pc-agenda-aug-10-20
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 133 982 9636. The public may participate in this meeting during public comment sections by
calling 763‐230‐7454 and following the automated prompts.
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 27, 2020, Regular Planning Commission Meeting
4. Informal Public Hearing – Zoning Text Amendment – Rezoning of Properties to Achieve Conformance
with the 2040 Comprehensive Plan
Applicant: City of Golden Valley
5. Informal Public Hearing – Zoning Text Amendment – Section 113‐152: Screening and Outdoor
Storage
Applicant: City of Golden Valley
– End of Televised Portion of Meeting –
To listen to this portion, please call 1‐415‐655‐0001 and enter meeting access code 133 982 9636
6. Council Liaison Report
7. Reports on Board of Zoning Appeals and other meetings
8. Other Business
9. Adjournment
August 10, 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 Vice‐Chair Pockl.
Roll Call
Commissioners present: Rich Baker, Adam Brookins, Andy Johnson, Lauren Pockl, Ryan Sadeghi, Chuck
Segelbaum
Commissioners absent: Ron Blum
Staff present: Jason Zimmerman – Planning Manager, Myles Campbell – Planner
Council Liaison present: Gillian Rosenquist
2. Approval of Agenda
Vice‐Chair Pockl asked for a motion to approve the agenda.
MOTION made by Commissioner Baker, seconded by Commissioner Brookins to approve the agenda
of July 27, 2020. Staff called a roll call vote and the motion carried unanimously.
3. Approval of Minutes
Vice‐Chair Pockl asked for a motion to approve the minutes from July 13, 2020. Commissioner
Johnson asked for edits and requested two comments of his be added, one on each Public Hearing
item.
MOTION made by Commissioner Johnson, seconded by Commissioner Brookins to approve the
July 13, 2020 meeting minutes, after edits were made. Staff called a roll call vote and the motion
carried unanimously.
4. Informal Public Hearing – Zoning Text Amendment
Architectural and Material Standards for Mixed Use Properties
Applicant: City of Golden Valley
July 27, 2020 – 7 pm
City of Golden Valley Planning Commission Regular Meeting
July 27, 2020 – 7 pm
2
Jason Zimmerman, Planning Manager, stated that he did not have a presentation as that portion of
the discussion occurred at the previous meeting. He reminded Commissioners that in 2019, the City
adopted architectural and material standards for new developments in the R‐3, R‐4, Commercial,
Office, Institutional, Light Industrial, and Industrial zoning districts. These regulations addressed
many aspects of building façades, opening, entrances, and screening, as well as the types of materials
allowed in construction.
At that time, the Mixed Use zoning district had not been finalized or adopted, so standards were not
included for that district. With the adoption of the Mixed Use district early in 2020, it is now
necessary to amend the architectural and material standards section of code in order to address
buildings that may be developed in those areas.
Zimmerman reminded Commissioners about the material standards classification and what is
prohibited. He reviewed the standards set for each zoning district and that staff believes the Mixed
Use is most comparable to the Commercial, Office, and Institutional zoning districts and therefore
recommends similar standards.
Commissioner Brookins asked why concrete brick was prohibited. Zimmerman responded that there
was concern about plain concrete walls as the exposed face of the building. This is a prohibited use
across zoning districts.
Vice‐Chair Pockl opened the public hearing at 7:12 pm.
Commissioner Johnson stated consistency across zoning districts is important and a good idea, and
added his support of this item. Brookins echoed this statement and added that concrete brick can be
classified as a specialty concrete block, class II material; and it can be a tasteful finished product.
Brookins added it could be struck from this item and the language may be cleaned up in the other
zones at a later date. The conversation continued on to specifics about concrete brick versus block
and if this material is generally residential or commercial. Zimmerman asked if the prohibition on
concrete brick should be removed and specialty concrete block stay listed as a class II. Through
discussion, the Commissioners agreed that was a reasonable change to make, across districts.
Vice‐Chair Pockl closed the public hearing at 7:21 pm.
MOTION made by Commissioner Brookins and seconded by Commissioner Sadeghi to modify City
Code Section 113‐157: Architectural and Material Standards list by striking concrete brick from the
list of prohibited materials. Staff took a roll call vote and the motion carried unanimously.
5. Informal Public Hearing – Zoning Map Amendments
Revising the Density Range of the Medium Density Residential (R‐3) Zoning District
Applicant: City of Golden Valley
Jason Zimmerman, Planning Manager, started with a presentation and reminded Commissioners
that the conversation began at the last meeting and was tabled in an attempt to gather more
City of Golden Valley Planning Commission Regular Meeting
July 27, 2020 – 7 pm
3
information. He reiterated that when the City adopted the 2040 Comprehensive Plan, they
committed to considering certain text amendments in order to fulfill policy objectives included in the
plan; this is part of that required process.
Based on Commissioner feedback from the last meeting, staff is proposing a slightly different plan
with more oversight from the city:
Up to 15 units per acre
Increase to 20 units per acre with a Conditional Use Permit
Senior/disability housing up to 20 units per acre
Increase to 30 units per acres with a Conditional Use Permit
These items with also bring all R‐3 zoned properties into conformance.
Zimmerman displayed a list of properties to illustrate their current zoning and their proposed zoning,
he expanded on units per acre, density, as well as if the property had an existing PUD‐as that requires
a separate process to add units.
Staff recommendation:
Amend the text of the Medium Density Residential (R‐3) Zoning District to revise the allowed density
range and strike the density bonus provisions, as detailed in the attached document
(Underline/Overstruck language for Sec. 113‐90 of the City Code).
Commissioner Baker asked if there was a correlation between density and affordability. Zimmerman
responded there isn’t a single answer to that question, Golden Valley has seen a very dense units
built that are also considered luxury apartments. That’s generally not the main goal however, with
more units in place, the average cost of rent can come down because of the sheer number of units.
The conversation evolved into density ranges, and accommodating Met Council’s predictions for
density growth. Baker asked why the concept of density bonuses was eliminated with the 2040 Comp
Plan. Zimmerman stated that the bonuses were so specific, that there wasn’t flexibility, they were
also limited to certain areas, limited to certain types, and limited to structured parking. Baker added
that other city priorities should be included as incentives as opposed to striking bonuses all together.
Zimmerman responded that it’s a good idea and should be worked on in collaboration with other
departments and then applied to multiple zoning districts. Commissioner Johnson asked if Golden
Valley has a lot of PUDs comparatively and what rezoning to an R‐3 solves if so many already are
PUDs. Zimmerman stated that cities use PUDs differently, many of the R‐3 properties are PUDs
because they were developed to almost resembled campuses, 3‐4 buildings with parking. By‐right is
one building so using a PUD, in those situations, made more sense. Additionally, Met Council realizes
that PUDs create unknowns for what density they actually create.
Vice‐Chair Pockl opened the public hearing at 7:56 pm.
Segelbaum said he liked the incentives to help provide added density and would like to lower the by‐
right number and then apply new incentives across zoning districts. The old incentives aren’t as
City of Golden Valley Planning Commission Regular Meeting
July 27, 2020 – 7 pm
4
applicable so finding new ones may help improve developments in Golden Valley. Baker echoed this
statement. Johnson added that a CUP is pretty straightforward and he doesn’t support that. The city
has a good level of growth and there seems to be a challenge with this central plan. Adding that if the
density increased to 15 units per acre that it seems to be in a landlord’s best interest to sell a
property and potential displace those living in the complex. Johnson reiterated that he struggles to
understand why the City needs to rezone to meet Met Council’s expectations when it appears the
City does a good job managing density already. Commissioner Sadeghi asked how the by‐right
number was raised to 15 and Zimmerman responded that it’s higher than the current number with
room to increase more with a CUP or PUD and then requires an extra city review. Sadeghi stated his
support for 15 units and 20 for senior housing. The conversation continued on whether or not to
keep the proposed number of units per acre or to drop it down and come back to discuss incentives.
The conversation then moved on to Met Council’s expectations and the growth projections for
Golden Valley.
Vice‐Chair Pockl closed the public hearing at 8:25 pm.
Brookins stated he’s not in favor of density bonuses. Adding that trying to predict what the
community needs is difficult and while may provide comfort isn’t generally successful. Pockl asked
staff how they determine what the community needs, in order to create incentives. Zimmerman said
he would go back to the Comp Plan and review goals in the plan. Baker added that the City has a
responsibility to incent the things they want to see happen, and would strengthen the incentives.
MOTION made by Commissioner Baker and seconded by Commissioner Brookins to table this item
so staff may prepare suggestions on incentives. Staff took a roll call vote and it passed unanimously.
6. Discussion – Fences, Screening, and Garden Structures
Myles Campbell, Planner, stated that this was a continued conversation from last meeting and
reminded Commissioners this discussion will be to introduce the proposed revisions as well as the
initial draft language for each.
There are three items for discussion and the first two were discussed at length at the previous
meeting:
Should lots indirectly adjacent to principal arterials have a front yard fence height
exception?
What is the best method to administer an exception to commercial/industrial screening
requirements as requested by GV Police?
Do the rules and definition of garden structures need to be refined to prevent their use as
screening extensions?
Arterial Road Fence Height Exception
Under the existing code, residential properties can have a fence up to a maximum of 4 feet in their
front yard.
City of Golden Valley Planning Commission Regular Meeting
July 27, 2020 – 7 pm
5
There is one exception to the 4 ft. height limitation, from § 113‐152, Subd. (d)(2)
A wall or fence not exceeding six feet in height is permitted in the front yard of all properties directly
adjoining a minor arterial street, as designated by the City.
The exception refers only to minor arterials, staff has recently seen an influx of variance requests for
lots that indirectly abut principal arterials. Principal Arterials are larger and have a greater impact on
properties from their heightened activity. Generally, staff and the BZA have found these requests
reasonable given the exception from § 113‐152, Subd. (d)(2) making 6 feet in height allowed for
lower impact roads. The number of variances, lead staff to believe this should be a code change.
Suggested Revision: Add the following underlined language to § 113‐152, Subd. (d)(2)
A wall or fence not exceeding six feet in height is permitted in the front yard of all properties directly
adjoining a minor arterial street or adjoining the frontage road of a principal arterial, freeway or
expressway; as designated by the City.
Public Safety Screening Exception
During review of a recent fence permit application by a self‐storage facility, Golden Valley Police
requested a section of screening be waived or built at a lower opacity to allow visibility into the site.
This is a fairly unique request, but staff would like to modify the existing code for screening
exceptions to allow for similar requests in the future.
Suggested Revision: Add the following exception to § 113‐152, Subd. (d)
A portion of the required screening for properties in the Commercial, Light Industrial, and Industrial
Zoning Districts may be waived for enhanced security and public safety purposes at the discretion of
the City Manager or his/her designee, and only upon request by the Golden Valley Police Department
Garden Structures
In 2010, Planning Commission modified the zoning code to allow for expanded use of garden
structures on residential lots.
Included a new definition, and a separate set of standards from other accessory structures.
The modifications were intended to allow for the use of garden structures to enhance the
aesthetic appeal of a garden or landscaped area.
§ 113‐1. – Definitions
Garden Structure: A permanent outdoor fireplace or grill, or a freestanding or attached structure
such as a pergola or arbor, which serves a primarily aesthetic purpose customarily incidental to the
principal structure.
§ 113‐88 R‐1 Zoning District, Subd. (g)(8)
Garden Structures. Garden structures shall be located no closer than five feet to any lot line. Garden
structures shall not exceed 10 feet in height.
Identical Restriction in § 113‐89 R‐2 Zoning District, Subd. (g)(8)
City of Golden Valley Planning Commission Regular Meeting
July 27, 2020 – 7 pm
6
Staff has encountered cases where garden structures are being used to achieve taller screening
structures than normally allowed.
Staff reviewed the zoning code language of neighboring communities to see how pergolas and
trellises were handled in other cities:
Garden Structures were not commonly highlighted in code.
o They were considered accessory uses in St. Louis Park, but no regulation other than the
restrictions for all accessory structures were given.
o Trellises were an allowed setback encroachment in Robbinsdale.
Greenhouses were listed as accessory structures in Edina and Robbinsdale, but these were not
considered part of the Golden Valley definition of Garden Structures.
After review, staff thinks modifying the definition of garden structures makes the most sense for
addressing the issue:
Maintains the existing flexibility in locating garden structures.
Clarifies that that the definition does not include greenhouses, gazebos, and more significant
roofed accessory structures.
o Would raised beds and smaller food production uses be considered garden
structures?
Explicitly removes fencing from the definition of garden structures.
Suggested Revision: Add the following underlined language to § 113‐1. – Definitions:
Garden Structure: A permanent outdoor fireplace or grill, or a freestanding or attached structure such
as a pergola or arbor, which serves a primarily aesthetic purpose customarily incidental to the
principal structure. Garden structures do not include greenhouses, gazebos or fencing.
Pockl, Sadeghi, and Segelbaum voiced support of the amendments and Pockl added that a motion
and a vote will be made at the next meeting.
Televised portion of the meeting concluded at 8:46 pm
7. Council Liaison Report
Council Member Rosenquist reported on a Virtual Town Hall meeting that was scheduled for July
28 around Building and Equitable Golden Valley. She also encouraged Commissioners to view a
CCX story on removing racially restrictive covenants. Rosenquist commented on a letter that had
gone out urging the Governor to take action on the Blue Line Extension project. She noted that
the Narrow Lot regulations had been approved at the City Council and that the Council also
approved directing $100,000 in grant money to PRISM to assist with rent and food support.
Finally, she stated that the City Council had approved a city‐wide mask ordinance only to have it
superseded by the Governor’s announcement the next day.
City of Golden Valley Planning Commission Regular Meeting
July 27, 2020 – 7 pm
7
8. Reports on Meetings of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority, City Council, Board of Zoning
Appeals, and other meetings
Commissioner Pockl was assigned to be the Planning Commission representative at the next Board of
Zoning Appeals meeting.
9. Other Business
No other business was discussed.
10. Adjournment
MOTION by Commissioner to adjourn, seconded by Commission, and approved unanimously.
Meeting adjourned at 9:02 pm.
________________________________
Adam Brookins, Secretary
________________________________
Amie Kolesar, Planning Assistant
1
Date: August 10, 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 47 properties north of Olson Memorial Highway and east of Douglas Drive
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, followed by properties south of
Olson Memorial Highway in July/August. The 47 properties now under consideration are the third
group to be rezoned; at least one other group of properties will follow in the late summer of
2020.
Below is a summary of the process that was followed to approve and adopt the 2040
Comprehensive Plan and to align the zoning of properties:
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
2
February 4, 2020 City Council adopted the 2040 Comprehensive Plan and approved the
rezoning of the I‐394 Mixed Use properties
August 4, 2020 City Council approved the rezoning of properties south of Olson
Memorial Highway
Analysis
The 47 properties north of Olson Memorial Highway and east of Douglas Drive that are under
consideration for rezoning represent seven different areas. Three of the areas to be rezoned are
simply aligning the zoning designations with the uses that are already established. Four 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.
Three specific locations, containing eight 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.
One location is currently being considered for a new multifamily development and the project is
dependent on the rezoning taking place in order to move forward. More detailed descriptions of
these properties and their current uses are listed below:
3
Address Current Zoning Proposed Zoning
Group 1
The northeast quadrant of the Douglas Drive and Olson Memorial Highway intersection
contains a mix of industrial uses as well as a bank and a self storage facility. The 2040
Comprehensive Plan envisions this area as one supportive of a mix of employment
opportunities, consistent with the Douglas Drive Corridor Study adopted in 2010. The change in
zoning would encourage change over time as properties redevelop.
6100 Olson Memorial Highway Industrial Mixed Use – Employment
6110 Olson Memorial Highway Industrial Mixed Use – Employment
6250 Olson Memorial Highway Industrial Mixed Use – Employment
650 Douglas Drive Industrial Mixed Use – Employment
740 Douglas Drive Industrial Mixed Use – Employment
4
Address Current Zoning Proposed Zoning
Group 2
The four properties in this area are targeted for greater alignment with the uses that are there
today, as well as creating coherent land use patterns along Olson Memorial Highway. A small
medical clinic is currently zoned Commercial, but sits adjacent to other Office uses. A portion of
a property owned jointly with a multifamily development contains both Schaper Pond and the
Luce Line Regional Trail so is targeted for open space zoning. An office complex which used to
house Edina Realty and now contains a dental clinic is guided for Office. And a parcel containing
a veterinary clinic is guided to match the surrounding properties which are all Light Industrial.
604 Lilac Drive North Commercial Office
PID 1902924230023
(east half of 600 Lilac Drive North) R‐3 Institutional (I‐4)
4800 Olson Memorial Highway Commercial Office
4708 Olson Memorial Highway Commercial Light industrial
5
Address Current Zoning Proposed Zoning
Group 3
Three separate rezonings in this area are meant to better align the Zoning Map with the Future
Land Use Map. An office park (PUD) is currently zoned Industrial, a hockey arena is currently
zoned Light Industrial, and an office building is currently zoned Light Industrial. The changes
proposed would reflect the reality on the ground and continue the movement away from a
more industrial/manufacturing setting.
4310 Dahlberg Drive
(includes 4232, 4248, 4280, and
4294 Dahlberg Drive)
Industrial Office
4210 Olson Memorial Highway Light Industrial Institutional (I‐1)
4150 Olson Memorial Highway Light Industrial Office
6
Address Current Zoning Proposed Zoning
Group 4
The northeast quadrant of Douglas Drive and Golden Valley Road has been guided for High
Density Residential Use since the adoption of the 2030 Comprehensive Plan in 2010. Rezoning
these properties for more intense residential use would encourage new development along a
recently reconstructed corridor. Existing uses include a vacant property, a single‐family
property, two duplexes, and a medium density apartment.
1300 Douglas Drive North R‐3 R‐4
1200 Douglas Drive North R‐3 R‐4
1170 Douglas Drive North R‐3 R‐4
1100 Douglas Drive North R‐3 R‐4
6212 Golden Valley Road R‐3 R‐4
6200 Golden Valley Road R‐3 R‐4
7
Address Current Zoning Proposed Zoning
Group 5
Three nonconforming duplexes, currently zoned Single‐Family Residential (R‐1), would become
conforming under this proposed rezoning to Moderate Density Residential (R‐2).
1931/1933 Adair Avenue North R‐1 R‐2
6033/6035 Duluth Street R‐1 R‐2
1928/1930 Brunswick Avenue
North
R‐1 R‐2
8
Address Current Zoning Proposed Zoning
Group 6
As part of the City’s efforts to introduce more mixed use nodes across the community, the
intersection of Douglas Drive and Duluth Street was targeted for rezoning to a Mixed Use –
Neighborhood designation. The change would allow a range of residential, commercial, office,
and institutional uses to be developed over time. The current uses represent many of these
categories – two gas stations, an apartment building, two office buildings, single‐family homes,
and a former place of worship. The two gas stations would become nonconforming uses under
this proposal, but would be able to continue indefinitely under their current conditions.
6150 Saint Croix Avenue North R‐3 Mixed Use – Neighborhood
1900 Douglas Drive Commercial Mixed Use – Neighborhood
1930 Douglas Drive Commercial Mixed Use – Neighborhood
6155 Duluth Street Office Mixed Use – Neighborhood
1950 Douglas Drive Institutional (I‐1) Mixed Use – Neighborhood
2000 Douglas Drive R‐1 Mixed Use – Neighborhood
2010 Douglas Drive R‐1 Mixed Use – Neighborhood
2020 Douglas Drive R‐1 Mixed Use – Neighborhood
2040 Douglas Drive Office Mixed Use – Neighborhood
2045 Douglas Drive R‐1 Mixed Use – Neighborhood
9
10
Address Current Zoning Proposed Zoning
Group 7
Another aspect of the Douglas Drive Corridor Study was the intensification of residential uses
along the north portion of Douglas Drive. The properties listed below are currently single‐family
homes, though they are interspersed with a handful of duplexes. The proposed rezoning to R‐2
would allow additional duplex or small single‐family lot redevelopment over time, providing
slightly more density along a transit corridor. Single‐family homes are an allowed use in the R‐2
zoning district.
2130 Douglas Drive R‐1 R‐2
2150 Douglas Drive R‐1 R‐2
2210 Douglas Drive R‐1 R‐2
2230 Douglas Drive R‐1 R‐2
2300 Douglas Drive R‐1 R‐2
2310 Douglas Drive R‐1 R‐2
2400 Douglas Drive R‐1 R‐2
2410 Douglas Drive R‐1 R‐2
2420 Douglas Drive R‐1 R‐2
2430 Douglas Drive R‐1 R‐2
2510 Douglas Drive R‐1 R‐2
11
12
One additional area was originally slated for rezoning to comply with the 2040 Comprehensive
Plan. The St. Margaret Mary church was poised to be adjacent to the Metro Blue Line Extension
station at Golden Valley Road. The vision for this property was a for a neighborhood scale mixed
use site which would likely incorporate senior housings, perhaps in combination with a
redeveloped church building. However, given recent developments regarding the routing of a
future light rail line, staff is proposing to wait to pursue any rezoning action until more details
become available.
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 47 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 (2 pages)
Maps of Future Land Use and Existing Zoning Designations (6 pages)
List of Affected Properties
Address Current Zoning Proposed Zoning
6100 Olson Memorial Highway Industrial Mixed Use – Employment
6110 Olson Memorial Highway Industrial Mixed Use – Employment
6250 Olson Memorial Highway Industrial Mixed Use – Employment
650 Douglas Drive Industrial Mixed Use – Employment
740 Douglas Drive Industrial Mixed Use – Employment
604 Lilac Drive North Commercial Office
PID 1902924230023
(east half of 600 Lilac Drive North)
R‐3 Institutional (I‐4)
4800 Olson Memorial Highway Commercial Office
4708 Olson Memorial Highway Commercial Light industrial
4310 Dahlberg Drive
(includes 4232, 4248, 4280, and
4294 Dahlberg Drive)
Industrial Office
4210 Olson Memorial Highway Light Industrial Institutional (I‐1)
4150 Olson Memorial Highway Light Industrial Office
1300 Douglas Drive North R‐3 R‐4
1200 Douglas Drive North R‐3 R‐4
1170 Douglas Drive North R‐3 R‐4
1100 Douglas Drive North R‐3 R‐4
6212 Golden Valley Road R‐3 R‐4
6200 Golden Valley Road R‐3 R‐4
1931/1933 Adair Avenue North R‐1 R‐2
6033/6035 Duluth Street R‐1 R‐2
1928/1930 Brunswick Avenue
North
R‐1 R‐2
6150 Saint Croix Avenue North R‐3 Mixed Use – Neighborhood
1900 Douglas Drive Commercial Mixed Use – Neighborhood
1930 Douglas Drive Commercial Mixed Use – Neighborhood
6155 Duluth Street Office Mixed Use – Neighborhood
1950 Douglas Drive Institutional (I‐1) Mixed Use – Neighborhood
2000 Douglas Drive R‐1 Mixed Use – Neighborhood
2010 Douglas Drive R‐1 Mixed Use – Neighborhood
2020 Douglas Drive R‐1 Mixed Use – Neighborhood
2040 Douglas Drive Office Mixed Use – Neighborhood
2045 Douglas Drive R‐1 Mixed Use – Neighborhood
2130 Douglas Drive R‐1 R‐2
2150 Douglas Drive R‐1 R‐2
2210 Douglas Drive R‐1 R‐2
2230 Douglas Drive R‐1 R‐2
2300 Douglas Drive R‐1 R‐2
2310 Douglas Drive R‐1 R‐2
2400 Douglas Drive R‐1 R‐2
2410 Douglas Drive R‐1 R‐2
2420 Douglas Drive R‐1 R‐2
2430 Douglas Drive R‐1 R‐2
2510 Douglas Drive R‐1 R‐2
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
Group 7 Future Land Use Current Zoning
1
Date: August 10, 2020
To: Golden Valley Planning Commission
From: Myles Campbell, Planner
Subject: Informal Public Hearing – Zoning Text Amendment – Section 113‐152: Screening
and Outdoor Storage
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 finalize the draft language that will be presented to the
City Council, as well as to allow for a public hearing on the topic.
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.
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
2
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 their 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 conducted some research of how garden structures were handled in other City’s zoning
codes. The result of this research was finding that most communities did not strictly define for
these types of decorative structures, but often did for larger ones such as greenhouses. Following
the review, staff recommended amending just the definition, to be more clear about these being
open structures. This would effectively solve the issue of these being used to provide screening
between properties.
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. Garden structures do not include greenhouses, gazebos, or fencing.
Recommendation
Staff is recommending that the City Code in sections 113‐1 and 113‐152 be amended to include
the new language as proposed, relating to screening and garden structures.
DRAFT Language for Sec. 113‐1. ‐ Definitions.
…
Garden Structure: A permanent outdoor fireplace or grill, or a freestanding or attached structure such as a
pergola or arbor, which serves a primarily aesthetic purpose customarily incidental to the principal
structure. Garden structures do not include greenhouses, gazebos, or fencing.
DRAFT Language for Sec. 113‐152. ‐ Screening and Outdoor Storage. […]
…
(d) Exceptions. Any deviation from this section shall require a variance in accordance with this
chapter except for the following:
(1) Tennis and basketball courts in all zoning districts may have a single perimeter fence no
higher than 10 feet. Such fences shall be located to the rear of the principal structure and
shall require a minimum three‐foot strip of landscaping around the entire perimeter.
(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.
(3) A wall or fence not exceeding 12 feet in height is permitted in Light Industrial and Industrial
Zoning Districts solely for the purpose of screening outdoor storage areas.
(4) The screening requirement for mechanical equipment located in the side yards of properties
in Light Industrial and Industrial Zoning Districts may be waived by the City Manager or
his/her designee.
(5) 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 their designee, and only upon request by the
Golden Valley Police Department