08 26 24 PC Packet
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AGENDA
Remote Attendance/Comment Options: Meetings are conducted in a hybrid format
with in-person and remote options for attending, participating, and commenting. You
may attend virtually by watching on cable channel 16 ; streaming on CCXmedia.org
or Webex; or by calling 1-415-655-0001 and then entering access code 2630 617
1637 and password 1234 from phones and video systems.
1. Call to Order:
a. Land Acknowledgement
b. Attendance (by presence, not roll call)
i. Commissioners: Amy Barnstorff, Adam Brookins, Gary Cohen, Mike Ruby,
Chuck Segelbaum, Martin Sicotte, and Eric Van Oss
ii. Youth Member: Vacant
2. Consent Agenda: All matters listed under Item 2 are considered routine in nature and will be enacted by
one motion. Individual discussion of these items is not planned. A member, however, may remove any item to
discuss as an item for separate consideration under New Business.
a. Agenda Approval or Modifications
b. Approve Planning Commission Minutes from July 8, 2024
3. Staff Introduction:
Jacquelyn Kramer, Senior Planner
4. Public Hearings:
a. Informal Public Hearing – Minor Subdivision (“Boerner Addition”) for 6930 Olson
Memorial Highway
5. New Business:
a. User Experience Framework Plan Presentation
b. Planning Commission meeting schedule updates (2024/2025)
6. Council Member Report
7. Staff Comments
8. Commissioner Updates
9. Adjourn
August 26, 2024 – 6:30 pm
Council Chamber
Hybrid Meeting
CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
Monday, July 8, 2024 – 6:30 p.m. | City Hall Council Chamber
7800 Golden Valley Road Golden Valley, MN 55427
1. CALL TO ORDER AND LAND ACKNOWLEGMENT
Vice-Chair Cohen called the meeting to order at 6:32 p.m. & read the Land Acknowledgement
a. Regular Members Present: Barnstorff, Brookins, Ruby, Sicotte, Van Oss
b. Regular Members Absent: Segelbaum
c. Student Member, Status: vacant
d. Staff Members Present: Kendra Lindahl, City Planning Consultant
e. Council Liaison Present: Councilmember Sophia Ginis
2. CONSENT AGENDA
2A. AGENDA APPROVAL
2B. APPROVE MINUTES: JUNE 24, 2024
Commissioner Brookins motioned to approve, as presented. Motion seconded and approved
unanimously.
3. INFORMAL PUBLIC HEARING: PUD AMENDMENT
a. Applicant: Lisa R. and Mark Leutem Investment LLC
b. Location: Bassett Creek Medical Buildings at 5851 Duluth St
Ms. Lindahl presents the staff report. The applicant of the Bassett Creek Medical Buildings at 5851
Duluth St. is requesting a major amendment to the PUD to add assisted living as a permitted use in the
PUD for the property at 5851 Duluth St and remodel of 3,184 square feet office space into a new
Assisted Living space. The zoning district is (O) Office/PUD1-A, to the north are offices, to the south are
natural areas, and to the west are single family residential buildings.
The M zoning used in 1972 was eliminated and the zone became Office. The applicant’s request adds
nine units immediately, and a future expansion was presented in the meeting packet. City code does not
define assisted living, so staff are using six standards to be met to evaluate the request of a major PUD.
Commissioner Brookins asks if there will be changes to the outside/structure, Ms. Lindahl clarifies no
exterior changes are being put forth. Commissioner Ruby asks with added housing units what would
remain as office space, Ms. Lindahl answers twenty-five percent of the floor area would be for assisted
living. Commissioner Brookins asks if there is a reason for only twenty-five percent of the building being
used for this new purpose, Ms. Lindahl clarifies that it what was requested by applicant and that those
are the parameters in which they analyzed the request.
Commissioner Barnstorff asks what zoning assisted living is for the City of Golden Valley, Ms. Lindahl
mentions assisted living is not explicitly mentioned in code; when uses are not explicitly in the code they
are not permitted unless an amendment application is brought before the city.
Commissioner Brookins asks if all other uses would remain and if this is just an addition, Ms. Lindahl
clarifies it is just an addition to the existing uses of the site.
CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
Monday, July 8, 2024 – 6:30 p.m. | City Hall Council Chamber
7800 Golden Valley Road Golden Valley, MN 55427
CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
Monday, July 8, 2024 – 6:30 p.m. | City Hall Council Chamber
7800 Golden Valley Road Golden Valley, MN 55427
Recommendation
Staff recommends either:
1. If the commission finds that the standards in the ordinance have been met, they should
recommend approval of the PUD amendment based on the findings in the staff report.
2. If the commission finds that the standards in the ordinance have not been met, they should
recommend denial of the PUD amendment based on the findings in the staff report.
Applicant is invited to Speak
Mark Leutem: 4645 Vinewood Lane North, Plymouth MN 55442
Applicant states they intend to keep the medical use of the building, and the rest of the buildings on the
site are medical uses. They will have the assisted living tenant be certified by the state. At the time of
this meeting inspection and sewer have been done on the building.
Commissioner Sicotte asks about emergency vehicle access to the building, and the applicant explains
they would have access at any time and there is adequate access to the interior of the building.
Public Hearing Opened
Brian Sibo: 1860 Adair Avenue North
Opposes changes because of the function and use of the building having previously been Monday through
Friday. Has concerns that during the winter cars going into the parking lot would cause lights to frequently
shine into his property.
Karrie Westberg: 1880 Adair Avenue North
Has concerns that the building is not adequate for people to live on the property due to electronic devices
used in the facility for medical purposes. Believes that dual use could become something else not specified
in this change in the future and would best be a single use building.
The applicant comes up to respond to concerns, he mentions that this would not be the first project done by
the tenants and that the medical equipment on-site is limited and not harmful. The state certifies fitness of
the property for assisted living. Due to the type of occupants, there will be limited activity outside and
limited traffic of cars of the occupants living on the property.
Edd Westberg: 1880 Adar Avenue
Has questions on the structure of the building and ability to house tenants in the building.
Ms. Lindahl answers that if the PUD is approved, they must go through steps, such as sprinklers before they
can apply for a building permit which comes after the state looks into the qualifications.
Public Hearing Closed
CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
Monday, July 8, 2024 – 6:30 p.m. | City Hall Council Chamber
7800 Golden Valley Road Golden Valley, MN 55427
Discussion
Commissioner Van Oss understands there could be more traffic and the possibility of working on screening.
Commissioner Barnstorff asks about PUD staying in place for the site. Ms. Lindahl mentions this PUD is for
the location and others, but in this particular case it would not make sense to rezone.
Ms. Lindahl mentions that there is vegetation and there is screening that offers separation, and addressing
where specifically light is impacting residents and can be discussed. Commissioner Van Oss asks why this site
is not re-guided, Ms. Lindahl answers that the bulk of the building is still office use and that the use is closer
to medical/hospital use rather than residential. Commissioner Brookins comments that they need to look at
the space as an assisted living not at the individual people who will occupy it. Ms. Lindahl comments that
since there is no definition of assisted living, they should use the given definition of the state which means
the residents are high care and thus assume limited use of outdoor space. Commissioner Ruby comments on
switching owners and what that means for the future possible uses of the building with this PUD, Ms. Lindhal
comments it would be what is explicitly asked for and thus cannot be used for something else like an
apartment.
Ms. Lindhal mentions this lot is part of several locations being changed, however because of the different
standards for each building and different approvals they all have different PUDs. Commissioner Barnstorff
asks who maintains the trail on the property and access trail to parking lot, Ms. Lindhal clarifies that the trail
on the North South is owned and maintained by the city. Commissioner Van Oss would like the city to best
define what assisted living means to the city and the residents to best control use of areas and avoid future
issues. Commissioner Brookins mentions past desire from residents in the city to have such property in the
area and the benefits it could bring such as having control of lights in the building.
Commissioner Sicotte thinks that the use would be beneficial and possible development on the site,
questions access from that property to neighboring businesses. Commissioner Ruby asks if the applicant will
be held to standards for living spaces, Ms. Lindhal mentions they are looked at more carefully for safety
concerns than other factors. Commissioner Ruby comments feeling favorable to the request and possibly
looking at more defined meaning of ‘assisted living’. Commissioner Brookins mentions ‘assisted living’ and
‘assisted living with dementia’ are defined and licensed differently by the state. Ms. Lindahl mentions there
is a list of 15 items that do not qualify as assisted living which gives some parameters by the statutes.
Commissioner Barnstorff agrees with the comments and would like to have beneficial changes to the site.
Commissioner Ruby motions to recommend APPROVAL of the PUD, with the conditions to provide
pedestrian connections from the building to city trail North and South side of the building/ parking lot, add
pedestrian connection to Duluth Street, maintain the private pedestrian connection year-round, provide
updated snow maintenance plan and address the building lighting to comply with code standards.
The motion is seconded by Commissioner Brookins.
Motion carries @58 min.
4. NEW BUSINESS: NONE
5. COUNCIL LIAISON REPORT
CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
Monday, July 8, 2024 – 6:30 p.m. | City Hall Council Chamber
7800 Golden Valley Road Golden Valley, MN 55427
6. TRAINING
THE GOLDEN MAP: Heather Hegi walks through the GIS city resource. The city has focus maps
that are specific to certain items such as tennis courts and parks and nature areas that the city
maintains. The maps include platting and information of plots and properties as well as permits
associated with each location. There are layers where the public can look for things such as
trails throughout the city, the application also allows the public to draw and print the maps.
7. STAFF COMMENTS
Comments on possibly looking for a student representative for the fall term.
8. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS
9. ADJOURNMENT: Commissioner Ruby adjourned the meeting at 7:48 p.m.
Approved by:
Attest By: Commission Secretary
Darren Groth, AICP, CPM
Assistant Comm. Dev. Director
CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY
PLANNING COMMISSION
AGENDA ITEM COVER PAGE
Date: August 26, 2024
Title: Minor Subdivision for the Boerner Addition
Attachments: 1) Staff Report with exhibits
Submitted By: Darren Groth, AICP, CPM, Asst. Comm. Dev. Director
Background:
Per Minn. Stats. §462.358, subd. 1a, the purpose of a subdivision is “To protect and promote the
public health, safety, and general welfare, to provide for the orderly, economic, and safe
development of land, to preserve agricultural lands, to promote the availability of housing
affordable to persons and families of all income levels, and to facilitate adequate provision for
transportation, water, sewage, storm drainage, schools, parks, playgrounds, and other public
services and facilities…” In keeping with Minn. Stats. § 462.358, subd. 1a, City Code Section 109-
121 identifies the conditions for approval or denial of a minor subdivision.
Like a zoning ordinance, a subdivision ordinance can be a powerful tool to help cities implement
their comprehensive plan. Subdivision ordinances may cover similar topics and are often confused
with zoning regulations. However, there are important differences between zoning regulation and
subdivision regulation. Subdivision and zoning ordinances are similar in that they seek to regulate
private use of land. Zoning regulations and subdivision regulations may both impose regulations as
to lot size, location and improvements. Subdivision is different from the more familiar zoning in that
it usually is imposed at the initial development phase of a project, whereas zoning is applicable
through the development phase of a subdivision and through the life of the completed subdivision.
In cities that contain certain natural resources such as lakes and rivers, or are in a floodplain, the
subdivision ordinance must also conform to the following state standards:
• Floodplain requirements: State law sets minimum requirements and standards for
development in flood plains. City subdivision ordinances must be consistent with state
standards to preserve the capacity of the floodplain to carry and discharge regional floods
and minimize flood hazards.
• Wild and scenic rivers development requirements: Cities with shoreland located within the
Minnesota Wild and Scenic Rivers System are subject to additional state law restrictions
when developing a subdivision ordinance. Subdivision ordinances in these cities must
comply with minimum state standards set by the commissioner of Natural Resources.
• Shoreland development requirements: For cities that contain shoreland, state regulations
control the use and development of shorelands. City shoreland subdivision regulations must
be at least as restrictive as state standards and are subject to the review of the
commissioner of Natural Resources.
CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY
PLANNING COMMISSION
AGENDA ITEM COVER PAGE
Standard of Review:
When drafting and adopting a subdivision ordinance, cities have a lot of discretion in choosing their
language and setting design standards. When drafting and adopting a subdivision ordinance, the
city is said to be utilizing its legislative (or law-making) authority. When using its legislative authority,
the only limit on the City’s authority is that action must be constitutional, rational, and in some way
related to protecting the health, safety, and welfare of the public. This is known as the “rational
basis standard” and it is generally a relatively easy standard for cities to meet.
In contrast, when administering an existing subdivision ordinance by reviewing a preliminary or final
plat application, the city’s discretion is much more limited. Generally, when reviewing a subdivision
application, the city is no longer acting in its legislative capacity. When reviewing subdivision
applications, the City is exercising a quasi-judicial (judge-like) function. Rather than legislating for
the broad population, the city is deciding on an individual subdivision application regarding whether
the application meets the standards of the city ordinance.
In quasi-judicial circumstances, the city must follow the standards and requirements of the
ordinance it has adopted. If an application meets the requirements of the ordinance, generally it
must be granted. If an application is denied, the stated reasons for the denial must all relate to the
applicant’s failure to meet standards established in the ordinance. In sum, the city has a great deal
of liberty to establish the rules, but once established, the city is as equally bound by the rules as the
public. In these situations, a reviewing court will closely scrutinize the city’s decision to determine
whether the city has provided a legally and factually sufficient basis for denial of an application.
In quasi-judicial situations, due process and equal protection are the main reasons for the more
stringent scrutiny. Due process and equal protection under the law demand that similar applicants
must be treated uniformly by the city. The best process for ensuring similar treatment among
applicants is to establish standards in the ordinance and to provide that if standards are met, the
subdivision application must be granted. An application may generally only be denied for failure to
meet the standards in city ordinances. A reviewing court will overrule a quasi -judicial city
subdivision decision if it determines that the decision was arbitrary (failed to treat equally situated
applicants equally or failed to follow ordinance requirements).
MEMORANDUM
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
Date: August 26, 2024
To: Golden Valley Planning Commission
From: Jacquelyn Kramer, Senior Planner
Subject: Minor Subdivision (“Boerner Addition”) at 6930 Olson Memorial Hwy
SUMMARY OF REQUEST
Nicholas Bialon requests a minor subdivision (“Boerner Addition”) to create two lots from one
existing lot for the property located at 6930 Olson Memorial Hwy (PID # 3211821420029).
RECOMMENDED MOTION
• “I move to recommend approval of the minor subdivision for property located at 6930 Olson
Memorial Highway, subject to the findings and conditions in the August 26, 2024, staff report
presented to the Planning Commission by Senior Planner Jacquelyn Kramer.”
MEETING DATES
Planning Commission: Monday, August 26, 2024
City Council: Tuesday, September 3, 2024
CASE INFORMATION
Applicant: Nicholas Bialon
Property Owner: Matt Boerner
Site Acreage: 0.54 acres
Application: Minor Subdivision
SUBJECT PROPERTY
General Location: 6930 Olson Memorial Highway
Parcel ID Number(s): 3211821420029
Future Land Use: Future Land Use Map (FLUM) designation as Low Density
Zoning: Single-Family Residential (R-1) Zoning District
Existing Use: Single-Family Residential (SFR)
Adjacent Properties: North – Designated LOW, zoned R-1, developed with SFR
South – Designated LOW, zoned R-1, developed with SFR
East – Designated LOW, zoned R-1, developed with SFR
West – Designated LOW, zoned R-1, developed with SFR
MEMORANDUM
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
SITE IMAGE
2018 aerial photo (Hennepin County)
PUBLIC NOTIFICATIONS
As required by Golden Valley City Code Section 109-122, a notice of the hearing was mailed to
the owners of all property within 500 feet of the subject property at least 10 days prior to the
hearing date on August 12, 2024.
Per the City’s Neighborhood Notification Policy, the applicant prepared a mailing regarding the
proposal in order to provide information to residents and allow them time to give feedback to
staff prior to the public hearing. The applicant mailing was sent out to the same properties that
were notified for the hearing by the City.
MINOR SUBDIVISION ELIGIBILITY
In keeping with Minn. Stats. § 462.358, subd. 1a, which allows for the establishment of more than
one class of subdivision and more than one set of regulations, certain proposed land subdivisions
and consolidations may qualify for application under this division. For such applications, the
standards, requirements, and procedures cited herein shall supersede their subdivision
counterparts of this chapter.
MEMORANDUM
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
Each of the following conditions must be met to establish eligibility:
1. The land to be subdivided or consolidated must be part of a recorded plat or a recorded
registered land survey (RLS).
2. Consolidations may involve any number of parcels, but subdivisions shall be limited to the
creation of four or fewer lots from one or more original parcels
3. The subdivision or consolidation shall not necessitate any additional public investment in
new roads or utilities to serve the lots.
Staff finds the request meets these three conditions to be considered a minor subdivision.
PROPOSED PLAN
Figure 1 - Proposed plan. The footprint of the proposed house on Lot 2 demonstrates the maximum building footprint
area. No building permits have been submitted for a new house at this site at the time of this report.
MEMORANDUM
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
PLANNING ANALYSIS
The applicant is seeking approval for a minor subdivision to create two lots from one existing lot.
The lots would exceed the dimensional requirements for the R-1 district as shown in the table
below:
R-1 Standards Lot 1 (existing home) Lot 2
Lot Size 10,000 sq. ft.* 13,577 ft. 10,052 sq. ft.
Lot Width (measured at setback) 80 ft. 95.5 ft 80 ft.
Front Setback 35 ft. 35ft 35 ft.
Side Setback 15 ft. 19.5 ft. 15 ft.
Rear Setback 25 ft. 25 ft. 25 ft.
Maximum Impervious 50% 18% 50%
Coverage Maximum 40% 9% 40%
*Per City Code Section 109-149, new lots must be a minimum of 15,000 sq. ft. if the average lot size within 250
feet is 18,000 sq. ft. or larger. The lots within 250 feet do not meet this requirement.
The new lot must adhere to the R-1 residential requirements outlined in the city code. There are
no plans for the new home on Lot 1 at this time, but any new construction will be required to
show compliance with all city code standards at the time of building permit.
A City Stormwater Management permit is required for the construction of a new single-family
home.
In reviewing this application, staff has examined the request in accordance with the standards
outlined in City Code Section 109-121, which provides the following eight (8) criteria for granting a
minor subdivision.
1. Minor subdivisions shall be denied if the proposed lots do not meet the requirements of
the appropriate zoning district.
• The two proposed lots would meet the area and width requirements of the R-1 Single
Family Residential Zoning District.
2. A minor subdivision may be denied if the City Engineer determines that the lots are not
buildable.
• There is adequate space on the new lot for a home to be built in compliance with setback
requirements.
MEMORANDUM
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
3. A minor subdivision may be denied if there are no sewer and water connections available
or if it is determined by the City Engineer that an undue strain will be placed on city utility
systems by the addition of the new lots.
• One additional set of sewer and water connections will be necessary.
• There is sufficient service capacity of city utility systems to serve the new lot.
4. Approval of the minor subdivision may require the granting of certain easements to the
city.
• The applicant has submitted a plan that includes standard lot perimeter drainage and
utility easements.
5. If public agencies other than the city have jurisdiction of the streets adjacent to the minor
subdivision, the agencies will be given the opportunities to comment.
• Not applicable.
6. The city may ask for review of title if required by the City Attorney for dedication of
certain easements.
• The applicant submitted title work for review and approval by the City Attorney.
7. The minor subdivision may be subject to park dedication requirements.
• A park dedication fee of 6% of the estimated land value with 50% credit for existing units
is required for this subdivision based on the finding that homeowners will benefit from
public parks and trails.
• The total amount charged for this subdivision is $5,340
8. The conditions spelled out shall provide the only basis for denial of a minor subdivision.
• Approval will be granted to any application that meets the established conditions.
• All conditions have been met.
Staff finds the request meets all criteria for granting a minor subdivision in accordance with the
purpose and all applicable standards, requirements, and procedures identified in Golden Valley
City Code Chapter 109.
MEMORANDUM
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of the minor subdivision, subject to the findings in this report and the
following conditions:
1. Before the plat is recorded with the county, the applicant shall pay park dedication fees.
2. An updated tree preservation and inventory plan and landscape will be submitted for staff
approval prior to the issuance of building permits.
3. All necessary city permits will be obtained prior to the start of construction, including but
not limited to the building permit and stormwater management permit.
ATTACHED EXHIBITS
1. Location Map
2. Zoning Map
3. Project Narrative
4. Civil and Survey Plans (dated 12/18/2023)
5. Boerner Addition Preliminary Plat
6. Boerner Addition Final Plat
7. Park Dedication Fee Calculation
8. Plat Recording Requirements and Process
APPLICANT REQUIREMENTS
Per the attached Plat Recording Requirements and Process document, after a final plat is
approved by the City Council, the subdivider shall file it for recording with the Hennepin County
Recorder or the Registrar of Titles within 60 days of the date of the resolution approving the final
plat. If not filed within 60 days, the final plat shall be null and void unless an extension is given by
the Council.
When recording, request digital copies of the fully recorded final plat package be sent to the
Community Development Department at Planning@goldenvalleymn.gov. This is the proof of filing
that is necessary for the City to issue any building permits.
STAFF CONTACT INFORMATION
Prepared by: Reviewed and edited by:
Jacquelyn Kramer Darren Groth, AICP, CPM
Senior Planner Assistant Comm. Dev. Director
Jkramer@goldenvalleymn.gov dgroth@goldenvalleymn.gov
6930 Olson Memorial Highway Subdivision
Good afternoon,
This is the formal plans for the subdivision for the property 6930 Olson Memorial Highway,
Golden Valley, MN 55427. The plan is to subdivide the lot East to West and to keep the existing
structure in place and to either build a home on the north side of the existing lot/new proposed
lot or to sell to a developer/builder that will put a home/structure up to code with the city of
Golden Valley. Based on the city codes, minimums and subdivision requirements, this proposed
plan should not require any variances or special accommodations.
Please feel free to reach out with any questions or concerns.
TAG #SPECIES DIAMETER
(Inches)
HEIGHT
(Feet)CONDITION TYPE OF TREE
REMOVALS
TREE
YES/NOT
1 ASH 8 8 SIGNIFICANT TREE NO
2 PINE 6 8 SIGNIFICANT TREE NO
3 PINE 10 8 SIGNIFICANT TREE NO
4 OAK 21 8 HIGH PRIORITY TREE NO
5 ELM 9 8 SIGNIFICANT TREE YES
6 ELM 17 8 SIGNIFICANT TREE YES
7 OAK 24 8 HIGH PRIORITY TREE YES
8 OAK 24 8 HIGH PRIORITY TREE YES
9 OAK 18 8 SIGNIFICANT TREE YES
10 OAK 15 8 SIGNIFICANT TREE YES
11 OAK 20 8 HIGH PRIORITY TREE YES
12 OAK 24 8 HIGH PRIORITY TREE NO
13 ASH 14 8 SIGNIFICANT TREE NO
14 ASH 14 8 SIGNIFICANT TREE NO
15 ASH 14 8 SIGNIFICANT TREE NO
0 0
DEAD/DYING/NOT PROTECTED BY
ORDINANCE 0
10 10
SIGNIFICANT TREE 4
5 5 HIGH PRIORITY TREE 3
7 7 TOTAL DISTURBED 7
15 15 TOTAL TREES 15
47 47 %SAVED 47
PLANT SCHEDULE
DECIDUOUS TREES QTY COMMON NAME BOTANICAL NAME MATURE HEIGHT CALIPER
RB 2 RIVER BIRCH BETULA NIGRA 25 FT.2.5"
DECIDUOUS TREES QTY COMMON NAME BOTANICAL NAME MATURE HEIGHT CALIPER
HB 2 HACKBERRY CELTIS OCCIDENTALIS 30-50 FT.2.5"
DECIDUOUS TREES QTY COMMON NAME BOTANICAL NAME MATURE HEIGHT CALIPER
SWO 2 WHITE OAK QUERCUS BICOLOR 50-60 FT.2.5"
ORNAMENTAL TREES QTY COMMON NAME BOTANICAL NAME MATURE HEIGHT CALIPER
RM 4 RED MAPLE ACER 40-60 FT.2.5"
TOTAL 10
Park Dedication Fee Calculation for 6930 Olson Memorial Highway
A park dedication fee of 6% of the estimated land value with 50% credit for existing units
is required for this subdivision based on the finding that homeowners will benefit from
public parks and trails.
Land market value of existing lot (per Hennepin County tax records):
$178,000
6% of land market value:
$10, 580
50% credit for existing unit:
$5,340 park dedication fees
1
Date: August 26, 2024
To: Golden Valley Planning Commission
Prepared By: Christine Costello, Housing & Economic Development Manager
Reviewed By: Darren Groth, Assistant Community Development Director
Subject: User Experience Framework Plan Presentation
Summary
On December 19, 2023, the City Council approved a Hennepin County Planning Grant through
the Business Development Initiative Fund to help fund the User Experience Framework (Plan).
Hennepin County offers funding to municipalities to support long -range planning studies. The
former City of Golden Valley Community Development Director commissioned the study to help
the City understand the impacts of redevelopment and revitalization efforts on our streetscape
and the need for signage to direct users of the downtown to key assets. This work builds off
previous studies, such as the three-phase downtown redevelopment study completed in 2021
and the 2018 Urban Land Institute Golden Valley Downtown West plan.
The current planning effort has examined how the City should consider improving downtown at
the pedestrian level. The City of Golden Valley is working to create a Plan that enhances the
character, circulation, accessibility, and redevelopment possibilities of the downtown area. In
2021, the City published a study of existing conditions in the downtown area. While this study
identified potential redevelopment patterns and land uses for downtown, this Plan will take the
next step towards redevelopment and rethinking of the streetscape. Wayfinding and
streetscape design can improve circulation and access in the area. To date the project has
identified and analyzed existing downtown facilities, engaged with the public to provide
equitable and accessible input opportunities, highlighted market gaps and used spatial
modeling to determine development feasibility. The goal is for the Plan to provide the City with
access and circulation plans, streetscape and wayfinding guides, conceptual design standards,
and a phasing plan for short to long term implementation.
Community Collaboration/Engagement
The intent of the Plan was to provide a collaborative visioning effort and to receive feedback
from the public. There were several opportunities for the public to engage and they included:
• An online survey promoted through website and City social media ,
• A virtual open house; and
• Tabling at Golden Valley Pride, Market in the Valley, and Concerts in the Park.
v
2
Over 300 individuals provided feedback through the various engagement opportunities. In
general, people are interested in expanding the types of activities that happen in downtown
Golden Valley. They also expressed wanting to see amenities centrally located and easily
accessible. There was also feedback on wanting a grocery store and more public space. More
than a third of those surveyed also wanted to see vegetation and greenery improvements to
the streetscape. Lastly, people expressed safety concerns regarding street crossings and
wanted to ensure that there were pedestrian and cyclist-focused improvements to positively
impact one’s experience.
With the feedback received the consultants are in the process of developing and drafting
recommendations for steps needed to reimagine downtown Golden Valley into a more
accessible, attractive, and vibrant destination.
Project Timeline
The timeline below shows the steps taken to date and roughly where we are at in the overall
scope for completion of the Plan.
• Existing Conditions Review: April – May 2024
• Engagement: June – September 2024
o Joint City Council/Planning Commission work session June 11th
o Various Community Events (i.e. Pride, Market in the Valley, Public Safety Open
House, etc.) Market Gap Analysis: April – June 2024
• Development Test Fits: May – July 2024
• Public Realm Study: June – September 2024
• Phasing and Implementation: September – October 2024
• Final Report: October 2024
Recommended Action
Listen to a presentation by the Consultants at Van Meter Williams Pollack and Toole Design on
the development of the Downtown Golden Valley User Experience Framework (Plan) and hold
discussion.
Attachments
Slide Presentation
DOWNTOWN GOLDEN VALLEY
USER EXPERIENCE FRAMEWORK
PLANNING COMMISSION 8/26/24
THE PROJECT
Focus Areas
Schedule Update01
WHAT OUR TEAM LEARNED
Identity
Connectivity
Sustainability
02
THE VISION03
IMPLEMENTATION
Building Alignment04
DISCUSSION & NEXT STEPS05
Identity
Connectivity
Sustainability
USER EXPERIENCE
FRAMEWORK
■Streetscape & Wayfinding
■Pedestrian, Bicycle & Micromobility
Connectivity
■Reinforcing a Sense of Place & Identity
■Building Alignment for Future
Development
■Road Map for Implementation
01 THE PROJECT
NovemberAprilMayJuneJulyAugustSeptemberOctober
Existing Conditions Review
Market Gap Analysis
Implementation
Final
Report
Council Adoption
Community Outreach and Stakeholder Collaboration
Development Test Fit Study (Feasibility Analysis)
Public Realm Study
Open House
Online Survey
Pop Up Tabling
Council/
Commission
Meeting
Commission
Meeting Council Meeting
DELIVERABLES
ENGAGEMENT Open House
415+
RESPONSES
02 WHAT WE LEARNED: ENGAGEMENT OVERVIEW
June 2024 Online Survey Online
June 4, 2024 Virtual Open House #1 Online
June 8, 2024 Golden Valley Pride Brookview Park
June 16, 2024 Golden Valley Farmer’s Market Water Tower
July 8, 2024 Concert in the Park Brookview Park
September 2024 Virtual Open House #2 Online
02 WHAT WE LEARNED: IDENTITY
The Market Gap Analysis identified
Bassett Creek as a potentially
distinguishing amenity for
downtown users.
The community identified access to
natural areas as an element that
strongly impacted their enjoyment of
Golden Valley and requested a focus
on creating destinations, public
spaces/amenities, and a strong
downtown identity
02 WHAT WE LEARNED: CONNECTIVITY
The Market Gap Analysis process
saw Golden Valley’s regional
connectivity as a considerable
strength, it highlighted lower
walkability and parcel utilization in
Downtown Golden Valley than in
neighboring communities.
The community indicated a clear
preference for more pedestrian
and cyclist-focused infrastructure
Downtown as well as centrally-
located amenities
02 WHAT WE LEARNED: SUSTAINABILITY
The Market Gap Analysis noted
healthy leasing trends as an
indicator of economic
sustainability but highlighted the
opportunity to increase parcel
utilization through redevelopment of
relatively small buildings
surrounded by large parking lots.
The community identified as priorities
access to natural areas, the addition
of enhanced tree cover and
landscaping on downtown streets,
and improvements to provide safe
alternative mobility options.
Bassett Creek Trail
connecting to New
Trailhead
New Trailhead
connecting to Festival
(Shared) Street
03 VISION: FRAMEWORK PLANS
03 VISION: IDENTITY
Peachtree Corners, GA; Carmel, IN Arts and Design District
Indianapolis, IN Cultural Trail (Mobility); Cedar Falls (IA) Main Street ParkingGolden Valley Road
Golden Valley Gateway (Winnetka or Rhode Island and MN-55)
PRECEDENTELEMENT
03 VISION: IDENTITY
Water Tower Plaza -Peoria Heights IL & Water Tower Art -Mitcham AUS
Fox River Trail -Waukesha, WIBassett Creek
Golden Valley Municipal Water Tower
PRECEDENTELEMENT
03 VISION: CONNECTIVITY
Clematis Street Woonerf/ Festival Street -W. Palm Beach FLSuperblocks with limited pedestrian circulation
Integrated Trailhead: Chattahoochee RiverLands GA, Wirth Trailhead Golden ValleyUnclear Access to Downtown from Luce Line Trail
PRECEDENTELEMENT
03 VISION: SUSTAINABILITY
Lakewood District Parking Garag
Park Once Downtown: Wayzata and 40th & FranceParking Dominated Downtown
PRECEDENTELEMENT
Existing Mixed Use (MU-C)
Zoning artificially suppresses
surface parking. The market
may need to see public or
district parking strategies to
enable redevelopment.
FRAMEWORK COMPLETE
TRAIL CONNECTIVITY
IMPROVEMENTS
GOLDEN VALLEY ROAD
MAIN STREET
IMPLEMENTATION
IMPACTCOMPLEXITY HIGHLOW
HIGH
WINNETKA / 55
INTERSECTION
IMPROVEMENTS
DESTINATION
WAYFINDING SIGNAGE
CITY LAND DISPOSITION
/ REDEVELOPMENT
DOWNTOWN OVERLAY
ZONING AND DEV STDS
GATEWAY MONUMENT
SIGNAGE
GV DOWNTOWN
STAKEHOLDER
COMMITTEE FORMATION
04 IMPLEMENTATION: IMPACT/COMPLEXITY
Next Steps and
Discussion
05