pc-minutes-apr-26-21
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 Vice‐Chair Pockl.
Roll Call
Commissioners present: Rich Baker, Ron Blum, Adam Brookins, Andy Johnson, Noah Orloff, Lauren
Pockl, Ryan Sadeghi, Chuck Segelbaum
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 Brookins, seconded by Commissioner Sadeghi, to approve the
agenda of April 26, 2021. 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 April 12, 2021.
Commissioner Baker noted that he was listed in attendance and wasn’t present.
MOTION made by Commissioner Johnson, seconded by Commissioner Brookins, to approve
minutes. Staff called a roll call vote and the motion carried unanimously.
4. Public Hearing – Rezone Properties to Achieve Conformance with the 2040 Comprehensive Plan
Applicant: City of Golden Valley
Jason Zimmerman, Planning Manager, reminded Commissioners that there was a request to rezone
24 properties in order to come into conformance with the Future Land Use Map in the 2040 Comp.
Plan. There are two groups to discuss and neither has current active development proposals.
Zimmerman compared the current zoning map and the future land use map.
Two Groups to Rezone:
April 26, 2021 – 7 pm
City of Golden Valley Planning Commission Regular Meeting
April 26, 2021 – 7 pm
2
Group 1 – Douglas Drive Group 2 – Winnetka Avenue North
Looked at briefly in 2020, but tabled until
rowhouse discussion was completed
Other four properties would be rezoned from R‐1
to R‐2, similar to those in Group 1
Would primarily rezone from R‐1 to R‐2 Other four properties would be rezoned from R‐1
to R‐2, similar to those in Group 1
Single‐family homes would still be a permitted
use; would add duplexes and rowhouses as
future possibilities
Other four properties would be rezoned from R‐1
to R‐2, similar to those in Group 1
One exception is 2120 Douglas Drive North –
currently a six‐unit affordable development
zoned R‐3
Other four properties would be rezoned from R‐1
to R‐2, similar to those in Group 1
For both groups, current and future land use maps were displayed and all the addresses impacted
by these changes were listed. Staff also detailed R‐2 and R‐3 zoning designations for the group.
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:
Rezoning 17 of 18 identified properties in Group 1 from R‐1 to R‐2
NOT rezoning 2120 Douglas Drive North (leave as R‐3)
Rezoning 2445 Winnetka Avenue North from Office to R‐3 and 2415 Winnetka Ave North
from R‐1 to R‐3
Rezoning the remaining 4 properties in Group 2 from R‐1 to R‐2
Commissioner Johnson asked about 2120 Douglas Drive, and asked what that means for affordable
housing if the property is an R‐3 exception to the group R‐2 rezoning. Zimmerman responded that if
the property were “down‐zoned” and one day redeveloped, the current 6‐unit building would then
max out as a 4‐unit building. Commissioner Baker asked if staff received feedback from owners of
the properties proposed to be re‐zoned. Zimmerman said staff received one call and the owner was
fine with the rezoning as the impact created future flexibility. Commissioner Pockl asked if the
Veritec building was occupied. Staff responded it is partially and there’s a history of an unsupported
petition for commercial re‐zoning.
Chair Blum opened the public hearing at 7:20pm
Zimmerman stated that Jake Langer, 2480 Valders Ave N, sent an email saying that he is worried
about the height allowed under an R‐3 zoning. This resident lives behind the northern portion of the
Veritec site.
City of Golden Valley Planning Commission Regular Meeting
April 26, 2021 – 7 pm
3
Jake Langer
2480 Valders Ave N
Staff just mentioned my email and I live behind the Veritec building and am opposed to the R‐3 zoning
because I don’t want a 4‐story building there. Staff mentioned before that maybe there could be a
height cap at the current height of the building. I think that is a good compromise but a 4‐story
building would tower over me and my neighbors.
Kathy Longer
2105 Aquila Ave N
I looked at the Medicine Lake and Winnetka Ave flood information. This shows the plan was based
on a flood depth of 1.5‐2 ft at the low point on Medicine Lake during a 100‐year design storm. They
got there by planning to reduce the street width in the neighborhood. This month Hennepin Co.
produced a document on climate action change, they’re looking at changing the design standards
from the 100‐year plan. Any development may impact that flood area at Medicine Lake Road. This
climate action plan includes where the most severe flooding could be and it’s at that office building.
I walk our neighborhood a lot and in spring there’s constant water running out of sump‐pump hoses
and people say the water table is at their basements. The most alarming thing about this climate
action plan is that it could jeopardize local infrastructure, sewage treatment systems, flood
basements, and can impact water quality. Part of the reason for Medley Park stormwater project is
to help with the flooding in our area. It seems incongruous that the City would develop Winnetka
while taking parkland to reduce stormwater. It may be a good idea to see if new developments could
cause a problem in our area.
Mike Faber
2325 Winnetka
I don’t see the need for group 3 [R‐3] for the area of group 2. I think it should all be number 2 [R‐2]
for density group all along Winnetka. If you want to achieve your density goals it should all be the
same grouping in an area. The lots at 2445 are very shallow for R‐3, the whole area should be row‐
housing instead of R‐3. Across the street there’s a development, the changes are subtle but the
transitions are natural. Developing the area should be done all at once or not at all for this reason
and there will be a traffic control issue too. On Douglas Drive, that’s great it’s R‐3 now but if it’s torn
down, there should be a clause that it returns to R‐2 because it’ll be an odd structure in the middle
of consistent façade. To the previous caller’s flood comment, that area is pretty high so I don’t know
that it’s a flood area. The lot on the corner of 23rd and Winnetka is in a floodplain and it’s for sale.
I’m not sure how it can be for sale since its location is why there isn’t any development there. It
would be nice if the city purchased that lot and correct the standing water that occurs there. Overall,
I think R‐2 should be standard for both groups.
Joan Evans
7940 Valders Court
I would like to encourage Commissioners to consider leaving the property that’s being considered
for R‐3 to stay R‐2. This will help the direct neighbors but also the feeling of the neighborhood as
we’ve been quite oppressed by the townhouses that are so close to the street. I’m also concerned
City of Golden Valley Planning Commission Regular Meeting
April 26, 2021 – 7 pm
4
about the water table and drainage issue. As buildings and parking are added, a decrease in
greenspace, will only add to water issues in an already fragile area.
Chair Blum mentioned the height difference between the neighboring properties. Zimmerman
stated that R‐3 height is 48ft by right, or up to 60ft for senior housing. R‐2 building height max is 28ft
by right, or 35ft high for rowhouses. Showing a grading map, staff displayed the difference in building
heights per zoning designations when considering the grading of the area.
The discussion moved on to CUPs and how the City could potentially address height caps.
Commissioner Baker asked about the presence of affordable housing in R‐2 vs R‐3 currently and in
the future. Zimmerman responded that it depends on the developer and interest. It seems most
likely there would be subsidized housing in an apartment building. This is easier in a larger building
than a smaller. If the project is by right, there’s no guarantee any build would create affordable
housing.
The conversation moved on to downzoning and if the current R‐3 designation was rezoned to R‐2,
the current building could stay as is. However, because the zoning changed, if there was
redevelopment, then new developments would be R‐2. Renovations are not impacted by this, only
expansions.
Commissioners and staff addressed the concerns around flooding. Staff displayed the current flood
map and discussed stormwater ponds, flood mitigation, and DeCola ponds. Regardless of floodplain
information, any new build will be required to meet whatever standards are in place.
Mike Faber
2325 Winnetka
I’d like to add R‐3 information to 2445. Staff stated the hillside is 30‐35 ft high and the building may
vary. The site would require a parking garage underneath as that would change total height and I
suspect the building would be 2‐3 ft higher than assumed ground to peak. That lot is too small for R‐
3 and a R‐2 is the best solution.
Chair Blum closed the hearing at 7:52 pm.
Staff responded that zoning code states height caps are measured from grade, regardless of if there’s
underground parking or where the first floor starts.
Commissioner Johnson commented that in previous meetings the group decided to hold off on
rezoning some properties from R‐3 to R‐2 until an R‐2 zoning designation was defined. Being that the
group seemed to be interested in R‐2, he asked why the Commission was entertaining R‐3. Baker
echoed this statement. Zimmerman stated this discussion occurs as part of the potential re‐
designation process and added rowhouses weren’t part of previous conversations. Pockl asked to
discuss the two groups separately otherwise she agrees with Johnson and Baker. Commissioners
discussed neighboring property values, property enjoyment, marketability, and road capacity.
Commissioner Brookins added that he’s comfortable with R‐2 or R‐3 but was never comfortable with
R‐1. Commissioners asked Johnson to expand previous comments. Johnson discussed his thought
City of Golden Valley Planning Commission Regular Meeting
April 26, 2021 – 7 pm
5
process prior to the R‐2 discussion and that now he believes this section of property should be R‐2.
Commissioner Orloff asked why staff recommended R‐3 instead of R‐2. Zimmerman responded that
the recommendation was due to compliance with the Comprehensive Plan.
Commissioner Segelbaum asked Baker if duplexes were concerning. Baker added that a duplex
would be ok but without rowhouses as an option he stated he’d be less likely to endorse an R‐2.
MOTION made by Commissioner Brookins, seconded by Commissioner Pockl to recommend
rezoning Group 2 (Winnetka) to all R‐2 zoning.
Staff took a roll call vote on the motion and it passed unanimously.
Orloff stated support for staff’s recommendation of group 1 and Segelbaum echoed this statement.
Brookins stated that zoning the property in a way similar to the adjacent properties makes sense for
future flexibility. Segelbaum added the building on the lot is narrow so building options are limited
and new builds are not cheap and supports leaving it as is. A discussion on affordable housing
occurred around the Douglas Drive lot and Baker expressed desire that this lot be left in a condition
to allow continuing affordable housing.
MOTION made by Commissioner Baker, seconded by Commissioner Segelbaum to recommend
approval of staff recommendation of Group 1 (Douglas).
Staff took a roll call vote.
Aye: Baker, Blum, Johnson, Pockl, Segelbaum
Nay: Brookins
Motion passes 5‐1
5. Public Hearings – Amendments to Future Land Use and Zoning Maps; Major Amendment to PUD 90
Applicant: ISD #270 ‐ Hopkins School District
Address: 5430 and 5300 Glenwood Ave, Golden Valley, MN 55422
Jason Zimmerman, Planner, summarized that the applicant is making three requests as part of one
proposal:
1. Future Land Use Map amendment for 5300 Glenwood Avenue
2. Zoning Map amendment for 5300 Glenwood Avenue
3. Major PUD Amendment for PUD 90
Zimmerman discussed the history of the proposal, starting in 2000. Throughout the presentation, a
number of maps were displayed to illustrate the PUD as well as amendments.
1. The first request is to change the Future Land Use Map so this lot will be rezoned from Office to
Institutional – Assembly. This zoning is better fit for school offices or educational planning.
Potential traffic impacts are being evaluated and the rezoning with the Comprehensive Plan.
City of Golden Valley Planning Commission Regular Meeting
April 26, 2021 – 7 pm
6
Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of the Future Land Use Map amendment to re‐guide 5300 Glenwood
Avenue from Office to Institutional – Assembly.
2. The second request regarding the Zoning Map amendment is to rezone from Office to
Institutional. This is consistent with proposed changes to the land use in the Comp Plan. The
use is compatible with surrounding uses, there is a church and a daycare down the street.
This rezoning is not inconsistent with the neighborhood and it allows Meadowbrook to
expand its campus and meet the goals and objectives of the Comp Plan.
Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of the Zoning Map amendment to rezone 5300 Glenwood Avenue from
Office to Institutional (I‐1).
3. The third request is to expand the PUD into Amendment #5; this will then include 5300
Glenwood Ave. This amendment will then improve existing parking lots, construct new
stormwater treatment infrastructure, replace lighting, and add landscaping. Zimmerman
displayed the site plan and proposed elements to illustrate these changes.
Zimmerman went into more detail regarding the evaluations of land use and zoning, traffic impacts,
stormwater, landscaping, and platting.
Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of Amendment #5 to Meadowbrook School PUD No. 90, subject to the
following conditions:
1. The photometric plans must be updated to conform to City standards for lighting levels.
2. Information on enrollment, staffing, and program activities shall be provided to the City
annually by October 1st.
3. The City reserves the right to curtail certain uses or hours of operation at the 5300 Glenwood
Avenue building pending results of the ongoing traffic study.
4. A financial guarantee shall be submitted to ensure all title work is completed and the final
plat is recorded with Hennepin County.
5. Walkway easements along Glenwood Avenue shall be recorded as separate documents.
6. The City will vacate any interest in the MnDOT turnback area with the exception of certain
easements over City utilities; the school district will own and maintain all other infrastructure.
7. The existing stormwater maintenance agreement shall be updated, including the district’s
existing chloride management plan.
Commissioner Segelbaum asked about a greenspace reduction during the amendment in 2018.
Zimmerman responded that the percentage of greenspace will stay similar with this proposed
amendment because new greenspace is being included and protected on the property. Commissioner
Johnson asked about the building use, Zimmerman responded that district offices can move there but
City of Golden Valley Planning Commission Regular Meeting
April 26, 2021 – 7 pm
7
classes may not take place in 5300 Glenwood. The discussion continued around parking, efficiency of
traffic queuing in the lot, and accuracy of traffic study data.
Chair Blum invited the applicant to speak.
Neil Tessier, Civil Engineering Consultant for the school district, introduced himself. There was a traffic
study done prior to the addition on Meadowbrook, at any given time there were no more than 40 cars
in que at one time, this didn’t pose a negative impact. With the addition of the 5300 Glenwood
building, the study shows the lot can easily handle a que of 83 vehicles at one time.
The discussion continued around parking spots, vehicles on the lot compared to number of vehicles in
que, logistics, and timing for vehicle traffic. The discussion moved on to the current use of the 5300
Glenwood building, what the current parking lot impacts are, and how that may change as the use of
that building changes.
Chair Blum opened the public hearing at 9:17pm
Commissioner Segelbaum stated that as a whole, the proposal is good and there are many positive
changes, however he’s concerned about the 2018 reduction in greenspace and would like to have seen
more greenspace and fewer parking spaces; especially for an elementary school. Blum echoed this
statement. Johnson added by saying this amendment is a good thing but getting traffic impacts
mitigated should have already happened within the PUD. He added that there should be a plan for the
new building prior to approval of this amendment. Brookins asked if any of the lighting was updated
in 2018, staff responded there were not updates but portions will be updated with this amendment.
Brookins asked about the enrollment cap and staff responded that the 890‐enrollment cap stays in
place. Brookins added that when use for the 5300 Glenwood building was decided, that the applicant
come back with another PUD Amendment for intended use and today there are limitations put in place
until then. Zimmerman added that when completing the 2018 amendment process, staff goal was to
wrap everything in to one final amendment and not return for two more amendments. Language in
the amendment clarifies some of this but it can be changed or the amendment approval can be delayed
until use of the newly acquired building can be defined. Commissioner Pockl suggested that tabling
this amendment until use for the new building and its impact on the parking lot can be defined.
Johnson noted on memo page 52, Item 2b where it states that planning staff will distribute the number
of students and staff in the building to whom they deem necessary, and he added that it seemed
strange that would be controlled information. Johnson asked staff about stormwater management
and why the city opted for underground when they generally prefer above ground. Zimmerman stated
wasn’t sure as that was a determination made by City Engineers when collaborating with the
applicant’s engineers. Applicant responded the decision was made because there wasn’t enough
space to create an above ground stormwater pond and there is a danger having above ground
stormwater storage near or on a school campus. Applicant added that enrollment details are not being
withheld but thought it was better for the City to distribute as needed instead of the district sending it
to every address in the City. Baker stated he understands the need to know the use of 5300 Glenwood
before approving the amendment but supports staff comments about getting traffic impacts off the
street sooner than later. The discussion continued on this topic and then returned to greenspace
City of Golden Valley Planning Commission Regular Meeting
April 26, 2021 – 7 pm
8
amount and building use. Tabling this item would greatly impact the construction timeline.
Commissioners discussed the applicant’s application process, application timeline, and the delay in
construction if this item were to be tabled. Johnson added that the Planning Commission’s role is to
interpret the rules, think about in the context of the City, and help elected officials make the best
decision they can. He continued that details around building use and related traffic impacts are missing
and that’s too big to leave ambiguous. Brookins reminded the group there are three votes ahead of
them and he’s comfortable with moving ahead with Items 1 and 2 and not 3.
Chair Blum closed the hearing at 9:44pm
MOTION made by Commissioner Brookins and seconded by Commissioner Pockl to recommend
approval of the Future Land Use Map amendment to re‐guide 5300 Glenwood Avenue from Office to
Institutional – Assembly.
Johnson added he disagrees with this motion until use for the building is defined. Brookins responded
that he sees the land‐use as being appropriate for school use. Segelbaum noted support for the
motion.
Staff took a roll call vote.
Aye: Baker, Brookins, Pockl, Segelbaum
Nay: Johnson, Blum
Motion passes 4‐2
MOTION made by Commissioner Brookins and seconded by Commissioner Pockl to recommend
approval of the Zoning Map amendment to rezone 5300 Glenwood Ave. from Office to Institutional.
Staff took a roll call vote:
Aye: Baker, Brookins, Pockl, Segelbaum
Nay: Johnson, Blum
Motion passes 4‐2
Discussion on denying, approving, or tabling the final voting item continued and the elements for each.
MOTION made by Commissioner Brookins and seconded by Commissioner Johnson to recommend
denial of PUD 90 Amendment 5.
Chair Blum stated that based on elements of findings, the application is incomplete. Segelbaum
echoed this statement.
Staff took a roll call vote and the motion passed unanimously.
Televised portion of the meeting concluded at 10:20 pm
City of Golden Valley Planning Commission Regular Meeting
April 26, 2021 – 7 pm
9
6. Council Liaison Report
Council Member Rosenquist reported on the recent Council/Manager meeting where the
Emergency Management Plan was discussed and the Open Space and Recreation and the
Environmental Commission annual reports were presented. A conversation took place regarding
using fund to pay down a portion of the City’s debt. Finally, the Facility Task Force is introducing an
online engagement effort and the Commissioners were encouraged to take part.
7. Reports on Board of Zoning Appeals and other Meetings
8. Other Business
9. Adjournment
MOTION by Commissioner Pockl to adjourn, seconded by Commissioner Brookins, and approved
unanimously. Meeting adjourned at 10:34 pm.
________________________________
Adam Brookins, Secretary
________________________________
Amie Kolesar, Planning Assistant