Loading...
PC Agenda Packet_07.14.25 July 14, 2025 — 6:30 PM Council Chambers 1.Call to Order, Land Acknowledgement, and Attendance Attendance by presence, not roll call 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. 2.A.Approval of May 28, 2025 Meeting Minutes 2.B.Approval of June 23, 2025 Meeting Minutes 3.Public Hearings 3.A.Amendment to Conditional Use Permit No. 166 for 145 Jersey Avenue South 3.B.Conditional Use Permit for 610 Ottawa Avenue North 4.New Business 5.Council Liaison Report 6.Staff Updates 7.Commissioner Updates 8.Adjourn PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING AGENDA The public may watch the meeting remotely on cable channel 16 or streaming on CCXmedia.org. The public can make statements in this meeting during the planned public comment sections. Individuals may also provide public hearing testimony remotely by emailing planning@goldenvalleymn.gov by 3 p.m. on the day of the meeting. City of Golden Valley Planning Commission Regular Meeting July 14, 2025 — 6:30 PM 1 CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Wednesday, May 28, 2025 – 6:30 p.m. | City Hall Council Chamber 7800 Golden Valley Road Golden Valley, MN 55427 1. CALL TO ORDER AND LAND ACKNOWLEDGEMENT  Chair Ruby called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m. and read the Land Acknowledgement  Regular Members Present: Gary Cohen, Mike Ruby, Chuck Segelbaum, Martin Sicotte, Eric Van Oss, David Hill  Regular Members Absent: Amy Barnstorff  Student Member, Status: Vacant  Staff Members Present: Jacquelyn Kramer, Senior Planner Chloe McGuire, Deputy Community Development Director Steven Okey, Associate Planner Kendra Lindahl, Consulting Planner Mike Ryan, City Engineer  Council Member Present: None 1.A. Oath of Office for David Hill  Kramer instructed David Hill to read the Oath of Office, and after the meeting, they would sign it.  Hill read the Oath of Office. 2. CONSENT AGENDA: 2.A. Approval of agenda 2.B. Adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 25-01 Certifying Land Conveyance of 1131 Lilac Drive North is in Compliance with the Comprehensive Plan  Cohen asked why they did not have minutes from the May 12 meeting. He acknowledged that it was mostly a closed meeting, but that there were election of officers that took place.  Kramer stated that the minutes would be brought before the Planning Commission on June 9 because it includes the notes about the bylaws and the bylaws will be updated at that meeting as well.  Ruby asked for a motion to approve.  Sicotte moved.  Van Oss seconded.  All voted in favor, and the motion passed. 3. PUBLIC HEARINGS: 3.A. Comprehensive Plan Amendment, Rezoning, and Preliminary Plat for 504 Lilac Drive  Hill recused himself from the vote because he is an employee of Twin Cities Habitat for Humanity, and they are under consideration to potentially redevelop 504 Lilac Drive.  Kramer explained that due to an error in the mailings, this property was already before the Commission but would need to be done again to allow a public hearing on this property, and then, based on what the Commission recommends, would go before the Council.  Kramer presented the proposal.  Ruby asked if there were questions for the staff.  Ruby asked if the entirety of the land would be included in what is developed or sold.  Kramer stated that this was correct and that the house would have to go on the northern portion of the property because of setbacks, but the southern portion of the property would be able to be used for other purposes.  Segelbaum asked if a picture of the buildable area was included in the presentation. 2 CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Wednesday, May 28, 2025 – 6:30 p.m. | City Hall Council Chamber 7800 Golden Valley Road Golden Valley, MN 55427  Kramer directed him to a slide that included a picture of the buildable area.  Segelbaum stated that the picture was a proposed layout of the land, but was curious as to what area was the buildable area.  Kramer pointed out the area in which the structure could be built.  Cohen asked if the Staff could give a brief overview of what the HOPE Program is.  Kramer gave an overview of the HOPE Program.  McGuire stated more information about the HOPE Program.  Ruby asked about the 99-year piece of the program and what happens with the property owner’s ability after the 99 years, or even what happens after the first homeowner sells to a second homeowner.  Kramer stated that when the second homeowner buys the home, they must meet the same income requirements for the HOPE Program. She was not sure what would happen after the 99 years, other than the terms could be extended.  Ruby asked if the City would continue to track the houses in the HOPE Program.  Kramer stated that it would definitely be tracked.  Ruby opened the public hearing.  Residents Patrick and Rita Wilson, 524 Lilac Drive North, spoke.  Wilson stated that he has three concerns: the community land trust model, the diversity objective of the HOPE Program, and the safety issue. He gave more information about the community land trust model, stating that he feels this property would have a diminishing effect on his property, which is next door. He stated that the HOPE Program is creating more problems than it is fixing.  Resident Renee Head, 501 Clover Lane, spoke.  Head stated that she is opposed to the amendments. She said that not enough information has been received by the community about the HOPE Program. She stated that she and her husband were interested in buying the property, but were told that it was being bought by the City, but they were unsure of what for at the time. Head went on to say that she feels, at this time, they should put a hold on the HOPE Program to give the constituents more time and information on it.  Resident Charles Head, 501 Clover Lane, spoke.  Head commented on the shape of the property and its close proximity to the house that is next to it. He continued to say that the property runs a long distance along Lilac, where many cars pass by in a very fast manner. He requested that if this does move forward, the City would take part of the land and make a shoulder that would create a buffer to the house and provide street parking.  Resident Natalie Schaefer, 517 Clover Lane, spoke.  Schaefer commented on the safety concerns within the neighborhood. She stated that because the children within the neighborhood are within one mile of the school, they will not receive busing to school. Therefore, they will have to walk, but there are no sidewalks, which makes it not very safe to do so. She stated that within affordable housing, she feels there should be public transportation, but there is none in this neighborhood. Schaefer feels that, from an environmental perspective, they should look at existing houses to use for the HOPE Program instead of building new ones. She also feels that how the house is owned, with the land not being owned by the homeowner, makes it difficult for others in the neighborhood to build generational wealth.  Resident Dean Colinbuck, 455 Cloverleaf Drive, spoke.  Colinbuck commented on generational wealth, as well, stating that he feels it is problematic if the City is maintaining the deed to the land, and he feels they should just go all in. He asked how much the City paid for the land when they got it from MnDOT, and how that payment is 3 CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Wednesday, May 28, 2025 – 6:30 p.m. | City Hall Council Chamber 7800 Golden Valley Road Golden Valley, MN 55427 being factored into this proposal for affordable housing.  Resident Otto Pfefferle, 505 Clover Lane, spoke.  Pfefferle commented on how well taken care of the property is at present, and he said that if it were used for a community garden, it would be well maintained. He also commented on the safety concerns, especially the lack of sidewalks, and that this should be kept in mind when thinking about what to do with the property.  Resident Mike Parker, 516 Clover Lane, spoke.  Parker asked how HOPE became the developer for this project; he wondered if there was any bidding that took place from other developers and if there is any way for other developers to get access to these properties. He also stated his concerns with community land trusts, and he feels from experience that they bring the property value down in a neighborhood.  Resident Paul Robera, 315 Cloverleaf Drive, spoke.  Robera stated that he feels that it is a terrible lot to be developed and that he likes that right now it has mature trees that help with the noise pollution in the neighborhood. He is in support of what his fellow neighbors are saying.  Ruby asked the Staff to answer any pertinent questions about this property.  Kramer stated many of the questions were about the HOPE Program, however, this application is not about the HOPE Program. She also stated that the HOPE Program is not the developer for this property. The Program is run by the City Council, and it is a way for the City to identify lots and then work with a developer to sell them. For the Comprehensive Plan Amendment, Rezoning, and Preliminary Plat, she stated that who owns the property is irrelevant to the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission would need to focus on whether the application meets the criteria that are laid out, which is very narrow for them. However, she continued that if there are specific concerns about the HOPE Program, they would need to go to their council member, because they are the ones who created the HOPE Program.  City Engineer Ryan noted that many of the concerns had to do with accessing Meadowbrook Elementary School and other places in the area, he commented that this was true of many places in the City because the City has prioritized sidewalks in other areas, but it has been applying for grants and hopes to fix this in the future as it is a high priority. He commented on the suggestion to change the roadway in the area of this property, but he noted that this can be more hazardous to change a small section of roadway to accommodate this property. He stated that there is no parking on both sides of the street in this spot. He commented that the speed limit in the area is 30 miles per hour, there are many structural and geometric changes as well, and there are also many other traffic safety features in the area. He noted that in this area, there have been two crashes in the last ten years and that the driveway has just over 100 feet of visibility, which is more than other homes in the neighborhood.  Ruby asked about how to flag this area as an area of traffic concern going forward.  Ryan stated that if there is a concern in the area about traffic safety, members of the community can talk to the City Council. He commented on his passion for sidewalks and safety in the community, and how there are many options for seeing some of this done, such as grants, programs, or policy changes. He noted that with over 100 miles of roads to be concerned with, they do prioritize those that have the biggest safety issues, but the City Council just approved a pedestrian crossing policy in the City where the pedestrian crossings meet warrants in the City.  Ruby asked if there were any more comments from the staff.  McGuire asked if there were any more questions about the HOPE Program.  Ruby stated that there were questions about how the property was acquired from MnDOT and how the property was paid for. 4 CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Wednesday, May 28, 2025 – 6:30 p.m. | City Hall Council Chamber 7800 Golden Valley Road Golden Valley, MN 55427  McGuire stated that the property was purchased from MnDOT at the appraised value, and that is public data. After the purchase, the City puts out a call for qualified developers who are part of the HOPE Program. She stated that there is no developer for this property at this time, but if it were to be Habitat for Humanity, they would sell the land to them as well, and it would not be a land trust property. She stated that at this point it is not a plat even; so, if the Planning Commission recommends this for approval, then it will go before the Council to become a plat. After that, they would then be able to start the process for who the developer would be, and more information would become available as to how the property would be sold.  Ruby asked if there were further questions or comments for the Staff.  Segelbaum asked on behalf of the public questions about what restrictions there are for persons coming in to remove the trees, and also the regulations for setbacks, could this house be put too close to neighbors.  Kramer stated that this property needs to follow the same rules as any other property; for setbacks, it is the rules for the R-1 zoning areas. As for trees, there is a tree mitigation policy; up to 15 percent of trees can be removed, and then if more are removed, there is a formula that needs to be followed for either replanting or paying a fee.  Ruby asked if the developer for the HOPE Program would have to follow the same rules for trees as would any other developer.  Kramer stated it does not matter who does it, but that the requirements are still the same.  Segelbaum asked whose responsibility it is to care for the land in a land trust property.  Kramer noted that this property will likely not be a land trust property, but the homeowner will own the land as well and be responsible for it.  Segelbaum asked if, based on the criteria that the Staff has presented for approval of the recommendation for the property, should the Planning Commission factor in the statistics about the value of homes depreciating based on this type of home in the neighborhood.  Kramer noted that the Planning Commission needs to look at all relevant criteria in the Comprehensive Plan to decide on approval or not.  Segelbaum noted that it seemed pretty relevant to note the impact the home would have on the value of the surrounding homes in the neighborhood.  Kramer stated that evaluating the impact on neighboring home values from the Comprehensive Plan Amendment is beyond the scope of the Planning Commission.  Segelbaum asked if the impact on the surrounding neighborhood was a valid criterion on which to gauge the decision.  Kramer noted that the Comprehensive Plan puts more weight on the physical impacts that this property could have on the neighborhood.  Segelbaum stated that it would be more appropriate to make a decision based on whether they should be putting R-1 in the neighborhood or not.  Kramer agreed that it would be more appropriate to evaluate what impact putting an R-1 zone into an R-3 zoned neighborhood would have.  Ruby closed the public hearing and opened the item for discussion.  Cohen noted that with the City being almost fully developed, it will be hard to find a perfect lot. However, he noted that it is a goal of the City to create more housing, especially affordable housing and that they need to find a way to do that. He noted that the lack of busing in the neighborhood would need to go before the relevant school boards.  McGuire read an email from Michelle Tufts, 355 Clover Lane. Tufts is concerned that the house will become a rental, and that it would depreciate the value of the neighboring homes, she feels there are many safety issues, and she strongly disagrees with the development of this parcel. 5 CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Wednesday, May 28, 2025 – 6:30 p.m. | City Hall Council Chamber 7800 Golden Valley Road Golden Valley, MN 55427  Ruby asked for a response to the question of can the property be rented.  Kramer stated that under the HOPE Program, the house must be owner-occupied and not rented out.  Ruby stated that he feels it is very important that all Commissioners speak to have their opinions heard for the record.  Segelbaum stated that he felt it was great that the neighborhood came together to address their concerns and that even though some of the concerns were beyond the scope of the Planning Commission, it was important to do so because the notes would be passed along to the City Council. He noted that the City Council has made it a priority to create more affordable housing, but as a Planning Commission, they are just looking at land use. He noted that they are looking at three things: how is it guided, they are changing the property from nothing to low-density and this seems fitting, zoning seems to be appropriate for R-1, and looking at preliminary plat, that whoever builds it will need to meet the criteria and there are many protections in place to make sure it is done correctly. He feels that it fits the neighborhood from a technical standpoint.  Sicotte agreed with many of the things that the previous Commissioner noted, and he added that it is an appropriate fit for the neighborhood, and as long as all of the setback requirements are met, he is in favor of it.  Van Oss stated that, from a technical standpoint, it does seem sound. He has driven Lilac many times recently and does not feel it is any busier than any other comparable street. He said it was a sound application and that he would be voting in favor.  Ruby stated that he is inclined to vote in favor as well, with the City making it a point to find additional housing, he feels that this is a perfect lot for that.  Ruby asked if there were any other questions or comments. He then asked for a motion.  Van Oss moved to approve the preliminary plat that lays out the potential subdivision of one new lot, to recommend approval of a single-family R-1 zoning district, and to recommend approval of the preliminary plat.  Sicotte seconded the motion.  5 in favor, 1 abstention, and the motion passed. (In Favor: Segelbaum, Sicotte, Ruby, Cohen, Van Oss. Abstain: Hill.)  Segelbaum asked when the Council would look at this.  Kramer stated that on June 17th, the Council would look at the Comprehensive Plan Amendment, the Rezoning, and the Preliminary Plat. If they approve, the final plat would go before Council in July, and then after that, at some point, the land conveyance would go through, which includes going to the Planning Commission to confirm compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. 3.B. Preliminary Plat for 4707 Circle Down  Kramer presented the proposal.  Ruby asked why a plat expires.  Kramer stated that in the City code, there are some applications that, if not acted upon, expire, and then you would need to reapply. She added that the plat was not filed with the County, so it is not recorded, making it not legal.  Ruby asked if it was a preliminary plat by a specific builder.  Kramer stated that it was an application by the City, but that there were some issues with the developer not being ready, and that is why they are not bringing the final plat to the Planning Commission until the developer is ready.  Ruby asked if they were allowed to discuss why a developer chose not to build on it.  Kramer stated that she did not know the specifics, but she feels that it was not because of the 6 CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Wednesday, May 28, 2025 – 6:30 p.m. | City Hall Council Chamber 7800 Golden Valley Road Golden Valley, MN 55427 preliminary plat itself, but rather an outside factor.  Van Oss noted that in his professional experience, it is quite common for plats to lapse and not necessarily out of the ordinary.  Hill stated that the size of the lot was very large, and he asked if the developer would get all of it or if would some be able to be left for nature or anything like that.  Kramer noted that part of the size has to do with setbacks, leaving only one particular area for the house to be built and that the property owner would own the whole thing.  Ruby asked if they were held accountable for the tree requirement of the entire property.  Kramer confirmed that to be true.  Hill asked if it were a land trust or not.  Kramer stated she could not say what the details of the contract would be because they have not finalized it yet, but likely, it would not be a land trust model but rather affordability requirements written in the contract, and the owner would own both land and property.  Van Oss asked how it is decided if the property is a land trust or just owned by the property owner.  Kramer stated that there would be negotiations between the City and the developer.  Van Oss asked if the Council has shown a preference as to whether the properties should be land trusts or not.  Kramer stated that she was not sure what the Council’s preference would be.  Ruby asked if the City owned other pieces of land like this in trust.  Kramer noted that the City does own other pieces of property, not necessarily in trust, such as the other HOPE projects.  Ruby clarified to ask if there were any land trust properties in the City.  Kramer stated she did not believe that was an active program in the City at this time.  Ruby opened up the public hearing and noted that there wasn’t anyone from the public in attendance who wished to speak. Then he asked if there was anyone on the phone or virtually who would like to comment.  Kramer confirmed there was no one on phones or virtually who would like to comment.  Ruby closed the public hearing and opened the item for discussion.  Van Oss stated that it is technically correct and within the confines of the codes, so he would be voting in favor.  Hill noted that the shape and size were similar to the past discussion, so he sees no issues and would be voting in favor.  Sicotte stated that he agreed and that it fits much of the same criteria as the last application.  Segelbaum stated that, from his perspective, the application meets the City's criteria and requirements, and he would vote in favor.  Ruby agreed that it meets the requirements and he will be voting in favor.  Ruby asked for a motion.  Van Oss motioned to recommend approval of the preliminary plat.  Hill seconded the motion.  5 in favor, 1 abstention, and the motion passed. (In Favor: Segelbaum, Sicotte, Ruby, Hill, Van Oss. Abstain: Cohen.)  Ruby asked if all that was needed was the approval of the preliminary plat.  Kramer stated that it is correct because the rezoning and the comprehensive plan amendment already happened in 2023.  Segelbaum asked if this would go to the Council as well.  Kramer stated it would go to the Council on June 17. 7 CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Wednesday, May 28, 2025 – 6:30 p.m. | City Hall Council Chamber 7800 Golden Valley Road Golden Valley, MN 55427 3.C. (withdrawn) Conditional Use Permit for Indoor Entertainment Use of 8325 10th Avenue  Kramer stated that the public hearing was opened for this application on April 14, 2025, but due to construction supply delays, the Applicant has opted to remove their application until a later date. She noted that the Staff is recommending closing the public hearing at this time.  Ruby closed the public hearing. 4. NEW BUSINESS  Kramer stated that the next Planning Commission meeting on June 9th, 2025, would be a joint safety training with the Board of Zoning Appeals.  Ruby asked about the Breck Neighborhood and the meeting that took place recently about it.  Kramer stated that Breck does not have a former application at this time.  Kramer stated that on May 20th, 2025, the Council approved the final plats for 1131 Lilac Drive, 1211 Lilac Drive, and 1611 Lilac Drive.  Ruby asked how the City is communicating that the Planning Commission is no longer accepting online or virtual call-ins at the meetings.  Kramer stated that the website and agendas have been updated to reflect this.  Van Oss clarified that call-in is still available, but it needs to be scheduled, not just on an open line.  Kramer stated that people can always contact the Staff and they can set up a way for those people to be a part of the meeting, whether it is on the phone or virtually. They are also able to send an email that will be read aloud during the meeting.  Van Oss asked if the information on how to contact the meeting is on the agenda that goes out to the public.  Kramer stated that she believes it does.  McGuire noted that it is not in the packet, but they are slowly adjusting to this new policy, so they are still monitoring old ways of doing things, such as Teams.  Ruby asked that they highlight that email as it is a great way to share information at that meeting.  Kramer stated that they could also note this in the newspaper notifications as well.  Segelbaum asked how Teams was working now.  Kramer stated that meetings are broadcast via CCX and that this is not changing; however, remote spontaneous participation is changing and is no longer available. 5. STAFF UPDATES: -None  Hill gave a brief bio.  Segelbaum asked if the HOPE Program is specific to a certain race.  Van Oss stated that the point is to reduce homeownership disparities, but preferring a sale based on a racial category is illegal.  McGuire noted that all of the RFPs in the city are through a DEI lens, meaning the City chose developers who have experience working with underserved communities.  Cohen stated that for further insight into the HOPE Program and where the Council and Mayor stand on it, watch the last council meeting which will help to provide more information.  Van Oss stated that looking closer at the income requirements shows that it is very solidly middle-income, not so much low-income families.  Kramer stated that housing is expensive everywhere, and this is also true of Golden Valley.  Ruby asked if there are additional properties that the City has the first right of refusal on from MnDOT, that would be brought to a meeting coming up.  Kramer stated other properties have been identified, but she is not aware of the timeline for 8 CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Wednesday, May 28, 2025 – 6:30 p.m. | City Hall Council Chamber 7800 Golden Valley Road Golden Valley, MN 55427 them. She commented that there will be more to come, but not in the next month or two.  Ruby asked if the HOPE Program would be able to use currently available housing as part of the program, rather than building new.  Kramer stated that an essential part of the HOPE Program is to build with a developer, but that is not to say that the City would not have an interest in purchasing existing homes or assisting in existing homes becoming affordable homes.  Van Oss noted that the County has a program called naturally reoccurring affordable homes which is using existing homes as affordable housing, so maybe not at a City level at this time but there are other programs.  Ruby asked if the City would look at the home stock and decide to buy the land and then use the home as affordable housing.  Kramer stated that the City does not have a program like that currently, and there has been no City Council direction to create such a program.  Cohen asked if there was a requirement for MnDOT to take care of the property until they convey it to the City.  Kramer stated that she thought MnDOT would have to follow the same vegetation requirements that everyone else in the City would have to, but maybe as right-of-way property requirements are different. 6. COMMISSIONER UPDATES: -None 7. ADJOURNMENT: Chair Ruby adjourned the meeting at 8:04 p.m. 9 CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Monday, June 23, 2025 – 6:30 p.m. | City Hall Council Chamber 7800 Golden Valley Road Golden Valley, MN 55427 1. CALL TO ORDER AND LAND ACKNOWLEDGEMENT  Acting Chair Cohen called the meeting to order at 6:32 p.m. and read the Land Acknowledgement  Regular Members Present: Amy Barnstorff, Gary Cohen, Chuck Segelbaum, Martin Sicotte, Eric Van Oss, David Hill, Mike Ruby (arrived 7:03 p.m.)  Regular Members Absent: None  Student Member, Status: Vacant  Staff Members Present: Jacquelyn Kramer, Senior Planner Steven Okey, Associate Planner Sam Barens, Planning Intern  Council Member Present: None 2. CONSENT AGENDA: Segelbaum noted that 2.C. should be updated to remove the position of Secretary from the Commission and update the wording for when both the Chair and Vice Chair are absent from the meeting to say: Officers may delegate the duties of their positions to other commissioners as deemed appropriate by the commission. Cohen noted that 2.H. is a land acquisition for a public works facility, and as a member of the task force, he added that the current public works facility is outdated, too small, and not up to date for employee work. 2.A. Approval of agenda 2.B. Approval of May 12, 2025, meeting minutes 2.C. Update to Planning Commission Bylaws 2.D. Adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 25-002 Certifying Land Conveyance of 504 Lilac Drive North is in Compliance with the Comprehensive Plan 2.E. Adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 25-003 Certifying Land Conveyance of 4707 Circle Down is in Compliance with the Comprehensive Plan 2.F. Adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 25-004 Certifying Land Conveyance of 1211 Lilac Drive is in Compliance with the Comprehensive Plan 2.G. Adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 25-005 Certifying Land Conveyance of 1611 Lilac Drive is in Compliance with the Comprehensive Plan 2.H. Adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 25-006 Certifying Land Conveyance of 6100 Olson Memorial Highway is in Compliance with the Comprehensive Plan  Cohen asked for a motion to approve.  Segelbaum moved to approve with the edits as outlined.  Hill seconded.  All voted in favor, and the motion passed. 3. PUBLIC HEARINGS: 3.A. Planned Unit Development (PUD) Major Amendment for 9000 Plymouth Avenue North  Kramer presented the proposal.  Cohen asked if there were any questions for the staff.  Segelbaum noted that in the neighborhood meeting, there was a question about landscaping and maintaining a visual screen. He asked if staff could show what the neighbor was referring to and anything that could be pointed out in the proposal that highlights the landscaping.  Kramer shared a visual of the proposed landscape plan that the applicant is proposing, which 10 CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Monday, June 23, 2025 – 6:30 p.m. | City Hall Council Chamber 7800 Golden Valley Road Golden Valley, MN 55427 has as much screening as possible. She also shared the tree removal plan, which would have to take place for the turnaround and the underground utilities tunnel to take place. She noted that Staff is also working with the applicant for additional tree replacement on the site or in the nature area of the site.  Segelbaum asked if the applicant is subject to the tree mitigation plan requirements the City has in place, given that it is a PUD Amendment.  Kramer stated that the applicant is subject to the same tree mitigation policy, and the Staff has already been in discussion with the applicant about their plans. The applicant will have to apply for a tree inventory and landscape plan along with their building permits, which would happen after City Council approval.  Segelbaum asked if there were any trees removed recently that would be included in the policy.  Kramer noted that there is a look-back policy, which is included with the tree mitigation policy, so if there were any trees removed recently, those would have to be replaced as well. Staff can look back at past plans and see what it has looked like to get back to the one-to-one ratio of trees.  Sicotte asked if the x’s on the plans that indicate trees that would be removed are any trees or just trees above the caliper size and type that is required to be replaced. He noted that the number of x’s seemed to be greater than that which was being replaced.  Kramer stated that she was unsure but asked the applicant for clarification.  Senior Manager of Global Real Estate, General Mills, Jordan Weigelt, spoke.  Weigelt stated that the plan for the trees needs to be further developed and that it will happen as they apply for the permit. He noted that it is important to look at the entire campus and see that in the North 40, which is open to the community, there are probably 3,000-plus trees, but more work needs to be done to get the one-to-one ratio that is needed.  Kramer noted that she would try to look up if the plans were showing all the trees being removed or just the ones that would have to be included in the tree replacement process.  Sicotte noted that sometimes, when a survey is done, they do not even draw the trees that are below a certain caliper.  General Mills Architect and Project Manager, Mamie Harvey, spoke.  Harvey noted that the General Mills landscape architect has been working with the City Staff to go through and identify the trees that need to be replaced, and there are several trees that General Mills understands need to be replaced on campus.  Hill asked if there is a timing on replacing the trees; he thought this was a resident issue that had been raised.  Kramer stated that this was in an email from a resident, which asked in what phase the trees would be replaced and when the screening would grow back in.  Harvey stated that the area where the trees would be removed is the area being used for the construction site, so with the building construction starting in the spring, it would be the following spring when the trees would be replanted.  Sicotte asked about the grading that would be taking place in the north part of the property, and where the soil would be coming from, specifically.  Harvey noted that the tunnel is fairly deep, so they need to figure out what to do with the soil, which they have been working with the excavator and will probably add to the stockpile in the North 40.  Kramer added that in the plans, none of the trees in the North 40 would be impacted, and the area where the excess soil would go has been used in previous projects.  Harvey noted that there is a Class 5 pile out in the North 40.  Segelbaum asked about the standards and requirements that a PUD has over time, especially 11 CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Monday, June 23, 2025 – 6:30 p.m. | City Hall Council Chamber 7800 Golden Valley Road Golden Valley, MN 55427 with this property having been around for a long amount of time, and many changes can occur.  Kramer asked if he was talking about amending the plans.  Segelbaum clarified that he was curious how applicants are held to their plans. If there is a screening that was in the plans 20 years ago, does the screening need to still be there today, or is the applicant able to have some change over time.  Kramer stated that, depending on the scale of the change, the plans would have to be updated somehow, which may just be an administrative approval by the Staff. It might be a minor PUD amendment, which is reviewed by Staff and then goes directly City Council with the Planning Commission. Or, like in this case, there is a Major PUD Amendment, which is the same process as a new PUD: neighborhood meeting, public hearing, and then the Council. She noted that in general, the City will have any updates to the plans for PUDs and will update the plans as needed.  Segelbaum asked if there was any administrative or formal action that called out the change in that location adjacent to Boone Avenue.  Kramer stated that the Staff started looking into it, and that there was a right-of-way permit that they are working with City Engineering to look closely at. The question in the email specifically talked about screening along Boone Avenue being removed, and this was to install several electric poles, so there was no way to put the trees back, but there may be other types of screening that could be used. She noted that Staff is working with the applicant to get additional screening in this area, because of the concern that has been raised.  Cohen asked if there were further questions. He then invited the applicant to come forward to speak.  Weigelt thanked the Commission for considering them and for the ongoing work with them. He noted that this expansion is really exciting for General Mills because it is for the pet food side of things, and it will allow the scientists to keep innovating in a safe and flexible environment. He noted that the square footage is closer to 40,000 square feet.  General Mills Senior Project Manager Austin Kryzer spoke.  Kryzer stated that they were there to answer any questions that anyone may have.  Cohen asked the applicant to go over some of the items that were highlighted for the neighborhood meeting, such as the plans for the building, the number of employees it might utilize, just a general overview of the plans.  Harvey stated the North building entrance would stay the same, and that the new floors will only be technical space, meaning no additional office space will be added, with no population being added. She noted that the biggest change is the ring road, which will no longer go around the building. She added that General Mills is investing in this campus by putting an underground tunnel that could be used for expansion in the future. She stated that the building does not have windows, but that it will be a brick building that will feel like the rest of the campus. General Mills is focused on the sustainability of the building and the flexibility this building will bring to the future of the company. She spoke at the three phases: first is the site and the utilities, second is reinvesting in accessible restrooms adjacent to this facility, and third is the building itself.  Cohen asked if there were any questions for the applicant.  Segelbaum asked if the applicant could add anything to the discussion of the screening and past promises of screening that did not happen.  Harvey noted that the process has brought to light some information from the neighbor’s perspective, which General Mills will want to take this information and try to alleviate some of the strain that the neighbors are feeling. She noted that more communication about the technical parts of the right-of-way that was put in may be of benefit to the neighbors. She 12 CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Monday, June 23, 2025 – 6:30 p.m. | City Hall Council Chamber 7800 Golden Valley Road Golden Valley, MN 55427 added that when General Mills does these projects, they look at the zoning requirements and make sure that the plans meet the goals of the City and the County as well as their own.  Segelbaum asked if General Mills has had a chance to look at this area where the right-of-way came in and thought about how to screen differently to fix the problem that community members are bringing up.  Harvey noted that with the email coming in today, they have not had time to discuss this as of yet.  Kryzer noted that he did see the email, and he was part of the power project that took place in the area under discussion. He added that this is where the main power comes into the facility and that they want to be very cognizant of the neighbors, but they are not able to while staying within the code, and the poles are 30 feet tall. He referred to a picture that the project will be well shielded from the neighbors around by much of the screening that is already in place. He stated that, as a food manufacturer, it is difficult to have a lot of vegetation close by because it brings in the birds and pests, so they are trying to balance the number of trees and the landscape plan while trying to keep things as far away from the building as possible.  Segelbaum noted that he would like to see that they at least examine the possibility of adding to the vegetation in the area.  Van Oss noted that they are not asking for any deviations from the code in terms of mitigation. He added that the email in question was not germane to the application because the PUD is not for the whole site but for a specific location, and the applicant is within code to that.  Kramer added that the email is talking about an area outside of this project, but that the entire campus is part of the PUD. So, they have to look at the whole campus as part of the project. She added that the Planning Commission can make recommendations or conditions of approval, such as applicant will continue to work with the Staff on additional screening opportunities.  Van Oss stated that if screening was an issue at large for the applicant, the Staff would bring this to the Planning Commission as something to consider.  Kramer stated that the Staff is not seeing an at-large screening issue.  Cohen asked about the area where they would take down the trees for staging, if the tree take down would happen early, and if the trees would not be put back up until late 2027.  Kryzer noted that the demolition of some trees would happen early in phase one, and then the plan would be for the replacement of the landscaping to happen in phase three of the project  Cohen asked about the employees and if all 600 of them were there all the time, and if there could be any traffic concerns because of the construction.  Kryzer stated that in meetings, the neighbors were complimentary of what they had done. He said that the employees work on shifts, and this expansion does not add any headcount, just more square footage. The construction should not have an impact on traffic because they are not changing anything from the way it is currently.  Cohen asked if there were any other questions for the applicant.  Cohen opened the public hearing.  Resident Tyler Gruenwald, 1316 Gettysburg Ave, spoke.  Gruenwald stated that his concern was with the addition of exterior lighting and the impact that it could have on some neighbors. He stated that it would not impact him, but the lights on the west side are shining right into his house now, so it would be something that they should at least consider.  Ruby asked if the Staff would like to respond to relevant questions. 13 CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Monday, June 23, 2025 – 6:30 p.m. | City Hall Council Chamber 7800 Golden Valley Road Golden Valley, MN 55427  Kramer noted that the applicant has submitted a lighting plan, and that they would have to meet the lighting requirement, such as minimizing spill over onto neighboring properties, just like any other application.  Ruby asked if it would just cover new or the existing as well.  Kramer stated that the plan just covers the new lighting, but that they could also take a look at the west side lighting, since a concern was raised.  Cohen closed the public hearing and opened the item for discussion.  Cohen stated he had not been to the site until recently; however, he was struck by three things: it is huge, General Mills has been a good neighbor for Golden Valley, and it brings in a high population during the day. He added that he is supportive of the proposal.  Van Oss stated that he feels it is a great project, and that he hopes to see more of it in the future with the larger employees, as it will help to expand the City.  Segelbaum stated that he agreed with what has been said, and that General Mills has been great for the community, and that he appreciates that they continue to reinvest in the community. He feels that the plan looks great, but that with a neighbor raising some concerns, it would be good for General Mills to look at the screening of the property, since they have done a nice job thus far.  Sicotte noted that he is very familiar with the area, and his only concern is that the tree removal plan is not being met with the new trees. He feels this may be due to the types of trees being removed, but he hopes that this was being thought about and is very supportive of the project.  Hill stated he felt that some of the concerns that were addressed were outside the project itself, but that the applicant could think about them and look at the concerns. He feels that the project is solid.  Cohen asked if there were any other questions or comments. He then asked for a motion.  Segelbaum made the motion to recommend approval of the major PUD amendment based on staff findings.  Van Oss seconded the motion.  All voted in favor, and the motion passed.  Van Oss asked about the policy on whether trees need to be replaced if they die.  Kramer stated that any tree that is shown in an approved PUD plan, if it dies, would have to be replaced.  Van Oss asked what the look-back period would be for that.  Kramer stated that she thought it was two years. 4. STAFF, COUNCIL LIAISON, AND COMMISSIONER UPDATES  Kramer stated that on May 20th, Council approved the application for 504 Lilac and 4707 Circle Down, and the final plats for the two applications will go to Council on July 1st. She thought that they would be done with the planning applications for those five properties. She added that the Commission approved tonight for certification of land acquisitions and/or conveyance for several properties, but probably would not hear much on those for a while. She noted that she would update when an agreement is reached with a developer or construction starts.  Kramer introduced the planning intern, Sam Barens, who would be with them for the summer.  Planning Intern Sam Barens stated that he would be interning for the summer with the planners. He is in the Masters of Urban and Regional Planning Program at the University of Minnesota. He is originally from Florida and has been here for a year, and has one more year left. He plans to present something to the Planning Commission.  Kramer stated that next month, he will be presenting to the Planning Commission. She added that the Community Development Department has seven interns this year, which has been 14 CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Monday, June 23, 2025 – 6:30 p.m. | City Hall Council Chamber 7800 Golden Valley Road Golden Valley, MN 55427 helpful.  Cohen asked if there was a new schedule for the safety meeting with the Board of Zoning Appeals.  Kramer stated that there was no date at this time, but that this week they may be able to put together a one-page flyer about general safety protocol for the room.  Cohen asked if the next meeting would be July 14th.  Kramer agreed and added that at the meeting, there would be two Conditional Use Permit applications.  Cohen asked if there was anything else to share.  Kramer stated there was not, but asked if there were any questions for the Staff.  Van Oss asked about the enhanced quiet hours that St. Louis Park has put in place for the train, and if the City is working with St. Louis Park or could work with them to do the same sort of thing.  Kramer stated that they have been talking about it in the office, and that she does not know the details of St. Louis Park’s ordinance, but that they could start working on it for the City.  Ruby asked where that would fall under.  Kramer stated that she thought if it were an ordinance that it would be under city code, but she is not for sure. She corrected to say that the City Engineer has started to work on this, but she was not sure if it would come before the Planning Commission; however, she would update either way.  Cohen asked if Councilmember Ginis had sent any updates to the Staff.  Kramer stated that she sent an email about the JFB project, noting that she has heard concerns about the buckthorn removal and maintenance of the trail in general, so it may come up at Council but because the PUD Amendment is not doing anything with that part of the property, Council may or may not want to discuss it.  Cohen stated that if the Council wants to discuss buckthorn removal, they should hire goats.  Van Oss asked about who manages the wildlife in the park.  Kramer stated that she is unsure of who manages the wildlife.  Cohen asked if there are any Commissioner updates.  Segelbaum asked if there was a BZA meeting this month.  Kramer stated that there is a meeting in July.  Van Oss asked whose turn it is to attend.  Kramer stated she was not sure right now but would figure it out. The meeting is on July 22nd, and she will email the person when it is their month to go. 5. ADJOURNMENT: Acting Chair Cohen adjourned the meeting at 7:30 p.m. 15 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Community Development 763-512-2345 / 763-512-2344 (fax) Golden Valley Planning Commission Meeting July 14, 2025 Agenda Item 3.A. Amendment to Conditional Use Permit No. 166 for 145 Jersey Avenue South Prepared By Samuel Berens, Planning Intern Summary Stevie Evans, on behalf of the Good Shepherd School, requests a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) Amendment to remove the limit on the number of children permitted at the childcare center located at 145 Jersey Avenue South. If the CUP Amendment is approved, the school will enroll up to 60 children in their preschool program this fall. Staff Contact Information Prepared by: Sam Berens Planning Intern sberens@goldenvalleymn.gov Reviewed by: Chloe McGuire, AICP Deputy Community Development Director cmcguire@goldenvalleymn.gov Recommended Action Motion to recommend approval of a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) Amendment to CUP No. 166 to remove the number of children limitation at the childcare facility at 145 Jersey Avenue South, subject to the findings and conditions in the July 14, 2025, staff report. Supporting Documents Staff Report Good Shepherd Music to Preschool Room School Parking Map Public Comment 16 Date: 7/14/2025 To: Golden Valley Planning Commission From: Sam Berens, Planning Intern Subject: Conditional Use Permit Amendment for operation of a childcare center Subject Property Location: 145 Jersey Avenue South Parcel ID Number: 0511721120036 Applicant/Property Owner: Stephanie Evans, on behalf of Good Shepherd School Site Size: 8.9 acres, 387,649 square feet Future Land Use: Assembly Zoning District: I-A (Institutional Assembly) Existing Use: Church + School (Preschool and K-6) Adjacent Properties: Speak of the Word Church to the south; single family homes on all other sides. Background Childcare centers in the Institutional-Assembly zoning district require a CUP. Good Shepherd received a CUP to operate a childcare center, serving children ages 3-5, within its school in 2019 (Conditional Use Permit No. 168). The original CUP limited the childcare center to 20 children. Since then, families have asked for increased space for their younger children, but the school has had to turn them away for lack of capacity. The childcare center has expanded into additional areas within the building and the number of enrollees has increased. The school has historically enrolled 300+ students but now hovers below its peak. The childcare center and K-6 school are in the northern building on the site. The preschool students enter and exit through Door 1 on the north side. Parents will cycle in and out of a designated entrance and exit lane from the parking lot. The main school entrance on the east side has its own carpool lane and traffic flow that does not intersect. The school would like to expand its capacity at the preschool to 60 children. The school aims to move music instruction out of an existing classroom and convert the music room to an additional preschool classroom. No exterior or interior changes to the building or site are proposed at this time. Both Building Code and the State of Minnesota have oversight of daycare centers that limit the number of children. v v 17 Site Image 2018 aerial photo (Hennepin County) Planning Analysis The applicant seeks approval for an amendment to the existing CUP on the property in order to increase the number of children the childcare center may serve to 60. Because both the Building Code and the State of Minnesota regulate the number of children that can safely be served in childcare centers, Planning Staff recommends that the number of children limit is removed from the CUP entirely. In reviewing this application, Staff has examined the request in accordance with the standards outlined in Section 113-30 of the City Code, which provides the criteria for granting a CUP in accordance with Minnesota State Statute Section 462.357. The burden of proof rests with the applicant to demonstrate that the request aligns with the general purposes and intent of this chapter and is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. A Conditional Use Permit (CUP) amendment must be reviewed against the following standards: 1. Demonstrated need for the proposed use. The original Conditional Use Permit, CU-168, calls for the potential of expansion in the future beyond the initial approval of 20 children. 18 This amendment comes in response to the request of families at the school, often with older siblings already in attendance at the K-6 school, asking for more space. The school is currently unable to fill all these spaces at its current capacity and must turn families away. The city of Golden Valley faces a critical shortage of childcare facilities relative to the demand for them. 2. Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan of the City. The parcel at 145 Jersey Avenue South is currently located in the I-A (Institutional – Church/Assembly) zoning district. Additionally, the Future Land Use associated with the 2040 Comprehensive Plan is Assembly. The description of the ‘Assembly’ zone within the Plan cites ‘education facilities at all levels, the cemetery, places of worship for all denominations, and miscellaneous religious institutions.’ This demonstrates that the Plan does not foresee a major change to the land use of this site, indicating that an increase in capacity of the existing school will not contravene the goals of the Comprehensive Plan. 3. Effect upon property values in the neighboring area. There is little to no effect on property values from this expansion of student capacity. As no changes to the current uses are proposed, staff anticipate no effect on property values. 4. Effect of any anticipated traffic generation upon the current traffic flow and congestion in the area. While traffic flow during pick-up and drop-off may temporarily increase, the traffic flow map provided by the applicant shows that for the preschool, all parents enter and exit in the same area from Jersey Avenue. This may result in temporary increases in drop-off traffic between 8:15 am and 8:30 am and briefly in the afternoons, Monday through Friday. As per CU-168, “employees of the childcare center would arrive between 7 and 8 am and depart between 3 and 6 pm on weekdays.” School staff do not plan to change this schedule. The applicant’s traffic plan states that preschool parents will park and walk their child in and out of the car. Some parents may also elect to complete pick-up and drop-off on their bikes, parking them in the bicycle parking by the Main School entrance. As stated in CU-168’s CUP Evaluation, “the church does not currently have a problem with overflow into the streets and city staff do not anticipate this issue to begin to occur because of the added childcare center for up to 20 children.” While the childcare center will now accommodate up to 60 children, the city does not foresee a major increase in vehicle volumes on city streets as preschool drop -off and pick-up functions occur largely in the parking lot. Many students also come from the same families as those in the K-6 school, which has staggered pick-up times with after- care in the afternoons. Overall, there should not be a substantial increase in traffic volumes on Jersey Avenue or adjacent streets. The Traffic Safety Committee shall investigate the possibility of establishing a school zone around the Good Shepherd campus in fall 2025. 5. Effect of any increases in population and density upon surrounding land uses. The resident population density of this site will not change due to more students attending the school, even if the school’s population grows. This should have little effect on population in the surrounding neighborhoods. 6. Compliance with the City's Mixed-Income Housing Policy (if applicable to the proposed use). Not applicable. 19 7. Increase in noise levels to be caused by the proposed use. The proposed expansion of the childcare use is not anticipated to generate excessive noise. 8. Any odors, dust, smoke, gas, or vibration to be caused by the proposed use. The proposed expansion of the childcare use is not anticipated to generate excessive odors, dust, smoke, gas, or vibrations. 9. Any increase in pests, including flies, rats, or other animals or vermin in the area to be caused by the proposed use. The proposed expansion of the childcare use is not anticipated to attract pests. 10. Visual appearance of any proposed structure or use. No exterior improvements are associated with this proposal. 11. Any other effect upon the general public health, safety, and welfare of the City and its residents. The proposed use should not affect the surrounding areas as no exterior changes are proposed. Parking is still within the requirement as per the 50% reduction granted to the church and school in CU-168, as one space per six students and two spaces per classroom are required. According to CU-168, the school contains 15 classrooms, of which two stalls are required for each. For a childcare center, one stall is required per six students, and thus at a capacity of 60 students, would necessitate 10 stalls. A pla ce of worship requires one space per three seats in the main assembly area, necessitating 250 stalls for that, bringing the total number of required parking stalls to 290. Because the number of classrooms would not change and the original Conditional Use Permit cites an allowance of “up to a 50% reduction in the minimum parking requirement for a property when combined parking is provided for uses that have substantially different parking demands and peak parking needs,” wherein they found that “since the parking lot is sized to accommodate the larger demand for parking on the weekends (263 spaces) and there have been no issues with parking shortages on the property on weekdays, staff is comfortable allowing a parking reduction for this site.” This allowance would continue to stand at the church and school’s combined 263 parking stalls. The 16 bicycle parking spaces are also sufficient to meet the 5% requirement. Staff finds that the application meets ordinance requirements for a CUP amendment. The Development Review Committee (consisting of staff from all departments) reviewed the plans and raised no concerns regarding the CUP Amendment application. CUP No. 168 required four conditions when the city originally approved the childcare center: 1. The childcare center shall be limited to 20 students, or the amount specified by the Minnesota Department of Human Services, whichever is less. 2. A proposal to increase the capacity of the childcare center will require an amendment to the CUP. 3. All necessary licenses shall be obtained and remain active with the Minnesota Department of Human Services. 4. The hours of normal operation for the Child Care Center shall be Monday through Friday from 7 am to 6 pm. 20 Staff recommends removing the limit to the number of children in the facility, since state licensing requirements already limit the number of children a childcare facility may serve. Staff also recommends removing the requirement that an increase in capacity shall necessitate a CUP amendment for this same reason. Staff also recommends removing the requirement that hours of operation be Monday through Friday from 7 am to 6 pm, as they no longer deem it relevant to govern the hours of operation of the childcare facility as a function of a Conditional Use Permit rather than state licenses. Finally, Staff recommends keeping the condition that all necessary licenses shall be obtained and remain active with the Minnesota Department of Human Services, seeing that this one remaining conditions governs all other relevant conditions o mitted. Previous Condition Proposed Change The childcare center shall be limited to 20 students, or the amount specified by the Minnesota Department of Human Services, whichever is less. Removed entirely. Handled by Building Code and DHS. A proposal to increase the capacity of the childcare center will require an amendment to the CUP. Removed entirely. Handled by Building Code and DHS. All necessary licenses shall be obtained and remain active with the Minnesota Department of Human Services. Retain. The hours of normal operation for the Child Care Center shall be Monday through Friday from 7 am to 6 pm. Removed entirely. Governed by DHS. Public Notification Per the City’s Neighborhood Notification Policy, the applicant sent a letter to all propertie s within 500 feet of the site informing neighbors of the application. As required by ordinance, a neighborhood notice was published in the local paper of record and mailed to all properties within 500 feet on Monday, June 30, 2025. At the time of this staff report, staff received one letter asking the City to explore designating the area around the school a school zone to decrease traffic speeds. Please see the attached letter. Staff has received on other comments on this application. Recommendation Staff recommends approval of the conditional use permit amendment, subject to the findings in the staff report and the condition that all necessary licenses shall be obtained and remain active with the Minnesota Department of Human Services. Next Steps City Council will take action on the application on August 5, 2025. 21 22 23 Good Shepherd Drop-Off and Pick-Up Map K-6: EXIT HERE after using car line.Western Avenue Jersey Avenue Soccer Field Bike or walk across field to avoid traffic. Preschool Entrance & Exit Door 1, North Side Main School Entrance & Exit (K-6) Door 12, East Side Park & use this door for all PreK-6 students in before and after care. Before care:7:00am-8:00am After care: 3:30pm -5:30pm *Use this door for any all day care days (non-school days) or during school hours. K- 6: ENTER HERE for car line. Enter on Western and use the back streets from Glenwood to funnel in. Alternate as you enter into the parking lot. Unload where the green cars are identified. Follow traffic and see bike rack near main entrance. Safe to unload K-6 car line. Enter and exit K-6 car line ONLY. 8:15-8:30 AM. At 3:10pm Students will be in lines and released to you. Meet at orange cones. If you bike, go with traffic and enter on Western or bike down soccer fields to avoid traffic. If you enter on Jersey get off bike and walk it safely through the preschool zone towards the sidewalk, and walk your bike along sidewalk to park it near the Main School Entrance, door 12. See bike parking above. Preschool entrance/exit ONLY. 8:15 -8:30 AM. K-6 Pick-Up Spot, 3:10-3:20 PM. Parents park safely in lot and wait for students to be released to them near orange cones. Key Please be courteous and patient in car line. NEVER PASS another car in the car line. Safety of the students and staff is priority. Thank you for your cooperation. Park bike here. Preschool parents park and enter/exit in the same area. Park your car and keep your child(ren) with you when you walk in and/or depart. Siblings of prek students can follow sidewalk to the main school entrance/exit. If you are tardy or coming for another reason during the school day (outside of pick-up and drop-off time), you must use the main school entrance, door 12. Playground & Outdoor Basketball Court 24 From:M EDWARD PATTON To:Jacquelyn Kramer Cc:stevievans@gsgvschool.org Subject:Good Shepard School Expansion Date:Monday, June 23, 2025 7:50:18 AM EXTERNAL EMAIL ALERT: This message originated from outside the City of Golden Valley. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dear Jacquelyn, We are pleased to hear of Good Shepard School's expansion of pre-school. With the expansion it may be time for the city to consider that the blocks of Hampshire Ave N and Idaho Ave N south of Glenwood Ave., plus Western Ave from Hampshire to Jersey Ave. be designated as a School Zone to help to damper traffic speeds especially around drop off and pick up and the hours of afterschool. Non-posted speed limits on residential streets in Golden Valley is 30 mph which in our view is too fast if pedestrian traffic is present especially with the absence of side walks. A School Zone speed limit of 20 mph would be more appropriate. Kind Regards, Ed and Mary Patton 45 Hampshire Ave. N 25 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Community Development 763-512-2345 / 763-512-2344 (fax) Golden Valley Planning Commission Meeting July 14, 2025 Agenda Item 3.B. Conditional Use Permit for 610 Ottawa Avenue North Prepared By Steven Okey, Associate Planner Summary Jennifer Ryan Geibig and Jill Goldstein have applied for a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) to operate a pet cremation business at 610 Ottawa Avenue North. The CUP would allow a veterinary use at the property which is zoned LI - Light Industrial. Meeting Dates Planning Commission: July 14, 2025 City Council: August 6, 2025 Recommended Action Recommend approval of a Conditional Use Permit for a veterinary service at 610 Ottawa Avenue North based on the findings in the staff report. Supporting Documents Staff Report Applicant Cover Letter Aqua Bridge Plans 26 Date: July 14, 2025 To: Golden Valley Planning Commission From: Steven Okey, Associate Planner Subject: Conditional Use Permit for an Aquamation, water-based pet cremation facility at 610 Ottawa Avenue North Subject Property Location: 610 Ottawa Avenue North Parcel ID Number: 1902924240008 Applicant/Property Owner: Aqua Bridge / Jennifer Ryan and Jill Goldstein (founders) Site Size: 0.41 acres, 18,001 square feet Future Land Use: Light Industrial Zoning District: LI-Light Industrial Existing Use: Office Building Adjacent Properties: Auto Sales (Tesla) to the north, office and light industrial on all other sides. Background Aquamation, also known as water-based cremation, uses a combination of gentle water flow, temperature, pressure, and alkalinity to facilitate the natural process of breaking down a pet’s remains. Aquamation is a sustainable, gentle, and affordable alternative to traditional cremation . Aquamation is a new business that had not been proposed in Golden Valley and staff determined it falls under the Animal hospitals, veterinary clinics, and/or pet grooming facilities use as a part of end-of-life care for pets. This use requires a CUP in the Light Industrial zoning district. v 27 Site Image 2018 aerial photo (Golden Valley GIS Map) 610 Ottawa Ave N 28 Planning Analysis The applicant seeks approval for a CUP on the property in order to operate an Aquamation water- based cremation facility. In reviewing this application, staff has examined the request in accordance with the standards outlined in Section 113-30 of the City Code, which provides the criteria for granting a CUP in accordance with Minnesota State Statute Section 462.357. The burden of proof rests with the applicant to demonstrate that the request aligns with the general purposes and intent of this chapter and is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. A Conditional Use Permit (CUP) must be reviewed against the following standards: 1. Demonstrated need for the proposed use. Aqua Bridge will provide an essential service to the community through end-of-life care for pets. 2. Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan of the City. Animal hospitals, veterinary clinics, and/or pet grooming facilities is an appropriate use for the Light Industrial land use category. Animal hospitals, veterinary clinics, and/or pet grooming facilities are allowed in the Light Industrial (LI) zoning district with a CUP. 3. Effect upon property values in the neighboring area. The proposal will utilize an existing office building with no changes to the exterior of the building or the site. Staff does not anticipate any impact on property values in the vicinity. 4. Effect of any anticipated traffic generation upon the current traffic flow and congestion in the area. The proposed facility will be using an existing office building and will not significantly change traffic patterns or congestion in the area. 5. Effect of any increases in population and density upon surrounding land uses. The population and density in this area will not increase due to the proposal. 6. Compliance with the City's Mixed-Income Housing Policy (if applicable to the proposed use). Not applicable to this project. 7. Increase in noise levels to be caused by the proposed use. The operation of the facility will take place entirely indoors in an existing building. The system is under 75 decibels during operation. The proposed change will not lead to a marked increase in noise levels. 8. Any odors, dust, smoke, gas, or vibration to be caused by the proposed use. There will not be any dust, smoke, gas, or vibration caused by the propos ed change. The resulting odors from the process are minimal and will be vented out from the Aquamation machine through the roof and should not affect surrounding commercial properties. 9. Any increase in pests, including flies, rats, or other animals or vermin in the area to be caused by the proposed use. The proposed change will not attract pests. 10. Visual appearance of any proposed structure or use. The applicant is not proposing any exterior changes to the building or site other than signage. 11. Any other effect upon the general public health, safety, and welfare of the City and its residents. Staff reviewed the available parking on the site to ensure parking requirements for the new facility would be met. The facility requires 20 spaces. The site contains 19 exterior parking spaces and two parking space in the garage for a total of 21 spaces; there is sufficient parking. The business will be hosting memorial gatherings that will be limited 29 to 25 guests to align with the parking lot size. The proposed Aquamation facility will have very low emissions and the wastewater from the process is clean and will not have an effect on the overall public health, safety, and welfare of the city and its residents. Staff finds that the application meets ordinance requirements for a CUP. The Development Review Committee (consisting of staff from all departments) reviewed the plans and provided the applicant with feedback for their building permit plans. Staff researched discharge requirements. It was determined by Minnesota Pollution Control Agency and the Metropolitan Council that no additional permits were required for the discharge resulting from the Aquamation process. The Committee raised no other concerns regarding the CUP application. Public Notification As required by ordinance, a neighborhood notice was published in the local paper of record and mailed to all properties within 500 feet on June 27, 2025. At the time of this staff report, staff has received no comments on the application. Recommendation Staff recommends approval of the conditional use permit amendment, subject to the findings in the staff report and the conditions below: 1. The Aquamation facility and offices will be operated in the area shown on the building plans and site plan on file with the City of Golden Valley. Any changes to proposed operations, including but not limited to: increasing the number of staff or guests, renting unused space to other tenants, or funerals that require off-site parking will be provided to the City prior to any changes in order to determine if a CUP amendment application is necessary. 2. The Aquamation facility receives all other necessary permits from the State and City of Golden Valley before operations begin. 3. Any failure to comply with one or more of the conditions of approval shall be grounds for revocation of the Conditional Use Permit. Next Steps City Council will tentatively take action on the application on August 6, 2025. Staff Contact Information Prepared by: Steven Okey Associate Planner sokey@goldenvalleymn.gov Reviewed by: Chloe McGuire, AICP Deputy Community Development Director cmcguire@goldenvalleymn.gov 30 www.aquabridgeus.com June 11, 2025 Steven Okey Associate Planner City of Golden Valley 7800 Golden Valley Road Golden Valley, MN 55427 Via email: sokey@goldenvalleymn.gov Dear Steven, I am pleased to submit this Application for a Conditional Use Permit for the property located at 610 Ottawa Avenue North, Golden Valley, MN 55422. As discussed during our meeting on May 30, we are looking forward to providing Aquamation services as part of the end-of-life process for pets. Aquamation – alkaline hydrolysis – uses a combination of gentle water flow, temperature, pressure, and alkalinity to facilitate the natural process of breaking down a pet’s remains. Aquamation is an environmentally sustainable, gentle, and aXordable alternative to flame-based cremation. Our business will be called Aqua Bridge – please feel free to explore our new website for more information about our approach. I have also attached our full business plan for your consideration. (Attachment A) About Aquamation The Aquamation process involves mixing a solution of 95% water and 5% Potassium Hydroxide (KOH), heating the water to 208 degrees Fahrenheit, and running the machine for approximately 18-20 hours. Each Aquamation cycle requires an average of 100 gallons of water and we expect to run 4-5 cycles per week once we are fully up and running. The Aquamation process produces a completely sterile eXluent of amino acids, sugars, nutrients, salts, and soap in a water solution. These are the byproducts of natural decomposition. The PH level of the eXluent can be further adjusted by introducing CO2 before it is discharged into the sewer system. Alternatively, the water solution can be captured and used as an eXective fertilizer. 31 www.aquabridgeus.com B. Project Overview As discussed, preparing the building at 610 Ottawa Avenue North for Aquamation does not require any significant structural or external modifications. We will be using the back Garage Bay area for the Aquamation process and the rest of the building will remain as is – configured as oXices with a front lobby. The equipment required for Aquamation includes: • Bio Response Solutions Pet -550 Aquamation machine • Potassium Hydroxide (KOH) flakes (55-pound bags) – Average use per cycle = 11 pounds) • Proofing Cabinet for drying remains • BB3 Cremator Processor with Ventless Upgrade • CO2 tanks to adjust the Ph levels of the water before returning to the sewer system • Safety Shower, Eye Wash and Utility sink The contract work being completed on the building includes (Attachment B): • Garage Bay area cleaning, painting • Concrete and drainage repair work in and around Garage Bay • Epoxy floor refinish in Garage Bay • Electrical wiring from dedicated breaker box to Garage Bay • Plumbing improvements to accommodate increased water usage and discharge • Venting through roof for PET-550 Chemical Storage and Fire Safety The Garage Bay includes two fire safe storage closets with metal shelving where the 50- pound bags of Potassium Hydroxide can be safely stored. The average Aquamation cycle requires 11 pounds of KOH, so we will plan to store no more than 20 bags (1000 pounds) of KOH in the closets at any time. The Aquamation machine runs on electric power and comes with a built-in remote shut oX and alarm system in the event of a power outage or an accidental water spill. The water heaters and garage heater are natural gas powered. The garage does not have air conditioning but we are having an industrial ceiling fan installed and will leverage other portable fans for circulation and odor control. There are no other public buildings in the immediate vicinity of the Garage Bay and we do not anticipate any problems with odor or fumes that will aXect our commercial neighbors. The entire building is “sprinkled” – completed as part of a major renovation in 2018. There are exits to the outside on both ends of the building’s main floor, with up and down stairways adjacent to the area. The Garage Bay has an automatic garage door and a 32 www.aquabridgeus.com standard deadbolt locking door that can be accessed in the event of an emergency or power outage. The building also has doors separating the oXice area from the back stairwells that can be used as a safer exit in the event of a fire in the front part of the building. Hours of Operation and Sta9ing We plan to have our business hours Monday – Friday from 9 a.m. – 6 p.m. We will generally operate by Appointment but will try to be flexible to accommodate special situations and evenings/weekends as needed. To the extent that families want to host celebrations of life or memorial gatherings at our facility, we will make our space available from 10 a.m. until 9 p.m. in two-hour increments. We will limit the number of guests to 25 to align with our parking lot size (19 spaces). The primary staX for Aqua Bridge in our first year will be co-owners Jennifer Ryan and Jill Goldstein. We anticipate hiring 1-2 part time employees to assist in running the Aquamation process, as well as 1-2 individuals to serve as Drivers for pick up and drop of oX pets’ remains. Finally, we will be contracting with a part-time bookkeeper to assist with accounting. In total, we anticipate a total of 4 full-time equivalents (FTEs) in our first year. C. Complete Legal Description of Property The legal description of the property at 610 Ottawa Avenue North is provided below: D. Location Map See Attachment C 33 www.aquabridgeus.com E. Quantitative Summary chart Element Response for 610 Ottawa Avenue North Total Acreage/Sq footage of land area 18,000 square feet or .41322 acres Proposed use of structure Professional services/animal care Zoning district Light Industrial Lot coverage area/paved Some grassy area surrounding the south and east side of the building and paved parking lot Buliding area Gross sq ft and height Building footprint 2,713 square feet; 25.3 feet tall Number of stories and FAR 2 stories Total parking counts 22 spaces 4. Survey Drawing and 5. Existing Conditions Survey See Attachment D 6. General Site Layout Drawing See Attachment E 7. Elevation Drawings See Attachment F 8. Tree and Landscaping Plan No changes/Not Applicable 9. Grading Plan No changes/Not Applicable 10. Parking and Loading Plan No Changes 11. Lighting Plan No changes/Not Applicable 34 www.aquabridgeus.com 12. Master Sign Plan Not Applicable 13. Specialty Reports or Permits Not Applicable 14. Abstract of Title or Registered Property Abstract See Attachment H 15. Privacy Notice See Attachment I Additional Documents for Review Finally, I have included the documents provided by the company that manufactures the Aquamation equipment for your review. Thank you in advance for your consideration. We are looking forward to joining the Golden Valley small business community! Please do not hesitate to contact me directly by phone/text at 443-537-5443 if additional information is needed. Sincerely, Jennifer Ryan and Jill Goldstein Founders and Co-Owners Aqua Bridge www.aquabridgeus.com PR Pet Ventures, LLC (d.b.a. Aqua Bridge) is proud to be a woman-owned small business. 35 36 37