pc-agenda-jul-27-20
REGULAR 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 133 947 2917.
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
July 13, 2020, Regular Planning Commission Meeting
4. Informal Public Hearing – Zoning Text Amendment – Architectural and Material Standards for Mixed
Use Properties
Applicant: City of Golden Valley
5. Informal Public Hearing – Zoning Text Amendment – Revising the Density Range of the Medium
Density Residential (R‐3) Zoning District
Applicant: City of Golden Valley
6. 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 133 947 2917
7. Council Liaison Report
8. Reports on Meetings of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority, City Council, Board of Zoning
Appeals, and other meetings
9. Other Business
10. Adjournment
July 27, 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, Chuck
Segelbaum,
Commissioners absent: Ryan Sadeghi
Staff present: Jason Zimmerman – Planning Manager, Myles Campbell – Planner
Council Liaison present: Gillian Rosenquist
2. Approval of Agenda
Chair Blum asked for a motion to approve the agenda.
MOTION made by Commissioner Brookins, seconded by Commissioner Johnson to approve the
agenda of July 13, 2020. Staff called a roll call vote and the motion carried unanimously.
3. Approval of Minutes
Chair Blum asked for a motion to approve the minutes from June 22, 2020.
MOTION made by Commissioner Brookins, seconded by Commissioner Pockl to approve the June
22, 2020 meeting minutes. Staff called a roll call vote and the motion carried unanimously.
4. Informal Public Hearing – Zoning Text Amendment
Revising the Density Range of the Medium Density Residential (R‐3) Zoning District
Applicant: City of Golden Valley
Jason Zimmerman, Planning Manager, introduced this item as a required follow‐up from the
approved 2040 Comprehensive Plan. When Met Council approves the Comp Plan, the future land use
map needs to show development patterns at certain density thresholds. This showing, ensures each
community in the metro area can accommodate its share of projected growth. Once the plans are
adopted, the zoning maps and text must be updated to come into alignment. Zimmerman displayed
July 13, 2020 – 7 pm
City of Golden Valley Planning Commission Regular Meeting
July 13, 2020 – 7 pm
2
a chart for the Commissioners comparing the current zoning code to the language in the 2040
Comprehensive Plan. Most of the items align but the current R‐3 code language needs updating in
order to align with the 2040 Plan. Zimmerman expanded in greater detail and listed all the multi‐
family buildings to see how they matched the zoning designation; during this process, staff
discovered 14 buildings that were non‐conforming. After more research, staff discovered older
zoning policies that lead to this non‐conformity but once the R‐3 language is updated, this will be
remedied and the buildings would match their zoning designation. The exiting R‐3 language has
Density Bonuses which included underground parking, a building being near public transit, and
offering a private recreation facility for its residents. Most of these items were in place when Golden
Valley was developing, now that the City is built out so staff believes the density bonuses should be
removed so the R‐3 district will align with the other zoning districts.
Staff Recommendation
Amend the text of the Medium Density Residential (R‐3) Zoning District to revise the allowed density
range and strike the density bonus provisions.
Commissioner Segelbaum asked if the buildings listed were rezoned, could they be re‐developed
into 20 units per acre. Staff confirmed and added that they could be up to 20 units or if they were a
senior building, they could be 30 units. Chair Blum asked staff what extent does the current PUD on
any of the properties create another step in the process if there’s a change in zoning. Zimmerman
responded that if there are existing PUDs, that reigns over the zoning designation. The conversation
continued into the possibilities of negotiating re‐development with PUDs and PUD amendments. The
discussion evolved into requirements and process for new or re‐developments after re‐designating
the zoning.
Chair Blum opened the Public Hearing at 7:30pm
Rick Gripentrog
7533 Harold Ave
I’m curious about the area we’re talking about, this area is south of Highway 55, east of Winnetka,
north of Harold Ave, and west of Rhode Island Ave.
Zimmerman responded to the caller and informed him that this call is referring to the second item
on the agenda; the caller continued with his comments.
I understand that you can have up to 20‐30 units per acre and is this area 6 acres?
Zimmerman wasn’t certain as the details were not in front of him.
I’m concerned about the density, doing this development imposes livability issues and traffic issues.
This proposal was brought up before and there were similar concerns about livability and traffic then.
I don’t want to see 2 story apartments with underground parking, it’s not conducive to good livability.
The Chair opened the discussion on this item and stated underground parking doesn’t need to be
tied to density and it can be a nice amenity; it also may leave room for green space. This led the
conversation into developing properties with the largest density and the least cost. Incentives can be
useful as it leads to a more livable building for longer. Segelbaum expressed his concern over making
City of Golden Valley Planning Commission Regular Meeting
July 13, 2020 – 7 pm
3
a such a large decision without a deeper dive in repercussions. The discussion moved in to projected
population growth and city development as well as the Comp Plan and what that means with the
approval from Met Council.
Paula Pentel
941 Angelo Drive
Calling about the new R‐3 density, this is a wonderful for the city to consider doing. It brings
conformity and I don’t think we need to worry about current units because they aren’t going
anywhere or changing. Being consistent about what we want to see moving forward, is a very good
idea. I was on the Council when the area across 55 was rezoned, the various neighbors riled up and
the existing Council backed down. We sit just to the west of Minneapolis and we have a great
obligation to provide good density of housing.
Commissioner Pockl cited attachment language on section of code 113‐90, “within the principle uses
under the medium density residential zoning district that 1,2,3,4 are required to be consistent with
the City’s mixed income housing policy” and asked how the City would be inconsistent with the
mixed income housing policy. Zimmerman responded that the phrase was added when the policy
was passed and wanted to be clear that new multi‐family units were required to have a certain
number of affordable units.
Edward Chesen
7507 Harold Ave
This proposal to rezone came up 10 years ago and I was president of our townhome association and
had been a member of the board of building review, I was also a caller that was riled up, but for good
reason. The reasons stand today, I don’t know if the Commission has considered what has happened
in that area since the proposal was turned down. The developers that wanted to develop the area
backed out and some smaller developers came in and developed a number of units into single family
housing. There’s a lot more to this than the serenity of the neighborhood. I wonder if the property
owners in light of the rezoning turn down would have legal recourse to have their property zone
changed again.
Zimmerman added that the latest call is related to the second public hearing.
The Chair added that he doesn’t like the idea of the City losing its leverage to make the kind of
development happen that it wants to see happen, including amenities or tweaks to specific
properties. Zimmerman said a number of Commissioners have agreed that there needs to be a way
that this complies with the Comp Plan but this may not be the best approach. He added that if
Commissioners are open, this item be tabled so they can find a way to comply per Met Council but
create a broader list of checks and balances. Brookins stated his support for what’s presented and
believes it’ll benefit Golden Valley in the long‐term. He added that he’d hate to see this item go
through another 10‐year cycle before it’s addressed again. Commissioner Baker stated his support
for tabling the item in order to collect additional information. Segelbaum and Pockl echoed Baker’s
statement.
City of Golden Valley Planning Commission Regular Meeting
July 13, 2020 – 7 pm
4
MOTION made by Commissioner Baker, seconded by Commissioner Brookins to table this agenda
item and discuss at a later meeting with additional information. A roll call vote was made and passed
unanimously.
5. Informal Public Hearing – Zoning Map Amendments
Rezoning Properties to Achieve Conformance with the 2040 Comprehensive Plan
Applicant: City of Golden Valley
Jason Zimmerman, Planning Manager, stated the request to continue rezoning properties in order to
conform with the Future Land Use Map in the 2040 Comp Plan. Staff reminded Commissioners that
this started with the rezoning of the I‐394 Mixed Use properties. A map was then displayed of the
existing zoning map and the future land use map, in order to illustrate how rezoning will take place
as the City comes into conformity with the comp plan.
Zimmerman expressed that there are NO active development proposals for any properties that are
currently under consideration for rezoning, this item is strictly administrative.
There are six groups being addressed in this rezoning and includes 18 properties. Majority of them
are being rezoned to match what is currently on the ground. A few are being rezoned in anticipation
of future plans.
Group 1
9201 Olson Memorial Highway
8900 Betty Crocker Drive
Rezoning Office to Institutional Subdistrict I‐4
Group 2
1 General Mills Boulevard Rezoning Industrial District to Office District
Group 3
7831 Olson Memorial Hwy
7830 Harold Ave
440 Winnetka Ave N
7732 Harold Ave
424 Winnetka Ave N
7724 Harold Ave
400 Winnetka Ave N
7720 Harold Ave
7840 Harold Ave
411 Rhode Island Ave N
Rezoning Single‐Family Residential (R‐1)
Medium Density Residential (R‐3)
Any development proposals in this area would require a traffic study.
Group 4
5635 Glenwood Ave
5701 Glenwood Ave
Rezoning Single‐Family Residential (R‐1) to
Medium Density Residential (R‐3)
City of Golden Valley Planning Commission Regular Meeting
July 13, 2020 – 7 pm
5
Group 5
501 Theodore Wirth Parkway Rezoning High Density Residential (R‐4) to
Medium Density Residential (R‐3)
Group 6
5073 Wayzata Boulevard Office to Commercial
1513 Utica Ave S Office to High Density Residential (R‐4)
Zimmerman closed his presentation by stating State statute requires all zoning designations to be
consistent with the land uses identified in the Comp Plan within nine months of adoption.
If the City chooses not to rezone any of these properties, the Future Land Use Map would need to be
amended with the Met Council.
Staff Recommendation
Following the provisions of State statute (sec. 473.858, subd. 1) and the requirements of the
Metropolitan Council with respect to comprehensive planning, staff recommends the 18 identified
properties be rezoned as indicated.
Commissioner Pockl asked if some of the groups could be approved and others tabled, considering
the previous agenda item was tabled. Staff said each group could be looked at separately and
approved or tabled.
Chair Blum opened the public hearing at 8:24pm.
Tina Prokosch
7601 Harold Ave
I’m calling about group three, was this considered to be rezoned to an R‐2? That would align with the
other areas around here are an R‐2 zoning and I’m concerned what an R‐3 zoning will do to this area.
Martha Johnson
7647 Harold Ave
Why does Golden Valley seem to think rezoning group three is beneficial? The answer cannot be to
increase density as I believe Golden Valley has met our density requirement. It would appear rezoning
this area is out of character with surrounding areas.
Colin
7511 Harold
Calling in general support of the rezoning movement across the city and specifically related to the
Winnetka and 55 intersection. I think there are a lot of city infrastructure that can support that type
of development. If we’re going to be a sustainable and economically viable city, we need to be
progressive see these types of changes as good.
City of Golden Valley Planning Commission Regular Meeting
July 13, 2020 – 7 pm
6
The Chair asked staff if the area was considered for R‐2 designation. Zimmerman showed a map
and said that during Planning Commission meetings, the lots addressed were not considered for R‐
2 as those are small single‐family lots or duplexes. The discussion moved into the number of units
per acre, building size limits, storm water regulations, and open space requirements.
Eric Pederson
130 Louisiana Ave N
A giant building on the intersection of Harold and Winnetka would make an already busy traffic
area, a disaster when Covid ends. Not to mention I think we’ve done a good job building high
density housing, including the monstrosity on Xenia that seems to be taking 5 years to build. My
point is that we had an organized group 9 years ago, we gathered hundreds of signatures against a
5‐story building in our neighborhood when nothing is taller than really 2 stories. I would ask you to
see notes from this time and we were told no developments on Rhode Island and this neighborhood
would occur and it had to be re‐zoned to be re‐developed. The area stayed as R‐1 and R‐2 and
houses were built there. This area should remain R‐2 to stay consistent with the neighborhood. We
will organize again to prevent this re‐zoning.
Tara Fini
7517 Harold Ave
I support the ordinance, we live in very nice area; the city has a lot to offer in terms of multi‐family
housing that isn’t an eyesore. Maybe the city should do work to help residents understand what the
project is and what it isn’t. Doesn’t seem like there’s enough understanding of what this will look
like.
Commissioners discussed this item and the history of it as it was brought up by callers.
Commissioner Segelbaum stated he’d approve the groups but wants to look closer at group three
before deciding. Commissioner Pockl echoed this and wants to discuss more details around group
three. Commissioner Brookins stated his support of all the groups but would leave group 5 as a R‐
4, he doesn’t see a change occurring. The Chair asked staff what their direction is. Zimmerman
stated the Council would like a recommendation but group three can be tabled for further
discussion.
MOTION made by Commissioner Segelbaum and seconded by Commissioner Pockl to approve the
rezoning designations for groups 1,2,4,5,6. A roll call vote was made and passed unanimously.
MOTION made by Commissioner Segelbaum and seconded by Commissioner Brookins to table the
designations relative to group 3 for further discussion. A roll call vote was made and passed
unanimously.
6. Discussion – Architectural and Material Standards for Mixed Use Properties
Jason Zimmerman, Planning Manager, reminded the group that when the City adopted architectural
and material standards for new developments in the R‐3, R‐4, Commercial, Office, Institutional, Light
City of Golden Valley Planning Commission Regular Meeting
July 13, 2020 – 7 pm
7
Industrial, and Industrial zoning districts; the Mixed‐Use district had not been finalized or adopted.
This discussion will be to revisit the regulations that were adopted previously and to begin to outline
the parameters for standards in the Mixed‐Use zoning district. Details regarding the elements are in
the memo. Chair Blum stated he recalls the conversation, likes the list, and supports the need for
consistency. Commissioners Brookins, Segelbaum, and Pockl echoed the Chair’s statement.
7. Discussion – Fences, Screening, and Garden Structures
Myles Campbell, Planner, stated that last year staff identified a number of areas in which the
existing code language regarding screening, and specifically fencing, could be improved upon.
Campbell expanded that the revisions are largely based on resident feedback and observed patterns
in how properties are utilizing fences and garden structures. The three items addressed surround
arterial road fence height exceptions, garden structures, and public safety screening exceptions.
Arterial Road Fence Height Exception
Current zoning code for residential properties limits the height of fences to 4 feet in the front yard of
homes. Fences up to 6 feet in height are allowed in rear and side yards, this allows for some privacy
between properties and to mitigate the carrying of noise. There is an existing exception for front yard
fences to extend beyond 4 feet in height and is based upon the property’s proximity to a major
roadway. A large number of variance requests have come before the BZA for properties that do not
adjoin a minor arterial, but which are separated by a frontage road from a large principal arterial
roadway. These properties experience similar or greater noise impacts and still need to pursue
variances. Calculating the number of variance requests, and that these requests are almost
unanimously found to be reasonable, staff feels a new exception should be included in the code for
homes that are adjacent to or directly across a frontage road from a principal arterial. Specific
language to follow.
Chair Blum asked if ROW plantings could be put in place instead of taller fences. Campbell recalled a
variance that utilized fencing and plantings but a greater conversation could occur. However, many
plantings won’t create enough mitigation for residents. Most of these examples are facing highways
or frontage roads, the fences generally won’t face neighbors or other houses.
Garden Structures
In both the R‐1 and R‐2, garden structures are required to be no less than 5 feet from any property
line, including the front property line, and the garden structure shall not exceed 10 feet in height.
This was to allow these structures in front yards to provide decorative accents to residents’ gardens
and landscaping, and to make a delineation between these structures and sheds or detached
garages. Recently, staff noticed the use of substantial garden structures to provide screening above
the allowed 6 feet of fencing in residential neighborhoods. Staff is seeking some discussion and
feedback from the Commission on what action they’d like to take.
Chair Blum asked if the structure’s primary use is to screen, should it be removed from the code.
However, there’s a wide range of interpretation and altering dimensions of the structure may be
City of Golden Valley Planning Commission Regular Meeting
July 13, 2020 – 7 pm
8
more concrete than stating a primary use. The conversation continued around possible dimension
and location restrictions, and how restrictive language should be regarding a specific number or a
certain percentage of the lot size.
Public Safety Screening Exception
For Commercial and Industrial properties, the City has strict restrictions on screening the property
and any outdoor storage. The goal was to promote greater cleanliness and order within the City’s
Commercial and Industrial districts. Recently, the Chief of Police raised an unintended consequence
of these stringent screening requirements. An outdoor storage facility opening in the City applied for
a fence permit, and presented a plan that would meet the City’s requirements; however, Police
asked if a portion of the screening requirement could be waived or reduced along the main street‐
side of the property due to safety monitoring. Staff feels that while one of the central tenants of the
zoning code is to promote the welfare of the City and its property owners, another equally important
consideration is the safety of the City. Staff’s initial thought is to treat this exception as an
administrative decision given that the decision to reduce the screening may be based upon different
sets of circumstances.
Televised portion of the meeting concluded at 9:37 pm
8. Council Liaison Report
Council Member Rosenquist reported that the agreement for Phase III of the Downtown Study
was approved by the City Council. Work will begin over the summer and continue into the fall.
The Council also accepted a bench donation from the family of Lisa Wittman. Rosenquist gave a
preview of the upcoming Council/Manager meeting which will focus on issues of equity and
policing. She encouraged Commissioners to visit the Mapping Prejudice website to see how the
use of racially restricted covenants spread across Golden Valley.
9. Reports on Meetings of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority, City Council, Board of Zoning
Appeals, and other meetings
10. Other Business
11. Adjournment
MOTION by Commissioner Brookins to adjourn, seconded by Commission Baker, and approved
unanimously. Meeting adjourned at 9:47 pm.
________________________________
Adam Brookins, Secretary
________________________________
Amie Kolesar, Planning Assistant
1
Date: July 27, 2020
To: Golden Valley Planning Commission
From: Jason Zimmerman, Planning Manager
Subject: Informal Public Hearing – 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 Planning Commission discussed Mixed Use standards briefly at its July 13 meeting and was
comfortable moving forward with the regulations below.
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
2
Artificial stucco
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 recommends 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 is consistent with vision of the City.
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
Staff recommends the City Code text within Section 113‐157: Architectural and Material
Standards be amended to include standards for properties zoned Mixed Use as detailed in the
attached document.
Attachment
Additional Language for Section 113‐157: Architectural and Material Standards (2 pages)
DRAFT Language for Section 113-157: Architectural and Material Standards
[…]
(f) Mixed Use Zoning District.
(1) Architectural.
a. 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.
b. Openings. Views into and out of the building shall be provided to enliven the
streetscape and enhance security. Where residential uses occupy the ground floor
level, window and door openings shall comprise at least 20 percent of the area of the
ground floor façade facing the primary street. Window and door openings shall
comprise at least 15 percent of the area of the side and rear ground floor façades.
Where nonresidential uses occupy the ground floor level, window and door openings
shall comprise at least 60 percent of the length of the front façade and at least 30
percent of the area of the ground floor façade facing the primary street. Window and
door openings shall comprise at least 20 percent of the areas of the side and rear
ground floor façades.
On upper stories, windows shall comprise at least 15 percent of the façade area for
residential uses and 20 percent of the façade area for nonresidential uses.
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.
c. 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.
d. 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.
(2) Materials.
a. Front façades, and side and rear façades visible from the public right-of-way, shall be
composed of at least 50% Class I materials and no more than 10% Class III materials.
b. Side and rear façades not visible from the public right-of-way shall be composed of at
least 40% Class I materials and no more than 10% Class III materials.
c. Each façade must utilize a minimum of two types of Class I materials.
1
Date: July 27, 2020
To: Golden Valley Planning Commission
From: Jason Zimmerman, Planning Manager
Subject: Continued 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
On July 13, the Planning Commission considered changes being proposed by staff to address the
misalignment of the R‐3 density range in the Zoning Chapter and that adopted in the Comp Plan
(see table below). Staff had recommended increasing the upper end of the allowed density range
to 20 units per acre for multi‐family projects and 30 units per acre for senior/disability housing.
Staff also advocated for simplifying the calculations by eliminating the existing density bonuses.
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
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
2
acre for senior/disability housing
Maximum of 100 units per acre with a CUP
During discussion, Commissioners expressed concerns that a “by‐right” increase of the density
range could have negative impacts for some properties near those zoned R‐3 that are currently at
the low end of this range, as they would have the biggest potential to increase in intensity. There
was also a request to better understand the context of each of the current multi‐family
properties.
To that end, staff has attached a map calling out all of the current R‐3 zoned properties and has
included an updated table with information for each.
Analysis
One key metric that was approved in the land use section of the Comprehensive Plan is that
Medium Density Residential land use is meant to include densities of up to 30 units per acre. At
least two possible solutions exist to address the concerns of the Commissioners. First, the land
use table in the Comp Plan could be amended (with the approval of the Met Council) to max out
at a lower density. Alternatively, additional review and approval – through a Conditional Use
Permit process – could be required in order to allow developments to reach the higher ends of
these density ranges.
Option 1, amending the Comp Plan, would allow the City to leave the R‐3 densities ranges as they
are but would result in 14 to 20 R‐3 zoned properties being deemed non‐conforming, as the
existing densities already exceed what current code allows. This route also leaves a relatively
narrow window for medium density properties to fill, while the range of high density properties is
quite large.
Option 2, increasing the density caps but utilizing a Conditional Use Permit process, would allow
the City to retain tighter review and approval of projects on the upper end of the R‐3 range and
to potentially impose conditions related to traffic, height, parking, massing, and other impacts,
while still meeting the requirements of the Comp Plan.
Looking at the current R‐3 zoned properties, most are located along highways or major arterials –
the biggest exception being the Wesley Commons/Mallard Creek/Valley Square development
along Golden Valley Road in the downtown area. These locations are beneficial in that they tend
to be on the edges of single‐family neighborhoods and there should be sufficient access and
capacity for any future increases in traffic.
The handful of R‐3 properties that currently have very low densities are all located on major
roadways:
Golden Valley Townhomes – 2120 Douglas Drive
Skyline Plaza – 7400 Olson Memorial Hwy
Golden Valley Road Apartments (previously Westbrook Manor) – 6200 Golden Valley Road
3
Most of the R‐3 properties that are currently in the middle of the density range are also located
on major roadways – the exceptions being the West End Apartments (on Yosemite Circle) and
perhaps the Crossroad Apartments (at Glenwood and Xenia Aves).
R‐3 zoned properties that are currently within PUDs already have an extra layer of review built in
due to the process for amending a PUD, which would require City approval before an increase in
density would be allowed.
Recommendation
In order to address the concerns of the Planning Commission, staff is recommended pursuing
Option 2 and modifying the density ranges in the R‐3 zoning district to allow by‐right
development of multi‐family buildings up to 15 units per acre and up to 20 units per acre through
a CUP. Senior and disability housing would be allowed by‐right up to 20 units per acre and up 30
units per acre through a CUP (see table below). Staff continues to recommend removing the
three density bonus provisions in the code so as to simplify regulations.
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 15 units per acre or 20 units per
acre with a CUP
For senior/disability housing, maximum of 20
units per acre or 30 units per acre 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 acres with a CUP
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
Map of R‐3 Properties (1 page)
Table of R‐3 Zoned Properties (1)
Density of Development Examples (4 pages)
Underlined/Overstruck Language for Sec. 113‐90: Medium Density Residential (R‐3) Zoning District
(2 pages)
!!
!
!!!
!
!!!
!!!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!!!!
!
!
!
!!!!!!!!
!
!!!!!
!
!!!
!!!!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!!!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!!!!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!!
!!!
!
!
!
!
!!!!!!!!
!!!
!!!!!!
!
!!!!!!!!
!!!!!
!
!
!!!!!!
!
!
!!!!!!!
!
!!
!!!
!
!
!!!!
!!!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!!!!!!
!!!!!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!!
!!!
!
!!!!!!
!!!!!
!
!
!
!
!!!!!Medic
i
neLakeBranchIkePond
Colonial Pond
Ottawa Pond
Glen-woodPond
EgretPond
LilacPond
DuluthPond
St.CroixPond
Chicago Pond
LilacPond
Pond CTurners PondGlen 1 Pond
DuckPond
Loop EPond
Loop FPond Sweeney LakeWirth LakeTwin LakeB a s s ett Creek
Hampshire Pond
DecolaPond A
NorthRicePond
West RingPond
Cortlawn Pond
DecolaPonds B & C
Westwood Lake
SchaperPond
SouthRicePond
East RingPond Bassett CreekDecolaPondE
DecolaPond F
BreckPond
NatchezPond
MinnaquaPond
WirthPond
Toledo/AngeloPond
HoneywellPond
StrawberryPond
DecolaPond D
Ba
s
s
e
tt Cr
e
e
k
BassettC
r
e
e
k
Basset
t
Cr
eekBassettC re ek
BassettC reekSweeney L akeBranchSweeney Lake BranchNW LoopPondBoone Avenue PondMain Stem
Pond B
Pond C
Bassett Creek NatureArea Pond
Medicine Lake
BrookviewPond A
Hidden LakesPond 1
Pond 2A
Pond 2B
Pond 3
Schaper BallfieldPond
Pond O
Pond J
Spirit of Hope Church Pond
GoldenRidgePond
Golden Meadows Pond
SoccerFieldPond
WestPond
201GeneralMillsPond
HaroldPond
Medicine Lake Road Pond
Xenia MitigationPond
10th AvePond
SpringPond
Briar-woodPond
LaurelHills Pond
JFB NWPond
LogisPond
BrownieLake
BirchPond
MinnaquaWetland
GrimesPondBassett CreekPark Pond
SweeneyLakeBranchPond M
Pond F
Pond DPond E
Dover HillPondLiberty BasinUnion Pacific Railroad
Canadian Pacific Railroad B
urlin
gto
n
N
o
rth
e
r
n
Sa
nt
aFeRail
roadCanadianPacificRailroadC anadia nP acificR ailroadC ana d ia n P a c ific Railroad
Union Pacific Railro a d
BrookviewGolf Course
LionsPark
WesleyPark
Sochacki Park
SchaperPark
ScheidParkHampshirePark
MedleyPark
Briarwood
Laurel Avenue Greenbelt
Glenview TerracePark
North TyrolPark
Western AvenueMarsh
Nature
Area
GeartyPark
Sandburg AthleticFacility
NatchezPark
ValleyView ParkPennsylvaniaWoods
BassettCreekNature Area
WildwoodPark
IsaacsonPark
SouthTyrol Park
SeemanPark
AdelineNature Area
YosemitePark
StockmanPark
Golden OaksPark
St CroixPark
LakeviewPark
SweeneyPark
Perpich CenterBall Fields
Ronald B. Davis Community Center
Brookview Park
Westwood HillsNature Center (SLP)
(MPRB)
Theodore WirthRegional Park
Eloise Butler WildflowerGarden and Bird Sanctuary
Wirth LakeBeach
Golden RidgeNature Area
General Mills NaturePreserve
General Mills ResearchNature Area
BooneOpenSpace
GoldenHills Pond
MadisonPond
SouthTyrolPond
LibraryHill
IdahoWetland
GeorgiaOpen Space
ArdmoreNorth&SouthPonds
JanalynPond
MeadowPond
O pen S pace
OrklaOpenSpace
PicnicPavilion
Chalet
SochackiPark (Three Rivers Park Dist.)
Bassett Valley Open Space
ByrdBluffOpenSpace
→
FishingDock
PaisleyPark
XeniaOpenSpace
DahlbergOpenSpace
Minnaqua Greenbelt
(TRPD)
(Mpls Park & Rec Board)
Plymouth Avenue The Trailhead
456766
456770
456766
456740
456740
4567156
4567102
§¨¦394
§¨¦394
Æÿ55
Æÿ55
Æÿ100
Æÿ100
£¤169
£¤169
34th Ave N
Medicine Lake Rd
BroggerCir Knoll St Lilac Dr NLilac Dr NThotland Rd
Mendelssohn Ave NWinnetka Ave NSunnyridgeCir
Western Ave (Wat
erfordDr)Hillsboro Ave NZealandAve
N
Aquila Ave NOrkla DrWisconsin Ave N23rd Ave N
KalternLn
Wynnwood Rd
25th Ave N
Bies DrJonellen Ln
Sumter Ave NRhodeIslandAveNPatsy Ln Valders Ave NWinnetka Ave NDuluth St Florida Ave NSandburg Rd HeritageCirKentley Ave
Wynnwood Rd
Kenneth Way
Unity Ave NB a s s e tt C r e e k DrQuailAveNScott Ave NLilac Dr NLowry Ter
33rd Ave N
Noble Ave NCross LnQuail Ave NScott Ave NRegent Ave NToledo Ave NIndiana Ave N(BridgewaterRd)(WaterfordCt)(Hid
d
e
n
LnkesPkwy)Meadow Ln NFrance Ave NTopel Rd
Unity Ave NPhoenix St
Parkview TerWelcomeAveNWelcomeC ir
Welcom
eAveNXeniaAveNZ
a
n
e Av
e
N
Lindsay St
St Croix Ave N
St Croix Ave N
Yosemite Ave NWolfberryLnBrunswick Ave NCounty Rd 102Westmore Way
Green Valley Rd
Louisiana Ave NKelly DrMaryland Ave NOlympia St
Winsdale St
Winnetka Ave NYukon CtWesleyDr WesleyDr
Plymouth Ave N
10th Ave N
Kelly DrVarner CirPennsylvania Ave NFaribault StQuebec Ave NRhode Island Ave NPhoenix St
Knoll St
County Rd 156Jersey Ave NCountryClubDr
P h o e n ix S t
Douglas DrGeorgia Ave NCou
nty
Rd40
Hampshire Ave NWestch e sterCirJersey Ave NGardenParkQue
be
c
Av
e
SWinnetka Ave NWally St
Ensign Ave N7th Ave N
Golden Valley Rd Decatur Ave N10th Ave N
Natchez Ave NXerxes Ave N (Mpls)Olson Memorial Hwy
Cutacross Rd
Olson Memorial Hwy
Earl St
Flag Ave NHampshire
LnJersey Ave NFloridaAveNEdgewoodAve NDouglas DrDuluth Ln
Scott Ave N
Drake Rd
Lowry Ter Kyle Ave NQuail Ave NPerry Ave NNoble Ave NCulver Rd
Dawnview Ter
Dona Ln
Noble Ave NScottAveNGlendenTer
Culver Rd
Marie Ln W
Hampton Rd
RegentAveNPerryAveNLilac Dr N27th Ave N
Merribee Dr Kyle Ave NHampton RdOrchard Ave NMarie Ln E
Lee Ave NKyle Ave NDres
de
n
L
n
Kewanee Way
26th Ave N
Meridia
n D
r
P
ark
vie
w
Blv
d Terrace LnManor DrMcNair DrByrd Ave N
Bas
s
ettCreekDrMaryHillsDrZenith Ave NVista DrXerxes Ave NYork Ave NS t M a rg are t D rZephyr PlXerxes Ave NXerxes Ave N (Mpls)(SkylineDr)Spruce TrKyle PlWestbrook Rd Noble Ave Frontage RdCircleDownOrchard Ave NPerryAveNWindsorWayWestbendRdUnity Ave NG reenvie wLn
Regent Ave NSorell Ave
FrontenacAveQuail Ave NStCroixAveN
Winsdale St StCroixCirAngelo DrUnity Ave NAlfred Rd Spring Valley RdN
o
ble
DrMajor DrAdeline LnAngelo DrAngelo DrWills PlToledo Ave NOttawa Ave NKillarney DrZane Ave NWoodstock Ave Woodstock Ave
Loring LnYosemiteAveN
Turners Crossroad NWestchesterCirN
F
r
ontageRdFlorida Ave NHampshire Ave NPlymouth Ave N
Idaho Ave NOlympia StHampshire Ave NArcher Ave NKelly DrPennsylvania Ave NDuluth St Xylon Ave NWisconsin Ave NSumter Ave NBoone Ave NWinsdale St
Meadow Ln N
DahlbergD r
Woodstock Ave
Poplar Dr Meadow Ln NChatelain Ter
Natchez Ave NEdgewood Ave NK in g s t on C i r
Glenwood Ave
Country Club DrValdersAveNOrkla DrElgin PlDecaturAveN
Indiana Ave NRoanoke CirWestern Ave Western Ave
Harold Ave
Loring Ln
WestwoodDrNArdmoreDrWinsdale St
Knoll St
Oak Grove CirDuluth St Zane Ave NDouglas Dr27th Ave N
Bo
n
nieLn
Medicine Lake Rd
Madison Ave W
Nevada Ave NLouisiana Ave NCounty Rd 70
ValdersAve NValders Ave N23rd Ave N Rhode IslandAve NCounty Rd 156Medicine Lake Rd
Mendelssohn Ave NWinsdale St
St Croix Ave N June Ave NLegend DrLegendLn
General Mills BlvdBoone Ave NSunnyridge LnGlenwood Ave
Janalyn CirJanalyn CirGlencrest Rd Meadow Ln SWayzata BlvdWestwood Dr SWestwoodLn
StrawberryLnOttawa Ave NOttawa Ave SNatchez Ave S Tyrol Crest
SussexRdJune Ave SWayzata Blvd
FairlawnWayNatchez Ave SOttawa Ave SPrincetonAve SDouglas Ave
Circle DownTurners Crossroad SGolden Hills Dr
Laurel AveLaurel Ave
Hampshire Ave SDakota Ave SBrunswick Ave SKing Hill RdGlenwood Ave
Colonial Dr
Medicine Lake Rd
FloridaAveSAlley
Market StMarket St
Louisiana Ave SLaurel AvePennsylvania Ave SRhode Island Ave SSumter Ave SUtah Ave SGregory Rd
VermontAve SWi
sc
o
nsin
AveSGeneral Mills BlvdHanley RdRidgeway Rd
Laurel Ave QubecAve S County Rd 102Nevada Ave SColonial RdLouisianaAveSKentucky Ave SJersey Ave SHeathbrookeCir
G le n w o o d P k w y
(Carriage Path)Xenia Ave SFlorida CtLilacDr
NOlson Memorial Hwy
Schaper Rd
Lilac Dr NG old en V a lle y R d
Lilac Dr N(WoodlandTrail)(Wat.Dr)
BassettCreek Ln
(NobleDr)France Ave S (Mpls)N Frontage Rd
S Frontage Rd Olson Mem HwyAdair Ave NAdair Ave NWestbrookRd
34th Ave N
Mendelssohn Ave NAlley-Unimproved--Unimproved-
Wayzata Blvd
Wayzata BlvdBoone Ave NG o ld e nValley D r
SchullerCirN Front ag e Rd S F r o nt a g e Rd
Rhode IslandAve N Pennsylvania Ave SAlley
Alley
(Private)AlleyAlleyLilac Dr NXerxes Ave N (Mpls)Harold Ave WestwoodDr
N
Ardmore DrT
he
o
d
ore
Wirth
P
k
w
y
Tyrol Tr(Mendelssohn Ln)AlleyS Frontage Rd
Al
pinePassBrenner
P
a
ssDougl a s Ave
QuentinAveSTyrol TrailTyrol
Tra ilSunsetRidge
Westw
oodDrS
RavineTrTyrol
Tr
ail
Janalyn C i rMaddusLn
MeadowLnS
AvondaleRdBurntsideDr Su nnyridgeLnBru
n
s
wickAveNLeberLn
C lo v e rle afDrCloverLnC
loverleafD
r TheodoreWirthPkwyBeverly Ave
B u rn tsideDrSpringValleyRdToledoAveN
DuluthSt
GoldenV alle y R dSpringValleyCirCounty Rd 66
(IslandDr)(IslandDr)GoldenValleyRd
TheodoreWirthPkwyW irth P k w y
Wayzat
a
Blvd
G le n w o o d P kwyPlymouthAve N (Mpls)ZenithAveNCr
est
vi
ewAve
Byr d A v e N
Hwy 55
Glenwood Ave
Bassett CreekDrLegend DrLeeAveNLeeAveNMajorAveNLeeAveNEl m daleRd
AdellAv eM in n a quaDr M innaq uaD r
ToledoAveNOrdwayMarkayRidge Orchard Ave NNor m a n d y Pl
CherokeePlQuailAveNRegentAveNTri t o n DrTr ito n D r
L o w r y Ter
3
3rdAveN
SandburgLn Lamplighter
Ln
BrookridgeAveNValeCrestRdWinfieldAveCountyRd 66
ParkPlaceBlvd
(SLP)I-394SF r ontage Rd (SLP)Xeni
aAveSCounty Rd 70
L ila cD rNLilacDrNLilacD
r
NConstanceDrWConstanceDrESandburg Rd
S Frontage Rd
N Frontage Rd N Frontage RdOlsonMemorialHwy
S F r o n t a g e R d
Ol s o n M e m o r i a l Hw y
OlsonMemorialHwy Valleywo
odCirYosemite CirLawn TerR
adissonRd
Turnpike
RdAlley
AlleyTurnpikeRd Col
onialDr
GlenwoodAve
BrunswickAve NMeanderRd
MeanderRdIdahoAveNHaroldAve
Wayzata Blvd
I-394SFrontageRd
Edgewo
o
dAveSIdahoAveNCortlawnCirWCortlawn Cir S
CortlawnCirN
Dawnvie w TerCounty Rd 70
EdgewoodAveSK in g CreekRdKentu
ckyAveNLouisianaAveNMarylandAve SRhodeIslandAveSRidgewayRdEwaldTe rWesternTer
FieldD r Brookview Pk w y N Harold Ave
HalfMoonDr
RidgewayRdG oldenValleyR d(B assett Creek
Blvd)Lewis Rd
10thAve N
EllisLnP lym outhAv eN Plymouth Ave N
FaribaultSt
OrklaDrCastleCt Winnetka Heights D rKelly
Dr
Maryland
Av
eNHampshire Pl
OlympiaSt
Oregon Ave NQuebecAveNValdersAveNOrklaDrKnoll StWisconsinA
veNWinsdaleSt
Mandan
AveNCounty Rd 102AquilaAveNAquila
A
veNZealandAveNJulianneTer Jul ia n neTerPatsy Ln
WisconsinAveNAquilaAveNWestbendRd
WinnetkaHeightsDr
ZealandAveNOrklaDrValdersCtValdersAve NWinnetkaHeights Dr
Aq uilaAveNZealandAveNS c ottAveNRose
ManorDuluthSt
Duluth St CavellAveNEnsignAveNElg in Pl
23rd Ave N
Medley L n
(Medley Rd)
(Medley C ir)H illsboroAveN(English Cir)(MayfairR
d
)(Kin
g
s
V a lleyRd)(K ings
V
al
leyRdE)(KingsValleyRdW)
(Stro
d
en
Cir)(Tamarin Tr)
(Mar
qui
sRd)
Ski Hill
Rd MajorCirLeeAveNMajorAveNRhodeIslandAveNG o ld e n V a lle yR d
G o ld e n V a lle y R d
G o ld e n V a lle y R d
Hwy100Hwy100Hwy100Hwy100Hwy100Hwy100
Hwy 394
Hwy394 Hwy394
Hwy 394 Hwy394ColoradoAve NHwy169Hwy169Hwy169Hwy169Hwy169Colorado Ave SGoldenHil l s DrPaisleyLnPaisleyLn
I-394NFrontageRd I-394 N FrontageRd
WayzataBlvd
I-394SFrontag e Rd
York
AveNValeryRdW
asatchLn
Hwy 55
Hwy 55
H w y 5 5
Olson Memorial HwyHwy 55
H wy 5 5
County Rd 40
County Rd 40 Glenwoo d A ve
County R d 4 0
CountyRd40
GoldenValleyRd
C o unty Rd66ManchesterDr
County Rd 156OregonAveS24thAve N
LilacDrNRoanokeRdLouisianaAveN
TurnpikeRdLilacLoop (Sunnyridge Ln)WisconsinAveN
GettysburgCt(LaurelPt)
(Laurel Curv)Independence Ave NGettysburg Ave NFlag Ave NWheelerBlvdAlleyNaper St
Be tty CrockerDr Decatur Ave N(WesleyCommonsDr)Winnetka Ave S Winnetka Ave SHanley RdBrookviewPkwySWayzataBlvd
I-394 S Frontage R d
Olympia St
Independence Ave NHillsboro Ave NGettysburg Ave NDover Hills
MedleyHillsCondos
TrentwoodApartments
MallardCreekApartments WesleyCommons
BrookviewApartments
Laurel atWest End
The Laurel
CrossroadsApartmentsColonialApartments
LaurelHills
West EndApartments
ValleyVillageApartments
BriarwoodApartments
BriarwoodTownhomes
DuluthStreetFlats
CopaCabana
HiddenVillage
WestbrookManor
The VillaOn BassettCreek
ValleyCreek
Douglas DriveApartments
Valley ViewApartmentsOasisHouse
Douglas DriveApartments
ValleySquareTownhomes
2120DouglasDr N
LaurelPonds
West EndTrails
City of Golden Valley, Engineering7800 Golden Valley RoadGolden Valley, MN 55427-4588763-593-8030www.goldenvalleymn.gov
R-3 Properties
0 800 1,600 2,400 3,200400Feet
I
Print Date: 7/22/2020Sources:-Hennepin County Surveyors Office for Property Lines (2020) -City of Golden Valley for all other layers.
Zoning
(R-3) Medium Density Residential
R-3 Zoned Properties
Development Location Acres Units Density PUD Current Zoning Proposed Zoning
Golden Valley Townhomes 2120 Douglas Drive 1.52 8 5.3 R-3 R-3
Briarwood 2300-2561 Unity Ave N 18.24 128 7.0 Yes R-3 R-3
Skyline Plaza 7400 Olson Memorial Hwy 1.95 14 7.2 R-4 R-3
Laurel Ponds 3.3 24 7.3 Yes R-3 R-3
Golden Valley Road Apartments 6200 Golden Valley Road 2.43 20 8.2 R-3 R-4
Laurel Hills 59001/6051 Laurel Ave 10.92 102 9.3 Yes R-3 R-3
Brookview Condominiums 9141/9143/9145/9147 Olson Memorial Hwy 7.16 71 9.9 Yes R-3 R-3
Colonial Apartments 5743/5745/5747 Glenwood Ave 3.59 36 10.0 Yes R-3 R-3
Hidden Village 6000-6196 Golden Valley Road 6.1 62 10.2 Yes R-3 R-3
Sourthwirth Park 501 Theodore Wirth Parkway 5.78 60 10.4 R-4 R-3
Duluth Street Flats 6150 St. Croix Ave N 4.77 51 10.7 R-3 R-3
Trentwood Apartments 9110/9140/9200/9210/9240 Golden Valley Rd 4.79 54 11.3 R-3 Mixed Use
West End Apartments 241/251/261/271 Yosemite Circle 6.77 79 11.7 R-3 R-3
Crossroad Apartments 5601 Glenwood Ave 2.9 35 12.1 R-3 R-3
Valley View Apartments 6533 Golden Valley Road 5.81 72 12.4 R-3 R-3
Laurel at West End 5610 Laurel Ave 4.44 65 14.6 Yes R-3 R-3
Medley Hills Condos 9201/9225 Medicine Lake Road 3.42 54 15.8 Yes R-3 R-3
Mallard Creek 8300/8400 Golden Valley Road 7.67 124 16.2 Yes R-3 R-3
Valley Village Apartments*600 Lilac Drive N 6.66 112 16.8 R-3 R-3
Stonehaven Apartments 1400/1450/1500/1600 Douglas Drive 3.44 58 16.9 R-3 R-3
Villas on Bassett Creek 1350 Douglas Drive 2.79 48 17.2 R-3 R-3
Copa Cabana 1725 Lilac Drive N 2.78 49 17.6 R-3 R-3
Wesley Commons 7930/8010/8100/8250 Golden Valley Road
620/625 Wesley Commons Dr
750 Wisconsin Ave N
7.56 132 17.5 Yes R-3 R-3
Dover Hills 2400 Rhode Island Ave N 13.22 234 17.7 Yes R-3 R-3
Valley Square Townhomes 749 Winnetka Ave N 1.28 25 19.5 Yes R-3 R-3
The Laurel 250 Turners Crossroad S 4.36 86 19.7 R-3 R-3
Valley Creek West 1370 Douglas Drive 1.83 36 19.7 R-3 R-3
Suburban 10 units per acreDensity of
Development
Suburban 15 units per acreDensity of
Development
Suburban 18 units per acreDensity of
Development
Suburban 25 units per acreDensity of
Development
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 15 10 units per acre for multifamily
dwellings and up to 20 units per acre with a conditional use permit 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 and up to 30 units per acre or up to 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 15 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 20 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) Multi‐family dwellings to a density of 20 units per acre, consistent with the City’s
Mixed‐income Housing Policy
(2) Senior and physical disability housing to a density of 30 20 units per acre,
consistent with the City's Mixed‐Income Housing Policy or
(3) Senior and physical disability housing up to five stories or 60 feet in height
(4) Residential facilities serving more than 25 persons; and
(5) 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 27, 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. Additionally, staff would
like to reinforce and clarify some aspects of the zoning language around garden structures.
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. Homes abutting a minor arterial are allowed to go up to 6 ft. in height as
part of an exception in § 113‐152, Subd. (d)(2).
Recently, a number of properties that abut a frontage road for Principal Arterials have applied for
variances for 6 ft. fences. Because these properties do not directly abut the arterial (separated by
a frontage road) These properties do not qualify for the exception. These properties still see
similar if not greater noise and nuisance impacts than those that abut a minor arterial street, and
so staff suggests the following amendment 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.
Staff kept the verbiage the same, using adjoin, as the word here seem deliberate to show that the
height exception applies only to those front yards that connect to the arterial or frontage road.
This exception would not apply on the side of a corner lot not facing the arterial. The term
“frontage road” has also already been defined in another section of City Code, § 109‐1. –
Definitions, regarding the definitions related to subdivisions. Frontage road is defined there as:
2
A street which is parallel to and close to arterial streets and highways and which provides access
to abutting properties and protection from through traffic.
Given this definition and the phrasing of “adjoining the frontage road of a principal arterial,
freeway, or expressway” staff feels this language is clear and would apply only to cases of those
frontage roads parallel to Interstate 394, US Highway 169, Highway 100, and Highway 55.
Public Safety Screening Exception
Recently, an outdoor storage facility opening in the City applied for a fence permit, and
presented a plan that would meet the City’s requirements for the screening of such a facility.
However, Police requested a portion of the screening requirement 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.
In order to allow for this type of exception in the future, staff is suggesting the addition of a new
exception to § 113‐152, Subd. (d) of the Screening and Outdoor Storage chapter.
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, the zoning code was modified to define “garden structures” and establish a new set of
restrictions to their location and design, separate from other types of accessory structures. These
structures were considered primarily decorative in nature and were allowed to be in front yards
with reduced setbacks, to allow for their potential use as landscaping elements. However, there
have been a handful of recent cases in which the more lenient restrictions have been utilized to
create additional screening and obstruction between properties.
Staff would like to find a balance between still allowing for these structures to be freely utilized
as decorative elements, but also ensuring their use is not detrimental to neighboring properties
and the character of the City’s residential districts.
Staff reviewed the zoning code language of neighboring communities and found that Garden
Structures are not commonly defined or highlighted in code. Most communities appear to treat
these structures as similar to other detached accessory structures such as garages or sheds.
Where garden structures were mentioned, more often it referred to greenhouses and gazebos,
which were not considered to be “garden structures” in our own code when it was drafted in
2010.
3
City Garden Structure Defined? Zoning Requirements
Edina No. Gazebos, greenhouses, and garden
houses defined under accessory
structures.
Similar to detached garages for lot
cover, height and setbacks.
St. Louis Park Gardening and other horticultural uses
and Decorative landscape features
including but not limited to pools,
arbors and terraces. Are both listed as
permitted Accessory Uses
Structures are subject to the same
requirements of other accessory
structures/buildings.
Robbinsdale No. Greenhouses are listed under
permitted accessory uses in R districts,
Non‐Commercial Agriculture is a
conditional use in R districts.
Trellises are only mentioned as allowed
encroachments into rear yard setbacks.
Greenhouses subject to the same
restrictions as other accessory
structures.
No other language regarding
Trellis/Arbors
Crystal No. Arbors, garden decorations and
Pergolas are listed under “small
accessory uses”
“Small accessory uses such as
arbors, benches, doghouses, play
sets, garden decorations, pergolas,
and firewood cribs are exempt from
the provisions of this subsection, but
cannot be located in public rights‐
of‐way.”
The closest approximation to the initial intent of the 2010 amendment comes from the City of
Crystal’s code for accessory uses and structures. In this section, they exempt a number of “small
accessory uses” including arbors, benches, pergolas, firewood cribs, and garden decorations. The
only rule for these small accessory uses is that they cannot be placed in the public right‐of‐way.
There is no defined height or scale for what constitutes a small accessory use. The intent is to
allow greater flexibility for structures that are incidental, decorative, or unobtrusive.
In looking to amend our own the code, staff sees two potential avenues to address the issue of
structures as screening.
Amend the definition to more clearly indicate it refers to open and unroofed structures to
avoid confusion as to whether it includes fencing or greenhouses
In the R‐1 and R‐2 sections covering garden structures, create a set of lower standards for
garden structures under 4 or 5 ft. in height, and potentially set a length or opacity limit for
taller structures to prevent their use dominating a landscape.
Potentially amending just the definition to be more clear about these being open structures could
solve the issue of these being used to provide screening between properties.
From § 113‐1. – Definitions:
4
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.
If Planning Commission did wish to also set stricter standards for the regulation of taller
structures, a maximum length is probably the most universally applicable requirement to set.
Typically screening is controlled by its overall opacity, but this could be difficult to determine for
some types of structures (how do you, or do you even, calculate opacity for an arbor?) and might
just create unnecessary confusion for residents. Staff would suggest language along the lines of
“No side of the garden structure shall exceed 15 ft. in length” be added to the relevant sections
of the R‐1 and R‐2 zoning districts.
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.