This meeting will be held via Webex in accordance with the local emergency declaration made by the
City under Minn. Stat. § 12.37. The public may monitor this meeting by watching on Comcast cable
channel 16, by streaming on CCXmedia.org, or by calling 1‐415‐655‐0001 and entering the meeting
code 133 702 7832.
Additional information about monitoring electronic meetings is available on the City website. For
technical assistance, please contact the City at 763‐593‐8007 or webexsupport@goldenvalleymn.gov.
If you incur costs to call into the meeting, you may submit the costs to the City for reimbursement
consideration.
1.Call to Order
2.Approval of Agenda
3.Approval of Minutes
June 22, 2020, Regular Planning Commission Meeting
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
5.Informal Public Hearing – Zoning Map Amendments – Rezoning Properties to Achieve Conformance
with the 2040 Comprehensive Plan
Applicant: City of Golden Valley
6.Discussion – Architectural and Material Standards for Mixed Use Properties
7.Discussion – Fences, Screening, and Garden Structures
– End of Televised Portion of Meeting –
To listen to this portion, please call 1‐415‐655‐0001 and enter meeting access code 133 702 7832
8.Council Liaison Report
9.Reports on Meetings of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority, City Council, Board of Zoning
Appeals, and other meetings
10.Other Business
11.Adjournment
July 13, 2020 – 7 pm
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, Ryan
Sadeghi, Chuck Segelbaum,
Commissioners absent: None
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 Baker, seconded by Commissioner Johnson to approve the agenda
of June 22, 2020, after corrections are made. 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 8, 2020.
Commissioner Baker asked for edits to the minutes on page 3 regarding a title error, an edit to a
statement he made, and a change to who made a statement. Chair Blum made an edit to the first
page, noting the order of when items occurred needed to be edited.
MOTION made by Commissioner Pockl, seconded by Commissioner Brookins to approve the May
27, 2020 meeting minutes. Staff called a roll call vote and the motion carried unanimously.
4. Continued Item – Zoning Code Text Amendment ‐ Proposed Adjustments to Narrow Lot Regulations
Jason Zimmerman, Planning Manager, gave a brief introduction on the City Council request, and
highlighted a few items of public concern that were not actually included in this amendment.
June 22, 2020 – 7 pm
City of Golden Valley Planning Commission Regular Meeting
June 22, 2020 – 7 pm
2
Zimmerman displayed the list of items reviewed at the June 8th meeting and reminded the group
that the meeting was continued to today was because of discussion around second story dormers; he
reviewed what is currently allowed and what the proposed changes are.
Second story dormers:
Currently allowed, but must be within building envelope
Proposed change:
o Allow second story dormers to extend outside of building envelope in limited
amounts
o (+) Breaks up the shading that falls on adjacent properties
o (+) Creates more interesting architectural features on new homes
o (‐) More complicated framing (more expensive)
Zimmerman expanded on dormers by discussing shed dormers and gable dormers, as well as the
regulations when building them in to a second floor. Staff created a number of stills, mimicking
shadows on and around a property when dormers are in place. Of particular concern to
Commissioners was the amount of potential shade dormers would create, so staff showed
examples of three times in the year: Summer Solstice, Fall Equinox, and Winter Solstice, utilizing
actual location coordinates of a narrow lot and its neighbor. Displayed were examples of the
current regulations, then what the shading would look like with both types of dormers on the home
on the narrow lot.
Zimmerman moved on to address the previous meeting and the public hearing. He captured the
number of comments, those from folks who live on narrow lots and otherwise. He listed the
neighborhoods where most of the commenters live and their proximity to a narrow lot. He
reminded the group of the three phone calls that came in during the hearing and listed the top five
themes addressed in public comment.
Zimmerman ended by recapping the eight proposed changes and staff recommendation.
Commissioner Johnson asked staff if the shading models would become the standard for future
discussion around massing or density. Zimmerman responded that shading was just one of the
pieces considered when looking at topics like the one today. City Council specifically requested the
Commission and staff look at ways to reduce impacts of narrow lots and shading happened to be
one of those impact reduction items reviewed.
Commissioner Segelbaum asked how the sizes of the houses were determined in the shading
model. Zimmerman responded that they mimicked the two real homes, both on narrow lots, as
closely as possible. Myles Campbell, Planner, displayed a model showing the dormer options next
to current regulations. Baker pointed out two bungalows next to each other and noted the level of
shading in winter, adding that dormers do not drastically add to the shading at this particular time
of year. Commissioner Pockl asked to be reminded how much additional usable space is provided
on each dormer. Zimmerman stated there are a lot of variables but it’s somewhere between a half
and a full second story. Staff added that people tend to want a full second floor but there are
houses in Golden Valley that utilize dormers. Staff surmised that gable dormers tend to be used
less for added space and more for adding natural light. The conversation continued around
dormers, height options, split level homes, and other options to gain floors without adding height.
City of Golden Valley Planning Commission Regular Meeting
June 22, 2020 – 7 pm
3
Baker apologized to the Commissioners and the public for addressing the dormers so late in this
process. He remains concerned that the approach to building on narrow lots may be flawed
because it assumes any new home must be of a certain square footage and must have a full second
floor. Baker said he remains convinced that houses of that assumed size may be beyond what’s
suitable for the smaller lots. He also said that the group should pass along to City Council that the
City should focus and build smaller starter homes on smaller lots, this will create housing equity.
Commissioner Sadeghi said the thinks the group was getting too specific on percentages of
building items and staff has done a great job finding the right balance for the city code. The real
issue at hand is the subdivision of lots and that should be where the focus is. He’s concerned that
the group may create too restrictive of a code and make it too hard for owners to either rebuild on
their property or to do renovations. Sadeghi added that he remains firm on the stance he had two
weeks ago on this issue. The conversation continued around reducing impact and harm to existing
homes and neighborhoods as a whole.
The discussion circled back to dormers and potentially changing the percentages or removing
dormers all together. When looking at the dormer plan as presented by staff, three Commissioners
stated they were opposed: Baker, Blum, Pockl. Brookins stated his support of staff
recommendation as did Johnson and Sadeghi. Johnson added that if moving the shed dormer
percentage from 50% to 40% would help the vote, he recommends the group change that
percentage amount in order to move the recommendation to Council. Commissioners continued
their discussion and included staff on clarifications and shading examples.
Chair Blum thanked the Commissioners for the long process and quality discussions on this item.
He added a thank you to everyone who had a public comment and contributed points that helped
the discussions occur. Baker added that he wants the Council to consider equity in housing as a
modifier.
MOTION made by Commissioner Baker and seconded by Commissioner Brookins to adopt the
recommendation made by staff with two conditions: shed dormers be limited to a 40% maximum
and that the Planning Commission ask Council to reconsider aspects of building for the future and
housing equity in addressing how the City’s few smallest lots should be developed.
Segelbaum asked that the housing equity recommendation be a second motion.
MOTION WITHDRAWN by Commissioner Baker
MOTION made by Commissioner Baker and seconded by Commissioner Brookins to adopt the
recommendation made by staff with the condition that a home have a shed dormer regulation of
40% maximum.
Staff took a roll call vote and it passed 5‐2.
Aye: Baker, Brookins, Johnson, Sadeghi, Segelbaum
Nay: Blum, Pockl
City of Golden Valley Planning Commission Regular Meeting
June 22, 2020 – 7 pm
4
MOTION made by Commissioner Baker and seconded by Commissioner Segelbaum that the Planning
Commission ask Council to reconsider use of small lots in terms of building for the future and creating
housing equity in Golden Valley.
Staff took a roll call vote and it passed 5‐2
Aye: Baker, Johnson, Pockl, Sadeghi, Segelbaum
Nay: Brookins, Blum
Televised portion of the meeting concluded at 9:08 pm
5. Council Liaison Report
Council Member Rosenquist updated the Commission on the City Council discussion around housing
and equity and reported that the HRA would be more active in the future. The Rising TIDES task force
had provided the Council with some recommendations and action on those recommendations would
be coming soon. The City would also be moving forward to hire an Equity, Inclusion, and Volunteer
Manager. She reported on the variance appeals that were heard at the June 16 City Council meeting
and that the DMV would be opening by appointment only. Also, staff had produced a CORR plan for
addressing safety during the pandemic.
Commissioner Segelbaum asked about the response to temporary outdoor dining.
6. Reports on Meetings of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority, City Council, Board of Zoning
Appeals, and other meetings
None.
7. Other Business
Zimmerman informed the Commissioners that the City Council, at its meeting reviewing the work of
the Board of Zoning Appeals, had suggested that they would like to explore having a set representative
or two from the Planning Commission that would handle all BZA meetings. This direction was intended
to create more consistency at BZA meetings and allow the representative Commissioner to develop a
greater background with the operations of the Board. Commissioners were hesitant to leave behind
the rotation method that had been adopted in recent years, as it helped balance the additional burden
of a third meeting each month. Commissioners Brookins and Sadeghi both volunteered to attend more
meetings if that was the direction from the Council. Zimmerman stated that he would go back to City
Council and let them know the first preference of the Commissioners was to keep the existing format
of rotating members.
8. Adjournment
MOTION made by Commissioner Pockl, seconded by Commissioner Brookins and the motion
carried unanimously to adjourn the meeting at 9:25 PM.
City of Golden Valley Planning Commission Regular Meeting
June 22, 2020 – 7 pm
5
________________________________
Adam Brookins, Secretary
________________________________
Amie Kolesar, Planning Assistant
1
Date: July 13, 2020
To: Golden Valley Planning Commission
From: Jason Zimmerman, Planning Manager
Subject: Informal Public Hearing – Zoning Text Amendment – Revising the Density Range of
the Medium Density Residential (R‐3) Zoning District
Summary
With the adoption of the City’s 2040 Comprehensive Plan in February of 2020, Golden Valley
committed to considering certain zoning text amendments in order to fulfill policy objectives
included in the document. One such revision is to the density range allowed within the existing
Medium Density Residential (R‐3) Zoning District.
Background
As part of the required analysis of the City’s land use map in the 2040 Comprehensive Plan, the
Metropolitan Council reviewed the density ranges for each residential land use within the
community. The amount of land assigned to each residential land use, coupled with the
maximum densities allowed, must sum to demonstrate that there is the capacity for growth
forecasted by the Met Council to take place by 2040.
The table below shows the density ranges of the land uses included in Golden Valley’s 2040 Plan
as well as for the corresponding Zoning Districts.
2040 Comprehensive Plan Zoning Code (existing)
Low Density Residential
Up to 5 units per acre
Single Family (R‐1)
1 unit on a minimum 10,000 square feet lot
or about 4 units per acre
Moderate Density Residential
5 to 8 units per acre
Moderate Density (R‐2)
Up to 8 units per acre
Medium Density Residential
8 to 30 units per acre
Medium Density (R‐3)
Maximum of 10 units per acre or 12 units per
acre with a density bonus
2
Maximum of 20 units per acre for
senior/disability housing with a CUP
High Density Residential
20 to 100 units per acre
High Density (R‐4)
Maximum of 50 units per acre or 70 units per
acre for senior/disability housing
Maximum of 100 units per acre with a CUP
The upper end of the density allowed in the R‐3 Zoning District is currently below that which has
been adopted in the Comp Plan. Staff is recommending the City adjust the density range to bring
the zoning regulations into alignment.
Analysis
During the preparation for the writing of the land use chapter of the Comp Plan, staff researched
the existing R‐3 and R‐4 properties across the city and used GIS data to calculate the current
densities. Surprisingly, many of the properties zoned R‐3 exceeded the maximum density allowed
under current zoning. The table below shows a simplified version of this research.
Development Density Type PUD Current Zoning Proposed Zoning
Briarwood Apartments 6 Yes R‐3 R‐3
Skyline Plaza 7.2 R‐4 R‐3
Laurel Ponds 7.3 R‐3 R‐3
Briarwood Townhomes 9.3 Yes R‐3 R‐3
Brookview Condominiums 9.9 R‐3 R‐3
Hidden Village 10.2 Yes R‐3 R‐3
Sourthwirth Park 10.4 R‐4 R‐3
Duluth Street Flats 10.5 R‐3 R‐3
Trentwood 11.1 R‐3 R‐3
Colonial Apartments 11.3 Yes R‐3 R‐3
Crossroads Apartments 11.4 R‐3 R‐3
West End Apartments 11.7 R‐3 R‐3
Valley View Apartments 12.4 R‐3 R‐3
Laurel at West End 14.9 Yes R‐3 R‐3
Mallard Creek 15.9 Yes R‐3 R‐3
Medley Hills Condos 16.2 Yes R‐3 R‐3
Wesley Commons 1 16.3 Yes R‐3 R‐3
West End Trails 16.9 R‐3 R‐3
Valley Village Apartments 17.1 R‐3 R‐3
Dover Hills 17.6 Yes R‐3 R‐3
Copa Cabana 17.6 R‐3 R‐3
Wesley Commons 2 18.2 Yes R‐3 R‐3
Villa on Bassett Creek 19.4 R‐3 R‐3
Valley Square Townhomes 19.5 Yes R‐3 R‐3
3
Valley Creek West 19.6 R‐3 R‐3
The Laurel 19.7 R‐3 R‐3
Cornerstone Creek 20.1 Disability Yes R‐4 R‐4
The Liberty 22.5 Yes R‐4 R‐4
Sunrise 40.3 Senior Care Yes R‐4 R‐4
Covenant Manor 48.2 Senior Mixed Yes R‐4 R‐4
Talo 52 Yes I‐394 R‐4
Calvary 53.2 Senior Yes R‐4 R‐4
Meadow Ridge 55.5 Senior Care Yes I‐3 R‐4
Central Park West 57.2 Yes Office R‐4
Flourish 63.3 Senior Mixed R‐4 R‐4
Xenia 63.7 Yes I‐394 R‐4
Hello 66.9 Yes R‐4 R‐4
Arcata 81.1 Yes I‐394 R‐4
Global Pointe Senior 99 Senior Care Yes I‐394 R‐4
With the current maximum R‐3 density set at 10 units per acre (or 12 if certain density bonuses
are applied), at least 14 of the 24 R‐3 zoned properties exceed the maximum (shown in yellow
above). Staff believes this is a remnant of how multifamily buildings were originally regulated in
Golden Valley, which was by building height instead of by density. Regardless, adjusting the
maximum density allowed in the R‐3 district would not only achieve consistency with the Comp
Plan, but would also correct the current non‐conformities.
To that end, staff recommends increasing the maximum density for the R‐3 zoning district to be
20 units per acre or 30 units per acre for senior/disability housing. Further, staff recommends
removing the three density bonus provisions in the code so as to simplify regulations.
The first of these, which grants an increase of two units per acre to any multifamily building that
provides one or more underground parking stalls per unit, is less relevant today in a
redevelopment world where underground parking is almost always needed in order to allow the
number of units to make a project work financially (i.e., land is too valuable to leave as large
areas of surface parking).
The second, which grants an increase of one unit per acre to any multifamily building located
within 1,000 of a public transit route, was more applicable when undeveloped land was being
targeted for higher density development, as a developer had the option to locate near a transit
route. Now, sites where multifamily buildings could be located are already established and so the
choice to utilize transit is limited.
Finally, a third density bonus of two units per acre is related to the provision of private recreation
facilities at an investment level of at least five percent of the construction costs of the principal
structure. While providing recreation facilities is a worthy goal, tying the density bonus to the
4
construction costs of the both the facility and the building makes tracking and enforcement
difficult.
2040 Comprehensive Plan Zoning Code (proposed)
Low Density Residential
Up to 5 units per acre
Single Family (R‐1)
1 unit on a minimum 10,000 square feet lot
or about 4 units per acre
Moderate Density Residential
5 to 8 units per acre
Moderate Density (R‐2)
Up to 8 units per acre
Medium Density Residential
8 to 30 units per acre
Medium Density (R‐3)
Maximum of 20 units per acre or 30 units per
acre for senior/disability housing
High Density Residential
20 to 100 units per acre
High Density (R‐4)
Maximum of 50 units per acre or 70 units per
acre for senior/disability housing
Maximum of 100 units per acres with a CUP
Should the Commission desire to retain any of the density bonuses, staff would recommend
adjusted the density range downwards to 18 units per acre and retain a cap at 20 units per acre.
Doing so would likely leave some R‐3 zoned properties as non‐conforming with respect to
density.
Recommendation
Staff recommends amending the text of the Medium Density Residential (R‐3) Zoning District to
increase the maximum densities allowed as detailed in the attached document.
Attachments
Underlined/Overstruck Language for Sec. 113‐90: Medium Density Residential (R‐3) Zoning District
(2 pages)
Sec. 113‐90. ‐ Medium Density Residential (R‐3) Zoning District.
(a) Purpose. The purpose of the Medium Density Residential (R‐3) Zoning District is to
provide for medium density housing (up to 20 10 units per acre for multifamily
dwellings and up to 30 units per acre for senior and disability housing with potential
for 12 units per acre with density bonuses) along with directly related and
complementary uses. Senior and disability housing is permitted to a density of 20
units per acre or up to five stories or 60 feet in height with a conditional use permit.
[…]
(c) Principal Uses. The following principal uses shall be permitted in the R‐3 Zoning
District:
(1) Townhouses, consistent with the City's Mixed‐Income Housing Policy
(2) Two‐family dwellings, consistent with the City's Mixed‐Income Housing Policy
(3) Multiple‐family dwellings of up to 20 10 units or less per acre with the potential
of 12 units per acre with density bonuses, consistent with the City's Mixed‐
Income Housing Policy
(4) Senior and disability housing up to 30 10 units per acre with the potential for 12
units per acre with density bonuses, consistent with the City's Mixed‐Income
Housing Policy
(5) Foster family homes
(6) Group foster family homes
(7) Residential facilities serving up to 25 persons; and
(8) Essential services, Class I.
[…]
(e) Conditional Uses. The following conditional uses may be allowed after review by the
Planning Commission and approval by the City Council in accordance with the
standards and procedures set forth in this chapter:
(1) Senior and physical disability housing to a density of 20 per acre, consistent with
the City's Mixed‐Income Housing Policy, or up to five stories or 60 feet in height
(2) Residential facilities serving more than 25 persons; and
(3) Retail sales, Class I and II restaurants, and professional offices within principal
structures containing at least 20 dwelling units when located upon any minor
arterial or major collector street. Any such sales, restaurant, or office shall be
located only on the ground floor and have direct access to the street.
(f) Density Bonus. Multifamily dwellings that provide City‐required sidewalks shall be
granted one of the following density bonuses provided the corresponding conditions
are met:
(1) Underground Parking. The provision of one or more underground parking stall per
dwelling unit shall increase the maximum allowable density by two units per acre.
(2) Public Transit. Scheduled public transit route within 1,000 feet of the primary
entrance accessed by public sidewalk shall result in an increase in the maximum
allowable density by one unit per acre.
(3) Recreation. Indoor or outdoor recreation facilities such as swimming pools,
porches, tennis courts, or other facilities requiring a substantial investment
equaling at minimum five percent of the construction cost of the principal
structure shall increase the maximum allowable density by two units per acre.
1
Date: July 13, 2020
To: Golden Valley Planning Commission
From: Jason Zimmerman, Planning Manager
Subject: Informal Public Hearing – Rezone Properties to Achieve Conformance with the
2040 Comprehensive Plan
Summary
Staff is requesting that 18 properties south of Olson Memorial Highway be rezoned in order to
come into conformance with the Future Land Use Map in the 2040 Comprehensive Plan.
Background
State statute requires that all zoning designations be updated to be consistent with the land uses
identified in the Comprehensive Plan within nine months of adoption. The I‐394 Corridor mixed
use properties were the first to be rezoned in February of 2020. The 18 properties now under
consideration are the second group to be rezoned; at least two other groups of properties will
follow in the summer of 2020.
Below is a summary of the process that was followed to approve and adopt the 2040
Comprehensive Plan:
Meeting Date Action
November 13, 2018 Planning Commission reviewed the final draft of the City’s proposed
2040 Comprehensive Plan and unanimously recommended it be
approved
December 4, 2018 City Council held a public hearing and voted to approve the plan
January 2, 2019 City Council directed staff to submit the plan to the Metropolitan
Council for final review
January 22, 2020 Metropolitan Council approved Golden Valley’s plan
February 4, 2020 City Council adopted the 2040 Comprehensive Plan and approved the
rezoning of the I‐394 Mixed Use properties
2
Analysis
The 18 properties south of Olson Memorial Highway that are under consideration for rezoning
represent six different areas. Four of the areas to be rezoned are simply aligning the zoning
designations with the uses that are already established. Two of the areas are actively directing
future changes in use based on the vision of the Future Land Use Map in the 2040
Comprehensive Plan.
Two of these areas, containing three parcels, are currently within a Planned Unit Development
(PUD). In these locations, the requirements of the PUD trump those of the underlying zoning
district so no impacts are anticipated even though the zoning designation will be modified.
No development proposals are pending with the City at any of these locations. More detailed
descriptions of these properties and their current uses are listed below:
Address Current Zoning Proposed Zoning
Group 1
The General Mills Nature Preserve is a City‐owned natural open space that sits in the southeast
quadrant of Hwy 169 and Hwy 55. It abuts Bassett Creek and is protected by conservation and
trail easements. The change in zoning would more closely align with the existing and future use
of this area.
9201 Olson Memorial
Highway
Office Institutional (I‐4)
8900 Betty Crocker Drive Office Institutional (I‐4)
3
Group 2
The property containing the General Mills campus was historically zoned for industrial use. The
PUD that was created in 2001 approved the office use that is there today, but given the purpose
of the Industrial Zoning District (manufacturing) the office designation is more appropriate.
Because the campus is within a PUD, the rules of that overlay take precedence and there are no
expected impacts from this change.
1 General Mills Boulevard Industrial Office
4
Group 3
This group of residential properties in the southeast corner of Winnetka Ave and Hwy 55 was
guided for higher density use in the 2030 Comprehensive Plan (adopted in 2009), but ultimately
was not rezoned. As part of the land use analysis leading up to the adoption of the 2040 Comp
Plan, the Planning Commission felt strongly that guiding these properties for medium density
use would provide opportunities for the development of housing that would complement the
efforts in the city’s downtown.
7831 Olson Memorial Highway R‐1 R‐3
440 Winnetka Ave N R‐1 R‐3
424 Winnetka Ave N R‐1 R‐3
400 Winnetka Ave N R‐1 R‐3
7840 Harold Ave R‐1 R‐3
7830 Harold Ave R‐1 R‐3
7732 Harold Ave R‐1 R‐3
7724 Harold Ave R‐1 R‐3
7710 Harold Ave R‐1 R‐3
411 Rhode Island Ave N R‐1 R‐3
5
Group 4
These two properties at Glenwood Ave and Xenia Ave S, containing a duplex and a single‐family
home, are surrounded by other higher density residential uses. They have been guided for
medium density use for decades but to date have not been rezoned to match. This change
would align the land use and the zoning designation and set the table for future residential
development at the intersection of two major roadways.
5635 Glenwood Ave R‐1 R‐3
5701 Glenwood Ave R‐1 R‐3
1
6
Group 5
Given the evolution of the city’s High Density Residential (R‐4) Zoning District, the actual density
of the South Wirth Apartments more closely aligns with the city’s Medium Density Residential
(R‐3) Zoning District.
501 Theodore Wirth Parkway R‐4 R‐3
7
Group 6
While the entirety of the Central Park West development is zoned for office use, this is a
remnant of a past vision for the area that is not consistent with some of the new uses that have
been established. A hotel along Wayzata Boulevard and an apartment that sits partially within
St. Louis Park should be rezoned to Commercial and High Density (R‐4) Residential respectively
in order to better align with the existing uses. All associated properties sit within the Central
Park West PUD, so the zoning changes will have no impact on current operations.
5073 Wayzata Boulevard Office Commercial
1513 Utica Ave S Office R‐4
8
Should the City chose not to rezone any of these properties, an amendment to the Future Land
Use Map would then be required with the Met Council – modifying the recently‐adopted 2040
Comprehensive Plan – in order to maintain consistency between guided land use and zoning.
Recommended Action
Staff recommends approval of amendments to the Zoning Map to rezone the 18 properties above
to the various designations listed in the attached document, including Institutional (I‐4), Office,
Medium Density Residential (R‐3), Commercial, and High Density Residential (R‐4).
Attachments
List of Affected Properties (1 page)
Maps of Future Land Use and Existing Zoning Designations (4 pages)
List of Affected Properties
Address Current Zoning Proposed Zoning
9201 Olson Memorial Highway Office Institutional (I‐4)
8900 Betty Crocker Drive Office Institutional (I‐4)
1 General Mills Boulevard Industrial Office
7831 Olson Memorial Highway R‐1 R‐3
440 Winnetka Ave N R‐1 R‐3
424 Winnetka Ave N R‐1 R‐3
400 Winnetka Ave N R‐1 R‐3
7840 Harold Ave R‐1 R‐3
7830 Harold Ave R‐1 R‐3
7732 Harold Ave R‐1 R‐3
7724 Harold Ave R‐1 R‐3
7710 Harold Ave R‐1 R‐3
411 Rhode Island Ave N R‐1 R‐3
5635 Glenwood Ave R‐1 R‐3
5701 Glenwood Ave R‐1 R‐3
501 Theodore Wirth Parkway R‐4 R‐3
5073 Wayzata Boulevard Office Commercial
1513 Utica Ave S Office R‐4
Group 1 Future Land Use Current Zoning
Group 2 Future Land Use Current Zoning
Group 3 Future Land Use Current Zoning Group 4 Future Land Use Current Zoning
Group 5 Future Land Use Current Zoning Group 6 Future Land Use Current Zoning
1
Date: July 13, 2020
To: Golden Valley Planning Commission
From: Jason Zimmerman, Planning Manager
Subject: Discussion – Architectural and Material Standards for Mixed Use Properties
Summary
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 new Mixed Use zoning
district had not been finalized or adopted, so no architectural or material standards were
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.
The purpose of 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.
Material Standards
Exterior materials were divided into the following classes:
Class I Brick
Natural stone
Glass
Copper
Porcelain
Other materials not listed elsewhere as approved by the City Manager or
his/her designee or as recommended by the Planning Commission
Class II Masonry/textured cement stucco
Specialty concrete block
Architecturally textured concrete precast panels
Artificial stone
Artificial stucco
2
Fiber reinforced cement board siding
Prefinished metal
Cast‐in‐place concrete
Other materials not listed elsewhere as approved by the City Manager or
his/her designee or as recommended by the Planning Commission
Class III Unpainted or surface painted concrete block
Unpainted or surface painted plain or ribbed concrete panels
Unfinished or surface painted metal
Wood
Glass block
Other materials not listed elsewhere as approved by the City Manager or
his/her designee or as recommended by the Planning Commission
Prohibited Sand lime brick
Concrete brick
Unfinished structural clay tile
Exposed unfinished concrete
For each zoning district, the following standards were set, with a minimum of at least two Class I
materials being incorporated into each façade.
Zoning District Front façades, side and rear
façades visible from the public
right‐of‐way
Side and rear façades not
visible from the public right‐of‐
way
R‐3, R‐4 At least 50 percent Class I
No more than 10 percent
Class III
At least 40 percent Class I
No more than 10 percent
Class III
Commercial, Office,
Institutional
At least 50 percent Class I
No more than 10 percent
Class III
At least 40 percent Class I
No more than 10 percent
Class III
Light Industrial,
Industrial
For façades that face
Residential, Commercial,
Office, Institutional, or Mixed
Use zoning district – at least
50 percent Class I
All other front façades – at
least 40 percent Class I
No more than 10 percent
Class III
At least 30 percent Class I
No more than 10 percent
Class III
Staff believes the Mixed Use zoning district is most comparable to the Commercial, Office, and
Institutional zoning districts and therefore suggests considering similar standards.
3
Zoning District Front façades, side and rear
façades visible from the public
right‐of‐way
Side and rear façades not
visible from the public right‐of‐
way
Mixed Use At least 50 percent Class I
No more than 10 percent
Class III
At least 40 percent Class I
No more than 10 percent
Class III
Architectural Standards
Regulations were created for each zoning district around façades, openings, entrances, and
screening.
Façades
Façades greater than 40 feet in length shall be visually articulated into smaller intervals by:
1. Stepping back or extending forward a portion of the façade
2. Providing variation in materials, texture, or color
3. Placement of doors, windows, and balconies
Buildings shall have a defined base, middle, and top, and employ elements that relate to the
human scale and appeal to pedestrians, such as doors and windows, projections, or awnings and
canopies. A middle is not required on a one‐story building.
Openings
For all zoning districts
Views into and out of the building shall be provided to enliven the streetscape and enhance
security. Window and door openings shall be clear or slightly tinted to allow unobstructed views
into and out of buildings. Spandrel glass may be used in service areas. Window shape, size, and
patterns shall emphasize the intended organization and articulation of the building façade.
R‐3, R‐4
On the ground floor, window and door opening shall comprise:
Residential use
20 percent of area of the front façade
15 percent of area of the side and rear façades
Nonresidential use
60 percent of the length of the front façade
30 percent of area of the front façade
20 percent of area of the side and rear façades
On upper stories, window and door openings shall comprise:
15 percent of façade area
Commercial, Office, and Institutional
On the ground floor, window and door opening shall comprise:
60 percent of the length of the front façade
30 percent of area of the front façade
4
20 percent of area of the side and rear façades
On upper stories, window and door openings shall comprise:
20 percent of façade area
Light Industrial, Industrial
On the ground floor, window and door openings shall comprise:
30 percent of area of the front façade
15 percent of the area of the side and rear façades
On the upper stories, window and door opening shall comprise:
20 percent of area of façade area
Entrances
Building entrances shall be provided on the primary street on which the building fronts, in
addition to any entrances from rear or side parking areas. Street entrances shall be lighted and
defined by means of a canopy, portico, recess, or other architectural details.
Screening
Utility service structures (such as utility meters, utility lines, and transformers), refuse and
recycling containers, loading docks, maintenance structures, and other ancillary equipment must
be inside a building or be screened from off‐site views. Overhead doors shall be located on side
or rear façades that do not front a public right‐of‐way. Rooftop equipment shall be screened from
view from the public right‐of‐way by a parapet wall or a fence the height of which extends at
least one foot above the top of the rooftop equipment and is compatible with exterior materials
and architectural features of the building.
Since buildings in the Mixed Use district could produce a variety of residential and nonresidential
uses on ground and upper floors, staff believes a combination of the window and door (opening)
requirements from the categories above makes the most sense.
Mixed Use
On the ground floor, window and door opening shall comprise:
Residential use
20 percent of area of the front façade
15 percent of area of the side and rear façades
Nonresidential use
60 percent of the length of the front façade
30 percent of area of the front façade
20 percent of area of the side and rear façades
On the upper stories, window and door opening shall comprise:
Residential use
15 percent of façade area
Nonresidential use
5
20 percent of façade area
Recommendation
This is a discussion item and as such, no vote or recommendation is required. Staff is only looking
for feedback and direction from Commissioners at this time.
1
Date: July 13, 2020
To: Golden Valley Planning Commission
From: Myles Campbell, Planner
Subject: Discussion – Fences, Screening, and Garden Structures
Summary
In the previous year staff identified a number of areas in which the existing code language
regarding screening, and specifically fencing, could be improved upon. These revisions are largely
based on feedback from residents and observed patterns in how properties are utilizing garden
structures and fencing. In the case of revisions to commercial/industrial screening, this follows a
request from the Golden Valley Police Department to allow some visibility for safety and security
purposes.
The purpose for this discussion will be to introduce the proposed revisions as well as the initial
draft language for each.
Arterial Road Fence Height Exception
The current zoning code language for residential properties limit the height of fences to 4 ft. in
the front yard of homes. The purpose here is to keep fences lower in the front yard to avoid
properties from feeling closed off from the street and other properties. Walled fences up to 6’ in
height are allowed in rear and side yards, this allows for some privacy between properties and to
mitigate the carrying of noise.
While not specific to residential properties, there is an existing exception for front yard fences to
extend beyond 4’ in height. This exception is based upon the property’s proximity to a major
roadway 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.
Minor Arterials in the City include streets such as Douglas Drive, Winnetka Ave, or Glenwood Ave.
Here, the reasoning is because of the higher traffic level on these roadways, properties may
benefit from taller fences in the front yard to mitigate noise. Homes do not front onto the larger
2
Principal Arterial (Interstate 35, Highway 100) roadways, therefore they are not included under
the exception.
In the past few years, however, a number of cases have come before the Board of Zoning Appeals
for properties that do not adjoin a minor arterial, but which are separated by a frontage road
from a large principal arterial roadway. These can be corner lots, double frontage lots, or even
lots that simply face a frontage road. For these homes, staff and the BZA have generally found
the request for a higher privacy fence is reasonable. These properties experience similar if not
greater noise impacts than properties that abut a minor arterial, but do not have a similar
exception made for them, and instead need to pursue variances.
Given the amount of variance requests of this nature, 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. The
exact language of this exception needs to be refined as there is not actually a portion of these
properties that directly adjoins the arterial. Instead, they are adjacent to the arterial and
adjoining a frontage road.
Garden Structures
In 2010, the zoning code was modified to define “garden structures” and establish a new set of
restrictions to their location and design from other types of accessory structures. The materials
from that zoning discussion are included with this memo.
From § 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.
In both the R‐1 and R‐2 residential zoning districts, 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. Discussion at the time highlighted that the decision to reduce
the standards for garden structures was made given their aesthetic and ornamental purpose. The
idea 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 more
obstructive ones such as sheds or detached garages. In this sense staff is satisfied with the
current letter of the code.
The issue being noticed recently, is the use of substantial garden structures to provide screening
above the allowed 6’ of fencing in residential neighborhoods. Since a garden structure is only
limited in terms of its overall height and that it is at least 5 feet off the property line, a property
owner could use a pergola or trellis in combination with a fence to screen up to 10 feet off the
ground. Obscuring visibility between neighboring properties is not in itself a bad thing, we do
allow it to some extent through our fence rules. However, the issue is that use of garden
structures as screening was not the intended purpose of the change in ordinance. It goes against
3
portions of the discussion amongst commissioners in 2010. They set very little restrictions on the
structures given that what they saw was causing little visual obstruction.
Staff is seeking some discussion and feedback from the Commission on how they would prefer to
take action on garden structures.
Is a structure that serves principally or in part to obstruct visibility still considered a garden
structure, or do we need to refine the definition to exclude screening structures
Is the use of a garden structure to screen between properties acceptable in some cases? In
which case what controls should be placed upon them to limit overbuilding? (opacity
amount, length, front vs. rear yard, surface are, etc.)
Public Safety Screening Exception
For Commercial and especially Industrial properties, the City has strict restrictions in screening
the property and any outdoor storage that may be located on it. Items c, e, and f in § 113‐152,
Subd. (c)(2) All Other Zoning Districts lay out a number of situations in which a portion or entirety
of a property must have near complete screening, at least 90% opacity:
c. No materials or equipment shall be stored outside, unless screened in such a manner as not
to be visible from adjacent properties or street right‐of‐way. All outdoor storage shall be
screened by a wall, fence, or vegetation not less than six feet in height and not less than 90
percent opacity year round. No storage shall be permitted within required landscaped areas.
e. A solid screen, consisting of either a solid fence or wall not less than six feet in height, or a
planted landscape screen providing at least 90 percent opacity year round and at least six
feet in height at the time of planting, shall be installed and maintained along all lot lines
separating an Industrial Zoning District from any Residential or Institutional Zoning District.
f. All waste material, debris, refuse, junk or damaged vehicles, or vehicles under repair or being
stored in connection with repair services, shall be either kept entirely within an enclosed
building or completely screened from adjacent properties and street rights‐of‐way.
The purpose for these regulations is to promote greater cleanliness and order within the City’s
Commercial and Industrial districts. Junk materials and unkempt outdoor storage areas can have
a significant impact on neighboring uses, be they businesses or residential properties. As they are
written currently, staff feels these regulations are accomplishing this goal. We have had cases of
businesses failing to meet these standards, and in our enforcement capacity have referenced the
code in order to correct the violations.
That being said, the Chief of Police recently 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. It would screen the
storage from both the public right‐of‐way, as well as from an adjoining residential neighborhood.
4
Police asked if a portion of the screening requirement could be waived or reduced along the main
street‐side of the property. This was requested so that police could still monitor the internal site
for any criminal activity. To staff’s recollection this was a unique request, there have been many
other screening applications that had not received similar feedback from the Police. However, we
can understand that this may be a request that is contextually based. Where is the business
located, what type of goods are being stored, will the entirety or a portion of the property be
enclosed? All of these could impact the decision‐making on whether to maintain some visibility.
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. To which end, supporting policing is a crucial component. A balance between these two
purposes will need to be reached by the Commission.
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. Typically,
we avoid overuse of administrative actions in a zoning code, given that the code should leave as
little up to interpretation as possible. However, here there may not be a single condition with
which to attach the exception to, in which case the added flexibility is preferred. Staff would have
greater reluctance if this administrative action were to require greater restriction and cost to the
property owner, but here the action would reduce the level of restriction.
Recommendation
This is a discussion item and as such, no vote or recommendation is required. Staff is only looking
for feedback and direction from Commissioners at this time.
Attachments
•Z00‐82, Garden Structures Materials from 2010 (18 pages)
•Example of Garden Structures in Golden Valley (1 page)