pc-agenda-jun-14-21
REGULAR MEETING AGENDA
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 177 201 6549. The public may participate in this meeting during public comment sections by
calling 763‐593‐8060 and following the automated prompts.
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
2. Approval of Agenda
3. Approval of Minutes
May 24, 2021, Planning Commission Meeting
4. Public Hearing – Major Amendment to PUD 90
Applicant: ISD #270 ‐ Hopkins School District
Address: 5430 and 5300 Glenwood Ave, Golden Valley, MN 55422
5. Public Hearing – Rezone Properties to Achieve Conformance with the 2040 Comprehensive Plan
Applicant: City of Golden Valley
Addresses: 1850 & 1854 Toledo Ave N; 4225 Golden Valley Road
6. Discussion – Use Tables
– End of Televised Portion of Meeting –
To listen to this portion, please call 1‐415‐655‐0001 and enter meeting access code 177 201 6549.
7. Council Liaison Report
8. Other Business
a. Reports on Board of Zoning Appeals and Other Meetings
9. Adjournment
June 14, 2021 – 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.
1. Call to Order
The meeting was called to order at 7:00 by Chair Pockl.
Roll Call
Commissioners present: Ron Blum, Adam Brookins, Noah Orloff, Lauren Pockl, Ryan Sadeghi, Chuck
Segelbaum
Commissioners absent: Rich Baker, Andy Johnson
Staff present: Jason Zimmerman – Planning Manager, Myles Campbell – Planner
Council Liaison present: Gillian Rosenquist
2. Approval of Agenda
Chair Pockl asked for a motion to approve the agenda.
MOTION made by Commissioner Sadeghi, seconded by Commissioner Blum, to approve the agenda
of May 24, 2021. Staff called a roll call vote and the motion carried unanimously.
3. Approval of Minutes
Chair Pockl asked for a motion to approve the minutes from May 10, 2021.
MOTION made by Commissioner Segelbaum, seconded by Commissioner Brookins, to approve
minutes. Staff called a roll call vote and the motion carried unanimously.
4. Discussion – Temporary Outdoor Service Uses
Jason Zimmerman, Planning Manager, started the presentation by reminding the Commission when
this initial discussion began on March 8th. At that time commissioners agreed an interim use could
possibly become a solution to the issues facing Schuller’s around an outdoor patio. Staff has
conceived of a possible zoning text amendment to create a Temporary Outdoor Service use that
could be applied throughout the city under specific circumstances. Interim uses are covered in the
state statute, there are definitions but conditions of use may be attached, and they must conform to
the zoning regulations.
May 24, 2021 – 7 pm
City of Golden Valley Planning Commission Regular Meeting
May 24, 2021 – 7 pm
2
Golden Valley currently has three types of Temporary Uses allowed:
Mobile food vending
Season farm produce sales
Temporary retail sales
In order to address interest in outdoor dining or outdoor sales, a Temporary Outdoor Service use
could be established as a fourth category. This addition would grant businesses flexibility to hold
outdoor events. Zimmerman discussed the review and approval process, along with approval
authority and public input opportunities. All Temporary Uses currently involve numerous conditions
of approval that must be followed to mitigate potential impacts. Similar steps should be taken for a
Temporary Outdoor Service use – especially one that is located in or adjacent to a residential area.
Zimmerman discussed the length of time for permits and how they can vary.
Staff Conclusion
This could be a solution to requests for more flexible tools to handle non‐fixed operations; a process
developed during COVID‐19 that could be adapted for a more codified tool.
Commissioner Segelbaum asked about details on small scale versus large scale uses and how other
cities handed it. Zimmerman responded that staff hasn’t reached out to other cities but rather
researched their code and ordinances. Chair Pockl asked about fees and renewal process, staff
reviewed each fee and surmised a potential future range. The discussion continued on the process
for administering fees.
Staff and commissioners discussed the temporary use process that was developed during COVID‐19.
The discussion moved on to how the uses will be permitted and how to address the different zoning
districts. Concerns around uses conflicting with zoning districts, specifically R‐1 came up and
Commissioner Blum mentioned adding a police presence to temporary uses that run late in the
evening.
The conversation continued on to how to alert other agencies that may have interest in restaurants
utilizing an outdoor use, the Minnesota Department of Health or the Metropolitan Council for
example, and keeping in mind the proper notifications for the applicant so the burden doesn’t fall on
City staff.
Relating to conditional uses, Segelbaum mentioned it made sense to articulate parameters that
would define temporary uses as conditional uses instead of by right. Zimmerman responded that this
process may be routine but a few specific situations may garner a lot of public input. They discussed
the idea of levels that would then trigger a potential public input session or leads into Planning
Commission or City Council as arbiters.
The discussion continued around uses and certain restaurants looking into outdoor seating but
wanting something more permanent than this allows. Commissioner Sadeghi added that he’s in
support of this process as it has the potential to further support local businesses. He sees value in
following this process for a few years and re‐evaluating later. Commissioner Orloff added his support
and sees the benefit to owners having a temporary use during the nicer Minnesota weather.
A sunset period was mentioned by Blum and Chair Pockl and Sadeghi supported that.
City of Golden Valley Planning Commission Regular Meeting
May 24, 2021 – 7 pm
3
Televised portion of the meeting concluded at 8:06 pm
5. Council Liaison Report
Council Member Rosenquist provided updates on alley easement vacations, she reported that
Meadowbrook’s proposal was being sent back to the Planning Commission, discussed that Rising
TIDES and the Human Rights Commission are combining. With restrictions lifting, the Historical
Society will be reopening and there will be a revamped Pride Festival this year.
6. Other Business
a. Reports on Board of Zoning Appeals and other meetings
b. Annual commissioner orientation
c. Exclusionary zoning brief and reading recommendations
7. Adjournment
MOTION by Commissioner Blum to adjourn, seconded by Commissioner Segelbaum, and
approved unanimously. Meeting adjourned at 8:45 pm.
________________________________
Andy Johnson, Secretary
________________________________
Amie Kolesar, Planning Assistant
1
Date: June 14, 2021
To: Golden Valley Planning Commission
From: Jason Zimmerman, Planning Manager
Subject: Informal Public Hearing – Meadowbrook School PUD No. 90, Amendment #5 –
5430 and 5300 Glenwood Avenue
Summary
Hopkins Public Schools, represented by Neil Tessier, has applied for a Major Planned Unit
Development (PUD) Amendment in order to expand the boundary of the PUD and to incorporate
additional land area currently addressed as 5300 Glenwood Avenue. This expansion would allow
for the completion of a traffic control plan initiated as part of Amendment #4 in 2018 as well as
provide future space for district offices or special services educational programming.
On April 26, 2021, the Planning Commission unanimously recommended denial of this request. On
May 18, the City Council heard this request and, after conducting a public hearing, voted to return
the application to the Planning Commission and encouraged the applicant to work with them
further to address outstanding concerns.
A new public hearing was targeted for June 14. However, the applicant has requested that the
hearing be tabled to the June 28 Planning Commission meeting.
Recommendation
Staff recommends the Planning Commission table the informal public hearing for Meadowbrook
School PUD No. 90, Amendment #5, to the regular June 28 meeting.
1
Date: June 14, 2021
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 four 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. Many properties have already been rezoned, while a
handful are awaiting further action as part of the completion of the City’s Downtown Small Area
Plan.
Analysis
The four properties under consideration represent two small areas – one in Scheid Park and the
other north of Sweeney Lake off Golden Valley Road. They both demonstrate a desire on the part
of the City to better align the zoning designations with current and future uses. The 2040
Comprehensive Plan put forward these land use designations as part of the approved Future Land
Use Map.
A planned addition is pending at the site of the Minneapolis Clinic of Neurology but is unaffected
by the proposed change in zoning.
2
Group 1
Two parcels that make up a portion of Scheid Park originally contained single‐family homes. In
1995, the City acquired one of these lots and the home was demolished in 1996. In 2012, the
City acquired and demolished the second home. Both lots now function as a seamless part of
the surrounding park land.
Changing the zoning from Single‐Family Residential (R‐1) to Institutional (Sub‐District I‐4) better
aligns the designation to match the existing and future use.
Address Current Zoning Current Use Proposed Zoning
1850 Toledo Avenue N R‐1 Park land I‐4
1854 Toledo Avenue N R‐1 Park land I‐4
The proposed zoning designation of I‐4 may give some residents pause, as permitted uses of this
subdistrict include not only parks and playgrounds, but also City offices, fire stations, and “other
3
lands incidental to the operation of the City.” Some residents have expressed concern that this
zoning change is a way for the City to position itself to construct a fire station within the park.
However, staff points to the Future Land Use Map in the 2040 Comprehensive Plan, which clearly
designates all of Scheid Park as Parks and Natural Areas – distinct from the Institutional ‐ Civic
designation which would allow for a fire station or other City facilities. In addition, planned
updates to the zoning chapter this summer will further separate the “park and playground”
institutional uses from the “City offices and fire stations” institutional uses and place them into
two distinct subdistricts. Any future changes to land use or zoning designations would require a
significant and transparent public process.
Group 2
On the north side of Sweeney Lake, the Minneapolis Clinic of Neurology occupies roughly nine
acres. This suburban style office building houses neurological testing and rehabilitation services
in a setting overlooking Sweeney Lake. There is a small planned addition to the south side of the
building pending which would provide additional patient treatment areas.
The current zoning of these two properties is Institutional (subdistrict I‐3) which is reserved for
“convalescent homes, nursing homes, clinics, and other buildings incidental to the operation
thereof.” It is guided for Office use in the 2040 Comp Plan. An office zoning designation would
continue to permit a medical clinic use by‐right, but would allow for a greater range of office
uses should the current clinic operations ever cease.
Address Current Zoning Current Use Proposed Zoning
4225 Golden Valley Road I‐3 Medical clinic Office
PID 1802924410008 I‐3 Medical clinic Office
4
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 amendments to the Zoning Map to rezone 1850 and 1854 Toledo
Avenue North from R‐1 to I‐4, and to rezone 4225 Golden Valley Road and the parcel identified as
PID 1802924410008 from I‐3 to Office.
Attachments
List of Affected Properties (1 page)
Maps of Future Land Use and Existing Zoning Designations (2 pages)
List of Affected Properties
Address Current Zoning Proposed Zoning
1850 Toledo Avenue N R‐1 I‐4
1854 Toledo Avenue N R‐1 I‐4
4225 Golden Valley Road I‐3 Office
PID 1802924410008 I‐3 Office
Group 1 Future Land Use Current Zoning
Group 2 Future Land Use Current Zoning
1
Date: June 14, 2021
To: Golden Valley Planning Commission
From: Myles Campbell, Planner
Subject: Use Table Updates
Summary
Planning staff and Commissioners have been in the process of reviewing the zoning code and
presentation of permitted/conditional/restricted uses. This review is intended to bring the code
into conformity with the Comprehensive Plan and to streamline the code to be more easily
interpreted by residents, businesses, and other property owners.
Thus far, Planning Commission has discussed the land uses allowed for in the Commercial, Light
Industrial, Industrial, Office, and Institutional Zoning districts. With the recent adoption of the
Rowhouse use in the R‐2 district, discussion on the residential zoning districts of the City can
proceed.
Background & Existing Uses
In terms of modifications to permitted and conditional land uses, there are relatively few changes
to be done for the City’s four residential zoning districts. These districts have a very distinct
purpose, to provide land for housing at a variety of densities. The provided land uses in these
sections fit this purpose without any need for realignment, and even the densities of housing in
the R‐3 and R‐4 districts, which allow for multi‐family housing, have already been updated to
match the guided ranges of the 2040 Comprehensive Plan. Instead, the majority of the discussion
and staff’s recommendation will be in regard to how these uses are organized as a table format.
The existing permitted and conditional uses for each district are as follows:
Single‐Family Residential (R‐1) Zoning District
Permitted Uses
(1)Single‐family dwellings, consistent with the City's Mixed‐Income Housing Policy
(2)Residential facilities serving six or fewer persons
(3)Foster family homes; and
2
(4)Essential services, Class I.
Conditional Uses
(1)Residential facilities serving from seven to 25 persons; and
(2)Group foster family homes.
Moderate Density Residential (R‐2) Zoning District
Permitted Uses
(1)Single‐family dwellings, consistent with the City's Mixed‐Income Housing Policy
(2)Two‐family dwellings, consistent with the City's Mixed‐Income Housing Policy
(3)Rowhouses with up to four attached units, consistent with the City's Mixed‐Income Housing
Policy
(4)Foster family homes
(5)Residential facilities serving six or fewer persons; and
(6)Essential services, Class I.
Conditional Uses
(1)Residential facilities serving from seven to 25 persons; and
(2)Group foster family homes.
Medium Density Residential (R‐3) Zoning District
Permitted Uses
(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)Multifamily dwellings of up to 12 units per acre, consistent with the City's Mixed‐Income
Housing Policy
(4)Senior and disability housing up to 20 units per acre, 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.
Conditional Uses
(1)Multifamily 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 units per acre, consistent with the
City's Mixed‐Income Housing Policy
(3)Senior and physical disability housing up to five stories or 60 feet in height
(4)Reserved.
(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
3
street. Any such sales, restaurant, or office shall be located only on the ground floor and have
direct access to the street.
High Density Residential (R‐4) Zoning District
Permitted Uses
(1)Multiple‐family dwellings, consistent with the City's Mixed‐Income Housing Policy
(2)Senior and physical disability housing, consistent with the City's Mixed‐Income Housing Policy
(3)Foster family homes
(4)Group foster family homes
(5)Residential facilities serving up to 25 persons; and
(6)Essential services, Class I and II.
Conditional Uses
(1)Multifamily dwellings to a density of 100 units per acre, consistent with the City's Mixed‐
Income Housing Policy
(2)Senior and disability housing to a density of 100 units per acre, consistent with the City's
Mixed‐Income Housing Policy
(3)Principal structures in excess of 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 20 or more 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.
Staff Recommendations
As mentioned, the residential zoning districts have little need for modification of the permitted
and conditional uses. Staff sees no need to introduce uses with restrictions here, those uses that
are conditional should require full review by the Planning Commission and City Council. Changes
have been made to overall language of the categories in many cases however. The blanket
language of “consistent with the City's Mixed‐Income Housing Policy” has been removed from
cases where it appears with an individual use, and is instead denoted by an asterisk next to items
in the table that it applies to. A “reserved” category under the conditional uses has been
removed entirely in the transition to a table format.
Similarly, language has been made more uniform amongst the multifamily uses to be clearer
about allowed densities, specifically in regard to the permitted densities in the R‐4 district.
Previously, the density allowed by right was listed in the chapter’s purpose statement, but not in
the permitted uses section. Staff has added the allowed density to the land use table and made
the rest of the language uniform with other instances. Additionally, staff removed the conditional
use of “Residential facilities serving from seven to 25 persons” in the R‐1 and R‐2 districts, and
instead has incorporated the existing “Residential Facilities serving up to 25 persons”.
4
One area that staff needs to research further is whether our code language around
manufactured housing is sufficient. Currently manufactured homes are not explicitly listed
as a permitted use in any district, the assumption being that they would otherwise fall
into an existing category, such as a single family home. There have been changes to the
state’s statutes around manufactured home parks in recent years however, so staff would
like to confirm with the City attorney whether any additional code language is required.
Currently manufactured homes are referenced in the R‐1 and R‐2 zoning districts, under
Sec. 113‐88. Subsec. (f)(7) and Sec. 113‐89. Subsec. (f)(7) respectively. Code language is
identical in both chapters stating:
Manufactured Homes. All manufactured or modular homes must meet the provisions of
the zoning and building codes.
Attached with this memo is a draft table of uses for the residential districts. Staff would
like Commissioner’s feedback on the following.
Is the general layout of the table clear/concise?
Are allowed density ranges for multifamily housing types clear?
Is the retail/restaurant/office language clear enough in R‐3, R‐4?
Is it clear which uses must be, “consistent with the City's Mixed‐Income Housing
Policy”?
Pawnshops and Payday Lenders
These uses were previously discussed by planning commissioners, at which time more
information was requested both in terms of the public safety or consumer protections
motivations for categorizing these as restricted uses. Following this meeting of the
Planning Commission, the City Manager and Councilmember Harris asked staff if they
would be open to the idea of extending the moratorium to consider additional regulations
regarding the operation of short‐term loan and payday lending facilities.
These additional regulations would not fall under the purview of the zoning code,
however staff felt it would be beneficial to understand what the regulations might be and
how the two would interact. At this time we will not be modifying the existing code
language to add either as a restricted use, but expect to pick this topic up in the future.
Staff Request
This agenda item is for discussion only. Staff is looking for Commissioner feedback on the
residential use tables.
Attachments
Draft Residential Use Tables (1 page)
Land Use DescriptionR‐1R‐2R‐3R‐4Single‐family dwellings*PPXXTwo‐family dwellings*XPPXRowhouses with up to four attached units*XPXXTownhouses*XXPX Multifamily HousingMultifamily dwellings of up to 12 units per acre*XXPPMultifamily dwellings to a density of 17 units per acre*XXCPMultifamily dwellings to a density of 50 units per acre*XXXPMultifamily dwellings to a density of 100 units per acre*XXXCSenior and disability housing to a density of 20 units per acre*XXPPSenior and disability housing to a density of 25 units per acre*XXCPSenior and disability housing to a density of 70 units per acre*XXXPSenior and disability housing to a density of 100 units per acre*XXXC Multifamily Conditional AllowancesSenior and disability housing up to five stories or 60 feet in heightXXCCPrincipal structures in excess of five stories or 60 feet in heightXXXCRetail 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.XXCC Residential Facilities, Foster Homes, and Essential ServicesResidential facilities serving six or fewer personsPPPPResidential facilities serving up to 25 persons; andCCPPFoster family homes; andPPPPGroup foster family homes.CCPPEssential services, Class I.PPPP*These uses shall be consistent with the City's Mixed‐Income Housing Policy