pc-minutes-jan-10-22
REGULAR MEETING MINUTES
This meeting was conducted in a hybrid format with in‐person and remote options for attending,
participating, and commenting. The City used Webex to conduct this meeting and members of the
public were able to monitor the meetings by watching it on Comcast cable channel 16, by streaming it
on CCXmedia.org, or by dialing in to the public call‐in line.
1. Call to Order
The meeting was called to order at 7:00 by Chair Pockl.
Roll Call
Commissioners in person: Adam Brookins, Sophia Ginis, Lauren Pockl
Commissioner remote: Rich Baker, Mike Ruby
Commissioners absent: Chuck Segelbaum, Andy Johnson
Staff present: Myles Campbell – Planner, Jason Zimmerman – Planning Manager
Council Liaison present: Gillian Rosenquist
2. Approval of Agenda
Chair Pockl asked for a motion to approve the agenda.
MOTION made by Commissioner Ginis, seconded by Commissioner Brookins, to approve the agenda
of January 10, 2022.
Staff took a roll call vote. Motion carried.
3. Approval of Minutes
Chair Pockl asked for a motion to approve the minutes from December 13, 2021.
MOTION made by Commissioner Brookins, seconded by Commissioner Baker to approve.
Staff took a roll call vote. Motion carried.
4. Informal Public Hearing – Rezone Properties to Achieve Compliance with the 2040 Comp Plan
Applicant: City of Golden Valley
Address: Lewis Road and Post Office
Jason Zimmerman, Planning Manager, introduced the topic and reminded Commissioners about the
process of coming to conformance with Future Land Use Map in the 2040 Comp Plan. Staff is
requesting to rezone 10 properties within two areas in the downtown area. Staff displayed the Future
Land Use Map and the existing zoning map in order to compare what has been done and what is left
to complete.
January 10, 2022 – 7 pm
Hybrid
Council Chambers, City Hall
City of Golden Valley Planning Commission Regular Meeting
January 10, 2022 – 7 pm
2
Two areas are being addressed in this proposal:
Group 1 – Lewis Road
Nine parcels along Lewis Road and 10th Avenue
Historically have been zoned (and used) as light industrial
The Downtown Study has confirmed the Comprehensive Plan guidance for Mixed Use – close
to downtown and could provide multifamily, office, retail/service uses, and public open space
along Bassett Creek
Request to rezone to Neighborhood Mixed Use (from Light Industrial, Industrial, and
Commercial)
Group 2 – U.S. Post Office
7701 Golden Valley Road
In past Comprehensive Plans, was guided for Public Facility (now called Institutional ‐ Civic)
Zoning never changed to match (currently Commercial)
Would not impact the allowed use but would bring it into alignment with respect to zoning
Request to rezone from Commercial to Institutional ‐ Civic
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:
Rezone Lewis Road parcels to Neighborhood Mixed Use
Rezone 7701 Golden Valley Road from Commercial to Institutional ‐ Civic
Chair Pockl opened the public hearing at 7:11pm and invited in person commenters to speak first.
Susan Thompson
1031 Orkla Drive
My property abuts the north side of the Lewis portion. I have concerns about rezoning when we don’t
know what’s coming in. Will the standard for noise be increased or decreased? On the north side of
tenth street, that isn’t just storage but active semi’s pulling in and out as early as 5am; I wonder how
the noise will change with this rezoning. I also have concerns about the property that will abut mine
as four stories will block all the sunshine on my house. What considerations have been taking regarding
infrastructure when it comes to these changes. I know that’s hard to answer as we don’t know what
will go in to those areas. Regardless of how the 4‐story building is placed or built, I’d like to know if
screening will be provided to help the privacy of the homes that building will overlook.
Steve Rogers
President/CEO Anchor Plastics
My property is in the rezoning and I’m wondering why someone hasn’t spoken to me before this notice
of rezoning was sent out. My business is a family and industrial business and as I understand it, our
business will be grandfathered in regardless of the zoning. Where are the zoning areas going to be
City of Golden Valley Planning Commission Regular Meeting
January 10, 2022 – 7 pm
3
located for more jobs to be provided for the community? There is a lot of new housing being placed in
this City but with the uptick in developments, we’re seeing an uptick in crime.
I’m also wondering if Golden Valley is going to another area where we can put in new businesses. If
Golden Valley doesn’t want Industrial companies in the city, I’d like to know.
Chair Pockl invited call in commenters to speak.
Sam Nevab
Owner of 8043 Lewis Road (American Rug Laundry)
Some of my concerns were expressed by Steve, my neighbor. I’m primarily concerned about future
development and the outcome of that for our business. I’d like to know if there are plans for
development in case there are mixed‐use potentials for our properties.
Chair Pockl closed the public hearing at 7:21pm
Staff addressed the questions about bigger picture and development plans. The rezoning doesn’t mean
the City is moving anyone out from their property. It means that if there’s change in these locations in
the future, this designates what kind of use can go there. Current uses can stay forever as long as the
use stays the same. The owner may also sell to a company with a similar use; if the owner sells to
someone with a different use, it just needs to match the new zoning.
Addressing the first commenter, staff stated that rezoning now lays the groundwork for opportunities
for change. The Comp Plan lays out a vision for the City and while this change may not occur for 20‐30
years but this is the first step. More specific inquiries regarding screening, etc., would be addressed
with a developer if they show interest in the property. It is possible for a fourth story on a theroretical
building but that highest level has a greater setback to help prevent excessive shading.
Regarding the semi‐traffic, that’s not supposed to be happening. Police officers have been in contact
with the storage company and we’ll need to make sure they have a follow up.
Staff and Commissioners went on to discuss Mixed‐Use, Comp Plan planning, and the length of time
this process has already been in effect.
Chair Pockl opened the discussion
Lewis Road Parcels
Commissioner Baker stated the Planning Commission rarely hears from residents who feel like they’re
not well informed about these changes, and that reflects well on City and their effective outreach. He
would like staff to understand why this rezoning wasn’t as well communicated. Chair Pockl echoed this
statement and added it may be due to the nature of the Comp Plan process and involved parties.
Commissioner Ginis noted that as steps progress over a long period of time, new and different
residents are aware of steps at different times.
City of Golden Valley Planning Commission Regular Meeting
January 10, 2022 – 7 pm
4
MOTION made by Commissioner Brookins, seconded by Commissioner Ruby, to follow staff
recommendation and recommend the rezoning of the Lewis Road parcels to Neighborhood Mixed Use.
Staff took a roll call vote.
Motion passed unanimously.
MOTION made by Commissioner Brookins, seconded by Commissioner Pockl, to follow staff
recommendation and recommend the rezoning of 7701 Golden Valley Road from Commercial to
Institutional ‐ Civic.
Staff took a roll call vote.
Motion passed unanimously.
5. Discussion – Outdoor Service Areas
Jason Zimmerman, Planning Manager, reminded commissioners that in 2021 three points were made
in regards to this topic and went in depth on each:
Interim uses discussed in 2021, with agreement among Commissioners that it could be a
possible solution to the issues facing Schuller’s around an outdoor patio (though not perfect).
Would need a zoning text amendment to create a temporary Outdoor Service Area use that
could be applied throughout the city under specific circumstances.
City Council confirmed a desire to do this at a Work Session late in the year.
Staff reviewed the current three types of Temporary Uses in Golden Valley and discussed the interest
in addressing outdoor dining and outdoor sales. A a temporary Outdoor Service Area use could be
established as a fourth category. Staff addressed the need to establish this in zoning districts as a
permitted use and text added to the Temporary Use section of code.
Staff addressed the proposed review and approval process, conditions of use, length of time the
permits will be allowed, and the renewal process.
Staff 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.
The City Council supports this action and has directed the Planning Commission to finalize zoning
language for consideration at a public hearing.
Commissioner Ginis asked how a restaurant’s continuous renewal of a temporary permit can be
communicated to new residents as the desirable solution. As homes are bought and sold, new
residents may not understand zoning districts and uses. Staff discussed that the public hearing process,
as part of the renewal, will allow for residents to voice opinions and understand the process. Staff and
City of Golden Valley Planning Commission Regular Meeting
January 10, 2022 – 7 pm
5
Commissioners went on to discuss Schuller’s specifically and the intricacies of creating an outdoor
space that is temporary in case the permit isn’t renewed.
Commissioners asked for a review on this change and spot zoning, staff explained that this isn’t spot
zoning as the zoning of this property isn’t changing.
The language surrounding “term end” was confusing for Commissioners so they directed staff to
clarify.
6. Discussion – Accessory Dwelling Units
Myles Campbell, Planner, reintroduced this topic as it was discussed by Planning Commissioners
through the summer of 2021 and discussed at the Council Work Session in November 2021. The Council
supported adoption of an ADU ordinance and directed the Commission to draft regulations.
Staff went on to discuss the three main components of a typical ADU ordinance: location, size and
appearance, administration. Staff dove into each item and what might be regulated under each
component, as well as what is not regulated.
Staff moved on to zoning districts that allow ADUs as well as minimum lot sizes, maximum lot
coverages, maximum ADU size and floor area limit. Within this conversation staff also addressed zoning
code as it relates to size and appearance: setbacks, height and massing, design guidelines, exterior
entrances, parking requirements, owner‐occupancy, utility hookups, and the permitting process.
Staff wanted to hear commissioners’ thoughts on detached ADUs early on, since this ADU type opens
up many logistical questions in regard to regulation.
Are the existing setbacks for detached accessory structures (5 ft. from side and rear property
lines) sufficient?
o If different setbacks are established, how does this impact the convertibility of existing
detached structures?
Would detached accessory structures above a garage be allowed? To what height?
o Would a freestanding detached ADU be limited to the existing 10 ft. maximum, or have
its own max height allowance?
Would a detached ADU count towards the code’s 1,000 sq. ft. limit of accessory structures
(including garages) in R‐1 and R‐2, or would they only be limited based on a max floor area, the
same as internal ADUs?
Initial Staff Recommendations
Allow for attached and internal ADUs by right in the R‐1 and R‐2 zoning districts
o Consider allowing detached ADUs via conditional use permit in the R‐1 and R‐2 zoning
districts
Consider developing a purpose statement for ADUs similar to Minnetonka
City of Golden Valley Planning Commission Regular Meeting
January 10, 2022 – 7 pm
6
Hold internal and attached ADUs to the same site requirements from code as principal structures
(setbacks, building envelope, impervious surface)
Limit floor area to 33‐35% of gross floor area, or 950‐1000 sq. ft., whichever is less
Set objective but minimal design standards: matching materials, roof pitch matching the
predominant roofline
Require 1‐2 additional off‐street parking spaces for an ADU unit
o Conversion of garage space to support an ADU should not reduce the minimum required
off‐street parking amount.
Follow Public Works and Building Inspections recommendations regarding utility connections; if
none, potentially forgo a regulation
No minimum lot size requirement/minimal requirement such as 8‐9,000 sq. ft.
No additional lot cover requirement
Commissioner Ruby asked if guidelines are in place for how to tax the owner for the ADU. Will the
existing taxes on the main home expand or will the homeowner be taxed for two homes on the same
lot. Staff stated that often a new unit gets a new address and often that means it’s taxed separately.
However, staff will connect with the Finance department to understand the financial investment for
taxes.
Clarity was provided around potentially removing regulatory barriers around ADU while balancing the
impact to neighbors and neighborhoods.
Detached and attached ADUs were discussed. Commissioner Ginis stated that it’s worth considering
how detached ADUs can work in Golden Valley. They’re a way to enter this process and offer flexibility.
There are ways to protect the integrity of a neighborhood while offering this as an option.
Commissioner Baker stated support for ADUs and wants to see them by right as much as possible,
however supporting detached ADUs should be done cautiously and maybe with CUPs. The
conversation came back to this topic and the potential of multiple ADUs on a property was discussed.
Staff will review this language and how it relates to principal structure requirements and sq footage.
The conversation continued on to discuss parking spaces, off street parking, and the requirements
they’re on a hard surface. Language around transferring ADU usage with the sell of a home was
discussed.
Staff will look closer at detached ADUs and tax implications.
Chair Pockl ended the televised portion of the meeting at 9:19pm.
7. Council Liaison Report
Council Member Rosenquist reported that new Council Member LaMere‐Anderson was sworn. The
upcoming Council Work Session would focus on the proposed Legislative Priorities and conversations
with state representatives, and there would also be a consideration of a local mask mandate. She
indicated that the Council had decided to rotate liaison responsibilities in 2022, so the Planning
City of Golden Valley Planning Commission Regular Meeting
January 10, 2022 – 7 pm
7
Commission would have a new Council Member at the next meeting. Finally, she noted that the Council
sent the Artessa proposal back to the Planning Commission for additional review following significant
changes to the plans.
8. Other Business
9. Adjournment
MOTION by Commissioner Brookins to adjourn, seconded by Commissioner Pockl, and approved
unanimously. Meeting adjourned at 9:34 pm.
________________________________
Andy Johnson, Secretary
________________________________
Amie Kolesar, Planning Assistant