Loading...
pc-minutes-09-11-2023City of Golden Valley September 11, 2023 6:30 pm Planning Commission Regular Meeting 1 REGULAR MEETING MINUTES 9/11/2023 – 6:30 pm Council Chambers Hybrid This meeting was conducted in a hybrid format with in‐person and remote options for attending, participating, and commenting. The City used Webex to conduct this meeting and members of the public were able to monitor the meetings by watching it on Comcast cable channel 16, by streaming it on CCXmedia.org, or by dialing in to the public call‐in line. 1. Call to Order The meeting was called to order at 6:30 pm by Chair Brookins. Roll Call Commissioners present: A. Barnstorff, A. Brookins, G. Cohen, M. McCormick, B. Meredith , M. Ruby, C. Segelbaum Commissioners absent: B. Fricke (Youth) Staff present: J. Zimmerman, M. Campbell Council Liaison: Denise La Mere‐Anderson 2. Land Acknowledgement 3. Approval of Agenda MOTION made by Commissioner Ruby, seconded by Commissioner Cohen, to approve the agenda of September 11, 2023. MOTION CARRIED 4. Approval of Minutes August 14, 2023, Regular Meeting MOTION made by Commissioner Cohen, seconded by Commissioner McCormick, to approve the minutes of August 14, 2023. MOTION CARRIED 5. Discussion – Sacred Communities Myles Campbell – Planner, started by explaining that sacred community rules will take effect statewide on January 1, 2024 as the MN legislature adopted new regulations on providing residential housing associated with religious institutions . Based on the statute language, the City will need to update its code in anticipation of these new rules . The statute will allow for “micro units” and will focus on emergency or extremely low-income housing. Staff went on to define terminology in the statute. City of Golden Valley September 11, 2023 – 6:30 pm Planning Commission Regular Meeting 2 Campbell went on to discuss the limitations of local controls, how municipalities can permit units, that micro units are subject to different building standards, and that 33%-40% of micro units must be occupied by volunteers as opposed to folks paying “rent”. Current zoning in Golden Valley does not allow accessory housing of any sort with religious institutions. The Institutional – Assembly district is currently limited to one accessory structure. Mixed -Use allows both residential and places of worship but requi rements are geared towards multi -family residential. Next Steps • Questions/concerns from Planning Commission based on the introduction to the topic • Planning Staff meeting with Building Inspections to discuss the new standards for construction used • Later this fall, bringing draft zoning changes to PC for discussion, and then an informal public hearing o Staff would like to have language in place prior to January 1st Commissioner Cohen noted that staff creating a census to include what religious institut ions exist in the City with this capability would be helpful for understanding. Campbell agreed and added staff started discussing creating a list of both what religious institutions exist and which have land to meet this statute. The conversation contin ued around income requirements, eligibility, the purchasing and maintenance of these homes, the requirement around this model adhering to a religious institution , architecture, ADA compliance, pervious surfaces, and max unit allowances per lot . Commissioner Ruby asked if the City would be required to be responsible for permits, inspect ions, and ongoing rental licenses. Staff noted that this isn’t explicit in the statute but that responsibility and requirements will need to be addressed. The conversation went on to discuss emergency access, hydrants, and the need to really study the statute and code to ensure compliance and safety. Staff noted that as of this meeting there hasn’t been a religious institution that vocalized interest in crea ting this housing. This model is a theoretical way to address the housing needed for folks that are considered extremely low income. The goal is to have the language set in place and ready for the January 1, 2024 statute implementation. 1. Discussion – Site Plan Review Jason Zimmerman – Planning Manager, noted there wasn’t a presentation for this item but rather an informal conversation and is on the workplan for 2023. Site plan review is something City staff has done, informally, over the years. The developer presents an idea and then staff from relatable departments work together. Once those items are clear, a developer moves with a building permit or a PUD and the process will continue from there. Staff realized that in contrast, other cities have a f ormal process, fees, and listed expectations. This process clarifies what the developer may need earlier in advance. The Planning Commission comes into play because there’s a section of code that states the Planning Commission acts as the site plan review body specifically for Mixed -Use zoned properties. The most recent is the Sentinel/Wells Fargo property and project. Zimmerman noted the work that interns have done over the years, brought this proposal by development staff and included their input. Staff would especially like the Commissions input so the process and timing City of Golden Valley September 11, 2023 – 6:30 pm Planning Commission Regular Meeting 3 can be updated and hopefully this process will be updated by early 2024. Commissioner Ruby asked about the development team schedule and if it made sense for a Commissioner to be present at the development meetings and act as a representative when the item is presented to the Commission at large. Staff responded with meeting details and noted that the plan is not to have Commissioners participate in every site plan review but only for the Mixed -Use developments. Commissioner Segelbaum recalled items that came up in site reviews in the past. Looking specifically at Mixed-Use, he asked staff to expand on what the commissioners can help evaluate. Staff responded there have been two itera tions of Mixed -Use Zoning. The original was the 394 Mixed -Use and the code was written that allowed the Commission to participate in negotiations on code with the developers to meet the long-term goal. The current Mixed -Use code is less clear but staff would like to clarify what’s hard and fast on-site standards and what can be left to Commissioner judgement during site plan review. At this time, staff is seeking Commissioner feedback on process. The conversation continued to discuss the code, intention, minimum and maximum requirements, and what may be open for feedback. Members and staff reviewed the current informal process and moved on to discuss what is necessary to create a formal site plan rev iew process. Chair Brookins asked if this process eliminates the ability for developers to have an informal conversation with staff. Zimmerman replied that it will actually be a requirement before applying for a permit . Standards for this process need to b e included in the Zoning Code and if the update can be implemented by the end of the year, it can be added to the following year fee schedule. – End of Televised Portion of Meeting – 2. Council Liaison Report Council Member La Mere‐Anderson updated the Commission on the need for additional volunteers to assist the Community Service Commission with the evaluation of requests for funding. Commissioners McCormick and Cohen offered to help. She also previewed the upcoming Council Work Session wh ich would be discussing a (Re)Naming policy and potential changes to the Home Occupation regulations. 3. Other Business Commissioner Ruby is in line to attend the September Board of Zoning Appeals meeting. Commissioner Meredith introduced himself to the rest of the members. 4. Adjournment Meeting adjourned at 7:44pm. Secretary, Mary McCormick Amie Kolesar, Planning Assistant