pc-agenda-sep-29-20
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 133 059 3431.
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. Discussion – Modifying the Moderate Density Residential (R‐2) Zoning District to Allow Rowhouses
4. Discussion – 2020 Land Use/Zoning Study
– End of Televised Portion of Meeting –
To listen to this portion, please call 1‐415‐655‐0001 and enter meeting access code 133 059 3431
5. Council Liaison Report
6. Reports on Board of Zoning Appeals and Other Meetings
7. Other Business
8. Adjournment
September 29, 2020 – 7 pm
1
Date: September 29, 2020
To: Golden Valley Planning Commission
From: Jason Zimmerman, Planning Manager
Subject: Discussion – Modifying the Moderate Density Residential (R‐2) Zoning District to
Allow Rowhouses
Summary
Staff will present information and lead a discussion around the potential for amending the R‐2
zoning district to allow for rowhouses. Sample regulations from other metro communities will be
reviewed.
Background
Over the past two years, the Planning Commission has expressed interest in modifying the
Moderate Density Residential (R‐2) Zoning District to allow for the construction of rowhouses or
other attached townhome structures in an effort to expand the variety of housing types available
for residents, while still maintaining a moderate density range. As the City moves forward with
rezoning certain properties to align with the 2040 Comprehensive Plan, the time is right to
consider amending the Zoning Chapter.
Staff reviewed the zoning regulations of a handful of other metro communities with zoning
designations roughly equivalent to Golden Valley’s R‐2 zoning district.
District Uses allowed
St. Louis Park R‐3 Conditional for cluster housing up to 4 attached units
Minnetonka R‐3 Permitted for up to 4 attached units
Roseville MDR Permitted for 3 to 8 attached units
Richfield MR‐2 Permitted for up to 8 units
Analysis
Density
In order to remain in alignment with the land use designations included in the 2040
Comprehensive Plan, the overall density of any residential development within an R‐2 zoned
property must remain below eight units per acre. The current R‐2 regulations allow single‐family
2
homes to be constructed on lots of 6,000 square feet and duplexes to be constructed on lots of
10,000 square feet. In order to remain in the target density range, any structure with multiple
attached units would need to target approximately 5,500 square feet per unit (lots sizes of
approximately 16,500 square feet for three attached units; 22,000 square feet for four attached
units, etc.)
St. Louis Park Minnetonka Roseville Richfield
Area per unit One‐half acre
minimum lot size
(roughly 5,500 sq
ft per unit with
four units)
3,600 to 10,000
sq ft depending
on low or
medium density
designation
3,600 sq ft 15,000 sq
minimum lot size
(roughly 2,000 sq
ft per unit with
eight units)
Unit Count and Layout
The Planning Commission should consider the style and intensity of the potential structures that
might be constructed. Much of the past conversation has centered on rowhouses (side by side or
adjacent units) rather than arrangements such as stacked units or other layouts. Up to four
attached units appears to be a common threshold in other metro communities. This allows for a
slight concentration of units while still maintaining moderately sized structures as well as regular
spacing between buildings. A side by side layout also encourage individual entries versus a
common or shared entry.
Height
Currently, height in the R‐2 zoning district is limited to 28 feet to the midpoint of the highest
pitched roof. In looking at the height restrictions used by other cities, it appears many have
comparable limitations (though they may measure to the highest point instead of to a midpoint).
A few cities add five feet to the allowed height as compared to their single‐family districts. It
appears reasonable to staff to maintain our existing height limits for any rowhouses constructed
in the R‐2 district.
St. Louis Park Minnetonka Roseville Richfield
Building height Three stories or
35 feet,
whichever is less
Maximum of 35
feet
Maximum of 35
feet
Maximum of 35
feet
Setbacks and Lot Width
R‐2 side setbacks are currently established to match the side setbacks in the R‐1 zoning district
(15 feet, 12.5 feet, or a variable setback for existing narrow lots) for both single‐family and two‐
family housing. Rear setbacks are established as 25 feet. Minimum lot width is 50 feet for single‐
family lots and 100 feet for two‐family lots.
There are a wide variety of side setbacks in these districts in other communities, ranging from 5
feet to 20 feet or more. Some add distance based on the height of the structure. Rear setbacks
3
tend to be larger, in the 40 to 50 feet range. A majority of the codes examined did not have a
minimum lot width.
St. Louis Park Minnetonka Roseville Richfield
Side setbacks Variable due to
cluster housing
15 feet plus 2
feet for every
foot in height
over 25 feet
5 to 8 feet 20 feet or height
of building,
whichever is
greater
Rear setback Variable due to
cluster housing
40 feet 45 feet 25 feet of height
of building,
whichever is
greater
Lot width NA NA NA 75 feet
Other Features
Additional design features to consider include: individual entries, front porches, location of
garages, options for zero lot line/condominium units, etc.
Staff Request
At this time, staff is looking for feedback on the following questions:
1. What are the preferred styles of housing that should be pursued?
2. How many attached units should be allowed within each building?
3. Are any changes necessary to the current height regulations?
4. What are the appropriate targets for side and rear setbacks?
5. What other architectural features should be discussed and/or researched?
A series of images of attached unit (rowhouse) structures will be shared at the meeting to focus
discussion.
1
Date: September 29, 2020
To: Golden Valley Planning Commission
From: Myles Campbell, Planner
Subject: 2020 Land Use/Zoning Study
Summary
In late summer of last year, Planning staff had begun to research and discuss with Commissioners
the topic of revisions to the Zoning Code, and specifically to how land uses are managed by
district. This review was intended to assist the City in updating and better organizing its land use
permissions by district following the completion and approval of its 2040 Comprehensive Plan.
Topics of discussion at the time included the potential layout or organization of the uses in code,
the introduction of additional restricted uses to the code, reorganization of the current
Institutional Zoning Categories to better reflect uses, and discussion around individual uses.
With the approval of the Comprehensive Plan now in place, staff would like to return to this
zoning code update and begin to implement the changes discussed by Commissioners last year.
Given the breadth of the zoning code this action will affect, staff anticipates this being an ongoing
discussion topic at future meetings. In part, this memo and our discussion will lay out an initial
plan or schedule for these discussions, hopefully breaking up the larger topic into more
manageable portions. Additionally, this memo will try to lay out the objectives and goals for the
project, and relating these back to the work completed to date.
Project Objectives
The top‐level objective of this project is to update the City’s Zoning Code to reflect the new land
use policies established by the 2040 Comprehensive Plan, but also to modernize the code and to
make it more user friendly for residents, business owners, and other city stakeholders. Staff
hopes to meet these broader objectives in three ways:
2
Convert the existing organization of permitted/conditional/restricted uses in the code to a
table format, potentially moving these use tables to be under their own section of the
code rather than within zoning district chapters.
Simplify the code by reducing the overall number of defined land uses, especially in
regard to commercial uses, when feasible.
Examine existing conditional or permitted uses that could be handled instead as restricted
uses.
In addition to the larger objectives, staff also sees this as an opportunity to tackle related zoning
code amendments. These include topics such as the planned reorganization of the City’s
Institutional Zoning Districts or the tightening the language regarding religious land uses. Given
that these topics will necessitate modifications to allowed land uses by district, this seems like an
opportune time to review them and take advantage of the larger amendments.
Existing Work
Given that there has already been some discussion at Planning Commission on the topic of
reorganizing land uses in the zoning code, staff will attempt to base their analysis and
recommendations off these initial conversations. Specifically, we’ll be reviewing the
conversations from last year, when the Planning Commission had a chance to discuss the topic at
its July 22, and August 12 meetings.
Instead of our typical memo attachments, staff has included links to both the agendas and the
minutes from these meetings. We will be referencing these documents throughout the study and
will provide specific excerpts with future memos as they are relevant, but Commissioners can
begin to review these documents at their own direction beforehand.
Study Schedule
As mentioned, staff expects this to be ongoing planning item, through the fall and into the
winter. We would like to maintain some scheduling flexibility here, and plan to host these
discussions as there is time available on future schedules, with precedence being given to
external applications that might be received.
In order to make the workload manageable for both commissioners and staff, we are suggesting
to break the study into smaller topics, mostly based on the planned organization of the new use
tables:
Residential Uses
Commercial/Office Uses
Industrial Uses
3
Institutional Uses
We hope to examine each of these groups with the study’s central objectives in mind. Can the
number of individual listed uses be streamlined? Should any permitted or conditional uses be
reconsidered as a restricted use? How exactly should the use table be structured for the best user
experience?
In addition to these topics, staff anticipates needing to address other related issues. For example,
the Commission may wish to have a separate meeting to discuss commercial and residential land
uses in the context of our mixed use zoning districts, given the different conditions/restrictions of
the district. Staff will mostly look to Commissioners for their guidance on how they’d like to
approach these special topics as they arise from our discussions.
Staff Request
For this introductory meeting staff would like to hear from Commissioners on their initial
thoughts for this study and staff’s tentative plan to organize discussion by land use group. Given
changes in staff since this topic was last in front of Commissioners, we are also interested in
hearing what you recall from those early discussions, and what you would like to see carried
forward from them.
Attachments
Planning Commission, Archived Discussions (1 page)
Land Use Tables/Zoning Study ‐ Discussion Archive
PC ‐ July 22, 2019
Agenda (ZS on p. 25)
http://weblink.ci.golden‐valley.mn.us/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=798277&dbid=0&repo=GoldenValley
Minutes (ZS on p. 5)
http://weblink.ci.golden‐valley.mn.us/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=812601&dbid=0&repo=GoldenValley
PC ‐ August 12, 2019
Agenda (ZS on p. 35)
http://weblink.ci.golden‐valley.mn.us/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=800845&dbid=0&repo=GoldenValley
Minutes (ZS on p. 5)
http://weblink.ci.golden‐valley.mn.us/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=813661&dbid=0&repo=GoldenValley