pc-minutes-jul-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 Chair Pockl.
Roll Call
Commissioners in person: Ron Blum, Adam Brookins, Andy Johnson, Lauren Pockl, Chuck
Segelbaum
Commissioners virtual: Rich Baker
Commissioners absent: Noah Orloff, Ryan Sadeghi
Staff present: Jason Zimmerman – Planning Manager, Myles Campbell – Planner
Council Liaison present: Gillian Rosenquist
2. Approval of Agenda
Chair Pockl asked for a motion to approve the agenda.
MOTION made by Vice‐Chair Brookins, seconded by Commissioner Johnson, to approve the agenda
of July 26, 2021. Staff took a roll call vote. Motion carried.
3. Approval of Minutes
Chair Pockl asked for a motion to approve the minutes from July 12, 2021.
Commissioner Johnson asked about page 3 and RLUIPA reclassification comments. He added the
City Attorney decided the use was permitted and if the Commission missed a step before it was
voted on. Jason Zimmerman, Planning Manager, clarified that the item hasn’t been voted on and
the discussion is still in process. The Planning Commission will vote when all the use tables are
complete. No amendment to the minutes is necessary after the staff clarification.
MOTION made by Vice‐Chair Brookins, seconded by Commissioner Johnson, to approve minutes,
with additions. Staff took a roll call vote. Motion carried.
4. Update and Discussion – Major Amendment to PUD 90
Applicant: ISD #270 ‐ Hopkins School District
Address: 5430 and 5300 Glenwood Ave, Golden Valley, MN 55422
July 26, 2021 – 7 pm
City of Golden Valley Planning Commission Regular Meeting
July 26, 2021, 2021 – 7 pm
2
Jason Zimmerman, Planning Manager, this item initially had three pieces to vote on, the
Planning Commission sent all three to City Council but the amendment was returned for more
work. The applicant has since withdrawn all three items and will re‐apply at a later date.
No action is required.
5. Discussion – Pawn Shops, Precious Metal Dealers, and Payday Lenders
Myles Campbell, Planner, reviewed the purpose and objectives of this item. August 2020 a
moratorium on new pawnshops, precious metal dealers and payday lenders put in place. Staff was
directed by City Council to review this item as it relates to the zoning code.
Current zoning code does not define pawnshops and precious metal dealers outside of the current
licensing code. There is not a current zoning definition for these uses but staff interprets it as falling
under general retail, currently permitted in Commercial and in Mixed‐Use: neighborhood,
community, employment. Firearm sales are separately restricted as a land use and prohibited in the
districts that allow “general retail”.
Payday Lenders are in a similar gap and staff would consider these a financial institution, permitted
in Commercial, Office, Light Industrial, and Mixed‐Use: neighborhood, community, employment.
Campbell reviewed the discussion from March 2021 and answered the following Commissioner
questions, presented at that time.
More research/info on why these restrictions were being recommended
o Discussed direct and runoff impacts
Mapping of suggested restrictions
o Buffer restrictions were discussed
Police opinion on new code
Equity and Inclusion Manager opinion
Modifying the suggested definitions
Conclusion
Given their potential impacts, staff feels treating these uses as being permitted with
restrictions strikes a good balance.
The restrictions are reasonable in scope and are tailored to the common concerns for these
uses: public safety, consumer health, and impact on adjacent businesses
The restrictions do not outright prohibit the users, and still allow adequate space for such
retailers to locate in the City
With the expiration of the interim ordinance imminent, City Manager has directed staff to
bring this topic back to the Planning Commission for a public hearing on its August 9th meeting.
Commissioner Segelbaum asked if classifying pay day lenders as financial institution would allow
them to be located in all districts that allows a financial institution. Campbell responded that staff
recommends this particular use only be allowed in Commercial districts. The conversation continued
to discuss districts, buffers, and licensing requirements. Commissioner Johnson asked clarifying
City of Golden Valley Planning Commission Regular Meeting
July 26, 2021, 2021 – 7 pm
3
questions regarding statute requirements for loan amounts and loan definitions, then asked about
research done to show repercussions if these institutions were removed after existing for a while.
Campbell stated that his research didn’t show studies of impacts to neighborhoods when payday
lenders are removed. The conversation continued around if payday lenders need to be treated
similarly to standard banking institutions and what would happen if payday lenders were called
something else in the code. Staff will discuss the use of state language with the City’s finance team.
Commissioner Johnson added that he wants to make sure decisions are based on something
quantifiable. He went on to discuss the pros and cons of the conversation and added that he wants
to add something that will help people in the end. Commissioner Baker echoed Johnson’s
statements and added he wants to make sure the group isn’t eliminating something that the
community utilizes to succeed.
Chair Pockl mentioned perceptions of pay day lenders and predatory practices, she mentioned non‐
profits that act as alternatives to these resources. Keeping consumer protections in mind, Pockl
asked if there was a way to add education to access alternatives. Staff mentioned they can add that
information to Council and look into adding them in the definitions of these places.
Commissioner Segelbaum stated that based on information provided, it seems restrictions for
pawnshops and metal dealers should be less than those for payday lenders. Commissioners had a
discussion on level of restrictions and potential zoning districts. Vice‐Chair Brookins added that the
zoning district determination still feels important to him but the idea of a buffer seems less so.
Johnson echoed this statement.
Segelbaum stated the goal isn’t to shut these services out, but to focus their location in high traffic
areas. Pockl agreed that eliminating these uses would have a negative impact on some members of
the community.
6. Discussion – Accessory Dwelling Unit
Val Quarles, Community Development Intern, summarized the July 12th discussion and the
questions asked generally fell into two categories: potential impacts and measures of affordability.
The potential extent of ADUs throughout the city can be roughly estimated through a few measures;
lot size, housing age, and property value.
Parking
Quarles referenced a study done in Portland where it shows ADUs are responsible for one more car
per 6 city blocks. In response, a potential regulation for Golden Valley could include requiring new
parking areas only if the ADU displaced the primary dwelling’s parking.
ADUs as a rental
Rentals are already present through the city and ADU rentals would be subject to the same
requirements. There could be an owner occupancy requirement to prevent “double rentals” on a
property.
Visual
These impacts will be limited to neighbors, depending on form. Regulations on sizing, setbacks, and
minimum lot size may alleviate this impact.
Affordability
City of Golden Valley Planning Commission Regular Meeting
July 26, 2021, 2021 – 7 pm
4
The definition of affordability varies, the previously mentioned study found that long‐term ADU
rentals generally rent for about the same or lower than similarly sized apartments. Regulations could
be made in the way of licensing for short‐term rentals. The most recent Comp Plan states that 55%
of rental units in the City are affordable to a family making 80% AMIE or less, without subsidy. Most
ADUs would be new construction, the equivalent percentage will likely be lower.
The conversation on affordability expanded to financing, material availability, and the potential
rental income to the homeowner.
Quarles went on to discuss geographic extent for potential ADUs in R‐1 and R‐2 based on lot sizes.
Housing age, size, and potential ADU building envelopes were discussed.
Commissioner Segelbaum asked how an Airbnb fits in to the ADU discussion, Quarles responded
that it’s a short‐term rental, 30 days or less. Staff is unaware of Golden Valley having licensing for
short term rentals, they don’t prohibit them however.
The conversation continued on to attached/detached ADUs and potential incentives for one or the
other from cities. It moved on to affordability, AMI, and Met Council’s definitions for rental prices.
Restrictions on ADUs are complicated and staff went in depth on the differences between lodgers
with separate bedrooms, a kitchenette but not a second full kitchen, and there may not be a totally
independent unit from the main home.
Commissioner Johnson added that folks shouldn’t look at ADUs as a way to encourage homeowners
to build additions, if a homeowner is allowed to do it, they should be. He added he’s sympathetic to
folks buying homes with housing other family members in mind. Johnson referenced the study staff
mentioned and suggested starting with a quota and expanding later based on activity.
Commissioners and staff continued a discussion on rental definitions.
Televised portion of the meeting concluded at 8:08 pm
7.Council Liaison Report
Council Member Rosenquist noted that July was Park and Recreation month and that the City Council
has approved a proclamation in that regard, that they approved Home Energy Squad audits and hosting
a Green Corps member, and previewed the upcoming Council/Manager meeting where the Police
Commission, Section 8 non‐discrimination, and the STAR program would be discussed.
8.Other Business
None.
9.Adjournment
MOTION by Commissioner Blum to adjourn, seconded by Commissioner Johnson, and approved
unanimously. Meeting adjourned at 8:15 pm.
________________________________
Andy Johnson, Secretary
________________________________
Amie Kolesar, Planning Assistant