pc-agenda-aug-24-20REGULAR MEETING AGENDA
This meeting will be held via Webex in accordance with the local emergency declaration made by the
City under Minn. Stat. § 12.37. The public may monitor this meeting by watching on Comcast cable
channel 16, by streaming on CCXmedia.org, or by calling 1‐415‐655‐0001 and entering the meeting
code 133 982 9636. The public may participate in this meeting during public comment sections by
calling 763‐593‐8060 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
August 10, 2020, Regular Planning Commission Meeting
4.Informal Public Hearing – Zoning Text Amendment – Section 113‐90: Medium Density Residential
(R‐3) Zoning District
Applicant: City of Golden Valley
5.Informal Public Hearing – Zoning Map Amendment – Rezoning of Properties to Achieve
Conformance with the 2040 Comprehensive Plan (Group 3)
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
a. Seeking Planning Commissioner to Serve on the Facilities Analysis Task Force
9.Adjournment
August 24, 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, Noah Orloff, Lauren
Pockl, Ryan Sadeghi, Chuck Segelbaum
Commissioners absent:
Staff present: Jason Zimmerman – Planning Manager, Myles Campbell – Planner
Council Liaison present: Gillian Rosenquist
2. Approval of Agenda
Chair Blum asked for a motion to approve the agenda.
MOTION made by Commissioner Johnson, seconded by Commissioner Brookins to approve the
agenda of August 10, 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 July 27, 2020.
MOTION made by Commissioner Pockl, seconded by Commissioner Brookins to approve the July
27, 2020 meeting minutes, after edits were made. Staff called a roll call vote and the motion carried
with the Chair abstaining as he was not present.
4. Informal Public Hearing – Zoning Text Amendment
Rezoning of Properties to Achieve Conformance with the 2040 Comprehensive Plan
Applicant: City of Golden Valley
Jason Zimmerman, Planning Manager, started with a presentation and reminded the group of the
re‐zonings taking place as part of complying with the 2040 Comprehensive Plan. This group is a
second round of rezoning requests and this current request includes 47 properties. One location in
August 10, 2020 – 7 pm
City of Golden Valley Planning Commission Regular Meeting
August 10, 2020 – 7 pm
2
this group being considered for a new multifamily development; the project is dependent on the
rezoning taking place in order to move forward.
Zimmerman went on to break down the groups by neighborhoods, there are 7 groups in total. Each
group had specific details, group‐specific resident comments, all conveyed to the Commissioners by
staff.
As a key reminder, Zimmerman added that state statute requires all zoning designations to be
consistent with the land uses identified in the Comp Plan within nine months of adoption. Businesses
would be allowed to continue with current uses and site layouts under a legally non‐conforming
status. PUD regulations take precedence. Should the City choose not to rezone any of these
properties, the Future Land Use Map would need to be amended with the Met Council.
Recommendation
Following the provisions of State statute (sec. 473.858, subd. 1) and the requirements of the
Metropolitan Council with respect to comprehensive planning, staff recommends the 47 identified
properties be rezoned as indicated.
Commissioner Baker asked what the notification process to neighbors is. Zimmerman responded
that homes within a 500‐foot buffer from the property are sent a notice 10 days prior to the informal
public hearing and then another for the formal hearing with City Council.
Discussion around the proposed zoning changes occurred, by right changes, CUP, and PUDs.
Commissioner Pockl asked if there was objection to any rezoning groups, staff stated that there were
two in advance regarding group 4’s rezoning from R‐3 to R‐4.
Chair Blum opened the public hearing at 7:30 pm.
Amy
3211 St Margaret Drive
My question was, why are the properties here being rezoned when the light rail likely won’t go
through. However, this was addressed because the rezoning is being set aside. Watching the
meeting, I see my question has been addressed. Is that correct that you’re not currently rezoning the
St Margaret Church property.
Leann Moss
2020 Douglass Drive
I heard we were already rezoned and have now been approached to sell our house. When will this
rezoning be happening. How long will it take to happen?
Zimmerman chimed in, this is one of the properties being considered for multi‐family development.
It is being considered for rezoning but has not occurred yet. Assuming the rezoning passes the
Planning Commission meeting, it will move on to City Council, and once it’s approved by the Council,
the rezoning will take effect the following week.
City of Golden Valley Planning Commission Regular Meeting
August 10, 2020 – 7 pm
3
Anonymous
Golden Valley Road and Douglas Drive Intersection
What is the status of the property on 1111 Douglas Drive, the tenant office building. Depending on
that, how does that effect the potential rezoning of properties on Golden Valley Road and Douglas
Drive?
Zimmerman responded that there was interest in 1111 Douglas Drive since the Tennant
headquarters is moving to Eden Prairie. The City is of the understanding that when that transition
takes place, the property will be placed for sale. The comp plan guides that property as Mixed‐Use, it
could be residential, commercial, institutional‐they’re all options under Mixed‐Use designation. If
there were concerns about traffic, then maybe an evaluation of that area would be done.
Calvin Artimus
1950 Douglas Drive N
Is the property you’re talking about that has interest from developers, going to be low‐income
housing?
Zimmerman stated the idea is multi‐family housing but the level of income being targeted has not
been shared with the City. The City has interest in affordable housing but until a proposal comes to
the City, it’s unclear. The caller responded that if the developer wants to put multi‐level housing
where houses are located, that may be what’s right for the City but what about what’s right for the
neighbors? The developers came already and asked to buy my property, they then said if I don’t sell
to them, that my property will be worth nothing. Zimmerman responded that tonight’s vote is not to
vote on if a multi‐family unit will be developed. Tonight, the Planning Commission will decide on
whether or not to move the rezoning forward with a mixed‐use zoning to support any number of
uses. It’s up to the current property owners and future property owners to decide what they would
like to do; if they want to sell or develop. The caller responded, he believes his property is zoned
Institutional, and would like to zone it residential; however, if a developer comes in and builds a
multi‐family housing unit, he doesn’t see a future for himself in this location.
Chair Blum left the call‐in line open while Commissioners had discussion.
Commissioner Johnson asked what the City’s position is on low‐income renters being displaced by
re‐zonings. Zimmerman responded that he doesn’t speak for the City Council but that he feels the
goal is not to see affordable housing reduced in the City. The overall Comprehensive Plan goal is to
see the numbers increase over 10‐20 years.
Discussion continued around specific groups and group 4 rezoning from R‐3 to R‐4 and area’s ability
to handle the increased traffic. It was mentioned that this proposed rezoning occurred in the past
and staff offered to table group 4 and do some more research into what occurred to prevent the
rezoning. The roads have since changed from a four way stop to a roundabout. A couple
Commissioners stated their support of tabling group four and waiting for more analysis.
City of Golden Valley Planning Commission Regular Meeting
August 10, 2020 – 7 pm
4
Commissioner Johnson asked about group 6 – removing the institutional zoning for the religious
building, is there a concern around legislation? Zimmerman stated the City is allowed to rezone as
Mixed‐Use because that allows for Institutional as well as a number of other uses. Johnson continued
by asking if businesses could continue to exist but have limitations by new zoning. Zimmerman
responded that City Code addresses non‐conforming uses; anything that was legally constructed in a
previous zoning, is allowed to continue on. These businesses can remodel or even rebuild in the
event of catastrophe, they cannot expand, however. The conversation continued on to roadways and
creating safe/legal access to properties.
Chair Blum said he was wondering about group 7, and the R‐1 area being rezoned to an R‐2 and how
it compares to the intersection of Medicine Lake Road and Winnetka. Chair added that it seems that
area was more conducive to R‐2 and wasn’t sure he felt the same about group 7. Zimmerman added
that currently R‐2 doesn’t allow for row‐houses but adding them to the zoning designation has been
discussed.
The conversation continued on about R‐2 vs R‐3, duplexes and row houses.
Chair suggested tabling group 7 for more analysis.
Chair Blum closed the public hearing at 8:20pm.
MOTION made by Commissioner Brookins, and seconded by Commissioner Segelbaum to approve
Groups, 1, 2, 3, 5, 6 and to table Groups 4, 7.
Staff took a roll call vote and the motion passes unanimously.
5. Informal Public Hearing – Zoning Map Amendments
Section 113‐152: Screening and Outdoor Storage
Applicant: City of Golden Valley
Myles Campbell, Planner, did not have a PowerPoint presentation for Commissioners as this was a
continuation of a presentation from last meeting.
Three areas of the zoning code broadly fell under the title of screening and staff felt they could be
improved on. The three areas, analysis, and draft language are as follows:
Arterial Road Fence Height Exception
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).
A number of properties that abut a frontage road for Principal Arterials have applied for variances for
6 ft. fences. These properties do not qualify for the exception, they see similar if not greater noise
and nuisance impacts than those that abut a minor arterial street, thus 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.
City of Golden Valley Planning Commission Regular Meeting
August 10, 2020 – 7 pm
5
Public Safety Screening Exception
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 screening 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 police could still monitor the internal site for 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 clearer about these 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.
Chair Blum opened the public hearing at 8:30pm.
Commissioners stated support of the recommendation and moving forward.
Chair Blum closed the public hearing at 8:34pm.
MOTION was made by Commissioner Pockl seconded by Commissioner Baker to follow staff
recommendation and amend language in City Code sections 113‐1 and 113‐152 to include the new
language as proposed, relating to screening and garden structures.
Staff took a roll call vote and the motion passed unanimously.
City of Golden Valley Planning Commission Regular Meeting
August 10, 2020 – 7 pm
6
Televised portion of the meeting concluded at 8:37 pm
6. Council Liaison Report
Council Member Rosenquist updated the Commissioners on the City’s plans regarding voting in
the primary election, the Partners in Energy task force appointments approved by the City
Council, and a 12 month moratorium that was adopted on the establishment of pawnshops,
precious metal dealers, and pay day lenders. She also relaying information regarding the METRO
Blue Line Extension and conversations that were taking place with Hennepin County and Metro
Transit regarding the future of the proposed line.
7. Reports on Board of Zoning Appeals and other Meetings
None.
8. Other Business
None.
9. Adjournment
MOTION by Commissioner Pockl to adjourn, seconded by Commission Baker, and approved
unanimously. Meeting adjourned at 8:50 pm.
________________________________
Adam Brookins, Secretary
________________________________
Amie Kolesar, Planning Assistant
1
Date: August 24, 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
2
High Density Residential
20 to 100 units per acre
High Density (R-4)
Maximum of 50 units per acre or 70 units per
acre for senior/disability housing
Maximum of 100 units per acre with a CUP
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. In
response, staff recommended that higher densities be approved via a Conditional Use Permit,
which would provide for more oversight and mitigation of potential impacts.
Commissioners also expressed an interest in retaining the incentives associated with density
bonuses. The current zoning code offers these but the triggers for additional units/acre are no
longer as relevant to the priorities of the City as they once were. In place of the current
regulations for increased density, Commissioners asked staff to explore new triggers that align
with the priorities of the 2040 Comprehensive Plan.
Analysis
Staff reviewed the goals and priorities of the Comp Plan and the GreenStepts program in order to
identify aspects of multifamily developments that could be incorporated into the incentive
system.
Affordable Housing
Additional affordable housing in multifamily developments
Energy Efficiency
Green certification for construction
Electric charging or alternative fuel stations
Enhanced efficiency for water and energy beyond current requirements
Microgrids for back-up power
Renewable Energy
Private renewable energy generation or infrastructure
Stormwater Management
Above-ground green infrastructure to enhance water quality and reduce runoff rates,
volumes, and nutrient loads
Reuse of stormwater onsite
Other
Native, low water-use plantings
Preservation of open space
Lighter colored pavements and building materials to combat urban heat island effect
3
In considering the use of any of these priorities in creating triggers for density bonuses, staff
believes there are two important factors to consider:
(a) Is the trigger a concrete, non-subjective action on the part of the developer that can be
easily quantified and monitored?
(b) Is the action taken a substantial investment that would be difficult or unwieldy to undo
after the density bonus has been awarded?
The inclusion of affordable housing in a project is already incentivized through the City’s Mixed-
Income Housing Policy, which allows a 10% density bonus for meeting certain thresholds. Staff
believes trying to layer on a second density bonus would only create confusion and perhaps
discourage developers from opting in to the Mixed-Income Housing program if a lower threshold
were offered through an R-3 density bonus. Therefore, staff is recommending the R-3 incentives
be focused on environmental and energy targets.
Of the priorities listed above, those seemingly best suited as incentives for the R-3 zoning district
include:
Green building certification
Construction of private renewable energy systems or infrastructure
Incorporation of microgrid for back-up power
Inclusion of electric vehicle charging stations
Construction of above-ground green stormwater facilities
The first three of these five require significant investment and commitment by a developer, and
could be weighted to provide a greater density bonus as compared to the last two points.
Recommendation
In order to address the concerns of the Planning Commission,
Staff is recommending modifying the density ranges in the R-3 zoning district to allow by-right
development of multi-family buildings up to 12 units per acre and up to 17 units per acre through
a CUP. Senior and disability housing would be allowed by-right up to 20 units per acre and up 25
units per acre through a CUP. Density bonuses would be available for up to 3 units per acre for
multi-family buildings and 5 units per acre for senior and disability housing, bringing the
maximum density levels up to 20 units per acre for multi-family buildings and 30 units per acre
for senior and disability housing, thereby meeting the targets included in the 2040
Comprehensive Plan (see table below).
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
4
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 12 units per acre or 17 units per
acre with a CUP (up to 3 additional units per
acre available through density bonuses)
For senior/disability housing, maximum of 20
units per acre or 25 units per acre with a CUP
(up to 5 additional units per acre available
through density bonuses)
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
Density bonuses would be available for an additional 2 units per acre for:
Green building certification at the Platinum level
Construction of private renewable energy systems or infrastructure
Incorporation of microgrid for back-up power
Density bonuses would be available for an addition 1 unit per acre for:
Green building certification at the Gold level
Inclusion of electric vehicle charging stations
Construction of above-ground green stormwater facilities
Staff recommends amending the text of the Medium Density Residential (R-3) Zoning District to
increase the maximum densities allowed as detailed in the attached document.
Attachments
Underlined/Overstruck Language for Sec. 113-90: Medium Density Residential (R-3) Zoning District
(2 pages)
Sec. 113‐90. ‐ Medium Density Residential (R‐3) Zoning District.
(a) Purpose. The purpose of the Medium Density Residential (R‐3) Zoning District is to
provide for medium density housing (up to 12 10 units per acre for multifamily
dwellings and up to 17 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 25 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 12 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 17 units per acre, consistent with the City’s
Mixed‐income Housing Policy
(2) Senior and physical disability housing to a density of 25 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 buildings shall be eligible for a density bonus of up to an
additional three units per acre and senior and physical disability housing shall be
eligible for a density bonus of up to an additional five units per acre, Multifamily
dwellings that provide City‐required sidewalks shall be granted one of the following
density bonuses provided the corresponding conditions are met:
(1) Green Certified Buildings. Buildings that achieve LEED Platinum certification by a
LEED accredited professional shall increase the maximum allowable density by
two units per acre. Buildings that achieve LEED Gold certification by a LEED
accredited professional shall increase the maximum allowable density by one unit
per acre.
(2) Renewable Energy. Use of a photovoltaic or wind electrical system, solar thermal
system, and/or a geothermal heating and cooling system for at least 50 percent
of the annual energy demand shall increase the maximum allowable density by
two units per acre.
(3) Microgrids. Construction of microgrid infrastructure that contributes efficiency,
security, and back‐up power to a local system shall increase the maximum
allowable density by two units per acre.
(4) Electric Vehicle Charging Stations. An electric vehicle charging station accessible
to residents, employees, and/or the public providing connections at the rate of
five percent of the required parking spaces shall increase the maximum allowable
density by one unit per acre.
(5) Stormwater Facilities. Above ground, multi‐benefit green infrastructure designed
to enhance water quality and reduce stormwater runoff rates, volumes, and
nutrient loads beyond what is required by the City and watershed district shall
increase the maximum allowable density by one unit per acre. The design must
serve as a visual amenity to the property and be reflective of innovative
techniques.
(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: August 24, 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 37 properties north of Olson Memorial Highway and west 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 and more east of Douglas Drive in early August. The 37
properties now under consideration are the latest group to be rezoned; a handful of remaining
properties requiring additional discussion will follow in the coming months.
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
September 1, 2020 City Council to consider the rezoning of properties north of Olson
Memorial Highway and east of Douglas Drive
Analysis
The 37 properties north of Olson Memorial Highway and west of Douglas Drive that are under
consideration for rezoning represent ten different areas. Seven of the areas to be rezoned are
simply aligning the zoning designations with the uses that are already established. Three 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.
Seven specific locations, containing nine parcels, are currently within a Planned Unit
Development (PUD). In these locations, the requirements of the PUD trump those of the
underlying zoning district so no impacts are anticipated even though the zoning designation will
be modified.
No development proposals are pending with the City at any of these locations. More detailed
descriptions of these properties and their current uses are listed below:
3
Address Current Zoning Proposed Zoning
Group 1
Two properties in the Sandberg industrial area have been guided for Light Industrial use since
the adoption of the 2020 Comprehensive Plan in 2000. They have uses that are consistent with
those listed in the Light Industrial section of the zoning chapter. This proposed change would
update the Zoning Map to reflect the existing conditions.
7105 Medicine Lake Road Industrial Light Industrial
6960 Madison Ave W Industrial/Light Industrial Light Industrial
4
Address Current Zoning Proposed Zoning
Group 2
Two properties along Winnetka Avenue North and south of the Golden Valley Cemetery were
discussed by the Planning Commission when the Future Land Use Map was being compiled. The
current office use has been struggling in recent years and the property owner had previously
asked the City to consider a rezoning to Commercial. This request was denied based on
concerns regarding a number of potential uses that would be allowed under this zoning
designation. The Planning Commission felt this property, along with the single‐family home to
the south that has the same ownership, had the potential to provide a residential transition
between the high density development to the east and single‐family neighborhoods to the west.
2415 Winnetka Ave N Office R‐3
2445 Winnetka Ave N R‐1 R‐3
5
Address Current Zoning Proposed Zoning
Group 3
Four homes were removed by the City in the past few years to provide flood storage and
mitigation in an area that suffered repeated flooding. This area will remain open space and the
zoning is proposed to be changed to reflect the movement away from residential use.
1601 Independence Ave N R‐1 Institutional (I‐4)
1605 Independence Ave N R‐1 Institutional (I‐4)
9450 Olympia St R‐1 Institutional (I‐4)
1604 Mendelssohn Ave N R‐1 Institutional (I‐4)
6
Address Current Zoning Proposed Zoning
Group 4
Originally, four properties were listed as targets for rezoning in this area – three owned by
General Mills and one owned by the City. The City‐owned property is a part of PUD 98 and is
protected open space (the Golden Ridge Nature Area). The proposed rezoning from Single‐
Family Residential (R‐1) to Institutional (I‐4) would better represent the current and future use.
There is also a misalignment on the General Mills James Ford Bell site between the Light
Industrial designation on the land use map and the Industrial zoning that is in place. Further
adding to the layers of regulation is a PUD Permit that dictates the uses that are allowed. While
the City maintains trails for public use through the site – as well as unimproved right‐of‐way for
a continuation of Duluth Street – this arrangement is through an easement agreement with
General Mills and is subject to future modification.
Given the complexities of the JFB site, staff has pulled the proposed rezoning from the current
slate of properties and will continue to work with General Mills to develop a plan to address the
misalignment between land use and zoning as well as to revisit the uses outlined in the PUD
Permit.
PID 3011821320130
(9147 Earl Street)
R‐1 Institutional (I‐4)
7
Address Current Zoning Proposed Zoning
Group 5
Two properties along Plymouth Ave have been guided for Light Industrial use since the adoption
of the 2030 Comprehensive Plan in 2010. They house uses that are consistent with those listed
in the Light Industrial section of the zoning chapter. This proposed change would update the
Zoning Map to reflect the existing conditions.
An outlot within PUD 24 provides open space and flood storage for the adjacent residential
development. Rezoning this parcel to Institutional (I‐4) would reflect the current and future use.
9303 Plymouth Ave N Industrial Light Industrial
1200 Mendelssohn Ave N Industrial Light Industrial
PID 3111821120068 R‐2 I‐4
8
Address Current Zoning Proposed Zoning
Group 6
Two rezonings along Douglas Drive provide an updated vision for redevelopment in the city. A
property owned by Tennant at the corner of Douglas Drive and Golden Valley Road will soon be
vacated as the company’s corporate headquarters move to Eden Prairie. The land use map
indicates a mixed use development would be appropriate at this location.
The vacant Optum site in the northwest quadrant of Douglas Drive and Olson Memorial
Highway was guided for Office use in the 2030 Comprehensive Plan. Rezoning it away from an
Industrial designation would prevent uses that might be incompatible with adjacent properties
and inconsistent with vision advanced in the Douglas Drive Corridor Study.
1111 Douglas Drive Office Mixed Use – Neighborhood
6300 Olson Memorial Hwy Industrial Office
9
Address Current Zoning Proposed Zoning
Group 7
Two properties in PUD 39 are zoned Institutional (I‐3) but are guided for Office use in the 2040
Comprehensive Plan. Both the law office and the Park Nicollet clinic located there are permitted
uses in the Office zoning district, meaning this rezoning better aligns the zoning designation
with the existing and preferred uses.
6681 Country Club Drive Institutional (I‐3) Office
6701 Country Club Drive Institutional (I‐3) Office
10
Address Current Zoning Proposed Zoning
Group 8
A senior facility along Country Club drive is currently zoned to accommodate a nursing home.
The change to R‐4 would align with the residential use as an assisted living and memory care
facility.
Along Highway 55, an older multi‐family development is currently zoned R‐4 but is on the low
end of the Medium Density Residential (R‐3) density range. The Future Land Use Map
recommends a Medium Density Residential land use in order to avoid the potential impacts of a
large multifamily development in this location.
7400 Olson Memorial Highway R‐4 R‐3
7475 Country Club Drive Institutional (I‐3) R‐4
11
Address Current Zoning Proposed Zoning
Group 9
A City‐owned stormwater pond along Boone Avenue provides flood storage and open space.
The recommended change rezones the property from Light Industrial to Institutional (I‐4)
710 Boone Ave N Light Industrial Institutional (I‐4)
12
Address Current Zoning Proposed Zoning
Group 10
The final group of properties represent a new direction for this part of the city that has been
envisioned by the Planning Commission and City Council for the past few years. In moving away
from separate, specific zoning designations to a more broadly applied Mixed Use designation,
the area along Golden Valley Road now referred to as Highway 55 West would be encouraged
to continue its evolution as an active node providing residential, commercial, and office
developments within walking distance of the downtown area.
8900 Golden Valley Road Commercial Mixed Use – Community
9000 Golden Valley Road R‐4 Mixed Use – Community
9050 Golden Valley Road R‐4 Mixed Use – Community
9110 Golden Valley Road R‐3 Mixed Use – Community
9280 Golden Valley Road R‐4 Mixed Use – Community
9290 Golden Valley Road R‐4 Mixed Use – Community
9326 Golden Valley Road Office Mixed Use – Community
9400 Golden Valley Road Office Mixed Use – Community
8950 Olson Memorial Highway Commercial Mixed Use – Community
9000 Olson Memorial Highway Commercial Mixed Use – Community
9010 Olson Memorial Highway Commercial Mixed Use – Community
9100 Olson Memorial Highway Commercial Mixed Use – Community
9201 Olson Memorial Highway R‐4 Mixed Use – Community
PID 3111821320010 Commercial Mixed Use – Community
9300 Golden Valley Road Commercial Mixed Use – Community
PID 3111821320014 Commercial Mixed Use – Community
9325 Golden Valley Road Commercial Mixed Use – Community
PID 9111821320013 Unzoned Mixed Use – Community
13
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 37 properties above
to the various designations listed in the attached document, including Light Industrial,
Institutional (I‐4), Office, Medium Density Residential (R‐3), High Density Residential (R‐4), Mixed
Use – Neighborhood, and Mixed Use – Community.
Attachments
List of Affected Properties (2 pages)
Maps of Future Land Use and Existing Zoning Designations (6 pages)
Emails from residents regarding rezoning of Group 2 properties (3 pages)
List of Affected Properties
Address Current Zoning Proposed Zoning
7105 Medicine Lake Road Industrial Light Industrial
6960 Madison Ave W Industrial/Light Industrial Light Industrial
2415 Winnetka Ave N Office R‐3
2445 Winnetka Ave N R‐1 R‐3
1601 Independence Ave N R‐1 Institutional (I‐4)
1605 Independence Ave N R‐1 Institutional (I‐4)
9450 Olympia St R‐1 Institutional (I‐4)
1604 Mendelssohn Ave N R‐1 Institutional (I‐4)
PID 3011821320130
(9147 Earl Street)
R‐1 Institutional (I‐4)
9303 Plymouth Ave N Industrial Light Industrial
1200 Mendelssohn Ave N Industrial Light Industrial
PID 3111821120068 R‐2 I‐4
1111 Douglas Drive Office Mixed Use – Neighborhood
6300 Olson Memorial Hwy Industrial Office
6681 Country Club Drive Institutional (I‐3) Office
6701 Country Club Drive Institutional (I‐3) Office
7400 Olson Memorial Highway R‐4 R‐3
7475 Country Club Drive Institutional (I‐3) R‐4
710 Boone Ave N Light Industrial Institutional (I‐4)
8900 Golden Valley Road Commercial Mixed Use – Community
9000 Golden Valley Road R‐4 Mixed Use – Community
9050 Golden Valley Road R‐4 Mixed Use – Community
9110 Golden Valley Road R‐3 Mixed Use – Community
9280 Golden Valley Road R‐4 Mixed Use – Community
9290 Golden Valley Road R‐4 Mixed Use – Community
9326 Golden Valley Road Office Mixed Use – Community
9400 Golden Valley Road Office Mixed Use – Community
8950 Olson Memorial Highway Commercial Mixed Use – Community
9000 Olson Memorial Highway Commercial Mixed Use – Community
9010 Olson Memorial Highway Commercial Mixed Use – Community
9100 Olson Memorial Highway Commercial Mixed Use – Community
9201 Olson Memorial Highway R‐4 Mixed Use – Community
PID 3111821320010 Commercial Mixed Use – Community
9300 Golden Valley Road Commercial Mixed Use – Community
PID 3111821320014 Commercial Mixed Use – Community
9325 Golden Valley Road Commercial Mixed Use – Community
PID 9111821320013 Unzoned Mixed Use – Community
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 Group 8 Future Land Use Current Zoning
Group 9 Future Land Use Current Zoning Group 10 Future Land Use Current Zoning
2415/2445 Winnetka Ave N Properties - 8/24 meeting
Present issue - changing the zoning of 2415/1445 to Medium Density Residential by
the Planning Commission:
Any future rezoning plans for 2415/2445 Winnetka plans will be vehemently opposed by
me since not even a simple fence between the properties can be properly maintained.
We have had NO support from the City. I feel strongly that the City of Golden Valley has
let the Valders Avenue neighbors down repeatedly since Ms. Tran and Mr. Johanns
purchased the property in 2003. A gentlemen’s agreement honored in the 70s, made by
3 upstanding men, was obviously NOT enough for the City, which unfortunately never
recorded anything about fence/maintenance into their “official minutes.” It just seems to
me that an owner’s entire property is theirs (Tran/Johanns) to maintain – EVERYTHING
-- regardless if a fence and its maintenance is written into the GV “official” papers or not.
R-3 zoning which allows up to a 4-story building would be very inappropriate for what
was once zoned residential.
Some history: (Please copy so this will serve as a record and it won’t have to be retold
whenever a new person takes over the planning position)
My husband Carl and I bought our first home @2450 Valders in 1971. Soon after, we
were approached by Mr. Tony Poppelaars re: change of 2445 Winnetka from
Residential to Business and Professional zoning. Mr. Poppelaars wished to build a
small office building on site. There were many discussions by Tony, Carl and neighbor
Orlyn Zibley @2480 Valders. Orlyn was a mechanical engineer and Carl a civil
engineer, both U of M graduates. Carl had represented MnDOT at many public hearings
and took extensive notes for this project which was his practice, as follows:
We would agree to the zoning change IF 4 stipulations were met:
1) Smaller office building on site
2) Limit windows on west (new owner later added windows)
3) Parking on north, not behind building
4) Board on board fence (Tony wanted 3 rail fencing) and maintenance.
Tony agreed to our needs and the building was built about 1974/75. Also if we had any
problem, we had Tony’s direct number and he responded immediately.
Things went well until property was purchased by Ms. Van Tran and Mr. Larry Johanns
in 2003. Soon after we had problems with fence maintenance and continue to have
them in 2020. I have a letter that Carl had written to Ms. Tran re: fence maintenance in
2011. At that time sections had come loose, some fallen down, and Carl stated, “Fence
is starting to show signs of age and wind impact. It needs to be plumbed and stabilized
in a plumb position.” Nothing was done by the owners. To keep our section and the
Zibley area of the fence upright, the guys began to do their own repair work. Now Jake
Langer, the owner @2480, and I have braces on our properties to keep the fence
upright. Quite unsightly. The fence @2440 has fallen down – now rental property and no
one really cares in Texas.
Lisa Whitman, GV staff member, and I had many conversations re: fence. She said that
she wrote that any future change of the property would also require NEW
FENCE/MAINTENANCE in her minutes after hearing all of the above previously.
Obviously Orlyn and Carl's many conversations with the owner/builder of building and
fence, Mr. Poppelaars in the 70s, were never included in the city minutes...otherwise,
we would NEVER have agreed to the rezoning.
In 2016 Ms. Tran and Mr. Johanns requested a rezoning request – 2415 and 2445
Winnetka from Business and Professional Offices to Commercial Retail/Service. A
public hearing was held on March 14, 2016 (night of husband Carl’s funeral and my
birthday = UFF DA). Daughter Kirsten, an attorney, was my representative at the
meeting and strongly spoke against the change. City later rejected the change of
rezoning to commercial.
I had several conversations with the city rep and Ms. Tran and Mr. Johanns (owners of
2415 & 2445) re: fence/maintenance following that hearing. Obviously NOTHING has
been done as far as maintenance. Mr. Johanns’s solution was to just tear down the
entire fence during our last conversation at my home…and then he spit and walked
away. No word from him since that encounter in 2016.
I’m NOT a grumpy, vindictive person, but I will wish to sell my home and want the
upkeep in my yard/neighborhood to be welcoming. A falling down fence with a 4-story
building certainly would not be.
Thanks,
Diane Hoffstedt
2450 Valders Ave N
[Another topic unrelated to planning– maintenance of 2400 property: I have written the
City for many years on behalf of the Valders/Jonellen neighbors about the 2400
property. For the first time ever, I received a response. Jake Dashiell, property
maintenance specialist, and I have talked…but still no changes. Situation just gets
worse each year. Again, I feel the City continues to let the neighbors down by not
adhering to their own “rules”: Golden Valley's Property Maintenance Code requires
residents to keep their yards mowed, maintained, and picked up.]
I am the owner of 2480 Valders Ave N, and agree with everything Diane has wrote, and I have
also expressed concerns in previous emails of this zoning change. I purchased the property in
2013 with the understanding that the 2445 winnetka ave property was zoned R1. I would not
have purchased my property if it were zoned R3, or if there were a 4 story apartment building on
it. If that address gets zoned R3, it will greatly reduce the property value of the homes on our
street. I really feel like the goalposts are being shifted from underneath us, with nothing that we
can do.
If the city proceeds with this zoning change, the only way to rectify and make it right with
myself and others on this street is for the city to guarantee a home market value pre zoning
adjustment which will be adjusted higher by a set percent each year. That way, we are protected
against a decrease in value due to a zoning change, or construction of an apartment building on
2445 winnetka. The city would cover the loss from pre zone change value to any sales price
after.
I look forward to further conversations on this topic,
Jake Langer
2480 Valders Ave N
1
Date: August 24, 2020
To: Golden Valley Planning Commission
From: Marc Nevinski, Physical Development Director
Subject: Seeking Planning Commissioner to Serve on the Facilities Analysis Task Force
Summary
The Planning Commission is being asked to designate one member to serve on the Facilities
Analysis Task Force.
Background
The City of Golden Valley is conducting a Facility Needs Analysis of its campus buildings located in
the northeast quadrant of Winnetka Avenue and Golden Valley Road, as well as Fire Stations No.
2 and No. 3. The buildings are dated and will not meet the future needs of the City’s operations.
Additionally, the City Campus sits on prime real estate that could be better configured to
incorporate private investment and support the businesses and activities in the downtown area.
The City wishes to develop a long‐term, phased plan to develop new facilities on a portion of its
current campus, relocate public works operations, establish a two‐station fire service model, and
make portions of its current campus available for private investment that supports activity in its
downtown area. An important principle guiding location decisions is keeping City Hall in the
downtown area to attract and support civic, social, and business activity. The Downtown Study
includes several concepts for how this might be accomplished. Collaboration with Hennepin
County Library to construct a shared facility is a potential opportunity to explore as needs and
interests are similar, and other such partnerships may exist elsewhere.
Investment in City facilities is a significant decision which has financial implications in terms of
capital outlay and operational expenses. Additionally, such buildings have significant influence on
the social and civic fabric of a community, necessitating careful thought and thorough
stakeholder engagement.
The City will create a stakeholder task force comprised of residents, businesses, and other
organizations within the City to provide insight and feedback for the facility needs discussion. The
Council will approve the task force membership as well as approve the task forces’ mission and
2
directives. A design consultant will facilitate the task force meetings, and a staff steering
committee will support the consultant and task force with information. The task force is
proposed to be comprised of 10‐12 stakeholders with the following backgrounds:
4‐5 Residents
The resident stakeholder cohort should reflect the following perspectives:
o Different geographic locations within the city
o A diverse background
o Varied tenure in the city
o Variety of age ranges
o Include property renters and owners
2‐3 Business Community Representatives
The business stakeholder cohort should represent perspectives from:
o Larger employer
o Small business
o Institutional or non‐profit
City Council and Commission Members
The Council should appoint one Council Member to chair the task force and one
Planning Commissioner to provide a land use perspective.
1‐2 At‐large Members
Up to two positions should be reserved for applicants who do not meet the above
criteria or fit into one of the categories, but provide a unique and valuable perspective
to the discussion.
Projected Timeline
Prep Work Late Oct 2020 Begin prep work with consultant and Task Force
TF Meeting 1 November 2020 Process overview, facilities tour
TF Meeting 2 December 2020 Review plans – Downtown & Fire Station
Community Engagement Event Summarize issue and process; input for goals
TF Meeting 3 January 2021 Develop key concepts/goals
TF Meeting 4 March 2021 Review conceptual plans/scenarios, costs
CC Check In March 2021 Council/Manager
Community Engagement Event Present concepts; ask for input
TF Meeting 5 April 2021 Refine conceptual plans/scenarios, costs
TF Meeting 6 May 2021 Finalize plans and report
Finish May/June 2021 Recommendation to Council