Loading...
2025-11-10 MIN PC Regular MeetingCITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Monday, November 10, 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 6:31 p.m. and read the Land Acknowledgement • Regular Members Present: Amy Barnstorff, Gary Cohen, Chuck Segelbaum, Martin Sicotte, David Hill • Regular Members Absent: Mike Ruby and Eric Van Oss • Student Member, Status: Remy Rosenberg • 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 • Cohen asked for a motion to approve. • Barnstorff moved. • Hill seconded. • All voted in favor, and the motion passed. 2.B. Adopt Planning Commission Resolution No 25-007 Certifying Land Acquisition of 1875 Lilac Drive North is in Compliance with the Comprehensive Plan • Cohen noted adopting the resolution. • Segelbaum stated that 2B is under the consent agenda. He clarified that the resolution has not been adopted. • Cohen agreed that it had not been adopted, but there was no public hearing for the resolution. • Kramer explained that there was a similar item on the consent agenda in the recent past, like this. She added that if a discussion is needed, then the item can be pulled, or a separate motion can be made to adopt the resolution. • Segelbaum asked how the Staff determined to use the City versus the Commission in the findings that were listed with the resolution. • Kramer clarified to ask if Commissioner Segelbaum was referring to the numbered findings in the resolution. • Segelbaum explained that in the resolution 25-007, which includes the numbered findings, how does the Staff determine whether to note when the findings state The City versus not, such as in eight and nine. • Kramer stated that the initial Whereas being held by the City Council, is that the Council took action on September 15, to authorize the Staff to use that specific eminent domain action. She added that the next two Whereas list the Planning Commission, as those are the findings that the Staff is recommending the Commission adopt, which state that the acquisition of this property in order to build a fire station, meets the City good goals, meets goals within the comprehensive plan. She noted that Planning Commission does not see a lot of resolutions, but when the Staff brings resolutions to the City Council, then the findings of fact that the Staff is recommending are included, and then the Council, by approving an item, agrees with those findings and adopts them as their own. • Segelbaum stated the familiarity with analyzing something to see if it is consistent with the City’s Comprehensive Plan, but not necessarily where the Commission is asked to make CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Monday, November 10, 2025 – 6:30 p.m. | City Hall Council Chamber 7800 Golden Valley Road Golden Valley, MN 55427 findings of fact, such as those in the resolution. He added that the example of the new site will increase safety by allowing drive-thru truck bays, space to avoid conflicts, and the City’s firefighters deserve safe and updated facilities that will result in positive health outcomes, which can only be completed with the construction of a new facility. He noted that the Commission has not studied it sufficiently to come up with independent findings, and that it could be subject to finding, because what was studied before coming up with the finding. He stated that if the finding stated that the City had made that finding, then that would be different, because then, within the purview of the Planning Commission, they are well equipped to talk about whether or not something falls within a particular statute, code section, or within the comprehensive plan. He noted the concern with the findings that do not preface the City has determination. • Kramer stated that in the packet she left out the findings that the Council had found in September, and the findings in the Planning Commission's packet are taken from the findings of the Council. • Segelbaum explained that the findings are good, but the concern is with the findings and the wording. He added that, for instance, did anyone else make a finding that positive health outcomes, which can only be achieved with the construction of a new facility or safety, which is currently unable to be completed in the City. He noted that if it was vetted by the Staff, then it seems fine. • Kramer summarized finding number one as stating what the institutional assembly land use does. • Segelbaum noted that finding one is in the purview of the Commission. • Kramer explained that findings two through ten are from the findings of the City Council in September. She added that finding eleven ties the acquisition of the land specifically to a comprehensive plan goal. • Segelbaum stated that finding eleven seems appropriate. He asked if there was a way to rephrase two through ten. • McGuire stated that findings two through ten could be removed, as they are not necessary for the Planning Commission findings. • Kramer noted that two through ten could be moved under the City Council, Whereas, and then keep the Planning Commission specific ones in the current list. • Segelbaum added that one and eleven would be appropriate for the Planning Commission. • McGuire stated that findings one, two, and eleven would be good. • Segelbaum agreed that two would be fine as well. • Cohen clarified that as the Acting Chair, he met with Staff before the meeting, and the Planning Commission is acting to certify the land acquisition as compliance with the comprehensive plan, not whether it is the right location or other myriad of issues. He added that the Commission is focusing on how it impacts the comprehensive plan and zoning. He noted that moving findings one, two, and eleven under the Commission, and three through ten under the Council, will help to clarify the final document that will go to the City Council. • Segelbaum stated that the Commission should discuss whether it agrees with the findings. • Cohen noted that it is a worthwhile discussion. • Segelbaum explained that a new fire station, given all the facts that are listed, is very much consistent with the City’s Comprehensive Plan and is an important asset for the City. He added that it meets a lot of the goals about health, safety, welfare, and community. • Cohen stated that, seeing there is no further discussion, the motion would be that the CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Monday, November 10, 2025 – 6:30 p.m. | City Hall Council Chamber 7800 Golden Valley Road Golden Valley, MN 55427 Planning Commission adopt the resolution. • Segelbaum moved to adopt Planning Commission 25-007 certifying that the land acquisition of 81875 Lilac Drive North is in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan, assuming the resolution has been amended as discussed. • Sicotte seconded. • All voted in favor, and the motion passed. 3. PUBLIC HEARINGS: 3.A. Minor Subdivision at 911 Winnetka Avenue South • Kramer presented the Minor Subdivision at 911 Winnetka Avenue South and a recommendation for approval. She added that the Applicant was in attendance as well. • Cohen asked if there were any questions for the Staff. • Hill asked which property the fence would be on. • Kramer showed a picture of the property, noting where the edge of the driveway will be and where the fence is currently. She added that when the property line moves up, it will be just north of the fence. She noted that currently, the two owners are family members, but the City Attorney advised the move because, in the future, the fence may become a problem. • Sicotte asked if, once it goes through the City Council, this would be an item that would be passed administratively and not go before the Planning Commission. • Kramer stated that it would be correct in the future, because it met all the requirements, there is no variance or any other additional application needed for it, so in the future, applications like this one will not go before the Planning Commission; they will just be approved administratively by the Staff. • Cohen opened up the public hearing. • Resident Rusty Danielson, 911 Winnetka Avenue South, spoke. • Danielson stated that his driveway was the old Eerie Lane alley, and he is pouring the curb cut straight back. He added that if this is not done, then there would be three feet of gravel on one side of the driveway, which does not make sense. He stated that his neighbor did not object to moving the property line. • Cohen closed the public hearing and opened the item for discussion. • Barnstorff stated that it makes a lot of sense, and she is looking forward to it going through the Council so that it does not have to go before the Planning Commission because it will save many people a lot of time. She noted she is in favor. • Segelbaum explained that there are only certain criteria that would permit the Commission to deny the application, and none of those criteria appear to be present. He added that because of that, the Commission needs to approve it. • Sicotte and Hill agreed with the approval. • Cohen added that the Commission is looking forward to the City Council acting on what the Commission has approved so that these types of applications can be dealt with administratively. • Cohen asked for a motion. • Sicotte moved to recommend approval of the minor subdivision for a lot line adjustment at 911 and 843 Winnetka Avenue South, subject to the findings and conditions in the Staff report. • Barnstorff seconded the motion. • All voted in favor, and the motion passed. CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Monday, November 10, 2025 – 6:30 p.m. | City Hall Council Chamber 7800 Golden Valley Road Golden Valley, MN 55427 3.B. Ordinance Amending Chapter 105 - Signs • Cohen introduced the topic of the Ordinance Amending Chapter 105 – Signs. • Kramer introduced the presenter, Erin Perdu, who was part of the consulting team that helped to update the sign code. • Perdu presented the code amendment from the Staff report. • Segelbaum asked if the number of signs that are used had been considered. He added that some properties have a large number of many of the same signs, and the use of many signs, something that was thought about. • Perdu stated that in some districts, it was considered. She pointed out that in the regulations by zoning districts, the number of signs is indicated in some of the districts, but not in R1 and R2. She noted that in the office, commercial, and the light industrial the number of free- standing signs is limited to one or one per street frontage, so repeated signs are not allowed. She stated that for wall signs, there is a maximum of one per wall. • Segelbaum asked which section the free-standing signs code is listed in. • Perdu stated that it is in the table, section 105-11 Regulations by Zoning District. She added that many lists and texts were consolidated into tables. • Segelbaum asked in an R3 or R4 district, if there were a series of signs spaced ten to twenty feet apart along the road, the code would hypothetically limit it to just one. He asked if free- standing means connected to the building. • Perdu stated that there is a definition in the code, but basically free-standing structure is a structure that is in the ground. • Hill asked about the electronic and flashing signs, but was curious if there was anything about efficiency, such as LED. • Perdu noted that there is nothing in the code currently about efficiency. She added that the code regulates the manner and the construction of signs, but if the Commission wanted to include something about choosing energy-efficient fixtures, it could be included. She stated that she has not seen that in a sign code. • Segelbaum asked what enforcement mechanisms the City has when someone is not compliant. He added that it needs to be clarified whether this must be specified explicitly or whether it is simply treated like any other provision when someone is out of compliance. • Kramer explained that the question gets to a lot of the internal discussion that was had on sign code, not just looking at the ordinance, but how the ordinance would be enforced internally. She stated that any complaint or non-compliance would be handled like any other non-compliance issue. She noted that the City is getting more code compliance staff, hopefully soon, as it is in the proposed budget. She explained that right now, the Planning Staff would go out and let people know that they are out of compliance with the system that is used to issue citations and such. • Segelbaum asked what the mechanisms are to handle it. • Kramer stated that it is all handled internally and that in the future, it can be done more efficiently and be responsive to it in the new year. • Perdu noted that there is not a lot of language about enforcement in this section of the code, but generally, there is language in the code about how the provisions are enforced, and this would be among them. • Kramer added that part of what the Staff was trying to do with the sign code update is to make a code that is more easily enforceable. • Cohen stated that once the code update is adopted, clarification is needed on whether businesses that do not meet the new code will be grandfathered in or how that situation will be handled. • Kramer stated that it would be like any other code change; if the person is no longer in CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Monday, November 10, 2025 – 6:30 p.m. | City Hall Council Chamber 7800 Golden Valley Road Golden Valley, MN 55427 compliance, then there is a legal nonconformity. She added that a legal nonconformity can exist as is, but it cannot be expanded. She gave an example that if, after the code change, a property has more signage than is allowed, they can maintain the signs, but are not allowed to add more. She noted that if the building got torn down and the signage were removed, when the building is rebuilt, it would have to be in compliance with the code. • Sicotte asked about murals and artwork, and how they differentiate from signage to make sure there is room for artwork. • Perdu stated that a definition was included of a painted wall sign, and the definition of a sign was revised. She noted that this was a question from the City Attorney as well about what the difference is between a painted wall sign and a mural. She pointed out that the definition of a sign is an advertisement for commercial purposes, and a mural does not meet that definition. She stated that public art and murals are not included in the code, but painted wall signs were added as a valid sign and would be included in the updated code. She restated that a mural does not meet the definition of a sign, therefore is not limited by the code amendment. • Sicotte asked about corporate-inspired art, and there may not be answers, but it is a gray area and could cause an issue. • Perdu noted that there is a definition of mural as well, and the Staff tried to make it a clear as possible, but there may be difficult situations that come up. • Hill asked about the various signs that may be in drive-thrus, which give directions, and if that should be allowed or covered. • Perdu stated that in section 105-6, and in consultation with the City Attorney, she indicated that the City could not specifically call out directional signs. She noted that the solution to that is stated as if a sign is not legible from the right-of-way, then it does not count as part of your signage. She gave an example of menu boards. She added that some directional signs may fall into this, but there is allowance for free-standing and wall signs for all commercial businesses, so they could flex that to accommodate. • Segelbaum stated that assuming someone does want to have a sign that reads enter and it is legible from the roadway, but the intent of the code is not necessarily to ban that in combination with the sign for the business. He asked if there was any sort of mechanism that a person could follow to petition to get special dispensation. • Kramer noted that the person could apply for a variance. • Segelbaum asked if it would go to the Board of Zoning Appeals. • Kramer stated that it is correct. • Perdu added that in section 105-6, signs that are six square feet and smaller are exempt, with the intention of not regulating the small signs. • Segelbaum asked if it would still count as one sign. • Perdu explained that the sign is exempt from the ordinance, so it would not count as the one sign either. • Segelbaum asked if a succession of five signs that are five square feet would be allowed. • Perdu read that the language in the code reads that the signs have to be six square feet or less, less than three feet in height, and located adjacent to a driveway or private road. She added that in theory, it would protect against lining up signs along the right-of-way. • Segelbaum asked if there is a series of them that are smaller. • Perdu noted that if the signs are not adjacent to an entrance or a driveway, then the signs are not exempt from the code and would fall under the maximum of one. • Segelbaum asked if any updates are anticipated to be more controversial than others. • Perdu explained that she did not think there would be any that would be highly controversial, as the City was very intentional about talking to people before writing, about what kind of flexibility in the code would be helpful. She noted that in many cases, the size was increased CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Monday, November 10, 2025 – 6:30 p.m. | City Hall Council Chamber 7800 Golden Valley Road Golden Valley, MN 55427 where necessary. She added that the most controversial thing may be the things that the City cannot regulate because of the content, such as cannabis signs. • Hill stated that when the parking code was updated, the word church was replaced with places of assembly, and he asked whether the same change should be made in this code. • Kramer noted that it is a good callout and an easy fix. • Cohen opened up the public hearing. • Resident Robby Dolan, 900 Mendelsshon Avenue, spoke • Dolan stated that he is an employee of Ascentek/Lube-Tech. He noted that the campus is 18.69 acres spread across five different lots and four buildings. He stated that the team consists of 348 people and is privately owned. He explained that the company has recently grown and has opened up new capabilities for the business, which has given the company the opportunity to rebrand. He added that he is the Senior Marketing Manager and is working on updating signage. He stated that the proposed simplification of the ordinance is very much appreciated by the company. He added that in going into the future with different means of technology, as well as more traffic going down 169, it gives the company the unique opportunity to compete against commercial lots and commercial zoned areas. He feels it will benefit the company greatly, and the work that is being done is supported. • Cohen closed the public hearing and opened the item for discussion. • Barnstorff stated that she appreciates the simplification of the code, and it is nice to hear from a business that the changes are making it easier to work with. She noted her full support and appreciation for the work that has been done. • Hill noted that he was not present for the start of this code amendment. He asked if the rest of the Commission feels that most of the concerns were addressed and if the Commissioners are comfortable with what was addressed. • Segelbaum stated that specific types of issues were talked about that the Commission saw, and the questions that came up again to see if they were addressed in the code, and the issues had been regulated, meaning permitted or not permitted. He feels satisfied with the issues having been addressed. • Sicotte agreed and did not recall exactly the nuances of the conversation, but some things were originally noticed. He recalled that there was discussion about signs with a lot of movement or moving text, and there were items in the code that were adjusted or updated to clarify that type of thing. He added that the feedback that was provided seemed to be incorporated in a meaningful way. • Cohen agreed and noted that the Commission discussion was higher level, not as specific. He indicated that he was impressed by the work the City Attorney did in identifying what can legally be done and what cannot be done within the code. He added that he was impressed by the outreach that was done to businesses and others with the expertise. He stated that oftentimes people will state no one talked to us or we did not know, but that is not the case this time. • Sicotte added that the addition of all the graphics is wonderful and very clear. He stated that if there are opportunities to add graphics in the rest of the code, that would be a wonderful idea. • Segelbaum noted that part of the concerns in the past has been that the sign code has not been clear, so therefore, more difficult to enforce. He added that it is a big improvement, and may not cover everything, but the hypotheticals that the Commission came up with seemed to be covered. • Hill noted that he was impressed with the audit and how much detail went into it, all the feedback, and how it was all able to be applied. • Cohen stated that the City is continuing to update and simplify the codes, which is very helpful CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Monday, November 10, 2025 – 6:30 p.m. | City Hall Council Chamber 7800 Golden Valley Road Golden Valley, MN 55427 to the community at large as the City progresses forward. He asked if the City will be at a point where other cities come and look at Golden Valley and note that they want to use the City’s model. • Kramer stated that, in speaking for community development staff, that is the goal of the Staff is to be the model. She thanked Commissioner Cohen for those words. She noted the fantastic job that Stantec did. • Cohen asked if there were any other questions or comments on the sign code ordinance. He then asked for a motion. • Barnstorff moved to recommend approval of the ordinance amending Chapter 105 – Signs, subject to the findings and conditions in the Staff report. • Sicotte seconded the motion. • Kramer stated a point of order and asked if the Commission wanted to recommend approval with the condition to change the word church to places of assembly. • Barnstorff moved to recommend approval of the ordinance amending Chapter 105 – Signs, with the amendment put forth by Commissioner Hill and subject to the findings and conditions in the Staff report. • Sicotte seconded the motion. • All voted in favor, and the motion passed. 4. NEW BUSINESS: -None 5. STAFF UPDATES: • Okey gave an update on the parking code. He noted that there was a meeting regarding the Town Center Plan, and the parking code came back up. He stated that it came up that perhaps some of the bicycle requirements might be a little ambitious at this point. He added that as the City gets more bike infrastructure, more with the bicycles could be implemented. He stated that much of the parking code that had regard to biking was removed, and he would send the updated version to the Commission. • Barnstorff asked if it is indoor parking, outdoor parking, or both. • Okey stated that it is mainly the indoor parking for commercial uses. He noted that the code would still have indoor parking requirements for multifamily buildings. • Barnstorff asked if bicycle parking would still be required on the exterior. • Okey stated that it will be required on the exterior, and in fact, the percentage of required bicycle parking has been upped as related to the required vehicular parking. He added that it will come to the Commission on November 24 for final approval. • Kramer stated that Monday, November 24, would be a parking code update public hearing and no other applications. She noted that Tuesday, November 25, is the Board of Zoning Appeals, with Commissioner Cohen to be present, and there will be two variance applications. She added that on November 19, the Council will see the 911 Winnetka Minor Subdivision and the Code Amendments for CUPs, variance, and subdivisions on the consent agenda. She stated that on December 2, the City Council will see the sign code update and the parking code update. She added that the Planning Commission’s last meeting of the year would be on December 8, with two applications, one for a minor subdivision and variance, and Breck School has submitted the preliminary plat and preliminary PUD application. She noted that the Planning Commission meeting on December 22 and the BZA meeting on December 23 have been cancelled. • Segelbaum asked if it would be a major PUD amendment. • Kramer explained that it will be a rescind and replace. She noted that there will be a fresh PUD. She stated that on November 17, there is a neighborhood meeting for the minor CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Monday, November 10, 2025 – 6:30 p.m. | City Hall Council Chamber 7800 Golden Valley Road Golden Valley, MN 55427 subdivision application at 400 Sunny Ridge Lane, and it is a hybrid with a Teams link. She added that on November 20, there will be a similar neighborhood meeting for the Breck School application. She noted that on November 13, there is a Golden Valley Climate Equity Plans Art event at Brookview, which is a family-friendly event to learn about simple ways to become more sustainable with energy, water, waste, and transportation. • Segelbaum asked if it is posted on the City website. • Kramer confirmed that it is. • Cohen asked if Councilmember Ginis was present. • Kramer stated no, and there is no Council update. She reminded the Commission that an email should have been received from IT with security training, with a heavy focus on AI. • Barnstorff noted that the email coming from an outside source felt very sketchy. She clarified that it was a real email and should be completed. • Kramer stated that there is a real email with training that needs to be done, but if there is ever a concern about a link, just check in with her. • Segelbaum asked about which courses to do, as some were listed as overdue and some were not due for several weeks. • Kramer stated that there are three courses. She added that the Staff will try to schedule annual training with the City Attorney, probably in the month of January. She noted that she is aware of not having the safety training with the Police Chief, and will continue to work on getting something together for that. 6. COMMISSIONER UPDATES: -None 7. ADJOURNMENT: Acting Chair Cohen adjourned the meeting at 7:35 p.m.