pc-minutes-sep-13-21
REGULAR MEETING MINUTES
This meeting was conducted in a hybrid format with in‐person and remote options for
attending, participating, and commenting. 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: Adam Brookins, Andy Johnson, Lauren Pockl, Mike Ruby, Chuck
Segelbaum
Commissioners virtual: None
Commissioners absent: Rich Baker
Staff present: Myles Campbell – Planner
Council Liaison present: Gillian Rosenquist
2. Approval of Agenda
Chair Pockl asked for a motion to approve the agenda.
Commissioner Johnson brought to the group’s attention that updates on the Comprehensive Plan
were not on the agenda.
MOTION made by Commissioner Brookins, seconded by Commissioner Ruby, to approve the agenda
of September 13, 2021. Motion carried.
3. Approval of Minutes
Chair Pockl asked for a motion to approve the minutes from August 23, 2021.
Commissioner Segelbaum requested a correction on page 8.
MOTION made by Commissioner Johnson, seconded by Commissioner Segelbaum, to approve
minutes after this correction is made. Motion carried.
4. Discussion – Class I Material
Jason Zimmerman, Planning Manager, reminded the group that this is a discussion on the portion of
code that allows the Planning Commission to determine materials used on building exteriors. In 2019
code was passed that allowed minimum requirements for architectural features, materials and their
types. This varies based on the zoning district. Given the evolution of building material, it was
suggested the Planning Commission review new materials instead of the city code changing each time.
September 13, 2021 – 7 pm
City of Golden Valley Planning Commission Regular Meeting
September 13, 2021, 2021 – 7 pm
2
A developer is proposing a redevelopment at 1111 Douglas Drive. Staff shared the material standards
for the Neighborhood Mixed Use zoning district. Staff then defined Class I materials as the developer’s
architect identified a product not currently included on the Class I list.
Current Class I Materials are:
Brick Natural Stone Glass Copper Porcelain
Other materials not listed elsewhere as approved by the City Manager or his/her designee
or as recommended by the Planning Commission.
The material introduced is a James Hardie panel, a fiber‐cement panel siding; staff indicated this
material is already listed as a Class II Material in City Code.
Mohammed Lawal, LSE Architects, introduced himself and explained the project his firm is working
on. Lawal explained the product name is an Aspyre Panel, a James Hardie product. This panel has been
used in Seattle, Portland, and some Canadian cities. This panel comes in a larger size, is denser, and
the warranty is longer than the existing Hardie warranty. Lawal went on to explain how this product is
more sustainable and has a longer life span. While the material is a fiber cement, it looks more akin to
a porcelain panel. Lawal displayed photos to illustrate appearance of the product on completed
projects in Seattle, Portland, and Toronto.
Commissioners asked a few questions about the product in general, how panels are made up, and how
they uphold in the elements. While Lawal and his team have not used this product in particular, they
are frontrunners for LEED builds, and sustainable/technical material uses. LSE architects’ goal is to have
this material cover 17% of the façade. Over 33% of the façade is a Class I material, this material is a
sustainable product while adding aesthetic appeal to the build.
Commissioner Brookins mentioned he works with James Hardie regularly although he hasn’t worked
with this particular product. Brookins added that this particular panel product may be of higher quality
even though it falls under the Class II material definition. He would not feel comfortable defining this
product to Class I and leaving the other panel products as a Class II material.
Commissioners had a discussion on product pricing, aesthetic, components, and maintenance
requirements.
MOTION made by Commissioner Brookins seconded by Commissioner Johnson to follow staff
recommendation and deny the request to include the reveal panels of the James Hardie Aspyre
Collection in the Class I material list. The motion passed unanimously.
5. Discussion – RLUIPA
Myles Campbell, City Planner, started by reminding the group about zoning language updates around
religious uses. He reviewed current code, “places of assembly” language, and districts where this use
is allowed. Campbell went on to explain RLUIPA, Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act,
as well as the two principle violations as they relate to land use regulation: Substantial Burden and
Equal Terms. Federal courts are split on how to evaluate an equal terms claim and there are two
standards; Minnesota has not adopted either.
City of Golden Valley Planning Commission Regular Meeting
September 13, 2021, 2021 – 7 pm
3
During their review of proposed land uses, staff identified some non‐religious gathering/assembly
uses; indoor entertainment and recreation buildings. A location map was displayed for visual
reference.
Campbell went on to discuss economic activity as a “legitimate regulatory purpose” and the pathways
that could be used to exclude “places of assembly” from Commercial zoning districts. From there,
Campbell reviewed the spectrum of zoning options from strict legal interpretation and more areas
open to new places of assembly to contested RLUIPA standard and less land opens to places of
assembly. Staff reviewed zoning maps and existing conditions, then displayed three maps with three
potential zoning scenario changes.
Commissioner Segelbaum stated when he thinks of a religious use, he thinks of a large increase in folks
at a particular time, and asked if the uses discussed would experience similar influx. Staff discussed
concepts of assembly and different zoning districts to compare uses and numbers.
After Commissioner inquiries, staff discussed specific uses in each district that could compare in terms
of population.
The conversation went on to available land for use, ensuring equality in use, then evolved to costs
associated with inclusion of RLUIPA and tax generation.
Discussions moved on to other cities, range of conditional or permitted uses, and the breadth of
substantial burden.
Commissioner Segelbaum stated that the recommendation seems reasonable and the code should be
more permissive than it is now. It also seems to fit other conditional uses in Light Industrial.
Commissioner Brookins echoed Segelbaum’s comment and added that he’s in favor of adding zoning
for schools, he was disappointed in how AOWL was handled and felt it was spot zoning. The
recommendations before the group feel like a better fit because there’s an allowance for opportunities
for schools to exist. Chair Pockl stated agreement with staff recommendations. Commissioner
Johnson asked about office. Staff responded that some cities have a business district that allows these
uses. In general, residential and office are the two districts that don’t include these uses. Johnson
added he’s not in favor of widespread changes to zoning districts and added there seem to be a lot of
options that would avoid this. Brookins asked if the city was unintentionally limiting firearm sales and
ranges, as well as locations of schools/parks/religious uses with this rezoning. The two have buffer
requirements from each other so will this change impact both/either.
Chair Pockl closed the discussion, and ended the televised portion of the meeting.
6. Council Liaison Report
Council Member Rosenquist provided a summary of the recent Council Work Session, including
updates on the proposed 2022 budget and federal funds that will need to be spend by 2024.
Commissioner Segelbaum asked about the recent City Council vote to approve the Preliminary PUD
Plan for the northwest corner of the Golden Valley Country Club. He mentioned concerns raised by the
Planning Commission and asked about the Council’s views. Rosenquist discussed improvements that
City of Golden Valley Planning Commission Regular Meeting
September 13, 2021, 2021 – 7 pm
4
had been discussed with staff since the applicant had appeared before he Commission and also
highlighted the importance of keeping the Country Club operating in Golden Valley.
7.Other Business
Planning Manager Zimmerman reminded Commissioners about the opportunity to attend the
upcoming virtual State Planning Conference.
8.Adjournment
MOTION by Commissioner Segelbaum to adjourn, seconded by Commissioner Brookins, and
approved unanimously. Meeting adjourned at 8:46 pm.
________________________________
Andy Johnson, Secretary
________________________________
Amie Kolesar, Planning Assistant