pc-minutes-dec-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: Rich Baker, Adam Brookins, Sophia Ginis, Andy Johnson, Lauren Pockl,
Mike Ruby, Chuck Segelbaum
Commissioners absent:
Staff present: Myles Campbell – Planner, Jason Zimmerman – Planning Manager
Council Liaison present: Gillian Rosenquist
2. Approval of Agenda
Chair Pockl asked for a motion to approve the agenda.
Commissioner Johnson asked when review of the Comprehensive Plan would reappear on the agenda.
Jason Zimmerman, Planning Manager, responded there are studies being conducted by metro transit
in addition to a few traffic studies. The City Manager has directed staff to hold off on moving forward
until the results are no longer pending to proceed.
MOTION made by Commissioner Segelbaum, seconded by Commissioner Brookins, to approve the
agenda of December 13, 2021. Motion carried.
3. Approval of Minutes
Chair Pockl asked for a motion to approve the minutes from November 22, 2021.
MOTION made by Commissioner Ginis, seconded by Commissioner Brookins to approve.
Motion carried.
4. Informal Public Hearing – Future Land Use Map Amendment, Zoning Map Amendment, Subdivision,
Conditional Use Permit
Applicant: Artessa Development, LLC
Address: Southeast corner of 7001 Golden Valley Road
Jason Zimmerman, Planning Manager, introduced the applicant and reminded Commissioners that
this one presentation and public hearing includes four applications and requires four votes:
1. Amend the Future Land Use Map
December 13, 2021 – 7 pm
City of Golden Valley Planning Commission Regular Meeting
December 13, 2021 – 7 pm
2
2. Amend the Zoning Map
3. Subdivide the property
4. Grant a Conditional Use Permit for height
1. Amend the Future Land Use Map
Staff reviewed the location off Country Club Drive and listed the items staff supports and concerns
they have. The County Club approached the City in 2019 as they were interested in selling and
developing two unused portions of their property:
Northwest Corner (Greenway Villas)
Southeast Corner (Artessa Senior Cooperative)
Staff listed existing conditions, displayed a few street view perspectives, and summarized the proposal.
Proposal
Change guided land use to High Density Residential
Change zoning to High Density Residential (R‐4)
Subdivide golf course property to create 2.35‐acre parcel
Construct 97‐unit senior cooperative building with direct access to Country Club Drive (front
parking lot and shared private drive to rear to reach two levels of underground parking)
Five stories would be allowed by‐right; a CUP needed to add a sixth story
Would include 10 affordable units (at 80% AMI)
Staff reviewed the details and input from the neighborhood meeting held on December 2nd. Residents
were generally opposed to the proposal with concerns about traffic, building size, and loss of trees.
Regarding the Future Land Use Map Amendment, there aren’t specific standards by which the City
must evaluate the application so they’ll assess the Land Use descriptions, the impacts to the character
of the neighborhood, and consistency with the broad Comp Plan.
A market study confirms there is a need for senior housing, affordable housing, and for varying
ownership models.
Zimmerman went on and discussed traffic, what is consistent with and what conflicts with the comp
plan.
Findings
The City would benefit from the addition of affordable units that would be required as a result
of a change in land use.
The proposed use of this site for High Density Residential – and more specifically as a senior
cooperative building – fits with a number of the goals and objectives of the Comprehensive
Plan while potentially conflicting with others.
City of Golden Valley Planning Commission Regular Meeting
December 13, 2021 – 7 pm
3
The site is currently in an area with a variety of land use designations nearby, but none are as
intense or allow for the extent of massing that could result here should the property be guided
for High Density Residential.
Instead of acting as a transition between different land uses (Single‐Family and Open Space),
the proposed use could function as a barrier by inserting a more intense use between two less
intense uses.
While Engineering staff have concluded that the amount of traffic generated by a senior use is
able to be absorbed by Country Club Drive given its current traffic levels and its type of
construction, the increase in trips would be felt by residents and businesses given the existing
indirect access to Olson Memorial Highway.
A specific project has been proposed in association with the change in land use, but there is no
guarantee a more intense or impactful proposal would not emerge that would be allowed once
a High‐Density Residential designation was established.
2. Amend the Zoning Map
Zimmerman moved on the Zoning Map Amendment, this item mirrors the previous as the two are
related. Staff looked at the purpose of zoning districts, the list of permitted and conditional uses, and
the compatibility with surrounding uses. Staff noted this would trigger a park dedication fee.
Findings
The City would benefit from the addition of affordable units that would be required as a result of
a change in zoning.
The proposed use of this site for High Density Residential – and more specifically as a senior
cooperative building – fits with a number of the goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan
while potentially conflicting with others.
The site is currently in an area with a variety of zoning designations nearby, but none are as
intense or allow for the extent of massing that could result here should the property be zoned
for High Density Residential.
Instead of acting as a transition between different zoning designations (Single‐Family Residential
and Institutional (I‐4)), the proposed designation could function as a barrier by inserting a more
intense designation between two less intense designations.
A High Density Residential zoning designation has typically be located near a commercial node –
providing access to retail and services – or on a major roadway with access to high frequency
transit. The location being proposed lacks those qualities.
Though potential residents of a multi‐family building would have views of the Golden Valley
Country Club grounds, the site is private property and no public open space is nearby to allow for
outdoor recreation (active or passive).
While Engineering staff have concluded that the amount of traffic generated by a senior use is
able to be absorbed by Country Club Drive given its current traffic levels and its type of
construction, the increase in trips would be felt by residents and businesses given the existing
indirect access to Olson Memorial Highway.
City of Golden Valley Planning Commission Regular Meeting
December 13, 2021 – 7 pm
4
A specific project has been proposed in association with the change in zoning, but there is no
guarantee a more intense or impactful proposal would not emerge that would be allowed once
a High‐Density Residential zoning district was established.
3. Subdivide the Property
Zimmerman discussed the subdivision and it would create a new lot of 2.35 acres. The existing lot isn’t
part of a recorded plat or a recorded registered land survey, does not qualify as a “minor subdivision”
and therefore standards are slightly different. The 2040 Comp Plan identifies the need for a west
frontage road in the area and staff displayed a number of possibilities. Zimmerman added that there
is not timing nor funding in the 10‐year CIP for this project and Country Club is opposed to the ROW
being included as a part of this proposal.
Other departments reviewed the proposal and Engineering has concerns around the removal of 23
significant trees, 18 are legacy oaks. They also have concerns about above ground stormwater
treatment and runoff, BCWC review, and maintenance agreement for pervious pavers. Fire supports
the ROW dedication for improvements to public safety response times.
Findings
The Council may require changes or revisions as it deems necessary for the health, safety, general
welfare, and convenience of the City.
o Standard conditionally met. In order to advance the long‐term transportation network
concept included in the 2040 Comprehensive Plan, land must be dedicated for a future
public road and included on the final plat.
The approval of a preliminary plat is tentative only, involving only the general acceptability of the
layout as submitted.
o Standard met. Staff have reviewed the layout and find it to be generally acceptable.
Prior to approval of the preliminary plat by the Council, the engineering proposals pertaining to
water supply, storm drainage, sanitary sewer service, roadway widths, traffic impacts, and the
surfacing of streets shall be approved by the City engineer and other public officials having
jurisdiction.
o Standard conditionally met. While the specifics of the site design remain to be fully
developed as part of the submittals for the potential site development, there are no
known issues related to water supply, storm drainage, or sanitary sewer service. Increases
in traffic created by this proposal, while impacting adjacent properties, would not rise to
the level of concern with respect to congestion or roadway condition. Staff are requiring
copies of shard access agreements with the Golden Valley Country Club for review.
No plat shall be approved for a subdivision which covers an area subject to periodic flooding or
which contains extremely poor drainage facilities and which would make adequate drainage of
the streets and lots difficult or impossible, unless the subdivider agrees to make improvements
which will, in the opinion of the City Engineer, make the area completely safe for occupancy and
provide adequate street and lot drainage.
o Standard met. The City Engineer has determined that the site should drain adequately.
City of Golden Valley Planning Commission Regular Meeting
December 13, 2021 – 7 pm
5
No plat shall be approved for a subdivision that does not meet the requirements specified in this
chapter.
o Standard met.
4. Conditional Use Permit
Zimmerman introduced the final portion of this proposal, and the request for a 6th story to be allowed
on the build. The proposed height of 72.5 ft from the south appear to be eight stories from the north.
There is horizontal articulation but few vertical breaks or step backs to break up the profile.
Findings
Demonstrated Need
o Standard met. Past housing studies have confirmed the need for additional senior
options in Golden Valley, especially for owner‐occupied units. A less common
cooperative model would help provide a greater variety of options for seniors looking
to remain or move into the city.
Consistency with Comprehensive Plan
o Standard provisionally met. In order for this proposal to move forward, the Future Land
Use Map would need be revised to designate the property for High Density Residential
use. Should that occur, the proposed senior cooperative building would be consistent
with the purpose of that designation and the City’s vision for housing in this area.
Effect on Property Values
o Standard met. There are no indications a sixth story would negatively impact property
values to any measurable degree beyond the impacts of a five story building.
Effect on Traffic Flow and Congestion
o Standard met. While traffic levels would increase on Country Club Drive as a result of
this proposal, Engineering staff believe the number of trips would not exceed the
capacity of the road, and that the additional trips generated by the 17 units included in
a sixth story would be minimal. Trips generated would tend to be in the off‐peak hours.
Increases in Population and Density
o Standard met. There are no indications a sixth story would negatively impact property
values to any measurable degree beyond the impacts of a five story building.
Compliance with Mixed‐Income Housing Policy
o Standard met. The project would dedicate 10% percent of the units as affordable at the
80% AMI level for a period of not less than 20 years.
Noise
o Standard met. No such problems are expected. Noise from eventual residency would
be in line with other multifamily uses.
Generation of Odors, Dust, Smoke, Gas, Vibration, or Pests (Vermin)
o Standard met. No such problems are expected.
Visual and Other Impacts
City of Golden Valley Planning Commission Regular Meeting
December 13, 2021 – 7 pm
6
o Standard not met. The exterior of the new building would be held to the City’s
architecture and material standards and would be confirmed with the building
permitting process. However, the significant difference in height compared to
surrounding uses and the overall massing of the building would have a dramatic impact
on residents and businesses in the area. Staff is not able to contemplate a potential
condition that would help mitigate this visual impact.
Other Effects upon Health, Safety, and Welfare
o Standard met. The introduction of a sixth floor on the proposed senior cooperative
building would not generally impact the public health, safety, or welfare. The use as a
whole would provide a new and needed senior living option.
Recommendation
1. Future Land Use Amendment:
a. Based on the findings above, staff recommends denial of the requested amendment
to the Future Land Use Map, changing the guided land use from Parks and Natural
Areas to High Density Residential
2. Zoning Map Amendment:
a. Based on the findings above, staff recommends denial of the requested amendment
to the Zoning Map, changing the zoning designation from Institutional (I‐4) to High
Density Residential (R‐4)
3. Subdivision:
a. Based on the factors of evaluation, staff recommends approval of the proposed
preliminary plat, subject to the following conditions:
i. The applicant shall work with staff to dedicate land sufficient to provide right‐
of‐way for a future public road.
ii. The applicant shall include on the final plat the dedication of all drainage and
utility easements deemed necessary to meet City Code requirements.
iii. A park dedication fee of 6% of the land value shall be paid prior to the release
of the final plat.
iv. The applicant shall provide copies of the shared use/access agreements.
v. The City Attorney will determine if a title review is necessary.
4. Conditional Use Permit:
a. Based on the findings above, staff recommends denial of the requested Conditional
Use Permit, allowing for a sixth story.
Commissioners asked staff questions regarding R‐3 vs R‐4 and discussed the issue of scale, height and
massing, as well as location. Traffic flow was a concern and Commissioners asked for more details on
road access to the site. The group discussed amenities in proximity to the development and the impacts
of them on the analysis, as well as trail access. Clarifications on the subdivided portion were answered
in relation to the driveway on the lot. Staff responded to questions regarding the height measurements
and clarified it’s related to the grade of the front of the property. Commissioners asked if the increase
in size on the CUP relates to more affordable units, staff responded that 10% of units are required to
City of Golden Valley Planning Commission Regular Meeting
December 13, 2021 – 7 pm
7
be affordable. It was asked if the applicant was doing the bare minimum or offering more affordable
units and staff responded they are fulfilling their 10 required units.
Chair Pockl invited the applicant to speak.
Ben Landhauser, applicant representative, introduced himself and the cooperative housing developer
company. The applicant provided a presentation to the Commission; introducing the unit proposal,
defined their cooperative model, age qualifications, the site itself with proposed conditions, reviewed
each level of the proposed unit, topography, and neighborhood notes from a local meeting held in
December. The applicant displayed images and details on their application, discussing the zoning map
amendment and specifically a case study on Talo details. Applicant discussed open space proximity,
height requirements and visual appearance, as well as discussing their openness to more dialogue.
Commissioners asked the applicant questions about land use and build, appropriateness of location,
and increase of multi‐family housing. The discussion progressed on to intention of housing and if
“transition” housing was a factor. The applicant reiterated this is not intended to be a continuing care
facility but rather 100% independent cooperative living. The applicant discussed the 6th floor, economic
goals, square footage goals, operation reserves, and the cooperative model vs standard condo model
for purchasing a unit. Commissioners asked about real cost estimates for the units as well as what
alternatives the applicant explored before requesting the CUP for the 6th story.
Chair Pockl opened the public hearing at 8:57pm and invited in person commenters to speak first.
Paul Segel
Gurstel Law Firm
6681 Country Club Dr
150 people work at the firm and the property would be greatly impacted. The extreme height and mass
are extreme for the small area. The singular access point for cars will push more traffic to Golden Valley
Road. The architecture has little interest, the proposed materials are common. There are few amenities
within close proximity and would result in numerous single occupancy vehicle trips per day. Staff
analysis that the proposed building could act as a barrier between parcels Is a major concern. The
height variance request doesn’t seem appropriate and I’m concerned that the applicant doesn’t seem
able to preserve any of the 20 mature oak trees on the property.
Tom Conlin
1305 Spring Valley Rd
I am a member of the Country Club and we only want to part with the land is because the marketplace
for memberships is competitive. If we want this club to survive, the land sale will allow improvements.
As stewards of the club, we need to plan for longevity. I don’t believe the concerns raised by staff
overcome the benefits that this cooperative would provide. The development would allow both senior
and affordable housing, goals in the comp plan. Staff stated that the building is an anomaly and
amenities are further away and I want to point out that folks may seek a place like this for these
reasons. The area is mixed use and the Mayor as mentioned wanting housing in this area.
City of Golden Valley Planning Commission Regular Meeting
December 13, 2021 – 7 pm
8
Commissioner Segelbaum noted the commenter used the term “we” and asked Conlin if he was
speaking on behalf of the Country Club or as a resident of Golden Valley. Conlin responded that he was
speaking on behalf of both. Segelbaum addressed the Chair and mentioned the applicant already was
granted time to speak. Chair commented that she was under the impression this was a public comment
from the resident.
Steve Bennett
540 Varner Circle
The most impactful word tonight was “anomaly” and this proposal is too much size wise. At the
neighborhood meeting it seemed that if the applicant didn’t get approved for 6 stories it was a deal
breaker and tonight they’re saying 4 is palatable. I would request that 6 is too much and if it has to
happen, I would urge a scale down. Overall, I oppose the proposal.
Bob Plantenburg
6809 Country Club Drive
I submitted a letter and I would like to commend staff on their presentation for why this proposal
doesn’t make sense. I live 2 houses down from this proposal and the applicant hasn’t adequately
addressed access to highway 55. GPS even indicates that drivers take a U‐turn on Glenwood and it’s a
safety concern.
Harmony Bennett
540 Varner Circle
I think staff did a good job and I object to the traffic concerns. We used to take Country Club to Douglas
but now we have to go a different route, there isn’t even an entire lane for the route. The additional
traffic will pose a problem. When you exit at the post office, the intersection becomes a nightmare.
Why not have the proposal on Golden Valley Road, I suspect it’s because the club doesn’t want them
there since they cross in golf carts. The paper states that the club has been here for 107 years and the
sale is to raise money for club improvements to the course. Our community has also been there a long
time, Edith Varner sold the property to the Country Club and she doesn’t approve of this, I don’t think
the community is being considered here. The traffic will ruin the neighborhood and a smaller
development is preferred.
Bob Miller
Hidden Lakes
I’m with the Country Club, everyone in hidden lakes knows that there’s traffic 24/7 because of the
hospital. After a while, you don’t hear the traffic. I’m 70 years old and I don’t make 3 trips a week,
people who are retired don’t travel as much every day as younger folks who go to jobs.
Blythe Stillwell
521 Varner Circle
I wrote a letter so my comments are there too.
I moved here recently from downtown Minneapolis and when I lived there, I was in a condo and it
made sense to have tall buildings around me. I moved to Golden Valley because of the green spaces,
City of Golden Valley Planning Commission Regular Meeting
December 13, 2021 – 7 pm
9
tranquility, and beauty of the neighborhoods. I’ve been lucky to have the golf course because it’s
beautiful and I understand everyone’s need to make a profit. This building proposal doesn’t seem like
the best fit because this area is concerned about safety and security; traffic safety is my number one
concern here. I commuted downtown before the pandemic and it’s not easy to get out to commute
because cars need to turn on Glenwood and I’ve seen so many near‐accidents with that U‐turn. I truly
oppose this proposal.
Corby Hardy
521 Varner
I love the idea of this type of property going in and I think it’s almost right. The part that isn’t right is
traffic, I also sent a letter. If you look where Country Club hits Rhode Island, there are 8 access points
and people exiting the post office have a problem. If there could be compromise with the traffic flow,
I think it could be a great project.
Joe Komarek
8212 Golden Valley Road
My family has been here since 1955 and I’m also a member of the County Club. I’m excited about the
proposal. The country club is a destination course, people travel from all over to golf at this course. As
a business owner in the West suburbs, I always drive along 55 to see the green and the houses. It’s my
understanding that members won’t have access to Country Club drive so I will have to go around. There
will be 250 or so members who cannot use that road any longer so that traffic will go down. It’s a
beautiful area, I love the neighborhood, and I love the project especially as I think about my family
turning over older homes who want to stay in the neighborhood.
Susanne Forward
6745 Country Club Drive
I live 200 ft from the proposed development, I also wrote a letter. I’m concerned about the traffic,
conformity to the neighborhood with the neighborhood height and massing, regarding Talo‐if I was
living in a house near Talo I would be happier as that unit blocks traffic noise from 394. This
neighborhood is where Golden Valley got its name as it was a hill of golden daffodils. There seems to
be a lot of concern for the Country Club but not the neighbors as the first we heard about this proposal
was a few weeks ago at the neighborhood meeting. I’m also curious if access to live in the co‐op will
be inclusive or will it only be exclusive to retirees as long as they buy a Country Club membership. I’m
delighted about the development proposal for Optum, it will be nice to have homes there.
Chair Pockl invited call in commenters to speak.
Marcia Anderson
130 Edgewood Ave N
I am concerned about this development for the land use and zoning issues it raises. I participated in
the comp plan discussion and some of the conversations then, pointed to the issues this development
raises. We discussed the need for transitions between residential areas and high‐density developments
and other points staff made in their report. I would like to concur with staff and deny zoning and land
City of Golden Valley Planning Commission Regular Meeting
December 13, 2021 – 7 pm
10
use changes. Those seem to be the most important issues in terms of timing. If the Commission and
then Council make exceptions to the land‐use in this way there won’t be a reason to deny any future
developments that don’t meet the intentions of the land‐use and zoning map. If the Commission will
deny based on staff recommendation now, it’ll open the door to discussions with the developer about
the suggestions that came up. If you decide to approve now, all points of leverage are gone. Once the
zoning is changed, any R‐4 development can go in on that property.
Chair Pockl closed the public hearing at 9:28pm
Chair Pockl opened the discussion by asking staff if the traffic increase estimate included deliveries.
Staff stated the number was based on unit totals as guided by the traffic study handbook from
Engineering staff. It’s possible that current events may need to be considered to capture the increase
in deliveries. Commissioner Segelbaum mentioned the intersection of Rhode Island and Country Club
Drive, and asked if the intersection would be impacted by staff or if accommodations would need to
be made. Staff is unaware if that intersection was looked at specifically and focus was rather on traffic
amounts. Commissioner Ruby stated that a lot of traffic concerns have been heard and asked, since
it’s a city road, when the City becomes involved to assist with mitigation vs leaving it to the developer.
Staff responded that their impression is that there are no other plans to make changes to Country Club
Drive. If a different connection was made, MDOT has said they would close the slip ramps and reroute
everything on Douglas. That is not a plan nor funding for that at this time. Commissioner Johnson
mentioned a public comment stating Country Club traffic would be rerouted and asked staff about
that. Staff said currently people approach from both Country Club and Golden Valley Road, prevention
of traffic to use Country Club is a question for the applicant. Johnson asked if the road was part of the
land‐use and staff said it’s a factor but the depth of it needs to be discussed.
Commissioner Ginis stated that she sees positives and negatives with the proposal, and if the proposal
was at the opposite side of the golf course, she’d say yes already. The need is there but proposed
location doesn’t seem to be an issue regarding traffic but access from the T‐intersection is a challenge.
There are many things with the proposal that are almost there. Segelbaum added that the request
seems more aggressive than what’s appropriate and there’s more room to negotiate. Ruby echoed the
previous comments and stated concern for the height. Johnson discussed the land‐use and pointed
out similarities in high‐density residential areas; they are near busy roads or in a location where the
size is expected; this proposal feels like an anomaly. The Chair added that this area has a lot of uses
but if the land‐use and zoning are approved and not the CUP, the applicant goes back to the drawing
board. That opens the space up for any other high‐density proposal without the guarantees of senior
or affordable housing. Commissioner Brookins reiterated comments he made regarding Optum, he
didn’t think the site was properly zoned and the Douglas Drive corridor was overlooked. It seems the
group wants what this site is offering, but not in the way it’s being proposed. It’s a matter of getting to
the right sizing to make it happen. Making a by right land change to allow for this size development
seems too much and another land use option should be considered here and at the Optum site.
City of Golden Valley Planning Commission Regular Meeting
December 13, 2021 – 7 pm
11
MOTION made by Commissioner Segelbaum, seconded by Commissioner Johnson, to follow staff
recommendation and deny the requested amendment to the Future Land Use Map, changing the
guided land use from Parks and Natural Areas to High Density Residential
Motion passed unanimously.
MOTION made by Commissioner Segelbaum, seconded by Commissioner Brookins, to follow staff
recommendation and deny the requested amendment to the Zoning Map, changing the zoning
designation from Institutional (I‐4) to High Density Residential (R‐4)
Motion passed unanimously.
MOTION made by Commissioner Brookins, seconded by Commissioner Johnson, to follow staff
recommendation for approval of the proposed preliminary plat, subject to the following conditions:
1. The applicant shall work with staff to dedicate land sufficient to provide right‐of‐way for a future
public road.
2. The applicant shall include on the final plat the dedication of all drainage and utility easements
deemed necessary to meet City Code requirements.
3. A park dedication fee of 6% of the land value shall be paid prior to the release of the final plat.
4. The applicant shall provide copies of the shared use/access agreements.
5. The City Attorney will determine if a title review is necessary.
Motion passed unanimously.
MOTION made by Commissioner Brookins, seconded by Commissioner Johnson, to follow staff
recommendation for denial of the requested Conditional Use Permit, allowing for a sixth story.
Motion passed unanimously.
5. Site Plan Review
Applicant: The Simmons Group
Address: 1111 Douglas Drive
Jason Zimmerman, Planning Manager, started by introducing the site plan review process and invited
the applicant to present the plan.
Tony Simmons, Applicant, discussed the site by starting with its size of 6.8 acres. The plan is to create
medium density, multi‐family housing, with off street parking. The group focused on building public
green space as a civic amenity and building the rest around that focal point. This will be a public space
that is maintained privately. The applicant went through the site plans, unit plans, and amenities.
Site Units Amenities
‐ Parking as Urban Garden
‐ Driveway is Pedestrian Friendly
‐ Preserved 69 significant trees
(84 total trees)
‐ 207 units in 2 buildings
‐ 103 in North bldg.
‐ 104 in South bldg.
‐ 22 Studios @ 570 SF
‐ Fitness Lab, Yoga Studio,
Roof deck, Lounge
‐ Golf Simulator, Community
Kitchen
City of Golden Valley Planning Commission Regular Meeting
December 13, 2021 – 7 pm
12
‐ 311 Total Parking Spaces
required
‐ 160 (52%) underground
‐ 141 surface (10 proof of
parking)
‐ 105 1‐bedroom @ 850 SF
‐ 80 2‐bedroom @ 1,240 SF
‐ SMART RENT systems in
units (safety and access)
‐ 32 ORI type units
‐ Game Rooms, Personal
Workspaces, Weight Room
‐ Private wine tasting room,
Fireplace Lounge
‐ Health and Wellness Program
Pet washing
‐ Outdoor firepit porches,
Conference space
‐ Swimming pool deck with
adjacent Party Room
‐ Outdoor grills with furniture
Chair Pockl asked if there will be designated parking spaces for members of the public to utilize the
park. The applicant responded affirmatively and added the goal is to create a space with easy walking
and biking access as well. Pockl asked if there was an affordability aspect to a percentage of the units
and the applicant responded in the negative. Commissioner Johnson asked if creating a mixed‐use
building was discussed. The applicant responded that initially their team looked at building two
different buildings with multi uses but realized that in order to add certain elements they would need
to obtain a CUP for height. The applicant didn’t think the additional floor of height was as valuable as
the other uses and wanted to build sooner than later. There’s also a limited amount of parking and in
order to add a lot there wouldn’t be space to create a park.
Zimmerman added that the areas where the applicant would like flexibility are based on areas the
Commission assumed mixed‐use sites would be. This location differs in that it’s not near downtown,
the lot is almost 7‐acres, and the parking isn’t intended to be the main visual from the road.
The main areas for review are that mixed use requires building facades be located within the minimum
and maximum front yard setbacks. This is an issue for the applicant to meet entirely as there are utility
easements along Douglas and Golden Valley Road. The buildings have been placed as close as possible
to the front property lines, staff feels the intent of the requirement has been met.
The other place the applicant is requesting a little flexibility is regarding the requirement to have a
primary building entrance located along a street frontage and one entry must be offered every 80 ft.
This proposal offers primary entrances off the internal parking area, away from street frontages to
provide convenience for residents, guests, and deliveries. Secondary key‐controlled entrances/exits
are located along the street frontages to allow residents direct access to sidewalks and bike paths. The
development team further documented reasons why they believe locating the primary entrances
internally and limiting the number of secondary entrances is reasonable. Staff is supportive of this
design.
Zimmerman reviewed the other items that meet requirements.
Johnson asked staff about height and how close the location is to an R‐1 district. Staff responded that
the distance is 75 ft and the width of Golden Valley Road is more than 75ft, therefore there’s no
City of Golden Valley Planning Commission Regular Meeting
December 13, 2021 – 7 pm
13
requirement for an additional stepback. Commissioner Brookins mentioned the sidewalk and asked if
there’s intention to expand it beyond the garage and/or along Golden Valley Road. The applicant’s
architect, Civil Site Group, responded that the sidewalk does end at the garage and then connects to
the north side of the building to Golden Valley Road. The intention is to be an internal sidewalk and to
keep the trail along Douglas as the external path.
Recommendation
Staff is seeking Planning Commission approval for the proposed site plan for redevelopment of 1111
Douglas Drive for two multifamily buildings.
Chair Pockl opened the discussion.
Commissioner Brookins stated that he’d like to see more connection to the street side, the building
feels like a wall along the road, similar to the building across the street. Commissioner Ginis added
she’d like staff to address this on an additional review. The Chair said that while this concern didn’t
jump out at her it seems reasonable to request review of per the code. She added that while it’s not a
requirement in this situation, she encourages the applicant to look into affordable housing
opportunities. Commissioner Johnson added that a mixed‐use is intended to have multi‐uses in an
area and it seems like mainly housing is just being added. Staff added that they would like to see a
wider variety of buildings and uses but didn’t make that a requirement of the area; the current
proposal meets the requirements set. Ginis added that while she agrees with wanting to see a larger
variety in use, the applicant seems to be adding elements and doing things to bring variety to the area
with the park, food truck nights, and outdoor movies. Given the market conditions, the solutions they
presented are satisfying.
Chair asked the applicant to address Brookins’ concern with so few access points along the road. The
applicant responded that their motivator was safety. There aren’t additional external entrances
because there isn’t parking on either road and therefore want to encourage building access off the
parking lot where there is adequate lighting. Ginis suggested landscaping variety connected to the
street side for aesthetic connection.
MOTION made by Commissioner Ginis, seconded by Commissioner Johnson, to follow staff
recommendation and recommend approval for the site plan and ensure staff and applicant discuss
street connection alternatives.
Aye: Brookins, Ginis, Johnson, Pockl
Nay:
Abstain: Segelbaum
Not present: Baker
Motion approved.
Chair Pockl ended the televised portion of the meeting at 10:53pm.
City of Golden Valley Planning Commission Regular Meeting
December 13, 2021 – 7 pm
14
5.Council Liaison Report
Planning Manager Zimmerman presented on behalf of Council Member Rosenquist and summarized
the outcome of items on the December 7th City Council agenda, including approval of the Final PUD
Plan for the Greenway Villas project and approval of the land use change for 6300 Olson Memorial
Highway, pending Met Council review and approval. The Council also approved the first reading of a
Public Land Disposition ordinance which would prioritize affordable housing for underutilized City‐
owned properties. In addition, Zimmerman mentioned that topics at the Council Work Session the
following evening included discussions of the Embedded Social Worker program, policing in Golden
Valley, and legislative priorities for 2022.
6.Other Business
7.Adjournment
MOTION by Commissioner Segelbaum to adjourn, seconded by Commissioner Brookins, and
approved unanimously. Meeting adjourned at 10:58 pm.
________________________________
Andy Johnson, Secretary
________________________________
Amie Kolesar, Planning Assistant