pc-agenda-10-09-23
REGULAR MEETING AGENDA
Planning Commission meetings are being conducted in a hybrid format with in‐person and remote
options for attending, participating, and commenting. The public can make statements in this meeting
during the planned public comment sections. Some members of the Commission may attend virtually.
Members of the public may attend virtually by following instructions below.
Remote Attendance/Comment Options: Members of the public may attend this meeting by watching
on cable channel 16, streaming on CCXmedia.org, streaming via Webex, or by calling 1‐415‐655‐0001,
entering access code 2634 768 0575, and password 1234 from phones and video systems.
1. Call to Order & Land Acknowledgement
2. Approval of Agenda
3. Approval of Minutes
September 27, 2023, Regular Meeting
4. Discussion – Sacred Communities
5. Discussion – Site Plan Review
– End of Televised Portion of Meeting –
To listen to this portion, please call 1‐415‐655‐0001 and enter meeting access code 2634 768 0575
6. Council Liaison Report
7. Other Business
a. Reports on Board of Zoning Appeals and Other Meetings
8. Adjournment
October 9, 2023 – 6:30 pm
Council Chambers
Hybrid Meeting
REGULAR MEETING MINUTES DRAFT
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 Vice‐Chair Ruby.
Roll Call
Commissioners present: A. Barnstorff, B. Fricke, G. Cohen, M. McCormick, B. Meredith,
M.Ruby, C. Segelbaum
Commissioners absent: A.Brookins
Staff present: Jason Zimmerman – Planning Manager
Council Liaison:Denise La Mere‐Anderson
2.Land Acknowledgement
3.Approval of Agenda
MOTION made by Commissioner Cohen, seconded by Commissioner Segelbaum, to approve the
agenda of September 27, 2023.
MOTION CARRIED
4.Approval of Minutes
September 11, 2023, Regular Meeting
MOTION made by Commissioner Segelbaum, seconded by Commissioner McCormick, to approve the
minutes of September 11, 2023.
MOTION CARRIED
5.Informal Public Hearing – Extension of Outdoor Service Area Permit for Schuller’s Tavern
Address: 7345 Country Club Drive
Applicant: Paul Jacob
Jason Zimmerman – Planning Manager, started with an introduction of Schuller’s, and the tavern’s
request. He offered a zoning background on the location and it being in an area zoned R1, and the
operation is a non‐conforming use.
Staff provided a background on the outdoor service area permit that was approved in 2022 and it
was initially approved by Council to remain valid for one year with a possible extension covering two
September 27, 2023 – 6:30 pm
Council Chambers
Hybrid
City of Golden Valley Planning Commission Regular Meeting
September 27, 2023 – 6:30 pm
2
years at a time. The reason for this process was further explained as this is a commercial use in a
residential area. Staff discussed the process of creating temporary outdoor uses in the zoning code.
At this time the outdoor service area use is up for review and this allows staff to consider any
necessary conditions to prevent or minimize impact. Staff listed the eight factors, adding a couple are
no longer needed and two conditions to mitigate noise and light are relevant.
Recommended Action
Staff recommends approval of an extension to Outdoor Service Area Permit #1, allowing for
continued outdoor dining at 7345 Country Club Drive, subject to the following conditions:
1. The extended term for the outdoor service area permit shall be for two years from issuance,
at which time application must be made for an additional extension or else the use shall be
discontinued.
2. No amplifier or outdoor speaker system may be used in association with the patio or any
live music performance.
3. Use of the patio must conclude by 10 pm, at which time all patio lighting must be
extinguished.
Commissioner Segelbaum asked how staff came up with the 2‐year condition. Staff responded that
when the code language was adopted, Council was cautious and allowed 2‐year extensions are the
max for now. That may change in the future. Segelbaum asked if the tavern has maintained
compliance and what complaints the City has received as a result of this conditioned use. Staff
responded there have not been any complaints and prior to this meeting, staff reached out to police,
fire, public works, etc and no department has received complaints. In fact, staff received positive
comments from folks that have eaten there.
Vice‐Chair Ruby invited the applicant to speak.
Paul and Mark Jacob – applicants, gave a background and this patio was about a 30‐year process.
Their father bought this location in the 80’s and the plan was all his idea. The applicant pointed out
the sound barriers created to shield the direct neighbors from noise and direct excess noise towards
the golf course. The applicant also noted the 10pm patio cut off and added that the time was self‐
imposed. The patio has created a more family‐oriented setting and the patio was always the goal to
add to the tavern, not to rezone the area to commercial. The applicants added their commitment to
staying in this location and staying in the City.
Segelbaum asked if the applicants had any issues meeting the restrictions imposed by the temporary
use. The applicants responded that they hadn’t, and in fact operate this location’s patio similar to the
others. The only addition is coming before the Planning Commission and Council regularly to renew.
The applicants closed by adding that every summer, Schuller’s sees a dip in sales in the summer and
the goal of this patio was to prevent that. In the first year, they were already successful and business
remained steady.
Vice‐Chair Ruby opened the public hearing at 6:48.
City of Golden Valley Planning Commission Regular Meeting
September 27, 2023 – 6:30 pm
3
Vice‐Chair Ruby noted there were no Golden Valley Speaks comments left prior to the meeting and
that staff did not receive comments otherwise in advance.
Vice‐Chair Ruby invited in person commenters to speak first.
There were no in person commenters.
Vice‐Chair Ruby invited remote callers to speak.
There were no remote callers.
Vice‐Chair Ruby closed the public comment portion at 6:50pm.
Vice‐Chair Ruby opened Commissioner discussion.
Commissioner Cohen noted that what has been put in place is working, magnified by the fact that
there are no complaints. Cohen added that he drove by with his windows down and the patio was
full and he didn’t hear any noise and likes the idea of making the extension longer than 2 years.
Commissioner McCormick added that patio seating is a great addition to the City and suspects there
would be more complaints if the patio closed. McCormick echoed Cohen’s statement that it would
be nice to have the extension last more than two years. Commissioner Meredith noted that he
cycles past the space and has utilized the patio, adding that he’s impressed with how well the
applicants maintain the property. Meredith also said making the extension last 5 years is advisable.
Commissioner Segelbaum mentioned a condition on acoustic music and said he is in favor of striking
that while adding a condition on excessive volume. McCormick asked if there were comments when
this was first passed about specific kinds of music. Staff responded they didn’t recall concerns about
music types but there was general concern about noise: music noise, car noise, people on the patio
etc. McCormick suggested the acoustic condition remain. Segelbaum pointed that he didn’t recall
concern about amplified music versus acoustic, and rather was suggesting a condition on volume
level, regardless of type.
Staff chimed in that live musicians can have small speakers for music and the restriction on sound
system speakers was to prevent overhead noise from orders being called out to the patio. Vice‐Chair
Ruby summarized and suggested the group offer more flexibility and not restrict more. As long as
they’re at a reasonable volume, maybe strike the second condition. The conversation continued
around volume restriction language and other areas where this is addressed. Commissioner
Barnstorff echoed the positive statements from earlier about the patio’s contribution to the area.
She added support making language more lenient around speakers and noise while noting the
applicant’s willingness to put restraints on themselves and ensure they’re not disruptive to the
community around them. The group and applicant discussed Council’s language at approval and
noted that background music was allowed. Staff found previous CC language that confirmed this and
the decision to strike the second condition was made.
MOTION made by Commissioner Cohen, seconded by Commissioner Meredith, to recommend
approval of an extension to Outdoor Service Area Permit #1, allowing for continued outdoor dining
at 7345 Country Club Drive, subject to the following conditions:
1. The extended term for the outdoor service area permit shall be for two years from
issuance, at which time application must be made for an additional extension or else the
use shall be discontinued.
City of Golden Valley Planning Commission Regular Meeting
September 27, 2023 – 6:30 pm
4
2. Use of the patio must conclude by 10 pm, at which time all patio lighting must be
extinguished.
And amending staff’s recommendation by eliminating the condition that states: No amplifier or
outdoor speaker system may be used in association with the patio or any live music performance.
MOTION CARRIED
6. Discussion – Site Plan Review
Jason Zimmerman – Planning Manager, reminded the group that this conversation was presented at
the last meeting and gave a brief synopsis. For this meeting, he provided examples of site plan review
sections for other cities. He spoke more about how their process goes, compared to what Golden
Valley is currently doing and would like to do. Part of this process will be navigating where the
Planning Commission comes in to play for Mixed‐Use zoning. Staff went on to point out the areas
called out in the packet and offered direction to the commissioners on what pieces of information
are open to interpretation and thus could use input.
Zimmerman went on to discuss facades, code intent versus requirement, fees, review timelines, and
appeal processes.
Vice‐Chair Ruby reviewed the fee schedule for a concept plan meeting. He asked if the fee was for
one meeting or if it was the same fee for any consecutive meetings as well. Staff responded it is a
single fee for one concept plan meeting as after that meeting the concept is either approved or
directed to be altered. If the latter, then the contractor/developer works on a new concept and sets
up a new concept plan meeting. Ruby followed by asking how often this situation comes up.
Zimmerman responded he’s worked for the City for 10 years and has had three Mixed‐Use site
review plans come before the City.
The conversation continued on the benefit of setting expectations and how codified the process will
be. Staff noted that expectations will be in code but Commission interpretations, feedback, and how
that applies won’t be in code.
– End of Televised Portion of Meeting –
7. Council Liaison Report
Council Member La Mere‐Anderson was not present. Zimmerman summarized the discussion at the
last Council Work Session where potential changes to the Home Occupation regulations were
discussed. The Council agreed to revisit the topic in January and decide then if they want to add it as
a work item for 2024.
8. Other Business
Commissioner Barnstorff will be the representative to the BZA for October.
9. Adjournment
Meeting adjourned at 7:58pm.
________________________________
________________________________ Secretary, Mary McCormick
Amie Kolesar, Planning Assistant
1
Date: October 9, 2023
To: Golden Valley Planning Commission
From: Myles Campbell, Planner
Subject: Sacred Communities ‐ Micro‐Unit Dwellings – Discussion
Background:
In its session this summer, the Minnesota Legislature adopted its Omnibus Labor Policy Bills in
both the House and Senate. Within these omnibus bills were sections on the topic of “Sacred
Communities” defined in the statute as:
“A residential settlement established on or contiguous to the grounds of a religious institution's
primary worship location primarily for the purpose of providing permanent housing for
chronically homeless persons, extremely low‐income persons, and designated volunteers...”
These Sacred Communities would be primarily comprised of residential “Micro‐Units,” defined in
the statute as “a mobile residential dwelling providing permanent housing within a sacred
community” and with requirements such as being less than 400 square feet, anchored in place,
insulated, providing traditional or low voltage electricity, dry, plumbed, or compostable toilets,
and smoke and carbon monoxide alarms, among others.
City Council has asked Planning Commission to investigate what impacts this legislation will have
on Golden Valley and how the Zoning Code will need to be adapted.
Updated Legislation
Staff has included the final adopted copy of legislation from the Minnesota Senate with this
memo, which includes a few minor edits compared to the copy of the House’s omnibus bill. Most
notably in staff’s eyes is an update to the language around local approvals:
Unless the municipality has designated sacred communities meeting the requirements of this
section as permitted uses, a sacred community meeting the requirements of this section shall be
approved and regulated as a conditional use without the application of additional standards not
included in this section. When approved, additional permitting is not required for individual micro
units.
2
Unlike the House version, which stated that the community could be permitted via PUD or special
permit, the Senate clarifies that these uses, if not permitted by right, then can only be handled via
conditional use permit. Staff believes this clarification was intended to prevent a municipality
from creating arduous restrictions or standards for the use to effectively stop their development,
as CUPs are constrained by a set of 10 factors that conditions must relate back to:
demonstrated need for the proposed use
consistency with the Comprehensive Plan of the City
effect on property values in the neighboring area
effect of any anticipated traffic generation on the current traffic flow and congestion in
the area
effect of any increases in population and density upon surrounding land uses
increase in noise levels to be caused by the proposed use
any odors, dust, smoke, gas, or vibration to be caused by the proposed use
any increase in flies, rates, or other animals or vermin in the area to be caused by the
proposed use
visual appearance of any proposed structure or use
any other effect upon the general public health, safety, and welfare of the City and its
residents
No other significant changes were noted by staff between the two versions of the bill.
Current Setback Regulations
The legislation sets a setback of 10 feet on all sides of each micro‐unit, but does say that
otherwise the City setback requirements for manufactured homes would apply instead. Assuming
districts were modified to allow these sacred communities, but setbacks were not changed, the
following would apply:
(3) Setbacks.
a. No manufactured home shall be located closer than 15 feet to a side or rear lot line.
The minimum front yard setback shall be 25 feet from the front lot line. On corner lots,
the secondary front yard setback shall be at least 15 feet from the lot line.
b. There shall be a space of at least 15 feet between the sides of adjacent manufactured
homes and at least 10 feet between manufactured homes when parked end to end.
(4) Permitted Encroachments.
a. Stairs and stair landings up to 25 square feet in size and accessible ramps may encroach
up to five feet into the interior setback, provided that they do not extend closer than 10
feet to an adjacent structure.
b. Cornices and eaves may extend outside the building envelope by no more than 30
inches.
3
City Staff Updates
Building Inspections
Initial discussions with the City Building Official have begun. They will be reaching out to their
contacts at the state to get more clarity on the topic of who will be conducting inspections of
micro‐units given that they do not follow residential building code but rather American National
Standards Institute requirements for park recreational vehicles, with some added standards such
as those for insulation.
While Building Inspections here in GV do not typically review for ANSI standards, there are other
aspects of these micro‐units that would involve the city, such as plumbing, mechanical and
electrical permits, or the foundation/anchoring system that is required to set these units in a
specific location.
Fire Department
Fire Department staff, who also oversee rental licensing, had some initial concerns with the
legislation, primarily in terms of ensuring the safety of prospective residents of these units. They
were supportive of requiring a conditional use permit for the use, as that will allow them to
request details on site plan materials relating to access and infrastructure in case of an
emergency. Fire Staff are also discussing the applicability of a rental license for these uses, and
either the license or an inspection of units could be a condition of approval (effect upon the
general public health, safety, and welfare of the City and its residents). Additionally, the fire
department will be reaching out to the State Fire Marshall for guidance on the code standards for
thee structures.
Attachments
CHAPTER 53‐‐S.F.No. 3035 (3 pages)
(16) pressure vessels operated full of water or other liquid not materially more hazardous than water, if
the vessel's contents' temperature does not exceed 210 degrees Fahrenheit or a pressure of 200 psig;
(17) steam-powered turbines at papermaking facilities which are powered by steam generated by steam
facilities at a remote location;
(18) manually fired boilers for model locomotive, boat, tractor, stationary engine, or antique motor
vehicles constructed or maintained only as a hobby for exhibition, educational or historical purposes and
not for commercial use, if the boilers have an inside diameter of 12 inches or less, or a grate area of two
square feet or less, and are equipped with an ASME stamped safety valve of adequate size, a water level
indicator, and a pressure gauge;
(19) any pressure vessel used as an integral part of an electrical circuit breaker;
(20) pressure vessels used for the storage of refrigerant if they are built to ASME code specifications,
registered with the national board, and equipped with an ASME code-stamped pressure-relieving device set
no higher than the maximum allowable working pressure of the vessel. This does not include pressure vessels
used in ammonia refrigeration systems;
(21) pressure vessels used for the storage of oxygen, nitrogen, helium, carbon dioxide, argon, nitrous
oxide, or other medical gas, provided the vessel is constructed to ASME or Minnesota Department of
Transportation specifications and equipped with an ASME code-stamped pressure-relieving device. The
owner of the vessels shall perform annual visual inspections and planned maintenance on these vessels to
ensure vessel integrity;
(22) pressure vessels used for the storage of compressed air for self-contained breathing apparatuses;
(23) hot water heating or other hot liquid boilers vented directly to the atmosphere; and
(24) pressure vessels used for the storage of compressed air not exceeding 1.5 cubic feet (11.22 gallons)
in volume with a maximum allowable working pressure of 600 psi or less.
(b) An engineer's license is not required for hot water supply boilers.
(c) An engineer's license and annual inspection by the department is not required for boilers, steam
cookers, steam kettles, steam sterilizers or other steam generators not exceeding 100,000 BTU per hour
input, 25 kilowatt, and a pressure of 15 psig.
(d) Electric boilers not exceeding a maximum working pressure of 50 psig, maximum of 30 kilowatt
input or three horsepower rating shall be inspected as pressure vessels and shall not require an engineer
license to operate.
Sec. 57. [327.30] SACRED COMMUNITIES AND MICRO-UNIT DWELLINGS.
Subdivision 1.Definitions.(a) For the purposes of this section, the following terms have the meanings
given.
(b) "Chronically homeless" means an individual who:
(1) is homeless and lives or resides in a place not meant for human habitation, a safe haven, or in an
emergency shelter;
Official Publication of the State of Minnesota
Revisor of Statutes
86LAWS of MINNESOTA 2023Ch 53, art 11, s 56
(2) has been homeless and living or residing in a place not meant for human habitation, a safe haven,
or in an emergency shelter continuously for at least one year or on at least four separate occasions in the last
three years; and
(3) has an adult head of household, or a minor head-of-household if no adult is present in the household,
with a diagnosable substance use disorder, serious mental illness, developmental disability, post-traumatic
stress disorder, cognitive impairments resulting from a brain injury, or chronic physical illness or disability,
including the co-occurrence of two or more of those conditions.
(c) "Designated volunteers" means persons who have not experienced homelessness and have been
approved by the religious institution to live in a sacred community as their sole form of housing.
(d) "Extremely low income" means an income that is equal to or less than 30 percent of the area median
income, adjusted for family size, as estimated by the Department of Housing and Urban Development.
(e) "Micro unit" means a mobile residential dwelling providing permanent housing within a sacred
community that meets the requirements of subdivision 4.
(f) "Religious institution" means a church, synagogue, mosque, or other religious organization organized
under chapter 315.
(g) "Sacred community" means a residential settlement established on or contiguous to the grounds of
a religious institution's primary worship location primarily for the purpose of providing permanent housing
for chronically homeless persons, extremely low-income persons, and designated volunteers that meets the
requirements of subdivision 3.
Subd. 2.Dwelling in micro units in sacred communities authorized.Religious institutions are
authorized to provide permanent housing to people who are chronically homeless, extremely low-income,
or designated volunteers, in sacred communities composed of micro units subject to the provisions of this
section. Each religious institution that has sited a sacred community must annually certify to the local unit
of government that it has complied with the eligibility requirements for residents of a sacred community in
this section.
Subd. 3.Sacred community requirements.(a) A sacred community must provide residents of micro
units access to water and electric utilities either by connecting the micro units to the utilities that are serving
the principal building on the lot or by other comparable means, or by providing the residents access to
permanent common kitchen facilities and common facilities for toilet, bathing, and laundry with the number
and type of fixtures required for an R-2 boarding house under Minnesota Rules, part 1305.2902. Any units
that are plumbed shall not be included in determining the minimum number of fixtures required for the
common facilities.
(b) A sacred community under this section must:
(1) be appropriately insured;
(2) have between one-third and 40 percent of the micro units occupied by designated volunteers; and
(3) provide the municipality with a written plan approved by the religious institution's governing board
that outlines:
(i) disposal of water and sewage from micro units if not plumbed;
(ii) septic tank drainage if plumbed units are not hooked up to the primary worship location's system;
Official Publication of the State of Minnesota
Revisor of Statutes
Ch 53, art 11, s 57LAWS of MINNESOTA 202387
(iii) adequate parking, lighting, and access to units by emergency vehicles;
(iv) protocols for security and addressing conduct within the settlement; and
(v) safety protocols for severe weather.
(c) Unless the municipality has designated sacred communities meeting the requirements of this section
as permitted uses, a sacred community meeting the requirements of this section shall be approved and
regulated as a conditional use without the application of additional standards not included in this section.
When approved, additional permitting is not required for individual micro units.
(d) Sacred communities are subject to the laws governing landlords and tenants under chapter 504B.
Subd. 4.Micro unit requirements.(a) In order to be eligible to be placed within a sacred community,
a micro unit must be built to the requirements of the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) Code
119.5, which includes standards for heating, electrical systems, and fire and life safety. A micro unit must
also meet the following technical requirements:
(1) be no more than 400 gross square feet;
(2) be built on a permanent chassis and anchored to pin foundations with engineered fasteners;
(3) have exterior materials that are compatible in composition, appearance, and durability to the exterior
materials used in standard residential construction;
(4) have a minimum insulation rating of R-20 in walls, R-30 in floors, and R-38 in ceilings, as well as
residential grade insulated doors and windows;
(5) have a dry, compostable, or plumbed toilet or other system meeting the requirements of the Minnesota
Pollution Control Agency, Chapters 7035, 7040, 7049, and 7080, or other applicable rules;
(6) have either an electrical system that meets NFPA 70 NEC, section 551 or 552 as applicable or a low
voltage electrical system that meets ANSI/RVIA Low Voltage Standard, current edition;
(7) have minimum wall framing with two inch by four inch wood or metal studs with framing of 16
inches to 24 inches on center, or the equivalent in structural insulated panels, with a floor load of 40 pounds
per square foot and a roof live load of 42 pounds per square foot; and
(8) have smoke and carbon monoxide detectors installed.
(b) All micro units, including their anchoring, must be inspected and certified for compliance with these
requirements by a licensed Minnesota professional engineer or qualified third-party inspector for ANSI
compliance accredited pursuant to either the American Society for Testing and Materials Appendix E541
or ISO/IEC 17020.
(c) Micro units that connect to utilities such as water, sewer, gas, or electric, must obtain any permits
or inspections required by the municipality or utility company for that connection.
(d) Micro units must comply with municipal setback requirements established by ordinance for
manufactured homes. If a municipality does not have such an ordinance, micro units must be set back on
all sides by at least ten feet.
EFFECTIVE DATE.This section is effective January 1, 2024.
Official Publication of the State of Minnesota
Revisor of Statutes
88LAWS of MINNESOTA 2023Ch 53, art 11, s 57
1
Date: October 9, 2023
To: Golden Valley Planning Commission
From: Jason Zimmerman, Planning Manager
Subject: Site Plan Review ‐ Discussion
Summary
City staff have begun exploring the creation of a formal site plan review process in order to better
manage proposals that come before the City. Formalizing the process would involve an
amendment to the City Code and the inclusion of a new fee in the Fee Schedule.
Background
At the Planning Commission meeting of September 27, staff presented the Commission with site
plan review language from three other City Codes to demonstrate the scope and the level of
detail that some other communities provide when documenting the process and requirements
associated with review.
Commissioners generally agreed that Golden Valley’s standards should be more fully developed
but also cautioned against providing too much detail too early in the process so that feedback can
be given at a conceptual level initially.
Based on the conversation, staff has prepared a first draft of site plan review language for Golden
Valley for discussion, including a section that outlines how and when the Planning Commission
should provide its review of properties subject to the standards of the Mixed‐Use zoning district.
The code language is structured as follows:
Purpose and Intent
Approval Required
Exceptions
Concept Review
Procedure for Review and Approval
Evaluation Criteria
Information Required
Lapse of Approved Site Plan
2
Staff worked to determine the best timing for Planning Commission review for projects in Mixed
Use districts, and ultimately decided that feedback provided to the applicant at the concept level
would result in the most efficient review. At this point, the project would still be fluid enough to
accommodate recommendations from the Commission, and would occur prior to a large
investment of time and money associated with the preparation of plans to be submitted for full
site plan review by City staff.
Requested Action and Next Steps
Staff is looking for feedback on the organization and level of detail of the draft code language,
especially around the Planning Commission’s role in conducting site plan review for properties in
the Mixed‐Use zoning district.
Prior to a public hearing to consider a zoning text amendment, Planning staff will work with staff
from other divisions/departments to review the draft language. Application forms for both
Concept Review and Site Plan Review will need to be developed following approval by the City
Council.
Attachments
DRAFT Site Plan Review Code Language (3 pages)
Sec. 113‐32. ‐ Site Plan Review.
(a) Purpose and Intent. The purpose and intent of this secƟon is to establish procedures and
regulaƟons pertaining to the enforcement of site standards consistent with the requirements of
the City Code. Site plan review shall be conducted:
(1) To ensure the applicaƟon of adopted design standards within new and redevelopment
projects.
(2) To ensure the thorough review of all site elements by city staff.
(3) To promote public safety.
(4) To miƟgate, to the extent possible, the impact of one development upon the surrounding
area.
(b) Approval Required. Without first obtaining site plan approval, it is unlawful to do any of the
following:
(1) Construct a building
(2) Move a building or structure to any lot within the city
(3) Expand a building or modify a building, accessory structure, or site or land feature in any
manner that results in a different intensity of use, including the requirement for addiƟonal
parking
(4) Grade or take any acƟon to prepare a site for development, exempt in conformance with the
requirements of a stormwater management permit or an approved Planned Unit
Development
(c) ExcepƟons. The following are exempt from the site plan review process:
(1) ConstrucƟon or alteraƟon of a single‐family or two‐family building or accessory structure
(2) Planned Unit Developments
(3) Public trails, playgrounds, parks, and ballfields
(4) Enlargement of an exisƟng building by less than ten percent of its gross floor area, provided
that there is no variance involved
(5) Changes in the leasable space of a mulƟtenant building where the change does not intensify
the use or require addiƟonal parking
(d) Concept Review.
(1) Prior to the preparaƟon of a site plan for formal review, applicants are encouraged to
present concept plans to Planning staff. The plans shall include the following:
a. Address of the subject property
b. ExisƟng condiƟons, including buildings, structures, natural features, etc.
c. Scaled site sketch showing locaƟon, setbacks, and dimensions of proposed buildings,
structures, and other improvements
(2) Staff shall review and provide informal comments to the applicant within 30 days.
(3) ProperƟes that are zoned Mixed Use shall require concept review by the Planning
Commission. Applicants shall submit plans to Planning staff and plans shall be reviewed by
the Planning Commission within 30 days of receipt of complete plans.
(e) Procedure for Review and Approval.
(1) An applicaƟon for site plan review shall be submiƩed with the fee established by the City
Council and include all of the materials required to allow for a full evaluaƟon of the
proposal. The applicaƟon shall be considered to be complete when the applicant has
provided all required informaƟon. In cases where an applicaƟon is judged to be incomplete,
staff shall noƟfy the applicant in wriƟng.
(2) Within 30 days, staff shall meet with the applicant in order to answer quesƟons concerning
the proposal and to provide wriƩen feedback.
(3) Staff shall have the authority to request addiƟonal informaƟon from the applicant
concerning site or operaƟonal factors or to retain expert assistance with the consent and at
the expense of the applicant concerning site or operaƟonal factors. This informaƟon is to be
declared necessary to evaluate the request in relaƟon to the standards of the City Code.
(4) If needed, a second meeƟng to review changes to the proposed plans may be scheduled for
no addiƟonal fee.
(f) EvaluaƟon Criteria.
(1) Conformance to the applicable standards of the City Code and other City requirements
(2) Where applicable, consistency with the development standards and objecƟves established
for the Mixed Use Zoning District or specific areas or districts in the Comprehensive Plan or
other area plans adopted by the City
(g) InformaƟon Required. The following informaƟon shall be required for submiƩal for site plan
review:
(1) Address and legal descripƟon of the subject property
(2) Property survey, including exisƟng buildings, structures, etc.
(3) Site plan showing proposed improvements, including:
a. Setbacks
b. LocaƟon, setbacks, and dimensions of proposed building and structures
c. LocaƟon, number, setbacks, and dimensions of proposed parking spaces and drive aisles
d. LocaƟon, number, and dimensions of proposed loading spaces
e. LocaƟon and width of curb cuts and driveways
f. Vehicular circulaƟon
g. Sidewalks, walkways, and trails
h. Provisions for storage and disposal of waste, garbage, and recyclables, including
concepts for screening exterior enclosures
(4) UƟlity plan, depicƟng the following:
a. LocaƟon, sizing, and type of water and sanitary sewer mains and proposed service
connecƟons
(5) Grading/stormwater plan, depicƟng the following:
a. ExisƟng contours at two‐foot intervals
b. Proposed grade elevaƟons at two foot maximum intervals
c. Drainage plan, including the configuraƟon of drainage areas and calculaƟons
d. Storm sewer, catchbasins, invert elevaƟons, type of casƟngs, and type of materials
e. Spot elevaƟons
f. Proposed driveway grades
g. Surface water faciliƟes and treatment areas
h. Erosion control measures
(6) Landscaping plan, depicƟng the following:
a. LocaƟon, type, and size of all exisƟng trees to be removed or preserved
b. PlanƟng schedule
(7) Other informaƟon as required by staff to be able to fully evaluate the site plan, including,
but not limited to:
a. Architectural elevaƟons
b. Fire protecƟon plan
c. Signage plan
d. LighƟng plan
(h) Lapse of approved site plan.
(1) If a building permit has not been obtained, and if erecƟon or alteraƟon of a building, as
described in the applicaƟon for site plan, has not begun within two years aŌer site plan
approval, the approval shall be null and void.