Loading...
01.12.26 PC Meeting Agenda Packet January 12, 2026 — 6:30 PM Council Chambers 1.Call to Order, Land Acknowledgement, and Attendance Attendance by presence, not roll call 2.Consent Agenda All matters listed under Item 2 are considered routine in nature and will be enacted by one motion. Individual discussion of these items is not planned. A member, however, may remove any item to discuss as an item for separate consideration under New Business. 2.A.Approval of Agenda 2.B.Meeting Minutes: November 24, 2025 2.C.Meeting Minutes: December 8, 2025 2.D.Adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 26-01 Certifying Land Acquisition of 6110 Olson Memorial Highway is in Compliance with the Comprehensive Plan 3.Public Hearings 3.A.Conditional Use Permit for Carwash at Poquet Auto (604 Lilac Drive North) 4.New Business 5.Staff Updates 6.Commissioner Updates 7.Adjourn PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING AGENDA The public may watch the meeting remotely on cable channel 16 or streaming on CCXmedia.org. The public can make statements in this meeting during the planned public comment sections. Individuals may also provide public hearing testimony remotely by emailing planning@goldenvalleymn.gov by 3 p.m. on the day of the meeting. City of Golden Valley Planning Commission Regular Meeting January 12, 2026 — 6:30 PM 1 CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Monday, November 24, 2025 – 6:30 p.m. | City Hall Council Chamber 7800 Golden Valley Road Golden Valley, MN 55427 1. CALL TO ORDER AND LAND ACKNOWLEDGEMENT • Chair Ruby called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m. and read the Land Acknowledgement • Regular Members Present: Gary Cohen, Mike Ruby, Chuck Segelbaum, Martin Sicotte, Eric Van Oss, David Hill, Amy Barnstorff (arrived at 6:34 p.m.) • Regular Members Absent: None • Student Member, Status: Remy Rosenberg • Staff Members Present: Steven Okey, Associate Planner Chloe McGuire, Deputy Community Development Director Jacquelyn Kramer, Senior Planner • Council Member Present: Sophia Ginis 2. CONSENT AGENDA: • Cohen asked if, in the minutes, it should refer to him as Acting Chair or Vice Chair since there was no vote indicating why he would be Acting Chair. • Okey stated he would look into it and also check with legal to see which is the best way to do it. 2.A. Approval of agenda 2.B. Approval of November 10, 2025, meeting minutes • Ruby asked for a motion to approve • Cohen moved • Van Oss seconded • All voted in favor, and the motion passed. 3. PUBLIC HEARINGS: 3.A. Ordinance Amending Sections of Chapter 113 Related to Off-Street Parking and Loading Regulations • Ruby introduced the topic of parking. He noted the process that was used throughout the updating. He hoped that others would be able to use the same process in future topic areas. • Okey presented the Ordinance Amending Sections of Chapter 113 as found in the Agenda Packet. He shared the timeline of the work that has been done. He noted that the ordinance is tentatively on the City Council agenda for the December 16 meeting, and if that stays, then the code would be enacted on January 1. • Ruby asked when something like this passes, such as whether it is posted on the City website or how it is actively promoted. • Okey shared that it is a really good question. He noted that it is something to look into in the future, and work with Christine Costello, Economic and Housing Development Manager, because she would be able to get the word out. He added that it is up on the City website, and it is a good idea to look into helping people find it. • Segelbaum asked if the City ever did a table that compared the number of stalls per square feet for Golden Valley, current, proposed, and other suburbs or nearby communities. • Okey shared that it was not in this presentation, but it was in the first work study session. He noted that the City had looked at comparable cities and is aligning with many of them, but Golden Valley is going a little bit further. He explained that a lot of the thought came from the downtown user experience. He noted that many of the requirements are the same as those found in the Institute of Transportation Engineers and the APA recommendations for parking. 2 CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Monday, November 24, 2025 – 6:30 p.m. | City Hall Council Chamber 7800 Golden Valley Road Golden Valley, MN 55427 • Segelbaum asked what the motivation or the thinking was behind the reduction of the spaces required within R1, or at least covered spaces within R1, from two to one. • Okey explained that part of that thought was to hopefully reduce some of the costs of building new homes, because it is particularly tough on lots that are 50 feet or less. He added that in the Zoning for Equity study, it was called out that the two enclosed garage requirements in Golden Valley can be hard at the beginning. He summarized that affordability and some of the narrow lots make it difficult to work in that garage space. • Segelbaum asked if any other options were considered along with that, to help produce lower- cost housing and reduced parking requirements. • Okey shared that it will probably come out in the Missing Middle Housing Study, as to how the City can increase affordability, and the Staff tried to create that affordability a little bit through parking. He shared that the market is going to drive a lot of things with affordability. • Segelbaum asked if any mechanisms were seen or considered in terms of providing leniency if it were a lower-cost house. • Okey noted that it is an interesting proposal, because it could be something that could be offered as an incentive. He added that in moving forward, it is certainly something to consider. • Hill asked if, throughout this process, developers were met with to discuss parking, as had been done with signage. • Okey shared that the Staff went over some of the studies that were done. He added that he was unsure of who the original downtown user experience was sent out to, but there was not a specific outreach to the business community to see what they wanted. • Hill noted that the City should feel good about everything that was done, and upgrade to meet that as far as the future is concerned. • Okey shared that the City does have some good reductions in there for businesses, and it will be attractive to businesses. He added that the Staff made sure to be developer-friendly as well, since the code has not been updated in so long. • Segelbaum asked about the change to the electric vehicle charging facilities. He noted that currently, for multifamily housing, there has to be the equipment for it, but now just the electrical set is needed, so it is capable. He asked if that was the idea of being more business- friendly. • Okey shared that the Staff was specifically trying to get to an affordability question for multifamily housing. He added that the Staff wanted to reduce some of the barriers, while still trying to push for some electrical vehicle charging stations. He noted that as the market changes and increases, the Staff wants developers to be ready for it by having the infrastructure in place. • Van Oss asked if, as the City is working towards redeveloping downtown, which will lead to less parking, whether there is a City strategy for some type of public parking structure, where parking could be diverted as the downtown becomes more vibrant. • Okey shared that a discussion has taken place about trying to create more opportunities for more on-street parking, as parking is reduced in other parking lots. • McGuire explained that a parking structure has been talked about internally, but, being that they are very expensive to build, that discussion has gone to requesting bonding dollars for it, if the City were to become a regionally significant area. She added that the Staff has been talking and that the hope is that the sight plan shows that something like that would be financially feasible. • Ruby asked for an example of what that would be. • McGuire noted that in the West End, there is a shared parking lot down below that is publicly accessible for free, and there is one in Hopkins as well. 3 CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Monday, November 24, 2025 – 6:30 p.m. | City Hall Council Chamber 7800 Golden Valley Road Golden Valley, MN 55427 • Ruby asked if that was city-built, not developer-built. • McGuire clarified that the one in Hopkins was developer-built and then refunded by the city. • Van Oss noted that it is free public parking for the businesses. • McGuire stated that the financing mechanisms were probably different for the different locations. She added that most cities conducting downtown studies are also looking into the same approach, as parking is a hot topic and a significant use of space. She noted that on- street parking has always been a topic of the Planning Commission, and the Staff would be open to a formal recommendation about on-street parking as well. • Van Oss asked if businesses are encouraged to direct overflow of traffic to a particular location, such as City Hall. • Cohen stated that many people just figure it out and use city lots as needed. • McGuire noted that there are no formal agreements at this time. • Sicotte asked about the graphic that was used in the presentation for pedestrian access, and how the language is pretty vague for what the City is asking for. He shared that it is stated that provisions for protection from circulation to and from, and in some cases through, parking lots shall be provided to connect to building entrances, public sidewalks, transit stops, and other pedestrian destinations. He continued: pedestrian routes within a parking lot shall include a clear division from the vehicle area. He added that the Ordinance does not explicitly say how many of those need to occur, or if there is a threshold for the size of the lot, for which one would need to occur; it is vague. He asked if it needs to be more explicit in the paragraph, stating at least one or something similar. • Okey stated that it could be looked at, and maybe put some numbers to it. • Ruby asked if it would need to be done in the meeting and reviewed before it goes to the City Council. • Sicotte clarified that there does not need to be a whole complicated chart; rather, at the beginning of the paragraph, state provisions for at least one. • McGuire stated that it can be part of the motion after the public hearing, if wanted by the Commission. • Segelbaum stated that many times storage of a vehicle comes up. He asked for a brief overview of what the provisions are for the storage of vehicles in different areas of the City. • Okey explained that storage of automobile inventory on parking lots other than their own is a Conditional Use Permit (CUP); it must be screened and should not happen without a CUP. He added that for storage of boats and RVs, one is allowed, either a boat on a trailer or an RV on the driveway. He shared that if anything is being stored in a residential district, in the rear yard, then it has to be screened with a six-foot-high fence. He noted that for auto repair, if vehicles are being worked on, they either need to be inside the building or screened from view from the adjacent right-of-way. • Segelbaum asked about the presence of boats or RVs in a commercial parking lot and further inquired whether businesses already using their parking lots to store dealership vehicles would be allowed to continue doing so as a nonconforming use. • Okey explained that if the business continues, then nothing needs to be done. He noted that industrial zoning changed to mixed use, in industrial surface storage or vehicles, or other boats, or RVs, is a CUP. He stated that if they had done it beforehand and it switched over, and they were continuous it could continue. However, it cannot be stopped for a year, because if it does, then the ability has been lost and it falls under the new code. • Segelbaum noted that someone does not change their land use designation, but it was just a property that is currently a commercial parking lot and stores dealership cars in it. He asked how that would be affected by the code provision. • Okey stated that if they have a CUP, then it can be continued in the same manner. He noted 4 CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Monday, November 24, 2025 – 6:30 p.m. | City Hall Council Chamber 7800 Golden Valley Road Golden Valley, MN 55427 that if they do not have a CUP, then they need to get one, and it cannot affect the minimum requirements that they have for the lot. He added that it is a requirement of any kind of automobile storage for a specific use. • Ruby opened up the public hearing and noted there wasn’t anyone from the public in attendance. • Ruby closed the public hearing and opened the item for discussion. • Sicotte shared that the changes are great, and the process that the City went through was appreciated, as the ability to share comments and work together along the way was really beneficial. He noted that he would go back to the comment from earlier and make a suggestion that, if all the Commission agrees on, then it could be included in the motion. • McGuire noted that the Staff was aware of the section that he was talking about and could make the suggestion. • Sicotte stated that the second sentence, which currently states pedestrian routes within a parking lot shall include a clear division from the vehicular area. He suggested that at the beginning of the sentence, it states a least one. He informed that the sentence would then read: At least one pedestrian route within a parking lot shall include a clear division from the vehicular area. • Ruby asked if it should be per entry door, because there may be multiple entries and exits, and it would need to be delineated per entry and exit. • Segelbaum offered that it could be on each side of the building. • Sicotte noted that the sentence, which he is suggesting to change, is a designated or striped sidewalk through the parking lot. He added that there could be multiple entrances, but in getting to the main sidewalk that is along the face of the building, there would be a way to do it. • Van Oss suggested the mall as a reference; with so many entrances, there just needs to be a way to get to the sidewalk. • Sicotte stated that it could get very detailed and into a nuanced thing if too much detail is added, but unless some sort of requirement of at least one is added, then it is very vague and could be seen as a recommendation rather than a requirement. • Ruby asked if there were any more questions about the recommended motion. • McGuire asked if the full sentence could be repeated. • Sicotte stated that the adjusted text would read: At least one pedestrian route within a parking lot shall include a clear division from vehicular area through a change in grade, patterned pavement, decorative lighting, crosswalks, pedestrian islands, or other means of separation. • Segelbaum noted the time and effort put into the Ordinance, and commended the Staff for their work. He added that it is a nice, cohesive document. He noted that wanting to try wherever possible, to create incentives for affordable housing, which can come in several forms, but one of which would be leniency of some of the requirements. He stated that changing the requirement about covered parking does not excite him, because it has been such a highly established principle within the City for so many years. He added that if this was done in exchange for the thought of there being some sort of affordable housing there, then he would be more than okay with the idea. He explained that he did not want to change the typical non-affordable housing requirement and change the makeup of the City, yet the City does want to encourage that. He shared that item two has to deal with the restaurant parking, with fast-food being one spot per 75 square feet of space, and non-fast food is one spot for 70 square feet of space. He added that for fast food, it could be a lot less rather than just a little bit. He explained that it would be nice to see it compared to other metro areas, in terms of where the city experiences overflow parking, restaurant high time is one of those. He 5 CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Monday, November 24, 2025 – 6:30 p.m. | City Hall Council Chamber 7800 Golden Valley Road Golden Valley, MN 55427 hesitated to look at those without knowing if it would cause overflow issues. He stated that all other changes seemed to be good and would adopt Commissioner Sicotte’s recommendation. • Barnstorff stated that she appreciated the process through this and the thoughtfulness of it all. She noted that to the comments about the covered stalls, she feels the market will do what it needs to do, and removing the barrier from the requirements is a good thing. She added that if it is affordable and then something is not required, then it may create other problems. She noted that she is in favor of what Commissioner Sicotte recommended. • Rosenberg stated that from a youth perspective, a lot of the language that is changed makes sense to make it simpler and easier to read. He added that the bicycle parking really stands out to him as a great change. • Van Oss noted that the changes are great, and the idea of reducing the requirements and letting the market generally dictate development patterns. He added that in thinking about downtown, and as parking will be lost, to think about some sort of parking structure, but also the connectivity between different sites. He asked if there would be true pedestrian access downtown as things begin to fill in. • Hill agreed with Commission Van Oss that the downtown is the next big thing coming for Golden Valley, and that is a big deal. He thanked Mr. Okey and the Staff for all of the work done. He added that the environmental piece of it is good, and a lot has been addressed. He agreed that the discussion on housing is a big component and will come with the Missing Middle Study. He noted that reviewing more frequently in the future is a good idea to keep on top of the changes. He agrees with the one-sentence change as well. • Cohen thanked the Commissioner for all their hard work, and the process worked great along the way. He added that for the garage question, most developers are going to do the right thing and give vehicles protection in all seasons. He added that he was not troubled with the original language but was willing to go along with the change. He noted that the more of those things that are added, it starts to feel like micromanaging. • Ruby stated that it was an excellent process, and appreciated the ability to review and take his time to make comments, and then those comments came to fruition with further discussion before a major vote. He pointed out that whether the stated cost reduction achieved by removing several covered spaces would actually result in a meaningful decrease in overall costs. He noted that in terms of fast food, he is not concerned because many times the developer will work with the City on what is needed. He appreciated the maximum, and that is where the Commission will see benefit, and the new wording of the breakings within the number of parking spots. He added that because it is a new process, there will be feedback that needs to be addressed right away, and that Staff is tracking it and not waiting too long to make changes. He is also in favor of the change that was recommended. • Barnstorff asked if the Staff had recommended making a recommendation in this setting about the municipal parking structure. • McGuire noted that street parking has come up with the Commission multiple times, and there could be a formal recommendation to have the Staff look at that or work with Council on it. • Barnstorff stated that she does not feel strongly about that one way or the other, but just wanted to clarify. • Sicotte felt it would be interesting to look into it, but was unsure of what that would mean. • Ruby explained that he has asked Staff to look into parking, because there is an impact on street parking when this is done, and at cost to the City in terms of managing those spots regularly. He recommended that the City needs to look at it because there will be a cost to doing this. • Segelbaum asked if it should be added as a condition. 6 CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Monday, November 24, 2025 – 6:30 p.m. | City Hall Council Chamber 7800 Golden Valley Road Golden Valley, MN 55427 • Ruby stated no, but on-street parking does need to be talked about, so maybe just adding to the 2026 plan. • Sicotte moved to recommend approval as presented on the screen. • Van Oss seconded the motion. • All voted in favor, and the motion passed. • Okey thanked the Commission for all of their help as well. 4. STAFF UPDATES: • Kramer stated Breck School will be on the agenda for December 8. She added that the school has applied for a preliminary plat and preliminary PUD to do a tremendous amount of stormwater management field rebuilding on their site. She added that there will also be a minor subdivision with a variance request at the December 8 meeting. She noted that the December 22 meeting is cancelled and the December 23 Board of Zoning Appeals is cancelled. She stated that in January, there will be some sort of annual training, similar to last year. She added that at the last City Council meeting on November 18, the variance ordinance update and the conditional use permit update were approved. She noted that the subdivision ordinance was pulled and tabled for the December 2 meeting because of some last-minute emails from residents. She explained that general concerns were similar to what the Commission has heard in the past about previous subdivisions and minor subdivision applications. She stated that people are worried about what neighbors are doing on their property, and the concerns are not necessarily related to the legal criteria for a minor subdivision. • Ruby stated that the City Attorney seems to be pretty clear-cut as to what can be done when it comes to that. He asked what the questions are because when mailed in letters can cause further discussion, which opens up some problems to the Planning Commission when things come up that are outside of the bounds of what the Commission can make decisions about. • Kramer explained that some of the questions were clarifying questions and general questions about City processes and public engagement. She added that it is about where the Council wants to land on the public engagement spectrum for these particular applications. • Van Oss asked why the Council would want to debate on something like this, as it puts all of the commissions in the hot seat. • Kramer stated that the memo that the Staff is preparing will include that, stating what kind of public hearings are being created by having these sorts of public hearings, and who bears the brunt of it. She added that the Staff’s opinion is that Planning Commission is going to have to deal with neighborhood opposition. • Ruby shared that the language needs to state that legally we are required to make this, the word legally needs to be seen because it helps. • Kramer noted that the co-change is on the Consent Agenda, and because of the emails that came that day, some of the Council did not have time to process and wanted to work through it with the Staff. • Cohen asked if it would be beneficial for any Planning Commissioners to be at the City Council meeting. • Kramer noted that anyone can attend the meeting who wants to, but she is unsure if the Council will take public comments at the meeting. • McGuire stated that if there are strong feelings, to email the Council representative, the Council Liaison, or Councilmember Ginis, and that may be a good way to go about it. • Ruby stated that this could open itself up to a lot of challenges, even if a last-minute email comes in, and there should be strong alignment. He noted that if the Planning Commission is held to certain criteria, then it should not be different at the City Council level either. 7 CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Monday, November 24, 2025 – 6:30 p.m. | City Hall Council Chamber 7800 Golden Valley Road Golden Valley, MN 55427 • Kramer noted that the Commission's purview is to take public comments but not necessarily to be vented at. • Van Oss added that it undermines people’s faith in the public process, because they feel they are being allowed to be heard and cannot be. • Kramer shared that the October 27 meeting minutes will be in the discussion as well. She added that if Commissioners are planning to attend, to let her know so that at the end of the presentation, she can note that Planning Commission Members are present. She shared that a lot was done on the work plan in 2025, and the work plan will be worked on early in 2026. She noted there is no new process there. 5. COMMISSIONER UPDATES: -NONE 6. ADJOURNMENT: Chair Ruby adjourned the meeting at 7:40 p.m. 8 CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Monday, December 8, 2026 – 6:30 p.m. | City Hall Council Chamber 7800 Golden Valley Road Golden Valley, MN 55427 1. CALL TO ORDER AND LAND ACKNOWLEDGEMENT • Chair Ruby called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m. and read the Land Acknowledgement • Regular Members Present: Amy Barnstorff, Gary Cohen, Mike Ruby, Eric Van Oss, David Hill • Regular Members Absent: Martin Sicotte and Chuck Segelbaum • Student Member, Status: Remy Rosenberg • Staff Members Present: Jacquelyn Kramer, Senior Planner Steven Okey, Associate Planner • Council Member Present: Sophia Ginis 2. CONSENT AGENDA: • Barnstorff noted that on the October 27, 2025, minutes, her name was spelled incorrectly in the notes. • Ruby noted it would be changed. 2.A. Approval of agenda 2.B. Approval of October 27, 2026, meeting minutes • Ruby asked for a motion to approve • Cohen moved to approve with the update • Van Oss seconded • All voted in favor, and the motion passed. 3. PUBLIC HEARINGS: 3.A. Minor Subdivision and Variance at 400 Sunnyridge Lane • Ruby shared how the public hearing process works. • Kramer presented the Minor Subdivision and Variance at 400 Sunnyridge Lane as found in the Agenda Packet. She noted that there are four emails in support of the application and that the Staff is recommending approval. • Barnstorff asked why it was possible to do an administrative approval for 40 feet but not for the 60 feet. • Kramer stated that the site was originally platted for three 40-foot lots, and then at some point, they were all combined into one 120-foot-wide lot. She explained that the County gives the ability to go back to any previous plat that is approved, and the City signed off on that, which is why it did not come before the Commission. She noted that the Code has a lot requirement of 80 feet, so it cannot be consolidated into two 60-foot lots without a variance. • Hill asked if the site had been just bought or torn down in the last month. • Kramer explained that the house was bought in March and recently torn down because of the shape of the house on the lot, which allows for consolidation and not having to worry about existing house setbacks. • Ruby opened up the public hearing. • Casey Pavick, 109 Mattis Lane, stated that the first house he bought was on a 40-foot lot, and was part of the process to try to add a second-story to their property or something bigger, but he was denied the possibility because neighbors told those who were on bigger lots that they could not do that. He stated that he has since moved, but has friends who are still on the 40- foot lots and are not able to build a taller house. He explained that the process with 40-foot lots has changed and that there is no buildability to the lots anymore. He shared that he feels 9 CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Monday, December 8, 2026 – 6:30 p.m. | City Hall Council Chamber 7800 Golden Valley Road Golden Valley, MN 55427 like other residents are demonizing those who live on 40-foot lots or, in this case, trying to make two 60-foot lots, but in actuality, it is creating sustainability and a way to develop the properties. • John Haberman, 320 Sunnyridge Lane, stated that he is two doors down and is very much in support of this, as the house that was there was a blight on the block. He added they are very much in support of it. • Ruby closed the public hearing and opened the item for discussion. • Cohen noted that all the comments that have been received or stated in the meetings have been in support of this. He stated that he supports approving it. • Barnstorff shared that she is in support of this and that the Staff laid out that it meets all the necessary pieces and the City's goals of building more houses. • Hill agreed with the past two Commissioners. He added that the chance to take one house that was blighted and build two houses is good from a sustainability perspective. • Cohen added that everyone should look into the racial covenants that may be on properties and that the current owner is doing the correct thing with that. • Ruby shared his support. He then asked for a motion. • Van Oss made the motion. • Barnstorff seconded the motion. • All voted in favor, and the motion passed. 3.B. Preliminary Planned Unit Development (PUD) and Preliminary Plat for Breck School, 123 Ottawa Avenue North • Ruby explained how the public hearing process works. • Kramer interjected that the earlier comment about the difficulty of building on the 40-foot lots is being looked into along with the Missing Middle Housing Study, and loosening restrictions to help with the 40-foot lots. • Van Oss asked if a two-car garage could be able to be built on a 40-foot lot. • Kramer shared that it would be really hard, but the City is also looking into the possibility of changing the requirements for garages on the narrow lots. She added that it is part of the Parking Code that is going to the Council on December 16. • Kramer presented the information on the Preliminary PUD and Preliminary Plat for Breck School as found in the Agenda Packet. She noted that the Staff is recommending approval for both, but the approval of the plat is dependent on the approval of the PUD. • Van Oss asked for the off-site transportation improvements, and who is responsible for the funding of it. • Kramer shared that in conversations with Breck, the school has indicated they are willing to put money down for these. She added that the details will be worked out in the development agreement that will be approved along with the final PUD and final plat. • Ruby stated that during the presentation, it was stated that there are opportunities for improvement. He noted that in making decisions that night, he did not like the idea of making decisions based on opportunities. He asked how the Commission will move forward with facts and things that will be done. • Kramer explained that because it is a preliminary PUD, the Staff is looking for a recommendation on amenity points; certain things should be seen in the development contract. She added that then the Staff will work with Breck to put numbers to those contracts and make it legally binding, before going to the Council with the final plat and the final PUD. She noted that the Council would not approve any plans until there were specifics for all of the items. • Cohen asked if the final PUD approval goes straight to the Council or does it goes back before 10 CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Monday, December 8, 2026 – 6:30 p.m. | City Hall Council Chamber 7800 Golden Valley Road Golden Valley, MN 55427 the Commission. • Kramer noted that there was research done on it, but it is believed that the final PUD and final plat only have to go to the City Council. • Ruby noted that he was providing an opportunity for the developers or the school to come up and speak. • Dr. Natalia Hernandez, Head of School at Breck, shared that she is a resident of Golden Valley and has two daughters who graduated from Breck. She noted that the school sits on 55 acres of land was stewarded and unseated by the Dakota people. She added that Breck shares with the City in the commitment to increase and amplify the voices of the Native families. She thanked the City Staff for their partnership with the school. She explained that Breck was found in 1886 and has been across several sights in Minnesota before landing in the City in 1980. She shared that the mission is to create confident learners who lead lives of intellectual curiosity, self-knowledge, and social responsibility. She noted that Breck is a premier independent school with a national reputation, and as such, the school knows it has to invest in the school, building, and land with a deep understanding of a comprehensive site plan and what it means to steward the land and building well. She added that no one benefits from an aging building or land that is not well-kept. She noted that all of the pieces that were looked at were looked at with a deep lens of what that means to be in partnership with Golden Valley. She stated that Breck is Breck because it is in Golden Valley. She explained that the improvements that are being talked about reinforce the school’s commitment to Golden Valley. She pointed out that the improvements to the academic centers are to the Mind, Brain, and Education Center is one of only two like it in the Country, and the other is to the Melrose Center for Leadership and Equity, both intend to improve the work of educators across the Country. She reiterated that Breck is committed to being the kind of neighbors that the City wants. She closed with that Breck believes now is the time to be good stewards of the land with humility and gratitude for the City’s partnership, and the school recognizes that the process will take time. • Megan Rogers, Land Use Attorney with Larkin Hoffman, stated that she was present to answer any questions and clarify parts of the plan as well. She asked for the traffic slide from the presentation to be brought up. She explained that it is such an expansive plan that the existing PUD has been amended four times, with the addition of the Upper School being the most recent in 2012. She added that the amendment was phase one, but two through five had not been outlined yet. She recommended that all of them be outlined by the school and brought before the Commission. She noted that it is a 25-year site plan for the school, and it makes sense because of the wetness of the land; it is important to look at the property holistically to ensure that water traffic and pedestrians are moving through it efficiently and are being accommodated before investing in vertical construction. She pointed out the specific things that the school will control and do in the process: the Golden Valley police officer that the school utilizes and has a contract with the City, restricting the turning off of Ottawa, building a new drop off plaza, which will reduce the queuing ratio and back up on to Glenwood, adding a gate at Natchez, pay for the signs and installation of the speed limit monitoring signs. She noted that the neighbor is at the meeting in support of a lower speed limit in the area, but because of certain Minnesota laws, the school does not fall within the school zone speed limits. She added that the City does have discretion to change the speed to 25 miles per hour, and it would be supported by the school. She continued to share that the school is committed to being a partner with the City and the neighborhood with Hennepin County, as Glenwood Avenue is controlled by the County, and the school has room for a turn lane that could be used if found to be needed in a study done by the County. She shared what the neighborhood engagement process has been, with a preliminary meeting being held in May of 2025, with a mailer being sent to all within 1,000 feet of the property. She added that 11 CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Monday, December 8, 2026 – 6:30 p.m. | City Hall Council Chamber 7800 Golden Valley Road Golden Valley, MN 55427 the meeting was well attended, with comments about traffic and a prior version of the plan that included improvements to Natchez Park, which was not well received by neighbors who lived immediately next to the park and is no longer part of the plan. She noted that changes have been made based on engagement with the neighbors. She explained that the plan does not seek to exceed the height rather just extend it, and look at a rendering for context. She noted that in exchange for the flexibility, there are several public benefits that are included in the Agenda Packet. She clarified that there will be no increase in enrollment as part of the plan. She explained that phasing is being proposed to move from west to east with the improvements, with priority improvements being to get the infrastructure in place first, so vertical construction can take place. She noted that all vertical construction would be funded by donor dollars. • Hill asked if they feel that traffic would improve with what is intended to be done, as this seems to be an issue. • Rogers shared that the school does believe that the traffic will improve, and the study reflects that by adopting the recommendations, the traffic will improve. She added that traffic around schools is always problematic, but for a school of Breck’s size, traffic is well managed on campus, and will only improve with the improvements shown. She noted that it is important to collaborate with the neighbors as well. • Ruby asked how to mitigate the issues of traffic during construction. • Rogers explained that with the acquisition of the American Legion site, there is almost an acre of staging and parking available to the school, and this is the core component as to why the phasing would take place from west to east. • Ruby asked if construction hours would be limited by the City. • Kramer shared that the hours would be managed by the City, and the school would have to follow standard construction hours of 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. • Rogers added that there would be a construction management plan for each phase available on the Breck school website. She noted that the students will not leave during the construction phases, so the site will have to function and be operational for the student body, while the improvements are happening on campus. • Ruby asked if the Bassett Watershed has been spoken to, and how it will be protected throughout the construction process. • Kramer shared that Breck and City Staff reached out to Bassett Creek Watershed Management Commission very early on in the process, and a preliminary review of the plans has been done, and feedback has been provided to Breck and the City, which will be included in the final plans. She stated that the Bassett Creek Watershed Management Commission can start formal review of Breck’s plans after the City Council approves the final plat. She noted that the City’s Stormwater Permits cannot be issued until Bassett Creek finishes their review and sends the City a letter that approves of Breck’s plans. • Ruby asked about it during construction. • Kramer stated that there are requirements for soil erosion and control. She added that it is all up to the City, which does its standard monitoring and check-ins. She noted that demolition and construction staging are covered by the building permit as well. • Barnstorff asked for further elaboration on improvements to pedestrian and bike improvements inside the site. • Rogers stated that there is a contingent of people who walk and bike to school, and there are plans to improve pedestrian walkways at key points that were identified by the traffic engineer, such as striping and pedestrian safety mechanisms. She noted that a ton of bike racks are being added, and space to encourage the growth of that form of transportation. She shared that it is very difficult to change how people have always done things, because it 12 CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Monday, December 8, 2026 – 6:30 p.m. | City Hall Council Chamber 7800 Golden Valley Road Golden Valley, MN 55427 becomes part of their muscle memory, but that is the thought behind the new drop-off plaza. She added that the same is true of all of the bike racks and that there is an emphasis on getting to school in that way. She noted that in the fall and the spring, the school encourages the students to try the bus at no cost, and there is a day were students get doughnuts for breakfast if they bike or walk to school. • Ruby asked about the parking code changes that are being made with this application coming before the Commission now, and the Parking Code going before City Council soon, whether Breck would have to follow the old or new code. • Kramer stated that the final PUD and final plat, all the final plans, would comply with the new Parking Code, because the final applications will not go to the Council until after the Parking Code is updated. She noted that there may not be a lot of changes that impact Breck. • Ruby stated that the concern would be if there is another variance or something required. • Kramer shared that there would be no necessity for a variance, because most of what is being talked about with parking is allowing the shared parking, which does not change with the code update. • Barnstorff asked with PUDs whether they have to follow all the ordinances, or if they specifically get variances from them. • Kramer explained that with PUDs, it can be thought of as a separate zoning district that is just for the site. She furthered that it overlays on top of the institutional zoning that is in existence. She added that anything that is in the PUD ordinance, a new section of code, and the plans and the development agreement can deviate from normal zoning standards with Planning Commission, City Council, and Staff approval. She added that there has to be a reason for it; it cannot be arbitrary. She noted that the PUD comes into law, and then it is like a new zoning district that only applies to this site; anything not covered by the PUD then falls back to the institutional zoning district that is beneath it. • Barnstorff pointed out that within the new parking code, there is something about the landscaped islands. • Kramer shared that Breck would have to meet the landscaped island. • Ruby asked that if Breck asks for more parking in the future, it would be outside this PUD and would have to be an amendment. • Kramer agreed that it could be an amendment. • Ruby opened up the public hearing. • Rosenberg shared that he worked on it in May and looked into how it would benefit the neighborhood. He shared that the fields that are being built will be more functional. He noted that the benefits to the soccer players, such as himself, for both going to school at Breck and to also his club time are benefited by playing on better fields. He added that the improvements to the actual learning facilities, such as the sound quality, will be helped in this process and make learning better for the students. He noted that the construction will have to be watched over, but the overall benefit will be great for the community as a whole. • Milly Rosenberg, 4624 Sunset Ridge, shared that she goes to the school and is also a community member of Golden Valley. She noted that there are a lot of benefits to both neighbors and students. She added that there is a shortage of good soccer fields in the metro area, so with Breck making a better field, it would be a benefit to many. She noted the ability to use the playgrounds, which are maintained very well. She stated that the concerns that were heard about traffic at the May neighborhood meeting are addressed within the plans. She described programs that connect students to the community of Golden Valley, and shared that it attests to Breck’s commitment to bettering the neighborhood. • Jim Park, 130 Westwood Drive North, stated that he is the parent of three students who attend Breck and lives in the community as well. He noted that Breck is a part of the 13 CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Monday, December 8, 2026 – 6:30 p.m. | City Hall Council Chamber 7800 Golden Valley Road Golden Valley, MN 55427 neighborhood, and that his family walks to school, and sees that Breck is part of the overall community and is a good neighbor. He added that whenever Breck hears of an issue with the neighborhood, the issue is addressed as quickly as possible. He stated that his kids benefit from diverse learning, outdoor focus, and community engagement. He added that his family views Breck as part of the neighborhood and one of the reasons why they stay in Golden Valley. He noted that the communication, transparency, and follow-through, the school has been very responsive, especially when it comes to traffic or if issues arise. • Sandy Hendivil, 25 Natchez Avenue North, stated that she lives very close to Breck. She noted that when she received notice back in May, she had many concerns about the houses that were acquired and what would be done, the volume of cars on Natchez, with the speed at which that is driven on the road, whether more athletic facilities would be put in, more students added. She shared that as she attended more meetings, she was put at ease and became less skeptical with each meeting. She noted that feedback was taken from the neighbors, the plans were walked back with Natchez Park, which would have brought more traffic, and have been good partners. She is happy with the plans as they are, as they are not building taller buildings, nor drawing more students. She noted the traffic concerns and that not a lot is going to be done, even with all the reminders being sent. She appreciated the partnership solution that was brought forward in putting in speed limit signs, and that the Planning Commission will move forward with that. She noted the idea of adding a sidewalk and encouraged the Commission to work with the school on the plans. • Bruce Pappes, 20 Archmore Drive, stated that he lived in the City when the construction of Breck happened and was able to work at Breck as well. He added that he also helps to run a Google group that was started by the City for safety years ago, which is continued in his neighborhood with over 600 people. He added that the PUD that was done for the upper school was probably not the best, as there were a lot of complaints, and not as much transparency. He stated that with the most recent PUD, Breck reached out to him to help involve the whole neighborhood, and all those who use the neighborhood as well. He noted that he has been really impressed with how much the school has listened, changed the plans, and has committed to working with the neighborhood. He noted that the neighborhood has been very well served by Breck. • Ruby closed the public hearing and opened the item for discussion. • Van Oss noted that it is a good plan, and that the City has a premier institution in it, which is also willing to invest. He added that the public process is admirable, and the plan was augmented based on City and public feedback. He stated that traffic is always going to be a problem, but any improvement to the current conditions is better than what is currently. He shared that he is in favor. • Barnstorff agreed with Commission Van Oss. She commended Breck for the positivity around the process, which can be a challenging thing to do. She noted that she is supportive of it. • Cohen stated that he is very supportive of this. He added that the process the accessibility and approachability of the people doing the work and the presentations are some of the best he has ever seen. He added that he attended three of the public meetings, just out of interest, and was very impressed by the process. He noted the hope of a message going to the City Council about the traffic work that Breck would like to do in the future. • Hill agreed with Commissioner Cohen and noted how important Breck is to the community. He thanked everyone who worked to get things to where they are today. He asked about the traffic improvements that are needed by the City and the County, and how to make them happen. • Kramer stated that the recommendation is an overall recommendation, and that conditions can be added to the approval beyond what is in the Staff report. She added that the 14 CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Monday, December 8, 2026 – 6:30 p.m. | City Hall Council Chamber 7800 Golden Valley Road Golden Valley, MN 55427 conditions would fall on the Applicant, not the County or City. • Hill noted that he brings it up because the Commission will not see the final. • Kramer stated that there may be a public hearing on the final PUD, and that feels appropriate. • Van Oss asked if any traffic recommendations would be incorporated into the final development agreement. • Kramer noted absolutely, particularly the ones where Breck would pay for them, such as the speed limit signs, off-campus improvements. She shared that a number would be agreed upon and then included in the Staff report and final PUD. • Hill asked if it would have one more chance at a public hearing. • Kramer agreed that it would, where the final PUD and final plat would be discussed. • Van Oss asked if the development agreement goes to the Commission. • Kramer shared that it does not go to the Commission in final form, but the Staff can provide a summary with bullet points of what would be in it. • Ruby stated that he is in favor of it as well. He added that the City will do the things that it can control, as does Breck. • Ruby asked if there were any other questions or comments. He then asked for a motion. • Cohen moved to recommend approval of the preliminary planned unit development and preliminary plat for Breck school at 123 Ottawa Avenue, subject to the findings and conditions in the Staff report. • Van Oss seconded the motion. • All voted in favor, and the motion passed. 4. NEW BUSINESS: -NONE 5. STAFF UPDATES: • Kramer stated that tomorrow there is a work session on the Missing Middle Housing Study. She explained that the background information, the market analysis, the fit test, and the table of recommendations will be given to the Council. • Kramer noted that there is a biweekly check-in for Commissions Hill and Van Oss with the consultant, to go through the recommendations as well. She added that the Commission is not expected to attend the work session. She added that the work session will also include a discussion about a proposed public art policy. • Ruby asked about the general maintenance of the items approved as part of a PUD. • Kramer explained that the Development Agreement does cover installation, the securities the City takes to make sure those things are installed, warranties taken on underground utility improvements, stormwater, and the landscaping. She added that an escrow is taken, and then an inspection is done one to two years later. She noted that ongoing maintenance is worked out in the Development Agreement. • Van Oss asked for conditions in a PUD versus a Development Agreement. • Kramer stated that the PUD will immortalize the zoning standards, the performance standards that would be seen in any other zoning district. She described those as uses, setbacks, building heights, sometimes parking, if residential, then the number of units. She explained that the conditions, such as requiring more bike installations or public art, are in the Development Agreement. • Van Oss stated that the Commission often does not see the Development Agreement. • Kramer agreed but furthered that the Commission can make conditions of approval, and the City Council would approve those, and then it would go into the Development Agreement. • Ruby asked if the Development Agreement includes the items from the PUD. • Kramer stated that it would not cover things such as dimensional standards like setbacks or 15 CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Monday, December 8, 2026 – 6:30 p.m. | City Hall Council Chamber 7800 Golden Valley Road Golden Valley, MN 55427 building heights. She added that the PUD ordinance that is approved by the City Council is part of the ordinance itself. She noted that whatever is shown in the plan becomes part of the legal document of the PUD ordinance. She heard that the Commission would like to see what would be included in the Development Agreement. • Van Oss stated that it has come up a few times as to what is included, and there is no way for the Commission to ensure that it happens. • Kramer shared that the Commission does not necessarily have control over what exactly the Council is approving. She added that recommendations can be made to the teeth of the agreement. • Van Oss added that the document can always be gone back to if the Commission is curious as to what has been approved. • Ruby asked if a PUD would be on the consent agenda. • Kramer noted probably not, as many times there is a discussion involved with it. She explained that there are no more meetings in December for the Commission but there is a meeting on January 12, 2025. • Kramer stated that the Board of Zoning Appeals will have a meeting in January. 6. COMMISSIONER UPDATES: • Van Oss noted the call the next day for the Missing Middle Housing Study. He added that they would use the same process as Commissioner Cohen used for Parking. • Kramer stated that with the recent PUD application, it will be a good time to look at the PUD Code. • Ruby agreed because the point system and letting the applicants manage some of it seemed like a hard way to do it. • Cohen noted that it may be a good time to go over the bylaws about term limitations, as both Chair Ruby and Commissioner Segelbaum will term out in 2026. • Kramer noted that training would be coming on that. 7. ADJOURNMENT: Chair Ruby adjourned the meeting at 8:10 p.m. 16 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Community Development 763-512-2345 / 763-512-2344 (fax) Golden Valley Planning Commission Meeting January 12, 2026 Agenda Item 2.D. Adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 26-01 Certifying Land Acquisition of 6110 Olson Memorial Highway is in Compliance with the Comprehensive Plan Prepared By Jacquelyn Kramer, Senior Planner Summary City Council approved acquisition of 6110 Olson Memorial Highway on December 16, 2025, for a future location of a new Public Works Facility. This property includes building tenant addresses 6102- 6190 Olson Memorial Highway. This is the second property proposed for acquisition as it relates to the new Public Works Facility. The City Council previously approved acquisition of the neighboring property at 6100 Olson Memorial Highway, owned by the same party. Per Minnesota Statute Section 462.356-2, all land acquisitions or conveyances by a municipality must be reviewed by the Planning Commission for compliance with the municipality's Comprehensive Plan. The Commission shall produce a report in writing and include findings of fact. Staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt a resolution certifying the acquisition of 6110 Olson Memorial Highway is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan based on the following findings: 1. The Mixed Use Community designation includes a mix of uses including high-density residential, commercial, office, institutional, and light industrial uses that serve the local market area and support the community. 2. The change will allow the City of Golden Valley to construct new Public Works facilities on the property. These facilities will include institutional and light industrial uses. 3. City facilities are crucial to the successful operation of public services and need to address the diverse needs of residents and employees not only today, but decades into the future. Current Public Works facilities have reached operational capacity and end of building life cycles. Next Steps Once the City acquires the property, Staff will work with a consultant team to prepare project plans. Planning Commission will hold public hearings on any necessary land use applications before City Council gives final approval of the project. Recommended Action Motion to adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 26-01 certifying the land acquisition of 6110 Olson Memorial Highway is in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan, based on the findings in 17 Planning Commission Resolution No. 26-01. Supporting Documents Planning Commission Resolution 26-01 18 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 26-01 A RESOLUTION CERTIFYING LAND ACQUISITION IS IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN WHEREAS, the City Council of Golden Valley has authorized staff to begin acquisition of certain real property with the address 6110 Olson Memorial Highway and legally described as follows: Lots 2, 3, and 4, Block 1, Expressway International Park, according to the recorded plat thereof, Hennepin County, Minnesota. WHEREAS, the proposed acquisition of the property has been submitted to the Planning Commission for its review and issuance of a written report of its findings pursuant to Minnesota Statute Section 462.356-2; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the proposed conveyance as it relates to the City’s Comprehensive Plan and finds it in compliance with the Plan based on the following findings: 1. The Mixed Use Community designation includes a mix of uses including high-density residential, commercial, office, institutional, and light industrial uses that serve the local market area and support the community. 2. The change will allow the City of Golden Valley to construct new Public Works facilities on the property. These facilities will include institutional and light industrial uses. 3. City facilities are crucial to the successful operation of public services. Facilities need to address the diverse needs of residents and employees not only today, but decades into the future. Current Public Works facilities have reached operational capacity and are approaching the end of building life cycles. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY, MINNESOTA that this land acquisition is in compliance with the City of Golden Valley’s Comprehensive Plan. Adopted by the Planning Commission this 12th day of January, 2026. _____________________ Mike Ruby, Chair ATTEST: _____________________________ Jacquelyn Kramer, Senior Planner 19 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Community Development 763-512-2345 / 763-512-2344 (fax) Golden Valley Planning Commission Meeting January 12, 2026 Agenda Item 3.A. Conditional Use Permit for Carwash at Poquet Auto (604 Lilac Drive North) Prepared By Jacquelyn Kramer, Senior Planner Summary ABC Investments, owners of Poquet Auto, requests a conditional use permit (CUP) to operate a carwash at 604 Lilac Drive North. The car wash would be used internally by Poquet Auto to prepare vehicles for sale and would not be open to the public. The property is zoned Commerical, and car wash uses require a CUP in this zoning district. Recommended Motion “I move to recommend approval of the conditional use permit for a carwash at 604 Lilac Drive North, subject to the findings and conditions in the January 12, 2026, staff report.” Meeting Dates Planning Commission: January 12, 2026 City Council (tentative): January 20, 2026 Recommended Action Motion to recommend approval of the Conditional Use Permit for a carwash at 604 Lilac Drive North, subject to the findings and conditions in the staff report. Supporting Documents Staff Report Draft Ordinance Survey Project Plans 20 Date: January 12, 2026 To: Golden Valley Planning Commission From: Jacquelyn Kramer, Senior Planner Subject: Conditional Use Permit for a carwash at 604 Lilac Drive North Subject Property Parcel ID Number: 1902924230025 Applicant/Property Owner: ABC Investments (Poquet Auto) Site Size: 1.04 acres, 45,446 square feet Future Land Use: Commercial Zoning District: Commercial Existing Use: Office building Adjacent Properties: North: office building East and south: apartments West: Poquet Auto and open space/right of way Site Image Poquet Auto (800 Lilac Drive North) 604 Lilac Drive North Lilac Drive Highway 100 2018 aerial (Hennepin County) 21 Background Poquet Auto operates a car dealership at 800 Lilac Drive North under a CUP dating back to 2003. The company has offices at 604 Lilac Drive and would like to add a car wash and detailing facilities to this property. The car wash would only be used to prepare cars for sale, no car sales would occur at 604 Lilac Drive, and the public would not have access to the car wash. The car dealership at 800 Lilac Drive would continue to operate at its present capacity. Car washes are allowed via Conditional Use Permits (CUP) in the Commercial zoning district, so the applicant requests a CUP to allow the car wash. Planning Analysis In reviewing this application, staff has examined the request in accordance with the standards outlined in Section 113-30 of the City Code, which provides the criteria for granting a CUP in accordance with Minnesota State Statute Section 462.357. The burden of proof rests with the applicant to demonstrate that the request aligns with the general purposes and intent of this chapter and is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. A Conditional Use Permit (CUP) must be reviewed against the following standards: 1. Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan of the City. The Commercial – Retail/Service land use category includes land uses for the provision of goods and services and encompasses a wide variety of commercial uses, including car washes. This land use is located near high density residential, commercial, and institutional land uses. 2. Whether the conditional use will impede the development and improvement of surrounding property for uses permitted in the district. The conditional use shall, in all other respects, conform to the applicable regulations of the district in which it is located. Car washes are permitted in the Commercial zoning district with a CUP. The application meets all applicable Commercial zoning district regulations. 3. Whether the conditional use generates traffic volumes or patterns that will unreasonably impact the safety, access, or quality of life of neighboring properties, and the extent to which any adverse impacts are minimized or mitigated. The site design for access and parking shall minimize internal as well as external traffic conflicts and shall be in compliance with this Code. The car wash will generate a small amount of additional traffic primarily between 800 Lilac Drive and 604 Lilac Drive, as cars are moved from the sales lot to the car wash and back. However, because the car wash will not be open for public use, the potential traffic increases will not impact the safety, access, or quality of life of neighboring properties. Staff recommend a condition of approval in the CUP ordinance codifying the restriction of public access to the car wash. 4. Compliance with the City's Mixed-Income Housing Policy (if applicable to the proposed use). Not applicable to this project. 5. Whether the conditional use causes any odors, dust, smoke, gas, or vibration and the extent to which any such impacts are minimized or mitigated. The garage doors will remain closed while vehicles are washed and detailed, which will eliminate any potential noise impacts to neighboring properties. 22 6. Whether the conditional use impacts pedestrian travel. If applicable, a pedestrian circulation system shall be clearly defined and appropriate conditions imposed to protect such areas from encroachment by parked or moving vehicles. There should be no impacts to current pedestrian travel with the new car wash. 7. The impact of loading docks and drive-up facilities. Loading docks and drive-up facilities shall be positioned so as to minimize internal site access problems and maneuvering conflicts, to avoid visual or noise impacts on any "adjacent" residential use or district. No loading docks or drive-up facilities are proposed in the project plans. 8. Whether the site drainage system shall, in the opinion of the City Engineer, be constructed in compliance with this Code. No changes to the site drainage system are proposed in the project plans. 9. Whether the appearance causes a blighting influence on surrounding properties. The architectural appearance and functional design of the building and site shall not be so dissimilar to the existing or potential buildings so as to cause a blighting influence. Provisions shall be made for an interior location for recycling, compost, and trash area or an outdoor, enclosed receptacle area shall be provided. The only significant change to the building exterior is the installation of a garage door leading to the car wash. Existing, out of date pylon signage will be removed and not replaced. Staff anticipate no potential for blighting influence on neighboring properties. 10. The use and site shall be in compliance with all local, federal and state laws or regulations which are applicable and any related permits are obtained and documented to the City. If City Council approves the CUP, the applicant would apply for building permits before starting any project work. 11. Whether the hours of operation of the use impact surrounding residential uses or districts. The hours of operation may be restricted when there is potential negative impact upon a residential use or district. Poquet Auto will continue operating at their current hours on both the 800 Lilac and 604 Lilac properties. Staff anticipates no negative impacts from the current hours of operation. Sales Service Monday - Tuesday 9:00 am – 6:00 pm 7:00 am – 5:00 pm Wednesday - Thursday Closed Closed Friday 9:00 am – 5:00 pm 7:00 am – 5:00 pm Saturday 9:00 am – 5:00 pm Closed Sunday Closed Closed Staff finds that the application meets ordinance requirements for a CUP. The Development Review Committee (consisting of staff from all departments) reviewed the plans and provided the applicant with feedback for their project plans. 23 Based on this review, staff recommends the following conditions of approval: 1. The car wash will only be used by Poquet Auto and not be open to the public. 2. Poquet Auto will post “No Parking” signs on the north access aisle on the 604 Lilac property to allow sufficient space for fire lane access. 3. All cars parked on the 604 Lilac Avenue property must have personal license and registration (no vehicles waiting to be sold). 4. Storage of vehicles for sale on the 604 Lilac Drive property is prohibited. 5. Garage doors will remain closed during car wash and detailing operations. 6. If in the future Poquet Auto wants to install a gate on the 604 Lilac Drive property, similar to the gate on the 800 Lilac Drive property, they must receive Fire Department approval to ensure emergency vehicle access to the site. 7. Any new outdoor lighting on either site must be approved by City staff before installation. 8. All current code compliance items shall be resolved before the City issues any new building permits. Additionally, City staff identified part of the right of way northwest of 604 Lilac Drive as not serving a public purpose and therefore eligible to be transferred to the property owner. This turnback process would be initiated by the City and may include working with the property owner to replat their property to incorporate the turnback area into the parcel. While this action is not urgently needed, Poquet Auto installed a fence and gate in this area. The Fire Department has key access to the gate so it does not currently impede emergency vehicle access. This CUP application is a good time to begin this process. City staff will work with the property owner on next steps. Public Notification As required by ordinance, a neighborhood notice was published in the local paper of record and mailed to all properties within 500 feet at least 10 days before the public hearing. At the time of this staff report, staff has received no comments on the application. Recommendation Staff recommends approval of the conditional use permit, subject to the findings in the staff report and the conditions described above. Next Steps City Council is tentatively scheduled to act on the application on January 20, 2026. Staff Contact Information Prepared by: Jacquelyn Kramer Senior Planner jkramer@goldenvalleymn.gov Reviewed by: Chloe McGuire, AICP Deputy Community Development Director cmcguire@goldenvalleymn.gov 24 ORDINANCE NO. x AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE CITY CODE APPROVAL OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A CAR WASH AT 604 LILAC DRIVE NORTH WHEREAS, ABC Investments applied for a Conditional Use Permit to allow a car wash at 604 Lilac Drive North; and WHEREAS, Section 113-30 of the City Code governs Conditional Use Permits and Amendments; and WHEREAS, the City of Golden Valley Planning Commission held a public hearing on January 12, 2026, and recommended approval of the Conditional Use Permit. NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL FOR THE CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY HEREBY ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Pursuant to City Code Chapter 113. Zoning, Article III. Zoning Districts, Section 113- 55(b) and Section 113-96, a Conditional Use Permit is hereby approved for a certain tract of land located at 604 Lilac Drive North, thereby allowing a car wash in the Commercial zoning district. This Conditional Use Permit is approved based on the application materials and plans submitted by the applicant, staff memos, public comments and information presented to the Planning Commission and City Council, and findings recommended by the Planning Commission. This Conditional Use Permit is approved pursuant to City Code Section 113- 30(k) and adopted by the City Council on January 20, 2026. This Conditional Use Permit is subject to all of the terms of the permit to be issued including, but not limited to, the following specific conditions. 1. The car wash will only be used by Poquet Auto and will not be open to the public. 2. Poquet Auto will post “No Parking” signs on the north access aisle on the 604 Lilac property to allow sufficient space for fire lane access. 3. All cars parked on the 604 Lilac Avenue property must have personal license and registration (no vehicles waiting to be sold). 4. Storage of vehicles for sale on the 604 Lilac Drive property is prohibited. 5. Garage doors will remain closed during car wash and detailing operations. 6. If in the future Poquet Auto wants to install a gate on the 604 Lilac Drive property, similar to the gate on the 800 Lilac Drive property, they must receive Fire Department approval to ensure emergency vehicle access to the site. 7. Any new outdoor lighting on either site must be approved by City staff before installation. 8. All current code compliance items shall be resolved before the City issues any new building permits. In addition, the City Council makes the following findings pursuant to City Code Section 113- 30(d): 1. The proposed car wash use is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. 2. The proposed car wash will not impede the development and improvement of surrounding properties. 3. The proposed car wash meets applicable regulations in the Commercial zoning district. 4. The proposed car wash will not generate traffic volumes or patterns that will unreasonably impact the safety, access, or quality of life of neighboring properties. 25 5. The conditional use will not generate odors, dust, smoke, gas or vibration that would negatively impact the neighbors. 6. The proposed car wash will not impact pedestrian travel. 7. The appearance of the proposed car wash will not cause a blighting influence on surrounding properties. 8. The proposed car wash use shall comply with all local, federal and state laws and regulations. 9. The hours of operation of the car wash shall not impact surrounding residential uses or districts. Section 2. The tract of land affected by this ordinance is legally described as follows: Lot 2, Block 1, Valley Village Jax Addition, Hennepin County, Minnesota Torrens Property Section 3. This ordinance shall take effect from and after its passage and publication as required by law. Adopted by the City Council this 20th day of January, 2026. Roslyn Harmon, Mayor ATTEST: Theresa Schyma, City Clerk 26 27 ^I s?0u~~\0^%!\JEi^-^•^n ^c^^}UJ^LUs 0^-LLUwOI1D N;y735?bQ»~B5 is^gBs!Fi\itJiIfP 0 Q U E TCAR WASH604 Lilac Drive N, Goiden Valley, MNMVil1&M^[?lilI M»n^28 mw *j*j pM.^ l^yvl,fl^j£Tsn00z^1^P OQU E TCAR WASH604 Lifac Drive N, Coitfcn VaiEey, MN^.^'^ti^njliKSiiil' WWW[•^ q-^1H:iIIi^ii^29