pc-minutes-feb-08-21
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.
1. Call to Order
The meeting was called to order at 7:00 by Chair Blum.
Roll Call
Commissioners present: Rich Baker, Ron Blum, Andy Johnson, Noah Orloff, Lauren Pockl, Ryan
Sadeghi, Chuck Segelbaum
Commissioners absent: Adam Brookins
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 Sadeghi, seconded by Commissioner Baker, to approve the agenda
of February 8, 2021. 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 January 25, 2021.
Jason Zimmerman, Planning Manager, noted an error on page 6, 7 months should change to 7
weeks. Commissioner Johnson, noted on page 11 his point wasn’t about a litter ordinance but
rather if there is a medical waste issue there are other avenues than the City of Golden Valley
Planning Commission to direct those concerns to.
MOTION made by Commissioner Baker, seconded by Commissioner Pockl, to approve minutes
pending changes as noted. Staff called a roll call vote and the motion carried unanimously.
4. Continued Informal Public Hearing – Motion to Table PUD 74 Major PUD Amendment
Applicant: Regency Hospital
Address: 1300 Hidden Lakes Parkway, Golden Valley MN
February 8, 2021 – 7 pm
City of Golden Valley Planning Commission Regular Meeting
February 8, 2021 – 7 pm
2
Jason Zimmerman, Planning Manager, reminded the group that this public hearing item was tabled
due to deadlines and items to be reviewed. Since the previous meeting, the applicant and Hidden Lakes
HOA are continuing conversations and the applicant requested an extension to allow those
conversations to continue. The applicant will also revise any plans as needed and provide them at a
later date. Timing is unclear as of the date of this meeting but residents will be sent a letter within 60
days with an update.
MOTION made by Commissioner Baker, seconded by Commissioner Johnson, to table the Hidden
Lakes PUD discussion to a later date. Staff called a roll call vote and the motion carried unanimously.
5. Discussion – Modifying the Moderate Density Residential (R‐2) Zoning District to Allow Rowhouses
Jason Zimmerman, Planning Manager, reminded commissioners of previous discussions on this topic
and items the Commissioners wished to discuss further.
Zimmerman reviewed the definition of a rowhouse and how it would be added to definitions of other
dwellings. Zimmerman revisited the R‐2 Purpose Statement and reminded members of previous
conversations about possibly editing the R‐2 purpose statement and if that should be done alone or in
conjunction with the purpose statements for other zoning districts.
At a previous meeting, Commissioners asked about residential facilities/group homes and how they
would be included in the R‐2 zoning code. A rowhouse with 3‐4 rental units might be considered a
multifamily structure, this would likely require allowing higher density group homes on these lots, if
not on all R‐2 zoned properties. The City Attorney is looking into this particular situation.
Staff revisited minimum lot width and initially opted to follow an approach used for single‐family
homes and duplexes. After discussion on whether that was excessive, staff had proposed a 150‐foot
width for 3‐unit rowhouses and a 200‐foot width for 4 unit rowhouses.
As of this meeting, architectural and Material Standards have not been applied to R‐1 and R‐2 zoning
districts. Standards could be added to rowhouses and staff listed possibilities for both categories.
There are area limitations for accessory structures and staff reviewed that each single‐family or two‐
family lot is limited to a total of 1,000 square feet and suggested each rowhouse lot be limited to a
total of 2,200 square feet for accessory structures. Staff reviewed what that included, what it didn’t
include, and that no accessory structure shall occupy a footprint larger than that of the principal
structure. How this specifically relates to rowhouses and changes based on number of units was further
discussed.
Commissioner Baker asked staff about underground parking and if that was going to be revisited. Staff
responded that they were not going to prohibit underground parking but would likely encourage
attached parking. Requiring underground parking with units this small can get very expensive and
challenging to construct.
City of Golden Valley Planning Commission Regular Meeting
February 8, 2021 – 7 pm
3
Chair Blum opened the discussion on the presentation and staff started with asking Commissioners for
questions around definitions. Baker mentioned that the rowhouse definition doesn’t explicitly say
“side‐by‐side” and should in some capacity otherwise the intention to avoid under/over is lost. The
discussion around language in the definition continued.
Commissioner Segelbaum mentioned that it makes sense to leave the definition to define the
structure and not how it’s occupied. Blum added that if the goal is to introduce this particular model
to increase variety of housing, then it may be useful to define how the building is owned and occupied.
Blum added that this language could ensure each unit is occupied as single‐family and avoid potential
group home housing next to other R‐1 housing. Staff added that occupancy as single or multi‐family
has not been considered yet within the R‐2 definition for a lot. There may be increased density, a group
home, or a residential facility as part of the lot use within the R‐2. Baker asked Blum to clarify if he
wanted to exclude residential facilities and Blum responded that he wasn’t opposed to the facilities
but rather the potential jump in density for a future R‐2 district.
Staff added the City Attorney is reviewing these potential classifications for a single‐family use or a
multi‐family use in a district like this.
Staff moved on to the next item, and mentioned the Chair was curious about how to leverage the
purpose statement to strengthen the evaluation of variance requests. Chair Blum stated the goal was
to meet community needs that are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Commissioner Baker
added that he sees this as a good opportunity however prefers staff’s approach in the memo to
consider this as a separate policy discussion and address it in all zoning districts. Baker added it should
be on the to‐do list to address and ask Council for support; it should not be done here to only address
rowhouses. Commissioner Sadeghi expressed support for the proposed purpose statement and
pointed out that it adequately addresses density. Policy and code language can be addressed later.
Commissioner Segelbaum echoed this sentiment. This discussion continued and Commissioner
Johnson asked if they need to wait on direction from the City Attorney before moving forward. Staff
said they will wait on direction from the City Attorney before presenting specific code language to the
Planning Commission for a vote.
The next item to address was regarding Residential Facilities but folks felt it was already addressed.
Staff moved on to lot width.
Staff asked if the minimum lot width requirement was necessary or if they could utilize the minimum
setback and unit width requirements already built into this section of code. Commissioner Johnson
stated utilizing the built‐in setbacks seems more practical. He stated his support for this option.
Commissioner Sadeghi and Commissioner Baker echoed support for this statement.
Staff moved on the Architectural and Material Standards.
The items listed are pretty standard for requirements in other zoning districts but staff wanted to know
if Commissioners felt these standards should be applied to rowhouses. Commissioner Baker stated
the standards listed were practical however these standards are not placed on single family homes in
this district so he’s not sure it’s needed. Commissioner Segelbaum stated the standards for rowhouses
should mirror those for single family homes. Staff clarified there weren’t any so Segelbaum stated they
City of Golden Valley Planning Commission Regular Meeting
February 8, 2021 – 7 pm
4
should line up with R‐1. Commissioner Pockl asked if screening standard and entrance location would
be included if the other standards weren’t Staff confirmed that screening was covered in the code
elsewhere and the entrance could be in the definition of a rowhouse. Commissioner Johnson stated
support for these standards so the definition of a rowhouse is clear and deliberate. Commissioner
Sadeghi echoed this comment and added that being too prescriptive with materials may create a
burden and decrease feasibility for developers and builders.
Staff moved on to Accessory Structures and specifically detached garages. Commissioner Baker asked
if a detached garage increased the impervious surfaces and staff responded that it depends on the
structures. Staff doesn’t have a blueprint in hand as an example so that possibility would be dependent
on many factors. The discussion continued and Commissioners discussed parking, garages, number of
stalls per unit, and vehicles outside.
6. Discussion – 2020 Land Use/Zoning Study – Office Uses
Myles Campbell, Planner, reminded Commissioners the goal of this item is to update the zoning code
to match the land use policies of the 2040 Comprehensive Plan. This will also help modernize the code
and make it more approachable and accessible for residents/business owners. Staff is currently
revising Office zoning code language and uses.
The purpose of the Office Zoning District is to provide areas for the offices, clinics, day care centers,
financial institutions, and other compatible uses that serve local and regional needs. The District
fosters employment opportunities and encourages transitions between land uses. The District is not
intended to serve as an area for the sale of or handling of goods, wares, merchandise, or commodities.
Staff presented a preliminary use table for economic and business activities in the following districts:
commercial, light industrial, industrial, and office zoning districts. Campbell described the table and
defined the language.
Staff is looking for direction on the preliminary table regarding use of sub‐categories, where in the
zoning chapter this table should be located, and id Mixed‐Use districts should have their own land use
table. Commissioner Baker suggested staff utilize the Communications department to navigate ease
of use within the code. Commissioner Johnson added that location is important but adding hyperlinks
to direct users to specific areas would be beneficial. Commissioner Pockl spoke in favor of sub‐
categories.
Commissioners and staff discussed uses and categorical differences for clarification.
Televised portion of the meeting concluded at 9:00 pm
7. Council Liaison Report
Council Member Rosenquist invited the Commissioners to the Joint Boards and Commissions event at
the end of February to hear about the City Council’s 2021 goals. She updated them on the Legislative
Priorities, including an effort around fiscal disparities. Rosenquist provided quick updates on the
City of Golden Valley Planning Commission Regular Meeting
February 8, 2021 – 7 pm
5
Facilities Study and a use agreement with the Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board. She also noted
the City’s efforts around a reduction of speed limits on local streets and a kick‐off call related to a push
for Highway 55 Bus Rapid Transit.
8. Reports on Board of Zoning Appeals and other Meetings
None.
9. Other Business
None.
10. Adjournment
MOTION by Commissioner Johnson to adjourn, seconded by Commissioner Segelbaum, and
approved unanimously. Meeting adjourned at 9:18 pm.
________________________________
Adam Brookins, Secretary
________________________________
Amie Kolesar, Planning Assistant