pc-minutes-apr-12-21
REGULAR MEETING MINUTES
This meeting was held via Webex in accordance with the local emergency declaration made by
the City under Minn. Stat. § 12.37. In accordance with that declaration, beginning on March 16,
2020, all Planning Commission meetings held during the emergency were conducted
electronically. The City used Webex to conduct this meeting and members of the public were
able to monitor the meetings by watching it on Comcast cable channel 16, by streaming it on
CCXmedia.org, or by dialing in to the public call‐in line.
1. Call to Order
The meeting was called to order at 7:00 by Chair Blum.
Roll Call
Commissioners present: Rich Baker, Ron Blum, Adam Brookins, Andy Johnson, Noah Orloff, Lauren
Pockl, Ryan Sadeghi, Chuck Segelbaum
Staff present: Jason Zimmerman – Planning Manager, Myles Campbell – Planner
Council Liaison present: Gillian Rosenquist
Commissioner Johnson asked when the final items from the 2040 Comprehensive Plan will be
discussed. Jason Zimmerman, Planning Manager, responded that it depends on applications and in
about 2‐3 months the last pieces will come together.
2. Approval of Agenda
Chair Blum asked for a motion to approve the agenda.
MOTION made by Commissioner Brookins, seconded by Commissioner Sadeghi, to approve the
agenda of April 12, 2021. Staff called a roll call vote and the motion carried unanimously.
3. Approval of Minutes
Chair Blum asked for a motion to approve the minutes from March 22, 2021.
MOTION made by Commissioner Johnson, seconded by Commissioner Brookins, to approve
minutes. Staff called a roll call vote and the motion carried unanimously.
4. Public Hearing – Continued Consideration of a Major Amendment to Hidden Lakes PUD 74
Applicant: Regency Hospital
Address: 1300 Hidden Lakes Parkway, Golden Valley, MN
Jason Zimmerman, Planning Manager, reminded the group that this hearing is a follow‐up from a
previous meeting on January 25th, due to new material. This amendment to PUD 74 would allow for
an expansion of the hospital building and that would lead to necessary utility and landscape changes.
April 12, 2021 – 7 pm
City of Golden Valley Planning Commission Regular Meeting
April 12, 2021 – 7 pm
2
Zimmerman displayed a map and reviewed the zoning district and location within the City of Golden
Valley.
The previous meeting ended with a list of outstanding concerns and since then, there were
negotiations between the hospital and the HOA Board, revisions were made to the plans:
6’ high solid wall along east edge of parking lot
Additional landscaping
Reduction of seven proposed parking spaces (37 vs. 44)
The updated proposal includes a new private agreement between the HOA and the Hospital Board
that addresses eight areas of concern:
Hidden Lakes Parkway – maintenance and cost issues
Employee smoking and littering
Traffic speeds, stop signs, noise, deliveries, etc.
New parking lot landscaping and wall
Lighting
Stormwater management
Construction activities
Future expansion
This private agreement was approved by the HOA Board and hospital, then shared with residents on
April 7th. This agreement is intended to manage issued outside of the PUD permit.
Zimmerman recapped the details of the PUD amendment regarding the size of the addition, utility
details, the existing entrance, dining/day room on the second floor, and the exterior material details.
To illustrate these details, a map was displayed as well as a 3D rendition of the proposal. The updated
plan recap is:
Parking lot reconfiguration triggered:
o Expand to the south, add 37 parking stalls
o Would remain under the usual required parking ratio
o Knoll and existing trees would be removed
New landscaping/screening added along east edge of parking lot – both low and high
Lighting would respond to the City’s “dark skies” requirements
Stormwater treated/managed through an underground system
Using the trip generation data for nursing homes, traffic engineers estimated that the addition would
generate an estimated 42% increase in trips per day (578 to 822).
Zimmerman reviewed the details surrounding community engagement, public comments, and the
schedule for this item appearing before Planning Commission and the scheduled date it will appear
before City Council.
Staff evaluation and preliminary findings were extensive and resulted in a recommendation for
approval subject to 18 conditions.
City of Golden Valley Planning Commission Regular Meeting
April 12, 2021 – 7 pm
3
Recommendation
Approval of Amendment #8 to Hidden Lakes PUD No. 74, subject to the following conditions:
1. The plans for the Regency Hospital addition, submitted January 13, 2021, and subsequently
updated on March 29, shall become a part of this approval. Required revisions include:
a. Showing and labeling the access gate and trail along the south property line.
b. Reducing lighting levels under second‐floor addition and under the port cochère.
c. Working with staff to locate designated smoking area for employees and visitors.
d. Indicating the location of trash receptacles in and around the parking lot.
2. Public bicycle racks or similar facilities for a minimum of 11 bicycles shall be provided. The
applicant shall work with staff to appropriately locate the bicycle facilities.
3. The applicant shall provide a snow storage/removal plan that does not reduce the number
of parking stalls nor impact the public trail for staff review and approval prior to City
approval of the PUD Permit.
4. A public walkway easement shall be dedicated over the public trail in the southeast corner
of the site. This trail shall be temporarily rerouted and maintained for public use during
construction.
5. A permanent conservation easement shall be dedicated along the shoreland of Twin Lake.
6. The applicant shall repair and maintain the fence along the south property line to
discourage cut through foot traffic to Twin Lake.
7. The applicant shall utilize motion sensors on parking lot lighting, and utilize motions sensors
and motorized shades on timers within the day room, in order to reduce unnecessary
illumination and reduce impacts to adjacent properties.
8. The applicant shall install and maintain landscaping adjacent to the public trail on the east
side of the property in accordance with the approved plans on file with the City.
Maintenance shall include all reasonable care, trimming, repairs, and replacement needed
to ensure the landscaping improvements are kept in good condition.
9. With the exception of oxygen deliveries, large truck deliveries and pick‐ups shall be limited
to the hours of 7 am to 8 pm daily.
10. The hospital shall be limited to a total of 92 beds. The building footprint shall not be
expanded without the required review and approval by the City.
11. The applicant shall work with staff to address questions around the outdoor chemical
storage areas near the southwest corner of the building.
12. Plans must be reviewed and approved by the Bassett Creek Watershed Management
Commission.
13. A stormwater maintenance and chloride management agreement with the City shall be
executed.
14. The applicant shall complete all inspections related to the City’s Inflow and Infiltration
requirements and work with staff to resolve any repairs or improvements necessary.
15. An updated agreement between the hospital and association, addressing reimbursement
procedures and commitments for construction‐related damage on Hidden Lakes Parkway
and the reallocation of roadway expenses, shall be provided to the City for review prior to
approval of the PUD Permit.
City of Golden Valley Planning Commission Regular Meeting
April 12, 2021 – 7 pm
4
16. The applicant shall share with the City its plan for management of trash in and around the
parking lot as well as for employee communication around these efforts.
17. The applicant shall address the three conditions outlined by the Minneapolis Park and
Recreation Board in its letter dated December 29, 2020.
18. A development agreement shall be drafted prior to City approval of the PUD Permit and
shall include details on:
a. Permitted days and hours of construction activity.
b. The location and nature of construction parking, access, delivery, staging,
equipment and materials storage, and employee parking.
c. A neighborhood “Hot Line” for issue resolution.
Commissioner Pockl asked how the City insures the private agreements are enforced. Zimmerman
responded that the City stays out of the private agreement between the hospital and the HOA. Any
condition or agreement in the PUD permit has the enforcement of the PUD process. Violations will
be addressed, require corrective actions, and could result in legal action.
With all the conditions and the private agreement, Commissioner Johnson asked if the Planning
Commission has now set itself up as a mediator and straying from its expertise in reviewing parking
etc. He followed up by asking who has precedence, the HOA or the homeowners in the HOA.
Zimmerman responded that staff has not inserted itself in the private agreement but together they
came to the City and asked how it could be enforceable. The HOA will discuss what they intend to do
to enforce their agreement. Johnson followed up that he hopes the Commission stays within its
realm of ability.
Chair Blum invited the Applicant to address the Commission.
Dave Garmin, Applicant ‐ Regency Hospital, stated the private agreement with the HOA was a good
compromise that benefits them and the HOA.
Chair Blum opened the public hearing at 7:40pm.
Jeff Eisenberg, President of HOA, stated staff provided a good presentation and elaborated on a
background between the HOA and the applicant. Discussion between the HOA and Commissioners
included resident input on and responses to the agreement.
Fredda Pink
1405 Waterford Drive
My husband has written quite a bit but my concern is the hospital is planning on doing a piling. I
don’t know how many people are aware of the noise associated with a piling. My son is a real estate
developer and he told us a few days ago that there’s a more expensive style that eliminates the
constant pounding noise and potential damage to our homes. I was wondering if it would be possible
to look into that, it would relieve a lot of tension. There’s also no protection for the people who face
the north end of the hospital, we have a full view of the north end of the building and parking lot.
That hasn’t been addressed either.
City of Golden Valley Planning Commission Regular Meeting
April 12, 2021 – 7 pm
5
Patrick Lewis
1750 Waterford Court
I wanted to clarify a few things from the presentation, there isn’t unanimous HOA Board support for
the agreement and there is a difference between the homeowners and the HOA. I’ll reiterate that
this project will be problematic no matter what, it’s a commercial development in a residential area.
This expansion involves all the mitigations discussed to mask the issue that it’s too big of a build for
this area. The hospital said they don’t have plans to expand but there’s nothing preventing them
from proposing expansions in later years. The main thing I want to state again is that there isn’t an
agreement between homeowners, the HOA Board doesn’t represent the homeowners, and there
isn’t even agreement among the Board.
Ron Schiferl
4220 Woodland Trail
There’s been significant improvement since the last Planning Commission Meeting. The landscaping
plan pictures look great but the actual plan proposed is to limit the trees to 6foot‐that’s exactly as
high as the wall. There needs to be more variation in the plan. I hope the city works with the hospital
to create more variety so it looks like landscaping. Can we add something to ensure the hospital
maintains its landscaping as they have a history of not doing that. The last Planning Commission
meeting there was mention that the hospital reached out to homeowners, they had not before or
after that meeting. All communication has come from the HOA. My understanding is that this plan is
for a two‐story building to allow for expansion on the first floor, if the hospital isn’t planning on any
expansions in the future, why do they still need a two‐story building?
Chair opened Commissioner discussion.
The Chair asked staff to address the pilings question. Zimmerman said his understanding is that
they’re not planning on using pilings but rather do spread footings. He followed up that he’s not sure
how that impacts surrounding properties. A development agreement can address those issues.
Displaying images from the presentation, staff addressed the concerns regarding shielding from the
north end of the building and staff pointed out that most of the homes are on a hill from the hospital
which may create more difficulties. Zimmerman added a condition to the PUD that landscaping must
be maintained and trees will be 6 feet in height to start, not top out at 6 feet.
Chair closed the public hearing at 8:11pm.
Commissioners Johnson asked if the parking spaces exceed minimum amount, why is the City
agreeing to this when they value green space. Staff responded that the minimum amount from the
hospital is their standard amount and they’d prefer more to accommodate staff, training, visitors
etc. Johnson expressed concern on this topic and feels the number of parking spaces is arbitrary.
Commissioner Pockl asked if they can ask the applicant why removal of the knoll is needed.
City of Golden Valley Planning Commission Regular Meeting
April 12, 2021 – 7 pm
6
Alan Catchpool, Applicant Engineer with Kimley‐Horn, stated that public utilities goes through the
site and to the SE corner and the entrance to the parking lot is through the knoll. Those items require
the knoll removal.
Chair Blum noted the dedication of a conservation easement and staff responded that most of twin
lakes has a conservation easement along it and the City would like to continue protecting that area.
This helps prevent erosion and development and the area is not currently developed. Blum asked if
it’s harder to develop on a slope as steep as the one along the hospital to the lake. Zimmerman
responded that it is and was part of the hospital’s original plan but the decided against it. Blum noted
to Commissioners that the area unlikely to be developed and may have less value to be dedicated as
a conservation easement.
Pockl asked the HOA representatives to explain how the HOA Board came to support the private
agreement as a caller noted they hadn’t. Eisenberg, HOA, stated that the Board was updated after
every conversation with the hospital and the Board voted unanimously to support the private
agreement.
Johnson referred to page 10 that the applicant wants to use motion sensors in the parking lot, and
asked if that means the lot will be completely dark. Zimmerman stated the City Code has a minimum
level for how the lot is illuminated.
Blum discussed the building height and setbacks in the proposal. Commissioners had a discussion
revolving around these items, lighting, and the easement. The discussion moved on to property
maintenance, the applicant meeting requirements, and negotiations between applicant, city and
HOA.
Commissioner Segelbaum commended the negotiations and supports staff recommendation.
Commissioner Brookins stated he supports the proposal and staff recommendation. Blum asked for
more mitigating changes. Commissioner Sadeghi asked if the HOA Board mentioned the items
concerning to Blum as they will feel the direct impacts. Eisenberg, HOA, responded that the private
agreement, gives them more rights than they had before. The hospital needs repairs and the
proposal will help that. Pockl said she’s not concerned about the setbacks or height, negotiations
have been productive and the hospital improvements will have a positive impact. Pockl stated
support for staff recommendations. Commissioner Johnson said he tried to consider all parties
involved and doesn’t think an HOA Board has more say than the average resident. He added the
process may need to change in the forward to ensure consideration of everyone’s rights.
MOTION made by Commissioner Brookins, seconded by Commissioner Segelbaum to formally
adopt staff findings and follow staff recommendation for approval subject to the 18 conditions as
listed in the memo.
Chair Blum stated he felt the final approval could be stricter.
2d: Blum suggested the language change to “install and maintain”
16: Blum suggested instead of the plan being shared, that there be more certain language.
Staff took a roll call vote on the motion and it passed unanimously.
City of Golden Valley Planning Commission Regular Meeting
April 12, 2021 – 7 pm
7
5. Public Hearing – Amendments to Future Land Use and Zoning Maps
Applicant: Golden Valley Country Club
Address: Northwest corner of 7001 Golden Valley Road
Prior to presentation, Commissioner Sadaghei recused himself as there was a conflict of interest.
Myles Campbell, Planner, summarized that the applicant is petitioning the City for both a Zoning Map
Amendment and a change to the City’s Future Land Use Plan for a portion of the Golden Valley Country
Club Property. Property is currently zoned I‐4 for Institutional use and the requests would result in the
property being zoned “R‐1, Single Family Residential. Reguiding and Rezoning the property is the first
step to allowing the site to be redeveloped for single‐family housing.
Country Club approached the City in late 2019 about the opportunity to sell a portion of their property
to a private developer. 7001 Golden Valley Road is in total 148.76 acres, the area being considered for
rezoning is 2.25 acres.
Ron Clark Construction (developer) is proposing to use the site for the development of seven single
family homes. The applicant would like to use a new private road to provide access to the homes,
limiting the number of new curb cuts off the public streets, and allowing for additional greenspace
buffers. A PUD would be necessary and the City would require some public benefits and amenities in
order to allow for flexibilities such as the private road. None of these actions can occur without change
to the site’s zoning and guided land use
Campbell discussed the existing conditions of the area, topography, creek location, and showed maps
to illustrate these items.
The approvals process prior to any redevelopment is large, if the rezoning and reguiding are approved,
the applicant must then either apply for a major subdivision or a PUD. A potential approval schedule
was displayed assuming each step was approved without tabling or additional review.
Staff analyzed surrounding uses, traffic generation, buildable lots, and the comprehensive plan.
Staff Findings
The site is currently in an area with other R‐1 zoned properties, and would not be out of
character with the surrounding neighborhood.
More work is needed to determine the safest street access to the new residential
development, but Engineering staff is not concerned about the traffic generated by the
inclusion of new single‐family residential in the area.
The use of this site for a residential purpose fits with a number of the goals and objectives of
the Comprehensive Plan.
In its Housing Chapter, the Comprehensive Plan recognizes the need for new housing in the
City to maintain pace with demand, but notes the lack of available land area for a relatively
City of Golden Valley Planning Commission Regular Meeting
April 12, 2021 – 7 pm
8
built‐out city. Rezoning this land and allowing for development would be a path to providing
some new housing in the city.
While the focus of rezoning should be on all potential future users under the R‐1 zoning
designation, the narrative provided by Ron Clark Construction demonstrates both a high
quality end product and an understanding that they are entering an existing neighborhood
and an area with critical natural resources to protect.
Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of the requested amendment to the Zoning Map, changing the zoning
designation for the proposed parcel as described in the land survey from Institutional Sub‐district I‐4,
to Single Family Residential R‐1.
Staff recommends approval of the requested amendment to the Future Land Use Map, changing the
guided land use for the proposed parcel as described in the land survey from Parks & Natural Areas to
Low Density Residential.
The discussion started with process explanations and, PUD process, community engagement, and
other input from watershed organizations and Met. Council. Chair Blum commented that it seems
PUDs tend to maximize number of lots which causes concern for him on the size of lots proposed in
this area. Campbell explained that a PUD can allow for more design flexibility, helps the City maintain
wooded areas and greenspace. The City also changed the PUD requirements and new standards are in
place to identify public amenities to be included in a PUD which allows the developer design flexibility.
Campbell added he doesn’t feel a PUD only serves the developer.
Commissioner Pockl asked if consideration for mature vegetation could be added to PUD
requirements. Campbell responded that tree and landscape requirements would be required
regardless of how the lots are established. The conversation moved on to discuss requirements for
vegetation prior to these other approvals, hoping the property owner doesn’t clear cut prior to the
landscaping considerations being in place.
Commissioner Johnson expressed concern that the group is picking at the comp plan and how
affordable and variety of housing is being factored into this plan. Campbell stated that the purchase
agreement for the property may preclude affordable housing policies. However, the mixed‐income
property policy requires new developments over a certain scale, make a percentage of the units
available at a lower income value. In this case, the 7 units, do not meet the requirement for the policy.
There are items in other chapters of the comp plan that can be addressed later in the proposal, at this
point there are not enough details to say if these goals will be met.
Blum stated that the Comp. Plan can be used to argue against the proposal as well and cited the open
green space item.
Pockl asked if the topography of the site limits development. Campbell responded that Engineering
staff didn’t have an initial reaction when reviewing the proposal but details surrounding those specifics
will be reviewed and discussed when this process is further along. Watershed and state agencies will
be included in those conversations.
City of Golden Valley Planning Commission Regular Meeting
April 12, 2021 – 7 pm
9
Chair Blum invited the applicant to speak.
Ron Clark Construction, Applicant, has been working with the club for 6‐8 months and they feel
strongly that re‐zoning that area to be R‐1 makes sense. The Club has been focused on making sure
this benefits the City and the golf course and has had a holistic approach to this process. The design
isn’t cookie cutter and the creation of a private road helps appeal from the course and helps the buffer
to the road side.
Chair Blum opened the public hearing at 10:04pm.
Eric Boe
1023 Quebec Ave N
I have lived here since 1993 and I’d like to add that all the homes in the area surrounding it are single‐
family detached homes. I think that’s an important detail. It’s good to hear in the plan they’d like to
use a private road. One thing not mentioned, the four‐way intersection at Pennsylvania and Plymouth
is offset. That creates limited visibility and any additional traffic and parked cars will add to safety
concerns. I don’t want to see parking on this intersection or short driveways like over by Menards, I’d
like to see a sidewalk added to the plan for added safety.
Brent Behn
1300 Kelly Drive
My concerns are regarding the term “low‐density” as it seems 7 large homes will be on a 2‐acre site
and that appears to be fairly dense. This density level doesn’t fit in the community surrounding as the
surrounding lots are bigger. I’m concerned with the rezoning continuing and more land being used for
development in the golf course.
Eric Brandt
7400 Plymouth Ave N
We have a lot of parks in Golden Valley but I can’t think of another, separate 2.2‐acre wooded lot. I
think we’re giving up a unique lot. Living here and looking at the wild‐life, they will all be impacted by
clearing the trees. The private road sounds appealing but I can’t think of a single private road in Golden
Valley that compares. Also, 7 homes on 2.2 acres is dense for this neighborhood and the proposed lot
development would be an outlier.
(Name inaudible)
1205 Pennsylvania Ave
I’m also speaking on behalf of my neighbors. I’ve been privy to the plans and I want to indicate that
I’m speaking a little out of context as I’m aware of the plans shared with golf course members. The
private road is set to be on Pennsylvania Ave, the intersection is offset and congested. Our neighbors
moved from an area near construction because it was impacting their quality of life and found this
neighborhood mature and enjoyed the forest area across the street. The lot with trees is a gem as the
previous caller mentioned. The cost associated with the development, the homes will not be on the
City of Golden Valley Planning Commission Regular Meeting
April 12, 2021 – 7 pm
10
affordable side and while it may up our property values, it doesn’t seem that it would further Golden
Valley’s objective to increase middle‐income housing.
Chris Lowman
7440 Plymouth Ave
We bought this house due to its location, we look right at the wooded lot. We are afraid the community
that surrounds us will be taken away with this project. Additional traffic on this already busy corner
makes us worried about the decrease in safety. We’re concerned about the lot sizes not matching the
aesthetic of the neighborhood as well. The target market doesn’t seem to align with the market that
wants to live in this neighborhood. My hope is that whatever decision is made, is the best one for the
neighborhood and the city, not the developer.
Commissioner Orloff stated that he feels more information on the ecological impacts will be needed.
Campbell responded that any development will require removal of many trees and details around that
will be navigated if this becomes a PUD.
Commissioner Segelbaum thanked the callers and noted that many items will be addressed as the
project moves forward. However, it seems that City Engineering staff do not think the addition of 7
homes will create unmanageable traffic. At this early stage, is parking or the offset intersection
considered. Campbell responded that traffic volume is a principal concern, the other concerns will be
addressed later as discussions around the private roadway occur.
Brian Gieseke
1337 Kelly Drive
I’d like to echo what I’ve already heard about the intersection, setbacks, the watershed, and traffic.
The road is already narrow and there isn’t a stop sign for a few blocks so vehicle speeds increase.
Parking will be an issue, especially over the winter and I’m concerned for further lot splitting if this
area is zoned residential. The wooded area is special for our neighborhood and I am concerned for it
to disappear.
Blum urged everyone to utilize flexibility at this early stage and consider what’s most appropriate for
the City and neighborhood here while being fair to the applicant. He referenced the 2040
Comprehensive Plan’s guide for open and green spaces. Blum stated he doesn’t support the applicant’s
request. Pockl echoed those comments and said an appeal of Golden Valley are the green spaces and
natural spaces. Pockl stated she doesn’t feel comfortable changing the zoning and land use at this
point.
Lynne Jensen
1039 Pennsylvania
I’ve lived here 30 years and see a lot of wildlife coming from that area, eagles and owls nest in the trees
proposed to be removed. The road to Winnetka on Plymouth is blocked and a lot of traffic is pushed
to Pennsylvania. Traffic is already a problem on this street and particularly during rush hour. Additional
traffic will also dissuade the active cycling community.
City of Golden Valley Planning Commission Regular Meeting
April 12, 2021 – 7 pm
11
Commissioner Johnson echoed Blum and Pockl’s and doesn’t see the benefit of taking the vibrant
wooded greenspace and turning it in to 7 homes. Johnson is not in favor of changing the designation.
Segelbaum followed up by saying the group is looking at seeing if the area is appropriate to convert
from unused golf course space to housing. Caller concerns can be mitigated later in the negotiation
process, it seems like there may already be a traffic issue. The PUD process will present an opportunity
to help the existing areas. Johnson responded that the group has a responsibility to maintain
greenspace. This plan drastically alters the landscape and he feels there will be more harm than good
as a result. Blum responded that if they start the process now, momentum may take over and the
project won’t turn out in the way the Commission intends on. Flexibility may occur now but things may
not always turn out the way we want with that flexibility. Greenspace is valuable and so are lot sizes,
once they’re given up, they’re gone. The group needs to do what it can to preserve those things.
Chair Blum closed the public hearing at 10:45.
Commissioner Brookins stated support for staff recommendation, feeling it’s appropriate for the area.
MOTION made by Commissioner Pockl and seconded by Commissioner Johnson to recommend
denial the zoning designation amendment for the Northwest corner of 7001 Golden Valley Road.
Staff took a roll call vote:
Aye: Johnson, Pockl, Blum
Nay: Brookins, Segelbaum
Motion carries as stated.
MOTION made by Commissioner Pockl and seconded by Commissioner Johnson to deny the land‐use
amendment for the future land‐use map for the Northwest corner of 7001 Golden Valley Road.
Staff took a roll call vote:
Aye: Johnson, Pockl, Blum
Nay: Brookins, Segelbaum
Motion carries as stated.
Televised portion of the meeting concluded at 10:53 pm
6.Council Liaison Report
Council Member Rosenquist provided a brief update on recent Council actions and upcoming
events. The City and the Minneapolis Park Board are close to finalizing a Memorandum of
Understanding regarding public safety/enforcement in Theodore Wirth Park. Three Rivers Park
district is involved regarding trails and bike infrastructure. A late April “call in” session will be
provided for the Police Task Force to receive input from the public. A bill to study Highway 55 Bus
Rapid Transit continues to move through the legislature.
7.Reports on Board of Zoning Appeals and other Meetings
None.
City of Golden Valley Planning Commission Regular Meeting
April 12, 2021 – 7 pm
12
8. Other Business
None.
9. Adjournment
MOTION by Commissioner Pockl to adjourn, seconded by Commissioner Brookins, and approved
unanimously. Meeting adjourned at 11:02 pm.
________________________________
Adam Brookins, Secretary
________________________________
Amie Kolesar, Planning Assistant