Loading...
2025-10-13 MIN PC Regular MeetingCITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Monday, October 13, 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 6:31 p.m. and read the Land Acknowledgement • Regular Members Present: Amy Barnstorff, Gary Cohen, Mike Ruby, Chuck Segelbaum, Martin Sicotte, David Hill, Eric Van Oss • Regular Members Absent: None • Student Member, Status: None • Staff Members Present: Jacquelyn Kramer, Senior Planner Steven Okey, Associate Planner Chloe McGuire, Deputy Community Development Director • Council Member Present: None 2. CONSENT AGENDA: 2.A. Approval of agenda 2.B. Approval of September 8, 2025, meeting minutes • Ruby asked for a motion to approve • Cohen moved. • Barnstorff seconded. • All voted in favor, and the motion passed. 3. PUBLIC HEARINGS: 3.A. Administrative Zoning Permit Code Amendment • Kramer gave an overview of zoning text amendments and then presented the Administrative Zoning Permit Code Amendment. • Ruby asked if there were questions for the Staff. • Segelbaum asked to contrast this with a building permit. • Kramer noted that a building permit is done through the Inspections Division, and the building code gives the codes for construction detail, which is governed by State and International building codes, and City Inspectors do this for life and safety, along with the Fire Department as well. She stated that a zoning permit looks at structures that are too small or do not need a building permit, such as a fence or doghouse, but there are zoning rules that need to be enforced still through the administrative process. She added that the forms needed are simple to fill out, a fee is then paid, and the planning staff reviews them to ensure they follow the rules. • Ruby asked if the process that is shown is the current process and if the City is staffed appropriately to handle the new process. • Kramer stated that the draft ordinance is the current process; the Staff needs to update it because there was no process in place before, so it is being created by the current Staff. • McGuire noted the change was in restricted use. • Kramer stated that in future code amendments, they will be updating the Conditional Use Permit, CUP, requirements, so some uses will move from needing a CUP to just being restricted or conditional use. She added that there are conditions in the code, but if you meet the conditions, then you are approved. She noted that the Administrative Zoning Permit will be used for the above uses and confirmed that people are aware of the requirements and have acknowledged that they agree to something allowed by code. • Cohen asked if what is being proposed codifies what is going on today. • Kramer agreed that this amendment is codifying what the Staff is doing. CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Monday, October 13, 2025 – 6:30 p.m. | City Hall Council Chamber 7800 Golden Valley Road Golden Valley, MN 55427 • Segelbaum asked about the 60-day turnaround and if it is common in other jurisdictions. • Kramer stated that it is common, but that most zoning permits will be processed a lot faster than that, and it brings consistency to all applications. She gave an example that the 60-day rules are required for land use applications, so it would help to show people that applications would be reviewed promptly. • Ruby opened up the public hearing and noted there wasn’t anyone from the public in attendance. He closed the public hearing and opened the item for discussion. • Van Oss stated that he is all for it. • Barnstorff agreed that there are no issues. • Segelbaum noted that if the amendment could state that the application would be handled in fewer than 60 days, because some owners may not want to wait that long, it could cause the homeowner to just do it without the permit. • Van Oss asked if the 60 days timeframe needs to be changed. • Segelbaum explained that the amendment could retain the 60 days in place, and that the City will make its best effort to try and accommodate applicants faster. • Kramer noted that a clause could easily be added to note that 60 days would be the max, but it could be done much sooner. She added that if it were taking 60 days, the City would be very understaffed. • Van Oss asked about the legal side of the 60 days and if it needed to be in there to show that something would have to get done within that time period. • Kramer stated that because it is a self-imposed 60-day rule, it is not the same 60 days that go along with the public hearings, the extension, and such. • Ruby asked if an amendment was needed to vote on this change to add wording about the 60 days. • Kramer stated that it was not needed because the code is not being approved, but she was going to email Commissioner Segelbaum for the language to use. • Ruby asked for a motion. • Van Oss moved to recommend approval of the zoning text amendment to add to section 113- 35. • Hill seconded the motion. • All voted in favor, and the motion passed. 3.B. Temporary Use Permit Zoning Code Amendment. • Kramer presented the Temporary Use Permit Zoning Code Amendment. • Ruby asked if there were any questions for the Staff. • Barnstorff asked if the mobile food vending is food trucks. • Kramer stated that it is mostly food trucks, and there are other kinds, but in Brooklyn Center is just food trucks. • Barnstorff asked if food trucks are still being allowed. • McGuire stated that it is still allowed, but when they come in for permits, then they don’t really need to be licensed as well. • Kramer stated that they had to apply for multiple permits for the same truck, and there was no value added to the zoning temporary use permit in that case. • Okey noted that the Fire Department has a desire to do fire inspections on the food trucks, which they are willing to take on, so yearly, a fire inspection will be done, which will allow the food trucks to operate within the City. He added that if the food truck is on City property, then they need to get a rider on their insurance to cover them. • Segelbaum noted that he submitted some words that do not have to do with policy, but he thinks the changes look good. CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Monday, October 13, 2025 – 6:30 p.m. | City Hall Council Chamber 7800 Golden Valley Road Golden Valley, MN 55427 • Hill asked about the outdoor portion and the insurance that goes along with that, if it is part of this process. • Kramer clarified that the question was when the City would require more insurance. • Hill stated that it was correct. • Kramer noted that if the food truck is on City property, then additional insurance is required; otherwise, the City is staying out of the licensing and registering portion of the food trucks. • Ruby asked about the code that is being removed in terms of the food trucks. • Kramer noted that it removes it from the zoning code, but is now being moved to registering and licensing, mostly through the fire department, so there is still oversight on it. • McGuire added that there is still a special event permit that is needed. • Ruby stated that the rules for the when and where are separate from this code. • Van Oss noted that food trucks are also regulated through the State Department of Health for operations. • Kramer added that the special events permit is not through zoning, but it has been updated to cover pop-up events. • McGuire clarified that the Fire Department doesn’t have to inspect the food trucks under the fire code, so they could decide they don’t want to do a local inspection, and it would not come through the Commission. • Kramer noted that all food trucks will still have to have County Health licenses. • Barnstorff asked if food trucks are allowed to operate in any zoning district. • Kramer stated that they can operate anywhere, but they must have permission from the property owner. • Okey added that it will be on the website to let food truck vendors know the rules and what they need to go to the City for. • Ruby opened up the public hearing and noted there wasn’t anyone from the public in attendance. He closed the public hearing and opened the item for discussion. • Segelbaum stated that he provided his comments in writing that were not policy-related, and that it looks very good. • Cohen noted that it is helping to streamline the process to make it easier for people to do business. • Ruby asked for a motion. • Barnstorff moved to recommend approval of the zoning text amendment to update section 113-31. • Van Oss seconded the motion. • All voted in favor, and the motion passed. 4. NEW BUSINESS: -None 5. STAFF UPDATES: • Kramer shared an updated schedule for the BZA rotation and the upcoming Planning Commission meetings. • Van Oss stated that he would not be at the November 10 meeting. • Barnstorff asked about the December 22 meeting being cancelled. • Kramer noted that she was going to try to push it to January, but it would depend on whether there are any applications or not. • Ruby explained that the goal is to spread things out so that the meetings are not super long. • Van Oss asked when a Request for Proposals, RFP, would go out and the comprehensive plan update would begin. CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Monday, October 13, 2025 – 6:30 p.m. | City Hall Council Chamber 7800 Golden Valley Road Golden Valley, MN 55427 • McGuire stated that the RFP would be released in early 2026 to hire a consultant, but the Staff is determining what would be most helpful to hire out for. • Van Oss asked if part was being hired and part was being done in-house. • McGuire noted that it was correct, and she sent information in an email that day. • Ruby asked if there were questions about the email when would be a good time to ask. • McGuire stated that now would be a good time. • Ruby asked about the housing element of affordable housing, and it seems like a very high number, given the state of the housing and the space there is in the City. He added that if there were negotiations, that could be done. • McGuire explained that they can go back to them and ask for certain things. She added that the affordable housing number is aggressive and seems high; it ensures that there is land guided for affordable housing or high-density housing. She noted that she does not believe that the number will be reduced, but that it will not be difficult to guide land appropriately to meet it without a lot of trouble. • Van Oss noted that the City is not penalized if the development does not occur, just as long as the land is guided. He stated that it just has to be shown that the City can accommodate it. • Barnstorff asked that the allocation just means guided, not that the City gives land to them. • Kramer stated that it is correct, it is just a future land use map, which when then lead to an updated zoning map afterwards. • McGuire noted that market-rate apartments can sometimes go towards your affordable housing allocation because apartments are typically more affordable. • Van Oss asked about numbers for naturally occurring affordable housing. • McGuire stated that she does not know the numbers right now. • Ruby noted that it seems more doable with that information and that it would need to be done by 2050. • McGuire explained that they would bring some updates on the 2040 plan, and look at those goals and see what can be brought into the 2050 plan as well. • McGuire noted that there is a work session with the City Council where they will go through some strategies to be a supportive redevelopment partner, which will bring some things before the Planning Commission to implement. She added they will bring it before the Council to get rid of the BZA and make it part of the Planning Commission, and then to also give the Planning Commission some more scope, with the Planning Commission being the final decider on CUPs. • Van Oss asked if it would be a site plan review with no deviations. • McGuire stated that it was correct. She added they would also like to give the Planning Commission final plats. • Ruby asked about the expectation on time with what was going to BZA and what is already at the Planning Commission, and if it could be covered. • McGuire noted that the Staff thinks it can be covered, but many of the BZA meetings have been cancelled. She added that they are also trying to reduce the number of variance requests by making the code better at handling them. She noted that variances can also be on the consent agenda because there is no public hearing requirement. • Kramer stated that with the CUP update, this will also remove many of the CUPs because they will not be required to go before the Commission. • Sicotte asked about some of the items that were considered in the past that felt more administrative, and if any of those were considered to not have to come before the Commission. • McGuire noted that the code has been drafted for some, and is now in legal review. She added that many things are hard to say no to from the Commission standpoint, and the Staff is CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Monday, October 13, 2025 – 6:30 p.m. | City Hall Council Chamber 7800 Golden Valley Road Golden Valley, MN 55427 working to not bring things like that before the Commission anymore. • McGuire explained that if variances do come to the Planning Commission, the Staff is requesting that there be a minor variance process, where if there is any deviation under 25 percent, it can be approved at an administrative level if they feel it meets the variance threshold. • Ruby noted that an example would be 13 feet, and if the applicant is within 25 percent of that, then the Staff can handle that administratively. • McGuire noted that if the Staff does not think it meets the statutory requirements, then it would still come before the Commission. • Ruby asked about the notification of the neighborhood, and if it would still apply. • Kramer explained that for variances, only adjacent neighbors need to be notified, and that would still apply. • Van Oss asked if the applicant is required to do their own outreach. • Kramer noted that there is still the neighborhood notification policy, which requires an additional letter from the applicant for certain applications. • Van Oss asked if that could be done away with for residential neighborhoods. • McGuire stated that they are hoping to codify it and do away with the policy because it is difficult to find and know when it needs to be done. • Ruby noted that he likes the idea of the minor variances; however, he was curious as to why not just change the code then to change the setbacks. • McGuire noted that it is a fair question and could be looked at. • Ruby stated that with the City trying to increase density, it might be a way to do so. • Cohen asked about a 6:00 p.m. start time for the October 27 meeting. • Kramer noted that the things that are planned for the meeting may take a little longer, so she suggested starting earlier. She stated that there would be a quorum with the four who can attend at that time, so they would start early. 6. COMMISSIONER UPDATES: -None 7. ADJOURNMENT: Chair Ruby adjourned the meeting at 7:08 p.m.