Golden Valley City Council Partially Rejects Zoning Changes

Correction: Golden Valley City Councilman Bob Shaffer's name was misspelled in a previous version of this story. It has been corrected.

At its meeting last week, the Golden Valley City Council partially rejected a rezoning proposal for the area around Harold and Winnetka avenues.

The issue brought more than 70 residents to the meeting, packing all available chairs. Most were strongly opposed to the proposals and had organized over the past two weeks to register their dissent with the Planning Commission and City Council.

The original proposal, discussed in June and then again over the past few weeks, would change a location called (properties between Harold Avenue, Winnetka Avenue, Olson Memorial Highway and ) from single-family residential (R1) to medium-density residential (R3). It also would change an location called (properties between Harold Avenue, Glenwood Avenue, Olson Memorial Highway and Spirit of Hope Methodist Church) from R1 to moderate-density residential (R2).

In Area B, the change would allow duplexes and single-family homes. If the change was approved in Area A, senior or low-income housing would be allowed. The Planning Commission, at a similarly heated meeting a week before, had approved Area B, but was split 3-3 on Area A. The Council approved the change for Area B, but decided that Area A should remain R1.

“This site has inadequate access,” said Mayor Linda Loomis about Area A. “It looks like a great place for moderate housing, but you just can’t get there from here.”

Brian Pederson, unofficial spokesperson for the group in opposition, said the main concerns are traffic and a change in the character of the neighborhood.

“Winnetka, Harold and Glenwood cannot handle the traffic,” he said. “It would put more people on those roads and create issues during rush hours.”  He added, “I’ve lived here 18 months, and chose Golden Valley for its low density.”

In addition to Pederson, 14 residents spoke, all on the same theme: high-density housing would benefit developers and business owners, not residents.

“How many of these property owners have asked anything of the city?” inquired resident Larry White.

The evening was sometimes emotional, as residents and council members referred to old decisions and promises. Jean Shannon from appealed to Mayor Loomis, saying they spoke recently about senior housing vacancies in Golden Valley.

“We can’t afford another senior-housing facility in Golden Valley,” she said, citing statistics she gathered that say vacancy levels could reach 50 percent in some housing facilities.

While Area B passed, the only council member to vote to approve the change in Area A was Bob Shaffer.

“This is not my opinion, as much as what I’ve developed serving the city for 20 years,” he said. “I have to be looking at what the city will evolve into—not what it is today. … If it does not evolve in some way, it will die.”

The other members disagreed with him, rejecting the proposed change, and discussing a future possibility of changing the area to R2.

“It’s harder sitting up here than that you think,” Councilwoman Scanlon said to the crowd just before their vote.

Residents, after the vote, were still upset, both with the decision regarding Area B and the proposed future change to Area A.

“We’re not done yet, but it’s better than it was,” said Pederson to a growing group of supporters that surrounded him after the meeting. “I’m not satisfied, and may look for legal action.”