Loading...
2025-11-24 MIN PC Regular MeetingCITY 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. 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. 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 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 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. 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. 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.