pc-agenda-jun-28-21
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 177 665 3237. 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
June 14, 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. Discussion – Temporary Outdoor Service Uses
6. Discussion – Accessory Dwelling Units
– End of Televised Portion of Meeting –
To listen to this portion, please call 1‐415‐655‐0001 and enter meeting access code 177 665 3237.
7. Council Liaison Report
8. Other Business
a. Reports on Board of Zoning Appeals and Other Meetings
9. Adjournment
June 28, 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: Rich Baker, Ron Blum, Andy Johnson, Lauren Pockl, Ryan Sadeghi, Chuck
Segelbaum
Commissioners absent: Noah Orloff, Adam Brookins
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 Segelbaum, seconded by Commissioner Johnson, to approve the
agenda of June 14, 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 24, 2021.
MOTION made by Commissioner Segelbaum, seconded by Commissioner Johnson, to approve
minutes. Staff called a roll call vote and the motion carried unanimously with one abstention from
Commissioner Baker.
4. Public Hearing – Major Amendment to PUD 90
Applicant: ISD #270 ‐ Hopkins School District
Address: 5430 and 5300 Glenwood Ave, Golden Valley, MN 55422
Jason Zimmerman, Planning Manager, informed Commissioners that City Council did not vote
on this item but rather sent it back for more work. The applicant asked to table it until the June
28th Planning Commission meeting.
Commissioner Johnson commented that the applicant had some urgency in getting the item
approved and asked why tabling was appropriate now. Zimmerman responded that the
June 14, 2021 – 7 pm
City of Golden Valley Planning Commission Regular Meeting
June 14, 2021, 2021 – 7 pm
2
urgency was due to the permitting process but now the applicant received feedback from City
Council and is going to send updated plans to staff. They recognize now that until these plans
are updated, they may not move forward.
Chair Pockl asked if the item needs to be re‐noticed. Zimmerman stated that if the item is
tabled to a specific meeting, it doesn’t. If the item is tabled until further notice, it will be re‐
noticed.
MOTION made by Commissioner Baker, seconded by Commissioner Blum, to table the item to the
June 28th, 2021 meeting, as requested by the applicant. Staff called a roll call vote and the motion
carried unanimously.
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
Jason Zimmerman, Planning Manager, reminded Commissioners that this process is to create
conformance with the Future Land Use Map in the 2040 Comprehensive Plan. The two areas of
topic at this meeting are in Scheid Park and another north of Sweeney Lake, off Golden Valley
Road.
As a note, a planned building addition is pending at the Minneapolis Clinic of Neurology, but is
unaffected by the proposed change in zoning.
Group 1 ‐ Scheid Park Group 2 ‐ 4225 Golden Valley Road
Two parcels that originally had
single‐family homes
One demolished in 1996; the other in 2012
The City owns the lots are they are
now functioning as part of the park
Request to rezone from R‐1 to I‐4
Nine‐acre site housing the Minneapolis Clinic
of Neurology
Request to rezone from I‐3 to Office (move
away from targeted “Medical” subdistrict)
Current use would continue to be permitted
by‐right; allows for flexibility for other office
uses in the future
Action not requested by the property owner
and no redevelopment being discussed (in
fact, additional investment in the clinic under
review now)
Zimmerman reviewed location maps for each location and displayed current zoning maps and
future land use.
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:
City of Golden Valley Planning Commission Regular Meeting
June 14, 2021, 2021 – 7 pm
3
Rezone 1850 and 1854 Toledo Avenue North from R‐1 to I‐4
Rezone 4225 Golden Valley Road and the parcel identified as PID 1802924410008 from I‐3 to
Office
Commissioner Johnson asked if the classification for this area is consistent with other clinics and
asked if there are other areas in the city that are inconsistent with the decision to rezone to office.
Zimmerman responded that Regency is zoned I‐4, Courage Kenny is also zoned I‐4; this is the only
of the three to be suggested to change to office. Being that it’s a clinic it could go either way but
zoning to office opens the setting for something other than a medical clinic. Staff is not aware of
other large clinics zoned office however there are medical clinics inside office buildings.
Commissioner Blum echoed this observation and asked if there was an underlining zoning for these
categories. Staff responded that as of now there isn’t but went on to discuss use tables and staff
will address it in a few months.
Chair Pockl opened the public hearing at 7:17pm
There were no callers
Zimmerman mentioned that he had a few calls regarding Scheid Park and the possibility of
constructing a fire station in the park. He suggested that Commissioner Johnson comment as at
that time, Johnson was on the community task force. Johnson confirmed he was on the task force
and specifics on a potential location hasn’t come up. Commissioner Blum asked if this step was
premature and discussed waiting until more details on use were confirmed.
Commissioner Baker asked for clarification on intent and Blum said he thought it was a good idea
to wait on rezoning until a final decision was made on the use for that area. Johnson agreed with
Blum’s point and stated that it doesn’t make sense to rezone this area twice but maybe evaluate
other areas. He specifically pointed out 55/Winnetka which staff stated would be bundled with the
downtown study.
Zimmerman discussed the zoning and the comp plan and the 2040 Comprehensive Plan
designation trumps the zoning ordinances. The Scheid Park area is guided, in the comp plan, as
parks and green space. Met Council is mandating this process occur and a decision on the fire
station is years away. Baker added that by not moving forward with this designation, the
Commission may fuel doubt in the community that they don’t want Scheid Park to be a designated
green space. Blum added that zoning Scheid Park as Industrial was creating an island of zoning in a
residential area. Staff reminded the Commissioner that the zoning designation will be Institutional,
and the surrounding greenspace is already zoned the same. Blum stated that even with that
correction, his comments are the same. Commissioner Segelbaum echoed Baker as the zoning
designation will be one big parcel instead of two, it’s consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, and
there won’t be an issue to address it again later. It’s in the City’s best interest to be consistent.
Johnson added he hadn’t considered the nuance of the comp plan and zoning ordinance language
and is comfortable moving forward with this recommendation and potentially voting again later.
Blum asked staff if there was a deadline from Met Council. Staff responded that the City is in
City of Golden Valley Planning Commission Regular Meeting
June 14, 2021, 2021 – 7 pm
4
violation of state statute but Met Council has been generous in allowing cities to work through
their realignment and hasn’t contacted anyone yet for lack of compliance.
Chair Pockl closed the public hearing at 7:35pm.
MOTION made by Commissioner Baker, seconded by Commissioner Segelbaum, to follow staff
recommendation and recommend to rezone 1850 and 1854 Toledo Avenue North from R‐1 to I‐4;
recommend to rezone 4225 Golden Valley Road and the parcel identified as PID 1802924410008
from I‐3 to Office.
Staff took a roll call vote: 5‐1
Aye: Baker, Johnson, Pockl, Sadeghi, Segelbaum
Nay: Blum
6. Discussion – Use Tables
Myles Campbell, Planner, reminded Commissioners that they have 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.
Campbell displayed a graph of the draft land‐use table for residential zoning districts, the same graph
was included in the packet. A background on the existing uses was discussed and Campbell went
through each zoning district and reviewed permitted uses. Changes were made to overall language in
many categories and designations for items consistent with the Mixed‐Income Housing Policy were
noted on the graph.
Language was condensed and clarified and staff will research further if the code language around
manufactured housing is sufficient.
Previously discussed uses by pawnshops and payday lenders was reviewed as well and additional
regulations discussed by Council that do not fall under the purview of the zoning code. This topic may
be addressed again later after staff can understand what the regulations might be and how the two
would interact.
Commissioner Blum asked if the chart displayed by staff could be condensed further to track easier
and for readability. Commissioner Johnson asked how the Mixed‐Income Policy applies to single
family homes or rowhouses. Campbell discussed potential large new developments, if there was a
CUP or PUD included, a certain percentage of those homes would be considered. He added that
maybe this language isn’t included here but in residential zoning chapters.
The discussion continued on formatting, policy distinctions, and how the language is laid out in the
code.
City of Golden Valley Planning Commission Regular Meeting
June 14, 2021, 2021 – 7 pm
5
Televised portion of the meeting concluded at 8:06 pm
7. Council Liaison Report
Council Member Rosenquist informed the Commissioners that the local City Emergency would end on
July 1. She provided an update on the new HRC/Rising TIDES commission and efforts to replace the
school resource officer at Sandburg. She reported that although the Golden Valley Pride Festival would
not be taking place this year, a food drive to support PRISM was being carried out instead. She also
provided details from the most recent City Council meeting, including approval of the rezonings
associated with the Comp Plan.
8. Other Business
None
9. Adjournment
MOTION by Commissioner Johnson to adjourn, seconded by Commissioner Blum, and approved
unanimously. Meeting adjourned at 8:11 pm.
________________________________
Andy Johnson, Secretary
________________________________
Amie Kolesar, Planning Assistant
1
Date: June 28, 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 and then for June 28. The applicant is now
requesting it be tabled further to the July 12 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 July 12 meeting.
1
Date: June 28, 2021
To: Golden Valley Planning Commission
From: Jason Zimmerman, Planning Manager
Subject: Temporary Outdoor Service Uses – Discussion
Summary
Spurred by a request from Schuller’s Tavern to explore options to allow outdoor seating at 7345
Country Club Drive, staff has been working to develop a new temporary outdoor service use that
could be applied throughout the City. The Planning Commission discussed this idea generally at
its March 8 meeting and in more detail at its May 24 meeting. Staff is now providing additional
information and sample zoning text language in response to feedback from Commissioners.
Background
Schuller’s has operated as a nonconforming use (a restaurant within a single‐family zoning
district) for many decades. In recent years, the owners have sought to find a way to utilize
outdoor space for seating and dining. Due to the existing nonconforming status, this would be
considered an illegal expansion of the restaurant use.
In search of solutions, the idea was raised to explore the possibility of creating interim – or
temporary – uses within the Zoning Chapter and potentially applying the concept to this
property. Interim uses are those which are temporary in nature and are allowed to exist for a pre‐
determined period of time. They can be targeted to specific aspects of individual zoning districts.
If workable, this idea could provide a focused solution to the current problem without exposing
the wider neighborhood to potentially greater impacts.
Staff also notes that COVID restrictions for restaurants and other retail/service uses in 2020 and
20201 resulted in the creation of Temporary Outdoor Service Area permits for use across the city.
These permits – reviewed and approved by staff in Planning, Inspections, and Fire – allowed for
outdoor seating/dining and retail sales using creative and temporary arrangements in parking lots
and other areas.
2
Temporary Outdoor Service Use
As discussed on May 24, the concept of a new temporary outdoor service use would complement
the City’s other current Temporary Uses found in Section 113‐31 of the City Code: Mobile Food
Vending, Seasonal Farm Produce Sales, and Temporary Retail Sales. It would need to be
consistent with the criteria for interim uses outlined in Minnesota Statute 462.3597. There, an
interim use is defined as “a temporary use of property until a particular date, until the occurrence
of a particular event, or until zoning regulations no longer permit it.” A city may set conditions on
interim uses, but may only grant permission for an interim use of property if:
(1) the use conforms to the zoning regulations;
(2) the date or event that will terminate the use can be identified with certainty;
(3) permission of the use will not impose additional costs on the public if it is necessary for
the public to take the property in the future; and
(4) the user agrees to and conditions that the governing body deems appropriate for
permission of the use.
In order to comply with these criteria, the Zoning Chapter would need to be amended in two
ways. First, the Outdoor Service Area use would need to be listed as a permitted use in each
zoning district where it would be applied. Second, new text would need to be added to the
Temporary Use section of code that detailed the process for application and approval.
In response to questions and comments raised by the Planning Commission during the last
discussion, staff is providing additional information below:
Are outdoor service areas an option for businesses currently?
Staff examined other businesses in Golden Valley that have outdoor seating. All of them take
place entirely on private property and utilize permanent patio space constructed specifically for
this purpose. Staff involvement with respect to the “approval” of these areas typical revolves
around ensuring compliance with accessibility requirements, confirming minimum parking counts
are not impacted, evaluating potential stormwater impacts due to increased impervious
coverage, and updating liquor licensing and insurance information to reflect an expanded service
area.
Staff is not aware of any businesses that currently utilize outdoor space for retail sales, though if
this were to be pursued it would likely not require any additional City approvals beyond the
considerations of accessibility, parking, and potential stormwater impacts mentioned above.
Would a public hearing be required for consideration of a temporary outdoor service area (with
approval granted by the Planning Commission and/or the City Council)?
There is some ambiguity on this point, but almost all of the cities that staff researched regarding
interim uses do require notice and a public hearing. This is certainly the most conservative
interpretation of State statute and likely the best approach in terms of transparency. In essence,
an interim use follows the same procedure as consideration of a conditional use permit, but is
approved for a fixed length of time rather than as an ongoing “right” that runs with the land.
3
Staff will continue to work with the City Attorney to understand the differences in the approvals
of other temporary uses, such as mobile food trucks and seasonal farm produce, which Golden
Valley – like other communities in Minnesota – tend to regulate through permits and licenses and
NOT via public hearings. At least one adjacent community allows seasonal produce sales via an
initial public hearing, but then allows staff to approve extensions administratively if the proposed
additional operations are consistent with the original approval.
What sorts of impacts would the City want to evaluate and require mitigation for as part of
conditions of approval?
If temporary outdoor service uses are to be approved via a public hearing, specific regulations
that attempt to mitigate impacts would not be spelled out in the zoning text, but would be
developed on a case by case basis as part of the proposal evaluation by staff, the Planning
Commission, and the City Council.
In general, staff would examine potential impacts to parking, hours of operation, lighting, noise,
visual screening, etc. It is likely that the City Council would also be asked to make findings that
the proposed use was consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and not injurious to the
surrounding neighborhood or otherwise impact the general public health, welfare, or safety.
What zoning districts would be involved?
Staff previously recommended allowing temporary Outdoor Service Areas in all residential zoning
districts, as well as in Commercial and Mixed Use zoning districts. This would allow all restaurants
as well as other retail businesses the opportunity to potentially take advantage of this option.
Conclusion
Given the ability for most businesses to install outdoor seating or to conduct outdoor sales
without going through an extensive approval process, staff believes it is unlikely the temporary
Outdoor Service Area option would be pursued outside of the well‐known situation at Schuller’s.
While the potential regulatory route being crafted would offer a solution to the challenges they
face without the more complicated rezoning option, it is clear that the changes to the zoning text
being considered are for the benefit of one location only. This addresses the immediate obstacle,
but in general does not constitute good planning practice.
Staff Request
Staff is looking for feedback and discussion on this topic and draft language attached regarding
Temporary uses. Future consideration of a zoning text amendment is expected.
Attachments
Selected draft language from Section 113‐31 – Temporary Uses (3 pages)
Sec. 113-1. - Definitions.
Outdoor Service Area: A defined space intended to provide outdoor seating/dining at a bar or
restaurant, or to allow for retail sales or services to be performed outside of a principal structure.
Outdoor service areas are not allowed in association with home occupations.
Sec. 113-31. - Temporary Uses.
(a) Purpose and Intent. The purpose and intent of this section is to provide conditions under which
certain temporary uses may be allowed while ensuring a minimum negative impact to neighboring
land uses.
(b) Permitted Temporary Uses.
(1) Mobile food vending.
(2) Seasonal farm produce sales.
(3) Temporary retail sales.
(4) Outdoor service areas.
(c) Prohibited Temporary Uses. Temporary family health care dwellings, as defined in State law,
are prohibited in all zoning districts.
(d) General Requirements.
(1) Mobile Food Vending. […]
(2) All Seasonal Farm Produce Sales. […]
(3) Temporary Retail Sales. […]
(4) Outdoor Service Areas. A permit for an outdoor service area may be granted after approval
by the City Council and with any necessary conditions that prevent or minimize injurious
effects upon the neighborhood. All permits for outdoor service areas shall be subject to the
following conditions:
a. An outdoor service area shall be allowed only in a zoning district for which it is listed as
a permitted use.
b. An application for an outdoor service area permit may be made by any governmental
body, department, board, or commission, or by any person, individual or corporate, having
a legal interest in the property described in the application. Each property site shall require
its own application. Single applications may not be made for noncontiguous or scattered
sites.
c. The City Manager or their designee shall refer the application to the Planning
Commission to hold an informal public hearing. The applicant and all property owners
within 500 feet of the subject site shall be notified of the informal public hearing by the U.S.
mail, not less than 10 days prior to the date of this informal public hearing. Such notice
shall include the date, time, and place of the hearing and shall identify the subject site.
d. The Planning Commission shall make findings and recommendations to the City Council
based upon any or all of the following factors (which need not be weighed equally) and
shall present its findings and recommendations to the City Council in writing:
(1) Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan of the City.
(2) Effect upon property values in the neighboring area.
(3) Effect of any anticipated traffic generation upon the current traffic flow and
congestion in the area.
(4) Increase in noise levels to be caused by the proposed use.
(5) Any odors, dust, smoke, gas, or vibration to be caused by the proposed use.
(6) Any increase in pests, including flies, rats, or other animals or vermin in the area to
be caused by the proposed use.
(7) Visual appearance of any proposed structure or use.
(8) Any other effect upon the general public health, safety, and welfare of the City and
its residents.
e. The City Council shall take no action on the application until it receives the Planning
Commission's recommendation, or until 60 days after such application has been submitted
to the Planning Commission. Upon receiving the findings and recommendations of the
Planning Commission, or the elapse of said 60-day period, the City Council shall call and
conduct an official public hearing to consider the application.
f. Notice of the official public hearing shall be published in the official newspaper of the City
not less than 10 days prior to the date of the hearing. Such notice shall include the date,
time, and place of the hearing and shall reasonably identify the subject site. In addition,
copies of the written notice in the form published shall be mailed to the applicant and to all
property owners within 500 feet of the subject site not less than 10 days prior to the date of
such official public hearing.
g. The City Council shall make findings and shall grant or deny a permit based upon any or
all of the factors found above. The City Council may make its approval of the permit
contingent upon such conditions as it determines necessary to prevent or minimize
injurious effects upon the neighborhood. The City Council may also require that sufficient
performance bonding by an acceptable surety be supplied by the property owner to ensure
satisfactory compliance with the conditions imposed by the conditional use permit.
h. The City Council shall set forth in writing its decision, and the specific reasons for such
decisions, following the official public hearing. The applicant shall be notified in writing of
the City Council's decision. If the application is denied in whole or in part or conditions are
imposed, the reasons for such denial or for the imposition of conditions, shall accompany
this notification.
i. No application which has been denied wholly or in part shall be resubmitted for a period
of six months from the date of said denial, except on the grounds of new evidence or upon
proof of changes of conditions. Each resubmission shall constitute a new filing and a new
filing fee in an amount adopted by resolution of the City Council shall be required.
j. Unless extended by the City Council in its sole discretion for an additional period of up to
six months, construction and all other pertinent implementation relating to an approved
outdoor service area permit must begin within three months of the date that the outdoor
service area permit is approved or the outdoor service area permit shall be deemed null
and void. If the approved outdoor service area should cease for a period of more than six
consecutive months, the outdoor service area permit shall be deemed to have expired.
k. An outdoor service area permit shall expire and the use terminate at the earlier of:
(1) The expiration date established by the City Council at the time of approval, but in
no event more than two years from the date of approval;
(2) The occurrence of any event identified in the outdoor service area permit for the
termination of the use; or
(3) Upon an amendment of the City Code that no longer allows the outdoor service
area.
l. Changes to an approved outdoor service area permit other than minor changes shall
require amendment to the outdoor service area permit by the City. The requirements for
application and approval of an outdoor service area permit amendment shall be the same
as the requirements for original application and approval.
m. The City Council shall have the right to revoke or suspend any outdoor service area
permit whenever the terms or conditions of such permit have been violated or broken. All
such action by the City Council to revoke or suspend an outdoor service area permit shall
be by means of a majority affirmative vote of City Council Members.
n. The term of an outdoor service area permit must not exceed two years. Upon application
for an extension of the same use on the same site, succeeding outdoor service area
permits may be approved for up to one year each if the Planning Commission and City
Council make the findings set forth above and also find that all previous conditions of
approval have been satisfied.
Date: June 28, 2021
To: Golden Valley Planning Commission
From: Valerie Quarles, Community Development Intern
Subject: Accessory Dwelling Unit Introduction
Summary
Accessory Dwelling Units, or ADUs, are additional living quarters on residential lots that are
independent of the primary unit(s). They are also referred to as mother‐in‐law apartments,
granny flats, carriage houses, or secondary suites.
ADUs provide an opportunity to meaningfully densify through small‐scale, infill development on
lots that already have homes. They provide new housing without the need for land acquisition,
increase property values, and allow 1‐2 person renting households – now the most common
household type in the Twin Cities – to access established single‐family neighborhoods that would
otherwise be out of reach. (Thrive MSP 2040)
The City Council, elements of the Comprehensive Plan, and residents have all called upon the City
to consider instituting a policy regarding ADUs.
Background
ADUs can be either detached or attached. A detached ADU is a separate building from the
primary structure and is typically located in the rear yard. An attached ADU is architecturally
contiguous with the main structure, and can take multiple forms: an addition, an interior
basement or attic conversion, or some other configuration that does not entail a separate
structure. An ADU is generally considered a separate unit because it has its own entrance,
kitchen, living area, and bathroom. The vast majority of cities regulate ADUs in such a way that
they are always smaller (in terms of square footage) than the main structure. This is what
primarily distinguishes an ADU from a traditional duplex. For most municipalities near Golden
Valley, new ADUs have most frequently been of the attached or interior variety.
ADUs are not a new concept in the history of the Twin Cities. Common before World War II,
carriage houses or interior ADUs were often built as a way to live cheaply while saving up for a
larger home to be built (Jane McClure, “Alley House,” Saint Paul Historical) or as a way to house
servants on grander properties. Attic or basement apartments were also a common way to house
a growing population. While today’s ADUs will not serve exactly the same purposes, modern and
historic ADUs both have their roots in the need for affordable housing.
ADUs can flexibly serve different purposes depending on the needs and desires of the property
owner. Many ADUs are used for family, from semi‐independent young adults to aging parents
who benefit from having children close by for care. Other ADUs are rented out as an additional
source of income. In a 2018 AARP survey of adults aged 50+, those considering an ADU said they
would create one in order to:
• provide a home for a loved one in need of care (84%)
• provide housing for relatives or friends (83%)
• feel safer by having someone living nearby (64%)
• have a space for guests (69%)
• increase the value of their home (67%)
• create a place for a caregiver to stay (60%)
• earn extra income from renting to a tenant (53%)
The need to consider an ADU policy comes from multiple angles. Golden Valley’s most recent
Comprehensive Plan calls for research into opportunities for ADUs within the city, as well as new
solutions for the short supply of affordable housing, options for seniors to age‐in‐place, and
innovative ways to densify without substantially disrupting the character of existing single‐family
neighborhoods. Golden Valley’s City Council been receptive to additional research on ADU
allowances through the comp plan process and in more recent meetings. Finally, City staff
receives multiple resident inquiries each month regarding the rules around ADU construction,
and have also expressed interest through the Golden Valley Housing Sites Engagement conducted
The different types of ADUs. Adapted from "The ABCs of ADUs".
by City staff and consultant Moxie earlier last year. Residents who call the City directly about
ADUs require more code clarification than currently exists.
Relevant language from the Comprehensive Plan’s housing chapter includes:
A wide variety of housing options exist in Golden Valley and should be preserved to
provide choices for all life stages and economic means. Home values, sale prices, and
rental rates are increasing in Golden Valley. The existing affordable rental opportunities
should be preserved and new affordable housing units should be built. It is important to
increase housing opportunities at a cost that low‐ and moderate‐income households can
afford without compromising their ability to pay for other essential needs. (Page 3)
Golden Valley’s location and amenities make it a desirable place to live, and there is
demand for additional housing. Due to spatial and resource constraints, the City will focus
on supporting projects that meet the greatest needs in the community, such as affordable
housing and senior housing. (Page 3)
The population of Golden Valley is aging, and this will increase the demand for various
types of senior housing in the community, including apartments, townhomes,
condominiums, multi‐generational households, aging‐in‐place, assisted living, and
memory care. (Page 3)
The benefits and impacts of construction activity in single‐family neighborhoods must be
balanced with proper City oversight, especially since it is expected to continue or increase
in future years. (Page 3)
Studies have shown that many seniors prefer to age in place as long as possible. Because
of this trend, it is expected that many aging residents will choose to stay in Golden Valley.
While the City will investigate ways to help seniors continue living in their homes or with
other family members in multi‐generational households… (Page 18)
The amount of vacant land in Golden Valley is extremely limited. (Page 19)
Goal 2, Objective 1 [from the Policy Plan]: Support a variety in housing types, designs,
and prices for all life stages, family sizes, and incomes through land use policies, zoning
regulations, and redevelopment activities (Page 21)
Goal 2, Objective 2 [from the Policy Plan]: Prioritize the need for senior housing in the
community and support a variety of senior living arrangements
o 2.5: Research opportunities to allow accessory dwelling units for multi‐
generational living opportunities (Page 21)
ADUs would naturally be affected by many existing provisions in the City code, such as those
relating to building regulations, parking, zoning, stormwater management, and more. However,
the current City code does not adequately regulate potential ADUs – neither in terms of the City’s
hopes and intentions or the logistics of creating a second unit within or on the same property as
an existing residence.
For traditional single‐family homes, City regulations (113‐88 (d)(1) Accessory Uses) stipulate
that “when the owner resides in the dwelling, rental of single sleeping rooms [is limited] to not
more than two people per dwelling for lodging purposes only.” This makes sense when there
are not separate facilities like bathrooms and kitchens for lodgers – but ADUs have these
amenities and can support long‐term stays. However, 113‐88 (f)(6) Kitchens states that “No
more than one kitchen and one kitchenette shall be permitted in each dwelling unit.” For
reference, a kitchenette is defined earlier as “a room containing both an operable sink and a
refrigerator measuring not more than six cubic feet.” For some people, this is adequate for many
food preparation tasks. This adds to further confusion around whether a lodger using an area
with a kitchenette might be able to potentially skirt Golden Valley’s lack of ADU language,
particularly around interior ADUs.
Other code language for the R‐1 district (Sec. 113‐88) allows for conditional use permits to be
issued to “residential facilities serving from seven to 25 persons; and group foster family
homes.” There are already provisions in place to allow for increased density in the R‐1 district
without creating duplexes or triplexes, but not for uses outside of the stated context.
Though these are just two examples, the issue faced is that the City Code already allows for some
arrangements that are ADU‐like, but specific limits in current regulations prevent the creation of
high‐quality ADUs that best serve the needs of the community.
The list below encompasses policy decisions which will likely generate discussion:
Zoning
• Eligible residential zoning districts
• Minimum eligible lot size
Form
• Height limit
• Setback requirements
• Design standards
• Location on property
• Maximum lot coverage
Access
• Parking requirements
• Sewer and water access requirements
• Fire safety regulations
• Effects on stormwater runoff
• Cost to build
• Application review process and level of
oversight
Use
• Owner‐occupation regulations for
primary home
• Traditional rental arrangement
• Ability to regulate short‐term
rentals
• Effects on current accessory
structure requirements
Other municipalities within the Twin Cities that have created ADU regulations include:
Apple Valley
Bloomington
Burnsville
Chaska
Crystal
Eagan
Inver Grove Heights
Lakeville
Long Lake
Minneapolis
Minnetonka
Plymouth
Richfield
Roseville
Shoreview
Saint Louis Park
Saint Paul
Stillwater
White Bear Lake
This group includes peer cities to Golden Valley such as Crystal, Minnetonka, Roseville, and Saint
Louis Park, as well as adjacent cities such as Minneapolis. Golden Valley would not be the first,
nor the last, to institute an ADU policy. This allows staff to consider nearby regulatory solutions in
real‐world contexts similar to Golden Valley’s. Planning staff are already having discussions with
peer cities, and preparing for conversations with other City staff members managing utilities, fire
safety, and rental licensing.
The City of Crystal's accessible public handout for their ADU regulations.
Local ADUs in the Twin Cities are usually not standalone structures – it’s most common to see
one within an existing home or added on top of a garage.
Two ADUs above garages in Minneapolis.
First image from Family Housing Fund's "Home+Home".
Second image from Christopher Strom Architects.
An attached ADU's kitchen in Minneapolis. Image from Realtor.com.
The entrance to an above‐garage ADU in Minneapolis. Image from Star Tribune.
Initial Questions
1. Could ADUs be a good fit for Golden Valley? What possibilities does this open up?
2. What concerns might you have as we move forward, that staff can research and report
back on?
3. Based on your experience, how do you think Golden Valley residents might use ADUs?
Timeline
Staff anticipates the need for a handful of conversations with the Planning Commission before
drafting zoning text for discussion. The City Council may also be provided the opportunity to
weigh in on the direction this is taking prior to scheduling a public hearing and beginning the
process for consideration of adoption.
At the next Planning Commission meeting, more details around specific regulations in other
metro area cities will be provided in order to begin a more detailed conversation how ADUs could
function in Golden Valley.
Resources
Home + Home: Twin Cities ADU Guidebook (Family Housing Fund)
ADU’s: Housing Options for a Growing Region (Family Housing Fund)
The ABC’s of ADUs (AARP)
KnowledgeBase Collection: Accessory Dwelling Units (American Planning Association)