10-07-20 City Council Agenda 7800 Golden Valley Road I Golden Valley,MN 55427 city of
763-593-80121 TTY 763-593-3968 1 763-593-8109(fax)I www.goldenvalleymn.gov goldlenii,, ,
City Council va
REGULAR MEETING AGENDA Wednesday,October 7,2020—6:30 pm
This meeting will be held via Webex in accordance with the local emergency declaration made by
the City under Minn. Stat. § 12.37. The public may monitor this meeting by watching on Comcast
cable channel 16, by streaming on CCXmedia.org, or by calling 1-415-655-0001 and entering the
meeting code 133 567 7920.The public may participate in this meeting during public comment
sections, including the public forum beginning at 6:20 pm, by calling 763-230-7454. Additional
information about monitoring electronic meetings is available on the City website. For technical
assistance, please contact the City at 763-593-8007 or webexsupport@goldenvalleymn.gov. If
you incur costs to call into the meeting, you may submit the costs to the City for reimbursement
consideration.
1. Call to Order
A. Pledge of Allegiance Pages
B. Roll Call
C. Presentation— Hennepin County Sheriff Hutchinson
2. Additions and Corrections to Agenda
3. Consent Agenda
Approval of Consent Agenda - All items listed under this heading are considered to be routine
by the City Council and will be enacted by one motion. There will be no discussion of these
items unless a Council Member so requests in which event the item will be removed from the
general order of business and considered in its normal sequence on the agenda.
A. Approval of Minutes:
1. Council Manager Meeting—September 8, 2020 3-7
2. City Council Meeting—September 15, 2020 8-12
B. Approval of City Check Register 13
C. Approve Resolution Disavowing & Condemning the Use of Discriminatory Covenants in 14-42
Golden Valley and Approving Participation in Just Deeds Coalition Resolution #20-54
D. Approve Livable Communities Act Reenrollment for 2021-2030 Resolution #20-55 43-46
E. Approval of Election-Related Resolutions: 47
1. Resolution #20-56 -Appointment of Election Judges for November 3 General Election 48-49
2. Resolution #20-57 - Establishment of an Absentee Ballot Board 50
F. Authorization to Sign School Resource Officer Service Agreement with Independent School 51-57
District 281
G. Approval of Resolution #20-58 Rescinding Resolution #14-37 Appointing City Clerk 58-59
H. Approve Amended Addendum to the City Manager Employment Agreement Resolution 60-62
#20-59
This document is available in alternate formats upon a 72-hour request. Please call
763-593-8006 (TTY: 763-593-3968)to make a request. Examples of alternate formats
may include large print, electronic, Braille,audiocassette,etc.
City of Golden Valley City Council Regular Meeting 2
October 7, 2020—6:30 pm
4. Public Hearing
A. Public Hearing—Zoning Text Amendment— Revising the Density Range of the Medium 63-80
Density Residential (R-3) Zoning District Ordinance #690
B. Public Hearing—Amendments to the Zoning Map — Rezoning Properties to Achieve 81-144
Conformance with the 2040 Comprehensive Plan Ordinance#691 and #692
C. Public Hearing—Approval of Conditional Use Permit 168, Amendment#1- 145 Jersey 145-166
Ave S Ordinance#693
D. Public Hearing—Special Assessments— 2020 Delinquent Utility Bills Resolution #20-60 167-173
E. Public Hearing—Special Assessments— 2020 Miscellaneous Charges Resolution #20-61 174-177
S. Old Business
6. New Business
A. COVID-19 Pandemic Emergency Administrative Actions 178-181
B. Review of Council Calendar 182-183
C. Mayor and Council Communications
1. Other Committee/Meeting updates
7. Adjournment
7800 Golden Valley Road I Golden Valley,MN 55427 city 0�
763-593-8012 1 TTY 763-593-3968 1 763-593-8109(fax)I www.goldenvalleymn.gov goldcnii,,
City Council/Manager va
September 8,2020—6:30 pm
Virtual WebEx Meeting
REGULAR MEETING MINUTES
The meeting began at 6:30 pm.
Present: Mayor Harris and Council Members; Rosenquist, Fonnest, Sanberg and Harris.
Staff present: City Manager Cruikshank, City Attorney Cisneros, Human Resources Director
Santelices, Police Chief Sturgis, Physical Development Director Nevinski, Physical
Development Assistant Schwalbe and Finance Director Virnig.
1. Creation of Planning Taskforce for the New Police Commission
City Manager Cruikshank presented the staff report. He said this item is a direct response to the
discussion held by Council at its prior Council Manager Meeting in July, where the City Council
directed staff to begin studying how the City might replace the existing Civil Service Commission
with a new Police Commission. This action step is a strategic planning action meant to make the
hiring process for the Golden Valley Police Department (GVPD) more efficient and equitable.
City staff is proposing the City Council create a Task Force to assist with the creation of the new
Police Commission. The creation of this commission will benefit from community input through an
advisory Task Force.The purpose of the Task Force is to develop a recommendation regarding the
name, membership composition, and duties of a new commission on policing. the Task Force would
consist of 13 members from various groups. Its mission and responsibilities, membership, meeting,
timeframe, reporting and liaisons are detailed in the supporting documents of this packet (the draft
resolution and staff report).
The Council discussed hosting public meetings for residents to speak directly to the task force and
have their voices heard as a part of the public input process once the task force is created. In the
topic of selection process, Council also said they would like to broaden the criteria to include:
experience in law enforcement, public safety, criminal justice and social service or related fields.
Council stressed on advertising and promoting the development of the Task Force to reach the
broader community possible, exploring non-traditional outreach routes to get a diverse pool of
candidates. The Council also discussed allowing volunteer members of the Crime Prevention Fund
to apply to serve on the Task Force.
Staff explained information on the Task Force will be made available on the next City News Letter,
on the City website and social media outlets in the next coming days.
2
City of Golden Valley City Council/Manager Regular Meeting Minutes
September 8, 2020—6:30 pm
2. Police Policies Discussion
Police Chief Sturgis presented the staff report as part of the City's regular review of department
policies to ensure compliance with state and federal laws as well as best practices. The City of
Golden Valley Police Department (GVPD) General Policy Manual is organized by Policy No., date
(last updated or issued), and type of authority (ordinance, or statute). Sturgis explained there are
model policies for cities issued by the state or by the MN Post Board. The Council discussed various
items with staff.
Councilmember Fonnest asked to get an overview of the Use of Force and Firearms Policy (GP.
8.09) and about physical restraint of subjects by officers. Sturgis explained officers do not use force
unless it is absolutely necessary and, in such cases, only use the minimum amount of force needed.
Sturgis explained there are different levels of force. The first level has to do with using hands to
control somebody, the second level has to do with utilizing intermediate tools such as: maze,
pepper spray, baton, taser, spray, etc. Officers are required to carry these non-lethal tools on their
belt or duty gear. Chief Sturgis commented that sanctity of human life is paramount, and when an
officer is confronted with circumstances that would permit the use of deadly force, they would give
warnings prior to doing so. Fonnest asked if GVPD officers trained in use of force and de-escalation
techniques. Sturgis explained that officers do train both of these skills, going through classroom
and field training. Among other things, officers have hands-on skills base training on handcuffing
escorting and controlling subjects. Officers also go through scenario based training where their
skills are tested, as well as their decision making and processing of different scenes. Officers have
classroom training where they analyze vide footage of different incidents to discuss how the
different law enforcement response fit the policies and statutes.
Councilmember Harris asked about an officer's duty to intervene. Councilmember Sanberg asked
what happens when an officer does not intervene in one of those situations. Sturgis explained that
the duty to intervene is part of the professional conduct of Golden Valley peace officers in
accordance with MN Statute and is listed in the GVPD Policy Manual. If an officer, when in a
position to do so, does not intervene in an excessive use of force situation, this would be
considered as a policy violation as it gets reviewed as a use of force incident. In such case, action
would be taken as a policy violation would have occurred and there would be an internal
investigation.
Councilmember Sanberg referred to the Body Worn Camera Policy GP. 1.28. She explained how on
the definitions section, citizens who while in an encounter demand to be recorded or initiate
recording on their own are deemed adversarial. Sanberg expressed her concerns with this
consideration, since under the same definition, adversarial also means "a law enforcement
encounter with a person that becomes confrontational, during which at least one person expresses
anger, resentment, or hostility toward the other, or at least one person directs toward the other
verbal conduct consisting of arguing, threatening, challenging, swearing, yelling, or shouting"'.
Sanberg said that considering a person who demands to be recorded or initiates a recording on
their own, adversarial, might escalate the encounter.
1Golden Valley Police Department.General Policies.G.P. 1.28 Body Worn Camera Policy. Definitions: F.
3
City of Golden Valley City Council/Manager Regular Meeting Minutes
September 8, 2020—6:30 pm
City Manager Cruikshank said that this meeting is a good opportunity to give staff input on changes
that could be made. Changes in wording of the policy could be made and brought back to the
Council on the next meeting for adoption.
Councilmember Rosenquist asked about current dispatch services and directing calls for service.
Sturgis explained that currently, Hennepin County dispatches for Golden Valley. At times, the
county does not have sufficient resources to give cities as precise details as it might be needed for
certain calls (i.e. medical calls for service). Sturgis explained that switching to a new model would
be significantly more expensive than the current model with Hennepin County.
On the topic of recruitment, Mayor Harris asked staff to give an overview of the current
recruitment materials, in the context of the current state of affairs and mainstream media
portrayal of law enforcement nationwide. Human Resources Director Santelices explained that job
advertisements include the expectations that individuals in this position maintain law and order
and build relationships and trust with community members. Santelices explained that a large
obstacle to recruitment is that individuals need to be Post Board certified and the Post Board has
its own requirements. This restricts the candidate pool available to all agencies. The City has certain
policies in place that help get candidates interested and explore which barriers they have to be
Post Board eligible. For instance, the City offers tuition reimbursement for employees for job
related education courses. Also, Community Service Officer's schedules are designed with flexibility
so that they are able to attend school.
3. Proposed Budgets and Capital Improvements Program
2021-2022 Other Funds Budget and 2021-2030 Capital Improvement Program
2021-2022 General Fund Budget and Levy
2021 HRA Budget and Levy
Finance Director Virnig presented the staff report which includes the 2021-2022 Proposed Biennial
Budget and 2021-2030 Capital Improvement Program and a CARES Act (The Coronavirus Aid, Relief,
and Economic Security Act) funding report. Discussion of these items was held.
On the topic of Police Department budget, Mayor Harris directed some resident concerns on what
they referred to as shifting Police Department resources towards adding a Community Resource
Officer (CRO). Chief Sturgis explained that adding a CRO would help with freeing GVPD sworn
officers to do other tasks, by identifying calls which would be appropriate for a CRO to respond to
(for instance certain medical or animal complaints). This model would also potentially allow for
increased training and maintaining staff levels. Councilmember Fonnest asked about the part time
social worker position, which would be shared with another city. Finance Director Virnig explained
that this part time position would be shared with another city and that Hennepin County would
remit monies to help cities pay for wages. Cities would pay$30,000 each and Hennepin County
would add $40,000 for a total of$100,000.
4
City of Golden Valley City Council/Manager Regular Meeting Minutes
September 8, 2020—6:30 pm
Councilmember Sanberg asked about the CRO and Community Health officer positions. Sturgis
explained that the Community Health officers are currently sworn GVPD officers from the
investigations division. The embedded social worker would potentially replace one Community
Health officer and that the CRO would be medically trained and have report writing skills. The CROs
and the embedded social worker would come in to replace the Community Health sworn officers,
helping to free these officers to do other tasks. Councilmember Fonnest was curious about GVPD
being able to meet current policing needs of our City, including adequate response time based on
standards in the field. Sturgis said that GVPD does meet the policing needs and adequate
standards. Golden Valley's COVID-19 response model includes team shifts, quarantine build-in time
for officers after in between their shifts. Sturgis reported that not as many people are driving and
that officers' traffic time is currently down.
On the topic of Storm Water Utility, Councilmember Rosenquist asked staff about the process.
There are $250,000 of funds allocated to this program which was created to incentivize people to
invest in flood mitigation in their properties.
The Council kept discussing the proposed levy and how to mitigate tax payer impact as much as
they could.The Council also discussed the 2021 proposed general fund expenditures, including the
addition of critical full time position—like the Housing and Economic Development Manager
position, the website redesign and the the compensation study.
Councilmember Fonnest said he believed the City has an obligation to revisit the Street Width
standards discussion as a part of the Pavement Management Program (PMP). The City amended its
policy and increased its standard residential street width from 26 feet to 28 feet. Staff explained
the financial impact of wider streets, comparing costs between the 26- and 28-foot-wide streets.
The assessments, which are based on actual bids (rather than projected) show a price increase for
28' over the 26' in both the 2020 PMP Low and Average Bids. Councilmember Rosenquist said it
was important to look at the impact of assessments to individual homeowners. Councilmember
Sanberg asked about the costs associated to reverting back to 26 foot wide streets. Staff explained
that there would be certain costs associated to such change, including adjusting plan sheets to
account for the 26' (going from a wider to a slightly narrower street). The consultant can make
those adjustments. The offset of decreasing the standard of residential street width back to 26 feet
is around $200,000 saved in construction per year for streets costs only.
Mayor Harris and Councilmember Harris said that they would like to receive more feedback from
residents before any formal decision would take place. The Council would like to meet again to
discuss the standard residential width policy. Councilmember Harris asked that the public be
notified of such discussion ahead of time so that staff can collect feedback ahead of the meeting.
The Council agreed to tentatively discuss this issue at its Council/Manager meeting on Tuesday, Oct
13, 2020.
Councilmember Sanberg asked about Tax increases for 2021 on median home. Finance Director
Virnig explained that those values are based on the $ value of each home. She added that houses
over$413,000 do not get homestead credit value.
Council discussed the HRA Levy and the importance of affordable housing initiatives.
5
City of Golden Valley City Council/Manager Regular Meeting Minutes
September 8, 2020—6:30 pm
4. Council Review of Future Draft Agendas: Special Housing and Redevelopment Authority
September 15, City Council September 15, City Council October 7, Council/Manager October 13,
City Council October 20, City Council November 4 and Council/Manager November 10, 2020
No changes were submitted for future draft agendas.
The meeting adjourned at 11:20 pm.
Shepard M. Harris, Mayor
ATTEST:
Tomas Romano, Assistant to the City Manager's Office
% document is available in alternate formats upon a 72-hour request. Please call
L-593-8006 (TTY: 763-593-3968) to make a request. Examples of alternate formats
include large print, electronic, Braille, audiocassette, etc.
7800 Golden Valley Road I Golden Valley,MN 55427 City of
763-593-8012 1 TTY 763-593-3968 1 763-593-8109(fax)I www.goldenvalleymn.gov goldIenii,
City Council va
Y
REGULAR MEETING MINUTES September 15, 2020—6:30 pm
In light of the recently declared COVID-19 health pandemic, the Mayor of the City of Golden Valley
declared a local emergency under Minnesota Statute, section 12.37. In accordance with that declaration,
beginning on March 16, 2020, all meetings of the City Council held during the emergency were conducted
by telephone or other electronic means.
The City used WebEx to conduct this meeting electronically. Members of the public were able to monitor
the meetings by watching it on Comcast cable channel 16, by streaming it on CCXmedia.ore, and by
dialing in to the public call-in line. The public was able to participate in this meeting during public
comment sections, including the public forum, by dialing in to the public call-in line.
1. Call to Order
Mayor Harris called the meeting to order at 6:30 pm.
1A. Pledge of Allegiance
113. Roll Call
Present: Mayor Shep Harris, Council Members Larry Fonnest, Maurice Harris, Gillian Rosenquist
and Kimberly Sanberg
Staff present: City Manager Cruikshank, City Attorney Cisneros and Finance Director Sue Virnig,
Physical Development Director Marc Nevinski City Planner Jason Zimmerman, Chief of
Police Jason Sturgis.
2. Additions and Corrections to Agenda
MOTION made by Council Member Fonnest, seconded by Council Member Rosenquist to approve the
agenda of September 15, 2020, as submitted. Upon a vote being taken, the following voted in favor of:
Larry Fonnest, Maurice Harris, Shep Harris, Gillian Rosenquist, and Kimberly Sanberg, the following
voted against: none and the motion carried.
3. Approval of Consent Agenda
MOTION made by Council Member Sandberg, seconded by Council Member Rosenquist to approve the
consent agenda of September 15, 2020, as revised: removal of 3C: Board/Commission Appointments
Human Services Commission and 3E: Creation of Planning Taskforce for New Police Commission Upon a
vote being taken, the following voted in favor of: Larry Fonnest, Maurice Harris, Shep Harris, Gillian
Rosenquist, and Kimberly Sanberg, the following voted against: none and the motion carried.
3A. Approval of Minutes:
3A1. City Council Meeting—August 18, 2020
3A2. City Council Meeting—September 1, 2020
3A3. Council Manager Meeting—August 18, 2020
City of Golden Valley City Council Regular Meeting Minutes
September 15, 2020 - 6:30 pm
3. Approval of Consent Agenda - continued
3B. Approve City Check Register and authorize the payments of the bills as submitted.
31). Receive and File Bi-Annual Police Body Cam Audit
3F. Consider Adopting Police Administrative Policies
3G. Approval of Golden Valley Fire Relief Association By-Law Pension Amount
3H. Set Date for Proposed Property Tax Levy Payable 2021 and 2021-22 Budget
3. Items Removed From the Consent Agenda:
3C. Board/Commission Appointments Human Services Commission
Council Member Rosenquist stated Elizabeth Burwell would be joining the Human Services Commission.
MOTION made by Council Member Rosenquist, seconded by Council Member Sanberg to appoint
Elizabeth Burwell to the Human Rights Commission with a term to expire May 2023 . Upon a vote being
taken, the following voted in favor of: Larry Fonnest, Maurice Harris, Shep Harris, Gillian Rosenquist, and
Kimberly Sanberg, the following voted against: none and the motion carried.
3E. Creation of Planning Taskforce for New Police Commission
Council Member Fonnest reported the City Council directed staff to begin the process of studying the
replacement of the existing Civil Service Commission with a new Police Commission.
MOTION made by Council Member Fonnest, seconded by Council Member Harris to create a Planning
Task Force for the new Golden Valley Task Police Commission. Upon a vote being taking, the following
voted in favor of: Larry Fonnest, Maurice Harris, Shep Harris, Gillian Rosenquist, and Kimberly Sanberg,
the following voted against: none and the motion carried.
4. Public Hearing
4A. Public Hearing—Approve Resolution Providing for Issuance of Revenue Bonds by the Colorado
Health Facility authority (Covenant Retirement Communities.
Finance Director Sue Virnig reported Covenant Living Communities requested the City conduct a public
hearing to approve Resolution #20-51 Issuance of Revenue by the Colorado Health Facility Authority for
Covenant Living and Services. This item is required by the IRS Code and by Minnesota Statutes Chapter
to hold a hearing for the issuance of these bonds.
Mayor Harris opened the public hearing. No one requested to speak. Mayor Harris closed the public
hearing.
There was Council discussion regarding Resolution #20-51.
MOTION made by Council Member Harris, seconded by Council Member Fonnest to adopt Resolution
#20-51 Providing for Issuance of Revenue Bonds by the Colorado Health Facilities authority. Upon a vote
City of Golden Valley City Council Regular Meeting Minutes
September 15, 2020 - 6:30 pm
being taking, the following voted in favor of: Larry Fonnest, Maurice Harris, Shep Harris, Gillian
Rosenquist, and Kimberly Sanberg, the following voted against: none and the motion carried.
4B. Public Hearing—Amendments to the Zoning Map— Rezoning Properties to achieve Conformance
with the 2040 Comprehensive Plan
Planning Manager Jason Zimmerman reported 35 properties north of Olson Memorial Highway and
west of Douglas Drive be rezoned in order to come into conformance with the future Land Use Map in
the 2040 Comprehensive Plan.
There was Council discussion regarding the Amendments to the Zoning Map.
Mayor Harris opened the public hearing. No one requested to speak. Mayor Harris closed the public
hearing.
MOTION made by Council Member Rosenquist, seconded by Council Member Harris to Adopt Ordinance
#690 Rezoning Certain Properties North of Olson Memorial Highway and West of Douglas Drive in Order
to Achieve Alignment with the 2040 Comprehensive Plan. Upon a vote being taking, the following voted
in favor of: Larry Fonnest, Maurice Harris, Shep Harris, Gillian Rosenquist, and Kimberly Sanberg, the
following voted against: none and the motion carried.
5. Old Business
6. New Business
6A. Adopting Proposed 2021-2022 Budget and Proposed Tax Levies Payable in 2021 Resolution
#20-52
Finance Director Sue Virnig reported State Law requires certification of a proposed budget and
proposed tax levies no later than September 30, 2020.
Mayor Harris opened the public hearing. No one requested to speak. Mayor Harris closed the public
hearing.
MOTION made by Council Member Harris, seconded by Council Member Fonnest to adopt the Proposed
2021-2022 Budget and Proposed Tax Levies Payable in 2021 Resolution #20-52. Upon a vote being
taking, the following voted in favor of: Larry Fonnest, Maurice Harris, Shep Harris, Gillian Rosenquist, and
Kimberly Sanberg, the following voted against: none and the motion carried.
City of Golden Valley City Council Regular Meeting Minutes
September 15, 2020 - 6:30 pm
6B. Approve Granting City Council Consent for Housing and Redevelopment Authority Levy
Payable in 2021 Resolution #20-53
Finance Director Sue Virnig presented the staff report and answered questions from Council.
Mayor Harris opened the public hearing. No one requested to speak. Mayor Harris closed the public
hearing.
MOTION made by Council Member Fonnest, seconded by Council Member Sanberg to Approve Granting
City Council Consent for Housing and Redevelopment Authority Levy Payable in 2021 Resolution #20-53.
Upon a vote being taking, the following voted in favor of: Larry Fonnest, Maurice Harris, Shep Harris,
Gillian Rosenquist, and Kimberly Sanberg, the following voted against: none and the motion carried.
6C. Approve Purchase Agreement for 1800 Zephyr Place, Golden Valley, Minnesota
Physical Development Director Marc Nevinski presented the staff report and answered questions from
Council.
MOTION made by Council Member Harris, seconded by Council Member Rosenquist to Approve the
Purchase Agreement for 1800 Zephyr Place, Golden Valley, Minnesota. Upon a vote being taking, the
following voted in favor of: Larry Fonnest, Maurice Harris, Shep Harris, Gillian Rosenquist, and Kimberly
Sanberg, the following voted against: none and the motion carried.
6D. COVID-19 Pandemic Emergency Administrative Actions
City Attorney Maria Cisneros presented the staff report and answered questions from Council.
MOTION made by Council Member Sanberg, seconded by Council Member Fonnest to Ratify the COVID-
19 Pandemic Emergency Administration Actions. Upon a vote being taking, the following voted in favor
of: Larry Fonnest, Maurice Harris, Shep Harris, Gillian Rosenquist, and Kimberly Sanberg, the following
voted against: none and the motion carried.
6E. Review of Council Calendar
SUE INSET CALENDAR
6F. Mayor and Council Communications
Council Member Fonnest reported the Partners in Energy Task Force met on August 25, 2020 and provided an
update. The goal is set a plan of action over the next 18 months for the entire City of Golden Valley to reduce the
amount of energy and to reduce the carbon footprint.
Council Member Sanberg stated the second Equity Forum is scheduled for October 8, 2020 at 6:30 pm to
be held virtually.
City of Golden Valley City Council Regular Meeting Minutes 5
September 15, 2020 - 6:30 pm
Council Member Harris provided an update on the Twin West Chambers and voted to merge with the
Minneapolis regional Chamber.
Council Member Rosenquist provided information on the Bill Hobb's Award deadline on September 30,
2020. Which is a human rights award that recognizes a resident in the community to work to build a fair
and equal environment to benefit everyone.
Mayor Harris provided an update on the Blue Line Extension Light Rail proposal. A conversation with
the Governor and the Lieutenant Governor, and numerous cities.The Governor made a verbal
commitment to push harder for the Blue Line Extension.
Council Member Rosenquist stated October 5, 2020 is the deadline for applications for the Facilities
Study Task Force.
Council Member Harris stated early voting beings on September 18, 2020.
City Manager Tim Cruikshank stated at the last Council/Manager Meeting there was discussion regarding
a policy change to the Pavement Management Program from the current 28 feet width to 26 feet. Staff is
suggesting to have this discussion at the October 13, 2020 Council/Manager Meeting. This will allow staff
time to mail a notification of this policy change to the effected properties. Also, this mailing will
encourage the community to share their thoughts with the Council before the October 13, 2020 meeting.
7. Adjourn
MOTION made by Council Member Harris, seconded by Council Member Rosenquist to adjourn the
meeting at 8:45 pm. Upon a vote being taken, the following voted in favor of: Larry Fonnest, Maurice
Harris, Shep Harris, Gillian Rosenquist, and Kimberly Sanberg, the following voted against: none and the
motion carried.
Shepard M. Harris, Mayor
ATTEST:
Kristine A. Luedke, City Clerk
city of FXECUTIV ! SUMMARY
gol4enw, Administrative Services
vale
763-593-8013 / 763-593-3969 (fax)
Golden Valley City Council Meeting
October 7, 2020
Agenda Item
3. B. Approval of City Check Register
Prepared By
Sue Virnig, Finance Director
Summary
Approval of the check register for various vendor claims against the City of Golden Valley.
Financial Or Budget Considerations
The check register has a general ledger code as to where the claim is charged. At the end of the
register is a total amount paid by fund.
Recommended Action
Motion to authorize the payment of the bills as submitted.
Supporting Documents
Document is located on city website at the following location:
http://weblink.ci.golden-valley.mn.us/WebLink/Browse.aspx?id=832914&dbid=2&repo=GoldenVaIley
The check register for approval:
• 09/18/20 Check Register
eityof EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
golden,,1� n� CityAdministration
V.
763-593-8006/ 763-593-8109 (fax)
Golden Valley City Council Meeting
October 7, 2020
Agenda Item
3C. Resolution condemning the use of discriminatory covenants, discharging discriminatory
covenants on City-owned property, and approving participation in the Just Deeds Coalition
Prepared By
Kirsten Santelices, Human Resources Director/Human Rights Commission Liaison
Kiarra Zackery, Equity and Inclusion Manager
Maria Cisneros, City Attorney
Summary
Overview
Staff recommends that the City Council pass a resolution to:
• Condemn the past use of discriminatory covenants in Golden Valley and prohibit their future
use;
• Investigate and identify any real property owned or leased by the City that contains
discriminatory covenants and to discharge those covenants in the Hennepin County land
records; and
• Participate in the Just Deeds Coalition, a group of community stakeholders committed to
acknowledging and addressing systemic racism in housing in Minnesota.
What is Just Deeds?
Just Deeds is the name of a project launched by the Golden Valley Human Rights Commission (the
"HRC") to provide free legal assistance to homeowners who want to research and discharge
discriminatory covenants from their property titles. The City has partnered with local law firms and
title companies, including Hoff Barry, Dorsey and Whitney, Edina Realty Title, and Guaranty Title to
accomplish this work.
Just Deeds also shares the name with a coalition of cross-disciplinary organizations whose goal is to
acknowledge the harm caused by discriminatory covenants and actively work to dismantle structural
and institutional racism through education and action. Coalition participants include Mapping
Prejudice, the Minnesota Association of City Attorneys, Edina Realty Title, the Minneapolis Area
Association of Realtors, and the St. Paul Area Association of Realtors. Additionally, Golden Valley staff
is working with staff members from Hennepin County, Robbinsdale, St. Louis Park, Edina, and other
cities to further the work of the Just Deeds Coalition.
Project Timeline
In 2019, the Minnesota Legislature passed a law to allow property owners to renounce discriminatory
covenants on their properties. In response, the HRC requested that the City Council approve an
City Council Regular Meeting Executive Summary 2
City of Golden Valley
October 7,2020
amendment to its 2019 work plan, adding the topic of discriminatory covenants. In the spring of 2020,
the City launched the Just Deeds project and began working with Just Deeds Coalition member
organizations. The Coalition is actively working to educate Minnesotans about: (1) historically racist
practices; (2) the deliberate, pervasive damage discriminatory covenants have caused to communities
of color and other traditionally marginalized groups of people; and (3) how these systems directly
benefited white persons. Additionally, the Coalition aims to take an active role in identifying
discriminatory systems and devote resources toward creating equity for all persons. See Just Deeds
Coalition Mission Statement (attachment 1). As of the date of this summary, the City has received
approximately 112 requests from homeowners to research and discharge discriminatory covenants on
their property titles.
Discriminatory Covenants in Golden Valley
Governments, including the City of Golden Valley, played a significant role in the use of discriminatory
covenants. For example, the federal government required discriminatory covenants to secure FHA
mortgage financing. In some cases, cities required developers to impose covenants as a condition of
subdivision approvals.
Records show that Golden Valley leaders knew that developers were using discriminatory covenants in
the City and either sanctioned or required the practice. For example, in 1938 the Planning Commission
and the City Council required the developer of the West Tyrol Hills subdivision to impose
discriminatory covenants on all lots in the development as a condition of granting the required land
use approvals. See February 10, 1938 Planning Commission meeting minutes (attachment 2) and
March 1, 1938 City Council meeting minutes (attachment 3).
There are 1,604 discriminatory covenants in Golden Valley. Figure 1 below shows where these
covenants are located. Figure 2 is an example of the language used in discriminatory covenants.This
particular covenant can be found in the Tralee Addition (Meander and Paisley Road area).
L i ; C3 0
* M
r ".,.�b �• COVENANT
ren # G"10,Va[key �� r No part of said prernises shall ever
be used or occupied by or sold,
f
�..:•v conveyed, leased, recited or given
01
to Negroes, or Mongolians or
Hebrews or any person or persons
of the negro race, or Mongolian
race or Hebrew race or blood
Dry—E
+/ rr
pr wR I�.PiAR19 28 1�yy J44
Figure 1. Figure 2.
City Council Regular Meeting Executive Summary 3
City of Golden Valley
October 7,2020
Another example of discriminatory covenant language found in Golden Valley stated "No persons of
any race other than the Caucasian race should use or occupy any building or any lot, except that this
covenant shall not prevent occupancy by domestic servants of a different race domiciled with an
owner or tenant."This covenants was found in the Spring Green neighborhood.
While completing title research, the City Attorney and the City's GIS Specialist identified 61 City-owned
parcels with discriminatory covenants in places such as the Golden Ridge Nature Area, Lakeview Park,
Seeman Park, North Tyrol Park, and South Tyrol Park. See map of affected City-owned parcels
(attachment 4). Further research is required to determine whether the City knew about the covenants
at the time these properties were acquired. The City can discharge these covenants under state law
and the proposed resolution contains a provision authorizing the City Attorney to prepare and record
the necessary forms to complete the discharge process. While this action will discharge the covenants
and affirm that they are no longer enforceable, it will not delete them from the property records.
Discriminatory covenants in Golden Valley created long-lasting consequences and a legacy of inequity
between White persons and Black, Indigenous, and Persons of Color (BIPOC). Discriminatory Covenants
promoted and established residential racial segregation, which continues to prevent access to property
ownership, accumulation of wealth, property transfers, mortgage eligibility, rental eligibility, property
values, property tax base, education, transportation, medical care, home ownership, internet access,
environmentally healthy spaces, and more. Data shows that homes that were racially covenanted are
still predominantly owned by White people and are worth approximately 15% more today than non-
covenanted properties. Additionally, in part due to discriminatory covenants, the City of Golden
Valley's population is less racial diversity than surrounding cities.
Dismantling the Legacy of Discriminatory Covenants
By starting the Just Deeds project and joining the Coalition, the City of Golden Valley is taking the first
step to mitigate its role in systemic racism in housing. The Just Deeds project acknowledges that
discriminatory covenants are one part of a racist system that intentionally excluded Black, Indigenous
and People of Color from social, economic, and political benefits associated with homeownership
generally and living in Golden Valley specifically. In order to address all matters of racial inequity, the
lasting impacts of racial segregation must be addressed through the public denouncement of this
historical practice. The City must establish new systems to replace the old.
The City of Golden Valley can become a model for racial restitution for all groups harmed by the
institutional practice of discriminatory covenants by intentionally and deliberately taking the following
steps: discharging the discriminatory covenants on City-owned property, continuing to actively
participate in the Just Deeds Coalition, educating the community about discriminatory covenants, and
identifying and overturning all policies influenced by the use of discriminatory covenants.
Financial Or Budget Considerations
Not applicable
City Council Regular Meeting Executive Summary 4
City of Golden Valley
October 7,2020
Recommended Action
Motion to pass Resolution 20-54 condemning the use of discriminatory covenants, discharging
discriminatory covenants on City-owned property, and approving participation in the Just
Deeds Coalition
Supporting Documents
• Resolution No. 20-54 Condemning the Use of Discriminatory Covenants, Discharging
Discriminatory Covenants on City-owned property, and Approving participation in the Just Deeds
Coalition
• Attachment 1: Just Deeds Coalition Mission Statement (1 page)
• Attachment 2: February 10, 1938 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes (2 pages)
• Attachment 3: March 1, 1938 City Council Meeting Minutes (2 pages)
• Attachment 4: Map of City-Owned Parcels with Discriminatory Covenants (1 page)
• Just Deeds Coalition PowerPoint Presentation
RESOLUTION NO. 20—54
RESOLUTION CONDEMNING THE USE OF DISCRIMINATORY COVENANTS,
DISCHARGING DISCRIMINATORY COVENANTS ON CITY-OWNED PROPERTY,
AND APPROVING PARTICIPATION IN THE JUST DEEDS COALITION
WHEREAS, discriminatory covenants were tools used by real estate developers to prevent
BIPOC and non-Christian individuals from buying or occupying property in certain areas, and they were
common throughout the United States from the early 1900s to the 1960s; and
WHEREAS, the purpose of discriminatory covenants was to racially and religiously homogenize
communities by excluding BIPOC and non-Christian individuals from Golden Valley. These tools
segregated the metro area and built a hidden system of apartheid; and
WHEREAS, in 2016, the University of Minnesota founded Mapping Prejudice to expose the
racist practices that shaped the landscape of the metro area. Mapping Prejudice researched restrictive
covenants in Hennepin County and created the first-ever comprehensive map of racial covenants in an
American city. The project mapped 24,131 covenants in Hennepin County, including 1,604 covenants
in Golden Valley; and
WHEREAS, an example of a common covenant in Golden Valley declared that "No part of said
premises shall ever be used or occupied by or sold, conveyed, leased, rented or given to Negroes, or
Mongolians or Hebrews or any person or persons of the negro race, or Mongolian race or Hebrew race
or blood; and
WHEREAS, the discriminatory covenants in Golden Valley are concentrated along its borders
with Minneapolis and Robbinsdale, and in other desirable areas in the City, such as near downtown,
around parks and open spaces, and near the private golf course; and
WHEREAS, the City of Golden Valley owns sixty-one parcels of land that contain a
discriminatory covenant, including parcels located in the Golden Ridge Nature Area, Lakeview Park,
Seeman Park, North Tyrol Park, and South Tyrol Park; and
WHEREAS, City leaders knew about the use of discriminatory covenants and sanctioned their
use. For example, meeting minutes show that in 1938 the Planning Commission and City Council
required the developer of the West Tyrol Hills subdivision to impose discriminatory covenants on all
lots in the development as a condition of granting the required land use approvals; and
WHEREAS, restrictive covenants are no longer enforceable. Legal efforts to eliminate
Discriminatory Covenants include Shelley v. Kraemer, 334 U.S. 1 (1948), in which the United States
Supreme Court prohibited courts from enforcing Discriminatory Covenants and the Minnesota
legislature in 1953 enacted statutes that prohibited new covenants, but existing covenants were still
legal in Minnesota until 1962; and
WHEREAS, as a result of these judicial and legislative actions, today, Minnesota law and federal
law prohibit discrimination in the sale or lease of housing based on race, color, creed, religion, national
origin, sex, marital status, status with regard to public assistance, disability, sexual orientation, or
familial status and those state and federal prohibitions extend to the refusal to sell or to circulate, post
or cause to be printed, circulated, or posted, any limitation, specification, or discrimination as to race,
color, creed, religion, national origin, sex, marital status, status with regard to public assistance,
disability, sexual orientation, or familial status; and
WHEREAS, in 2019, the Minnesota Legislature passed a law authorizing property owners to
individually discharge or renounce discriminatory covenants by recording a discharge form in the
county property records; and
WHEREAS, discriminatory covenants promoted and established residential racial segregation,
which historically and currently has impacted property ownership, accumulation of wealth, property
transfers, mortgage eligibility, rental eligibility, property values, property tax base, internet access, and
more. Discriminatory covenants fortified systemic racism and compounded economic divestment in
specific communities within Hennepin County; and
WHEREAS, discriminatory covenants benefitted White communities. For example, homes that
were racially covenanted are still predominantly owned by White people and are worth approximately
15% more today than non-covenanted properties; and
WHEREAS, discriminatory covenants created demographic patterns that remain in place today.
Due in part to this historical practice, the population of the City of Golden Valley is less racially diverse
than the populations of all of its neighboring communities and has a lower percentage of minority
owned businesses than many neighboring communities; and
WHEREAS, in 2019, the City Council directed the Human Rights Commission to begin work on
the Just Deeds Project, which connects residents to pro bono attorneys who can help remove
discriminatory covenants from property titles in Golden Valley; and
WHEREAS, the State of Minnesota, including the City of Golden Valley, recognizes the harm
that Discriminatory Covenants—and the racial, religious, and other discriminatory practices that they
represent—cause to society in general and to the individuals who are adversely affected by racial,
religious, and other discrimination through the presence of discriminatory covenants in the public land
records.
BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Golden Valley that:
1. The City of Golden Valley disavows and condemns the past use of discriminatory covenants and
prohibits discriminatory covenants from being used in the future.
2. The City Attorney is directed to investigate and to identify any real property owned or leased by
the City that contains discriminatory covenants and to prepare and record an affidavit or
request an examiner's directive discharging such discriminatory covenants pursuant to
Minnesota Statute § 507.18, subd. 5.
3. City staff is directed to participate in the work of the Just Deeds Coalition to educate the
community about this and other historically discriminatory practices; to identify contemporary
discriminatory systems, policies, and practices; and to take action to dismantling racist systems,
practices, and policies in the City of Golden Valley to create equity for all.
Adopted by the City Council of Golden Valley, Minnesota this 7th day of October 2020.
Shepard M. Harris, Mayor
ATTEST:
Theresa J. Schyma, City Clerk
ATTACHMENT 1
JOUS ee4he
Mission Statement
Just Deeds is a coalition of community stakeholders committed to acknowledging and addressing systemic
racism in housing in Minnesota. Coalition members provide free legal and title services to help property
owners find discriminatory covenants and remove them from their property titles and will provide the
foundation of education and acknowledgement necessary to pursue reconciliation and anti-racist
solutions. We represent organizations and entities who share responsibility for creating and correcting
systemic racism in housing. We acknowledge the racist systems created and perpetuated within
communities, and we will work toward dismantling these systems. Members of the Just Deeds coalition
are committed to working toward meaningful and lasting change in Minnesota. Coalition members will
achieve this goal by:
1. Educating Minnesotans about the racist practices perpetrated by developers, real estate
agents, lawyers,and local,state and federal governments to establish segregated housing and
keep wealth and opportunity away from communities of color.
2. Educating Minnesotans so that they understand who has directly and indirectly benefitted
from historically racist practices and how those practices have shaped access to property,
homeownership and wealth over time.
3. Taking action to dismantle the racist systems that perpetuate inequality and devoting
resources to create equity for communities of color.
All members of the Just Deeds Coalition recognize the following truths and principles:
• Systemic racism in housing occurs today. Black, Indigenous, and other communities of color
continue to face discrimination and lack of access to affordable housing and home ownership.
• Continued denial of opportunities to build general wealth through home ownership
perpetuates inequity within our communities.
• We will not erase or deny history.We will acknowledge it and learn from it.
• We are dedicated to honesty about institutional roles (public and private) in building and
perpetuating systemic racism.
• We commit to begin and participate in hard conversations within our communities and
institutions about our shared history of discrimination and systemic racism.
• We pledge to examine the current policies and practices of our institutions to prevent future
racist actions.
• When we identify racism in our institutions and processes,we will actively work to remove it.
_ ATTACHMENT 2
f
MINUTES OF MEETING
GOLDEN VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION
Village of Golden Valley
Hennepin County, Minnesota
Minutes of meeting of Planning Commission of the Village of Golden Valley,
Hennepin County, Minnesota held February 10, 1938 in the Village Hall. Members
present were:
Dr. Sylvester Koontz Clarence Tolg
John E. Johnson Robert B. Buzzelle
Ben Stewart John Gafney
H. H. Held Otto A ckstrom
Gertrude Lamm Jean H. Elver
J. Donald Fruen
Minutes, sf last meeting read and accepted.
H. N. McNamara, James E. Springer, officers of West Tyrol Hills, Inc. , Paul
Enghauser and Mr. Nowa of Egan Field & Nowak, civil engineers, were present in
connection with on on proposed plat of Nest Tyrol Hills submitted to Planning
Commission, and letter to Village Council dated February 10, 1938 as follows:
°The Honorable Village Council
Village of Golden Valley
Gentlemen:
The undersigned as officers of 'Test Tyrol Hills Incorporated, a corporation
having filed a plat with your body for- its consideration and approval and
authorized on behalf of their corporation to advise:
1. That this corporation, upon approval of its plat, will immediately
spend the sum of One Thousand dollars ($1,000.00) on road construction in
this subdivision. The balance of the roads necessary will be completed as
necessity demands, but in no event later than five years from date.. A
satisfactory bond will be posted with you to insure completion of the roads
within the pr®scribed time. All roads to.considt of, a 60 foot easment with
25 ft. graded surface, 5 ft. shoulders and graveled top.
2. An easment will be given you to permit the extension of the Minneapolis
water mains to guest Tyrol Hills thru Lots eight (8) and nine (9) of Block
eight (8). It being understood that the property will be placed back in
its original condition after excavation.
3. The following restrictions will be placed upon the property which will
govern building, e$c.:
a. No dwelling to be built at a cost of less than $7,500.00.
b. Garages must be under the same roof or attached to the house.
d. All lots restricted to one family dwellings.
d, No excavation dirt shall be moved from .the subdivision without permission
of the corporation.
p. All building owners must contribute equal shares on fire bond posted with
the Minneapolis Fire Department.
-1-
-- - —-- -2- 2-10-38 Meeting
I
f, All buildings erected on these premises shall be completed within six months
after starting and tar paper or .building paper shall not constitute outside finish.
g. That the premises conveyed shall not at any time be sold, mortgaged or leased
to any person or persons of Chinese, Japanese, Moorish, Mongolian or African blood
or descent.
h. All buildings to be true to their particular style of architecture.
i. All buildings to be constructed in accordance with the Mpls, Building Code.
i
J. Combination of cess-pool and septic tank will be used.
i
Yours truly, (signed)
H. W. McNamara, Pres. James E. Springer, Sec-Trees.
5625-42 Av. N, Robbinsdale, Minn. 221 Sherican Av. S, Mpls, Minn.
Hy. 2610 or Ge. 6761 Kenwood 7058. n
William S. Johnson, V.Pres.
2556 Upton Av. S, Mpls, Minn.
Br. 2231
Motion duly made and seconded that the Commission recommend to the Village Council
that the plat submitted of the development known as Ilest Tyrol Hills, also known as
the SE 1/4 of the NE 1/4, Section 30, Township 29, Range 24, Village of Golden Vally.
Hennppin County, Minnesota, be approved subject to the following restrictions to
qualifications 1, 2 and 3,
1. Recommend that the owners of this plat post a bond in the sum of Four Thousand
Dollars ($4,000) , guarantying the completion of the streets 'in this addition within
five years from date, and that a premium be prepaid for the five year period, such
streets to be constructed in a manner satisfactory to the Hennepin County Road
Engineering Department as to general construction, drainage, etc.
Villa of their letter to the#
Paragraph '1 a Council be amended to read that all streets
g
to consist of a 60 ft. easment with 35 ft. graded and graveled surface, and 5 ft.
shoulders.
2. Recommend the acceptance of the plat of 'Rest Tyrol Hills subject to the granting
of an easment for water mains, gas mains, sewer, and other public improvements along
the north 15 ft. of Lot #8 in Block #8, and along the south 15 fl`'of Lot #9 in Block #8.
3. Restrictions as provided for in paragraph #3 to be embodied in the general deed.
In view of the fact that a number of building projects are contemplated 6n this plat
the Commission request prompt action on these recommendations.
Motion made by Mr. Tolg and seconded by Mrs. Lamm that the Village Council grant the
petition for the vacating of Anna Avenue, with the provision that the petitioners
assume the cost of legal proceedings.
Officers were elected - Paul A. Seeman unanimously elected president, Clarence Tolg
was elected Vice Pres. and Jean H. Elver Secretary-Treasurer.
I
i
Motion made and seconded that meeting adjourn.
AttJ144 �4
1 Se -Trees.
s
resident
a.
March, I, i938. 19
ATTACHMENT 3
Meeting called to order by the Chairman (Paul A. Seeman) .
Members present: Frandsen, Seeman, En elbretscn ,Reiss
and Johnson.
Minutes of the previous meeting read, There being no corrections
or objections, minutes declared accepted as read.
.lotion by Johnson seconded by Reiss to accept recommendation
of the Planning Commission for the vacating of Anna Avenue in the
Massclt Gardens plat .
Frandsen, Reiss, Seeman, Engelbretson and Johnson (yes) .
Motion by Engelbretson seconded by Johnson to accept the
recommendation of the Planning Commission for the acre-ntanee
of the plat for West Tyrol Hills.
Seeman, Reiss, Frandsen, Vngelbretson and Johnson (yee) .
Motion by Johnson seconded by Reiss that the proper officers cLf
the village be authorized to sign the plat for the register of
deeds office and that the village seal be affixed .
Seema , Reiss, Frandsen, Engelbretson and Johnson (yes) .
Motion by Engelbretson seconded by Johnson that the application
by the Minneapolis Northfield and Southern Railfoad for building
permit be referred to the Planning commission for consideration
and report to the council.
Frandsen, Seeman, Reiss, Engelbretson and Johnson (yes) .
?lotion by 8ngelbretson seconded by Johnson that Chairman Spemarr
be authorized to hire two trucks for the WPA road project .
Seeman, Reiss, Fbgelbretson and Johzreon, (yes) .
Frandsen (no) ..
Motion ry Fhgelbretson seconded by Johnson to adjourn was so
ordered.
Expenditures---------------------
Receipts------------------------------ --- --- �- Do
C erk.
Minutes of Mar. I meetin^-. contInu on pa;eSO to inc l de
conditifars of acceptance 6f the plat of West Tyrol Hills
addition.
20
Conditions of acceptance of Feet Tyrol Hills Plat. Also known as
the s.e. I/4 of the n. e. section 30,Township N9, Range 24,Village
of Golden Valley, Minnesota.
That the dwnere of this plat post a bond in the sum of four thousand
dollars(44000.00) guarantying the completion of the streets in this
addition within five years from date, and that a premium be prepaid `u
for the five year period, such streets to be constructed in a manner
satisfactory to the Hennepin County Road Engineering Department as to
general construction, drainage, etc. All roads +c masist of a sixty
foot easment with 35 foot graded and graveled serface and five foot
shoulders,.
An easment will be given The Village of Golden Valley Minnesota
to permit the extensiorr of the Minne olis watermains to west Tyrol
Hills thru Lots Eight (8) and Nine (9 of Block Eight (8) . It being
understood that the property will be placed back in itle original °.
condition after excavation. It is also understood that casments will
also be given for Zas maims, sewer and other public improvements.
The above easments are to be ;ranted .along the North I5 foot of Lot
.light (8) in Block Eight (8) and along the South I5 foot of Lot
Nine (9) in Block Eight (8) .
The following restrictions will be placed upon the property which will
govern building etc,
a. No dwelling to be constructed at a cost of lees than 7,500.00.
b. Garages must be under the sane roof or attached to the house.
e. All lots restricted to erne family dwell!ings.
d, No excavation dirt will be moved from the subdivision without the
consent of the owners.
e. All building owners must contribute equal shares on fine bond
posted with the Minneapolis Fire Dept.
f. All buildings erected on these premises shall b- completed
within six months after starting and tar paper az -building paper
hhall not constitute outside finish.
g. That the premises crnvsyed =shall not at any time be sold,morga;ed
morgaged or leased to any person or persons of Chinese, Japanese,
Mocrieh, Mongolian or African blood or descent.
h. All buildings to be true to their particular style of architecture.
i. All buildings to be constructed in accordance with the Minneapoliz
Building code.
J . Combination of cess=pool and septic tank will be used.
It is understood that the above restrictions are to b* imbodied in the
,general deed and filed in the Register of Deeds Office for Hennepin
County.
H
LU
G 3
° o LL
O U) O
Sri
cu
-O (6 J
c d Q °o d Z 00 2 � 22
U W t U O � O - O
O
(6 z (6 > O O O LO
� - Z rn U)
to 0 1
C: rn r —
O oM O-2 LO
-1 N t U ' N
(D o-00
YXCCCCCCCC t Ocu
l-!
i
C�
' R
J
a U) L X i
. Q
o Q
O z
O0 U) OU' O W r� •
°-O °-CU z a0 Q cu = urn Inn
C
O i
O� O� O- O(D �t U
� �
� � U
U OW
1 1 -
O
Z +�
N
_ c I
N
Y Q
(6 CU
0 2
c O
N O 0
N
04
c -
rn
io
� I 2
cu °
z a, in ,
N N (6 -• -
�, i
� � ° Q _ •
z `co 0- > i 70
i > FD
ID Y p • i O
O
Q Q c� Y O� a � ^Y
�' ° O � � N f � i � O
= d m
a—_
� � r � = Y N ► ! i-�r
J i U
> O
0 0 t_
4A
_ aJ
� O
U
N
a--A
Q i �
o O
Q �
O �• s cUn
4-' 4A
4-' N
� s
U V) a�
CZ• ca ca
0
C) a o �
o u, o
LU
LU v ° o a�
0 ca �' s
co v
° o
N -1--j
6 U
U � O
C� s °
.� o co
a, a�
ro
a�
n n o
Ov
�7 ❑
cd
Z v p 14
Q = CL Cd 43 43
z s o � M (D
w > b.0 rdFj Pm- 14
M 4) M P4-1
p N o 10a �
U 4m .ri -P �
� � � co
>' H 0 cd -P
•
43PH 0
0 >11ro
N i �
Q 0L 4z 42 0
03 Q D •
z � L- C)-
�
o (D 0 a �
0 —
V
.�
0 -r3
U = CD .r4
+3 0 �
> 0 0 00 r .rq
Or. 0 La r-I
< (A 0 $4
0 (L) P.,Q r
0 Q j P-sA el
ll7 �d •r-i
•� 0Cd800
u 0-
El
Gar
z
Q
z
w
0
U
0
�C
a
z
2
oc
U
cn
C)
�C
a
a
N
� U
� O
cu
� O
N Ln +, 'gin
0 O
O O
Q _0 vO
0LO
O
LU
c�
� v
f6
z L
Q
z � 0m C �
O '� ca Q)
LU N
> .� 'cn 0
0 O
U � -
ca c: E U +�
0 m 0 N _0
U 0- U DC 0)
C
L
O
O
L 4—
a--+ Q) cn
Q) s Q)
> o o
°' j
0 > O
Q) Q
< E 4-j
f6 Q) Q) m
p � .> � > Ca
U M U
L +a
_ v
Ln >
Q °
O .� O C6 v O O
— =3 E CL — cn
_ N °
•� � � }' wo v
Q) — Q) — f6
z _ o
E >
< Q) Q) m E �
o o v
> E � E � � C:
E U U cn Es- N
OE E s 0 0 0 0
U O > O �' Qj Ln N
0 n n n
U U W ca ca N N N
U U U U U U
O o E Q a a a
O X
m ( m Q Q) 0 0 0 0 0
❑ u
N
Ln
O ^ 0v.)
N
L
N ell
rq O
E 4'00
U m
/g
Sri
cn n ��
ro
00
O o M
L
c» ,(jo m
E may,
v E
DC �
LU
o °
U
m 00
M
NO
N � rn �Oo Q
+-' 9 _�
C: c r-i
N p m
(n
N }'
� c6 a,
Q o
Q rn Q
� o o• �
vi U M � � ■
z °' o6
a_+ ^
=3>
E gg%,
0 E
U U� co
E
E N �700
o
cn
U O Ln
CO cn
0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0
Om
0
N
a�
c
r
` c
to
Q N E
o
Q Lnm
Ln
� _ w
W U
bio
w m
-J
L
O u :
i o
v
Z c�
VJ L
W N_
L
. a
z E V)
Q
U
f6
z
w ro
O Ln
U Q
Ln 0 Ln 0 Ln 0 Ln 0 Ln 0
buO
z >
EL
CO .,
LL .92 {}
W
SE
C
= t�
cu
V 1
FM
-Cc to
01
Q
z
LU
N ca
O rara �
U ra
� Q v � O � ca
U N L
L Q
�
U Q
N
O •—
ro N •i ca 0 i
N
N 4' 4 J U
0
8
Q 00
�O 0 w
O CCJJ
CL
� C
L
0
a
L
v
LU CL)
f9
LO
� U
c
0 U
�L @
°
4-J Q CO
M S..L �
U `u
ro
^' `I le
W i U
S'0 tp
}) m �
- ■ ■
v
co
zfu -U
0 coQj
w ° r
N
O Q
�C C6 0 0 ■ ■
U MO
4-J _
ca a�
° v
Ln v o
v >
� v
fu
L7
z
i8 a
a
LU
69LD
w
J
J
89 u
C)
0 C J
9'88 a ❑
Ul o a �
a
. L'6L V' ❑
w
� o
(I j c
E
0
O ■
+-' Z gS C7 u
r-L z z
V / D a £'8ti a w
d v
LU
0
g
z S'�ti
Q
z
uj U
z
w
w tr'is u
> U-
0 71E
€
U
CL
�
N
f6
N
� O
.— u
O p
nro 4-j
4-j E
u 'L
� 0
N
N
,---4
cam_
G
+U 00
� M
01
V r-4
ta
(, V >,A A as o v O r �d � �� -P1d � ID{ - +L is H 1~ M +s 44 ■� .� * ak 0 q R Fi Aa +a 0 'd r-
Cs +} +"r-i +} AO .d 00 O q � � +40 far.
c $C C) � A A ba El id C ,4 as
aN F, o C a 1-44 0 gi+7 O 117 0 .4-1 lb rl i&-;) o,4 4drM
.14 a c a r. �-+ M O#1 0 14 q* # -4 r-I 4 lb V • -8 O
O i~ + 09 � [0 0 wh 140 as A i? CH -1 M 0 Al 'd '#R4a
s* Ed 41 i 43 t-+ G ■4 r % C s. 0 V 0
w [d ri .r bA 11#3 U+' + +s i i oq 14 '0 «i a'r
p C L=3 'CS ri d,sue � w4-IF qp m d r a N V4 #4 A 0 D .i ��
4WDON 0I r 1 r1 r i O
Fi
LL ,-s A C +? t) cd+4 � D D p Cd 0 tD in Id :s,a d +i ad d
ss} id j o w
� r� z $4 +.1 jai O +7 1_4 10 Ld *1 D b
r+x A f. ra W•d O D ,-i cd:ri A id F4 fD 'Cd V Ad 90
H ,rf to 'si A WA +p r-1 V I m to +a !, O C D
M E- 'Ci s~ +3 'd ri , i O Cd O to ID o o v $ 0 to 0 #-r 0 +> +' 0
rag p, R 4 d. bQ D M is 'q 93 ad " 'd $4 D V Q $z O k+d C4 0 ,� is
O M ,D i .4a f im 0 0 rl d o a,, 420 o ad V. 0 C) A -*4 1+ u
E4 O id 1i +2 d U fp $4+3 + +-4 10 -Pt 04 r,4 #]A 0,4
a b a Al H m � 71 rf `,.R A.-4 r f -4 !w 0 � � � 40 4- P4 m --' ,� s` r-4 + is u
0 r � .+ 4 ID $4 id H ID4+ H in~0 14 CO a) Id D � go P�
m 4) A D do U O'd P O 0 b9 H # 4 a A id Lii [! P'd :A.
iD
aD do R 0 bQ a1 ,Q Fi r-% . .-f 0 0q) O -H+ of t +s 'd ,i
4P,4� cd 40 ,-+ tD*4 C? 69 .0 CS 4-2 All d 4a O G r` f~41 V M
o +} r# :1-.a ",'+ E-+,4-t €+ t3 +31 r# m P4 a F4 0 ad +1 :s 9: a
tf Gr+} 14 . 0 +1 0,--. 0 O 4r4 0467 }�. fp p r-f Gd O t F, O O 4D V
0 C 4--P -4bd '5 0 F+ 0 1~ aD !}i- I Cd -P A 4- D A &4# i a 15 O 'd +2 Fl a Fi 0 p, A�
a as ua a s±'d U 0 d— Q 41 jq bq.-, +a D la a $4 � as 4-i o +J O 11 -P
A A 2 cd p M . r-i +Oa� PA b- a i-r[4i 4 a b+t a fka ..� t] � O C: dD m 4-V
+i +0o 10 a 9 LC) bO m Cd d d � .a - a �42 F+ � iU 46 tQ rii ID dF ri
P P4 4 O r3 s'. M U bb 1`0 0 A 0,a 0g i+A D to ,-s 00 O
D A 4a 1-1 Ara -0 n Ti.0 14 M 3d M a.a a-b D,ri TJ IL 0 10+P to 0 HI4A 4.t"
a� - G- �+i 1`, -P 4-*A +* W +i a 44+* 00 ac v O � 14 D O A r. 14 fs! D 4a
o , a Ed O+} M 0 1w o o Is +y +} A A -la M o Q r-i � ao D � d
d vi iD to G V. O � Y# H 0 M 4-2 #4 4-1 0 ri ri k +- � 0 � b7 i 1) 0 b)j 0 sw
0 r-4 k , ,rI 9,+t k � ri +s dI) El w M bD M Q1,•# td s4 14 Ng 0 + C O cd
44 i--f i} .w 43 ,i V 0 4+-2 9 IV 6'o ri C � M++4+ �++a -A M L], D�! -1 0 O +3
O*a' Cd 10 Q +} D PY 4� A .-1+ O ad s" 0 0 r_ 'd •+q U D� �+'d,-I +d ,d .4 p.d
' ot Q wq k F: !t +2 d t'. O ■ra r1 rt r`i ,--4 W � r-! 1!�:i-A 1% 4 'd H 0 ip ILI d3
F-4 d' -A Q 0 IQ • #-b f P %r#r-i CD ad +2 -4 r♦ A 41 A —I la I<} O
i~ s� 4H +a r) a 14 44 O p�r-. o ax u o ca F] -# 0 0 +� an m � d qj 16
[) ao Ff 10-+,COO 9 tD+-+ '1 ro Ft ",4 k D A D A" %d -M A +� 9:,4i C 'd A sss o sly �+ f dID " R+f 41> ��¢} ra 'd Cd v CM +a A +? ED&1 s•+,i� 0 Fi s
43 ■r-! 4- k,r4 4 41 od 4010 w k Q +'.0 JLI■•-1 11 H Cif ri -P Id FI O r-t Cd
w4 00 06+b #s 0 1-i r-4 as li F+ -4 gi 4-4 M .0 d ri G 4 r-1 0,1 _4 A 00 r 4 T3 C} 0 F+
0 +A ri w-i —4 0+3 4) -4 D qs O �i � v P!; 0 ■, F-- O~� pi i � Ei �� �+-I {7 •M IV €i
s#. 0 ij ri +d #+++ � 0 r-i TI dM V bb C. 10 to 'a R �
0 A cm do O 'd 00 00 !y q � �-, 0 O f-I .4 +ri -4 � 0 r s ■ � ■ , • . r ■
CJ +� 0 E+" to" +ix bwm m -4�+'�' � 0 id E+ M� Er hfl d fi V 'd V 4-i h0 'r+ +a � [�C]
� LL
_—_-- _ — —_ 4y 'c N
4 ) � -J C, 'D t-
ol o � d a- W
F
LU ' #
r /❑�
LL V �] C7
..............�e,... ..,..., -
/aQ 5 mayy 0
CN
— '
w co
m� � R c o III
a
� CL
O'Q Oc"n
bl-
1.1 - rr°7j CV
m y -+
2
r
mLU ¢ • . O
0 0� � 2 ■ '
orn Dm
01 T 4—
C r1 I M 0 ,� _ � O
N N 0 1
L � _
g b y yUp 4Gp EL
_ m
m 5
G N C a] p N 61
E _ p p L U p1 G U
Z
2LU
a ? c a
u G1 �y➢
H o _'F a E
O m c E E c o '
y 8 r N 'D pE
ri
�p llp� rJ UF3 � ��CC5 N C N
Y N Cm A G y G N N VVy GGl f9
N
LU Y p
L L Q
m �
WT d R N N N
C
G LL, V a O z
O C
C1 Y! o m � $
c y E
Fp
C 41
G 0-
VT .R �2 C
d G �
r
W N p G C t9
W o $ m L2 N L° 0
N
O W Q
cn wO rL� o L
} N LJ d C t 4
C� - t C _W VJ L � � L O � � � C �
HN
_ _W
Q U M1 G P p} 4 x N G
W O _OI C — N d C
LU
W G q O
U C d 0 cp yy
4-a >
L 4-J
2 � Ca
E > a�
_0 0 o
o a,
U Lf.-
E O O
O V) � V U aA
(1) ,r_ ca
U }' U U U
O D
cn O — }'
C cn r_ •— },
Ncc _
�• V) D
O •0 -0O >> •� }_' r
U Q) _0
O 4 O
O _0 N
U
•E > O �
- o o
W U v >,
•V) _0 D —
u •� �O U >
ca O
z
�a •� E 0
Q +� •� O
4-1
u cc
vi
Q u D Q) •� •U
_ O +J U =
' (1) .— O
u
eityof
*#",
valle�
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
olden
g - Development
Physical
763-593-8030 / 763-593-8109 (fax)
Golden Valley City Council Meeting
October 7, 2020
Agenda Item
3. D. Livable Communities Act Reenrollment for 2021-2030
Prepared By
Jason Zimmerman, Planning Manager
Summary
In order to continue to be eligible for grants associated with the Metropolitaion Council's Livable
Communities Act (LCA), the City must formally adopt the affordable and life-cycle housing goals
provided by Met Council housing staff and commit to spending its required Affordable and Life-Cycle
Housing Opportunities Amount (ALHOA) each year.
Background
The Met Council forecasts future affordable housing needs using a regional economic model, then
allocates a share of the overall need to each community. Golden Valley's 2040 Comprehensive Plan
included an acknowledgment of the number of affordable housing units allocated to the City for the
2021-2030 time frame, and the Land Use and Housing chapters of the Comp Plan were written to
provide enough capacity to absorb these units.
However, the Met Council acknowledges that a lack of funding may make meeting this need difficult to
achieve.Therefore, they have also set goals for each community that encompass a range of units that
should be reasonable. Their formula assumes funding would be provided for 45 percent of the units
needed and then adds in an additional 10 percent as an aspirational target that could be reached
through local actions and other funding sources.Therefore, the goal numbers are range of 55 to 100
percent of the determined need.
For Golden Valley, the need for affordable units between 2021 and 2030 has been set at 222. The
numbers of affordable units put forward as a reasonable goal for the City covers a range of 122 to 222
units.
Similarly, the Met Council reviews each City's plan to determine its capacity to provide multifamily
units based on the adopted land use plan. It tempers the amount that could be provided given the
maximum residential densities allowed by calculating the number that might reasonably be provided if
average densities were used instead. This number then becomes the life-cycle housing goal for 2021-
2030. For Golden Valley, the life-cycle housing goal is 643 units.
City Council Regular Meeting Executive Summary 2
City of Golden Valley
October 7,2020
Two other requirements must be met for continued eligibility in the Local Housing Incentives Account
Program which distributes LCA grant dollars. First, the City must adopt a Housing Action Plan consistent
with the Met Council's housing policy. For now, the City's Housing chapter of the 2040 Comp Plan
serves as the action plan, though additional details may be developed over the next few years.
Secondly, the City must commit to spending its assigned ALHOA contribution each year on affordable
housing-related initiatives. This amount is determined annually based on a community's activities
around new affordable or mixed-income housing, affordable housing preservation or rehabilitiation,
adopted housing policies and ordinances, and characteristics of the of existing housing stock.
Expenditures that "create affordable or life-cycle housing opportunities" are eligible to count towards
the ALHOA contribution.This includes direct affordable housing assistance and development,
rehabilitation activities, and staff time administering programs that create affordable housing
opportunities.
Financial Or Budget Considerations
By reenrolling in the LCA, the City is committing to spending its assigned ALHOA contribution each year
it participates in the program.
Recommended Action
Motion to adopt Resolution 20-54, Electing to Participate in the Local Housing Incentives Account
Program under the Metropolitan Livable Communities Act, Calendar Years 2021 through 2030.
Supporting Documents
• Resolution 20-55, Electing to Participate in the Local Housing Incentives Account Program under the
Metropolitan Livable Communities Act, Calendar Years 2021 through 2030 (2 pages)
RESOLUTION 20-55
RESOLUTION ELECTING TO PARTICIPATE IN
THE LOCAL HOUSING INCENTIVES ACCOUNT PROGRAM
UNDER THE METROPOLITAN LIVABLE COMMUNITIES ACT
CALENDAR YEARS 2021 THROUGH 2O30
WHEREAS, the Metropolitan Livable Communities Act (Minnesota Statutes
sections 473.25 to 473.255) establishes a Metropolitan Livable Communities Fund which
is intended to address housing and other development issues facing the metropolitan area
defined by Minnesota Statutes section 473.121 -1 and
WHEREAS, the Metropolitan Livable Communities Fund, comprising the Tax Base
Revitalization Account, the Livable Communities Demonstration Account, the Local
Housing Incentive Account and the Inclusionary Housing Account, is intended to provide
certain funding and other assistance to metropolitan-area municipalities; and
WHEREAS, a metropolitan-area municipality is not eligible to receive grants or
loans under the Metropolitan Livable Communities Fund or eligible to receive certain
polluted sites cleanup funding from the Minnesota Department of Employment and
Economic Development unless the municipality is participating in the Local Housing
Incentives Account Program under Minnesota Statutes section 473.254-1 and
WHEREAS, the Metropolitan Livable Communities Act requires that each
municipality establish affordable and life-cycle housing goals for that municipality that are
consistent with and promote the policies of the Metropolitan Council as provided in the
adopted Metropolitan Development Guide; and
WHEREAS, a metropolitan-area municipality can participate in the Local Housing
Incentives Account Program under Minnesota Statutes section 473.254 if: (a) the
municipality elects to participate in the Local Housing Incentives Program; (b) the
Metropolitan Council and the municipality successfully negotiate new affordable and life-
cycle housing goals for the municipality; (c) the Metropolitan Council adopts by resolution
the new negotiated affordable and life-cycle housing goals for the municipality; and (d) the
municipality establishes it has spent or will spend or distribute to the Local Housing
Incentives Account the required Affordable and Life-Cycle Housing Opportunities Amount
(ALHOA) for each year the municipality participates in the Local Housing Incentives
Account Program.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT the City of Golden Valley:
1 . Elects to participate in the Local Housing Incentives Program under the
Metropolitan Livable Communities Act for calendar years 2021 through 2030.
2. Agrees to the following affordable and life-cycle housing goals for calendar years
2021 through 2030:
Affordable Housing Goals Range Life-Cycle Housing Goal
122-222 643
3. Will prepare and submit to the Metropolitan Council a plan identifying the actions it
plans to take to meet its established housing goals.
Adopted by the City Council of Golden Valley, Minnesota, this 7th day of October, 2020.
Shepard M. Harris, Mayor
ATTEST:
Theresa J. Schyma, City Clerk
eityof EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
golden,,1� n� CityAdministration
V.
763-593-8006/ 763-593-8109 (fax)
Golden Valley City Council Meeting
October 7, 2020
Agenda Item
3. E. 1. Appointment of Election Judges for the November 3 General Election
3. E. 2. Establishment of an Absentee Ballot Board for the November 3 General Election
Prepared By
Theresa Schyma, City Clerk
Summary
As required per Minnesota Statute 204B.21, the governing body of a municipality must appoint election
judges at least 25 days before an election. The attached list of qualified individuals have expressed an
interest in serving as election judges in Golden Valley for the November 3 General Election. All election
judges will attend required training so they are able to assist the voters of Golden Valley.
Additionally, Minnesota Statues states that an absentee ballot board must be established by ordinance
or resolution.Absentee ballot boards examine the envelopes of returned absentee ballots and accept or
reject these envelopes in a manner provided by Minnesota Statutes Section 203B.121. By establishing
an absentee ballot board, absentee voters have an opportunity to correct any errors or omissions that
caused their absentee ballot envelope to be rejected. Furthermore, Hennepin County will also appoint
Absentee Ballot Board judges that will be responsible for accepting/rejecting all mail-in absentee ballots
received at the Hennepin County Government Center.
Financial Or Budget Considerations
Staff did anticipate the need for additional election judges in 2020; therefore, the cost was already
factored into this year's projected election budget.
Recommended Action
Motion to adopt resolutions approving the appointment of the Election Judges and the establishment of
an Absentee Ballot Board for the General Election to be held on November 3, 2020.
Attachments
• Resolution 20-56 approving the appointment of Election Judges for the November 3 General Election
• Resolution 20-57 establishing an Absentee Ballot Board for the November 3 General Election
RESOLUTION 20-56
RESOLUTION APPROVING THE APPOINTMENT OF ELECTION
JUDGES FOR THE GENERAL ELECTION ON NOVEMBER 3, 2020
WHEREAS, Minnesota Election Law 20413.21 requires that persons serving as
election judges be appointed by the City Council at least 25 days before the election; and
WHEREAS, the City Clerk has submitted for approval a list of Election Judges
(Exhibit A) to officiate at the General Election on November 3, 2020; and
WHEREAS, said list includes those individuals who are qualified and have agreed to
serve as an Election Judge; and
WHEREAS, the City Clerk has the authority to add additional Election Judges and
make substitutions as necessary to maintain the required minimum staffing levels while
conducting the 2020 General Election.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Golden Valley City Council that the
individuals named on Exhibit A, and on file in the office of the City Clerk be appointed as
the City of Golden Valley Election Judges for the November 3, 2020 General Election.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Clerk is with this, authorized to make any
substitutions or additions as deemed necessary.
Adopted by the City Council of Golden Valley, Minnesota on the 7t" day of October, 2020.
Shepard M. Harris, Mayor
ATTEST:
Theresa J. Schyma, City Clerk
Resolution No. 20- -2- October 7, 2020
Exhibit A
2020 Election Judges
The following individuals are appointed to serve at the November 3 General Election:
Chuck Anderson Christopher Harwood Tomas Romano
Tracy Anderson Jennifer Haskett Gary Rowland
Omar Ansari Cyndi Hasselbusch Barb Ruud
Rebecca Ansari Daniel Hedlund Clare Sanford
Britt Marea Bakke Heather Hegi Kirsten Santelices
Kirk Ballard Laura Hermer Janet Schultz
Colin Bartol Angela Higgins William Schultz
Roger Bergman Diane Hoffstedt Sue Schwable
Pamela Blackamoore Richard Holcomb Mary Sellke
Karen Boehne Claire Huisman Carl Selness
Alison Bucklin Antoinette Ihrke Richard Sienko
Elizabeth Burgy Maria Johnson Greg Simmons
Kathleen Burke-Scheffler Martha Johnson Louise Simons
Julia Calstrom Gwen Jorgens Dean Smith
Cristin Capron White Betty Kampen Linda Stein
Maria Cisneros Marilyin Kilner Teresa Stephens
Gary Cohen Michael Knisely Karla Stone
Tim Cruikshank Tracy Koski Don Taylor
Carol Cummins Deborah Kotcher Mindy Thompson
James Curme Barbara Krenn Penny Thompson-Burke
Kathleen Day Rebecca Kress Marie Tiffin
Daniel Decker Rob Kueny Barbara Tillman
Kay Decker Robert Lang Molly Tomczak
Kari Delap Julia L'Enfant Hilary Toren
Paula Deziel Beth Lilja John Toren
Beth Doughty Margaret Macneale Barbara Van Heel
Cheryl Dragotis Theodora Blattner Prill Mason Mary Van Hook
Caitlin Ekegren Abby McDonald Sheila Van Sloun
Brian Erickson Sandra Mendivil Sue Virnig
Erica Fair Steve Merriman Helen (Toots) Vodovoz
John Farrell Christensen Michelle Connie Waffensmith
Tom Farrell Norman Mitchell Walter Waffensmith
Marcia Fluer Analeigh Moser Sue Watson
Celeste Gaspard Kay Myers Cheryl Weiler
Dani Gates Kit Nisam Jackie Wells
Janet George Donna Ostdieck Andrea Wiley
Teresa George Bruce Osvold Georgeann Wobschall
Dale Gerber Dianne Osvold Carrie Yeager
Emily Gilmore Jane Pagenkopf
Pierre Girard Thomas Parker
Norma Glagus Mark Pirkl
Beth Glommen John Polta
Cheryl Gustafson Lisa Powell
Susan Hagen Robin Preble
Susan Haggberg-Miller Laura Pugh
Nathan Haines Beverly Robinson
RESOLUTION 20-57
RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING AN ABSENTEE BALLOT BOARD FOR THE
GENERAL ELECTION ON NOVEMBER 3, 2020
WHEREAS, State Statute Section 203B.121 states that an Absentee Ballot Board
must be established by the City Council to facilitate the absentee ballot process for an
upcoming election; and
WHEREAS, the absentee ballot board is authorized to examine absentee ballot
envelopes and accept or reject absentee ballots in the manner provided by Minnesota
Statute; and
WHEREAS, Golden Valley City Hall serves as an in-person absentee ballot center
for the residents of Golden Valley; and
WHEREAS, the Hennepin County Elections Office serves as both a mail and in-
person absentee ballot center for the residents of Golden Valley.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, the Golden Valley City Council does hereby
approve guidelines establishing an absentee ballot board as authorized under Minn. Stat.
204B.21 , subd. 2 and authorizes the City Clerk/Elections Manager to oversee the
appointment and procedural processes.
Adopted by the City Council of Golden Valley, Minnesota on the 7t" day of October, 2020.
Shepard M. Harris, Mayor
ATTEST:
Theresa J. Schyma, City Clerk
eityof EXECIIT111PSI-IMMARY
golden,,,. Police
va
763-593-8079 / 763-593-8098 (fax)
Golden Valley City Council Meeting
October 7, 2020
Agenda Item
3. F. Authorization to Sign School Resource Officer Service Agreement with Independent School
District 281
Prepared By
Steve Johnson, Police Commander
Summary
Independent School District 281 and the Police Department desire to participate in providing
specialized security services at the facility located at 2400 Sandburg Lane. A school resource officer
program is needed to improve understanding and promote mutual respect between police, school,
staff, counselors, parents and students.
An agreement has been drafted, stating the City will provide the services of one full-time police officer
and related support services and supplies for the term of July 1, 2020 through June 30, 2021. The
related costs for these services will be billed to School District 281 in an amount not to exceed $62,150
depending on the number of student school days covered. All training, supervision and records will be
the responsibility of the City.
Financial Or Budget Considerations
This contract pays for approximately 2/3rds of the SRO salary. * During COVID and until school is back in
full operation, the SRO will not be at the school and the amount billed will be prorated monthly once
school has resumed.
Recommended Action
Motion to authorize the City Manager and Mayor to sign the School Resource Officer Service
Agreement with Independent School District 281.
Supporting Documents
0 School Resource Officer Services Agreement for District#281 (7 pages)
SCHOOL RESOURCE OFFICER AGREEMENT BY AND BETWEEN THE
INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT 281 AND THE CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY
THIS SCHOOL RESOURCE OFFICER AGREEMENT ("Agreement") is made by and
between the INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT 281, a Minnesota school district, ("School
District") and the CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY a Minnesota municipal corporation ("City").
The District and City may be identified individually as a"Party" or collectively as the "Parties."
Recitals
A. Independent School District 281 and the City desire the creation of a high-quality learning
environment for students, staff and families. As such, we are entering into this agreement to
engage the services of a school resource officer ("SRO") from the City's police department.
While this Agreement refers to a single SRO, more than one SRO may be provided and the
terms of this Agreement shall apply to each such SRO.
B. The Safe Schools Levy provides monetary funds to school districts to hire school resource
officers to help address safety related issues within schools.
C. To that end, the School District desires to obtain the services of, and the City agrees to
provide, SRO(s) in accordance with the terms and conditions of this Agreement.
Agreement
In consideration of the terms and conditions contained herein,the Parties hereby agree as
follows:
1. SRO SERVICES. The City agrees to provide the School District a SRO to provide
services at the school identified herein, and the School District agrees to provide funding for
the SRO, in accordance with the terms and conditions of this Agreement.
2. TERM. The Term of this Agreement shall be for a twelve (12) month period from July 1,
2020 to June 30, 2021.
3. TERMINATION. Either Party may terminate this Agreement upon a sixty (60) days
written notice to the other of such termination. In the event of a termination, any payments
due to the City shall be prorated based on the period of SRO services provided.
4. LEVY. The School District will levy the maximum amount permitted by law to the
property tax payers in the School District to help fund the SRO position.
5. PROGRAM FUNDING. The School District will meet with the Chief Law Enforcement
Officer, or designee, of the City to discuss the allocation of available funds to support the
SRO services. The City will invoice the School District for the first half of the payment on
January 1 and for the second half of the payment on June 30. The funding the School
District shall provide to the City for the 2020-21 school year will be $62,150 per full time
Page 1 of 6
equivalent("FTE") SRO provided by the City ("FTE Funding"). Pursuant to paragraph 7,
the City will document all days the SRO is not on site and discount the first or second half
payment at a rate of$372.16 per day. Notwithstanding the termination provision contained
herein,the City may terminate this Agreement upon ten (10) days written notice of
termination to the School District if the City determines the School District does not have
sufficient funds to pay the FTE Funding.
6. SCHOOLS SERVED. Sandburg Middle School, 2400 Sandburg Lane, Golden Valley,
MN 55427 ("School")will receive SRO services under this Agreement.
7. NUMBER OF SROs. The City will assign one (1) FTE police officer to serve as the SRO
at the School during the regular school year. The City will work collaboratively with the
school district to determine which of its police officers to assign to serve as the SRO under
this Agreement. The number of police officers serving in the SRO position at the School
may be modified at any time upon the written agreement of the City and the School District.
The provision of all such SROs shall be subject to the terms and conditions of this
Agreement. The School District agrees to pay the City the FTE Funding amount for each
FTE SRO provided at the School. There will be no SRO(s)when the school district is in
distance learning at any of the schools. There will be only one (1) officer at the high
schools during the hybrid sessions(s)unless the District requests additional SROs. There
will be no SROs at the middle schools during the hybrid session(s)unless the District
requests them. No payments will be made to the cities when SROs are not on site.
8. RELATIONSHIP OF THE PARTIES. The SRO assigned to the School District is an
employee of the City and will not be considered an employee of the School District. The
SRO will be subject to the control, supervision, policies,procedures, and general orders of
the City and its Police Department as well as the policies and procedures of Independent
School District 281. At all times,the SRO will be considered law enforcement for the
purposes where the law requires school districts to make referrals to law enforcement. It is
agreed that nothing contained in this Agreement is intended or should be construed in any
manner as creating or establishing a partnership or joint venture between the Parties.
Neither party agrees to accept responsibility for the acts of the other Party or of the other
Party's officers, personnel, employees, agents, contractors, or servants. Any claims arising
out of the employment or alleged employment, including without limitation claims of
discrimination, by or against a Party's officers, personnel, employees, agents, contractors, or
servants will in no way be the responsibility of the other Party.Neither Party will have any
authority to bind the other by or with any contract or agreement,nor to impose any liability
upon the other. All acts and contracts of each Party will be in its own name and not in the
name of the other, unless otherwise provided herein.
9. COMPENSATION TO SRO. The City will be responsible for all payments regarding
compensation,benefits,pension plans and withholdings for its officer serving as the SRO at
the School. The Parties will, except as provided herein, act in their individual capacities and
not as agents, employees, partners,joint ventures or associates of the other. Neither of the
Parties,nor its personnel, employees, agents, contractors, or servants, shall be entitled to any
benefits of the other. The Parties will not provide any insurance coverage to the other or
Page 2 of 6
their employees including, but not limited to, workers' compensation insurance. Each Party
will pay all wages, salaries and other amounts due its employees and will be responsible for
all reports, obligations, and payments pertaining to social security taxation, income tax
withholding, workers' compensation, unemployment compensation, group insurance
coverage, collective bargaining agreements or any other such similar matters.
10. DUTIES AND EVALUATION OF THE OFFICER. The law enforcement services
provided to the School District by the SRO will be at the sole discretion of the City. Officer
standards of performance, conduct and discipline of the officer,performance reviews and
other internal matters related to the SRO services shall be under the authority of the City.
Time spent by the SRO in excess of eight(8)hours in a day in the performance of SRO
duties at the School will be on a specific, case-by-case basis requiring the advance approval
of the City and the School District. The City retains the authority to recall the SRO if the
person is needed to respond to an emergency occurring off of School grounds.
11. DESCRIPTION OF SERVICES. The SRO will provide the followings services at the
School:
a. Promote the safety and welfare of students by working with the administrators and
staff of the School by building relationships with students in the prevention of
delinquency and the investigation of criminal or delinquent conduct.
b. The SRO will encourage positive attitudes and supportive behaviors toward school
district policies and procedures as well as the law, and responsible exercise of
authority.
c. Actively support school district policy and procedures. When requested, assist School
administration in gathering information as they determine the proper course of action
when physical violence, or similar problems involving the School population arise.
d. Maintain awareness of all criminal or delinquency investigations or criminal
interrogations being done at the School and, when necessary, assist other police
officers in the performance of their duties.
e. Perform investigations of criminal incidents occurring at the School and make proper
referrals of petitions to court as serious matters may require.
f. Advise School administration on matters relating to School building security and
occupant safety.
g. Participate in community and School efforts to promote positive youth development.
h. Participate in appropriate training opportunities provided to School District staff.
i. To the extent possible and consistent with other responsibilities, the SRO will wear
appropriate civilian attire while working at the School.
Page 3 of 6
j. Provide speakers on age appropriate subjects to present to School students as
requested by School administration.
k. Perform other duties and assume other responsibilities as may be agreed to between
the City's Chief Law Enforcement Officer and School administration.
1. It is expected of Independent School District 281 to have any School Resource Officer
participate in school diversion efforts, which are in alignment with our District
Discipline Policy.
12. STUDENT DISCIPLINE. The SRO will not recommend, determine or provide input on
student discipline by the School. Unless requested by School administration or other
personnel,the SRO is not responsible for responding to any situation that other school
personnel can adequately handle. The Parties understand and agree incidents such as
disorderly conduct,bullying, cyberbullying, disruption of school assembly or activities,
profanity, dress code, and fighting that does not involve physical injury or a weapon, shall
be considered School discipline issues to be handled by other School officials,unless the
presence of the SRO is necessary to protect the physical safety of students, school
personnel, or public. Nothing in this Agreement prevents or limits the authority of the SRO
to exercise his or her duties as a law enforcement officer regardless of whether the exercise
of those duties occurs on or off School grounds.
13. ACCESS TO EDUCATIONAL DATA. The Parties are subject to the Minnesota
Government Data Practices Act, Minnesota Statues, chapter 13, and the School District is
subject to the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act, 20 U.S.C. § 1232g ("FERPA").
The SRO position is a designated"school official" with regard to the FERPA while under
contract and providing SRO services to the School District. The City agrees to comply with
the requirements of FERPA to the extent its police officer serving as the SRO obtains data
from the School District subject to FERPA.
14. PUBLIC DATA. School District officials will allow the SRO to inspect and copy any
public records maintained by the School District to the extent allowed by law.
15. PRIVATE EDUCATIONAL DATA. If information in a student's record is needed in an
emergency in order to protect the health or safety of the student or other individuals, School
District officials will disclose to the SRO the information needed to respond to the
emergency situation based upon the seriousness of the threat to someone's health or safety,
the need of the information in order to meet the emergency situation, and the extent to
which time is of the essence. If student record information is needed by an SRO, but no
emergency situation exists,the information may be released only as allowed by law.
16. ADDITIONAL OFFICER DUTIES. The SRO will respond to emergency calls, attend
police training, and any other special duties as assigned by the City while fulfilling the SRO
requirements under this Agreement.
Page 4 of 6
17. TRAINING. The School District agrees to provide the following training at its own cost.
a. Role of the SRO. The School District will provide training to School personnel
regarding the appropriate role of the SRO and when personnel may request help from
the SRO. The training will also emphasize that personnel are not to refer students to
law enforcement because of conduct in the classroom unless the presence of the SRO
is necessary to protect the physical safety of students, school personnel, or public is
jeopardized.
b. Bias and Appropriate Responses to Behavior. The School District will provide the
SRO training on bias-free policing, implicit racial bias, cultural competence, working
with youth, de-escalation techniques, conflict resolution, child and adolescent
development, and age-appropriate responses to behavior. The School District agrees
to make a good faith effort to have the training approved by the POST Board for
continuing education credit for the SRO.
18. OFFICER SUPPLIES AND EQUIPMENT. The School shall not be required to provide
the SRO any clothing, uniforms, vehicles, or other equipment necessary to perform the
required duties under this Agreement.
19. INDEMNIFICATION. Each Party shall be responsible for its own acts and omissions and
the results thereof to the greatest extent authorized by law. Neither Party agrees to accept
the liability of the other. Each Party agrees to defend, indemnify and hold the other
harmless from any and all liability, claims, causes of action, judgments, damages, losses,
costs, or expenses, including reasonable attorney's fees, directly resulting from the
indemnifying Party's own negligent actions or inactions, or the negligent actions or
inactions of the indemnifying Party's employees and officers. The Party seeking to be
indemnified and defended shall provide timely notice to the others when the claim is
brought. The Party undertaking the defense shall retain all rights and defenses available to
the indemnified Party and no immunities or limitations on liability are hereby waived that
are otherwise available to either Party.
20. NONDISCRIMINATION. Both Parties agree they will not discriminate against any
employee or applicant for employment to be employed in the performance of this
Agreement with respect to hire, tenure, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment
because of the race, color, religion, sex, disability, or national origin or similarly protected
statues of the employee or applicant. Neither Party will, in the performance of this
Agreement, discriminate or permit discrimination in violation of federal or state laws or
local ordinances.
21. NOTICE. Any notice, demand, request or other communication that may or will be given
or served by the Parties, will be deemed to have been given or served on the date the same is
deposited in the United States mail, registered or certified postage prepaid and addressed as
follows:
Page 5 of 6
If to the City: If to the School District:
Jason Sturgis, Chief Lowell Holtz
Golden Valley Police Department Director of Operations and Safety
7800 Golden Valley Road 4148 Winnetka Avenue North
Golden Valley,MN 55427 New Hope, MN 55427
22. APPLICABLE LAW. The Parties to this Agreement will comply with all applicable
federal, state, and local laws, rules, regulations, and ordinances in the performance of their
respective obligations under this Agreement. Minnesota law will govern the terms and the
performance under this Agreement.
23. ENTIRE AGREEMENT; AMENDMENTS. This Agreement, including the recitals
which are incorporated herein, constitutes the entire agreement between the Parties and no
other agreement prior to this Agreement or contemporaneous to this Agreement will be
effective except as expressly set forth or incorporated in this Agreement. Any purported
amendment to this Agreement will not be effective unless it is set forth in writing and
executed by both Parties.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have caused this Agreement to be executed by their
respective duly authorized officers effective as of the date indicated above.
CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT 281
By By
Mayor Board Chair
By By
City Manager Superintendent
Page 6 of 6
city of JEXFCj1T1XjF C1.JMMARY
golden ,, Cit Administration
Vy
763-593-8006 / 763-593-8109 (fax)
Golden Valley City Council Meeting
October 7, 2020
Agenda Item
3. G. Approval of Resolution #20-58 Rescinding Resolution #14-37 Appointing City Clerk
Prepared By
Maria Cisneros, City Attorney
Summary
Former City Clerk, Kris Luedke, resigned as of September 11, 2020. When Ms. Luedke was appointed,
the City Council passed a resolution appointing Ms. Luedke as Clerk and Ms. Sue Virnig (Finance
Director) as Deputy City Clerk. Under Minnesota law, in Plan B cities the City Manager appoints the City
Clerk, not the City Council. Given Ms. Luedke's resignation and the applicable Plan B laws, the City
Council should rescind Resolution No. 14-37. No resolution appointing a City Clerk or Deputy City Clerk
is required.The City Manager has already appointed Ms.Theresa Schyma as the new City Clerk and Ms.
Sue Schwalbe as the Deputy City Clerk.
Financial Or Budget Considerations
None
Recommended Action
Motion to adopt Resolution #20-58 rescinding Resolution #14-37.
Supporting Documents
• Resolution #20-58 Rescinding Resolution #14-37 Appointing City Clerk(1 page)
Resolution 20-58 October 7, 2020
RESOLUTION RESCINDING RESOLUTION NO. 14-37
WHEREAS, the City of Golden Valley, Minnesota (the "City") is a statutory Plan B
City organized pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, sections 412.601 to 751 , and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 471 .651 , the responsibility of
appointing the City Clerk resides with the City Manager; and
WHEREAS, as of September 11 , 2020, the former City Clerk resigned and the City
Manager has since appointed a new City Clerk; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, sections 471 .651 , 471 .151 , and
Minnesota Attorney General Opinion 469b (Apr. 12, 1967), the Deputy Clerk is appointed
by the City Clerk and City Manager;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Golden
Valley that the City Council hereby rescinds Resolution No. 14-37.
Shepard M. Harris, Mayor
ATTEST:
Theresa J. Schyma, City Clerk
city of 1EX1: 1' UT1 '%JqF C11MMARY
golden ,, Cit Administration
Vy
763-593-8006 / 763-593-8109 (fax)
Golden Valley City Council Meeting
October 7, 2020
Agenda Item
3. H. Approve Amended Addendum to the City Manager Employment Agreement
Prepared By
Kirsten Santelices, Human Resources Director/Human Rights Commission Liaison
Summary
Upon approval of the preliminary 2021 budget, a 1% increase has been approved for all staff members.
As such, the City Manager's previously approved 2% increase shall instead be a 1% salary increase. The
increase will be backdated to September 9, 2020.
Financial Or Budget Considerations
The adopted Resolution would result in reverting the previously adopted 2% salary increase for the City
Manager to a 1% increase.
Recommended Action
Motion to adopt Resolution 20-58 amending the City Manager's Employment Agreement.
Supporting Documents
• Resolution #20-59 amending the City Manager's Employment Agreement ( 1 page)
• Addendum to City Manager's Agreement (1 page)
RESOLUTION NO. 20-59
RESOLUTION UPDATING THE
CITY MANAGER EMPLOYMENT
AGREEMENT
BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Golden Valley that it
hereby adopts the attached Addendum to the City Manager Employment
Agreement. This Agreement is effective September 9, 2020.
Adopted by the City Council of Golden Valley, Minnesota this 7t" day in October,
2020.
Shepard M. Harris, Mayor
ATTEST:
Theresa J. Schyma, City Clerk
ADDENDUM TO
CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY
CITY MANAGER EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT
DATED: October 7, 2020
Salary' $164,359.84
Auto Allowance: $400 / month
This Addendum was approved by the City Council on October 7, 2020, effective
September 9, 2020.
CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY, MINNESOTA
By:
Timothy J. Cruikshank, Employee
Shepard M. Harris, Mayor
Theresa J. Schyma, City Clerk
* Maximum 2020 compensation under Minn. Stat. § 43A.17, subd. 9 is $178,782.
eityof01EXECUTPVC CI-IIVIMARY
golden ,. sical Develo ment
vallPhysical P
763-593-8030 / 763-593-8109 (fax)
Golden Valley City Council Meeting
October 7, 2020
Agenda Item
4. A. Public Hearing—Zoning Text Amendment— Revising the Density Range of the Medium Density
Residential (R-3) Zoning District
Prepared By
Jason Zimmerman, Planning Manager
Summary
With the adoption of the City's 2040 Comprehensive Plan in February of 2020, Golden Valley
committed to considering certain zoning text amendments in order to fulfill policy objectives included
in the document. One such revision is to the density range allowed within the existing Medium Density
Residential (R-3) Zoning District.
The Planning Commission held public hearings on July 13, July 27, and August 24 and voted to
recommend approval to the text amendment (5-1).
Background
As part of the required analysis of the City's land use map in the 2040 Comprehensive Plan, the
Metropolitan Council reviewed the density ranges for each residential land use within the community.
The amount of land assigned to each residential land use, coupled with the maximum densities
allowed, must sum to demonstrate that there is the capacity for growth forecasted by the Met Council
to take place by 2040.
The table below shows the density ranges of the land uses included in Golden Valley's 2040 Plan as
well as for the corresponding Zoning Districts.
1040 Comprehensive Plan Zoning Code (existing)Density Residential Single Family(R-1)
Up to 5 units per acre 1 unit on a minimum 10,000 square feet lot
or about 4 units per acre
Moderate Density Residential Moderate Density(R-2)
5 to 8 units per acre Up to 8 units per acre
Medium Density Residential Medium Density(R-3)
8 to 30 units per acre Maximum of 10 units per acre or 12 units per
acre with a density bonus
City Council Regular Meeting Executive Summary 2
City of Golden Valley
October 7,2020
Maximum of 20 units per acre for
senior/disability housing with a CUP
High Density Residential High Density(R-4)
20 to 100 units per acre Maximum of 50 units per acre or 70 units per
acre for senior/disability housing
Maximum of 100 units per acre with a CUP
The upper end of the density allowed in the R-3 Zoning District is currently below that which has been
adopted in the Comp Plan. Staff is recommending the City adjust the density range to bring the zoning
regulations into alignment.
Over the course of three meetings, Commissioners expressed concerns that a "by-right" increase of the
density range could have negative impacts for some properties near those zoned R-3 that are currently
at the low end of this range, as they would have the biggest potential to increase in intensity. In
response, staff recommended that higher densities be approved via a Conditional Use Permit, which
would provide for more oversight and mitigation of potential impacts.
Commissioners also expressed an interest in retaining incentives associated with density bonuses. The
current zoning code offers these but the triggers for additional units/acre are no longer as relevant to
the priorities of the City as they once were. In place of the current regulations for increased density,
Commissioners asked staff to explore new triggers that align with the priorities of the 2040
Comprehensive Plan —specifically with the City's sustainability and energy efficiency goals.
Of the priorities considered, those seemingly best suited as incentives for the R-3 zoning district
include:
• Green building certification
• Construction of private renewable energy systems or infrastructure
• Incorporation of a microgrid for back-up power
• Inclusion of electric vehicle charging stations
• Construction of above-ground green stormwater facilities
In addition, Commissioners asked to keep an incentive to provide underground parking as an
acceptable density bonus.
Analysis
In order to meet the requirements of the Met Council, staff is recommending modifying the density
ranges in the R-3 zoning district to allow by-right development of multi-family buildings up to 12 units
per acre and up to 17 units per acre through a CUP. Senior and disability housing would be allowed by-
right up to 20 units per acre and up 25 units per acre through a CUP. Density bonuses would be
available for up to 3 units per acre for multi-family buildings and 5 units per acre for senior and
disability housing, bringing the maximum density levels up to 20 units per acre for multi-family
buildings and 30 units per acre for senior and disability housing, thereby meeting the targets included
in the 2040 Comprehensive Plan (see table below).
City Council Regular Meeting Executive Summary 3
City of Golden Valley
October 7,2020
27040 Comprehensive Plan Zoning • • - (proposed
Low Density Residential Single Family(R-1)
Up to 5 units per acre 1 unit on a minimum 10,000 square feet lot
or about 4 units per acre
Moderate Density Residential Moderate Density(R-2)
5 to 8 units per acre Up to 8 units per acre
Medium Density Residential Medium Density(R-3)
8 to 30 units per acre Maximum of 12 units per acre or 17 units per
acre with a CUP (up to 3 additional units per
acre available through density bonuses)
For senior/disability housing, maximum of 20
units per acre or 25 units per acre with a CUP
(up to 5 additional units per acre available
through density bonuses)
High Density Residential High Density(R-4)
20 to 100 units per acre Maximum of 50 units per acre or 70 units per
acre for senior/disability housing
Maximum of 100 units per acres with a CUP
The details regarding the density bonuses referenced above— both the specifics of the standards that
must be met as well as the additional units/acre that would be allowed under them—would be
provided in a Residential Density Bonus Policy document outside of the City Code. This approach would
allow for changes or updates to be made more easily and flexibly as technology advances in these
fields.The Environmental Commission is working with Engineering staff to draft this policy and it will
be brought back to the City Council for consideration later in the year.
Financial Or Budget Considerations
None
Recommended Action
Motion to adopt Ordinance #690, Amending Section 113-90: Medium Density Residential (R-3) Zoning
District to revise the allowed density range.
Supporting Documents
• Memo to the Planning Commission dated August 24, 2020 (4 pages)
• Planning Commission minutes of July 13,July 27, and August 24, 2020 (11 pages)
• Underlined/Overstruck Code Language (2 pages)
• Ordinance#690, Rezoning Certain Properties North at Harold Avenue and Winnetka Avenue in Order
to Achieve Alignment with the 2040 Comprehensive Plan (3 pages)
7800 Golden Valley Road I Golden Valley,MN 55427 city of
763-593-3992 1 TTY 763-593-3968 1 763-593-8109(fax)I www.goldenvalleymn.gov goldenll',YVaPlanning Commission
July 13,2020—7 pm
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. The public was able to participate in this
meeting during public comment sections, by dialing 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, Adam Brookins, Andy Johnson, Lauren Pockl, Chuck
Segelbaum,
Commissioners absent: Ryan Sadeghi
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 Brookins, seconded by Commissioner Johnson to approve the
agenda of July 13, 2020. 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 June 22, 2020.
MOTION made by Commissioner Brookins, seconded by Commissioner Pockl to approve the June
22, 2020 meeting minutes. Staff called a roll call vote and the motion carried unanimously.
4. Informal Public Hearing—Zoning Text Amendment
Revising the Density Range of the Medium Density Residential (R-3) Zoning District
Applicant: City of Golden Valley
Jason Zimmerman, Planning Manager, introduced this item as a required follow-up from the
approved 2040 Comprehensive Plan. When Met Council approves the Comp Plan, the future land use
map needs to show development patterns at certain density thresholds. This showing, ensures each
community in the metro area can accommodate its share of projected growth. Once the plans are
adopted, the zoning maps and text must be updated to come into alignment. Zimmerman displayed
This document is available in alternate formats upon a 72-hour request. Please call
763-593-8006 (TTY: 763-593-3968)to make a request. Examples of alternate formats
may include large print, electronic, Braille,audiocassette, etc.
City of Golden Valley Planning Commission Regular Meeting 2
July 13, 2020—7 pm
a chart for the Commissioners comparing the current zoning code to the language in the 2040
Comprehensive Plan. Most of the items align but the current R-3 code language needs updating in
order to align with the 2040 Plan. Zimmerman expanded in greater detail and listed all the multi-
family buildings to see how they matched the zoning designation; during this process, staff
discovered 14 buildings that were non-conforming. After more research, staff discovered older
zoning policies that lead to this non-conformity but once the R-3 language is updated, this will be
remedied and the buildings would match their zoning designation. The exiting R-3 language has
Density Bonuses which included underground parking, a building being near public transit, and
offering a private recreation facility for its residents. Most of these items were in place when Golden
Valley was developing, now that the City is built out so staff believes the density bonuses should be
removed so the R-3 district will align with the other zoning districts.
Staff Recommendation
Amend the text of the Medium Density Residential (R-3) Zoning District to revise the allowed density
range and strike the density bonus provisions.
Commissioner Segelbaum asked if the buildings listed were rezoned, could they be re-developed
into 20 units per acre. Staff confirmed and added that they could be up to 20 units or if they were a
senior building, they could be 30 units. Chair Blum asked staff what extent does the current PUD on
any of the properties create another step in the process if there's a change in zoning. Zimmerman
responded that if there are existing PUDs, that reigns over the zoning designation. The conversation
continued into the possibilities of negotiating re-development with PUDs and PUD amendments. The
discussion evolved into requirements and process for new or re-developments after re-designating
the zoning.
Chair Blum opened the Public Hearing at 7:30pm
Rick Gripentrog
7533 Harold Ave
I'm curious about the area were talking about, this area is south of Highway 55, east of Winnetka,
north of Harold Ave, and west of Rhode Island Ave.
Zimmerman responded to the caller and informed him that this call is referring to the second item
on the agenda; the caller continued with his comments.
I understand that you can have up to 20-30 units per acre and is this area 6 acres?
Zimmerman wasn't certain as the details were not in front of him.
I'm concerned about the density, doing this development imposes livability issues and traffic issues.
This proposal was brought up before and there were similar concerns about livability and traffic then.
I don't want to see 2 story apartments with underground parking, its not conducive to good livability.
The Chair opened the discussion on this item and stated underground parking doesn't need to be
tied to density and it can be a nice amenity; it also may leave room for green space. This led the
conversation into developing properties with the largest density and the least cost. Incentives can be
useful as it leads to a more livable building for longer. Segelbaum expressed his concern over making
City of Golden Valley Planning Commission Regular Meeting 3
July 13, 2020—7 pm
a such a large decision without a deeper dive in repercussions.The discussion moved in to projected
population growth and city development as well as the Comp Plan and what that means with the
approval from Met Council. Commissioner Johnson recalled conversations around the
comprehensive plan and growth of the city outpacing the projections of the Met Council. He added
that growth has been sustained and managed, specifically through PUDs, and doesn't understand
how aligning with Met Council's projections will improve Golden Valley's current plan. Commissioner
Baker asked staff to expand; Zimmerman clarified that this wasn't an alignment with another plan
but rather ensuring Golden Valley's zoning and land use will meet the density projections in Golden
Valley's comp plan. Without that action, the City won't have the correct zoning to match its density
projections.
Paula Pentel
941 Angelo Drive
Calling about the new R-3 density, this is a wonderful for the city to consider doing. It brings
conformity and I don't think we need to worry about current units because they aren't going
anywhere or changing. Being consistent about what we want to see moving forward, is a very good
idea. I was on the Council when the area across 55 was rezoned, the various neighbors riled up and
the existing Council backed down. We sit just to the west of Minneapolis and we have a great
obligation to provide good density of housing.
Commissioner Pockl cited attachment language on section of code 113-90, "within the principle uses
under the medium density residential zoning district that 1,2,3,4 are required to be consistent with
the City's mixed income housing policy" and asked how the City would be inconsistent with the
mixed income housing policy. Zimmerman responded that the phrase was added when the policy
was passed and wanted to be clear that new multi-family units were required to have a certain
number of affordable units.
Edward Chesen
7507 Harold Ave
This proposal to rezone came up 10 years ago and I was president of our townhome association and
had been a member of the board of building review, I was also a caller that was riled up, but for good
reason. The reasons stand today, I don't know if the Commission has considered what has happened
in that area since the proposal was turned down. The developers that wanted to develop the area
backed out and some smaller developers came in and developed a number of units into single family
housing. There's a lot more to this than the serenity of the neighborhood. I wonder if the property
owners in light of the rezoning turn down would have legal recourse to have their property zone
changed again.
Zimmerman added that the latest call is related to the second public hearing.
The Chair added that he doesn't like the idea of the City losing its leverage to make the kind of
development happen that it wants to see happen, including amenities or tweaks to specific
properties. Zimmerman said a number of Commissioners have agreed that there needs to be a way
that this complies with the Comp Plan but this may not be the best approach. He added that if
City of Golden Valley Planning Commission Regular Meeting
July 13, 2020—7 pm
Commissioners are open, this item be tabled so they can find a way to comply per Met Council but
create a broader list of checks and balances. Brookins stated his support for what's presented and
believes it'll benefit Golden Valley in the long-term. He added that he'd hate to see this item go
through another 10-year cycle before it's addressed again. Commissioner Baker stated his support
for tabling the item in order to collect additional information. Segelbaum and Pockl echoed Baker's
statement.
MOTION made by Commissioner Baker, seconded by Commissioner Brookins to table this agenda
item and discuss at a later meeting with additional information. A roll call vote was made and passed
unanimously.
5. Informal Public Hearing—Zoning Map Amendments
Rezoning Properties to Achieve Conformance with the 2040 Comprehensive Plan
Applicant: City of Golden Valley
Jason Zimmerman, Planning Manager, stated the request to continue rezoning properties in order to
conform with the Future Land Use Map in the 2040 Comp Plan. Staff reminded Commissioners that
this started with the rezoning of the 1-394 Mixed Use properties. A map was then displayed of the
existing zoning map and the future land use map, in order to illustrate how rezoning will take place
as the City comes into conformity with the comp plan.
Zimmerman expressed that there are NO active development proposals for any properties that are
currently under consideration for rezoning, this item is strictly administrative.
There are six groups being addressed in this rezoning and includes 18 properties. Majority of them
are being rezoned to match what is currently on the ground. A few are being rezoned in anticipation
of future plans.
Group 1
9201 Olson Memorial Highway Rezoning Office to Institutional Subdistrict 1-4
8900 Betty Crocker Drive
Group 2
1 General Mills Boulevard Rezoning Industrial District to Office District
Group 3
7831 Olson Memorial Hwy 7724 Harold Ave Rezoning Single-Family Residential (R-1)
7830 Harold Ave 400 Winnetka Ave N Medium Density Residential (R-3)
440 Winnetka Ave N 7720 Harold Ave
7732 Harold Ave 7840 Harold Ave
424 Winnetka Ave N 411 Rhode Island Ave N
Any development proposals in this area would require a traffic study.
City of Golden Valley Planning Commission Regular Meeting 2
July 27, 2020—7 pm
Jason Zimmerman, Planning Manager, stated that he did not have a presentation as that portion of
the discussion occurred at the previous meeting. He reminded Commissioners that in 2019, the City
adopted architectural and material standards for new developments in the R-3, R-4, Commercial,
Office, Institutional, Light Industrial, and Industrial zoning districts. These regulations addressed
many aspects of building facades, opening, entrances, and screening, as well as the types of materials
allowed in construction.
At that time, the Mixed Use zoning district had not been finalized or adopted, so standards were not
included for that district. With the adoption of the Mixed Use district early in 2020, it is now
necessary to amend the architectural and material standards section of code in order to address
buildings that may be developed in those areas.
Zimmerman reminded Commissioners about the material standards classification and what is
prohibited. He reviewed the standards set for each zoning district and that staff believes the Mixed
Use is most comparable to the Commercial, Office, and Institutional zoning districts and therefore
recommends similar standards.
Commissioner Brookins asked why concrete brick was prohibited. Zimmerman responded that there
was concern about plain concrete walls as the exposed face of the building. This is a prohibited use
across zoning districts.
Vice-Chair Pockl opened the public hearing at 7:12 pm.
Commissioner Johnson stated consistency across zoning districts is important and a good idea, and
added his support of this item. Brookins echoed this statement and added that concrete brick can be
classified as a specialty concrete block, class II material; and it can be a tasteful finished product.
Brookins added it could be struck from this item and the language may be cleaned up in the other
zones at a later date.The conversation continued on to specifics about concrete brick versus block
and if this material is generally residential or commercial. Zimmerman asked if the prohibition on
concrete brick should be removed and specialty concrete block stay listed as a class II. Through
discussion, the Commissioners agreed that was a reasonable change to make, across districts.
Vice-Chair Pockl closed the public hearing at 7:21 pm.
MOTION made by Commissioner Brookins and seconded by Commissioner Sadeghi to modify City
Code Section 113-157: Architectural and Material Standards list by striking concrete brick from the
list of prohibited materials. Staff took a roll call vote and the motion carried unanimously.
S. Informal Public Hearing—Zoning Map Amendments
Revising the Density Range of the Medium Density Residential (R-3) Zoning District
Applicant: City of Golden Valley
Jason Zimmerman, Planning Manager, started with a presentation and reminded Commissioners
that the conversation began at the last meeting and was tabled in an attempt to gather more
City of Golden Valley Planning Commission Regular Meeting 3
July 27, 2020—7 pm
information. He reiterated that when the City adopted the 2040 Comprehensive Plan, they
committed to considering certain text amendments in order to fulfill policy objectives included in the
plan; this is part of that required process.
Based on Commissioner feedback from the last meeting, staff is proposing a slightly different plan
with more oversight from the city:
• Up to 15 units per acre
• Increase to 20 units per acre with a Conditional Use Permit
• Senior/disability housing up to 20 units per acre
• Increase to 30 units per acres with a Conditional Use Permit
These items with also bring all R-3 zoned properties into conformance.
Zimmerman displayed a list of properties to illustrate their current zoning and their proposed zoning,
he expanded on units per acre, density, as well as if the property had an existing PUD-as that requires
a separate process to add units.
Staff recommendation:
Amend the text of the Medium Density Residential (R-3) Zoning District to revise the allowed density
range and strike the density bonus provisions, as detailed in the attached document
(Underline/Overstruck language for Sec. 113-90 of the City Code).
Commissioner Baker asked if there was a correlation between density and affordability. Zimmerman
responded there isn't a single answer to that question, Golden Valley has seen a very dense units
built that are also considered luxury apartments. That's generally not the main goal however, with
more units in place, the average cost of rent can come down because of the sheer number of units.
The conversation evolved into density ranges, and accommodating Met Council's predictions for
density growth. Baker asked why the concept of density bonuses was eliminated with the 2040 Comp
Plan. Zimmerman stated that the bonuses were so specific, that there wasn't flexibility, they were
also limited to certain areas, limited to certain types, and limited to structured parking. Baker added
that other city priorities should be included as incentives as opposed to striking bonuses all together.
Zimmerman responded that it's a good idea and should be worked on in collaboration with other
departments and then applied to multiple zoning districts. Commissioner Johnson asked if Golden
Valley has a lot of PUDs comparatively and what rezoning to an R-3 solves if so many already are
PUDs. Zimmerman stated that cities use PUDs differently, many of the R-3 properties are PUDs
because they were developed to almost resembled campuses, 3-4 buildings with parking. By-right is
one building so using a PUD, in those situations, made more sense. Additionally, Met Council realizes
that PUDs create unknowns for what density they actually create.
Vice-Chair Pockl opened the public hearing at 7:56 pm.
Segelbaum said he liked the incentives to help provide added density and would like to lower the by-
right number and then apply new incentives across zoning districts.The old incentives aren't as
City of Golden Valley Planning Commission Regular Meeting 4
July 27, 2020—7 pm
applicable so finding new ones may help improve developments in Golden Valley. Baker echoed this
statement.Johnson added that a CUP is pretty straightforward and he doesn't support that.The city
has a good level of growth and there seems to be a challenge with this central plan. Adding that if the
density increased to 15 units per acre that it seems to be in a landlord's best interest to sell a
property and potential displace those living in the complex. Johnson reiterated that he struggles to
understand why the City needs to rezone to meet Met Council's expectations when it appears the
City does a good job managing density already. Commissioner Sadeghi asked how the by-right
number was raised to 15 and Zimmerman responded that it's higher than the current number with
room to increase more with a CUP or PUD and then requires an extra city review. Sadeghi stated his
support for 15 units and 20 for senior housing. The conversation continued on whether or not to
keep the proposed number of units per acre or to drop it down and come back to discuss incentives.
The conversation then moved on to Met Council's expectations and the growth projections for
Golden Valley.
Vice-Chair Pockl closed the public hearing at 8:25 pm.
Brookins stated he's not in favor of density bonuses. Adding that trying to predict what the
community needs is difficult and while may provide comfort isn't generally successful. Pockl asked
staff how they determine what the community needs, in order to create incentives. Zimmerman said
he would go back to the Comp Plan and review goals in the plan. Baker added that the City has a
responsibility to incent the things they want to see happen, and would strengthen the incentives.
MOTION made by Commissioner Baker and seconded by Commissioner Brookins to table this item
so staff may prepare suggestions on incentives. Staff took a roll call vote and it passed unanimously.
6. Discussion— Fences, Screening, and Garden Structures
Myles Campbell, Planner, stated that this was a continued conversation from last meeting and
reminded Commissioners this discussion will be to introduce the proposed revisions as well as the
initial draft language for each.
There are three items for discussion and the first two were discussed at length at the previous
meeting:
• Should lots indirectly adjacent to principal arterials have a front yard fence height
exception?
• What is the best method to administer an exception to commercial/industrial screening
requirements as requested by GV Police?
• Do the rules and definition of garden structures need to be refined to prevent their use as
screening extensions?
Arterial Road Fence Height Exception
Under the existing code, residential properties can have a fence up to a maximum of 4 feet in their
front yard.
7800 Golden Valley Road I Golden Valley,MN 55427 city of
763-593-3992 1 TTY 763-593-3968 1 763-593-8109(fax)I www.goldenvalleymn.gov goldenll,yVa
Planning Commission
August 24, 2020—7 pm
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.
The public was able to participate in this meeting during public comment sections, by dialing 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, Adam Brookins, Andy Johnson, Noah Orloff, Ryan
Sadeghi, Chuck Segelbaum
Commissioners absent: Lauren Pockl
Staff present: Jason Zimmerman— Planning Manager, Myles Campbell — Planner
Council Liaison absent: Gillian Rosenquist
2. Approval of Agenda
Chair Blum asked for a motion to approve the agenda.
MOTION made by Commissioner Johnson, seconded by Commissioner Brookins to approve the
agenda of August 24, 2020. 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 August 10, 2020.
MOTION made by Commissioner Brookins, seconded by Commissioner Segelbaum to approve the
August 10, 2020 meeting minutes.
Staff called a roll call vote and the motion carried unanimously.
4. Informal Public Hearing—Zoning Text Amendment—Section 113-90: Medium Density Residential
(R-3) Zoning District
Applicant: City of Golden Valley
Jason Zimmerman, Planning Manager, reiterated this item is required follow up from adoption of
the 2040 Comp Plan.
L763
document is available in alternate formats upon a 72-hour request. Please call
-593-8006 (TTY: 763-593-3968)to make a request. Examples of alternate formats
y include large print, electronic, Braille,audiocassette, etc.
City of Golden Valley Planning Commission Regular Meeting 2
August 24, 2020—7 pm
Zimmerman explained that R-3 is considered medium density and showed this diagram to illustrate
the differences between the designation in the 2040 Comp Plan and the existing R-3 zoning.
2040 Comprehensive Plan Zoning Code(existing)
Medium Density Residential Medium Density(R-3)
8 to 30 units per acre Maximum of 10 units per acre or iz units per
acre with a density bonus
Maximum of 20 units per acre for
senior/disability housing with a CUP
The main reason this item was tabled was to address density bonuses. The old bonuses were based
on another era and on a developing community. It was asked if new bonuses could be reflective of a
redeveloping community and of current City priorities. There was a desire to reduce "by-right"
densities and provide bonuses to get up to the maximums allowed.
Staff reviewed these bonuses, using the Comp Plan for guidance this is staffs proposal:
Medium Density(R-3)
Maximum of 12 units per acre or 17 units per acre with a CUP (up to 3 additional units per acre
available through density bonuses).
For senior/disability housing, maximum of 20 units per acre or 25 with a CUP (up to 5 additional
units per acre available through density bonuses).
Zimmerman added that approving the proposed zoning district revision would bring all current R-3
properties into conformance.
Staff reviewed possible topics for density bonuses: Affordable Housing, Energy Efficiency, Renewable
Energy, and Stormwater Management.
The two main criteria listed for creating density bonuses are:
1. Is the trigger concrete and non-subjective? Can it be easily quantified and monitored?
2. Does it involve a substantial investment that would be difficult or unwieldy to reverse once
the bonus has been awarded?
Recommended Density Bonus Topics
• Green building certification
• Construction of private renewable energy systems or infrastructure
• Incorporation of microgrid for back-up power
• Inclusion of electric vehicle charging stations
• Construction of above-ground stormwater facilities
Recommended Criteria
Density bonuses would be available for an additional 2 units per acre for:
• Green building certification at the Platinum level
City of Golden Valley Planning Commission Regular Meeting 3
August 24, 2020—7 pm
• Construction of private renewable energy systems or infrastructure
• Incorporation of microgrid for back-up power
Density bonuses would be available for an addition 1 unit per acre for:
• Green building certification at the Gold level
• Inclusion of electric vehicle charging stations
• Construction of above-ground green stormwater facilities
Recommendation
Amend the text of the Medium Density Residential (R-3) Zoning District to revise the allowed density
ranges and update the density bonus provisions, as detailed in the attached document
(Underline/Overstruck language for Sec. 113-90 of the City Code).
Staff and Commissioners reviewed specific text language and asked questions.
Chair Blum opened the public hearing at 7:22pm.
There were no callers at the time of opening the hearing. Commissioners continued to ask staff
questions regarding language in the ordinance versus in the policy.The conversation continued into a
potential point system and levels of bonuses.
Dianne Hofstead
2450 Valders Ave N
Caller stated that she submitted a letter to Commissioners and she opposes the R-3 re-zoning.
Medium density is not appropriate for the area as the increase in building heights, traffic, and noise
would be disastrous for the area.
Hannah Fotsch
8445 Patsy Lane
Caller asked about the industrial zoning changes and if there will be changes to the nature preserve.
Chair Blum told the caller she didn't need to call back but that her comment would be addressed
during the next agenda item.
Zimmerman chimed in to reiterate there are two public hearings during this meeting and if folks are
calling about re-zonings in the NW portion of Golden Valley, to please wait for the next agenda item.
The conversation moved on to specifics about density bonuses and the permanence of some options
that will lead to bonuses. The conversation circled back to the density bonus categories being in the
ordinance and then adding details in a policy document at a later date.
Matthew Faber
2325 Winnetka Ave N
City of Golden Valley Planning Commission Regular Meeting 4
August 24, 2020—7 pm
Caller's main concerns are that the Commission states they're for housing for all people but they're
mostly concerned for energy efficiency. Rain gardens etc for water displacement is important but the
caller is concerned that there isn't actual affordable housing being created. The caller suggested R-1
housing on concrete slabs with unattached garages that the average person can afford. The caller
asked why his feed while watching his phone went down and asked if the meeting was actually pre-
recorded and not live. Chair Blum responded and told the caller that he was participating in a live
meeting and that staff responds to questions at the end of the hearing. The caller asked the
Commission how much the average electric car costs and how many people own them that are
looking for housing. The Chair reiterated the public hearing process and the caller continued to ask
for immediate responses to his questions.
Zimmerman added that affordable housing is one of the goals emphasized through density bonuses.
This is incentivized through the mixed-income housing policy. This particular hearing is about density
bonuses in an R-3 zoning district, that does not include single family homes. This conversation should
continue when the R-1 district conversation occurs.
The Commissioners continued the discussion around density bonuses and its relation to affordability.
The conversation evolved into housing types as well as that building rules were not followed at some
point and modifying R-3 zoning text brings the areas into conformance without increasing to an R-4.
Chair Blum closed the public hearing at 8:15pm.
MOTION made by Commissioner Segelbaum, and seconded by Commissioner Brookins to approve
the density bonus list, subject to Planning staff and City Attorney review of the language.
Staff took a roll call vote.
Aye: Baker, Blum, Brookins, Sadeghi, Segelbaum
Nay:Johnson
Motion passes, 5:1
5. Informal Public Hearing—Zoning Map Amendment— Rezoning of Properties to Achieve
Conformance with the 2040 Comprehensive Plan (Group 3)
Applicant: City of Golden Valley
Jason Zimmerman, Planning Manager, started by addressing the original notification letters that
went out to resident. These letters included rezoning of three properties owned by General Mills
owns. Once the letters went out, GM requested the properties not be included in this hearing as they
would like more clarification with the City. As such, those items will not be discussed tonight.
Zimmerman revisited the 2040 Comp Plan schedule that started in November 2018. The Future Land
Use map was displayed for reference with the three quadrants of neighborhoods, tonight's hearing is
regarding the third quadrant. Zimmerman continued and broke down the ten groups within this
quadrant that are proposed for rezoning. They each had an associated map and explanation from
staff.
Sec. 113-90.- Medium Density Residential (R-3) Zoning District.
(a) Purpose. The purpose of the Medium Density Residential (R-3) Zoning District is to
provide for medium density housing (up to 12-19 units per acre for multifamily
dwellings and up to 17 units per acre with a conditional use permit with ^^tent;^' fr.r
12 6 ^ots p • et" dei;sit• bepw ) along with directly related and
complementary uses. Senior and disability housing is permitted to a density of 20
units per acre and up to 25 units per acre
,eF Hp te te POP- Sterie-S. A-F C-50- feet iiq height
with a conditional use permit.
(c) Principal Uses. The following principal uses shall be permitted in the R-3 Zoning
District:
(1) Townhouses, consistent with the City's Mixed-Income Housing Policy
(2) Two-family dwellings, consistent with the City's Mixed-Income Housing Policy
(3) Multip4—_ family dwellings of up to 12-19 units er less per acre with the ^^t^^tial
of 12 units peF aGFe with deRSity beRbises consistent with the City's Mixed-
Income Housing Policy
(4) Senior and disability housing up to 204.9 units per acre with the ^^t^^tial fer "
^Ots ^ With ^'^^� ty beRuses, consistent with the City's Mixed-Income
Housing Policy
(5) Foster family homes
(6) Group foster family homes
(7) Residential facilities serving up to 25 persons; and
(8) Essential services, Class I.
(e) Conditional Uses. The following conditional uses may be allowed after review by the
Planning Commission and approval by the City Council in accordance with the
standards and procedures set forth in this chapter:
(1) Multi-family dwellings to a density of 17 units per acre, consistent with the City's
Mixed-income Housing Policy
(2) Senior and physical disability housing to a density of 25 '29 units per acre,
consistent with the City's Mixed-Income Housing Policye+
(3) Senior and physical disability housing up to five stories or 60 feet in height
(4) Residential facilities serving more than 25 persons; and
(5) Retail sales, Class I and II restaurants, and professional offices within principal
structures containing at least 20 dwelling units when located upon any minor
arterial or major collector street. Any such sales, restaurant, or office shall be
located only on the ground floor and have direct access to the street.
(f) Density Bonus. Multifamily buildings shall be eligible for a density bonus of up to an
additional three units per acre and senior and physical disability housing shall be
eligible for a density bonus of up to an additional five units per acre, pursuant to the
City's Residential Density Bonus Policy. Multifamily dwellings that p ide .-;+••
FegbieFed sid-e yo-alks mhall he, g Rte d e, e,f+he, f9lle,•. oRg de,r•si+y he R61ses r iede d
rt, E Ti=errT-sit. s ec h e d 6i l ed publie,4irrS+t P e u t e i t h iir!,-POP-TE2 t A-rtFe PFmm@ F"'
-,Ile yo-,hle de Rsit y by e, Rit r
(9) De•e•re•Gti-Pr• A -Ade,e,r r RtmAR f-„-i17+7e,� � ,-h -, peels,
e,
orb i lone, at FAiRippupp five, p nt e,f the e, +r��e t.Ae • e,e -st e,f the pFiReipa4
S LiE{fir �h II +h alle,wable, density h y twe, ROtS p
ORDINANCE NO. 690
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE CITY CODE
Amending Section 113-90: Medium Density Residential (R-3) Zoning District
The City Council for the City of Golden Valley hereby ordains as follows:
Section 1 . City Code Section 113-90, Article III, Division 2, Subdivision (a) is amended
to read as follows:
(a) Purpose. The purpose of the Medium Density Residential (R-3) Zoning District is
to provide for medium density housing (up to 12 units per acre for multifamily
dwellings and up to 17 units per acre with a conditional use permit) along with
directly related and complementary uses. Senior and disability housing is
permitted to a density of 20 units per acre and up to 25 units per acre with a
conditional use permit.
Section 2. City Code Section 113-90, Article III, Division 2, Subdivision (c)(3) is
amended to read as follows:
(3) Multifamily dwellings of up to 12 units per acre, consistent with the City's Mixed-
Income Housing Policy
Section 3. City Code Section 113-90, Article III, Division 2, Subdivision (c)(4) is
amended to read as follows:
(4) Senior and disability housing up to 20 units per acre, consistent with the City's
Mixed-Income Housing Policy
Section 4. City Code Section 113-90, Article III, Division 2, Subdivision (e)(1) is
amended to read as follows:
(1) Multifamily dwellings to a density of 17 units per acre, consistent with the City's
Mixed-income Housing Policy
Section 5. City Code Section 113-90, Article III, Division 2, Subdivision (e)(2) is
amended to read as follows:
(2) Senior and physical disability housing to a density of 25 units per acre,
consistent with the City's Mixed-Income Housing Policy
Section 6. City Code Section 113-90, Article III, Division 2, Subdivision (e)(3) is
amended to read as follows:
(3) Senior and physical disability housing up to five stories or 60 feet in height
Section 7. City Code Section 113-90, Article III, Division 2, Subdivision (e)(5) is
amended to read as follows:
Ordinance No. -2- October 7, 2020
(5) Retail sales, Class I and II restaurants, and professional offices within principal
structures containing at least 20 dwelling units when located upon any minor
arterial or major collector street. Any such sales, restaurant, or office shall be
located only on the ground floor and have direct access to the street.
Section 8. City Code Section 113-90, Article III, Division 2, Subdivision (f) is amended
to read as follows:
(f) Density Bonus. Multifamily buildings shall be eligible for a density bonus of up to
an additional three units per acre and senior and physical disability housing shall
be eligible for a density bonus of up to an additional five units per acre, pursuant
to the City's Residential Density Bonus Policy.
Section 9. This ordinance shall take effect from and after its passage and publication
as required by law.
Adopted by the City Council this 7th day of October, 2020.
/s/Shepard M. Harris
Shepard M. Harris, Mayor
ATTEST:
/s/ Theresa J. Schyma
Theresa J. Schyma, City Clerk
eityof EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
golden,,,. ment
vaPhysical Development
P
763-593-8030 / 763-593-8109 (fax)
Golden Valley City Council Meeting
October 7, 2020
Agenda Item
4. B. Public Hearing—Amendments to the Zoning Map— Rezoning Properties to Achieve Conformance
with the 2040 Comprehensive Plan
Prepared By
Jason Zimmerman, Planning Manager
Summary
Staff is requesting that 16 properties be considered for rezoning in order to come into conformance
with the Future Land Use Map in the 2040 Comprehensive Plan.
The Planning Commission held a public hearing on September 14 and voted to recommend denial for
the ten properties at the corner of Hwy 55, Winnetka Ave S, and Harold Ave (5-1) and voted to
recommend approval for the six properties at the intersection of Golden Valley Road and Douglas
Drive (6-0).
Background
State statute requires that all zoning designations be updated to be consistent with the land uses
identified in the Comprehensive Plan within nine months of adoption. A number of properties have
already been rezoned. The two areas currently being discussed were initially tabled by the Planning
Commission to allow for additional investigation and community feedback and are now being brought
forward for action.
Analysis
The 16 properties under consideration represent two different areas within the city. They both
demonstrate a fulfillment of previous land use changes by the City that were not followed by zoning
changes. The 2040 Comprehensive Plan put forward these land use designations again as part of the
Future Land Use Map.
No development proposals are pending with the City at either of these locations.
City Council Regular Meeting Executive Summary 2
City of Golden Valley
October 7,2020
Address Current Zoning Proposed Zoning
This group of residential properties in the southeast corner of Winnetka Ave and Hwy 55 was
guided for higher density use in the 2030 Comprehensive Plan (adopted in 2010), but ultimately
was not rezoned. As part of the land use analysis leading up to the adoption of the 2040 Comp
Plan, the Planning Commission felt strongly that guiding these properties for medium density
use would provide opportunities for the development of housing that would complement the
efforts to strengthen the city's downtown.
7831 Olson Memorial Highway R-1 R-3
440 Winnetka Ave N R-1 R-3
424 Winnetka Ave N R-1 R-3
400 Winnetka Ave N R-1 R-3
7840 Harold Ave R-1 R-3
7830 Harold Ave R-1 R-3
7732 Harold Ave R-1 R-3
7724 Harold Ave R-1 R-3
7710 Harold Ave R-1 R-3
411 Rhode Island Ave N R-1 R-3
411 413
409
407 410
405 406
7 40 T830 773277 -9771i) 403 404
7700 7650
City Council Regular Meeting Executive Summary 3
City of Golden Valley
October 7,2020
At its regular meeting on July 13, the Planning Commission discussed the proposed rezoning of this
area and eventually tabled the item to allow for additional analysis, including the pending changes
associated with a revised R-3 zoning district.
History
This corner (bounded by Highway 55, Winnetka Ave, and Harold Ave) was the subject of a rezoning
proposal in 2011 from R-1 to R-3.This would have aligned the zoning map with the land use
designation included in the adopted 2030 Comprehensive Plan. At a Planning Commission meeting in
August of 2011, residents expressed concerns regarding building height, traffic congestion at the
Winnetka/Hwy 55 intersection, cut through and speeding traffic on Harold Ave, and pedestrian safety
(meeting minutes attached).
In anticipation of the rezoning, SEH conducted a traffic study based on the proposed land uses. It found
that a senior development, as opposed to a typical multifamily project, would generate fewer trips in
the AM and PM peak hours, even with a greater number of units. Potential improvements to Winnetka
Ave south of Hwy 55 (additional turn lanes to clear the intersection more quickly) were recommended
as a way to mitigate congestion.These changes were implemented in 2015, even without any new
development occurring in the area.
At the conclusion of that public hearing, the Planning Commission recorded a split vote (3-3) regarding
the rezoning. The City Council, however, denied the rezoning with the findings that traffic would not be
supported by local streets and that the potential development would not be in keeping with the
character of the community. Subsequently, the land use map in the 2030 Comprehensive Plan was
amended and the area once more guided for Low Density Residential development.
In July of 2018, the Planning Commission examined the area while preparing the draft Future Land Use
map for the 2040 Comprehensive Plan. At that time, staff recommended guiding the properties for
Medium Density Residential, but the Commissioners debated guiding it for an even greater intensity as
High Density Residential due to the location adjacent to the downtown and the likely future
development of mass transit on Hwy 55 (meeting minutes attached).
At the Planning Commission meeting on September 14, eight residents called in to provide testimony
and one sent an email to staff. The majority of those commenting opposed the rezoning and expressed
concerns over the potential for increased traffic, cut through traffic on local streets, the height of a
new building, and pedestrian safety. Based on these comments, the Planning Commission found that
while increased density through redevelopment was favorable, concerns about traffic congestion and
infrastructure should be addressed first in order to preemptively study and identify a potential
solution. The Commissioners then voted to recommend denial of the rezoning (5-1).
Although the Planning Commission recommended denial, staff continues to recommend that the
properties be rezoned to R-3 in order to conform to the guided land use approved by the City and the
Met Council.The proximity to the downtown and Brookview would encourage greater bicycle and
pedestrian activity, especially if a new bridge over Hwy 55 and Winnetka Ave were to be constructed.
Pending changes to the R-3 zoning district would encourage sustainable amenities such as energy
City Council Regular Meeting Executive Summary 4
City of Golden Valley
October 7,2020
efficient buildings, renewable energy sources, support for electric vehicles, and innovative above-
ground stormwater management facilities.
With any redevelopment in the City, a detailed traffic analysis is typically left to be conducted once a
proposal has been brought forward by a developer. This would be the case with respect to traffic in the
Harold and Winnetka area — if and when a proposal for redevelopment were to be submitted to the
City, a traffic study would be required to demonstrate the impacts of the development and outline
mitigation actions to be taken prior to permitting. Approval of a proposal would hinge on identified
issues being adequately addressed.
Any potential redevelopment of this area would likely result in the removal of direct access to
Winnetka Ave and the use of a shared access point onto Harold Ave to the south. A potential
improvement that would likely be required should redevelopment occur could include the construction
of a right turn lane on westbound Harold Ave (potentially paired with a stoplight) in order to better
facilitate the movement of vehicles onto Winnetka Ave and then to Hwy 55.
Since the vote at the Planning Commission, staff as received three additional emails (attached) —one in
support of the rezoning and two others opposed.
City Council Regular Meeting Executive Summary 5
City of Golden Valley
October 7,2020
Address Current Zoning Proposed Zoning
The northeast quadrant of Douglas Drive and Golden Valley Road has been guided for High
Density Residential Use since the adoption of the 2020 Comprehensive Plan in 2000. Rezoning
these properties for more intense residential use would encourage new development along a
recently reconstructed corridor. Existing uses include a vacant property, a single-family
property, two duplexes, and a medium density apartment.
1300 Douglas Drive North R-3 R-4
1200 Douglas Drive North R-3 R-4
1170 Douglas Drive North R-3 R-4
1100 Douglas Drive North R-3 R-4
6212 Golden Valley Road R-3 R-4
6200 Golden Valley Road R-3 R-4
6122
d
c
CLI
z
w :
loop C
i
a
6316 6306 6300
6336
enlk -)t
,.
�ti<
6319
6300 1104 6212
} y
4
6306 f
6161 �
6320 4
1
o
r' t�
Bullding B4
k
City Council Regular Meeting Executive Summary 6
City of Golden Valley
October 7,2020
At its regular meeting on August 10, the Planning Commission asked staff to conduct additional
research on the history of these properties and pervious considerations of zoning changes.
History
The 2020 Comprehensive Plan (adopted in 2000) designated the northeast quadrant of Douglas Drive
and Golden Valley Road as High Density Residential. In 2008, the same area was targeted for a large
senior development called Applewood Pointe. As a part of the Planned Unit Development (PUD), these
parcels were petitioned for rezoning from R-1 and R-2 to R-4 (High Density Residential). This rezoning
would have matched the guided land use and brought the two maps into conformance.
The Planning Commission recommended approval of the PUD and the rezoning to R-4, but the City
Council voted to deny the Preliminary PUD Plan and the project was withdrawn. Accordingly, the
rezoning did not move forward. Minutes from the Planning Commission in 2008 where the rezoning
was discussed are attached. Residents expressed concern regarding building height, impacts to traffic,
and the loss of trees.
Three years later, in 2011, staff brought forward a new proposal to rezone the same properties to R-3.
Although this was an upzoning, it did not fully comply with the guided land use of the Comprehensive
Plan. The Planning Commission recommended approval and the City Council rezoned those properties
shortly afterwards. The minutes of the Planning Commission meeting from 2011 are also attached;
only one resident spoke at the public hearing.
In 2020, the preceding actions have left a Future Land Use map that continues to guide this corner for
High Density Residential use but with a zoning designation of Medium Density Residential (R-3). A
change of one of the two maps is necessary to finally bring the two into alignment.
At a Planning Commission meeting in 2018, where a draft Future Land Use map was being discussed in
advance of submission to the Metropolitan Council, Commissioners examined this area and agreed to
leave it guided for High Density Residential use (meeting minutes attached). This guidance was then
approved by the Met Council and adopted by the City Council along with the rest of the 2040
Comprehensive Plan.
Commissioners have since asked for clarification around potential traffic generated by a multi-family
building. A traffic study conducted as part of the review of the Applewood Pointe proposal in 2008
found no concerns regarding the number of trips that would be generated by the use—an increase
from 178 daily trips to 524 daily trips. Due to the residential nature, these trips would have been
spread throughout the day instead of concentrated in an AM or PM peak period. It was determined
there was sufficient capacity on Golden Valley Road and Douglas Drive to accommodate the additional
trips.
Since that time, Douglas Drive has been reconstructed and a roundabout has been added to the
intersection with Golden Valley Road. The City Engineer has confirmed that the traffic flow associated
with a roundabout should move more smoothly and efficiently, with fewer opportunities for serious
crashes, as compared to the signalized intersection that was there previously. In addition, any proposal
for future development in the NE quadrant would be subject to an updated traffic study to examine
City Council Regular Meeting Executive Summary 7
City of Golden Valley
October 7,2020
trip counts and access to either of the adjacent rights-of-way. When Hennepin County designed the
new Douglas Drive, they planned for a full redevelopment scenario with the land uses shown in the
Comprehensive Plan, so accounted for the possibility of High Density Residential development at this
location.
At the Planning Commission meeting on September 14, there were no calls related to this group. One
email in opposition to the rezoning was submitted to staff. In their deliberations, Commissioners
commented on the fact that infrastructure in the area had been designed and constructed to handle
increased levels of traffic associated with multifamily housing
The majority of those commenting opposed the rezoning and expressed concerns over the potential
for increased traffic, cut through traffic on local streets, the height of a new building, and pedestrian
safety. Based on these comments, the Planning Commission found that while increased density
through redevelopment was favorable, the concerns about traffic congestion should be addressed first
in order to preemptively study and identify a potential solution.
The Commissioners then voted to recommend approval of the rezoning (6-0).
Zoning Requirements
The key aspects of the two zoning designations being considered are listed below:
Medium D- proposed)
Permitted Uses • Duplexes
• Townhouses
• Multifamily buildings
• Senior and physical disability housing
Conditional Uses • Retail sales, restaurants, and professional offices on a ground floor with
direct access to the street
Density Range • 12 units per acre or 17 units per acre with a CUP (up to three additional
units per acre available through density bonuses)
• Senior/physical disability housing—20 units per acre or 25 units per acre
with a CUP (up to five additional units per acre available through density
bonuses)
Height • Four stories or 48 feet
• Five stories or 60 feet for senior/physical disability housing with a CUP
High Density Residential (R-4)Zoning District Uses • Multifamily buildings
• Senior and physical disability housing
Conditional Uses . Retail sales, restaurants, and professional offices on a ground floor with
direct access to the street
Density Range • 50 units per acre or 70 units per acre for senior/physical disability
housing
0 100 units per acre with a CUP
City Council Regular Meeting Executive Summary 8
City of Golden Valley
October 7, 2020
Height • Five stories or 60 feet
• In excess of five stories or 60 feet with a CUP
Should the City chose not to rezone any of these properties, an amendment to the Future Land Use
Map would then be required with the Met Council — modifying the recently-adopted 2040
Comprehensive Plan — in order to maintain consistency between guided land use and zoning.
Financial Or Budget Considerations
None
Recommended Action
Motion to adopt Ordinance #691, Rezoning Certain Properties at Harold Avenue and Winnetka Avenue
in Order to Achieve Alignment with the 2040 Comprehensive Plan.
Motion to adopt Ordinance #692, Rezoning Certain Properties at Douglas Drive and Golden Valley Road
in Order to Achieve Alignment with the 2040 Comprehensive Plan.
Supporting Documents
• Planning Commission minutes of July 23, 2018 (3 pages)
• Memo to the Planning Commission dated September 14, 2020 (8 pages)
• Planning Commission minutes dated September 14, 2020 (6 pages)
• Group 1 — Harold and Winnetka:
o Planning Commission minutes (13 pages)
■ August 22, 2011
■ July 13, 2020
o Emails from residents (5 pages)
■ July 19, 2020
■ September 14, 2020
■ September 18, 2020
■ September 24, 2020
• Group 2 — Douglas Drive and Golden Valley Road:
o Planning Commission minutes (17 pages)
■ August 11, 2008
■ November 14, 2011
■ August 10, 2020
o Email from resident dated September 9, 2020 (1 page)
• List of Affected Properties (1 page)
• Maps of Affected Properties (1 page)
• Ordinance #691, Rezoning Certain Properties North at Harold Avenue and Winnetka Avenue in Order
to Achieve Alignment with the 2040 Comprehensive Plan (1 page)
• Ordinance #692, Rezoning Certain Properties North at Douglas Drive and Golden Valley Road in Order
to Achieve Alignment with the 2040 Comprehensive Plan (1 page)
Regular Meeting of the
Golden Valley Planning Commission
July 23, 2018
A regular meeting of the Planning Commission was held at the Golden Valley City Hall,
Council Chambers, 7800 Golden Valley Road, Golden.Valley, Minnesota, on Monday,
July 23, 2018. Chair Baker called the meeting to order at 7:03 pm.
Those present were Planning Commissioners Baker, Black, Blum, Brookins, and Pockl.
Also present were Planning Manager Jason Zimmerman, Planning Intern Amy Morgan,
and Administrative Assistant Lisa Wittman. Commissioners Angell, Johnson, and
Segelbaum were absent.
1. Approval of Minutes
July 9, 2018, Regular Planning Commission Meeting
Black noted that the date was missing from the first paragraph.
MOVED by Brookins, seconded by Blum and motion carried unanimously to approve the
July 9, 2018, minutes with the above noted correction.
2. Discussion — Future Land Use Map
Zimmerman stated that the City Manager would like the Planning Commission to review
the proposed Future Land Use Map again to make sure they are comfortable with it going
forward. He referred to the Map and said there are five areas that he would like the
Commission to focus on.
The first area Zimmerman discussed is the MnDOT and State Highway Patrol site at
Duluth Street and Highway 100. He stated that the proposed Future Land Use Map has
this property guided for mixed use. He explained that the property owners are preparing a
master plan to improve the site and have said they are not intending on leaving so staff is
proposing to re-guide the property to match the current use instead of guiding it Mixed
Use.
Baker questioned the access to the green area on the southwest corner of the site.
Zimmerman stated that there is an office building located on that corner, but that there is
an existing trail and public access to the green space.
Blum stated that he has been in this facility and that it is used mostly for storage for
vehicles. He said he agrees that there is a lot of potential for this site and is happy they
are preparing a master plan to improve it.
Brookins asked what uses could occur at this site based on the current zoning.
Zimmerman stated that it would probably be zoned for a civic use and that a PUD could
be needed as a part of their master plan.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
July 23, 2018
Page 2
Baker asked if a PUD would constrain them from selling off part of the property.
Zimmerman said no, but there would need to be a PUD amendment done if that
happened.
The next area Zimmerman discussed is the corner of Golden Valley Road and Lilac Drive.
He stated that there is still an applicant considering a senior living facility for these
properties and added that the applicant's proposal will be amended to include fewer units
and less height/massing.
Black asked if the recommendation is to guide these properties Low Density Residential.
Zimmerman said yes, staff is recommending that the properties remain Low Density.
The next area Zimmerman discussed is the northeast corner of Golden Valley Road and
Douglas Drive. He stated that staff is not suggesting a change for this corner and that the
vision for the area is the same, he is just looking for confirmation that it should remain
guided for high density residential and if that is the right use of this corner. Baker asked if
anyone has expressed concerns about this corner being designated for high density
residential. Zimmerman stated that during the last Comp Plan update is was guided and
rezoned to High Density Residential and some residents were opposed to that so the
properties were rezoned to Medium Density.
Blum asked about the properties to the north of these. Zimmerman stated that the
apartments and condos are staying.
Baker asked if High Density Residential fits with the Douglas Drive Study. Zimmerman
said yes, it is consistent with the Douglas Drive Study to guide these properties High
Density Residential.
Baker asked if public access along the creek is something that could be included with
these properties. Zimmerman said yes because any development done here would
probably require a PUD so there could be opportunities to include access along the creek.
Brookins said he is concerned that the parcels might not get developed if they are guided
High Density Residential. Zimmerman noted the Medium Density might not work, but
higher density encourages development in some ways.
The next area Zimmerman discussed is the southeast corner of Winnetka Avenue and
Highway 55. He stated that the area is currently guided Low Density Residential and that
the proposed Future Land Use Map guides it Medium Density Residential. He stated that
there is the challenge of many separate property owners and there is concern about
traffic among other things. He added that Medium Density would allow for a senior living
facility and that a higher density use might be too much for some neighbors, but leaving it
R-1, Low Density would be a disservice.
Baker asked how to go about building consensus about something being developed here.
Zimmerman stated that a developer would build the narrative because the City isn't
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
July 23, 2018
Page 3
proposing a project, but rather saying what the appropriate land use would be and helping
address concerns.
Blum asked if the HRA could engage in buying the parcels to make a larger development
and market it that way. Zimmerman noted that the City owns one of the lots, but the
Golden Valley HRA does not have a levy like some other cities do. Baker said he thinks
the City needs to be more active with this development. He asked if the parcels involved
are owner occupied or if they are rentals. Zimmerman said there are some rental
properties, but most of them are owner occupied.
Zimmerman asked the Commissioners how they feel about guiding these properties
Medium Density and added that he'd rather be more conservative about the density
rather than allowing for higher density right away. Brookins said he sees High Density as
a better option. Baker said starting with Medium Density and going to High Density might
seem incremental and he doesn't want it to look like the City is playing games.
Zimmerman added that if these properties are rezoned to R-4 a developer could build an
apartment building without any affordable housing because they wouldn't need to apply
for a rezoning which would trigger the affordable housing requirements.
Brookins reiterated that he thinks this area should be high density especially with the
amenities across Highway 55. Blum agreed and noted that when high density
development has been discussed in the past they've talked about putting it on busier
streets, highways, or major road intersections. Baker agreed that there are a lot of good
reasons to zone these properties R-4. Zimmerman noted that if the intersection can't
handle the traffic of a high density development that might bring the density of a
development down and naturally solve some of issues.
Blum referred to the area by Wally Street to the west and said that is another island of
single family homes surrounded by more industrial type uses and questioned if that area
should also be designated for higher density. Zimmerman stated that one of the big
challenges in that area is that there is only one entrance into the neighborhood off of
General Mills Blvd.
Baker said he is supportive of higher density at the corner of Winnetka and Highway 55.
Black asked if the City envisions higher density at this location. Zimmerman said yes, the
City envisions some sort of higher density, but a traffic study will show better what type of
use would work here. Pockl said she agrees with High Density Residential in this area
and asked if there is a way to envelope the homes to the east across the street to Rhode
Island Avenue. Zimmerman stated that the homes on Rhode Island Avenue are all brand
new.
The last area Zimmerman discussed was the properties on the west side of Winnetka
Avenue south of Medicine Lake Road. He stated that the properties he is referring to are
currently an office and a single family home. He said that there is not a demand for office
in this area and the owner thinks a commercial use might be better. The neighborhood did
not like the idea of a commercial use is this area and staff thinks Medium Density
Residential might work here.
city 0
golden MEMORANDUM
valley Planning Department
763 593 8095/763 593 8109(fax)
Date: September 14, 2020
To: Golden Valley Planning Commission
From: Jason Zimmerman, Planning Manager
Subject: Informal Public Hearing— Rezone Properties to Achieve Conformance with the
2040 Comprehensive Plan
Summary
Staff is requesting that 16 properties be considered for rezoning in order to come into
conformance with the Future Land Use Map in the 2040 Comprehensive Plan.
Background
State statute requires that all zoning designations be updated to be consistent with the land uses
identified in the Comprehensive Plan within nine months of adoption. A number or properties
have already been rezoned, or are awaiting a City Council vote at the September 15 meeting. The
two areas currently being discussed were initially tabled by the Planning Commission and are
now being revisited.
Below is a summary of the timeline of the approval and adoption of the 2040 Comprehensive
Plan and the subsequent zoning changes:
Meeting Date Action
November 13, 2018 Planning Commission reviewed the final draft of the City's proposed
2040 Comprehensive Plan and unanimously recommended it be
approved
December 4, 2018 City Council held a public hearing and voted to approve the plan
January 2, 2019 City Council directed staff to submit the plan to the Metropolitan
Council for final review
January 22, 2020 Metropolitan Council approved Golden Valley's plan
February 4, 2020 City Council adopted the 2040 Comprehensive Plan and approved the
rezoning of the 1-394 Mixed Use properties
1
August 4, 2020 City Council approved the rezoning of properties south of Olson
Memorial Highway
September 1, 2020 City Council to approved the rezoning of properties north of Olson
Memorial Highway and east of Douglas Drive
September 15, 2020 City Council to consider the rezoning of properties north of Olson
Memorial Highway and west of Douglas Drive
Analysis
The 16 properties under consideration represent two different areas within the city. They both
demonstrate a fulfillment of previous land use changes by the City that were not followed by
zoning changes. The 2040 Comprehensive Plan put forward these land use designations again as
part of the Future Land Use Map.
No development proposals are pending with the City at either of these locations:
Address Current Zoning Proposed Zoning
This group of residential properties in the southeast corner of Winnetka Ave and Hwy 55 was
guided for higher density use in the 2030 Comprehensive Plan (adopted in 2010), but ultimately
was not rezoned. As part of the land use analysis leading up to the adoption of the 2040 Comp
Plan, the Planning Commission felt strongly that guiding these properties for medium density
use would provide opportunities for the development of housing that would complement the
efforts to strengthen the city's downtown.
7831 Olson Memorial Highway R-1 R-3
440 Winnetka Ave N R-1 R-3
424 Winnetka Ave N R-1 R-3
400 Winnetka Ave N R-1 R-3
7840 Harold Ave R-1 R-3
7830 Harold Ave R-1 R-3
7732 Harold Ave R-1 R-3
7724 Harold Ave R-1 R-3
7710 Harold Ave R-1 R-3
411 Rhode Island Ave N R-1 R-3
2
7650
'11 413
4 — 09
Ile
405 406
W71 0 403 404
7700 7650
At its regular meeting on July 13, the Planning Commission discussed the proposed rezoning of
this area and eventually tabled the item to allow for additional analysis, including the pending
changes associated with a revised R-3 zoning district.
This corner (bounded by Highway 55, Winnetka Ave, and Harold Ave) was the subject of a
rezoning proposal in 2011 from R-1 to R-3.This would have aligned the zoning map with the land
use designation included in the adopted 2030 Comprehensive Plan. At a Planning Commission
meeting in August of 2008, residents expressed concerns regarding building height, traffic
congestion at the Winnetka/Hwy 55 intersection, cut through and speeding traffic on Harold Ave,
and pedestrian safety (meeting minutes attached).
In anticipation of the rezoning, SEH conducted a traffic study based on the proposed land uses. It
found that a senior development, as opposed to a typical multifamily project, would generate
fewer trips in the AM and PM peak hours, even with a greater number of units. Potential
improvements to Winnetka Ave south of Hwy 55 (additional turn lanes to clear the intersection
more quickly) were recommended as a way to mitigate congestion. These changes were
implemented in 2015, even without any new development occurring in the area.
At the conclusion of the public hearing, the Planning Commission recorded a split vote (3-3)
regarding the rezoning. The City Council, however, denied the rezoning with the findings that
traffic would not be supported by local streets and that the potential development would not be
3
in keeping with the character of the community. Subsequently, the land use map in the 2030
Comprehensive Plan was amended and the area once more guided for Low Density Residential
development.
In July of 2018, the Planning Commission examined the area while preparing the draft Future
Land Use map for the 2040 Comprehensive Plan. At that time, staff recommended guiding the
properties for Medium Density Residential, but the Commissioners debated guiding it for an even
greater intensity as High Density Residential due to the location adjacent to the downtown and
the likely future development of mass transit on Hwy 55 (meeting minutes attached).
Staff continues to recommend that the properties be rezoned to R-3 in order to conform to the
guided land use approved by the City and the Met Council. The proximity to the downtown and
Brookview would encourage greater bicycle and pedestrian activity, especially if a new bridge
over Hwy 55 and Winnetka Ave were to be constructed. Pending changes to the R-3 zoning
district would encourage sustainable amenities such as energy efficient buildings, renewable
energy sources, support for electric vehicles, and innovative above-ground stormwater
management facilities.
Any potential redevelopment of this area would likely result in the removal of direct access to
Winnetka Ave and the use of a shared access point onto Harold Ave to the south. An additional
improvement that would likely be required should redevelopment occur would be the
construction of a right turn lane on westbound Harold Ave (potentially paired with a stoplight) in
order to better facilitate the movement of vehicles onto Winnetka Ave and then to Hwy 55.
4
Address I Current Zoning Proposed Zoning
The northeast quadrant of Douglas Drive and Golden Valley Road has been guided for High
Density Residential Use since the adoption of the 2020 Comprehensive Plan in 2000. Rezoning
these properties for more intense residential use would encourage new development along a
recently reconstructed corridor. Existing uses include a vacant property, a single-family
property, two duplexes, and a medium density apartment.
1300 Douglas Drive North R-3 R-4
1200 Douglas Drive North R-3 R-4
1170 Douglas Drive North R-3 R-4
1100 Douglas Drive North R-3 R-4
6212 Golden Valley Road R-3 R-4
6200 Golden Valley Road R-3 R-4
6122
� L
� s
6132 6
LL
�I
k 0102
6160
6316 6306 6300
6336
nix S[ X
6319 630063
f i
5
Building ti
5
At its regular meeting on August 10, the Planning Commission asked staff to conduct additional
research on the history of these properties and pervious considerations of zoning changes.
The 2020 Comprehensive Plan (adopted in 2000) designated the northeast quadrant of Douglas
Drive and Golden Valley Road as High Density Residential. In 2008, the same area was targeted
for a large senior development called Applewood Pointe. As a part of the Planned Unit
Development (PUD), these parcels were petitioned for rezoning from R-1 and R-2 to R-4 (High
Density Residential).This rezoning would have matched the guided land use and brought the two
maps into conformance.
The Planning Commission recommended approval of the PUD and the rezoning to R-4, but the
City Council voted to deny the Preliminary PUD Plan and the project was withdrawn. Accordingly,
the rezoning did not move forward. Minutes from the Planning Commission in 2008 where the
rezoning was discussed are attached. Residents expressed concern regarding building height,
impacts to traffic, and the loss of trees.
Three years later, in 2011, staff brought forward a new proposal to rezone the same properties to
R-3. Although this was an upzoning, it did not fully comply with the guided land use of the
Comprehensive Plan.The Planning Commission recommended approval and the City Council
rezoned those properties shortly afterwards. The minutes of the Planning Commission meeting
from 2011 are also attached; only one resident spoke at the public hearing.
In 2020, the preceding actions have left a Future Land Use map that continues to guide this
corner for High Density Residential use but with a zoning designation of Medium Density
Residential (R-3). A change of one of the two maps is necessary to finally bring the two into
alignment.
At a Planning Commission meeting in 2018, where a draft Future Land Use map was being
discussed in advance of submission to the Metropolitan Council, Commissioners examined this
area and agreed to leave it guided for High Density Residential use (meeting minutes attached).
This guidance was then approved by the Met Council and adopted by the City Council along with
the rest of the 2040 Comprehensive Plan.
Commissioners have since asked for clarification around potential traffic generated by a multi-
family building. A traffic study conducted as part of the review of the Applewood Pointe proposal
in 2008 found no concerns regarding the number of trips that would be generated by the use—
an increase from 178 daily trips to 524 daily trips. Due to the residential nature, these trips would
have been spread throughout the day instead of concentrated in an AM or PM peak period. It
was determined there was sufficient capacity on Golden Valley Road and Douglas Drive to
accommodate the additional trips.
Since that time, Douglas Drive has been reconstructed and a roundabout has been added to the
intersection with Golden Valley Road. The City Engineer has confirmed that the traffic flow
6
associated with a roundabout should move more smoothly and efficiently, with fewer
opportunities for serious crashes, as compared to the signalized intersection that was there
previously. In addition, any proposal for future development in the NE quadrant would be subject
to an updated traffic study to examine trip counts and access to either of the adjacent rights-of-
way. When Hennepin County designed the new Douglas Drive, they planned for a full
redevelopment scenario with the land uses shown in the Comprehensive Plan, so accounted for
the possibility of High Density Residential development at this location.
Staff continues to recommend that the properties be rezoned to R-4 in order to conform to the
guided land use approved by the City and the Met Council.
Zoning Requirements
The key aspects of the two zoning designations being considered are listed below:
Medium D- proposed)
Permitted Uses • Duplexes
• Townhouses
• Multifamily buildings
• Senior and physical disability housing
Conditional Uses • Retail sales, restaurants, and professional offices on a ground floor with
direct access to the street
Density Range • 12 units per acre or 17 units per acre with a CUP (up to three additional
units per acre available through density bonuses)
• Senior/physical disability housing—20 units per acre or 25 units per acre
with a CUP (up to five additional units per acre available through density
bonuses)
Height • Four stories or 48 feet
• Five stories or 60 feet for senior/physical disability housing with a CUP
High Density Residential (R-4)Zoning District Uses • Multifamily buildings
• Senior and physical disability housing
Conditional Uses . Retail sales, restaurants, and professional offices on a ground floor with
direct access to the street
Density Range • 50 units per acre or 70 units per acre for senior/physical disability
housing
• 100 units per acre with a CUP
Height • Five stories or 60 feet
• In excess of five stories or 60 feet with a CUP
7
Should the City chose not to rezone any of these properties, an amendment to the Future Land
Use Map would then be required with the Met Council — modifying the recently-adopted 2040
Comprehensive Plan — in order to maintain consistency between guided land use and zoning.
Recommended Action
Staff recommends approval of an amendment to the Zoning Map to rezone the 10 properties in
Group 1 from Single-Family Residential (R-1)to Medium Density Residential (R-3).
Staff recommends approval of an amendment to the Zoning Map to rezone the six properties in
Group 2 from Medium Density Residential (R-3)to High Density Residential (R-4).
Attachments
List of Affected Properties (1 page)
Maps of Future Land Use and Existing Zoning Designations (4 pages)
Planning Commission minutes of July 23, 2018 (3 pages)
Planning Commission minutes of August 22, 2011 — Harold and Winnetka (9 pages)
Email from Resident dated July 19, 2020 (2 pages)
Planning Commission minutes of August 11, 2008— Douglas Drive and Golden Valley Road (8
pages)
Planning Commission minutes of November 4, 2011 — Douglas Drive and Golden Valley Road (3
pages)
Email from Resident dated September 9, 2020 (1 page)
8
7800 Golden Valley Road I Golden Valley,MN 55427 city of
763-593-3992 1 TTY 763-593-3968 1 763-593-8109(fax)I www.goldenvalleymn.gov go1denjj',YVaPlanning Commission
September 14,2020—7 pm
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.
The public was able to participate in this meeting during public comment sections, by dialing 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, Adam Brookins, Andy Johnson, Lauren Pockl, Noah
Orloff, Chuck Segelbaum
Commissioners absent: Ryan Sadeghi
Staff present: Jason Zimmerman — Planning Manager, Myles Campbell — Planner
Council Liaison present: Gillian Rosencluist
2. Approval of Agenda
Chair Blum asked for a motion to approve the agenda.
MOTION made by Commissioner Segelbaum, seconded by Commissioner Pockl to approve the
agenda of September 14, 2020. Staff called a roll call vote and the motion carried unanimously.
3. Approval of Minut
Chair Blum asked ftorka\o approve the minutes from August 24, 2020.
Chair Blum noted a repletion of text in the minutes.
MOTION made by Commissioner Baker, seconded by Commissioner Brookins to approve the
August 24, 2020 meeting minutes after edits were made.
Staff called a roll call vote, Pockl abstained due to absence and the motion carried.
4. Informal Public Hearing—Zoning Map Amendment— Rezoning of Properties to Achieve
Conformance with eh 2040 Comprehensive Plan (Group 4)
Applicant: City of Golden Valley
This document is available in alternate formats upon a 72-hour request. Please call
763-593-8006 (TTY: 763-593-3968)to make a request. Examples of alternate formats
may include large print, electronic, Braille,audiocassette, etc.
City of Golden Valley Planning Commission Regular Meeting 2
September 14, 2020—7 pm
Jason Zimmerman, Planning Manager, stated this item is follow up from a previous conversation
regarding the need to rezone for conformity of the 2040 Comprehensive Plan. Two groups are the
focus today: Group 1 was tabled on July 13 and Group 2 was tabled on August 10.
Group 1 includes 10 properties:
7831 Olson Memorial Highway 7830 Harold Ave
440 Winnetka Ave N 7732 Harold Ave
424 Winnetka Ave N 7724 Harold Ave
400 Winnetka Ave N 7720 Harold Ave
7840 Harold Ave 411 Rhode Island Ave N
Zimmerman gave a history of the rezonings per the Commission's request in July. In 2010, these
same properties were guided for the same Medium Density Residential use; then in 2011 the city
moved to rezone them from R-1 to R-3. A traffic study was part of the item when presented to the
Planning Commission and the study recommended ROW improvements to mitigate potential
increases in congestion. A number of these ROW improvements have occurred and a few more will if
development occurs. At the time, the Planning Commission did not make a recommendation to the
City Council and then Council denied the rezoning and the Comp Plan at the time was amended to
reflect Low Density Residential use again.
Group 2:
1300 Douglas Drive 1100 Douglas Drive
1200 Douglas Drive 6212 Golden Valley Road
1170 Douglas Drive 6200 Golden Valley Road AMAL
Zimmerman gave a history of this group also as requested by the Commission. In 2000 these
properties were guided for High Density Residential Use as part of the 2020 Comp. Plan. There s a
development proposal for a Senior development in 2008, part of that PUD proposal required a
rezoning from R-3 to R-4. In 2008 the Planning Commission recommended approval but City Council
denied the PUD so the rezoning request was withdrawn.Three years later, the City proposed
rezoning to R-3 and that was approved by City Council. Since then, Douglas Drive has been
reconstructed with a round about and the road itself has had improvements. The City Engineer
stated that all the Douglas Drive plans were based on that future land use map and includes that
high-density residential use.
Zimmerman displayed a table defining the proposed Medium Density Residential (R-3) Zoning
District with permitted uses, conditional uses, density ranges, and height restrictions. This was
displayed next to the same table defining current High Density Residential (R-4) Zoning District.
State statute requires all zoning designations to be consistent with the land uses identified in the
Comp Plan within nine months of adoption.
City of Golden Valley Planning Commission Regular Meeting 3
September 14, 2020—7 pm
Should the City choose not to rezone any of these properties, the Future Land Use Map would need
to be amended with the Met Council.
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 the 10 identified properties in Group 1 from R-1 to R-3
• Rezoning the 6 identified properties in Group 2 from R-3 to R-4
Commissioners asked clarifying questions and asked staff to expand on the potential R-3 zoning
designation, the Land Use Map, and repercussions from not complying with Met Council's
recommendation on the 2040 Comprehensive Plan.
Chair Blum opened the public hearing at 7:38pm.
Martha Johnson
7647 Harold Ave
Calling about Group 1, the rezoning seems out of character with the green space initiative by the
City. Additionally, that corner is prone to flooding and where would that go if the building was
changed? I would like point out Pockl's comments about revisiting the Comprehensive Plan,just
because something was agreed on several years ago, doesn't mean it can't be revisited and opened
for further discussion.
Christopher Robinson
7650 Harold Ave
Calling about Group 1, our house is a new development in the area. Winnetk 5 int ec is
easily one of the busiest intersections regardless of if you're entering or leaving the neighborhood.
Our street is one of the streets that cars use to bypass this intersection, speeding down Harold and
Winnetka is super common.This is after some of the traffic changes made. Rezoning will exacerbate
an already terrible traffic issue and will push more cars on roads near parks. Harold has a lot of
pedestrian traffic and an increase in zoning will increase traffic and be a danger to all of us. The size
of complex, this zoning would allow, doesn't match this area of the city. I support adding people to
the community, I want people to enjoy our neighborhoods and it makes sense to embrace changes in
housing. I am happy to be part of the solution but rezoning this a a fr R-1 to R-3 doesn't make
sense; rezoning to R-2 makes more sense to me.
Dale Berg
7435 Ridgeway Road
I've lived in this area for 14 years. Finding a home that can meet the needs of families who live, work,
play, and vacation at home is challenging and who knows how long this will continue. Due to the
rezoning for R-3 being denied in 2011, nine new homes were built and the original owners seem to
still be there. I encourage the Commission to keep this area as R-1/R-2 as voiced by the
neighborhood, traffic challenges were noted earlier. There are a lot of speeders. Maintaining the
City of Golden Valley Planning Commission Regular Meeting 4
September 14, 2020—7 pm
current zoning will encourage people to sell their homes to other single families or to a developer
who will keep the character of the area. Golden Valley should focus on housing for growing families
at all price points and apartment living doesn't provide them with room to entertain or yards.
Mustafa Siddiqui
411 Rhode Island Ave North
I will be very disappointed with the density of R-3. I am a senior citizen and this is my final home. I
have 8 grandchildren that visit and I think I would be very affected. I border a lot of houses behind
that if they go to R-3, my privacy will be disturbed and my home value will decrease. I ask that you
reconsider and look in to R-2; R-3 will ruin my quality of life. The properties erected on Rhode Island,
even though they're for higher density, they are very nice.
Eric Pederson
130 Louisiana Ave N
I called during the July meeting and was one of the organizers in 2011. It's unfortunate that when the
Comp Plan was looking at this area for increased density they didn't address this R-1 to R-3 dilemma.
The eastern part of Harold was zoned R-2 and there are so it does work. The Rhode Island cul-de-sac
was also redeveloped. I believe if we rezone to R-2, this are will be in line and possibly redeveloped i
5-10 years. I also don't think this should be done prior to any zoning changes of R-3. You're asking a
group that doesn't even want to be R-3 to potentially sign up for even more; it's not the responsible
decision. I would appreciate if this is voted down and a recommendation goes to City Council to g
back to Met Council and rezone this to R-1 or R-2, I think you'll meet less resistance and fin
something that can match the neighborhood. I echo everything the other callers said about tra
not matching the area, and the removal of trees. x )
Commissioner Johnson said a lot of work went into the Comp Plan and took at least a year
constant effort. The last caller did a great job illustrating how potentially out of place a large building
could be. The potential, with a CUP, is for a five-story building to be built where there isn't another
five-story building for at least a quarter-mile. Would this become a building we end up wishing isn't
there, especially with the removal of so many trees? What about the bridge idea? It's not built yet
but do we think elderly people will really use that in inclement weather? I think it needs to be
thought out more. I also don't think we should be building ads s things that may happen, it
presumes a lot and doesn't sit well with me.
Commissioner Baker said what was done in the Comp Plan process was to take the big picture and
apply the larger view to the City, deliberately not thinking about detailed implication. He added
feeling torn between a good big picture decision and the nuance of knowing every detail and
implication of that decision; thinking then that a decision would never be made. There is value in
being cautious about reversing big picture decisions.
Commissioner Pockl asked the zoning of the area across the street, on Harold. Zimmerman
responded that it is R-2 and there's a PUD.
City of Golden Valley Planning Commission Regular Meeting 5
September 14, 2020—7 pm
Chair Blum started addressing caller comments and addressed potential flooding concerns. Staff
responded that the planning department isn't aware of flooding but acknowledges the area to the
south being a wetland and does have floodplain, none of that floodplain extends north, across
Harold.That's not to say flooding doesn't happen but it's not something the planning department is
aware of. Chair asked staff had recollection of a road closure due to water. Zimmerman responded it
may have happened but planning wasn't in the loop.
Chair addressed traffic concerns from callers and asked how that intersection has changed.
Zimmerman addressed this question and went into detail on lanes, direction, turns, and capacity.
Chair asked about expanding another portion of the road to mitigate traffic and the intersection he's
referring to expanding is in a floodplain. Baker asked if there was evidence to suggest the changes in
traffic was due to west end developments. Staff isn't aware of studies that would have that
information.
Curtis Smith
7405 Ridgeway Road
Regarding Group 1, there's been a lot of great discussion from callers and Commissioners. There's
another safety issue, morning and afternoon commuters from 55 and 394 cut through the
neighborhoods at high speeds. I see kids waiting for busses and they're going 55mph, this has
increased with the development along Laurel. I see this activity on Ridgeway, Louisiana,
Pennsylvania, and Jersey makes for a dangerous situation. Second, what will the impact on th
wetlands be? Last, there's concern about traffic that leads past Meadowbrook to Glenwoo
Jason O'Shea
7701 Ewald Terrace
Before Covid, it was normal for Winnetka, south of 55, to back up all to and past Western. In order t
skip traffic, people cut through on Rhode Island, Laurel, and Sumter.There are a lot of kids in these
roads and the whole area has now become more congested, primarily in the evening. If we talk about
changing Group 1 from R-1 to R-3, increased density will add to this traffic issue.The area to the
south is R-2 and that would be more consistent than R-3.
Brian Lee
406 Rhode Island Ave
We have a lot of children in this cul-de-sac, my family walks every day and crossing the street is
already dangerous, even to get to the sidewalk. I'm concerned about the lack of research done
before these recommendations were made, specifically about flooding. There are a few homes,
north of Harold that flood every spring. Northbound Winnetka backs up to Laurel and drivers often
cut through on Western to avoid traffic. My family is on board with development in this area and can
appreciate R-2 zoning but we don't support R-3.
Chair Blum asked staff to what extent the traffic concerns could be mitigated between highway 394
and 55. Zimmerman stated that if the area were to be redeveloped, a traffic study would likely be
required. That would look at the added density, likely added traffic, and allow a traffic consultant to
make targeted predictions of use and address mitigation. These are questions city engineers can
City of Golden Valley Planning Commission Regular Meeting 6
September 14, 2020—7 pm
really answer. Baker asked about flooding since numerous callers insisted it occurs and asked staff
about the dates on the most current floodplain map. Zimmerman wasn't sure of dates but pointed
out that the floodplain map doesn't consider where water floods and pools in resident yards.
Segelbaum asked about the size of Group 1 and if it meets the 2-acre minimum for a PUD.
Zimmerman responded that it's a 6-acre site if all the properties were combined.
The discussion moved on to setbacks and building height as well as pedestrian traffic.
Being that the conversation was dominated by Group 1, Zimmerman asked if anyone had comments
on Group 2. Segelbaum stated that while a lot of feedback has come up from Group 1, it's interesting
there hasn't been more feedback on Group 2.The density change in Group 2 makes sense to spur
development. Pockl echoed this statement and added that traffic mitigation measures have taken
place in this area.
Dale Berg
7435 Ridgeway Road
Asked Adam Brookins to state who his employer is.
Commissioners encouraged Brookins not to answer that question as no Commissioner is required
do so. Positions on the Commission are volunteer and members stated anecdotally that members are
upright, honest, and have the City's best interest at heart.
Brookins asked staff if there were future development plans for Winnetka as the Doug as riv
project was a county project. Zimmerman affirmed the county construction project and doesn't s
the City engaging on a large-scale study in the near future.
Chair Blum closed the public hearing at 8:58pm.
MOTION made by Commissioner Baker, and seconded by Commissioner Pockl to deny staff
recommendation to rezone Group 1 from R-1 to an R-3 and encourage the City to look at ways to
enhance infrastructure surrounding this area and/or other zonin of the roperties.
Staff took a roll call vote.
Aye: Baker, Blum,Johnson, Pockl, Segelbaum
Nay: Brookins,
Motion passes, 5:1
MOTION made by Commissioner Brookins, and seconded by Commissioner Segelbaum to approve
staff recommendation and rezone Group 2 from R-3 to R-4.
Staff took a roll call vote and the motion passed unanimously.
S. Informal Public Hearing—Amendment to Conditional Use Permit No. 145
Applicant: Good Shepherd Church and School
Location: 145 Jersey Ave S
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
August 22, 2011
Page 3
8. Site layout shall be as indicated on the site sketch filed in the City Planning Office. The
four-foot wide strip shown on the site sketch as running along the perimeter of the main
building and extending into the setback area on the property's west side shall be a
sidewalk only. In addition, there may be an overhanging roof line extending no more than
30 inches into the setback area.
9. The station is allowed to be open for public business 24 hours per day.
10. The dumpster area shall be fully shielded from view.
11. The site shall meet all other City and State requirements.
12. Failure to comply with any of the terms of this permit shall constitute grounds for
revocation.
The Planning Commission bases its recommendation on the following findings:
• The significant neighborhood contributions that SuperAmerica is making
• Agreement to the 12 conditions of approval especially the improvement in lighting and
noise issues
3. Informal Public Hearing — Property Rezonings — Properties located north of
Harold Avenue, south of Highway 55, west of Glenwood Avenue and east of
Winnetka Avenue. The properties west of the Spirit of Hope United Methodist
Church are proposed to be rezoned to "Medium Density(R-3) ResidentiaP' and
the properties to the east of the Spirit of Hope United Methodist Church are
proposed to be rezoned to "Moderate Density(R-2) Residential."
Applicant: City of Golden Valley
Addresses: Properties located north of Harold Avenue, south of Highway 55, west of
Glenwood Avenue and east of Winnetka Avenue
Purpose: To bring the properties into conformance with the recently updated General
Land Use Plan Map
Hogeboom explained that the City's updated Comprehensive Plan was adopted in 2010.
As part of that process the City is required by the State to make sure the General Land Use
Plan Map, which is part of the Comprehensive Plan, is compatible with the Zoning map.
He referred to a map of the subject properties and explained that area A is the property
north of Harold Avenue, south of Highway 55, east of Winnetka Avenue and west of the
Spirit of Hope Methodist Church. These properties are proposed to be rezoned to Medium
Density(R-3) Residential. Area B on the map includes the properties located north of
Harold Avenue, south of Highway 55, west of Glenwood Avenue and east of the Spirit of
Hope Methodist Church and are proposed to be rezoned to Moderate Density (R-2)
Residential. He added that the R-3 zoning district would allow a development with up to 4
stories and 12 units per acre if it is non-senior housing. Senior housing would be allowed
by Conditional Use with no specific density and height up to 5 stories. The R-2 zoning
district would allow development with up to 8 units per acre for single family homes,
duplexes, twin homes or small townhouse developments.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
August 22, 2011
Page 4
Hogeboom stated that the City has been contacted by different developers regarding this
property throughout the years but that no developer has ownership of all of the parcels in
question.
Hogeboom noted that the City held an open house in June and some of the comments
from people who attended the open house included concerns about the potential height of
buildings, tree preservation and rising levels of traffic. He stated that Harold Avenue is
planned to be reconstructed in 2012 and the zoning of these properties will help guide the
design of Harold Avenue. Hogeboom reiterated that action must be taken by the City to
either rezone the properties to match the General Land Use Plan Map or re-designate the
General Land Use Plan Map to match the Zoning Map.
Waldhauser asked Kotila to explain proposed plans for Winnetka Avenue. Kotila explained
that there is an existing operational issue on Winnetka as well as concern about increases
in traffic demand as a result of future development, enough that the City has applied to
MnDOT for some cost participation to improve Winnetka Avenue at the Highway 55
intersection. He referred to a map of the area and discussed the proposed intersection
design and how it would help the intersection operate more safely and efficiently.
Cera asked if the proposed intersection changes are planned regardless of what happens
to the future development of these properties. Kotila said the need for the.improvements
currently exist but parts of the plan could change depending on what type of development
occurs.
Larry Kueny, 7303 Ridgeway Road, referred to a section in the Comprehensive Plan that
states all owners shall jointly petition for rezoning. He asked how many people have asked
for this rezoning and how the City knows what is best for these people and for property
values.
Lee Brant, 7631 Harold Avenue, stated that she understood that the south bound lane on
Winnetka would stop at the entrance of Brookview; now the lane seems to go south of the
entrance of Brookview. She is also concerned about the removal of park land and trees.
She asked if the properties were rezoned to R-3 how residents would know if something
else, such as apartments or something other than senior housing would go there instead.
Kathy Welander, 440 Idaho Avenue N, asked if there is any definition of what level of
housing would be built from luxury to low income. If there is low income housing she
questioned the level of crime and said she doesn't want people to come into their area that
might raise crime.
Gerry Deters, 7710 Harold Avenue, said he is concerned with how property taxes will be
affected if the properties are rezoned. He added that most of the neighbors have no desire
to move. He said he is under the impression that the proposed rezoning shouldn't affect
their property values but he doesn't want his taxes to skyrocket as a result of this rezoning.
He asked if there is a plan B or C if no developer comes in.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
August 22, 2011
Page 5
Brian Hillins, 340 Louisiana Avenue N, said that what the City is not telling property owners
is that when the properties are rezoned, owners will not be allowed to make changes or
additions to their homes and are being forced out. He asked about the definition of non-
compatible and urged the Commission to think about the amount of traffic with the
proposed lane expansion and the safety of pedestrians. He stated that there is currently a
lot of inventory of medium and high density properties and asked why there is a need for
more and what the purpose is for adding more. He asked who is asking for this rezoning
and read from the City's vision guide and asked if this proposed rezoning matches the
vision guide and if it is really the right thing to do.
Sally Levens, 7811 Ewald Terrace, said something needs to be done about the traffic that
backs up on Winnetka and the people who don't stop. She said there are lilies in the
boulevard area that she is supposed to maintain but she is unwilling to risk her life in the
traffic. She said that Winnetka Avenue doesn't need to be enhanced to make Highway 55
better and asked how many units of housing could be built. She added that she doesn't
think it is safe or responsible to have higher density at this corner.
Ed Chesen, 7507 Harold Avenue, said he agrees with his neighbors that rezoning these
properties would be a big mistake. He said he didn't get a clear report on the comments
from the June open house and there is no reference to what happens to property values
and the whole make-up of the neighborhood. He said rezoning these properties is going to
destroy a neighborhood and he gets the impression that no one is interested in hearing
them.
Dale Berg, 7040 Western Avenue, said he agrees with everything that has been said. He
said he has heard little from the City regarding the reasons for doing this. He said he is
concerned about mass transit and that there is already enough traffic on Louisiana due to
Lion's Park. There is also not enough parking at Lion's Park and he hasn't heard anything
about any type of environmental assessments regarding flooding. He said there is a natural
barrier and you can't see or hear Highway 55 from his neighborhood and now he is going
to feel like he is living in downtown Minneapolis with multi-level housing. He suggested the
City buy the properties and give low interest home loans to young families with kids.
Alan Ingber, 7360 Half Moon Drive, said he agrees with what has already been said. His
concern is that Ridgeway Road will become more of a freeway with higher levels of traffic
trying to get to 1-394 and Laurel.
Les Heller, 7525 Harold Avenue, said there has been no talk about traffic on Harold
Avenue. If these properties are developed the traffic will be like a funnel because there are
constant problems at the corner of Harold and Winnetka. He asked if this rezoning is being
done because of a developer. He added that the traffic really needs to be thought about
because there are going to be massive problems. He said he thinks this is a really bad idea
and maybe the City can work on getting the area fixed up and the homes occupied instead.
Erik Pedersen, 130 Louisiana Avenue N, said he did not buy his house with the intention of
seeing a well-established neighborhood be overdeveloped with townhomes. He asked what
City need this proposal serves and who asked for it because if there are actual people
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
August 22, 2011
Page 6
involved who have asked for this, he deserves to know or if it is just a corporation pushing
their agenda he deserves to know that too. He said if Winnetka is made wider it will only
encourage more traffic on Winnetka because it is a thoroughfare and was made to be
thoroughfare. He said the City is going in the wrong direction with these proposals and
should be putting stop signs at every intersection to make it possible for families to cross
the road and get into the park because cars don't stop. He added that everyone who is not
a resident should be deterred from driving through this area and this proposal should not
even be considered because it goes against everything in the vision guide for Golden
Valley.
Fred Gross, who lives in Burnsville, and owns the property at 7200 Harold Avenue, asked if
it was true that if the properties are rezoned homes can't be improved. He said somewhere,
somebody thinks this is a good idea but he is not sure that it is. He asked if the City has
considered ignoring what the non-elected Metropolitan Council has said or has considered
changing the City's vision to match the current zoning instead. He added that no one is
"chomping at the bit" to have more traffic on Harold, Ridgeway or Winnetka. He asked if the
City would consider condemning these properties if the owners decide not to sell.
Julie Johnson, 300 Edgewood Avenue N, said she hasn't heard anything about the impact
to Glenwood Avenue. She said she doesn't think this will only impact this small area it will
impact the whole southern part of Golden Valley. She said she agrees with everything that
has been said and she is totally against this proposal.
Beverly Weinberg, 7523 Harold Avenue, said she has a major concern about the left hand
turn from Harold onto Winnetka. She said at this time it is difficult and dangerous and if the
traffic is heavier it will be almost impossible and will be asking for accidents.
Schara Jesse, 743 Winnetka, said Ridgeway is a cut through thoroughfare and this
development will escalate the problem. She said this issue comes up every decade and
petitions have put a stop to it. She said the residents should get together and get a petition
going. She suggested people call the City Council to find out who is asking for this and
questioned if it is United Properties. She said she doesn't like this proposal.
Kluchka said he categorized the questions into traffic, property and legal and asked Grimes
to talk about his experience on how values and taxes are impacted by rezoning and by
redevelopment. Grimes explained that taxes are set by Hennepin County based on the
value of the property and its use. He referred to Area A and stated that if that area is
rezoned to R-3 the existing properties will become non-conforming which means the
homes can remain and be maintained and improved but they can't be expanded. In Area B
the existing homes would be considered a permitted use in the R-2 zoning district so they
could be expanded. He said he doesn't feel that rezoning these properties would decrease
their value because it would be in effect "up zoning" which means they could have a higher
value.
Kluchka said the next issue is why there is a need for this rezoning. He said he is thinking
about trends and how cities need to be responsible in meeting needs in appropriate ways
such as providing senior housing. Grimes agreed there is a large aging population in
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
August 22, 2011
Page 7
Golden Valley. He stated that the Planning Commission and City Council provided for
additional types of housing opportunities during the Comprehensive Plan Amendment
process. He added that Golden Valley is an attractive location as an inner ring suburb and
unfortunately the Comprehensive Plan Amendment meetings and open houses don't draw
large audiences because the entire City is being reviewed, not just certain areas.
Waldhauser stated that the vision for the City, including this area did come from the City's
residents with direction from the Metropolitan Council. She agreed that Golden Valley is a
changing community and the Comprehensive Plan update sought to find a balance
between good change and preserving what's best of Golden Valley.
Grimes referred to the question regarding the General Land Use Plan Map being required
to be compatible with the Zoning Map and explained that the City Attorney's opinion is that
the two maps should be compatible. He stated that the City could re-designate the
properties back to single family residential but the Metropolitan Council looks at the
metropolitan area as a whole in regard to transit, sewer, highways, etc. so Golden Valley
likes to work together with the Metropolitan Council because not working with them may
affect things like grants. Kluchka added that the City and the broader community get a
benefit from meeting Metropolitan Council's goals and objectives. Grimes explained that
according to Metropolitan Council projections there needs to be room in the metro area for
another million people and it saves taxpayer money to develop or redevelop property
already served by sewer, water and transportation.
Kluchka asked if there is another plan in place for these properties if a development doesn't
occur. Grimes stated that the development community is waiting to hear a decision from
the City regarding the zoning of these properties. He added that the City Council has stated
they will not use condemnation to develop these properties. It will have to be done by
developers purchasing the properties at market rate. Waldhauser agreed that the City is
not in the position to buy these properties.
Kluchka asked if the City can control the type of development on these properties. Grimes
stated that more than likely the properties will be a senior housing type of development. He
explained that the traffic patterns for senior housing could work well in this location and that
the City has latitude in approving things like landscaping plans and traffic plans as part of
the Conditional Use Permit or Planned Unit Development process.
Waldhauser said she appreciates that people who live in the area see things she doesn't,
but it seems like there are some long-term traffic issues in this area that this particular
rezoning may or may not impact.
Grimes referred to the question asked regarding environmental issues such as flooding and
noted that those types of issues will be addressed at the time of development.
Kotila referred to the safety issues that have been discussed and explained that he
recognizes the need for pedestrian improvements at Winnetka and Harold. He discussed
how traffic backing-up on Highway 55 makes every movement more difficult so fixing those
issues should help alleviate some of the concerns. Kisch asked if increasing capacity would
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
August 22, 2011
Page 8
also increase demand. He also asked about implementing other safety and speed control
measures. Kotila explained the approach is to try and serve the existing traffic demand and
that he realizes some of the traffic will be dispersed to other locations. He stated that part
of the Harold Avenue reconstruction project includes constructing a fairly narrow two-lane
roadway which should help moderate the speed at which people drive.
Grimes referred to the question regarding what type housing could be built this location. He
stated that the City has no control over housing being low-income versus market rate.
Waldhauser noted that the City tries to disperse its housing types.
Ed Chesen, 7507 Harold Avenue, asked why both areas couldn't be rezoned to R-2.
Waldhauser stated that that Area A is at an intersection that faces a commercial district and
a highway which provides a better opportunity for additional housing. She said her opinion
is that Golden Valley is a fairly urban community and is a part of the City and in order to be
a vibrant community and attract people who want to live here there needs to be community
services, convenience, walkability and transit. Chesen said the way the properties are
going to be developed isn't going to attract those types of people because senior housing is
what has been proposed. Hogeboom showed a map illustrating the ownership of each
parcel in Area A. Chesen stated that United Properties has attended meetings and
questioned why they have been allowed to speak if the issue really is whether or not to
rezone the properties. He said it sounds to him like a deal has already been done. Kluchka
stated that developers are a part of the community and are welcome to attend City
meetings. He said he wants it made clear that there is no malfeasance or arrangement
happening outside the law. Chesen said he has stated nothing but the facts. Hogeboom
stated that United Properties has made no official application submittal to the City.
Fred Gross, 7200 Harold Avenue, asked if the City has considered selling part or all of
Brookview Park to satisfy the Metropolitan Council and to meet its vision. Kluchka said it
has been discussed in the past. Grimes added that a large portion of Brookview is in a
flood plain.
Brian Hillins, 340 Louisiana Avenue N, said the Commission still needs to answer the
question of who is asking for this rezoning. He said he hasn't heard anything discussed but
trends and told the Commission not to believe everything they read. He asked if these
properties are bank owned why there aren't for sale signs on them. He said he thinks there
is opportunity for developers and personal homeowners, himself included, to consider
doing a "flip" and asked why that opportunity is only available to the private community and
not the public community. He stated there are currently 190 homes, condos, townhomes
and twin homes for sale in Golden Valley and told the Commission to think about the tax
revenue of those 190 homes versus throwing somebody into an 800 square foot apartment.
The "bigger bang" would be to encourage people to buy these properties, increase the
value and get more property taxes rather than building a 5-story building with minimal
property taxes which would drive everybody else's values down. Grimes referred to the
question of who is asking for this and reiterated that the Planning Commission and City
Council chose to re-designate this area on the General Land Use Plan Map.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
August 22, 2011
Page 9
Diane Stelow, 7335 Ridgeway Road, asked if these properties could have driveways
entering and exiting on Highway 55 to get the traffic out of the neighborhood. Grimes said
that MnDOT has said no.
Kluchka said it is not hearsay that the population is changing so when they are asked who
is asking for this rezoning the City Council has to look long-term at the broader needs of
the community. McCarty added that the Metropolitan Council is asking for it because there
needs to be more room to accommodate additional people so the Planning Commission's
charge was to figure out the best way to utilize the property the City has.
Erik Pedersen, 130 Louisiana Avenue N, asked if Golden Valley has any 5-story buildings
next to residential property. Grimes said yes and mentioned Calvary, Covenant Manor and
Laurel Terrace Apartments as examples. He asked how many empty buildings there are
downtown and asked the Commission if they really believe it is in Golden Valley's best
interest to solve the senior housing problem. He said Golden Valley is a small suburb in a
big metro area and people will go where the housing opportunities are. He said he doesn't
hear a single tax payer/voter asking for this. He added that if the City goes ahead and does
this they are doing it without any regard to what the people who live in the neighborhood
think.
Fred Gross, 7200 Harold Avenue, asked if it is possible that Central Bank does not have
these properties marketed for sale because it is in their best interest to hold onto them for a
developer interested in buying them. He asked why there are not any developers at this
meeting and why there aren't any neighbors in attendance saying that this is a wonderful
idea. Grimes agreed that Central Bank is more than likely waiting for the outcome of this
rezoning proposal before they put the properties on the market.
Les Heller, 7525 Harold Avenue, said people don't come to public hearings because they
feel they don't have a voice in their government. That what they say goes in one ear and
out the other. He said if something is this important it should be front page news and every
resident should get a letter.
Seeing and hearing no one else wishing to comment. Waldhauser closed the public
hearing.
Cera proposed to split the areas into two votes. Waldhauser started with Area B. She
stated that having worked on the Comprehensive Plan update process she really does feel
that the Plan was aired in many ways. She feels the City is changing and people need to
change with it. She said that for commercial development to survive there needs to be
density around it. She feels this area is a great place for a more dense development that
will help get better transit and will help get some of the traffic off the local streets. She said
she thinks there has been forward thinking and this proposed rezoning has the best interest
of the community at heart.
Kisch said he is concerned about the rights of home owners being able to improve their
properties in Area A. He said that rezoning Area B to R-2 doesn't change property owners'
rights at all and won't impact what is there right now and will only be changed as the
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
August 22, 2011
Page 10
market dictates. He added that the traffic concerns are valid and need to be addressed.
Cera agreed.
Schmidgall said he is in favor of recommending approval of the proposed rezoning for both
areas. He said this is all long term planning and the homes in Area A could stay forever. He
said they've talked a long time about providing a variety of housing types in Golden Valley
including higher density for an aging population and there could be a very attractive
development built in this area. He said he really tries to sort out the concerns he hears
during public hearing and thinks the traffic issues are a legitimate concern but people worry
about change and prefer the evil they know to the evil they don't. He said he really doesn't
think there is an incentive for a developer to build something undesirable at this location.
Kluchka said this meeting was a great opportunity to hear from the residents in the area.
He said he is conflicted on how he feels about rezoning these properties and he wants the
traffic concerns further studied before he can support the rezoning.
McCarty agreed that traffic does need further study. He said there is a problem with houses
sitting vacant and people shouldn't be pushed into single family homes because that is part
of the reason the economy is how it is today. He said he also agrees with the need for
increased density and even though it's difficult to hear from the neighbors, rezoning this
property is for the overall good of the City so he is inclined to support the proposal.
Kluchka asked about the opportunity to hear more about the traffic and safety concerns
before the rezoning is considered by the City Council. Grimes stated that when the
Comprehensive Plan was updated and re-designated to a higher density category, the
traffic was studied using various development scenarios. Kotila noted that the City Council
has received the forecasting report and specifics related to the proposed density. Grimes
added that the transportation section of the updated Comprehensive Plan was done after
the land use section so the City could be sure that traffic issues were managed.
MOVED by Cera, seconded by Kisch and motion carried 5 to 1 to recommend approval of
rezoning Area B from Single Family (R-1) Residential to Moderate Density (R-2)
Residential. Cera, Kisch, McCarty and Waldhauser voted yes. Kluchka voted no.
Kisch said the issue in Area A lies in the rights of the property owners' ability to make
changes and add value to their homes and rezoning to R-3 limits what can be done. He
said he agrees that the City needs a diverse group of housing choices because it makes for
a more solid and vibrant community, but he also needs to see what the traffic impacts are
really going to be. McCarty noted that until it is decided what kind of development is going
to be built, the traffic impacts are unknown. He added that he doesn't see these properties
being used long-term for single family housing.
Kluchka said his concerns are also about the traffic. He said he would like to look at
rezoning the properties to Mixed Use instead of R-3 because he wants this area to
contribute more to the neighborhood. Cera agreed that the idea of Mixed Use is intriguing
in this area. He said properties zoned R-3 could sit for a while and go downhill. He said R-2
might be a better choice. He added that there is a roomful of citizens who have concerns
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
August 22, 2011
Page 11
that should be listened to and he can't support R-3 at this location. He could support R-2 or
discussing Mixed Use. Kisch said a Mixed Use zoning designation would cause a bigger
issue with traffic. He said this is a stab at planning for the future and it can be rezoned or
re-designated in the future if needed.
Waldhauser said she is torn between rezoning Area A to R-3 or R-2 because R-2 doesn't
provide the opportunity for potential senior housing. She said she is not optimistic that a
developer will want to develop these properties as single family or two-family homes.
Grimes suggested studying the possibility of allowing senior housing in an R-2 zoning
district with a Conditional Use Permit. Kisch asked if the City could issue a Conditional Use
Permit to allow a non-conforming use to be expanded. Grimes said he would talk to the
City Attorney.
MOVED by Schmidgall, seconded by McCarty and motion tied to recommend rezoning
Area A from Single Family(R-1) Residential to Medium Density (R-3). Commissioners
McCarty, Schmidgall and Waldhauser voted yes. Commissioners Cera, Kisch and Kluchka
voted no.
--Short Recess-
4. Reports on Meetings of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority, City
Council, Board of Zoning Appeals and other Meetings
Waldhauser stated that the Board of Zoning Appeals would like to Planning Commission
to address the issue of covered and uncovered porches and landings. Hogeboom said he
would discuss the issue with the Board at their next meeting.
5. Other Business
No other business was discussed.
6. Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned at 10:03 pm.
or
./
David A. Cera, Secretary
City of Golden Valley Planning Commission Regular Meeting
July 13, 2020—7 pm
Commissioners are open, this item be tabled so they can find a way to comply per Met Council but
create a broader list of checks and balances. Brookins stated his support for what's presented and
believes it'll benefit Golden Valley in the long-term. He added that he'd hate to see this item go
through another 10-year cycle before it's addressed again. Commissioner Baker stated his support
for tabling the item in order to collect additional information. Segelbaum and Pockl echoed Baker's
statement.
MOTION made by Commissioner Baker, seconded by Commissioner Brookins to table this agenda
item and discuss at a later meeting with additional information. A roll call vote was made and passed
unanimously.
5. Informal Public Hearing—Zoning Map Amendments
Rezoning Properties to Achieve Conformance with the 2040 Comprehensive Plan
Applicant: City of Golden Valley
Jason Zimmerman, Planning Manager, stated the request to continue rezoning properties in order to
conform with the Future Land Use Map in the 2040 Comp Plan. Staff reminded Commissioners that
this started with the rezoning of the 1-394 Mixed Use properties. A map was then displayed of the
existing zoning map and the future land use map, in order to illustrate how rezoning will take place
as the City comes into conformity with the comp plan.
Zimmerman expressed that there are NO active development proposals for any properties that are
currently under consideration for rezoning, this item is strictly administrative.
There are six groups being addressed in this rezoning and includes 18 properties. Majority of them
are being rezoned to match what is currently on the ground. A few are being rezoned in anticipation
of future plans.
Group 1
9201 Olson Memorial Highway Rezoning Office to Institutional Subdistrict 1-4
8900 Betty Crocker Drive
Group 2
1 General Mills Boulevard Rezoning Industrial District to Office District
Group 3
7831 Olson Memorial Hwy 7724 Harold Ave Rezoning Single-Family Residential (R-1)
7830 Harold Ave 400 Winnetka Ave N Medium Density Residential (R-3)
440 Winnetka Ave N 7720 Harold Ave
7732 Harold Ave 7840 Harold Ave
424 Winnetka Ave N 411 Rhode Island Ave N
Any development proposals in this area would require a traffic study.
City of Golden Valley Planning Commission Regular Meeting
July 13, 2020—7 pm
Group 4
5635 Glenwood Ave Rezoning Single-Family Residential (R-1) to
5701 Glenwood Ave Medium Density Residential (R-3)
Group 5
501 Theodore Wirth Parkway Rezoning High Density Residential (R-4) to
Medium Density Residential (R-3)
Group 6
5073 Wayzata Boulevard Office to Commercial
1513 Utica Ave S Office to High Density Residential (R-4)
Zimmerman closed his presentation by stating State statute requires all zoning designations to be
consistent with the land uses identified in the Comp Plan within nine months of adoption.
If the City chooses not to rezone any of these properties, the Future Land Use Map would need to be
amended with the Met Council.
Staff 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 the 18 identified
properties be rezoned as indicated.
Commissioner Pockl asked if some of the groups could be approved and others tabled, considering
the previous agenda item was tabled. Staff said each group could be looked at separately and
approved or tabled.
Chair Blum opened the public hearing at 8:24pm.
Tina Prokosch
7601 Harold Ave
I'm calling about group three, was this considered to be rezoned to an R-2? That would align with the
other areas around here are an R-2 zoning and I'm concerned what an R-3 zoning will do to this area.
Martha Johnson
7647 Harold Ave
Why does Golden Valley seem to think rezoning group three is beneficial? The answer cannot be to
increase density as I believe Golden Valley has met our density requirement. It would appear rezoning
this area is out of character with surrounding areas.
Colin
City of Golden Valley Planning Commission Regular Meeting 6
July 13, 2020—7 pm
7511 Harold
Calling in general support of the rezoning movement across the city and specifically related to the
Winnetka and 55 intersection. I think there are a lot of city infrastructure that can support that type
of development. If were going to be a sustainable and economically viable city, we need to be
progressive see these types of changes as good.
The Chair asked staff if the area was considered for R-2 designation. Zimmerman showed a map and
said that during Planning Commission meetings, the lots addressed were not considered for R-2 as
those are small single-family lots or duplexes. The discussion moved into the number of units per
acre, building size limits, storm water regulations, and open space requirements.
Eric Pederson
130 Louisiana Ave N
A giant building on the intersection of Harold and Winnetka would make an already busy traffic area,
a disaster when Covid ends. Not to mention I think we've done a good job building high density
housing, including the monstrosity on Xenia that seems to be taking 5 years to build. My point is that
we had an organized group 9 years ago, we gathered hundreds of signatures against a 5-story
building in our neighborhood when nothing is taller than really 2 stories. I would ask you to see notes
from this time and we were told no developments on Rhode Island and this neighborhood would
occur and it had to be re-zoned to be re-developed. The area stayed as R-1 and R-2 and houses were
built there. This area should remain R-2 to stay consistent with the neighborhood. We will organize
again to prevent this re-zoning.
Tara Fini
7517 Harold Ave
I support the ordinance, we live in very nice area, the city has a lot to offer in terms of multi family
housing that isn't an eyesore. Maybe the city should do work to help residents understand what the
project is and what it isn't. Doesn't seem like there's enough understanding of what this will look like.
Commissioners discussed this item and the history of it as it was brought up by callers. Commissioner
Segelbaum stated he'd approve the groups but wants to look closer at group three before deciding.
Commissioner Pockl echoed this and wants to discuss more details around group three.
Commissioner Brookins stated his support of all the groups but would leave group 5 as a R-4, he
doesn't see a change occurring. The Chair asked staff what their direction is. Zimmerman stated the
Council would like a recommendation but group three can be tabled for further discussion.
Commissioner Johnson made final comments regarding the potential inability to preserve trees and
green space with building 4-5 story buildings. As well as assuming people will utilize land bridges just
because of their existence.
MOTION made by Commissioner Segelbaum and seconded by Commissioner Pockl to approve the
rezoning designations for groups 1,2,4,5,6. A roll call vote was made and passed unanimously.
City of Golden Valley Planning Commission Regular Meeting 7
July 13, 2020—7 pm
MOTION made by Commissioner Segelbaum and seconded by Commissioner Brookins to table the
designations relative to group 3 for further discussion. A roll call vote was made and passed
unanimously.
6. Discussion—Architectural and Material Standards for Mixed Use Properties
Jason Zimmerman, Planning Manager, reminded the group that when the City adopted architectural
and material standards for new developments in the R-3, R-4, Commercial, Office, Institutional, Light
Industrial, and Industrial zoning districts; the Mixed-Use district had not been finalized or adopted.
This discussion will be to revisit the regulations that were adopted previously and to begin to outline
the parameters for standards in the Mixed-Use zoning district. Details regarding the elements are in
the memo. Chair Blum stated he recalls the conversation, likes the list, and supports the need for
consistency. Commissioners Brookins, Segelbaum, and Pockl echoed the Chair's statement.
7. Discussion— Fences, Screening, and Garden Structures
Myles Campbell, Planner, stated that last year staff identified a number of areas in which the
existing code language regarding screening, and specifically fencing, could be improved upon.
Campbell expanded that the revisions are largely based on resident feedback and observed patterns
in how properties are utilizing fences and garden structures.The three items addressed surround
arterial road fence height exceptions, garden structures, and public safety screening exceptions.
Arterial Road Fence Height Exception
Current zoning code for residential properties limits the height of fences to 4 feet in the front yard of
homes. Fences up to 6 feet in height are allowed in rear and side yards, this allows for some privacy
between properties and to mitigate the carrying of noise.There is an existing exception for front yard
fences to extend beyond 4 feet in height and is based upon the property's proximity to a major
roadway. A large number of variance requests have come before the BZA for properties that do not
adjoin a minor arterial, but which are separated by a frontage road from a large principal arterial
roadway. These properties experience similar or greater noise impacts and still need to pursue
variances. Calculating the number of variance requests, and that these requests are almost
unanimously found to be reasonable, staff feels a new exception should be included in the code for
homes that are adjacent to or directly across a frontage road from a principal arterial. Specific
language to follow.
Chair Blum asked if ROW plantings could be put in place instead of taller fences. Campbell recalled a
variance that utilized fencing and plantings but a greater conversation could occur. However, many
plantings won't create enough mitigation for residents. Most of these examples are facing highways
or frontage roads, the fences generally won't face neighbors or other houses.
Garden Structures
In both the R-1 and R-2, garden structures are required to be no less than 5 feet from any property
line, including the front property line, and the garden structure shall not exceed 10 feet in height.
July 19, 2020
Hi,
I attended the Planning Commissions Informal Hearing regarding the Amendments to Zoning
Map. As it became apparent during the meeting there are concerns over the rezoning of Group
3 (aka area between Hwy 55 and Harold Ave + Winnetka and close to Rhode Island.
I was the party that had asked about if R-2 Zoning had been considered. After the discussion by
the parties on the commission on my question, I had some additional thoughts/questions on
the Zoning change:
1. One commission member had advised R-2 was no considered as this zoning allows for
Duplex's. Why would a duplex be worse than a 4-5 story building with 100+
units? Couldn't a Homeowners Association build duplexes (twin homes) where the
exterior would be maintained, as I have seen in many other suburb's? Plus there is
already on twin-home/duplex in the area of consideration.
2. Why was R-3 zoning considered for this area, as there is no other zoning of this type
along Hwy 55 from Brookview Park to Hwy 100? There is only a small R-3 condo
complex (older apartments turned condo?) from Brookview to Hwy 169. This does not
seem to be in line with the area's current ascetics. The closest R-3 is much closer to 394
and in an area much more aligned with easy access to the freeway system and larger
concentration of public transportation.
3. Would an R-3 zoning realistically bring in an age group that would be interested in using
the city's downtown? This area seems to be much more family or couple orientated,
while the R-3 would likely bring units for younger singles or senior residents. The young
single person would likely want to live were there is walking to groceries, night life, and
close to major public transportation line. Other than the night life, these are what
senior residents would want too. Currently there is minimal public transportation on
Winnetka.
4. Based on use I have seen in the GV downtown, wouldn't an R-2 bring in more of the
demographic that actually has interest in utilizing our Downtown and a larger portion of
Brookview?
5. R-2 would retain more green space and be more in line with the immediate
neighborhood (Vallee D'Or and Rhode Island single family homes)? The remainder of
the neighborhood, until close to 394, is R-1 single family homes.
6. If R-3 zoning increased to larger proposed density (20 units per acre or 30 units per acre
—senior):
a. Would this area be able to reasonably support this? As the corners of
Winnetka/Hwy 55 and Glenwood/Hwy 55 are already backed up during rush
hours (in a "regular" world).
b. Would the units for an R-3 zoning be of a size that would bring in people that
would be interested in living in this area?
7. Is there a Developer interested in building a Senior Residence? As this area was
repeatedly referenced as being used for this purpose. Advising a walk bridge over Hwy
55 would be created to aid Seniors in utilizing the Senior Center and Downtown GV.
a. If there is a developer: Could a rendering of the proposed development be
provided?
b. If there is not a developer, why was there discussion assuming the area of
discussion would be developed into a Senior Residence? As R-3 allows for
Apartments, Condos, townhouses, etc. to be built.
8. Would Seniors actually use a walkway over Hwy 55 to GV downtown?
9. Another thought on R-3 density adjustments: As R-3 density has increased, has there
been any discussion on adjusting R-2 density? Should R-2 be adjusted to allow for 10 or
12 units per acre (I believe I read this is currently 8 units per acre) and, maybe,
townhomes that would align with this density? Then R-3 could have a density starting
at 11 or 13 units to 20 units per acre density allowing for larger density townhomes,
condos, apartments, and senior residences.
Thank you for your time,
Tina Prokosch (7601 Harold Ave)
September 14, 2020
1 am writing to provide feedback on the proposed rezoning of the corner of Winnetka Ave. and
Highway 55. 1 live about 2 % blocks away from this area and drive by it often. I have lived here
for almost a decade now and I have always felt that this area was not zoned properly. This
corner is not a good place for single family housing due to the traffic on both roads. I feel
increasing the density would help to reinforce the corner as part of downtown. Increasing the
density would serve as a transitional buffer to the residential areas beyond. Multifamily or
senior housing would be great here especially given the proximity of Brookview park,
Brookview Community Center and Lions Park. Any number of scenarios for the lot would work
well and be a good use of the space. This was also be good from a sustainable standpoint by
adding density and mitigating sprawl. This is definitely the right thing to do for the city's future
from an urban design standpoint, from a sustainability standpoint, and from a general diversity
of housing standpoint.
Sincerely,
Jeremiah Battles
7403 Ridgeway Rd.
Golden Valley, MN 55427
September 18, 2020
Mayor and City Council-
I have copied my letter below from 2011 when this rezoning was first brought up and caused an
uprising in a residential area. I believe these points are all still valid and while we have
accepted R-2 rezoning along Harold and Rhode Island we do NOT need R-3 in a R1 and light R2
neighborhood that already lacks parking and has far too much cut through traffic when people
return to working in offices and rush hour returns.
I would also like to point out that we believed the redevelopment would happen once the city
council voted down the high density and removed the incentive for the banks to sit on
property. Turns out the community was correct and you have 9 new developments on the RI
cul-de-sac that sold for very nice amounts for the city tax base. I believe we need to move this
to R-2 at most to allow redevelopment that matches its surrounding in a residential
neighborhood.
I did not get involved at the 2040 comp plan because I believed this issue was dead and I
happen to miss a very small shaded color on the map. We feel it's not too late to ensure the
city council is aware that we do not want R-3 zoning or a 5-story building smashed into this
space.
Best,
Erik Pederson
130 Louisiana Ave N
EM--
From 2011:
To the Golden Valley Mayor and City Council-
/have left voicemails for each of you this afternoon and wanted to follow-up with you over
email. Over the past 2 weeks a group of concerned citizens has been raising awareness about the
potential rezoning of the Winn etka/Harold/55/Glenwood area to R2 and R3 housing. We all met
one another at the City planning meeting where we all voiced our disapproval of this
rezoning. While this became heated at times there are 3-4 of us trying to lead the group and keep it
a calm respectful meeting on the 20th.
We have been working on a petition for the neighborhood to sign (both paper and electronic
versions) to show the city council the displeasure a large majority of us have with this rezoning. To
be frank, 1 don't believe 1 have heard of more than 1-2 people that are actually in favor of this
rezoning. We have at this time limited the door to door conversations to the Brookview and Lions
Club neighborhoods from the golf course to Edgewood on the East. We hope these directly
impacted home owners and residents will a loud enough voice to be heard and change this rezoning
plan.
A brief summary of why the surrounding neighborhoods do NOT want this area rezoned.
1. Traffic- Harold, Winnetka, and Glenwood already have TOO MUCH TRAFFIC. There are times you
can't turn from Harold onto either Glenwood or Winnetka. Go South instead? Welcome to the
Ridgeway cut through that the neighbors to the South get fed up with. There is already not enough
parking at the park to support its current use. Additional traffic would only drive parking and traffic
further into the neighborhoods.
2. We do NOT support increasing traffic on these roads, widening the Winnetka/55 intersection, or
widening Harold Ave. This is a neighborhood that should have lower traffic flow than current
levels. If you make this intersection larger it will become a better cutthrough and further increase
traffic. Cars already go dangerously fast on this road and do not yield to pedestrians. The city has
not done a good job of controlling this. If you do not live in this neighborhood 1 invite you to try and
cross Winnetka within 2 hours of rush hour. It is not safe for families to do this even with the traffic
signs to try and slow people down.
3. This has primarily been a R1 single family neighborhood for 50+years. We bought here and live
here because it is a suburban neighborhood closer to the city. We do not want an urban
development. We want to keep the trees and green space along Hwy 55 and not cut them down to
build apartments and town homes. These have been overdeveloped in the last 10 years and we do
not need these in our neighborhood. lust because a developer can get financing does not mean it
belongs in our neighborhood. Please keep the higher density redevelopment to the urban corridor
north of 55 and on the 394 corridor where the businesses already reside.
The resolution we are looking for is a NO vote on this rezoning which would keep the properties
R1. The banks would then be motivated to sell the properties they own to people who could develop
them into R1 housing. This area can be redeveloped as it is currently zones. We will then also
request that the comp plan be changed to reflect the current zoning.
1 look forward to a conversation with each of you prior to the meeting on the 20th.
http://norezonegv.blogspot.com/
Sincerely,
Erik Pederson
130 Louisiana Ave N
E•E•-
September 24, 2020
Hi Jason,
My name is Adam Peterson and I live at 7643 Harold Ave in Golden Valley. I've lived in GV for 9 years or
so now.
I just want to share quickly that I oppose the rezoning proposed for the lots on the other side of Harold
from our home. For many reasons.
That tall of a building would be harmful to our community.
There are many beautiful, old, irreplaceable trees on those blocks that must be preserved.
The increase in traffic would be bothersome to the neighborhood, especially the many children that bike
to the nearby Brookview and Lions parks.
I do not believe that an apartment building or senior living home would fit with the character of the
neighborhood.
I'm worried about the additional unplanned for effect to our infrastructure. As well as water drainage.
I do not believe that the benefits outweigh the downsides nearly enough to even consider it for this
location. I hope you will consider my input.
Thank you,
Adam Peterson
Regular Meeting of the
Golden Valley Planning Commission
August 11, 2008
A regular meeting of the Planning Commission was held at the Golden Valley City Hall,
Council Chambers, 7800 Golden Valley Road, Golden Valley, Minnesota, on Monday,
August 11, 2008. Chair Keysser called the meeting to order at 7 pm.
Those present were Planning Commissioners Cera, Eck, Keysser, Kluchka, McCarty,
Schmidgall and Waldhauser. Also present was Director of Planning and Development Mark
Grimes, City Planner Joe Hogeboom and Administrative Assistant Lisa Wittman.
1. Approval of Minutes
June 23, 2008 Regular Planning Commission Meeting
MOVED by Eck, seconded by Cera and motion carried unanimously to approve the June
23, 2008 minutes as submitted.
2. Informal Public Hearing — Property Rezoning —Z012-16
Applicant: City of Golden Valley
Address: Northeast Corner of Douglas Drive and Golden Valley Road
Purpose: To make the zoning designation consistent with the General Land
Use Plan map designation
Grimes referred to a location map and explained that this is a proposal to rezone 5.6
acres on the northeast corner of Douglas Drive and Golden Valley Road to the R-4 High
Density Residential zoning district in order to make it consistent with the current General
Land Use Plan map. He stated that the properties are currently zoned R-1 Single Family
Residential and R-3 Medium Density Residential.
Grimes explained that in 1999 the City adopted the current General Land Use Plan
which designated these properties high density. Since that time staff has not
recommended rezoning the properties even though state statute requires that zoning
maps and general land use plan maps be consistent. He explained that staff is now
recommending these properties be rezoned because there has been a request to
construct 175 units of housing which is approximately 30 units per acre. He stated that
staff is recommending approval of this rezoning because it is consistent with,the General
Land Use Plan map dating back to 1999.
Kluchka asked why the City is proposing this rezoning now. Grimes stated that the City is
proposing this rezoning now because United Properties is proposing to build 175 units of
senior housing and the City's General Land Use Plan map and Zoning map have to
match. He stated that this rezoning probably should have been done sooner.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
August 11, 2008
Page 2
Schmidgall asked if it would be an option to make the General Land Use Plan map
match the Zoning map instead of the other way around. Grimes stated that the City
Council has the right to change the General Land Use Plan map how they want. The
current policy of the City as shown on the General Land Use Plan map is high density
residential. Within the past year, the Planning Commission has suggested as part of the
Comprehensive Plan update that these properties remain designated high density
because this is a logical location for higher density development in Golden Valley.
Keysser opened the public hearing.
Eleanore Kolar, 6186 Golden Valley Road, said she is appalled and angry that she is
even at this meeting. She said she is amazed that the Planning Commission hasn't
heard of global warming because removing the trees from these properties amounts to
deforestation. She said this shows the ignorance of governing bodies and asked what
the sense is in using this property for someone's monetary gain.
Jamie Fitzgerald, 1400 Florida Avenue North, said the notification process for this
meeting was very lax and the only way she found out about it was from a neighbor who
said this proposal was already a done deal. She referred to the housing stock in the area
and said "the GV Ghetto" is at the top of the hill and the rest of the area is small starter
family homes with the majority being long time, highly-educated residents. She
expressed concern over the size of the proposed buildings because four-story buildings
will tower over the neighborhood. She said her other concerns include ambulances
constantly driving by and the loss of green space and trees located on these properties.
She said she is worried that this area will change too much and the City needs to
consider the impact on the neighborhood because she is afraid it won't be community
friendly. She said she would like the proposal to include a park or an area open to the
public. She questioned the impacts to the creek and questioned what type of residents
the proposed senior housing would have including violent people or people with
dementia. She said she would be happy if a smaller assisted living home were built but
the City needs to consider the impact to the smaller single family homes in the area.
Dale Bates, 6140 Golden Valley Road, said he is concerned that a four-story building will
be aesthetically displeasing. He is also concerned about what the building will look like
and how higher density will affect the traffic. He said this proposal will cause a lot of
change and it may be difficult getting on and off Golden Valley Road during the
construction.
Patty Burrets, 6414 Golden Valley Road, said she did not receive a hearing notice for
this meeting or for the meeting held by the applicant last Wednesday. She said at the
applicant's meeting they were told that the Comprehensive Plan is calling for high
density on these properties and that is what the City wants. She said she doesn't see
how the City can pre-approve things without getting citizen input. She said she was also
told by the applicant that they will not make any money from the 74-unit co-op building.
She said that the proposed buildings will be too dense and questioned how many acres
the project includes. Keysser stated that the project will be on 4.7 acres. Burrets
expressed concern about how many people would be allowed to live on an acre.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
August 11, 2008
Page 3
Grimes explained that the R-4 zoning district allows housing in buildings up to 8 stories
or 96 feet in height before requiring a Conditional Use Permit. He said in terms of density
generally 30 to 35 units per acre is considered to be pretty high density. He referred to
the Calvary apartments and co-op property and stated that that has approximately 35 to
40 units per acre and is 10 or 11 stories in height and is the tallest development in
Golden Valley.
Burrets questioned why the applicant wouldn't just build a little bit bigger assisted living
building and forget about the co-op building if they are not going to make any money
from it anyway. She stated people are very unhappy and this is disturbing their lives. She
added that it isn't that people don't want this type of use it's the size, scope, height and
design that are the issues. She said the City should be looking for something other than
assisted living buildings. They should be providing affordable housing for young people
to move into this neighborhood.
Stacy Hoschka, 6400 Golden Valley Road, said she agreed that there is a problem with
the notification process and she spent hours distributing literature up and down Golden
Valley Road. She said she doesn't object to the proposed use and she would prefer
assisted living or senior housing versus another apartment building. She said this is
going to be the highest density area in Golden Valley and questioned how the City
wanted the area to look. She said it sounds to her like the Planning Commissioners don't
even agree on the amount of density that should be in this area. She stated that the City
has made promises with the Envision study, adopting the "Kyoto Protocol" and the new
Douglas Drive Corridor Study and she is going to hold the City to these promises.She
said she is nervous that this property will become low income housing 10 years from now
if this project doesn't succeed. She questioned if other senior housing properties are at
capacity and stated that the design of the proposed new buildings looks very institutional
and they will tower over the neighborhood. She asked that the applicant work with the
neighborhood regarding landscaping and open space and said there are a lot of
opportunities to be creative and unique. She said residential properties have a big impact
on the environment and she is concerned about storm water issues and landscape
maintenance and fertilizers being used so close to the creek. She said she is also
concerned about the traffic and hearing loud ambulance sirens all day long. She urged
the City to listen to both sides.
Roxanne Sienko, 5800 Golden Valley Road, said she is opposed to rezoning this area.
She stated that 14 years ago Covenant Manor approached her because they wanted to
expand. She said they were not interested in her family, they only wanted money. She
suggested building nice single family homes and stated that the proposed project will
change the neighborhood and the tall buildings won't fit in with the rest of the area.
Janice Laulainen, 6040 Golden Valley Road, said she loves this area and what the City
is doing is uncalled for. She said the gorgeous trees will be gone and she can't
understand with all of the senior housing in the area why they need more. She asked
why this project isn't being built where the Douglas Drive Apartments or the Copacabana
Apartments are located because there is a lot of crime in those areas. She said she's
been told that the older people who would be living in the proposed new buildings won't
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
August 11, 2008
Page 4
drive and that is "baloney". She said the City is really asking for problems and referred to
all the buildings that are for currently for lease. She said the proposed buildings are too
high and will block the sun and wreck the view. She asked why this corner and why this
is a "cut and dry" deal. She added that if the Planning Commission wants to beautify
Golden Valley they should do it with something else.
Jeanne Nyatz, 1350 Douglas Drive, said she lives in the condominium building to the
north and will look directly at the proposed buildings. She said she thinks the project is
well planned and will be meticulously maintained and beautifully landscaped. She stated
that she has never had a problem getting in and out her driveway on Douglas Drive and
she doesn't think that the density of the proposed new buildings will be a problem.
Fredric Lager, 6306 Golden Valley Road, suggested that people in the neighborhood sit
through another presentation by United Properties because everyone that has spoken at
this meeting has been misinformed and is misrepresenting the proposal. He stated that
United Properties is a local company which has been around for 89 years and this is
their sixth or seventh similar proposal. They are not coming from out of town and
pillaging Golden Valley. He said they will be a good neighbor and a good addition to the
area and he is in support of this proposal if they follow all of the City's guidelines. He
questioned if rezoning these properties is just fixing a technicality on the zoning map.
Keysser explained that the City's General Land Use Plan map has been designated high
density for at least the last nine years. In order to make the Zoning map consistent with
the existing General Land Use Plan map these properties need to be rezoned to the
High Density Residential R-4 zoning district.
Lager asked about the current Comprehensive Plan update. Grimes explained that the
Planning Commission has recommended, as part of the Comprehensive Plan update
process, keeping these properties designated high density.
Jamie Fitzgerald, 1400 Florida Avenue North, said she wants to reiterate that she is not
against the proposal and suggested that a mass mailing be done to a 10-block radius
and that the Planning Commission consider tabling this proposal.
Patty Burrets, 6414 Golden Valley Road, referred to Mr. Lager's comment that there has
been a lot of misunderstanding regarding this proposal and said she wants to know what
has been misunderstood or misrepresented.
Fredric Lager, 6306 Golden Valley Road, stated that he assumes the notification process
followed all of the requirements. Grimes explained that the City of Golden Valley mails
hearing notices to all property owners within 500 feet. He added that the state statute
requires hearing notices be mailed to property owners within 250 feet.
Eleanore Kolar, 6186 Golden Valley Road, said she doesn't believe there has been any
misrepresentation; people are just expressing their opinions.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
August 11, 2008
Page 5
Mary Carson, 1601 Kelly Drive, said she drives by this area constantly and if something
is going to be done it should be done tastefully because it impacts a lot of people in
Golden Valley. She said from what she has heard this project is not well planned. They
are going to come in, build, then leave because it is business to them. She said she is
concerned about the loss of trees and added that there has to be a way to fit the
architecture into the land.
Dale Bates, 6140 Golden Valley Road suggested the developers build green roofs in
order to release oxygen and save money on heating costs.
Seeing and hearing no one else wishing to comment, Keysser closed the public hearing.
Keysser clarified that this proposed project is not a "done deal" until the City Council
makes their decision. He also clarified that the City is not the developer of this proposed
project so it is not up to the City to tell the developer to build single family homes versus
the proposed,senior housing.
Kluchka stated that the zoning map says the property is zoned R-3, but Grimes' memo
says R-4 and asked for clarification. Grimes stated that the properties are currently
zoned R-1 and R-3, and the proposal is to rezone them to R-4.
Kluchka said he is concerned about going from R-3 to R-4. Grimes explained that the
R-3 zoning district allows for townhomes and multi-family buildings if they are 12 units or
less per acre. The R-4 zoning district is for multi-family buildings with 12 or more units
per acre. He stated that the City needed to create a zoning district to match the density
requirements on the General Land Use Plan map because the two maps were not
consistent.
Keysser asked if the property is rezoned to R-4 High Density Residential and the
proposed project doesn't happen if the property would remain R-4. Grimes reiterated that
the General Land Use Plan map shows these properties should be high density housing.
He explained that if the Planning Commission and the City Council believe that the
properties should not be used for high density then the General Land Use Plan map
needs to be changed because the High Density designation is the current policy of the
City.
Waldhauser asked about the density of the condominiums to the north. Grimes said
there are approximately 50 units in the condominium which is approximately 25 to 30
units per acre in density.
Schmidgall stated that the City wasn't thinking when it designated these properties high
density on the General Land Use Plan map because he can't imagine a 96-foot tall
building in this location. He said he thinks medium density would be better in this location
particularly because the zoning to the west is R-1 Single Family. He said it looks like this
proposal is being squeezed on to these properties and he thinks the General Land Use
Plan map needs to be corrected not the Zoning map.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
August 11, 2008
Page 6
McCarty said he is concerned that if this property is rezoned to R-4 and this project
doesn't go through then someone could build a 96-foot tall building. He suggested
reconsidering the General Land Use Plan map designation.
Eck said the issue to consider is if R-4 is appropriate in this location because if the land
use is changed to R-3 it would shoot this project down.
Kluchka questioned if rezoning the properties to R-3 would make the apartments "not
developable".
Eck stated that if the property is rezoned to R-4 it doesn't necessarily mean that a much
taller or higher density project would be approved. Keysser questioned how a project
could be denied if it were to meet all the zoning code requirements. Grimes explained
that a PUD Permit requires a developer to stick to an approved plan.
Cera asked if the PUD stays with the land. Grimes said yes and explained that if a
developer in the future wanted to change an approved PUD Permit the City would have
to rescind or amend the existing PUD Permit. Keysser asked for clarification that if
someone in the future wanted to build something higher or something different they
would have to amend the PUD. Grimes said yes.
Schmidgall noted that the properties north of the creek are in the same situation. Grimes
agreed and stated that the properties north of the creek are considered non-conforming
and if the apartments to the north are re-developed they will more than likely be higher
density because of the facts of the economy.
Cera asked if the City could approve the rezoning request, but deny the PUD request.
Grimes reiterated that the City Council has designated this area high density. If the
Planning Commission doesn't agree that this area should be high density they could
table the rezoning request and ask the City Council to reconsider the comprehensive
plan designation. He stated that Golden Valley is currently 70% single family homes. The
City has looked far and wide in Golden Valley for areas that could be designated higher
density because the Planning Commission and City Council felt there needed to be
areas designated for higher density uses and it was felt that this was a good area for
higher density development.
Waldhauser said they need to look at the City and see if there is a better location for this
type of development and she doesn't think there is.
Keysser said he is comfortable with rezoning the property knowing the City has the PUD
process for protection.
McCarty said he is curious as to what the Douglas Drive Corridor study will find because
this project will set the tone for the rest of the corridor if this project goes forward.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
August 11, 2008
Page 7
Keysser stated that the Douglas Drive Corridor study committee has looked at maps to
see if change was wanted or not. Hogeboom added that the consensus of the Douglas
Drive Corridor study committee was to change these properties to high density.
Kluchka said this is one of the better places the City has to do this type of development
and he is inclined to support the rezoning. However, he is concerned about traffic
because nobody yields at the corner of Golden Valley Road and Douglas Drive, which
needs to be thought about as a part of the Douglas Drive Corridor study. He said they
also need to address traffic and impacts to the area.
Cera said he agrees that there is a need for higher density housing.
Eck said this is a NIMBY issue and it is fair to say that higher density housing like this is
never desirable for the neighbors living in the area. He said he wants to be sensitive to
the neighbor's feelings but if the City was totally sensitive there would never be any
change.
Waldhauser said she supports the rezoning request with some reservations. She said
Golden Valley needs more senior housing opportunities and this project is an attractive
option for seniors.
McCarty said he understands that Golden Valley needs higher density but he is
concerned that if these properties were rezoned, someone could propose at 96-foot tall
building and if it meets all of the zoning code requirements they wouldn't need a PUD.
Kluchka asked if there is any way to place some type of overlay or control on future
development. Grimes said he doesn't think so. He explained that if the concern is the
height of the structures then the Planning Commission could consider changing the
Zoning Code requirements. He added that if the City holds off on the rezoning of the
properties until the Final PUD procedure it would hold the zoning of the land in the state
it is in currently. Kluchka said he doesn't want to play a procedural game he would like
something more like an overlay.
Schmidgall said he would like to rezone the properties to R-3 Medium Density
Residential, not R-4 High Density Residential. He said he would rather have a developer
beg the City to be allowed to build taller than have the City beg a developer to build
something shorter.
McCarty asked if the rezoning and PUD are approved and the developer decides not to
build this project what the limitations are to the next developer. Grimes stated that the
City Council can eliminate or rescind a PUD and go back to what the property is zoned
and a future developer would probably have to replat the properties or a PUD can be
amended to allow for something else. He reiterated that the PUD takes the plans
submitted and holds the developer to them. He stated that from a staff perspective this
proposal is consistent with what the City is calling for. He referred to the City's housing
plan and noted that it also calls for providing an alternate form of housing. He stated that
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
August 11, 2008
Page 8
other cities have built this type of product and have proved that this type of housing
causes turnover and frees up single family homes for younger families to purchase.
Waldhauser said the thinks the City should be looking at all the properties at the same
time and needs to be thinking about the whole area. Grimes reiterated that state law
requires that General Land Use Plan maps and Zoning maps are consistent with each
other.
MOVED by Waldhauser, seconded by Cera and motion carried 6 to 1 to recommend
rezoning the following properties from their current zoning designation to the R-4 High
Density Residential Zoning District. Commissioner Schmidgall voted no.
• 1100, 1170, 1200 and 1300 Douglas Drive North from R-1 Single Family Zoning
District to R-4 High Density Residential Zoning District
• 6200 and 6212 Golden Valley Road from R-3 Medium Density Residential Zoning
District to R-4 High Density Residential Zoning District.
3. Informal Public Hearing — Preliminary Plan Review— Planned Unit
Development—Applewood Pointe - PUD 106
Applicant: United Properties
Address: Northeast Corner of Douglas Drive and Golden Valley Road
Purpose: To allow for the construction of a 4-story, 74-unit senior cooperative
building and 4-story, 105-unit assisted living building.
Grimes referred to a location map and stated that the properties involved in this request
are located at the northeast corner of Douglas Drive and Golden Valley Road and are
the same properties involved in the previous rezoning request. He stated that United
Properties is proposing to build two buildings on these properties and create one lot for
each building. One will be a 74-unit senior cooperative housing building and the other will
be a 105-unit assisted living building. The proposed buildings will be three and four
stories in height. He stated that the City Engineer and Hennepin County have reviewed
this proposal extensively and Hennepin County has said they do not want access to the
site from Douglas Drive. Therefore there will only be one access located on Golden
Valley Road. He said he feels comfortable with only one access because of the
population of the buildings. He stated that both buildings will have underground and
surface parking and that the amount of parking provided exceeds the City's parking
requirements.
He stated that one of staffs concerns was the additional 17 feet of right-of-way along
Douglas Drive that the County is requesting to accommodate future road changes, turn
lanes or sidewalks. He stated that United Properties is providing additional sidewalks
and is improving sidewalk connections as a part of their proposal. He referred to the
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
November 14, 2011
Page 3
Schmidgall said he is in favor of the proposed PUD amendment because it will be an
improvement to the area. However, he would like to see more green space on the site.
Kisch agreed and stated that he would like to add as a condition of approval that the area
between the handicap parking stalls and the front area be striped. Segelbaum also
agreed and said he thinks the proposal meets the criteria in the PUD ordinance.
MOVED by Cera, seconded by Segelbaum and motion carried unanimously to
recommend approval of PUD #66, Amendment#4 to allow for the expansion of the
showroom and entry of the Infiniti dealership plus a car wash addition to the north end of
the building subject to the following conditions:
1. The plans submitted with the application shall become a part of this approval. These plans
were prepared for Lupient Automotive Group and include the following: existing and
demolition site plan, proposed site plan, existing floor plans, orientation plans floor plans —
building A, floor plans— building B and exterior elevations.
2. All recommendations and requirements outlined in the memorandum from Deputy Fire
Marshal Ed Anderson to Mark Grimes, Director of Planning and Development dated
September 27, 2011 shall become a part of this approval.
3. A landscape plan showing some restored green space shall be submitted before the
Preliminary Plan goes to the City Council for consideration.
4. The walkway between the handicap parking stalls and the front entry shall be striped.
5. Staff will review the condition of the private roadway along the south property line to
determine if any maintenance is required.
6. All signs on the property must meet the requirements of the City's Sign Code.
7. This approval is subject to all other state, federal, and local ordinances, regulations, or laws
with authority over this development.
3. Informal Public Hearing — Property Rezoning — 1100, 1170, 1200 and 1300
Douglas Drive North — Rezoning from Single Family (R-1) Residential to
Medium Density (R-3) Residential -Z012-17
Applicant: City of Golden Valley
Address: 1100, 1170, 1200 and 1300 Douglas Drive North
Purpose: To consider rezoning the properties from Single Family (R-1)
Residential to Medium Density (R-3) Residential in order to bring the
Zoning Map into conformance with the General Land Use Plan Map.
Hogeboom referred to a map of the properties and explained the proposal to rezone them
to Medium Density (R-3) Residential in order to bring the Zoning Map into Conformance
with the General Land Use Plan Map. The land use designation on the General Land Use
Plan Map for these properties is High Density Residential.
Kluchka asked about the mailing list for the public hearing notifications. Hogeboom stated
that the property owners received individual letters and property owners within 500 feet of
the subject properties received notification for this public hearing.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
November 14, 2011
Page 4
Segelbaum asked about the impact to the existing homes and if their use would be
restricted. Hogeboom said the properties, if rezoned, would be considered to be non-
conforming due to either the zoning or setback requirements. He explained that the
homes can be maintained and improved but they could not expand.
Kisch clarified the Zoning Map designations that would work in each the General Land
Use Plan Map categories as follows: properties zoned R-1 and R-2 would be allowed in
the Low Density land use category, properties zoned R-2 and R-3 would be allowed in the
Medium-Low Density land use category, properties zoned R-3 & R-4 would be allowed in
the Medium-High Density land use category and properties zoned R-3 and R-4 would be
allowed in the High Density land use category.
Kisch asked about the rationale in not allowing single family homes in the R-3 Zoning
District. Grimes explained that allowing single family homes in the R-3 Zoning District
would make long-term development more difficult. Hogeboom added that zoning districts
help define where long-term higher density can be located versus long-term lower
density.
Waldhauser opened the public hearing.
Mark Schulte, 6336 Phoenix Street, stated he would like to know how this proposed
rezoning impacts his neighborhood and his property value. He said there are a lot of
neighbors who are concerned about how close they will be to high density housing and
how property values will be affected.
Seeing and hearing no one else wishing to comment, Waldhauser closed the public
hearing.
Kluchka asked which properties have been acquired for the Douglas Drive Corridor
Project. Hogeboom said there will be some properties acquired north of Golden Valley
Road.
Kisch referred to the Metropolitan Council's demographics regarding the rise in population
and asked if this proposed rezoning with help the City plan for higher density especially
since the corner of Harold Avenue and Winnetka Avenue is no longer being proposed for
higher density. Hogeboom said the Metropolitan Council gives estimates based on
regional levels and each City has to plan long-term for the increased population.
Grimes stated that he feels a well-maintained and landscaped higher density
development would fit in well in this area. McCarty asked why it is being limited to such
low density. Hogeboom stated that a developer could petition the City in the future to
rezone it to a higher density zoning category.
Schmidgall said he is in favor of the proposed rezoning to R-3 residential, but he would
not support a 60-foot high, vinyl sided building like what was proposed previously for this
area.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
November 14, 2011
Page 5
Kluchka asked what uses would be considered Conditional Uses are in the R-3 Zoning
District. Grimes read the following list of Conditional Uses found in the R-3 Zoning District
in the City Code: Residential facilities serving 25 or more persons, Group Foster Homes,
Senior and physical disability housing to a density in excess of 12 units per acre or up to
5 stories or 60 feet in height and retail sales, Class I and II restaurant establishments, and
professional offices within principal structures containing 20 or more dwelling units when
located upon any minor or major arterial street. Any such sales establishment or office
shall be located only on the ground floor and have direct access to the street.
MOVED by Segelbaum, seconded by Schmidgall and motion carried unanimously to
recommend approval of rezoning the properties located at 1100, 1170, 1200 and 1300
Douglas Drive North from Single Family (R-1) Residential to Medium Density (R-3)
Residential in order to bring the Zoning Map into conformance with the General Land Use
Plan Map.
--Short Recess--
4. Reports on Meetings of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority, City
Council, Board of Zoning Appeals and other Meetings
No reports were given.
5. Other Business
The Commission discussed possible dates for the annual holiday party. The consensus
was to have the party on December 7 at the Brookview Grill.
6. Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned at 8:15 pm.
vftvLo Q
David A. Cera, Secretary
7800 Golden Valley Road I Golden Valley,MN 55427 city of
763-593-3992 1 TTY 763-593-3968 1 763-593-8109(fax)I www.goldenvalleymn.gov go1denjj',YVaPlanning Commission
August 10,2020—7 pm
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.
The public was able to participate in this meeting during public comment sections, by dialing 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, Adam Brookins, Andy Johnson, Noah Orloff, Lauren
Pockl, Ryan Sadeghi, Chuck Segelbaum
Commissioners absent:
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 Johnson, seconded by Commissioner Brookins to approve the
agenda of August 10, 2020. 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 July 27, 2020.
MOTION made by Commissioner Pockl, seconded by Commissioner Brookins to approve the July
27, 2020 meeting minutes, after edits were made.Staff called a roll call vote and the motion carried
with the Chair abstaining as he was not present.
4. Informal Public Hearing—Zoning Text Amendment
Rezoning of Properties to Achieve Conformance with the 2040 Comprehensive Plan
Applicant: City of Golden Valley
Jason Zimmerman, Planning Manager, started with a presentation and reminded the group of the
re-zonings taking place as part of complying with the 2040 Comprehensive Plan. This group is a
second round of rezoning requests and this current request includes 47 properties. One location in
This document is available in alternate formats upon a 72-hour request. Please call
763-593-8006 (TTY: 763-593-3968)to make a request. Examples of alternate formats
may include large print, electronic, Braille,audiocassette, etc.
City of Golden Valley Planning Commission Regular Meeting 2
August 10, 2020—7 pm
this group being considered for a new multifamily development; the project is dependent on the
rezoning taking place in order to move forward.
Zimmerman went on to break down the groups by neighborhoods, there are 7 groups in total. Each
group had specific details, group-specific resident comments, all conveyed to the Commissioners by
staff.
As a key reminder, Zimmerman added that state statute requires all zoning designations to be
consistent with the land uses identified in the Comp Plan within nine months of adoption. Businesses
would be allowed to continue with current uses and site layouts under a legally non-conforming
status. PUD regulations take precedence. Should the City choose not to rezone any of these
properties, the Future Land Use Map would need to be amended with the Met Council.
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 the 47 identified
properties be rezoned as indicated.
Commissioner Baker asked what the notification process to neighbors is. Zimmerman responded
that homes within a 500-foot buffer from the property are sent a notice 10 days prior to the informal
public hearing and then another for the formal hearing with City Council.
Discussion around the proposed zoning changes occurred, by right changes, CUP, and PUDs.
Commissioner Pockl asked if there was objection to any rezoning groups, staff stated that there were
two in advance regarding group 4's rezoning from R-3 to R-4.
Chair Blum opened the public hearing at 7:30 pm.
Amy
3211 St Margaret Drive
My question was, why are the properties here being rezoned when the light rail likely won't go
through. However, this was addressed because the rezoning is being set aside. Watching the
meeting, I see my question has been addressed. Is that correct that you're not currently rezoning the
St Margaret Church property.
Leann Moss
2020 Douglass Drive
I heard we were already rezoned and have now been approached to sell our house. When will this
rezoning be happening. How long will it take to happen?
Zimmerman chimed in, this is one of the properties being considered for multi-family development.
It is being considered for rezoning but has not occurred yet. Assuming the rezoning passes the
Planning Commission meeting, it will move on to City Council, and once it's approved by the Council,
the rezoning will take effect the following week.
City of Golden Valley Planning Commission Regular Meeting 3
August 10, 2020—7 pm
Anonymous
Golden Valley Road and Douglas Drive Intersection
What is the status of the property on 1111 Douglas Drive, the tenant office building. Depending on
that, how does that effect the potential rezoning of properties on Golden Valley Road and Douglas
Drive?
Zimmerman responded that there was interest in 1111 Douglas Drive since the Tennant
headquarters is moving to Eden Prairie. The City is of the understanding that when that transition
takes place, the property will be placed for sale. The comp plan guides that property as Mixed-Use, it
could be residential, commercial, institutional-they're all options under Mixed-Use designation. If
there were concerns about traffic, then maybe an evaluation of that area would be done.
Calvin Artimus
1950 Douglas Drive N
Is the property you're talking about that has interest from developers, going to be low-income
housing?
Zimmerman stated the idea is multi-family housing but the level of income being targeted has not
been shared with the City.The City has interest in affordable housing but until a proposal comes to
the City, it's unclear.The caller responded that if the developer wants to put multi-level housing
where houses are located, that may be what's right for the City but what about what's right for the
neighbors?The developers came already and asked to buy my property, they then said if I don't sell
to them, that my property will be worth nothing. Zimmerman responded that tonight's vote is not to
vote on if a multi-family unit will be developed. Tonight, the Planning Commission will decide on
whether or not to move the rezoning forward with a mixed-use zoning to support any number of
uses. It's up to the current property owners and future property owners to decide what they would
like to do; if they want to sell or develop. The caller responded, he believes his property is zoned
Institutional, and would like to zone it residential; however, if a developer comes in and builds a
multi-family housing unit, he doesn't see a future for himself in this location.
Chair Blum left the call-in line open while Commissioners had discussion.
Commissioner Johnson asked what the City's position is on low-income renters being displaced by
re-zonings. Zimmerman responded that he doesn't speak for the City Council but that he feels the
goal is not to see affordable housing reduced in the City. The overall Comprehensive Plan goal is to
see the numbers increase over 10-20 years.
Discussion continued around specific groups and group 4 rezoning from R-3 to R-4 and area's ability
to handle the increased traffic. It was mentioned that this proposed rezoning occurred in the past
and staff offered to table group 4 and do some more research into what occurred to prevent the
rezoning.The roads have since changed from a four way stop to a roundabout. A couple
Commissioners stated their support of tabling group four and waiting for more analysis.
City of Golden Valley Planning Commission Regular Meeting 4
August 10, 2020—7 pm
Commissioner Johnson asked about group 6— removing the institutional zoning for the religious
building, is there a concern around legislation? Zimmerman stated the City is allowed to rezone as
Mixed-Use because that allows for Institutional as well as a number of other uses. Johnson continued
by asking if businesses could continue to exist but have limitations by new zoning. Zimmerman
responded that City Code addresses non-conforming uses; anything that was legally constructed in a
previous zoning, is allowed to continue on. These businesses can remodel or even rebuild in the
event of catastrophe, they cannot expand, however. The conversation continued on to roadways and
creating safe/legal access to properties.
Chair Blum said he was wondering about group 7, and the R-1 area being rezoned to an R-2 and how
it compares to the intersection of Medicine Lake Road and Winnetka. Chair added that it seems that
area was more conducive to R-2 and wasn't sure he felt the same about group 7. Zimmerman added
that currently R-2 doesn't allow for row-houses but adding them to the zoning designation has been
discussed.
The conversation continued on about R-2 vs R-3, duplexes and row houses.
Chair suggested tabling group 7 for more analysis.
Chair Blum closed the public hearing at 8:20pm.
MOTION made by Commissioner Brookins, and seconded by Commissioner Segelbaum to approve
Groups, 1, 2, 3, 5, 6 and to table Groups 4, 7.
Staff took a roll call vote and the motion passes unanimously.
S. Informal Public Hearing—Zoning Map Amendments
Section 113-152: Screening and Outdoor Storage
Applicant: City of Golden Valley
Myles Campbell, Planner, did not have a PowerPoint presentation for Commissioners as this was a
continuation of a presentation from last meeting.
Three areas of the zoning code broadly fell under the title of screening and staff felt they could be
improved on. The three areas, analysis, and draft language are as follows:
Arterial Road Fence Height Exception
Current zoning code language for residential properties limit the height of fences to 4 ft. in the front
yard of homes. Homes abutting a minor arterial are allowed to go up to 6 ft. in height as part of an
exception in § 113-152, Subd. (d)(2).
A number of properties that abut a frontage road for Principal Arterials have applied for variances for
6 ft. fences. These properties do not qualify for the exception, they see similar if not greater noise
and nuisance impacts than those that abut a minor arterial street, thus staff suggests the following
amendment to § 113-152, Subd. (d)(2)
A wall or fence not exceeding six feet in height is permitted in the front yard of all properties
directly adjoining a minor arterial street or adjoining the frontage road of a principal arterial,
freeway, or expressway, as designated by the City.
September 9, 2020
In reference to your letter dated September 3, 2020, 1 am extremely concerned about the
rezoning of this area. I live at the Villa at 1350 Douglas Drive. Having Bassett Creek flowing
through our back yard and having the south view beyond the creek is a beautiful amenity. I am
sure placing a multi level complex at some time on the proposed area will only decrease
property values at the Villa. I will be terribly disappointed should this happen. Golden Valley
has erected several multi-level buildings in the last few years. I would hope the tax revenue
from these buildings should supplement the city of Golden Valley very well. Please do not ruin
the esthetics is this community.
Respectfully,
Marlene Witucki
List of Affected Properties
ProposedCurrent Zoning
7831 Olson Memorial Highway R-1 R-3
440 Winnetka Ave N R-1 R-3
424 Winnetka Ave N R-1 R-3
400 Winnetka Ave N R-1 R-3
7840 Harold Ave R-1 R-3
7830 Harold Ave R-1 R-3
7732 Harold Ave R-1 R-3
7724 Harold Ave R-1 R-3
7710 Harold Ave R-1 R-3
411 Rhode Island Ave N R-1 R-3
1300 Douglas Drive North R-3 R-4
1200 Douglas Drive North R-3 R-4
1170 Douglas Drive North R-3 R-4
1100 Douglas Drive North R-3 R-4
6212 Golden Valley Road R-3 R-4
6200 Golden Valley Road R-3 R-4
1
r� IIII�1 y
F
i � I
tLo �I •1�
• • L
L + L 14
rJf rq co
i
i
L
L
LL
• •
L 1 _
ORDINANCE NO. 691
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE CITY CODE CHAPTER 113
Rezoning Certain Properties at Harold Avenue and Winnetka Avenue
in Order to Achieve Alignment with the 2040 Comprehensive Plan
The City Council for the City of Golden Valley hereby ordains:
Section 1 . City Code chapter 113 entitled "Zoning" is amended in Section 113-55
Subd. (b) by changing the zoning designation of certain tracts of land from Single-Family
Residential (R-1) to Medium Density Residential (R-3):
7831 Olson Memorial Highway
440 Winnetka Avenue North
424 Winnetka Avenue North
400 Winnetka Avenue North
7840 Harold Avenue
7830 Harold Avenue
7732 Harold Avenue
7724 Harold Avenue
7710 Harold Avenue
411 Rhode Island Avenue North
Section 2. City Code Chapter 1 entitled "General Provisions" and Sec. 1-8
entitled "General Penalty; Continuing Violations" are hereby adopted in their entirety, by
reference, as though repeated verbatim herein.
Section 3. This ordinance shall take effect form and after its passage and
publication as required by law.
Adopted by the City Council this 7th day of October, 2020.
/s/Shepard M. Harris
Shepard M. Harris, Mayor
ATTEST:
/s/ Theresa J. Schyma
Theresa J. Schyma, City Clerk
ORDINANCE NO. 692
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE CITY CODE CHAPTER 113
Rezoning Certain Properties at Douglas Drive and Golden Valley Road
in Order to Achieve Alignment with the 2040 Comprehensive Plan
The City Council for the City of Golden Valley hereby ordains:
Section 1 . City Code chapter 113 entitled "Zoning" is amended in Section 113-55
Subd. (b) by changing the zoning designation of certain tracts of land from Medium Density
Residential (R-3) to High Density Residential (R-4):
1300 Douglas Drive North
1200 Douglas Drive North
1170 Douglas Drive North
1100 Douglas Drive North
6212 Golden Valley Road
6200 Golden Valley Road
Section 2. City Code Chapter 1 entitled "General Provisions" and Sec. 1-8
entitled "General Penalty; Continuing Violations" are hereby adopted in their entirety, by
reference, as though repeated verbatim herein.
Section 3. This ordinance shall take effect form and after its passage and
publication as required by law.
Adopted by the City Council this 7th day of October, 2020.
/s/Shepard M. Harris
Shepard M. Harris, Mayor
ATTEST:
/s/ Theresa J. Schyma
Theresa J. Schyma, City Clerk
eityof
*#",
valle�
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
olden
g - Development
Physical
763-593-8030 / 763-593-8109 (fax)
Golden Valley City Council Meeting
October 7, 2020
Agenda Item
4. C. Public Hearing—Approval of Conditional Use Permit 168, Amendment#1— 145 Jersey Ave S
Prepared By
Myles Campbell, Planner
Summary
The principal of Good Shepherd School, Stevi Evans, is requesting an amendment to an existing CUP in
order to allow for the expansion of the school's pre-k child care center from one classroom to two.The
original CUP from 2019 had a condition that capped the number of child care participants, "The child
care center shall be limited to 20 students, or the amount specified by the Minnesota Department of
Human Services, whichever is less."
The original CUP was applied for and completed in 2019.This amendment would not require any
changes to the building footprint or exterior of the building. Many of the existing conditions at the site
have not changed since that original approval.
This request was considered at the Planning Commission meeting on September 14, 2020. The
Commission voted unanimously (7-0), recommending approval of the amendment to CUP 168.
The Commissioners did modify the conditions for the permit's approval, which will be covered in
greater depth later in this report.
Zoning Analysis
Good Shepherd Church and School is proposing to convert an existing classroom within the school to
serve as a second room for its child care program. Other than this change, the hours of operation,
building footprint, and parking lot layout are not expected to be modified. Given that this proposed use
represents relatively little change in use compared to the original CUP review, staff was primarily
interested in how the change might impact traffic flow and parking on site.
Parking
With the initial approval of the CUP, the City elected to utilize its zoning language in Section 113-151.
Off-Street Parking and Loading. (b)(23) Potential Reduction. This section of code allows the city to
waive or reduce a portion of the parking required for a site in which parking is shared or jointly used
between two or more complementary uses. Given that the church primarily operates on the
weekend, and the school operates during the week staff sees no issues with the proposed change in
use regarding the expansion of childcare facilities. As seen in the table below, the Church use has a
City Council Regular Meeting Executive Summary 2
City of Golden Valley
October 7,2020
much greater impact in terms of parking required, with the added childcare only increasing the
parking requirement by one space per six participants. Additionally, given the conversion of one
classroom to the child care use, this increase is further offset by the decrease in parking required for
the school.
Use Requirement Calculation Minimum
Parking Spaces
Child Care 1 per 6 participants 40 participants 7
School 2 per classroom 14 classrooms 28
Place of 1 per 3 seats in main 450 occupant load in Church 250
Worship assembly area (where the + 300 occupant load in Social
number of required parking Hall = 750
spaces is measured by
maximum seating capacity)
Total 285
Existing 263
Difference -22
Since the parking lot is sized to accommodate the larger demand for parking on the weekends (263
spaces) and there have been no issues with parking shortages on the property on weekdays, staff is
comfortable allowing a parking reduction for this site. Any future expansions of the campus may trigger
the need for a formal parking agreement between the owner and the City, depending on a future
parking analysis.
Traffic Circulation
All drop-offs and pick-ups currently occur on site.The school has received some feedback and advice
from police on how to minimize congestion and traffic on both Jersey and Western, although Physical
Development staff have not received complaints or heard of issues with queueing in the public right-
of-way at this time. Preschool drop-off and pick-up enters the site from Jersey, while school age
families enter from Western. Drop-off typically occurs between 7:45-8:10 a.m., while pick-up occurs
between 2:40-3:00 p.m.
CUP Evaluation
The findings and recommendations for a Conditional Use Permit are based upon any or all of the
following factors (which need not be weighed equally). Any conditions imposed by the permit should
respond to and attempt to mitigate impacts generated by the proposed use.
Factor Finding
1. Demonstrated Need for Proposed Use Standard met. Child care is a necessary
service for many members of the
community. A child care center was
City Council Regular Meeting Executive Summary 3
City of Golden Valley
October 7,2020
previously requested by parents in the K-6
school. The expansion from 20 to 40
children is a reasonable increase so long as
the building is able to adequately serve the
students, which it appears to be.
2. Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan Standard met. The proposed use is consistent
with the Institutional designation in the
Comprehensive Plan, which allows for child
care centers.
3. Effect upon Property Values Standard met. The proposed use is not
anticipated to affect property values in a
substantial way.
4. Effect on Traffic Flow and Congestion Standard conditionally met. Traffic flows are
not anticipated to be substantially different
from those that currently exist. The peak hours
have been identified by the school and they
have worked with the Police Department in
order to minimize congestion.The amount of
additional cars coming through the parking lot
because of the added number of children is not
expected to significantly impact traffic flow.
While there is not currently a problem with
overflow into the streets, City staff suggest
that the applicant complete a circulation plan
for the site, in order to maximize the effective
use of its large parking lot and queuing area
and to preempt any potential issues down the
road.
5. Effect of Increases in Population and Standard met. The school currently has 29
Density employees. The amendment would allow for
an increase of 20 children in the preschool
program, however the site is able to
accommodate this growth in population
without negatively affecting neighboring
property owners.
6. Compliance with the City's Mixed-Income Not applicable.
Housing Policy
7. Increase in Noise Levels Standard met. The proposed use is not
anticipated to generate excessive noise. Other
City Council Regular Meeting Executive Summary 4
City of Golden Valley
October 7,2020
than afterschool meetings and activities, no
regular night-time activities are expected.
8. Generation of Odors, Dust,Smoke, Gas, or Standard met. The proposed use is not
Vibration anticipated to generate excessive odors, dust,
smoke, gas, or vibrations.
9. Any Increase in Pests or Vermin Standard met. The proposed use is not
anticipated to attract pests.
10. Visual Appearance Standard met. No exterior improvements are
associated with this proposal. Future
improvements to the parking lot will need to
incorporate minimum standards in City Code.
11. Other Effects upon the General Public Standard met. The proposed use is not
Health, Safety, and Welfare anticipated to have any other impacts on the
surrounding area.
Engineering Staff has reviewed the application and only raised the point that a circulation plan or study
may be a good idea given that the applicant has received some direction on queuing from the Police,
they otherwise have not had any reports of significant parking or congestion issues around the site.
Engineering staff supports approval of the CUP. The Fire Department has reviewed the application and
has no additional concerns. Fire staff support the approval of the CUP.
Based on the findings above, staff recommends approval of Conditional Use Permit 168, Amendment
1, allowing for a Child Care Center in an Institutional 1-1 Zoning District at 145 Jersey Avenue South.
Consistent with State statute, a certified copy of the CUP must be recorded with Hennepin County. The
approval of this Conditional Use Permit Amendment is subject to the following conditions:
1. The child care center shall be limited to 40 students, or the amount specified by the Minnesota
Department of Human Services, whichever is less.
2. A proposal to increase the capacity of the child care center will require an amendment to the CUP.
3. All necessary licenses shall be obtained and remain active with the Minnesota Department of
Human Services.
4. The hours of normal operation for the Child Care Center shall be Monday through Friday from 7 am
to 6 pm.
5. The applicant will produce a traffic circulation plan for the site regarding drop-off and pick-up
procedures, to be reviewed by the City's Engineering Staff.
Financial Or Budget Considerations
None
Recommended Action
Motion to adopt Ordinance #693, Approval of Conditional Use Permit 168, Amendment #1 allowing for
expanded child care services at 145 Jersey Ave S.
City Council Regular Meeting Executive Summary 5
City of Golden Valley
October 7, 2020
Supporting Documents
• Memo to the Planning Commission dated September 14, 2020 (6 pages)
• Unapproved Planning Commission Minutes dated September 14, 2020 (3 pages)
• CUP Amendment Application (3 pages)
• Site Plan (1 page)
• Conditional Use Permit 168, Amendment #1 (2 pages)
• Ordinance #693, Approval of Conditional Use Permit 168, Amendment#1 allowing for expanded
child care services at 145 Jersey Ave S (1 page)
city 0f
golden MEMORANDUM
valley Planning Department
763 593 8095/763 593 8109(fax)
Date: September 14, 2020
To: Golden Valley Planning Commission
From: Myles Campbell
Subject: Informal Public Hearing—Conditional Use Permit (CUP-168) Amendment 1, to
allow for the expansion of a Child Care Center in an Institutional Zoning District
Property address: 145 Jersey Avenue South Property owner: same as applicant
Applicant: Good Shepherd School Lot size: 8.9 acres
Zoning District: Institutional 1-1 Future land use: Institutional —Assembly
Current use: Place of Worship, School and Child Care Center
Adjacent uses: Residential uses (west, north, east); Institutional (south)
7Q4 700O 6 so.. 6 4 ti -:40
Aub
n 100:
667.0 .6630 G5G4 .:.
55
0 +�-S.i 0
30 ,.
�5 7d ¢30 6 8
1 21
5 3 51 7
_Y y
T
r
�r
Adams
2018 aerial photo(Hennepin County)
1
Summary
The principal of Good Shepherd School, Stevi Evans, is requesting an amendment to an existing
CUP in order to allow for the expansion of the school's child care center. The original CUP from
2019 had a condition that capped the number of child care participants, "The child care center
shall be limited to 20 students, or the amount specified by the Minnesota Department of Human
Services, whichever is less."
Child care centers in Minnesota must operate under a Child Care Center License issued by the
Minnesota Department of Human Services. Good Shepherd School has contacted DHS about
expanding their child care program, from one classroom to two. Because of the condition of the
original CUP, this action requires an amendment to the permit.
The original CUP was applied for and completed in 2019. This amendment would not require any
changes to the building footprint or exterior of the building. Many of the existing conditions at
the site have not changed since that original approval.
Existing Conditions
The principal structure on the lot is a one-story building totaling 59,101 square feet. It currently
operates as the Good Shepherd Catholic Church and School. The north half of the structure
includes the church, gym, and social hall. The south half of the building includes the school of 15
classrooms, the school library, and a computer lab. Administrative offices are located in between
the church and the school. The principal structure conforms to setback and height regulations.
The main entrance for the school is on the east side of the building, adjacent to the parking lot.
The parking lot surrounds the building to the north and east.
Proposed Uses
Good Shepherd Catholic School is proposing to convert
o another existing classroom in the building to serve as a
second child care center for up to an additional 20
children (highlighted in green to the left). The room is
located directly west of the existing pre-k classroom and
has previously functioned as a library and music room at
the school. No further changes are being proposed at this
time to the building layout or use.
2
Zoning Analysis
Parking
Use Requirement Calculation Minimum
Parking Spaces
Child Care 1 per 6 participants 40 participants 7
School 2 per classroom 14 classrooms 28
Place of 1 per 3 seats in main 450 occupant load in Church 250
Worship assembly area (where the + 300 occupant load in Social
number of required parking Hall = 750
spaces is measured by
maximum seating capacity)
Total 285
Existing 263
Difference -22
Potential Parking Reduction
Under Section 113-151. Off-Street Parking and Loading. (b)(23) Potential Reduction.
The City makes an allowance for circumstances where the required minimum parking may be
reduced:
The City may allow up to 50 percent reduction when joint use or combined parking is provided
for uses which have substantially different parking demands and peak parking needs such as a
daytime use with a nighttime use (e.g., office and movie theater) or a week day use with a
weekend use (e.g., office and a church). Such reduction may require an agreement between the
uses and an agreement between the owners and City. Such agreement may also be subject to
proof of parking.
The church operates primarily on the weekends and requires a minimum of 250 parking spaces.
The school/child care center operates on the weekdays and requires a minimum of 35 parking
spaces. Since the parking lot is sized to accommodate the larger demand for parking on the
weekends (263 spaces) and there have been no issues with parking shortages on the property on
weekdays, staff is comfortable allowing a parking reduction for this site. Any future expansions of
the campus may trigger the need for a formal parking agreement between the owner and the
City, depending on a future parking analysis.
Bicycle Parking
The site is required to provide 15 bicycle parking spaces and there are currently 16 on site.
Employees, Visitors, and Hours of Operation
There are currently 29 school staff members, which includes 21 teachers, 5 teaching aides, and 3
administrative employees. The hours of operation for the child care center would remain the
3
same for the existing program and for the school overall, 7 am to 6 pm, Monday through Friday.
Good Shepherd Catholic Church hosts mass on Saturdays at 5 pm and Sundays at 8:30 am and
10:30 am. Each session of mass has an average attendance of 300 people.
All drop-offs and pick-ups currently occur on site. The school has received some feedback and
advice from police on how to minimize congestion and traffic on both Jersey and Western,
although staff have not received complaints or heard of issues with queueing in the public right-
of-way at this time. Preschool drop-off and pick-up enters the site from Jersey, while school age
families enter from Western. Drop-off typically occurs between 7:45-8:10 a.m., while pick-up
occurs between 2:40-3:00 p.m.
Evaluation
The findings and recommendations for a CUP are based upon any or all of the following factors
(which need not be weighed equally):
Factor Finding
1. Demonstrated Need for Proposed Use Standard met. Child care is a necessary service
for many members of the community. A child
care center was previously requested by
parents in the K-6 school. The expansion from
20 to 40 children is a reasonable increase so
long as the building is able to adequately serve
the students, which it appears to be.
2. Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan Standard met. The proposed use is consistent
with the Institutional designation in the
Comprehensive Plan, which allows for child
care centers.
3. Effect upon Property Values Standard met. The proposed use is not
anticipated to affect property values in a
substantial way.
4. Effect on Traffic Flow and Congestion Standard conditionally met. Traffic flows are
not anticipated to be substantially different
from those that currently exist. The peak hours
have been identified by the school and they
have worked with the Police Department in
order to minimize congestion. The amount of
additional cars coming through the parking lot
because of the added number of children is
not expected to significantly impact traffic
flow. While there is not currently a problem
with overflow into the streets, city staff
4
Factor Finding
suggest that the applicant complete a
circulation plan for the site, in order to
maximize the effective sue of its large parking
lot and queuing area and to preempt any
potential issues down the road.
5. Effect of Increases in Population and Standard met. The School currently has 29
Density employees. The amendment would allow for
an increase of 20 children in the preschool
program, however the site is able to
accommodate this growth in population
without negatively affecting neighboring
property owners.
6. Compliance with the City's Mixed-Income Not applicable.
Housing Policy
7. Increase in Noise Levels Standard met. The proposed use is not
anticipated to generate excessive noise. Other
than afterschool meetings and activities, no
regular night-time activities are expected.
8. Generation of Odors, Dust, Smoke, Gas, or Standard met. The proposed use is not
Vibration anticipated to generate excessive odors, dust,
smoke, gas, or vibrations.
9. Any Increase in Pests or Vermin Standard met. The proposed use is not
anticipated to attract pests.
10. Visual Appearance Standard met. No exterior improvements are
associated with this proposal. Future
improvements to the parking lot will need to
incorporate minimum standards in City Code.
11. Other Effects upon the General Public Standard met. The proposed use is not
Health, Safety, and Welfare anticipated to have any other impacts on the
surrounding area.
Engineering Staff has reviewed the application and only raised the point that a circulation plan or
study may be a good idea given that the applicant has received some direction on queuing from
the Police, they otherwise have not had any reports of significant parking or congestion issues
around the site. Engineering staff supports approval of the CUP. The Fire Department has
5
reviewed the application and has no additional concerns. Fire staff support the approval of the
CUP.
Recommended Action
Based on the findings above, staff recommends approval of Conditional Use Permit 168,
Amendment 1, allowing for a Child Care Center in an Institutional 1-1 Zoning District at 145 Jersey
Avenue South. Consistent with State statute, a certified copy of the CUP must be recorded with
Hennepin County. The approval of this Conditional Use Permit Amendment is subject to the
following conditions:
1. The child care center shall be limited to 40 students, or the amount specified by the
Minnesota Department of Human Services, whichever is less.
2. A proposal to increase the capacity of the child care center will require an amendment to the
CUP.
3. All necessary licenses shall be obtained and remain active with the Minnesota Department of
Human Services.
4. The hours of normal operation for the Child Care Center shall be Monday through Friday from
7amto6pm.
5. The applicant will produce a traffic circulation plan for the site regarding drop-off and pick-up
procedures, to be reviewed by the City's Engineering Staff.
Attachments
CUP Amendment Application (3 pages)
Capacity Notification from MNDHS (1 page)
Original CUP Memo to PC—June 10, 2019 (6 pages)
Minutes from Planning Commission —June 10, 2019 (4 pages)
Site Plan (5 pages)
6
City of Golden Valley Planning Commission Regular Meeting 6
September 14, 2020—7 pm
really answer. Baker asked about flooding since numerous callers insisted it occurs and asked staff
about the dates on the most current floodplain map. Zimmerman wasn't sure of dates but pointed
out that the floodplain map doesn't consider where water floods and pools in resident yards.
Segelbaum asked about the size of Group 1 and if it meets the 2-acre minimum for a PUD.
Zimmerman responded that it's a 6-acre site if all the properties were combined.
The discussion moved on to setbacks and building height as well as pedestrian traffic.
Being that the conversation was dominated by Group 1, Zimmerman asked if anyone had comments
on Group 2. Segelbaum stated that while a lot of feedback has come up from Group 1, it's interesting
there hasn't been more feedback on Group 2.The density change in Group 2 makes sense to spur
development. Pockl echoed this statement and added that traffic mitigation measures have taken
place in this area.
Dale Berg
7435 Ridgeway Road
Asked Adam Brookins to state who his employer is.
Commissioners encouraged Brookins not to answer that question as no Commissioner is required
do so. Positions on the Commission are volunteer and members stated anecdotally that members are
upright, honest, and have the City's best interest at heart.
Brookins asked staff if there were future development plans for Winnetka as the Doug as riv
project was a county project. Zimmerman affirmed the county construction project and doesn't s
the City engaging on a large-scale study in the near future.
Chair Blum closed the public hearing at 8:58pm.
MOTION made by Commissioner Baker, and seconded by Commissioner Pockl to deny staff
recommendation to rezone Group 1 from R-1 to an R-3 and encourage the City to look at ways to
enhance infrastructure surrounding this area and/or other zonin of the roperties.
Staff took a roll call vote.
Aye: Baker, Blum,Johnson, Pockl, Segelbaum
Nay: Brookins,
Motion passes, 5:1
MOTION made by Commissioner Brookins, and seconded by Commissioner Segelbaum to approve
staff recommendation and rezone Group 2 from R-3 to R-4.
Staff took a roll call vote and the motion passed unanimously.
S. Informal Public Hearing—Amendment to Conditional Use Permit No. 145
Applicant: Good Shepherd Church and School
Location: 145 Jersey Ave S
City of Golden Valley Planning Commission Regular Meeting 7
September 14, 2020—7 pm
Purpose:To allow for the addition of a second preschool classroom
Myles Campbell, Planner, started his presentation on the first amendment to CUP 145, the area is
zoned institutional and surrounded by R-1 and a second Institutional parcel to the south.
The initial CUP was approved at the July 2, 2019 Planning Commission meeting which allowed for a
childcare center at the school/church for up to 20 children.
Several conditions were a part of the initial CUP
• Must be licensed by MN Department of Human Services
• Childcare center participants were to cap at 20 students or the amount DHS licensed,
whichever was less.
• Hours of operation were limited to 7am-6pm, Monday-Friday
• Any expansion of the center would require a CUP Amendment
Good Shepard is seeking an amendment so they may expand their child care program. The
amendment increases the cap to 40 students. Space for more children will be created by converting
another classroom in the existing school and no other exterior work or changes to the footprint have
been suggested at this time.
Campbell continued on existing conditions of the building size, use, parking, and uses surrounding
the building. Then listed operational zoning considerations and stated that another CUP amendmen
is required for additional headcount in the childcare center and if that occurs, the school is exploring
a potential physical expansion via a master planning process.
Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of Conditional Use Permit 168, Amendment 1, allowing fora hil Care
Center in an Institutional 1-1 Zoning District at 145 Jersey Avenue South. Consistent with State
statute, a certified copy of the CUP must be recorded with Hennepin County. 1+4
The approval of this Conditional Use Permit Amendment is subject to the following conditions:
1. The child care center shall be limited to 40 students, or the amount specified by the Minnesota
Department of Human Services, whichever is less.
2. A proposal to increase the capacity of the child care center will require an amendment to the
CUP.
3. All necessary licenses shall be obtained and remain active with the Minnesota Department of
Human Services.
4. The hours of normal operation for the Child Care Center%�F
nday through Friday from 7
am to 6 pm.
5. The applicant will produce a traffic circulation plan for the site regarding drop-off and pick-up
procedures, to be reviewed by the City's Engineering Staff.
The Chair opened the discussion.
Commissioners asked about enrollment, busing, traffic, and Covid procedures.
City of Golden Valley Planning Commission Regular Meeting 8
September 14, 2020—7 pm
Chair Blum opened the public hearing at 9:32pm.
Chair Blum closed the public hearing at 9:35pm.
MOTION was made by Commissioner Brookins seconded by Commissioner Pockl to follow staff
recommendation and approve Conditional Use Permit 168, Amendment 1, allowing for a Child Care
Center in an Institutional 1-1 Zoning District at 145 Jersey Avenue South.
Staff took a roll call vote and the motion passed unanimously.
Televised portion of the meeting concluded at 9:38pm
6. Council Liaison Report
Council Member Rosenquist provided an update on various items discussed at the last City
Council meeting, including details about the proposed 2021 City budget, a new task force to look
at reorganizing the Civil Service Commission, and a new municipal facilities task force that will be
examining the future of all City-owned facilities. Commission Segelbaum asked about the status
of the Council Chambers renovation. Rosenquist replied that it was postponed but could be
revisited at some point in the future; at this time only the AV systems would be upgraded.
7. Reports on Board of Zoning Appeals and other Meetings
None given.
8. Other Business
None.
9. Adjournment
MOTION by Commissioner Brookins to adjourn, seconded by Commissioner Johnson, and
approved unanimously. Meeting adjourned at 9:57 pm.
Adam Brookins, Secretary
Arnie Kolesar, Planning Assistant NJ
Planning 1 7800 Golden Valley Road,Golden Valley,MN 55427-4588 city of
763-593-8095 1 TTY:763-593-3968 I www.goidenvalleymn.gov I planning@goldenvalleymn.gov golden
PLANNING APPLICATION valley
Conditional U - Permit address of properties in this application:
APPLICANT INFORMATION
Name(individual,or corporate entity):
Good Shepherd Church and School
Address:
145 Jersey Ave S, Golden Valley, MN 55426
Phone number: Email address:
763-545-4285 stevievans@ s vschool.or
Authorized Representative(if other than applicant):
Name:
Stephanie Evans, Good Shepherd Principal
Address:
145 Jersey Ave S, Golden Valley, MN 55426
Phone number: Email address:
763-545-4285 stevievans@gsgvschool.org
Property Owner(if other than applicant):
Name:
The Church of Good Shepherd
Address:
145 Jersey Ave S, Golden Valley, MN 55426
Phone number: Email address:
763-545-4285 stevievans@gsgvschool.org
SITE INFORMATION
Total area of property(in acres): Current zonin of property:
8.9 Acres (1-11 Institutional Sub-District
Proposed conditional use(s)requiring permit:
Good Shepherd would like to add a second Preschool classroom for the Fall of 2020.
This would consist of (1) preschool classroom within the existing building footprint.
Minor modifications will be completed to provide this additional classroom.
Provide a brief description of all proposed uses for this property:
See attached
PROPOSED
Number of off-street car parking spaces: 263 Number of residential units: NIA
Number of bicycle parking spaces: 16 Number of employees: 22
rn
Percent impervious surface: Existingto Remain Hours of operation: M-F 7:30am-4:30p
Sat 4:30pm-6:30p
Percent building coverage: EXisting to Remain Building height: 1 story
Percent open space: Existinc to Remain Gross floor area: 59,101 SF Sun 8:00am-12:30 rr
Planning 1 7800 Golden Valley Road,Golden Valley,MN 55427-4588 city of
763-593-8095 1 TTY:763-593-3968 1 www.goidenvalleymn.gov I planning@goldenvalleymn.gov golden
valley
Conditional Permit
REQUIRED .
O Narrative outlining how the proposed plan meets the 10 factors of evaluation listed in the Conditional Use Permit Section of Gold-
en Valley Zoning Code,Section 113-30. List all proposed uses of the property and how much space(in square feet)will be devoted to
each use,the number of employees,the number of potential customers or visitors,hours of operation,how well this type of use has
been accepted at other locations,what the site will look like,and any special measures to be taken by the applicant to address any
impacts to surrounding properties.
17 1/1 compliance:Before application submittal,the property must be in compliance with the City's Inflow/Infiltration(1/1)requirements.
Contact the Public Works Division at 763-593-8030 for 1/1 inspection and compliance information.An application will not be accept-
ed until the property receives an 1/1 compliance certificate.
O Legal description of property
O Copies of all documents,including covenants, by-laws of owners association,and Abstract of Title or Registered Property Certifi-
cate,submitted to City Attorney for examination
O Application fee:$400
O Application fee for Nome Occupation:$75
O Resubmission if CUP previously denied:$5o
O 25 copies(five large-sized plans,20 11"x17"-sized plans)and one CD of each of the following:
O Exterior site plan,drawn to a scale of 1"=20'or larger,with all use areas,access points,and special features or equipment
clearly indicated
O Interior floor plan,draw to a scale of I"=20'or larger,with all use areas,access points,and special features or equipment
clearly indicated
O Other documents may be required or encouraged for City staff to make a complete evaluation of the proposal. Please con-
sult with City Planning staff by calling 763-593-8095,or email planning@goldenvalleymn.gov before submitting this application.
SIGNATURES
To the best of my knowledge,the statements contained in this application and its attachments are true and correct. Please include
printed name,signature,and date for applicant,authorized representative(if other than applicant),or property owner(if other than ap-
plicant).The property owner(s)signature is required for this application.
Name of Applicant(please print): Sac l'Ifl .I
Signature: Date:
Authorized Representative(if other than applicant)
Name(please print);--
Signature: Date:7—
Property Owner(if other than applicant—r /�uirred)
Name(please print • �Kj tA�avA A0
Signature: Date: $`i 2 ' 20ZO
This document is available in alternate formats upon a 72-hour request.Please call 763-593-8006(TTY:763-593-3968)to
[�� make a request. Examples of alternate formats may include large print,electronic,Braille,audiocassette,etc.
The current existing uses of the building consist of a Preschool through 6th grade
education and a Catholic church. The second preschool classroom would be in
addition to an existing preschool classroom. It will be located in a current classroom,
next door to the other preschool classroom.
Adding the second preschool classroom will bring 21 new families to our school.
Our total Preschool through 6th grade enrollment for 2020-21 is 313 students. The
possible maximum enrollment for our school is 400. From 2008 to 2014 we had
between 320 and 337 students.
Our parking lot allows for a flow of cars to create a drop-off line that does not run
into the street.We also run busses that transport many students to school.
` O
of
N
• o oga�� E
Z=ham y .n a
w
► s O� "� C9 U a�
LU
I
I I
I
I �
I
z I I
�
I II
O O I
U) U
J
Q co
J I
� m
z w I
Z U
I
Q Q
d d I
-0-
ZO, ao
~ I
~ o JQ I
L-u a J
� I
Qzco OQ
I
_� I
o I
I Z IO
ly
c7
I a I
I I
I
I
I I
I
I
I I
zl I
JI I
01
I
I II
I �
H
Ace
C-t
(Top 3 inches reserved for recording data)
CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
No. 168, Amendment #1
Date of Approval: October 7, 2020, by the City Council in accordance with
Sec. 113-55, Subd. b and Section 113-96 of City Code
Issued To: Good Shepherd School
Approved Location: 145 Jersey Avenue South, Golden Valley, MN
Approved Conditional
Use: To allow for a Child Care Center in the Institutional Zoning
District
Legal Description: Lot 1, Block 1 , Church of the Good Shepherd Addition,
according to the recorded plat thereof, and situate in
Hennepin County, Minnesota.
Check here if all or part of the described real property is Registered (Torrens) ❑
Conditions of Approval:
1 . The child care center shall be limited to 40 students, or the amount specified by the
Minnesota Department of Human Services, whichever is less.
2. A proposal to increase the capacity of the child care center will require an
amendment to the CUP.
3. All necessary licenses shall be obtained and remain active with the Minnesota
Department of Human Services.
4. The hours of normal operation for the Child Care Center shall be Monday through
Friday from 7 am to 6 pm.
5. The applicant will produce a traffic circulation plan for the site regarding drop-off
and pick-up procedures, to be reviewed by the City's Engineering Staff.
Page 2 of 2 Conditional Use Permit
This permit does not exempt the property owner or occupant from compliance
with all provisions of city code, or any other applicable regulations, laws, and
ordinances.
City of Golden Valley, a Minnesota municipal corporation
By:
Jason Zimmerman, Planning Manager
State of Minnesota )
ss
County of Hennepin )
This instrument was acknowledged before me on 2019, by
Jason Zimmerman, Planning Manager of the City of Golden Valley, a municipal
corporation.
(Stamp)
(signature of notarial officer)
My commission expires:
(month/day/year)
THIS INSTRUMENT WAS DRAFTED BY:
City of Golden Valley
7800 Golden Valley Road
Golden Valley, MN 55427
(763) 593-8000
ORDINANCE NO. 693
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE CITY CODE
Approval of Conditional Use Permit Number 168, Amendment 1
145 Jersey Ave S
Good Shepherd Church and School, Applicant
The City Council for the City of Golden Valley hereby ordains as follows:
Section 1. City Code Chapter 113 entitled "Zoning" is amended in Section 113-55,
Subd. b, and Section 113-96, by approving a Conditional Use Permit for certain tracts of
land located at 145 Jersey Avenue South, thereby allowing for a Child Care Center in the
Institutional (1-1) Zoning District.
This Conditional Use Permit is approved based on the application materials and plans
submitted by the applicant, staff memos, public comments and information presented to the
Planning Commission and City Council, and findings recommended by the Planning
Commission. This Conditional Use Permit is approved pursuant to City Code Section 113-
30, Subd. g, and adopted by the City Council on October 7, 2020.
This Conditional Use Permit is subject to all of the terms of the permit to be issued
including, but not limited to, the following specific conditions:
1. The child care center shall be limited to 40 students, or the amount specified by the
Minnesota Department of Human Services, whichever is less.
2. A proposal to increase the capacity of the child care center will require an amendment
to the CUP.
3. All necessary licenses shall be obtained and remain active with the Minnesota
Department of Human Services.
4. The hours of normal operation for the Child Care Center shall be Monday through
Friday from 7 am to 6 pm.
5. The applicant will produce a traffic circulation plan for the site regarding drop-off and
pick-up procedures, to be reviewed by the City's Engineering Staff.
Section 2. The tracts of land affected by this ordinance are legally described as
follows:
Lot 1 , Block 1 , Church of the Good Shepherd Addition, according to the recorded plat
thereof, and situate in Hennepin County, Minnesota.
Section 3. City Code Chapter 1 entitled "General Provisions" and Sec. 1-8 entitled
"General Penalty; Continuing Violations" are hereby adopted in their entirety, by reference,
as though repeated verbatim herein.
Section 4. This ordinance shall take effect from and after its passage and publication
as required by law.
Adopted by the City Council this 7th day of October, 2020.
Ordinance No. -2- October 7, 2020
/s/Shepard M. Harris
Shepard M. Harris, Mayor
ATTEST:
/s/ Theresa J. Schyma
Theresa J. Schyma, City Clerk
city of FXECUTIV ! SUMMARY
gol4enw, Administrative Services
vale
763-593-8013 / 763-593-3969 (fax)
Golden Valley City Council Meeting
October 7, 2020
Agenda Item
4. D. Public Hearing—Special Assessments—2020 Delinquent Utility Bills
Prepared By
Sue Virnig, Finance Director
Summary
The following resolution should be considered to Adopt and Confirm Assessments for 2020 Delinquent
Utility Bills.
Financial Or Budget Considerations
Resolution 20-59 will give the City authority to certify delinquent utility bills. Payment will be made
through 2021 property taxes if not paid in full by November 13, 2020.
Recommended Action
• Motion to approve Resolution 20-60 Adopting and Confirming Assessments for Delinquent 2020
Delinquent Utility Bills.
Supporting Documents
• List of delinquent utility bills for certification
• Resolution 20-60 Adopting and Confirming Assessments for 2020 Delinquent Utility Bills
City of Golden Valley
2020 Delinquent Utilities
Certification Original Cert Current
PID Customer# Account# Service Address Town/City Balance Fee Balance Payments Balance
3211821220016 00029132 0031605108 7701 PLYMOUTH AVE N GOLDEN VALLEY 128.43 30.00 158.43 158.43
3211821220122 00029149 0031607005 1013 SU MITER AVE N GOLDEN VALLEY 1,448.64 30.00 1,478.64 1,478.64
3211821320020 00029367 0031738008 7840 HAROLD AVE GOLDEN VALLEY 1,417.90 30.00 1,447.90 1,447.90
1902924320006 00029531 0020875209 5121 OLSON MEMORIAL HWY GOLDEN VALLEY 167.15 30.00 197.15 197.15
3211821440063 00029531 0031775604 125 HAMPSHIRE AVE N GOLDEN VALLEY 176.90 30.00 206.90 206.90
3211821440065 00029533 0031775802 85 HAMPSHIRE AVE N GOLDEN VALLEY 150.60 30.00 180.60 (180.60) 0.00
3311821330052 00029607 0021291455 203 CUTACROSS RD GOLDEN VALLEY 300.00 30.00 330.00 (330.00) 0.00
0511721120032 00029757 0031849805 155 LOUISIANA AVE S GOLDEN VALLEY 1,525.92 30.00 1,555.92 1,555.92
3011821230152 00029932 0031904709 2004 HILLSBORO AVE N GOLDEN VALLEY 1,579.19 30.00 1,609.19 1,609.19
3011821230131 00029946 0031906407 1912 GETTYSBURG AVE N GOLDEN VALLEY 1,479.82 30.00 1,509.82 1,509.82
3011821110070 00030181 0031943608 8015 WYNNWOOD RD GOLDEN VALLEY 211.34 30.00 241.34 241.34
3011821110063 00030185 0031944002 8155 WYNNWOOD RD GOLDEN VALLEY 3,506.51 30.00 3,536.51 3,536.51
3011821320110 00030457 0032002701 1628 MENDELSSOHN AVE N GOLDEN VALLEY 180.89 30.00 210.89 210.89
3011821330074 00030506 0032008401 1316 INDEPENDENCE AVE N GOLDEN VALLEY 1,310.61 30.00 1,340.61 1,340.61
3011821330105 00030597 0032024002 1325 FLAG AVE N GOLDEN VALLEY 2,712.88 30.00 2,742.88 2,742.88
3011821430076 00030652 0032045403 1315 MANDAN AVE N GOLDEN VALLEY 649.50 30.00 679.50 (347.50) 332.00
3011821410077 00030799 0032071607 1821 WIN NETKAAVE N GOLDEN VALLEY 2,949.10 30.00 2,979.10 2,979.10
3011821430013 00030903 0032084600 1533 ZEALAND AVE N GOLDEN VALLEY 262.34 30.00 292.34 (292.34) 0.00
3111821110033 00031026 0032112401 1010 ORKLA DR GOLDEN VALLEY 1,633.14 30.00 1,663.14 1,663.14
0611721110022 00031261 0032304305 8017 RIDGEWAY RD GOLDEN VALLEY 182.55 30.00 212.55 (212.55) 0.00
1702924310023 00031412 0010106904 1717 YORK AVE N GOLDEN VALLEY 158.60 30.00 188.60 188.60
1702924310021 00031412 0010107209 1705 YORK AVE N GOLDEN VALLEY 87.38 30.00 117.38 (117.38) 0.00
1702924310022 00031412 0010107100 1709 YORK AVE N GOLDEN VALLEY 87.38 30.00 117.38 (117.38) 0.00
1702924310003 00031416 0010102309 1701 XERXES AVE N GOLDEN VALLEY 143.46 30.00 173.46 173.46
1702924310018 00031416 0010108603 1700 YORK AVE N GOLDEN VALLEY 86.45 30.00 116.45 116.45
1702924220072 00031598 0010144004 2420 BYRD AVE N GOLDEN VALLEY 2,042.39 30.00 2,072.39 2,072.39
20-029-24-23-00000031675 0010204301 1301 THEODORE WIRTH PKWY GOLDEN VALLEY 2,372.52 30.00 2,402.52 2,402.52
0702924130088 00031765 0010309805 3215 MAJOR AVE N GOLDEN VALLEY 478.61 30.00 508.61 508.61
0702924240091 00031788 0010312007 3312 REGENT AVE N GOLDEN VALLEY 1,718.22 30.00 1,748.22 1,748.22
0702924320006 00032205 0010437101 2912 REGENT AVE N GOLDEN VALLEY 1,295.31 30.00 1,325.31 1,325.31
0702924340026 00032285 0010446607 2775 QUAIL AVE N GOLDEN VALLEY 1,379.68 30.00 1,409.68 1,409.68
1802924230044 00032437 0010514800 2035 UNITY AVE N GOLDEN VALLEY 1,179.00 30.00 1,209.00 1,209.00
1802924140027 00032762 0010577500 4001 WASATCH LN GOLDEN VALLEY 1,327.28 30.00 1,357.28 (400.00) 957.28
1802924330055 00033063 0010674604 1435 UNITY AVE N GOLDEN VALLEY 614.66 30.00 644.66 (644.66) 0.00
1902924410071 00033347 0020813309 400 MEADOW LN N GOLDEN VALLEY 200.00 30.00 230.00 230.00
3002924220001 00033642 0020883500 15 TURNPIKE RD GOLDEN VALLEY 1,605.95 30.00 1,635.95 1,635.95
3002924140045 00033928 0020945903 4102 WAYZATA BLVD GOLDEN VALLEY 196.04 30.00 226.04 226.04
2811821320066 00034497 0021163001 6120 SAINT CROIX AVE N GOLDEN VALLEY 1,212.54 30.00 1,242.54 1,242.54
3011821210079 00034810 0031979131 9117 MEDLEY CIR GOLDEN VALLEY 153.29 30.00 183.29 (183.29) 0.00
2911821320060 00035341 0021526207 7501 DULUTH ST GOLDEN VALLEY 339.43 30.00 369.43 (369.43) 0.00
2911821420009 00035540 0021556303 1740 HAMPSHIRE LN N GOLDEN VALLEY 37.28 30.00 67.28 (67.28) 0.00
2911821440037 00035616 0021570106 6424 WINSDALEST GOLDEN VALLEY 435.67 30.00 465.67 (465.67) 0.00
2911821440073 00035683 0021580204 6508 KNOLL ST GOLDEN VALLEY 895.38 30.00 925.38 925.38
2911821440087 00035718 0021587308 1336 FLORIDA AVE N GOLDEN VALLEY 1,053.23 30.00 1,083.23 1,083.23
0702924420085 00036181 0010402006 3017 MAJOR AVE N GOLDEN VALLEY 1,340.02 30.00 1,370.02 1,370.02
2911821220001 00036248 0021450002 2550 WINNETKA AVE N GOLDEN VALLEY 812.46 30.00 842.46 842.46
2911821320050 00036661 0021522305 1566 RHODE ISLAND AVE N GOLDEN VALLEY 1,362.20 30.00 1,392.20 1,392.20
3211821110032 00037029 0031653900 6432 GOLDEN VALLEY RD GOLDEN VALLEY 402.78 30.00 432.78 432.78
3011821330016 00037073 0032026700 1530 GETTYSBURG AVE N GOLDEN VALLEY 1,000.00 30.00 1,030.00 1,030.00
1802924110011 00037388 0010573806 2311 INDIANA AVE N GOLDEN VALLEY 1,482.14 30.00 1,512.14 1,512.14
3011821320031 00037464 0032011900 1804 INDEPENDENCE AVE N GOLDEN VALLEY 407.16 30.00 437.16 437.16
2811821210047 00037765 0021107602 2345 VALE CREST RD GOLDEN VALLEY 1,065.06 30.00 1,095.06 1,095.06
2911821440012 00038053 0021561600 6620 OLYMPIA ST GOLDEN VALLEY 24.47 30.00 54.47 (54.47) 0.00
2911821440086 00038069 0021587209 1335 FLORIDA AVE N GOLDEN VALLEY 529.79 30.00 559.79 559.79
3002924210020 00038138 0020928909 400 NATCHEZ AVE S GOLDEN VALLEY 1,669.34 30.00 1,699.34 1,699.34
1702924310008 00038222 0010102903 1725 XERXES AVE N GOLDEN VALLEY 226.31 30.00 256.31 256.31
0511721220035 00038351 0031827207 500 RHODE ISLAND AVE S GOLDEN VALLEY 2,201.46 30.00 2,231.46 2,231.46
1802924130001 00038516 0010532406 2040 NOBLE AVE N GOLDEN VALLEY 480.47 30.00 510.47 510.47
3011821320096 00038532 0032005506 1625 INDEPENDENCE AVE N GOLDEN VALLEY 1,888.15 30.00 1,918.15 1,918.15
1702924220066 00038765 0010141505 2413 MCNAIR DR GOLDEN VALLEY 1,730.67 30.00 1,760.67 1,760.67
3211821110038 00038853 0031652902 6712 GOLDEN VALLEY RD GOLDEN VALLEY 1,568.88 30.00 1,598.88 1,598.88
2911821410012 00039653 0021558507 1625 FLORIDA AVE N GOLDEN VALLEY 1,208.13 30.00 1,238.13 1,238.13
3002924120088 00039665 0020937405 4521 STRAWBERRY LA GOLDEN VALLEY 34.87 30.00 64.87 64.87
3011821230126 00039772 0031907900 1905 FLAG AVE N GOLDEN VALLEY 315.69 30.00 345.69 345.69
City of Golden Valley
2020 Delinquent Utilities
Certification Original Cert Current
PID Customer# Account# Service Address Town/City Balance Fee Balance Payments Balance
2811821230001 00040001 0021172705 2230 DOUGLAS DR N GOLDEN VALLEY 264.42 30.00 294.42 (294.42) 0.00
0611721110063 00040140 0032307803 135 HANLEY RD GOLDEN VALLEY 1,408.84 30.00 1,438.84 1,438.84
3211821220053 00040215 0031612104 1116 QUEBEC AVE N GOLDEN VALLEY 1,509.45 30.00 1,539.45 1,539.45
3011821410085 00040231 0032070807 7900 WESLEY DR GOLDEN VALLEY 1,788.32 30.00 1,818.32 (600.00) 1,218.32
2811821320032 00040259 0021158001 5925 DULUTH ST GOLDEN VALLEY 2,134.35 30.00 2,164.35 2,164.35
0611721140042 00040281 0032303505 805 HANLEY RD GOLDEN VALLEY 1,864.64 30.00 1,894.64 1,894.64
3211821440004 00040387 0031788300 319 EDGEWOOD AVE N GOLDEN VALLEY 1,858.01 30.00 1,888.01 (1,888.01) 0.00
3211821430020 00040390 0031770001 6940 WESTERN AVE GOLDEN VALLEY 1,417.59 30.00 1,447.59 1,447.59
2911821430010 00040526 0021564703 7035 OLYMPIA ST GOLDEN VALLEY 1,840.52 30.00 1,870.52 1,870.52
0702924310042 00040559 0010431807 2940 PERRY AVE N GOLDEN VALLEY 1,483.65 30.00 1,513.65 1,513.65
0702924340029 00040695 0010446300 2745 QUAILAVE N GOLDEN VALLEY 1,762.11 30.00 1,792.11 1,792.11
3211821220062 00040779 0031611908 1042 QUEBEC AVE N GOLDEN VALLEY 70.22 30.00 100.22 (100.22) 0.00
3011821210053 00040856 0031963606 8845 MEDLEY LN N GOLDEN VALLEY 1,455.87 30.00 1,485.87 1,485.87
1702924310054 00040940 0010103406 1831 XERXES AVE N GOLDEN VALLEY 248.87 30.00 278.87 0.00 278.87
3011821110042 00040946 0031944408 2360 ORKLA DR GOLDEN VALLEY 2,006.07 30.00 2,036.07 2,036.07
3011821140006 00041060 0031932502 2041 WIN NETKAAVE N GOLDEN VALLEY 2,038.58 30.00 2,068.58 2,068.58
2911821230017 00041453 0021480108 2021 PENNSYLVANIA AVE N GOLDEN VALLEY 1,086.82 30.00 1,116.82 1,116.82
3011821140042 00041587 0031933104 7901 23RDAVE N GOLDEN VALLEY 183.73 30.00 213.73 213.73
2911821320015 00041792 0021517800 1720 WINNETKA AVE N GOLDEN VALLEY 1,114.54 30.00 1,144.54 1,144.54
0411721220018 00042273 0021304100 325 BRUNSWICK AVE S GOLDEN VALLEY 1,273.48 30.00 1,303.48 1,303.48
3211821410011 00042561 0031780406 6473 WESTCHESTER CIR GOLDEN VALLEY 207.74 30.00 237.74 (237.74) 0.00
3011821110024 00042586 0031940901 8040 WYNNWOOD RD GOLDEN VALLEY 1,538.65 30.00 1,568.65 1,568.65
2811821340020 00042634 0021192109 1435 XENIA AVE N GOLDEN VALLEY 1,589.84 30.00 1,619.84 1,619.84
0702924310082 00042680 0010429306 3101 ORCHARD AVE N GOLDEN VALLEY 1,457.33 30.00 1,487.33 1,487.33
1802924320041 00042706 0010669109 1823 TOLEDO AVE N GOLDEN VALLEY 1,287.51 30.00 1,317.51 1,317.51
3111821310031 00042723 0032247801 347 ENSIGN AVE N GOLDEN VALLEY 1,663.86 30.00 1,693.86 1,693.86
1702924310012 00042735 0010109700 1814 YORK AVE N GOLDEN VALLEY 1,756.49 30.00 1,786.49 1,786.49
1802924240057 00042753 0010526309 2144 REGENT AVE N GOLDEN VALLEY 81.73 30.00 111.73 (111.73) 0.00
0511721210020 00042755 0031855901 170 OREGON AVE S GOLDEN VALLEY 2,194.38 30.00 2,224.38 2,224.38
3002924310026 00042786 0021019708 1515 PRINCETON AVE S GOLDEN VALLEY 1,965.17 30.00 1,995.17 1,995.17
0702924430094 00042803 0010419612 4521 CULVER RD GOLDEN VALLEY 1,612.84 30.00 1,642.84 1,642.84
0702924240067 00042818 0010317907 4807 33RDAVE N GOLDEN VALLEY 536.64 30.00 566.64 566.64
0702924320037 00043022 0010457109 5320 TRITON DR GOLDEN VALLEY 1,381.14 30.00 1,411.14 1,411.14
2811821330009 00043111 0021187802 1375 OAK GROVE CIR GOLDEN VALLEY 931.66 30.00 961.66 961.66
3011821130062 00043113 0031920101 8401 WESTBEND RD GOLDEN VALLEY 250.79 30.00 280.79 (280.79) 0.00
3011821140091 00043438 0031929201 2150 ORKLA DR GOLDEN VALLEY 1,838.06 30.00 1,868.06 1,868.06
0611721110008 00043533 0032302507 516 UTAH AVE S GOLDEN VALLEY 227.71 30.00 257.71 (257.71) 0.00
1702924210076 00043580 0010134005 3400 MANOR DR GOLDEN VALLEY 1,700.93 30.00 1,730.93 1,730.93
3011821420034 00043709 0032085706 8505 DULUTH ST GOLDEN VALLEY 374.48 30.00 404.48 404.48
3311821310065 00043810 0021266002 5600 WOODSTOCK AVE GOLDEN VALLEY 230.96 30.00 260.96 260.96
1802924210024 00043834 0010520500 2540 QUAIL AVE N GOLDEN VALLEY 643.69 30.00 673.69 (673.69) 0.00
2911821440022 00043849 0021567805 6525 OLYMPIA ST GOLDEN VALLEY 1,543.52 30.00 1,573.52 1,573.52
3211821420081 00043856 0031717309 537 JERSEY AVE N GOLDEN VALLEY 433.20 30.00 463.20 463.20
2911821420037 00043857 0021540802 7080 GREEN VALLEY RD GOLDEN VALLEY 1,885.83 30.00 1,915.83 1,915.83
3211821430045 00043909 0031774409 120 IDAHO AVE N GOLDEN VALLEY 410.21 30.00 440.21 440.21
2911821330020 00043928 0021508304 1540 RHODE ISLAND AVE N GOLDEN VALLEY 1,120.55 30.00 1,150.55 1,150.55
1902924430056 00044043 0020841201 100 ARDMORE DR GOLDEN VALLEY 1,473.11 30.00 1,503.11 1,503.11
1902924240027 00044095 0010725307 4800 OLSON MEMORIAL HWY GOLDEN VALLEY 1,656.07 30.00 1,686.07 (491.46) 1,194.61
1902924240027 00044095 0010725315 4800 OLSON MEMORIAL HWY GOLDEN VALLEY 249.70 30.00 279.70 (279.70) 0.00
3002924220085 00044252 0020920500 5160 COLONIAL DR GOLDEN VALLEY 209.70 30.00 239.70 239.70
3011821140056 00044270 0031929110 8000 WINNETKA HTS DR GOLDEN VALLEY 391.79 30.00 421.79 (421.79) 0.00
1702924220049 00044399 0010144806 3524 MANOR DR GOLDEN VALLEY 1,245.09 30.00 1,275.09 1,275.09
1702924310056 00044540 0010103208 1801 XERXES AVE N GOLDEN VALLEY 1,665.61 30.00 1,695.61 1,695.61
3211821110045 00044726 0031650203 1227 HAMPSHIRE AVE N GOLDEN VALLEY 1,733.08 30.00 1,763.08 1,763.08
3211821220046 00044771 0031606809 1224 RHODE ISLAND AVE N GOLDEN VALLEY 199.20 30.00 229.20 229.20
3211821220104 00044793 0031601602 1020 WINNETKAAVE N GOLDEN VALLEY 1,699.10 30.00 1,729.10 1,729.10
2911821330038 00044967 0021502406 1517 SU MITE RAVE N GOLDEN VALLEY 1,756.91 30.00 1,786.91 1,786.91
0702924310035 00045041 0010428100 2925 ORCHARD AVE N GOLDEN VALLEY 1,678.64 30.00 1,708.64 1,708.64
0702924310043 00045247 0010431708 2942 PERRY AVE N GOLDEN VALLEY 1,786.83 30.00 1,816.83 1,816.83
3011821320139 00045276 0032014045 9100 NAPERST GOLDEN VALLEY 3,388.66 30.00 3,418.66 3,418.66
3211821220035 00045328 0031607401 1125 QUEBEC AVE N GOLDEN VALLEY 1,476.12 30.00 1,506.12 1,506.12
3011821410065 00045383 0032078701 8210 JULIANNE TER GOLDEN VALLEY 766.03 30.00 796.03 (796.03) 0.00
3211821220063 00045409 0031610801 1037 QUEBEC AVE N GOLDEN VALLEY 177.17 30.00 207.17 (150.00) 57.17
0702924240093 00045419 0010319507 3220 REGENT AVE N GOLDEN VALLEY 1,779.47 30.00 1,809.47 1,809.47
City of Golden Valley
2020 Delinquent Utilities
Certification Original Cert Current
PID Customer# Account# Service Address Town/City Balance Fee Balance Payments Balance
3011821320138 00045583 0032014052 9110 NAPERST GOLDEN VALLEY 2,049.31 30.00 2,079.31 2,079.31
0702924420095 00045605 0010402303 2945 MAJOR AVE N GOLDEN VALLEY 1,997.63 30.00 2,027.63 2,027.63
2911821340074 00045632 0021544606 1435 LOUISIANA AVE N GOLDEN VALLEY 278.87 30.00 308.87 308.87
0511721220071 00045724 0031801301 75 RHODE ISLAND AVE S GOLDEN VALLEY 339.94 30.00 369.94 369.94
3002924210050 00045741 0020921102 5030 COLONIAL DR GOLDEN VALLEY 871.15 30.00 901.15 (125.00) 776.15
3002924420074 00045744 0021027602 4520 DOUGLAS AVE GOLDEN VALLEY 1,706.80 30.00 1,736.80 1,736.80
3011821320049 00045813 0032019804 1612 GETTYSBURG AVE N GOLDEN VALLEY 1,407.43 30.00 1,437.43 1,437.43
1702924210033 00045973 0010119303 2330 YORK AVE N GOLDEN VALLEY 1,508.22 30.00 1,538.22 1,538.22
3011821410009 00046091 0032072506 8001 WESLEY DR GOLDEN VALLEY 1,646.79 30.00 1,676.79 1,676.79
3002924110014 00046103 0020939807 4253 GLENWOOD AVE GOLDEN VALLEY 146.92 30.00 176.92 176.92
3311821210035 00046104 0021209606 1105 WELCOME CIR GOLDEN VALLEY 439.47 30.00 469.47 (469.47) 0.00
3211821220074 00046357 0031609506 1035 RHODE ISLAND AVE N GOLDEN VALLEY 1,666.47 30.00 1,696.47 1,696.47
3002924220054 00046414 0020900304 109 TURNPIKE RD GOLDEN VALLEY 1,356.84 30.00 1,386.84 1,386.84
0702924240001 00046443 0010312502 3365 QUAlLAVE N GOLDEN VALLEY 1,582.68 30.00 1,612.68 1,612.68
1702924240045 00046460 0010104701 1849 ZEPHYR PL GOLDEN VALLEY 311.61 30.00 341.61 341.61
3002924220021 00046480 0020904504 501 TURNPIKE RD GOLDEN VALLEY 1,631.19 30.00 1,661.19 1,661.19
0511721230069 00046487 0031829302 1050 RHODE ISLAND AVE S GOLDEN VALLEY 1,907.24 30.00 1,937.24 1,937.24
1802924240007 00046525 0010533305 4740 GOLDEN VALLEY RD GOLDEN VALLEY 1,200.31 30.00 1,230.31 1,230.31
3011821410048 00046594 0032076309 8104 JULIANNE TER GOLDEN VALLEY 1,850.27 30.00 1,880.27 1,880.27
3011821220038 00046763 0031995608 2226 MAYFAIR RD GOLDEN VALLEY 2,087.01 30.00 2,117.01 2,117.01
3011821230110 00046772 0031993108 2203 STRODEN CIR GOLDEN VALLEY 1,150.70 30.00 1,180.70 1,180.70
3011821230102 00046779 0031993801 2101 TAMARIN TR GOLDEN VALLEY 3,732.46 30.00 3,762.46 3,762.46
3011821230191 00046794 0031994908 2135 TAMARIN TR GOLDEN VALLEY 1,215.31 30.00 1,245.31 1,245.31
3011821230036 00046824 0031998355 2103 KINGS VALLEY RD W GOLDEN VALLEY 8.17 30.00 38.17 (38.17) 0.00
3011821230074 00046842 0031993752 2106 TAMARIN TR GOLDEN VALLEY 1,932.86 30.00 1,962.86 1,962.86
3011821230088 00046851 0031994750 2129 TAMARIN TR GOLDEN VALLEY 1,418.52 30.00 1,448.52 1,448.52
2811821320051 00047020 0021155601 6050 SAINT CROIX AVE N GOLDEN VALLEY 1,488.67 30.00 1,518.67 1,518.67
3211821440070 00047030 0031779002 6500 WESTERN AVE GOLDEN VALLEY 1,428.32 30.00 1,458.32 1,458.32
3011821230068 00047041 0031995252 2141 TAMARIN TR GOLDEN VALLEY 1,419.94 30.00 1,449.94 1,449.94
3011821330083 00047147 0032027906 1405 GETTYSBURG AVE N GOLDEN VALLEY 2,253.56 30.00 2,283.56 2,283.56
3002924140021 00047260 0020952602 808 MEADOW LN S GOLDEN VALLEY 374.89 30.00 404.89 (404.89) 0.00
0702924230013 00047362 0010323509 3335 SCOTT AVE N GOLDEN VALLEY 1,306.47 30.00 1,336.47 1,336.47
1702924240038 00047388 0010113405 3026 GOLDEN VALLEY RD GOLDEN VALLEY 1,680.13 30.00 1,710.13 1,710.13
2811821320033 00047426 0021151501 6121 SAINT CROIX AVE N GOLDEN VALLEY 1,881.58 30.00 1,911.58 1,911.58
3011821210032 00047552 0031958705 2510 CAVELL AVE N GOLDEN VALLEY 583.39 30.00 613.39 613.39
1902924420042 00047600 0020830501 328 BURNTSIDE DR GOLDEN VALLEY 1,091.53 30.00 1,121.53 1,121.53
2911821430030 00047641 0021572607 6834 WINSDALE ST GOLDEN VALLEY 1,487.66 30.00 1,517.66 1,517.66
1802924140065 00047707 0010570307 2211 LEGEND DR GOLDEN VALLEY 2,931.84 30.00 2,961.84 2,961.84
3011821420057 00047738 0032087801 8525 PATSY LN GOLDEN VALLEY 2,069.18 30.00 2,099.18 2,099.18
2911821230076 00047849 0021457114 7833 23RD AVE N GOLDEN VALLEY 1,347.14 30.00 1,377.14 1,377.14
1702924220045 00047934 0010145209 3508 MANOR DR GOLDEN VALLEY 677.91 30.00 707.91 0.00 707.91
1902924320023 00047950 0020879300 501 CLOVER LN GOLDEN VALLEY 1,471.88 30.00 1,501.88 1,501.88
2911821110008 00048041 0021414107 2505 FLORIDA AVE N GOLDEN VALLEY 1,455.83 30.00 1,485.83 1,485.83
3011821440018 00048187 0032069106 1313 WIN NETKAAVE N GOLDEN VALLEY 429.70 30.00 459.70 (400.00) 59.70
0702924420039 00048217 0010406601 3100 LEE AVE N GOLDEN VALLEY 640.72 30.00 670.72 670.72
3011821230132 00048345 0031906506 1916 GETTYSBURG AVE N GOLDEN VALLEY 1,898.84 30.00 1,928.84 1,928.84
3011821330086 00048658 0032028201 1321 GETTYSBURG AVE N GOLDEN VALLEY 899.20 30.00 929.20 929.20
3011821320078 00048765 0032014508 1625 HILLSBORO AVE N GOLDEN VALLEY 1,348.54 30.00 1,378.54 1,378.54
1802924320023 00048784 0010668200 5328 SAINT CROIX AVE N GOLDEN VALLEY 1,622.60 30.00 1,652.60 (25.00) 1,627.60
3211821320017 00048805 0031726607 440 WINNETKA AVE N GOLDEN VALLEY 1,869.22 30.00 1,899.22 1,899.22
2911821230055 00048958 0021484308 1941 SU MITE RAVE N GOLDEN VALLEY 1,393.46 30.00 1,423.46 1,423.46
0511721120005 00049271 0031852106 130 JERSEY AVE S GOLDEN VALLEY 265.71 30.00 295.71 295.71
3011821130072 00049333 0031921109 1950 ZEALAND AVE N GOLDEN VALLEY 419.44 30.00 449.44 0.00 449.44
2911821430056 00049348 0021576004 6747 WINSDALE ST GOLDEN VALLEY 1,173.23 30.00 1,203.23 1,203.23
3211821430056 00049418 0031769409 150 LOUISIANA AVE N GOLDEN VALLEY 395.11 30.00 425.11 (425.11) 0.00
1802924340006 00049473 0010651206 1300 ANGELO DR GOLDEN VALLEY 228.72 30.00 258.72 258.72
1902924420046 00049486 0020830105 300 BURNTSIDE DR GOLDEN VALLEY 1,741.70 30.00 1,771.70 (1,771.70) 0.00
3011821230006 00049559 0031999353 2116 MARQUIS RD GOLDEN VALLEY 711.92 30.00 741.92 741.92
3011821230162 00049721 0031903909 1905 HILLSBORO AVE N GOLDEN VALLEY 1,409.41 30.00 1,439.41 1,439.41
0702924340093 00049733 0010437903 4937 CULVER RD GOLDEN VALLEY 558.35 30.00 588.35 588.35
3211821430023 00049915 0031771702 131 JERSEY AVE N GOLDEN VALLEY 44.98 30.00 74.98 (74.98) 0.00
3211821430039 00049945 0031772700 6900 GLENWOOD AVE GOLDEN VALLEY 258.66 30.00 288.66 0.00 288.66
3111821310046 00050121 0032248908 400 DECATUR AVE N GOLDEN VALLEY 1,752.59 30.00 1,782.59 (1,782.59) 0.00
3011821330054 00050263 0032007809 1313 INDEPENDENCE AVE N GOLDEN VALLEY 1,624.02 30.00 1,654.02 (1,654.02) 0.00
City of Golden Valley
2020 Delinquent Utilities
Certification Original Cert Current
PID Customer# Account# Service Address Town/City Balance Fee Balance Payments Balance
2911821310032 00050271 0021542600 7205 GREEN VALLEY RD GOLDEN VALLEY 1,161.23 30.00 1,191.23 1,191.23
0702924130012 00050449 0010311702 4301 AIDE ILL AVE N GOLDEN VALLEY 55.44 30.00 85.44 (85.44) 0.00
2911821120008 00050542 0021430004 6825 SANDBURG LA GOLDEN VALLEY 1,420.00 30.00 1,450.00 1,450.00
3211821420010 00050610 0031717408 525 JERSEY AVE N GOLDEN VALLEY 1,006.00 30.00 1,036.00 (1,006.00) 30.00
1902924410050 00050843 0020823308 512 INDIANA AVE N GOLDEN VALLEY 2,147.67 30.00 2,177.67 2,177.67
3011821410032 00050893 0032072902 1741 VALDERS AVE N GOLDEN VALLEY 222.96 30.00 252.96 252.96
2911821430091 00050920 0021589908 6738 PLYMOUTH AVE N GOLDEN VALLEY 1,259.71 30.00 1,289.71 1,289.71
0702924330002 00051042 0010455004 2800 SCOTT AVE N GOLDEN VALLEY 567.93 30.00 597.93 (597.93) 0.00
2911821330111 00051078 0021515200 7632 PLYMOUTH AVE N GOLDEN VALLEY 913.81 30.00 943.81 (700.01) 243.80
1902924420022 00051241 0020829503 335 BURNTSIDE DR GOLDEN VALLEY 176.21 30.00 206.21 (206.21) 0.00
0702924130080 00051272 0010307403 3324 NOBLE AVE N GOLDEN VALLEY 239.83 30.00 269.83 0.00 269.83
1802924320040 00051303 0010669208 1825 TOLEDO AVE N GOLDEN VALLEY 409.82 30.00 439.82 (439.82) 0.00
0411721210007 00051305 0021315809 5705 GLENWOOD AVE GOLDEN VALLEY 148.47 30.00 178.47 (178.47) 0.00
1702924310039 00051384 0010102200 1645 XERXES AVE N GOLDEN VALLEY 232.47 30.00 262.47 262.47
1702924310040 00051384 0010108504 1696 YORK AVE N GOLDEN VALLEY 142.10 30.00 172.10 172.10
3011821240061 00051400 0031973803 9025 23RDAVE N GOLDEN VALLEY 1,784.11 30.00 1,814.11 1,814.11
2811821320027 00051468 0021158803 1920 BRUNSWICK AVE N GOLDEN VALLEY 945.69 30.00 975.69 975.69
0702924420098 00051473 0010402600 2925 MAJOR AVE N GOLDEN VALLEY 279.47 30.00 309.47 (309.47) 0.00
2911821320075 00051564 0021525308 1600 QUEBEC AVE N GOLDEN VALLEY 247.65 30.00 277.65 (277.65) 0.00
3002924140059 00051597 0020946604 1125 TYROL TRAIL GOLDEN VALLEY 146.83 30.00 176.83 176.83
3011821320114 00051615 0032002602 1624 MENDELSSOHN AVE N GOLDEN VALLEY 530.36 30.00 560.36 560.36
3011821430060 00051649 0032083305 1401 ZEALAND AVE N GOLDEN VALLEY 294.46 30.00 324.46 (324.46) 0.00
3002924210021 00051728 0020928800 316 NATCHEZ AVE S GOLDEN VALLEY 783.39 30.00 813.39 (604.00) 209.39
3211821420048 00051863 0031764301 6830 KINGSTON CIR GOLDEN VALLEY 701.42 30.00 731.42 (268.38) 463.04
3011821230146 00051895 0031906001 9200 EARLST GOLDEN VALLEY 247.50 30.00 277.50 277.50
2811821210067 00051961 0021103502 2425 WINFIELDAVE GOLDEN VALLEY 723.61 30.00 753.61 753.61
3211821110009 00051987 0031655509 6316 PHOENIX ST GOLDEN VALLEY 1,664.28 30.00 1,694.28 1,694.28
2911821110020 00051999 0021411103 2425 DOUGLAS DR N GOLDEN VALLEY 146.51 30.00 176.51 176.51
3011821330102 00052051 0032023616 1409 FLAG AVE N GOLDEN VALLEY 171.28 30.00 201.28 201.28
0702924420089 00052081 0010401008 3026 NOBLE AVE N GOLDEN VALLEY 96.77 30.00 126.77 126.77
3011821230035 00052114 0031998305 2101 KINGS VALLEY RD W GOLDEN VALLEY 1,418.41 30.00 1,448.41 1,448.41
1802924310042 00052126 0010664001 5011 FRONTENAC AVE GOLDEN VALLEY 2,570.13 30.00 2,600.13 2,600.13
0702924310050 00052174 0010432508 2925 PERRY AVE N GOLDEN VALLEY 448.49 30.00 478.49 (100.00) 378.49
0702924420060 00052184 0010403608 4520 ELMDALE RD GOLDEN VALLEY 1,760.96 30.00 1,790.96 1,790.96
3311821330066 00052188 0021280234 234 SKI HILL RD GOLDEN VALLEY 163.55 30.00 193.55 193.55
0702924240029 00052215 0010309003 3235 NOBLE AVE N GOLDEN VALLEY 464.87 30.00 494.87 (494.87) 0.00
3211821120008 00052265 0031651300 1021 IDAHO AVE N GOLDEN VALLEY 226.80 30.00 256.80 256.80
3011821120073 00052271 0031947203 8350 24TH AVE N GOLDEN VALLEY 78.42 30.00 108.42 (108.42) 0.00
1902924440058 00052290 0020807509 234 SUNNYRIDGE LN GOLDEN VALLEY 1,049.93 30.00 1,079.93 1,079.93
3111821110016 00052415 0032116105 1130 ORKLA DR GOLDEN VALLEY 1,539.55 30.00 1,569.55 1,569.55
3011821220022 00052438 0031992159 2318 ENGLISH CIR GOLDEN VALLEY 164.74 30.00 194.74 194.74
1902924410041 00052451 0020821906 4205 OLSON MEMORIAL HWY GOLDEN VALLEY 734.27 30.00 764.27 764.27
3211821410006 00052540 0031767304 6657 OLSON MEMORIAL HWY GOLDEN VALLEY 791.64 30.00 821.64 821.64
1802924240052 00052557 0010526804 2131 WINDSOR WAY GOLDEN VALLEY 781.24 30.00 811.24 811.24
0702924330045 00052633 0010437408 5037 CULVER RD GOLDEN VALLEY 21.94 30.00 51.94 51.94
3211821340005 00052675 0031727308 7465 HAROLD AVE GOLDEN VALLEY 611.96 30.00 641.96 (641.96) 0.00
1802924130051 00052724 0010531408 2155 SPRUCE TR GOLDEN VALLEY 658.89 30.00 688.89 (688.89) 0.00
3011821230105 00052753 0031993405 2206 TAMARIN TR GOLDEN VALLEY 522.02 30.00 552.02 552.02
1902924410112 00052772 0020805909 428 SUNNYRIDGE LN GOLDEN VALLEY 279.36 30.00 309.36 (309.36) 0.00
3211821420084 00052772 0031754006 7041 OLSON MEMORIAL HWY GOLDEN VALLEY 102.19 30.00 132.19 (132.19) 0.00
3211821420085 00052772 0031754007 7021 OLSON MEMORIAL HWY GOLDEN VALLEY 51.40 30.00 81.40 (81.40) 0.00
3002924420004 00052816 0021010400 4410 TYROL CREST GOLDEN VALLEY 1,009.89 30.00 1,039.89 1,039.89
3011821320066 00052862 0032030801 9200 OLYMPIA ST GOLDEN VALLEY 334.54 30.00 364.54 364.54
1702924220061 00052883 0010142206 2501 MCNAIR DR GOLDEN VALLEY 205.22 30.00 235.22 (235.22) 0.00
2911821420004 00052925 0021555701 1676 HAMPSHIRE LN N GOLDEN VALLEY 1,089.47 30.00 1,119.47 1,119.47
3011821230153 00053020 0031904907 2012 HILLSBORO AVE N GOLDEN VALLEY 593.69 30.00 623.69 623.69
2811821230025 00053054 0021140306 2305 COLORADO AVE N GOLDEN VALLEY 594.24 30.00 624.24 624.24
1702924310026 00053064 0010106508 1811 YORK AVE N GOLDEN VALLEY 389.91 30.00 419.91 419.91
2811821340010 00053084 0021196308 5540 GOLDEN VALLEY RD GOLDEN VALLEY 528.88 30.00 558.88 558.88
3311821210041 00053202 0021207907 5540 LINDSAY ST GOLDEN VALLEY 289.96 30.00 319.96 319.96
2911821430038 00053207 0021573605 7020 WINSDALE ST GOLDEN VALLEY 227.07 30.00 257.07 (257.07) 0.00
3002924310055 00053219 0020911400 1513 UTICA AVE S GOLDEN VALLEY 31.77 30.00 61.77 61.77
3211821110033 00053222 0031653801 6504 GOLDEN VALLEY RD GOLDEN VALLEY 400.45 30.00 430.45 430.45
3011821220012 00053275 0031982507 2408 HILLSBORO AVE N GOLDEN VALLEY 48.27 30.00 78.27 (78.27) 0.00
City of Golden Valley
2020 Delinquent Utilities
Certification Original Cert Current
PID Customer# Account# Service Address Town/City Balance Fee Balance Payments Balance
3011821220025 00053342 0031992209 2312 ENGLISH CIR GOLDEN VALLEY 135.22 30.00 165.22 165.22
3011821230115 00053367 0031992853 2215 STRODEN CIR GOLDEN VALLEY 33.33 30.00 63.33 (63.33) 0.00
3011821230037 00053369 0031998206 2105 KINGS VALLEY RD W GOLDEN VALLEY 183.74 30.00 213.74 213.74
260,314.08 7,770.00 268,084.08 (25,725.59) 242,358.49
October 7, 2020
Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO. 20-60
RESOLUTION ADOPTING AND CONFIRMING ASSESSMENTS
FOR DELINQUENT GOLDEN VALLEY UTILITY BILLING
1. The amount proper and necessary to be specially assessed at this time for various public
improvements:
Project Years Interest Rate First Year Levy Total Assessed
2020 Delinquent
Utility Billing 1 3% 2021 $268,084.08
against every assessable lot, piece, or parcel of land affected thereby has been duly calculated upon the
basis of benefits, without regard to cash valuation, in accordance with the provisions of Minnesota Statutes,
Chapter 429, and notice has been duly published, as required by law that this Council would meet to hear,
consider and pass upon all objections, if any, and said proposed assessment has at all time since its filing
been open for public inspection and an opportunity has been given to all interested persons to present their
objections if any, to such proposed assessments.
2. This Council, having heard and considered all objections so presented, finds that each of the lots,
pieces and parcels of land enumerated in the proposed assessment was and is specially benefited by the
construction of said improvement in not less than the amount of the assessment set opposite the description
of each such lot, piece and parcel of land respectively, and such amount so set out is hereby levied against
each of the respective lots, pieces and parcels of land therein described.
3. The proposed assessments are hereby adopted and confirmed as the proper assessments for
each of said lots, pieces and parcels of land respectively, and the assessment against each parcel, together
with interest at the rate of three (3) percent per annum accruing on the full amount thereof unpaid, shall be a
lien concurrent with general taxes upon parcel and all thereof. The total amount of each such assessment not
prepaid shall be payable in equal annual principal installments extending over a period of years, as indicated
in each case. The first of said installments, together with interest on the entire assessment for the period of
January 1, 2021 through December 31, 2021, will be payable with property taxes collectible in 2021.
4. Prior to certification of the assessment to the County Auditor, the owner of any lot, piece or parcel
of land assessed hereby may at any time pay the whole such assessment , with interest to the date of
payment, to the City Treasurer, but no interest shall be charged if such payment is made by November 13,
2020.
5. The City Clerk shall, as soon as may be, prepare and transmit to the County Auditor a certified
duplicate of the assessment roll, with each installment and interest on each unpaid assessment set forth
separately, to be extended upon the proper tax lists of the County and the County Auditor shall thereafter
collect said assessment in the manner provided by law.
Shepard M. Harris, Mayor
ATTEST:
Theresa J. Schyma, City Clerk
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was seconded by Member
and upon a vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof:
and the following voted against the same:
whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted, signed by the Mayor and her signature
attested by the City Clerk.
city of FXECUTIV ! SUMMARY
gol4enw, Administrative Services
vale
763-593-8013 / 763-593-3969 (fax)
Golden Valley City Council Meeting
October 7, 2020
Agenda Item
4. E. Public Hearing—Special Assessments-2020 Delinquent Miscellaneous Charges
Prepared By
Sue Virnig, Finance Director
Summary
The following resolution should be considered to Adopt and Confirm Assessments for 2020
Miscellaneous Charges.
Financial Or Budget Considerations
Resolution 20-61 will give the City authority to certify delinquent miscellaneous charges. Payment will
be made through 2021 property taxes if not paid in full by November 13, 2020.
Recommended Action
• Motion to approve Resolution 20-61 Adopting and Confirming Assessments for Delinquent 2020
Miscellaneous Charges
Supporting Documents
• List of delinquent miscellaneous charges for certification
• Resolution 20-61 Adopting and Confirming Assessments for 2020 Miscellaneous Charges
2020 Miscellaneous Charges
Address Open
PID Number Property Address Violation Invoice Date Amount Cert Fee Total x Paid
19-029-24-14-0144 103619 845 MEADOW LN ALARM 08/20/2020 107.53 30.00 137.53 PD
31-118-21-14-0043 108333 8200 GOLDEN VAL RD FALSE ALARM 02/25/2020 107.53 30.00 137.53 PD
32-118-21-32-0055 108481 7726 OLSON MEM HWY ALARM 01/22/2020 107.53 30.00 137.53
31-118-21-13-0022 110979 8401 GOLDEN VAL RD FALSE ALARM 02/25/2020 107.53 30.00 137.53
31-118-21-24-0002 113841 825 BOONE AVE N ALARM 08/20/2020 107.53 30.00 137.53 PD
29-118-21-14-0007 114847 1885 DOUGLAS DR N FALSE ALARM 12/18/2019 107.53 30.00 137.53
17-029-24-24-0001 120340 2323 ZENITH AVE N ALARM 01/22/2020 100.00 30.00 130.00 PD
07-029-24-23-0013 130769 3335 SCOTT 2ND MOWING 08/19/2020 806.44 30.00 836.44
32-118-21-32-0053 132155 7701 GOLDEN VALLEY RD ALARM 02/25/2019 100.00 30.00 130.00 PD
19-029-24-22-0014 132674 5104 THOTLAND RD MOWING 07/30/2020 28.22 30.00 58.22 PD
28-118-21-21-0047 132773 2345 VALE CREST RD CITATION 09/10/2019 250.00 30.00 280.00
30-118-21-23-0126 132987 1905 FLAG AVE N CITATION STEPS 10/03/2019 100.00 30.00 130.00
31-118-21-31-0040 133147 8950OLSON MEM HWY ALARM 11/19/2019 107.53 30.00 137.53
07-029-24-24-0036 133238 3339 NOBLE AVE N CITATION 12/03/2019 100.00 30.00 130.00
18-029-24-13-0015 133238 1910 NOBLE DR CITATION 12/03/2019 100.00 30.00 130.00
18-029-24-21-0039 133238 2540 REGENT AVE N CITATION 12/03/2019 100.00 30.00 130.00
28-118-21-22-0056 133238 2465 BRUNSWICK AVE N CITATION 12/03/2019 100.00 30.00 130.00
29-118-21-33-0090 133238 7529 KNOLL ST CITATION 12/20/2019 100.00 30.00 130.00
32-118-21-11-0023 133238 6431 PHOENIX ST CITATION 12/03/2019 100.00 30.00 130.00
133422 742 DECATUR AVE N ALARM 02/25/2020 107.53
31-118-21-24-0006 133422 742 DECATUR ALARM 05/18/2020 107.53 30.00 245.06
32-118-21-11-0049 133426 6420 GOLDEN VALLEY RD CITATION 01/28/2020 100.00 30.00 130.00
05-117-21-21-0100 133789 310 LAUREL CURVE REPAIR PARTS 07/30/2020 126.27 30.00 156.27 PD
133792 125 HAMPSHIRE CITATION 07/30/2020 100.00
133792 125 HAMPSHIRE CITATION 07/30/2020 100.00
32-118-21-44-0063 133792 125 HAMPSHIRE CITATION 07/30/2020 100.00 30.00 330.00
17-029-24-31-0008 133793 1725 XERXES AVE N CITATION 07/30/2020 100.00 30.00 130.00
28-118-21-32-0051 133894 6050 ST CROIX AVE TREE REMOVAL 08/01/2020 2,580.60 30.00 2,610.60
6,909.30
RESOLUTION #20-61
RESOLUTION ADOPTING AND CONFIRMING ASSESSMENTS
FOR MISCELLANEOUS CHARGES
(WEEDS/TREE REMOVAL, FALSE ALARMS, ADMINISTRATIVE CITATIONS, ETC)
1 . The amount proper and necessary to be specially assessed at this time for
various public improvements:
Project Years Interest Rate First Year Levy Total Assessed
2020
Miscellaneous 1 3% 2021 $6,909.30
Charges
against every assessable lot, piece, or parcel of land affected thereby has been duly
calculated upon the basis of benefits, without regard to cash valuation, in accordance with
the provisions of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 429, and notice has been duly published, as
required by law that this Council would meet to hear, consider and pass upon all objections,
if any, and said proposed assessment has at all time since its filing been open for public
inspection and an opportunity has been given to all interested persons to present their
objections if any, to such proposed assessments.
2. This Council, having heard and considered all objections so presented, finds that
each of the lots, pieces and parcels of land enumerated in the proposed assessment was
and is specially benefited by the construction of said improvement in not less than the
amount of the assessment set opposite the description of each such lot, piece and parcel of
land respectively, and such amount so set out is hereby levied against each of the
respective lots, pieces and parcels of land therein described.
3. The proposed assessments are hereby adopted and confirmed as the proper
assessments for each of said lots, pieces and parcels of land respectively, and the
assessment against each parcel, together with interest at the rate of five (5) percent per
annum accruing on the full amount thereof unpaid, shall be a lien concurrent with general
taxes upon parcel and all thereof. The total amount of each such assessment not prepaid
shall be payable in equal annual principal installments extending over a period of years, as
indicated in each case. The first of said installments, together with interest on the entire
assessment for the period of January 1 , 2021 through December 31 , 2021 , will be payable
with property taxes collectible in 2021 .
4. Prior to certification of the assessment to the County Auditor, the owner of any
lot, piece or parcel of land assessed hereby may at any time pay the whole such
assessment, with interest to the date of payment, to the City Treasurer, but no interest shall
be charged if such payment is made by November 13, 2020.
Resolution 20-61 - Continued October 7, 2020
5. The City Clerk shall, as soon as may be, prepare and transmit to the County
Auditor a certified duplicate of the assessment roll, with each installment and interest on
each unpaid assessment set forth separately, to be extended upon the proper tax lists of
the County and the County Auditor shall thereafter collect said assessment in the manner
provided by law.
Shepard M. Harris, Mayor
ATTEST:
Theresa J. Schyma, City Clerk
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was seconded by Member and
upon a vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: and the
following voted against the same: whereupon said resolution was declared duly
passed and adopted, signed by the Mayor and her signature attested by the City Clerk.
pity °f EXECUITI JE SUMMARY
golden , ,
Cit Administration
Vy
763-593-8006 / 763-593-8109 (fax)
Golden Valley City Council Meeting
October 7, 2020
Agenda Item
6. A. COVID-19 Pandemic Emergency Administrative Actions
Prepared By
Tim Cruikshank, City Manager
Maria Cisneros, City Attorney
Summary
The City Manager and City Attorney recommend that the City Council ratify the attached Emergency
Administrative Actions that staff has taken since August 26, 2020 in response to the COVID-19
pandemic. The new actions include:
• Emergency Administrative Action 20-65 updating the COVID-19 Operations Recovery and
Readiness (CORR) Plan. The updated section relates to the addition of Outdoor Pub Curling to
the Lawn Bowling section of the CORR Plan.
• Emergency Administrative Action 20-66 updating the COVID-19 Operations Recovery and
Readiness (CORR) Plan. The updated section relates to new procedures for Police Department
recruitment and hiring.
• Emergency Administrative Action 20-67 updating the COVID-19 Operations Recovery and
Readiness (CORR) Plan. The updated section relates to new DMV stand-by service.
The updated CORR Plan is on file with the City Clerk and available for review here.
Financial or Budget Considerations
Not Applicable
Recommended Action
Motion to ratify Emergency Administrative Action 20-65, 20-66, and 20-67
Supporting Documents
• Emergency Administrative Action 20-65 (1 page)
• Emergency Administrative Action 20-66 (1 page)
• Emergency Administrative Action 20-67 (1 page)
Cit I O1
9 1de n
va Ie
7800 Golden Valleys Road
Golden Valley,MN 55427
EMERGENCY ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION 20-65
UPDATING THE COVID-19 OPERATIONS
RECOVERY AND READINESS PLAN
Pursuant to Mayoral Proclamation and Council Resolution effective March 17, 2020, the
City of Golden Valley hereby adopts the updated COVID-19 Operations Recovery and
Readiness Plan on file with the City Clerk effective September 17, 2020.
The Plan shall remain in effect until repealed or modified by subsequent City Manager
or Council action.
7R,eh7 ,7 Owl kfhalM
Date: September 17, 2020 TIPlothyJ�Crui'kshank:Sep 17,20201539 CDT
:
Timothy J. Cruikshank, City Manager
763-593-8000 Fax 763-593-8109 T7: 763-593-3968 www.goldenvalleymn.gov
Cit I O1
9 1de n
va lk—ly
7840 Golden Valleys Road
Golden Valley,MN 55427
EMERGENCY ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION 20-66
UPDATING THE COVID-19 OPERATIONS
RECOVERY AND READINESS PLAN
Pursuant to Mayoral Proclamation and Council Resolution effective March 17, 2020, the
City of Golden Valley hereby adopts the updated COVID-19 Operations Recovery and
Readiness Plan on file with the City Clerk effective September 22, 2020.
The Plan shall remain in effect until repealed or modified by subsequent City Manager
or Council action.
T/fth , 7-glkrGaek
Date: September 22, 2020 TIFothyJcrui shank(Sep 22,20201410CDT)
Timothy J. Cruikshank, City Manager
763-593-8000 Fax 763-593-8109 T7: 763-593-3968 www.goldenvalleymn.gov
Cit I O1
9 1de n
va lk—ly
7800 Golden Valleys Road
Golden Valley,MN 55427
EMERGENCY ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION 20-67
UPDATING THE COVID-19 OPERATIONS
RECOVERY AND READINESS PLAN
Pursuant to Mayoral Proclamation and Council Resolution effective March 17, 2020, the
City of Golden Valley hereby adopts the updated COVID-19 Operations Recovery and
Readiness Plan on file with the City Clerk effective October 1, 2020. The revisions
include new protocols in the following areas:
• DMV stand-by service
The Plan shall remain in effect until repealed or modified by subsequent City Manager
or Council action.
Date: October 1, 2020 TiM041yJ0Jkshank(Oct1,202010:23CDT)
Timothy J. Cruikshank, City Manager
763-593-8000 Fax 763-593-8109 T7: 763-593-3968 www.goldenvalleymn.gov
L
cu
cu cu cu L.L cu cu cu cu cu cu cu cu cu cu cu cu
7C) O 70 70 70 70 70 70 70 70 70 70 70 70
m m m ° m m m m m m m m m m m m
Z o
Lu
W75
0-
o
C) o
Z -0 o
Q E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E
(n CL c- c- cu c- c- c- c- c- c- cu c- c- c- c- c-
CU(� O O O O Un O Un O O O O O O O O O
z (N O M O O It O M M M M M O O M O
_ E O O O O ti O O O O (6 ti ti O ti
W cn
L
W
E
LL a)
0 �
U 0)
Z c
W 0 0
73 U o
W N "� c' m
U 0'
Z E CU 0 — m
L > Q 0) V O 0)
�
0 O O
z 0 � O � U O O O to
z E � ( F cB
O to
0) O O O C� E O Q
CU (B '1 •w r� c yam—'' f n E E Q
Z) W � L O O
m a cu a E 2 � m 0 U E ) c
>+ C cQ
W 0 E m c
c CU m � U � cu 0 m U 0) N
O 0 O)0 0' o c c c' o
U cB cB c U ° cu _0
_� > Ecu
Z U m 2 � U 2 CU (D O W a- 2 m
W
m
0
U
O Cfl f— 00 O N N M M O O N (.0 (.0 (.0f— 00
T- � � � N N N N N N N N
U)
0)
c
cu L T� 7 cu
QX L
3 2 W (Q
y+ (n
U V- m
O U 70 O
O � a) O
m m m m
U
Z
Lu O
W0 0- 0-
0 0 0 0 0
0 � 0 C) o 0
+� T O coTI-
Z _0 O O O
Q o E cu E E E
(n cB 0 cB CL cB
CU>N 0 0 0 o
Z � oo r- C0 00
W cn
L
W o
E
L
0cu
� U =
Z _
W o CU
73 U cu
W 0)
U o
Z E 0
L
Q o
Z o c
Z O L o
� U
Q Q Q Q
O L 0) O
0 O 0
O 4—
4cu— O cB
J 0 a)
cu
(BFla 0 C (B
LL C LL
cu O O O cQ
Z) "_ +_ U
U
Q Q m W U Q
LU
O
M M Z M