Loading...
2025-10-27 MIN PC Regular and Joint PC-EC MeetingCITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Monday, October 27, 2025 – 6:00 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 6:01 p.m. and read the Land Acknowledgement • Regular Members Present: Gary Cohen, Mike Ruby, Martin Sicotte, David Hill, Chuck Segelbaum • Regular Members Absent: Eric Van Oss, Amy Barnstorff • Student Member, Status: Remy Rosenberg • Staff Members Present: Jacquelyn Kramer, Senior Planner Chloe McGuire, Deputy Community Development Director • Council Member Present: Sophia Ginis 2. CONSENT AGENDA: 2.A. Approval of agenda 2.B. Approval of October 13, 2025, meeting minutes • Ruby asked for a motion to approve • Cohen moved. • Sicotte seconded • All voted in favor, and the motion passed. 3. OATH OF OFFICE FOR YOUTH COMMISSIONER 4. PUBLIC HEARINGS: 4.A. Ordinance Amending Section 113-27 Board of Zoning Appeals and Section 113-32 Variances. • Ruby introduced the upcoming items in the meeting and asked that everyone give opinions on the items. • Kramer presented the ordinance and noted that all zoning text amendments have a high level of discretion when it comes to approving changes to the City Code. She noted that the Staff is recommending approval of the ordinance amending Section 113-27 and Section 113-32. • Sicotte asked if the City defines anywhere in the Code whether days mean business days or just calendar days. • Kramer explained that the 60-day rule, which the State Statute, is calendar days. She added that generally in the City Code, it is calendar days, with the only exception being the time the Staff has to render an application as complete, and that is specifically called out as 15 business days. • Sicotte asked if the term days is defined in the zoning code somewhere else that would make it clear to an applicant. • Kramer mentioned that the Staff can check. She asked if there is a preference from the Commission for business versus calendar days. • Ruby stated that if the City is held to 60 calendar days, then what is preferred for the Staff. He noted that it should probably be consistent with calendar days. • Sicotte agreed that it should be calendar days. • Kramer clarified it would be 10 calendar days. • Ruby opened up the public hearing and noted that no one wished to address the Commission. He closed the public hearing and opened it for the Commission discussion and deliberation. • Cohen pointed out that this change is in line with other changes that the Planning Commission CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Monday, October 27, 2025 – 6:00 p.m. | City Hall Council Chamber 7800 Golden Valley Road Golden Valley, MN 55427 has made, which streamline, clarify, and make it easier to do business in Golden Valley. He added that he is supportive of this ordinance amendment. • Segelbaum stated that the language is very clear and tightens things up. He noted that the substantive changes were not that great, but made it easier to understand. He asked about the changes to the light and air, but pointed out that it was reasonable to put them in there. • Kramer explained that the variance finding criteria for light comes from the State Statute, so it was just to clarify what the State Statute requires, no change, just a rewording. • Segelbaum asked if it is separate from the practical difficulties test. • Kramer noted that it is one of the subsections of the practical difficulties test. • Ruby asked if the specific statute was called out in the Code. • Kramer pointed out that it is in the draft ordinance, because the whole variant section is new with all new language. • Segelbaum stated that the ordinance amendment made good sense and that the Staff and Legal did a nice job of putting it together. • Ruby agreed with the rest of the Commission. He then asked for a motion. • Cohen moved to recommend approval of the ordinance amending Code Section 113-27 Board of Zoning Appeals and Section 113-32 Variances, subject to the findings and conditions in the Staff report. • Hill seconded the motion. • All voted in favor, and the motion passed. 4.B. Ordinance Amending Chapter 109 Subdivisions • Kramer presented the ordinance amending Chapter 109, Subdivisions. She added that the Staff is recommending approval. • Ruby pointed out that this assumed administratively that things would get approved. He then asked whether items not approved administratively would proceed through the full review process or if they would instead be outright rejected. He clarified to if people would just come through the major process then. • Kramer explained that things could be rejected because they are not meeting the plat requirements, and so the applicant would need to resubmit, or it could come before the Commission, but the Staff would recommend denial. She added that if an applicant wanted to do a subdivision, but they needed a variance for some reason, it would not be able to be done administratively. She shared that the last two or three applications for subdivision that the Planning Commission has seen would be administrative under the new process. • Hill asked why the number of days is doubling from 60 days to 120 days. • Kramer shared that it is difficult to go from getting the City Council’s approval to printing out the special material, Mylar, for the actual final plats. She added that applicants also have to send things to the County, and the County has to approve, which can take a while. She noted that the coordination with the applicant to do all the necessary steps has been really difficult to get done in the 60-day window. • Ruby asked that it be 120 calendar days just to make the wording consistent throughout. • Cohen asked whether, if this language had been in place a few months ago, one of the applications in the North Tyrol Hills would have been approved administratively. • Kramer confirmed that it would have been administrative. • Segelbaum noted that with the existing process, neighbors are given notice before approval, but with this new process, neighbors would not be notified unless the application is approved. He asked if there was any sort of requirement to notify neighbors ahead of time. • Kramer stated that the City is not required to give notice for administrative decisions. She added that it does present a false opportunity or false hope that something can be done. She CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Monday, October 27, 2025 – 6:00 p.m. | City Hall Council Chamber 7800 Golden Valley Road Golden Valley, MN 55427 explained that it is appropriate to give notice after because there would be construction. • Ruby opened up the public hearing. • Ruth Paradise, 8515 Duluth Street, asked about the wording, which states the entire front of each lot shall abut on a street right-of-way and there shall be vehicular access, etc. She noted that her question concerns narrow lots where the front door may not face the street and sought clarification on how the front of the lot is defined in such cases. She asked if it was just the part of the lot that is adjacent to the street. • Kramer clarified that the rule is not changing with this ordinance. She explained that to determine the front yard, the City takes the shortest street frontage, regardless of the size. She furthered that right now, with the way the Code is written, it does not really matter where the front door is located, but the Staff is talking about changing that, particularly for corner lots. • Ruby closed the public hearing and opened the item for discussion. • Segelbaum noted that the changes in the ordinance make sense, and it is appropriate to remove the pubic notice as it gives people a false sense of hope when the applications come forward, and there is no opportunity to impact the situation. • Ruby agreed with removing the public notice. He asked if the application gets approved, where is it publicized?. • Kramer stated that there would be a letter sent to neighbors, similar to a public hearing notice. • Ruby asked if it was the neighbors within 500 feet. • Kramer indicated that the language states 250 feet. • Ruby asked if there were any other questions or comments on the ordinance. He then asked for a motion. • Sicotte moved to recommend approval of the ordinance amending Code Chapter 109 - Subdivisions, subject to the findings and conditions in the Staff report. • Cohen seconded the motion. • All voted in favor, and the motion passed. 4.C. Ordinance Amending Section 113-1 Definitions, 113-30 Conditional Uses, and Section 113- 87 Summary Use Tables • Kramer presented on the Ordinance amending parts of the current code. She noted that the Staff is recommending approval. • Ruby commented that, in looking at the tables all day to make sure that within the tables, what X and C stand for is present, as it is constant throughout the code. • Kramer stated that because of the online system, it is not very user-friendly, but noted agreement to having it present. • Ruby asked about the changes to the pet store, and even with the City Council's support, does a change like that require a vote from the City Council, because it seems like a very defining decision from the City to make without a vote from it at the Council level. • Kramer explained that the Ordinance will go to the Council, so they can choose to pull the section out to talk about it specifically or just leave it. She added that there are not currently any types of these pet stores in the City, so it is preempting future businesses rather than prohibiting what is currently happening. • Ruby noted that it feels like it should go to the City Council first and then come to the Planning Commission, as it is more policy-driven. • Kramer explained that it could go either way, with a clear policy direction or recommendation coming up from the ground, particularly because it was brought up by a resident. • Hill asked if a financial institution drive-thru is different than restaurant drive-thrus. CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Monday, October 27, 2025 – 6:00 p.m. | City Hall Council Chamber 7800 Golden Valley Road Golden Valley, MN 55427 • Kramer shared that for some reason, the code called out financial institutions with drive-thrus, which are drive-thru banks and ATMs, and then had drive-thru restaurants separately. She explained that in this change, the Staff is proposing to stop allowing drive-thru banks in the mixed-use zoning district. She added that the mixed-use district is for transit-ready development, to promote walkability, pedestrian scale, and drive-thrus of any use are not really appropriate in those areas. She noted that drive-thrus are allowed in other districts, and a buffer was added that the drive-thru lane has to be 500 feet away from a residential use. • Segelbaum stated that detailing all the various uses is very helpful, but he raised the concern of what would happen if someone proposed a use that is not included in the table. He stated that he presumed the Ordinance requires the Staff to identify the use most closely related to the proposed use within the table, but he raised the concern of what would happen if the applicant disagreed with the determination. • Kramer noted that there is a provision for it in the Board of Zoning Appeals section. She explained that the Board of Zoning Appeals has two functions: one is to hear variance applications, and the other is to appeal administrative decisions made by staff. • Cohen shared that the City is not trying to preclude a pet store that can sell pet supplies; rather, the City is trying to preclude puppy mill-type selling of dogs and cats. • Kramer furthered that at the top of the Commercial Use Summary Table, there is general retail, which is everything else that is not specified, such as a pet supply store. • Segelbaum asked about places in the Code where the City is making things more restrictive, such as in Table 87-1 Residential Land Uses, Multi-family housing and dwellings up to 20 units per acre, as it was 12 units per acre being permitted, but now that is restricted. He asked why that is and if there are other places where things are more restrictive. • Kramer explained that for the multi-family housing section, in the 2040 Comprehensive Plan, the land use guidance for each residential section, low, medium, and high, has a really specific number for density. She added that the edits in that section are an attempt to align the zoning districts with the Comprehensive Plan land use guidance. She noted that in general, the Staff thinks it is appropriate for an apartment building to go through some sort of zoning review, not necessarily a public hearing, so that things do not get missed. She noted again the drive-thrus in the mixed-use zoning district, but in general, the Staff went through the Code and tried to find uses that did not need a public hearing. • Segelbaum stated that on the flip, some uses go from C, which is a conditional use, all the way to P, which is a permit, which is a two-layer relaxation. He added that one that jumped out to him was the Retail Sales class, one and two restaurants, and professional offices. He asked for clarification on that section of the code. • Kramer explained that there has not been an application for this, and the language predates all Planning Staff, but the Staff believes it is for larger multi-family developments to allow a little bit of commercial use on the ground floor, with certain conditions that are found in the table as well. • Segelbaum asked if any others go from needing a Conditional Use Permit, CUP, to permitted. • Kramer noted that the Staff did propose changing Brew Pubs from CUPs to permitted to match restaurants, because Brew Pubs in the code are defined as restaurants that make a little beer. • Segelbaum asked whether, given the sale of alcohol, any other parts of the code would protect against the sale of alcohol in specific locations. • Kramer noted that it is all handled through the liquor license process, which is handled in a different section of the Code. • Ruby opened up the public hearing. • Ruth Paradise, 8515 Duluth Street, addressed the items in Table 87-1, looking at the land CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Monday, October 27, 2025 – 6:00 p.m. | City Hall Council Chamber 7800 Golden Valley Road Golden Valley, MN 55427 allocation in the zoning map, there is not much land set aside for zone R2, two-family dwellings. She argued that two-family dwellings are not moderate in density, but rather still should be considered low-density. She added that either they should be allowed in single- family areas, or they have to have more land, because right now the R2 zones could never have a duplex or a row house. She noted that in the table, it only permits single-family homes in the majority of the land in the area set aside for residential dwellings. She stated that in order for the City to accomplish its goals in economic development, as put forth in the Comprehensive Plan, allowing more density in housing, plus a wider representation of age and income groups, is an essential component of the effort for economic development in the City. She continued that the initiative of missing middle-income housing needs to be included in strategic planning in order to accomplish the City’s broader goals, and so staying with what the City has is not going to do that in the end. She added that the land set aside for residential use has to be redefined and conceptualized, that an increase in density is distributed throughout the total available residential land area, which can be done in a controlled way, with many examples of this being done without sacrificing safety or ease of traffic flow. She noted that studies have shown that the type of more creative zoning structure leads to healthier and stronger communities. She stated that if the proposal being put forward is temporary and being put forward to make current policy more workable, she would suggest that it be changed now to allow for two-unit families dwelling in R1 zones as a first step, and possibly also allow not more than two row houses. She stated that in moving forward, the City could be shooting itself in the foot, as more density is required for future economic development. She referenced Table 87-4, which included units within the mixed-use building and multi- family dwellings, three or more units. She explained these are designated for MNN and MNC areas, neighborhood mixed-use and community mixed-use, but she could not find where those categories are located in relation to R1, R2, etc. She asked if they are neighbors, mixed- use, and what neighborhood they are in. She noted that it would be great if it were allowed in all residential zones. She added that some type of definition would be helpful for the layperson's benefit. She stated that in studies about middle-income housing that include dwellings up to ten units should be part of the middle-income planning goals, and Table 87-1, there had been a line for multi-dwellings with a density of 17, which could be replaced with a new category of multi-family dwellings up to ten units. • Teresa Beldon, 2937 Orchard Avenue North, asked if in Table 87-2, Economic and Business Land Uses, states accessory retail services, and/or sales incidental to a permitted use, conducted in an area less than ten percent of the building’s gross floor area, building greater than three stories in height or building greater than four stories in height, are allowed to be in residential zones, multi-use buildings. • Kramer explained that the changes that are being talked about are beyond the scope of this ordinance, and none of those changes will be made here. She added that there is a work session taking place next door, where the Commission will be talking about missing middle housing, and the residents are invited to attend. She noted that the changes being described could be in another Ordinance next year, when the City takes a look at residential uses. • Ruby closed the public hearing and opened the item for discussion. • Hill followed up on the comments from the residents; it does not mean the Commission is agreeing or disagreeing with the comments. He added that based on what the Commission is recommending tonight and future discussion, it could be looked at in the future. • Kramer explained that when the Planning Commission has a draft Ordinance in front of them, the Commission can only make a recommendation on what is presented before the Commission. She added that it would be a separate topic, but it is something that the Staff is thinking about in the Comprehensive Plan update for next year, as housing is a high priority for the City Council. CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Monday, October 27, 2025 – 6:00 p.m. | City Hall Council Chamber 7800 Golden Valley Road Golden Valley, MN 55427 • Segelbaum commented that there have been comments that have been heard by the Commission coming from the Council, that the Council would like to make the City a little more business-friendly. He noted that most, if not all, of it is to relax the administrative requirements and burdens that businesses have. He noted that there did not seem to be any places where the City went too far in relaxing what was permitted. He voiced his concern about a lot of changes at once, but it can be looked at in the future again if needed. He noted his agreement with it. • Ruby stated his agreement with it, as the language with it makes sense, it is clear, and it moves the City in the right direction of what has been talked about. • Ruby asked for a motion. • Cohen moved to recommend approval of the Ordinance amending Code Section 113-1 Definitions, Section 113-30 Conditional Uses, and Section 113-87 Summary Use Tables, subject to the findings and conditions in the Staff report. • Sicotte seconded the motion. • All voted in favor, and the motion passed. 5. STAFF AND COMMISSIONER UPDATES: -None 6. ADJOURNMENT: Chair Ruby adjourned the meeting at 6:45 p.m. CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Monday, October 27, 2025 – 6:00 p.m. | City Hall Council Chamber 7800 Golden Valley Road Golden Valley, MN 55427 7. CALL TO ORDER OF JOINT WORK SESSION: ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION AND PLANNING COMMISSION 7.A. Missing Middle Housing Study • Mike Thompson and Jenni Faulkner with Bolton and Menk gave an update on where the City is in the process, and discussed how a city might balance housing density with sustainability and environmental awareness. • Mike Thompson described what Missing Middle Housing is and why the City is doing what they are with the study. • Mike Thompson shared that there are different ways to achieve the same housing outcome with different environmental impacts. He noted an example of apartments, townhomes, and single- family homes in a nearby mixed neighborhood housing development, which provided the sense of what is able to be done in terms of scale. • Chair Ruby asked if this sort of housing was what the Minneapolis 2040 plan was targeting. Mike Thompson noted was correct that there could be single-family but also up to three units in the same place. • Mike Thompson shared that at times it seems as if there is more density, there is less green space, but he offered a South Minneapolis example of the Missing Middle Housing being integrated to include both. • Jenni Faulkner noted the benefits that come along with more dense housing: sprawl, GHG, resource consumption, development efficiency, quality of place • Chair Ruby asked about the comment on density, bringing in things, and how the age of the community impacts where people are going, with Maple Grove being his example. Mike Thompson noted that Maple Grove does have density and undeveloped land that is easier and cheaper to build on, which is part of the reason businesses are going there. • Jenni Faulkner outlined the City tools that Golden Valley has. • Mike Thompson shared strategies to connect density allowances with environmental benefits, such as the City will allow encroachment to a setback if there are mature trees or solar panels. • Commissioner Hill asked about stacking and whether the cost associated with that is better. Mike Thompson noted that having an Accessory Dwelling Unit, ADU, can be of great benefit to the single-family unit. It was pointed out that there is not a lot of that in Golden Valley, only about two in the recent past. • Commissioner Cohen asked why Golden Valley is going to be able to make Missing Middle Housing work when so many other places have struggled to do so. Mike Thompson stated that he takes that as a good challenge: what could Golden Valley do differently? He noted opening up things in the City, so it is legal to do so. Jenni Faulkner observed that the current Staff is very charged up to make a change, and that could really help. Chair Ruby shared that people need to see what the benefits are now; otherwise, it will never happen. Commissioner Cohen pointed out that the Planning Commission has seen pushback already with the HOPE housing project, and that gives a good reality of where the City is today. • Mayor Harmon noted that to keep Golden Valley unique, she does not want to see a lot of high- density housing, but whatever is done needs to have conditions. She added that with community involvement, many aspects need to be looked at. • Chloe McGuire asked the Environmental Commission if the idea of increasing density but being more thoughtful with the character of the neighborhood feels appropriate from an environmental perspective. Chair Klaas pointed out that the idea of sprawl and how putting in additional housing is going to have an effect on all parts of the community, because there is not a lot of space to put housing in. Mike Thompson noted that this would not be an overnight thing. He added that in attracting some things and not others, there is immense power in the CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Monday, October 27, 2025 – 6:00 p.m. | City Hall Council Chamber 7800 Golden Valley Road Golden Valley, MN 55427 zoning code. • Commissioner Segelbaum asked why this discussion is not more appropriate to have while also talking about the Comprehensive Plan. • Jenni Faulkner noted that this study will help to feed the Comprehensive Plan and the vision, and the time may not be there during that time. • Mike Thompson added that the City is also taking a proactive approach to this may be something that is coming from a State level in the future, so why not start now? • Councilmember Ginis stated Can you do a thing in your community, which hits on the environmental side of things with the use of fossil fuels in transportation. She noted that bringing in some of the things builds a better community. • Commissioner Hill noted the affordable side of things and how tough that is. • The Commissioners and Councilmembers noted what they were excited about. • Chloe McGuire shared that there will be a postcard going out to residents about Missing Middle Housing and asking if there have been burdens in the Code that have prevented residents from doing things in or with their homes. 7.B. Climate Equity Plan • A brief overview of the Climate Equity Plan was given. It is something that needs to be worked on immediately. The broad goals of the program were shared as well. • The five broad topic areas that are still being shaped were shared: Natural Systems and Water, Community Cohesion and Public Health, Energy and the Built Environment, Transportation, and Waste and Materials. • The timeline was shared with things starting in June of 2025, and Spring 2026 being the implementation date. • Initial findings were shared; there were 360 responses so far from the community. The main topic areas are green space as community identity, safety and stability as priorities, intergenerational community concerns, transportation options, and emerging support for proactive climate action. The survey closed on October 31. • The initial climate findings were shared, and there was a broad overview of where different emissions are in Golden Valley. Transportation is the highest category of emissions, with businesses following close behind, and waste at the bottom, as there is no agriculture. • The climate impacts of increased flood risk, prolonged dry spells, public health risks, natural resource degradation, and air quality were shared. • Councilmember Ginis feels that the Planning Commission will be an integral part of the implementation of the Climate Equity Plan. • Chair Ruby noted that it is interesting that the conversation is coming in after the talk of wanting more density, but this is leading to more trees, so how are the two going to fit together? He also brought up talking to the neighboring communities to partner in the plan. • Commissioner Cohen added that more communication by the City is needed with the community about the options that are out there, such as the organics program, which is paid for with tax dollars, but it is not utilized fully. • Councilmember Ginis noted the number of possibilities that are out there and available, just need to be thought about because they can be done, such as the bus garages. She pointed out that more density can lead to better emissions as well. • Commissioner Segelbaum added that there is a way to make even the new developments happen concerning the environment; it just takes creativity. Chair Ruby noted that in challenging developers to be more creative, they have been, with the example of the parking structure. • Mayor Harmon shared that being mindful of the Land that the City is one and using all parts of the City thoughtfully. CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Monday, October 27, 2025 – 6:00 p.m. | City Hall Council Chamber 7800 Golden Valley Road Golden Valley, MN 55427 • The steering committee was discussed, and the members who are on the board were mentioned. • Implementation of the plan was brought up, and how in the past, there have not been the resources or too big an action list, but this time around, there is a lot more going into it. There are objectives and progress towards goals that are being tracked, as with other climate plans. • Chair Ruby noted that if this is something that the City is going to do, then it should already be taking place in the new things that are being done, and not just the minimum, but going above the minimum. It has been noted that the City is doing its very best to not just have a plan but to actually implement the plan. • The question was raised as to how the City makes sure that the plan is not just that, but is being followed through with. The Planning Commission will be an integral part of making sure it is followed through with. It was noted that the City will start implementing things first, and then hopefully that will lead to the private developers following suit as well. 7.C. Staff Updates on Outdoor Lighting Code, Brookview Solar, Staffing, and Recent Events • Outdoor Lighting Code update was given, and there is a lot that would go into it, so if an outside consultant were hired to help, it would be about $60,000. Chloe McGuire shared the process and that it would be slower than initially thought, but the Staff is happy to continue to work on it. She noted that in order to get more lighting, it has to be done in the districts, and neighbors would pool their money and sign agreements to make it happen. The police department is willing to have a conversation. • Chair Klaas shared that the City does have an Outdoor Lighting policy, it just needs to be updated, as the old code deals with watts. Staff noted that because of the street lighting districts, it is just making it very difficult, and it has a lot of layers, with most departments needing to be involved. • David Smith, Green Corps Member, was acknowledged, and the tradition of having them in the City was discussed. David Smith introduced himself and was excited to be involved. • The rest of the updates about Brookview Solar, Staffing, and Recent Events were given. *Video ended with no adjournment.