Loading...
PC_Meeting Minutes- 09-23-2024CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Monday, September 23, 2024 – 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: Barnstorff, Brookins, Cohen, Ruby, Segelbaum, Sicotte, Van Oss • Regular Members Absent: None • Student Member, Status: Vacant • Staff Members Present: Darren Groth, Assistant Comm. Dev. Director Jacquelyn Kramer, Senior Planner Steven Okey, Associate Planner • Council Member Present: NONE 2. CONSENT AGENDA: Cohen motioned to approve the consent agenda, as presented. Van Oss seconded. Commission voted 5-0 to approve. 3. PUBLIC HEARINGS: NONE 4. NEW BUSINESS: a. Site Plan Code Amendment • Kramer introduced the Site Plan Code Amendment for work session. Outlined what was in the agenda packet for the meeting. Noted that the new process as proposed would be administrative rather than through the Planning Commission and that appeals would go through the BZA rather than City Council. She also gave an overview of the process for site plan review. She then stated what staff would like to get from the Planning Commission and the timeline. • Segelbaum brought up the issues of projects stalling after approval and asked what can be done to insure these projects do not drag on. He noted the two-year time limit that is in the proposed Site Plan Code amendment. • Groth explained the two-year time limit reasoning, that it is a commonly used timeframe locally and that it aligns with other project processes. • Ruby asked a clarifying question as to what constitutes the start of the project and how do we insure they keep on track with the project. • Groth explained that it is when real costs are expended for the project. • Ruby asked about how do we make sure the site is maintained to City standards. • Groth noted that prior to the start of the approved project they are required to maintain the parcel to the standards of City code. • Segelbaum followed up to clarify how do we insure the project is completed in a timely manner. • Groth explained that once a site plan is submitted and you have submitted the building permits you are subject to the time limits imposed. For building permits the expiration of building permits is 180 days with a possibility of an extension for another 180 days. Planning does not have the tools to make sure the project is moved forwards but we do have the building permit process and deadlines to rely on. • Segelbaum then asked could we use the site plan process to hold someone accountable to project completion, could we require that they submit a new application after a certain time period. • Groth noted that with our new permitting system we will have a better way to track progress and that permits will all be tied together. This will allow us to hold them to a timeline. CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Monday, September 23, 2024 – 6:30 p.m. | City Hall Council Chamber 7800 Golden Valley Road Golden Valley, MN 55427 • Cohen brought up the Xenia project and how the project had many stops and starts as an example of a how we need to have some sort of mechanism to insure timely project progress. • Ruby asked if what other mechanisms can we use to hold developers to a timeline, not necessarily within the site plan review process. He asked would we use tax incentives. • Groth did use TIFs as an example of how to hold developers accountable. He noted that we could use some sort of contract process and explained how phasing plans could be used as a mechanism. • Brookins asked if there were processes such as performance bonds, letters of credit or other mechanisms we could use. • Groth noted that used performance requirements for the Sentinel project. • Sicotte asked about the requirements for utility plans be provided for the site plan review process. • Kramer noted that we have other departments reviewing the site plan review applications to make sure it if okay to move forward. • Brookins reiterated the importance of knowing how a project will be served by the utilities. Ruby asked for clarity on why it only applies to nonresidential or additions to single-family dwellings. • Barnstorff pointed out that there is a requirement for utility plans. • Groth explained that there is different process for new single-family builds. • Brookins noted that there needs to be some clarification of the definitions of the different types of dwellings. • Ruby suggested that it may be a good idea to adapt the checklist on they type of project. • Cohen commented that the changes are clearer and that the ambiguities have been removed. • Van Oss asked about what mechanisms are there for public input since this is an administrative review. • Groth agreed that certain language should be more well defined. He noted that with future code changes we may institute some form of noticing for the site plan review process. • Ruby suggested that we remove section D-#1 & #2 at this time to remove any subjectivity. • Sicotte asked how the process aligns with the Planning Commission. • Kramer noted that if there were other entitlements necessary would Planning Commission be brought into the site plan review process. • Van Oss noted that large projects would still likely be brought before the Commission. • Groth noted that the site plan process is required for the entitlements that end up being brought to the Commission. • Brookins brought up how does the site plan review process tie into zoning code changes. b. Small Cell Wireless Code Amendment • Okey presented the Small Cell Wireless Code Amendment. He noted that we currently have a solid code for Small Cell Wireless installations. He also did a broad overview of what small cell wireless facilities are and what they accomplish. He noted that our current code does have an administrative process in place. He noted that there were changes in the Minnesota Statute in 2023 related to location requirements and that our code needs to be updated to be in line with the requirements. Possible areas of research are how to handle the private versus public lands and how the shot clock is applied to colocation versus new poles. • Ruby asked how does this process start? • Okey explained that an application would be submitted by either one of the large carriers or perhaps a consultant group on behalf of one of the large carriers. • Ruby asked about the question of equity and can we insure that there is an equitable distribution of new facilities. CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Monday, September 23, 2024 – 6:30 p.m. | City Hall Council Chamber 7800 Golden Valley Road Golden Valley, MN 55427 • Okey explained that we cannot require they locate in a certain area. • Ruby asked to clarify that we are not able to. • Groth explained that we cannot require it but gave an example of private property owners have approached providers to get them to place facilities on their land. • Ruby asked if the wireless carriers could make a contract with private landowners to locate their facilities on their properties. He then asked in that case would they still need to come through the city. • Okey confirmed that they would still have to file a permit with the city. Both for private and public • Ruby asked if we could dictate design standards. • Okey stated that we can ask for design standards. And brought up that there is some confusion regarding what we can require on private property. Can we require screening on private property? He noted that the FCC rules are very specific for public ROW. • Cohen brought up some of the health and safety concerns that may be brought up by residents. • Okey there are allowances provided for anything that is a public health or safety concern. The FCC does have studies available about the health concerns. • Cohen asked the question how do we know what areas need the coverage. • Okey stated this might be a question for one of the carriers. • Sicotte asked if there are height requirements. • Okey noted that the height requirements based on effectiveness is a technical question but that we do have some height restrictions. • Ruby asked if we have had any applications for these. • Okey noted that he hasn’t had the time to dig too deeply but that one of the more recent ones was to be installed on the water tower. • Ruby brought up the subject of fiber optics and the push for more services. • Okey noted that this was more of a right of way discussion for engineering and that it is separate from small cell wireless. c. Planning Commission Work Plan • Kramer explained that the work plan is there as a vehicle for questions on the topics as well as adding new items. • Groth discussed what has been populated to the calendar for Planning Commission and City Council. 5. COUNCIL LIAISON REPORT: • Kramer updated the commissioners on the two recent Council Approvals. o 5851 Duluth Street PUD Amendment with conditions– Approved Unanimously o 6930 Olson Memorial Highway Subdivision – Approved with a vote of three to two • Kramer also touched on the interviews for the youth member for Council. Groth confirmed that no youth vacancies were filled. 6. STAFF COMMENTS: • Kramer noted the hiring of Emily Goellner as the new Community Development Director. 7. COMMISSIONER UPDATES: NONE CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Monday, September 23, 2024 – 6:30 p.m. | City Hall Council Chamber 7800 Golden Valley Road Golden Valley, MN 55427 8. ADJOURNMENT: Chair Ruby adjourned the meeting at 7:53 p.m.