Loading...
PC_Meeting Minutes- 11.13.2024CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Wednesday, November 13, 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: Adam Brookins, Gary Cohen, Mike Ruby, Chuck Segelbaum, Martin Sicotte, Eric Van Oss • Regular Members Absent: Amy Barnstorff • Student Member, Status: Vacant • Staff Members Present: Emily Goellner, Community Development Director Jacquelyn Kramer, Senior Planner Steven Okey, Associate Planner • Council Member Present: NONE 2. CONSENT AGENDA: a. Agenda Approval or Modifications • Ruby asked for a motion to approve • Brookins moved • Cohen seconded • Approved unanimously b. Approve Planning Commission Minutes from September 23, 2024. • Ruby asked for a motion to approve • Brookins moved • Cohen seconded • Approved unanimously 3. PUBLIC HEARINGS: a. Telecommunication Facilities Zoning Code Amendment • Okey presented the Telecommunications Facilities Zoning Code Amendment. • Ruby asked if there were any questions for staff. • Brookins asked if there was a definition in the code for Telecommunication Facilities. • Okey confirmed that there is a definition in the beginning of the zoning code section 113-154 and noted that is where it includes small and micro wireless facilities. He also noted that is what we are needing to exempt from the requirements in section (d) and (k). • Ruby asked if there were any other questions. • Cohen said he had a hypothetical question regarding changing telecommunications technology and how we would keep up to date with those in our code. • Okey replied that it would likely require another text amendment whenever new rulings come out from the State or from the FCC. • Ruby asked if siting of new small cell wireless facilities is on a first come first serve basis. • Okey explained there are options for colocation on existing facilities but that new facilities would be granted to those who apply first. • Ruby asked about who is responsible for maintenance and repair of these facilities. • Okey replied there are maintenance agreements for any small cell wireless facilities that utilize the City’s Right of Way and that they are required to pay a lease amount for any that are on City owned infrastructure. • Sicotte asked if it was common to give total control to a provider, to allow them to locate wherever they want. Knowing that we are subject to Minnesota State statutes. CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Wednesday, November 13, 2024 – 6:30 p.m. | City Hall Council Chamber 7800 Golden Valley Road Golden Valley, MN 55427 • Okey responded that FCC and other government agencies want to help speed up deployment and remove any roadblocks and to create a very even playing field for public utilities. We cannot dictate location in most cases. However, we do have the ability to require aesthetic standards and can apply public safety and health standards to these facilities as long as they are applied across the board equally to everyone. • Ruby asked if when that conversation on aesthetics would happen. He asked if we have to address aesthetics in a subsequent code change. • Okey noted we have the aesthetic requirements in our code as a response the original FCC ruling. He also noted that when an application is received we would make sure it meets our aesthetic standards and if not, we could reject the design. • Ruby asked if there were any additional questions or comments. • Ruby opened the public hearing and noted there was no one present in chambers. He asked if there was anyone virtually who wished to speak. • Okey confirmed there was no one attending virtually. • Ruby closed the public hearing and opened the topic up for Commissioner deliberation. • Brookins suggested we add language to the code to address any future updates or changes to state or federal regulations. • Okey agreed that it was a good idea because there have been several iterations of the regulations. • Kramer confirmed that the motion could include this suggestion and that we would present that change when it goes to City Council. • Ruby asked if there was a motion. • Cohen made the motion to approved the zoning text amendment with added language as suggested by Brookins. • Ruby asked if there was a second. • Brookins seconded. • All voted in favor and the motion passed. b. Cannabis Zoning Code Amendment • Ruby introduced the next topic, the Cannabis Zoning Code Amendment • Kramer presented the Cannabis Zoning Code Amendment. • Ruby asked if there were any questions for staff. • Cohen inquired as to City Council’s rationale for no buffers being utilized for cannabis zoning. • Kramer discussed the fact that equity considerations were an important part of the discussion and how buffers may limit the number of businesses that may be allowed. She noted that the Office of Cannabis Management (OCM) has expressed concern that buffers may limiting the number of cannabis businesses or pushing them all into small sections in cities. She also noted that we do have a 200-foot buffer around youth-oriented activities for cannabis cultivation. • Segelbaum brought up the fact that in the code changes sections related to tobacco were stricken from the code and that tobacco had tight buffer requirements. He also noted that alcohol is covered under a different section of code. He questioned what prompted bringing tobacco into this and was there a desire to keep things consistent between alcohol, tobacco, and cannabis? • Kramer explained it was a concern about being consistent between cannabis and non-cannabis businesses and if we were not applying buffers to cannabis then we would remove those for tobacco. She noted that alcohol related restrictions were not a part of the zoning code but a handled under alcohol licensing and that would be addressed with the registration section of the code and that the City Attorney is leading that effort. CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Wednesday, November 13, 2024 – 6:30 p.m. | City Hall Council Chamber 7800 Golden Valley Road Golden Valley, MN 55427 • Segelbaum noted the changes to how tobacco is treated now puts in in the same category as general retail. He asked if this was an intentional move. He then brought up the required buffers for alcohol related uses and asked if that should be considered by Council in the framework of cannabis regulations. • Ruby asked if Commissioner Segelbaum was recommending that cannabis should have the same buffers as alcohol? • Segelbaum stated he did not have a strong opinion but felt that consistency in how we address alcohol, tobacco, and cannabis is important. • Kramer clarified with Commissioner Segelbaum if he meant that through all sections of City Code there should be consistent regulation for alcohol, tobacco, and cannabis. • Segelbaum stated he preferred there be consistency and an intentional change. • Ruby asked for more clarity about the provision in the new code that we have 30 days to respond to applications. He asked if it was we have received the application or that the City has made a decision. • Kramer clarified it does mean that we have 30 days to confirm that an application meets or fails to meet our zoning code requirements. • Ruby asked if this applies to other areas of the proposal such as the building, aesthetics, or other code requirements, or is it just that the business would be allowed at a specific location. • Kramer confirmed it is just confirming that the business is allowed at the proposed location. • Ruby asked if there are requirements we can apply for aesthetics and products placement in windows, similar to those for alcohol and tobacco. • Kramer confirmed the OCM did provide guardrails for signage and that she believed we can restrict window advertisement and that businesses would be allowed up to two wall signs. • Ruby asked if this was a part of zoning. • Kramer stated it would be a part of our sign code and that we will be updating our sign code in 2025. • Ruby asked if an existing retail business wanted to add cannabis to their business would they have to go through the same process. • Kramer confirmed any type of retail business that wanted to add a cannabis component would be required to go through the same OCM process and zoning review. • Segelbaum asked for clarification of the 50% threshold for cannabis retail as it relates to taprooms, brewery, or micro distillery. He asked if there needed to be clearer language related to that threshold. • Kramer agreed it may need more clarification in the language. She also confirmed that the intent of the 50% threshold was to have similar requirements for cannabis as we have for taprooms, brewery, micro distillery or other similar uses. • Segelbaum stated he felt it was important the we differentiate between cannabis and other uses where the 50% threshold is applied so that we do not inadvertently insinuate that onsite consumption of cannabis products is permitted. • Kramer agreed it would be a good idea to add that clarity to avoid that issue. • Segelbaum asked if the cannabis retail can be separate from cannabis cultivation and/or manufacturing. • Kramer confirmed a cannabis retail can be a stand alone use and would be treated as any other retail business. The treatment of the retail business with cultivation or manufacturing is to capture those micro or mezzo business models and to apply similar regulations of other vertically integrated business that have manufacturing and/or processing with a retail component. CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Wednesday, November 13, 2024 – 6:30 p.m. | City Hall Council Chamber 7800 Golden Valley Road Golden Valley, MN 55427 • Brookins asked for clarification if something were strictly retail we wouldn’t allow it in districts other than commercial. • Kramer did confirm it is the case and that was intentional to protect manufacturing and/or processing jobs but that if the Commission would like that changed we could draft and amendment. • Brookins stated he found it surprising in a cannabis update we were making changes to tobacco zoning requirements. • Kramer stated it was a part of the change to the retail sales definition and that is how tobacco ended up being included in these code changes. • Segelbaum asked about possible confusing language in table 87-4 regarding cannabis retail and other vertically integrated businesses such as taprooms, micro distilleries, and breweries. He noted that in some zones cannabis retail was grouped with taprooms and require a conditional use permit whereas micro distilleries and breweries are permitted by right He asked if it was because cannabis retail includes some level of cultivation or manufacturing. He asked if the definition could be tweaked to connote there is something else going on other than just retail. • Kramer stated we could use the OCM definitions of meso and micro businesses and that we had originally chosen to not use those definitions as we were not differentiating between the two and where they are allowed. She noted we can swap out retail sales if that makes it clearer. • Segelbaum stated he had mistakenly missed a definition but that it still could lead to a misconception if others miss the definition and it still may be worthwhile to examine definitions again. He noted that the Outdoor Service use was crossed out in the table and asked if that was intentional to remove it. • Kramer explained it was still in the table but had been part of re-alphabetizing. • Ruby asked if we should have separate amendments, one for the changes to tobacco, one for changes to alcohol, and one for cannabis. • Kramer stated it is up to the Commission’s discretion, they could address them all at the same time or table one or more of them for future discussion. • Ruby asked if when this goes to Council will everything be brought together. He stated it is giving the impression in order to do cannabis we have to address tobacco at the same time even though it is not the case. • Kramer stated she could make it clear in her presentation to Council that the tobacco changes do not have to happen for the cannabis amendment to move forward. • Ruby stated he thinks some on the City Council and the community in general would still want to impose buffers for alcohol and tobacco in spite of the cannabis code changes. He stated it should be a separate line item that gets discussed. • Segelbaum asked if we should open up the public hearing before further discussion on this topic. • Ruby agreed with Commissioner Segelbaum and opened the public hearing. He noted that no one was present in chambers and asked if there was anyone who joined virtually who wished to speak. • Okey stated there were no virtual participants who wished to speak. • Ruby closed the public hearing. • Segelbaum stated he thought Chair Ruby’s suggestion to split tobacco and cannabis into two different amendments was excellent. He noted there was a lot of public support for the regulations on tobacco in 2019 and didn’t want that to get lost in the shuffle of the cannabis code changes, that it was important to have it deliberated separately. CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Wednesday, November 13, 2024 – 6:30 p.m. | City Hall Council Chamber 7800 Golden Valley Road Golden Valley, MN 55427 • Ruby agreed with Commissioner Segelbaum there was rationale in the decision-making regarding tobacco and possibly also with alcohol. He reiterated his preference to have them addressed separately when brought to Council. • Brookins asked about how we would address any blended products such as those with tobacco and cannabis. He asked if there is a percentage that denotes how the product is treated. • Kramer stated what constitutes cannabis versus tobacco products is set by the state and is outside the purview of zoning. • Ruby stated to Commissioner Brookins’ point if there is a combination of alcohol or tobacco and cannabis we need clarity on how those would be regulated in the code and it should be a discussion with Council. • Cohen stated he agreed with breaking out tobacco from the cannabis code amendments for the City Council presentation. He stated he had a personal bias and if he had been in the State Legislature he would have voted no. He expressed concern about if we do not have enough controls we could be opening Pandora’s box and if it is important to regulate tobacco and alcohol then it is also important for cannabis. He stated he understands the equity considerations. • Ruby stated the Commission could recommend a buffer despite the fact that City Council suggested in on October meeting that they preferred there be no buffers. He asked if the Commission could recommend a buffer and that would go up to City Council for their vote. • Kramer stated it would be just an amendment to the motion. • Ruby asked what is the current buffering for alcohol and tobacco. • Goellner stated the buffer is 300 feet from an elementary or secondary school structure and 100 feet from a church structure. She went on to state that it would be appropriate to recommend the buffers tonight to bring before City Council. She noted that it was important to keep in mind that land uses change over time and how we communicate the buffers may have an impact on how businesses will be able to predict where they can locate. It will make mapping more difficult as buffered uses change. • Ruby agreed with Goellner’s points but wanted to stress again the importance of health and safety over updating a buffer map. • Segelbaum clarified the distance buffer for tobacco and how it is measured. • Brookins suggested we use the land use definition versus the type of building or type such as “school” or “church” • Van Oss asked if schools were zoned residential uses or does Golden Valley use the institutional use to cover schools. • Kramer explained the subdistricts under the institutional use umbrella. • Van Oss asked if there were any schools other civic uses currently in a residential zoning district. • Kramer stated she was not aware of any and would have to do further research to give a definitive answer. • Segelbaum stated he felt there should be a buffer and that it doesn’t necessarily ban cannabis businesses depending on how much of a buffer we institute. • Ruby pointed out that other cities are using buffers based on Mezzo and Micro businesses. • Brookins agreed that buffers that are consistent with tobacco make sense. We want to provide places for businesses and still account for the health and safety for schools. • Segelbaum stated he didn’t think that City Council would want this topic tabled. He than asked how we will determine the buffers. • Ruby stated his recommendation would be to separate out the tobacco and cannabis amendments and if removing the tobacco buffer, he would not support that amendment. He recommended that there should be equal buffers for tobacco and cannabis and not to strike CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Wednesday, November 13, 2024 – 6:30 p.m. | City Hall Council Chamber 7800 Golden Valley Road Golden Valley, MN 55427 tobacco from the zoning code. • Segelbaum stated he agreed that there should be consistent buffers for tobacco and cannabis. • Ruby stated even if the language around tobacco is vague there are currently buffers in place and that they could be applied to cannabis that is more clearly defined by the state. • Segelbaum reiterated his opinion that unless we can study the inequities involved, if you are going to have it for one it should be the same for the other. • Goellner noted in doing some quick research on where schools are located in the city Perpich and Sandburg schools are only schools with commercial zoning nearby. She suggested we can bring a map to the City Council showing where schools are located and how the buffers would lay out. She also noted buffers may have a very limited effect due to the fact that many of the schools in the city are surrounded by residential zones. • Ruby clarified alignment with alcohol would mean 300 feet from a school and 100 feet from a church versus tobacco which is 500 feet form a youth facility. • Segelbaum stated a reason not to copy the alcohol buffers is that section has not been addressed for a long time and that there are more than just schools and churches to take into consideration. There other areas where youth are congregating. He asked that does bring up an issue of where to start and where to stop. • Ruby stated as far as he knows there have not been any challenges to the current buffer and how we define youth-oriented facility. He also stated we should go with the same buffer of 500 feet for cannabis that is in place for tobacco. • Van Oss agreed with Chair Ruby and noted that we could amend it later if necessary and if City Council does not agree with the buffer they can reject it in their decision. • Brookins also agreed with the 500-foot buffer. He noted that the issue of signage is something of a concern and it may be a reason to table the amendment at this time until we can address signage. • Ruby asked about the timeline for the signage update. • Kramer explained we are working on a Request for Proposal for a consultant to work on the update to the sign code, we hope to have them on board in early 2025, and it should be one of the first code amendments brought before the Commission. • Ruby asked if there would be an instance where a cannabis business gets approved and they put up a large sign. • Kramer stated it is hard to say for sure due to the fact we do not know which businesses if any are going to be applying early in 2025. • Segelbaum asked if there is a large sign that would be in violation of a newly established sign code would it be required to be removed • Kramer stated what would happen is that the signs that were out of date with zoning changes would be would be a legal nonconformity. They could remain as is, but they couldn't be rebuilt, enlarged, or moved. And that's true for any requirement in the zoning code, not just signs. • Cohen asked about an earlier discussion where it was mentioned that the Office of Cannabis Management(OCM) had specific signage requirements and prohibitions. He asked if it helps us now in knowing how to handle signage proposals from potential early applicants for cannabis businesses. • Goellner noted the OCM has rules that advertising may not include or appeal to those under 21 years of age, it must include proper warning statements, it may not include false statements and that billboards are not allowed. She also noted that they are currently in a rule making process and specific rules for signage will be adopted in Q1 of 2025. OCM is expected to have limits on what will be visible from the front windows and that they are likely to not allow neon signage. We should have their final rules around the same time we will be updating our sign code and we will be able to address cannabis at that time. CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Wednesday, November 13, 2024 – 6:30 p.m. | City Hall Council Chamber 7800 Golden Valley Road Golden Valley, MN 55427 • Ruby asked if there was a possibility that cannabis businesses may have already been established here. • Goellner stated with the 30-Day verification period and the amount of time before they pull a sign permit we will be able to address whether their signs will meet our standards. • Ruby asked if they meet the standards of our current sign code they could still move forward with a sign. • Goellner stated she felt the earliest we would be seeing any inquiries from a cannabis business wouldn’t be until Q2 of 2025 so we will have time to address it in our sign code. • Van Oss asked if we would condition approval of a cannabis business on compliance with new signage requirements. • Goellner stated it is unlikely as we will only be getting a one-page form that we will use to verify compliance for cannabis businesses. • Ruby stated he is concerned that early applicants for cannabis businesses will be able to put up signage that may not meet standards that will get adopted as we rework the sign code generally and as it relates to cannabis. • Van Oss asked what were the specific concerns for signage. • Brookins stated all of the types of signs that may be installed are of concern. • Van Oss stated they would be subject to the same standards as all retail businesses. • Ruby asked about the ability of the business to put a large neon marijuana leaf on a sign. • Goellner asked if our sign code would even allow that currently. • Sicotte asked if there were signage requirements/restrictions that we apply to tobacco and alcohol sales establishments that we could apply to cannabis signage. • Kramer noted currently cannabis businesses would have follow the same rules that all other businesses are required to follow and that there are restrictions on how large an illuminated sign can be. It would not be a free for all but she noted there would be more specific sign guidelines coming from the state. • Van Oss asked if this amendment were to be tabled, not what he is necessarily advocating for, isn’t it still incumbent on the city to meet the requirements of the state statute by January 1, 2025. He noted we do not have the option to delay. • Goellner stated we have 30 days to respond and that the soonest we would get any forms from OCM would be much later than January 1 as they are still in the rule making process. She noted it would likely wouldn’t be until late Q1 before we would see any applications but that there may be social equity applications coming in and those are mostly cannabis cultivators and signage wouldn’t be a consideration for that type of business. • Ruby asked if we can even do anything with an application before OCM is finished with its rulemaking process. • Goellner stated until OCM is finished with their rulemaking and application process applicants would not be able to submit something to the city. • Kramer noted the 30-day check comes from OCM, not directly from the business and we wouldn’t be able to start our review until we receive the application via the state. • Ruby asked if there were any other thoughts. • Segelbaum stated he didn’t think the concerns were an immediate risk and it isn’t necessary to hold up the amendment. • Ruby asked if there was any further discussion before they began parsing the amendment into motions. • Kramer asked of the group if there was an interest in not removing the buffer from tobacco. If so then she confirmed it is something that can be changed as an amendment so that the strike through of the tobacco buffers would be removed and the rules would not change. CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Wednesday, November 13, 2024 – 6:30 p.m. | City Hall Council Chamber 7800 Golden Valley Road Golden Valley, MN 55427 • Ruby asked a clarifying question as to whether the stricken language would be something that the Commission would vote on to approve or deny. • Kramer stated if the Commission has consensus on wanting the 500-foot buffers to stay in place for tobacco they could make a motion that would approve what is in the staff report and in the ordinance with an amendment that the strike through on tobacco buffers be removed. Staff would then go to Council with the 500-foot buffers still in place for tobacco. • Ruby stated the same 500-foot buffer be applied to cannabis. • Kramer noted the Commission can do that as well with an amendment in the motion language with the desired buffer number and it would be added to the ordinance. • Ruby stated he didn’t feel it was necessary to break out tobacco from cannabis as a separate decision item since in the motion and amendment could be added to not change the rules surrounding tobacco. • Segelbaum noted breaking it out would make it clearer to Council that the Commission is in favor of a buffer, differing from what Council had expressed as far as no buffers earlier during work sessions. • Sicotte asked if the tobacco buffer is in the zoning code or is it elsewhere in the code. • Kramer confirmed it is in the zoning code under specific conditions on tobacco uses in certain districts. This is what was shown in the strike through in the proposed ordinance in front of the Commission this evening. • Segelbaum stated the current ordinance in front of the Commission includes changes to where tobacco can be sold and it is changing to be grouped with general retail. He stated that breaking it out into a separate amendment would still be showing changes to tobacco regulations. • Ruby stated his feeling that the amendment would be to not touch any of the tobacco regulations in the code as a part of the cannabis zoning amendment. • Segelbaum stated if the tobacco changes were removed that cannabis would end up being restricted in commercial districts and not allowed in light industrial, industrial, and institutional. • Ruby stated the cannabis changes would still happen but changes to tobacco would be completely removed and that cannabis needs to be clearly defined as to what it encompasses without modifying and of the tobacco regulations. • Van Oss stated the issue at hand is addressing cannabis and not tobacco regulations. He noted if there was a desire to make changes to tobacco it can be changed at a later date. • Segelbaum stated tobacco and cannabis may end up being discussed together and public input into tobacco changes may not happen. Council will look at the suggestion of adding the buffer to match tobacco and it is up to their discretion if they want to accept that for cannabis. • Ruby stated if cannabis and tobacco are grouped together then it is one motion that would be considered by Council and separated it is two discussions requiring two votes. He stated it would be his preference to have it be two separate discussions. • Sicotte asked if they are separate are they discussing tobacco at all. • Ruby clarified that he thinks that they need to have a conversation about tobacco and cannabis and asked if that is the recommendation to move them to two separate motions. • Brookins asked if our definition of THC currently in the code include all cannabis. • Kramer stated that it is not referring to cannabis, it is referring to hemp derivatives or edibles that had previously been allowed. The THC definition in our code is not aligned with the legalization action that happed in August of 2023 and that is why it is struck out in the amendment. The amendment will update our language to match the Minnesota statute. • Brookins suggested tabling the amendment for further review and time to properly study the language and the buffer requirements or could we just change the word THC to cannabis and would that give us more time to study the changes properly. CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Wednesday, November 13, 2024 – 6:30 p.m. | City Hall Council Chamber 7800 Golden Valley Road Golden Valley, MN 55427 • Ruby asked what Commissioner Brookins meant by properly studied. • Brookins stated we would have the legal protection with the current code language and if any applications come in on January 1 there wouldn’t be a grey area. • Sicotte asked if the desire to table the amendment is mainly getting the buffer distance right. • Brookins stated it is the buffer but also regulations around signage. • Segelbaum stated he also thinks the issue needs to be studied further with regards to buffers and to the definition of youth-oriented facilities. However, he also stated that he was willing to follow through with the amendment with that addition of a buffer. • Kramer asked to clarify with the Commission if it would satisfy their concerns if a 500-foot buffer to match tobacco were recommended to Council. This would apply to all cannabis uses. • Van Oss suggested it be made as broad as possible and if necessary it could be narrowed down at a later date. • Kramer stated what would be changed in the code is that wherever cannabis uses are permitted it would be changed to a restricted use and a condition would be added that a 500-foot buffer is required from all youth-oriented activities. Youth-oriented activities would also be more clearly defined with the code change. • Cohen stated there is a consensus on the Commission that a buffer should be required whatever is decided the final number should be and it is up to the Council if they want to eliminate the buffer that is suggested by the Commission. • Kramer stated at the December 3, 2024, City Council meeting staff would provide maps showing the buffer so that Council will see what it looks like in reality. • Segelbaum stated he agreed with Chair Ruby and Commissioner Brookins that it is not appropriate for the Commission to come up with a new buffer and should go with what is already there. • Ruby agreed with Commissioner Segelbaum and expressed his concern around the changes to tobacco. • Segelbaum stated the problem with the changes being made to tobacco also relate to the zoning districts where it is allowed and restricted. If it is changed to correspond to cannabis then it will be allowed in districts where it had previously been restricted or not permitted. • Ruby reiterated the current proposal requires changes to the tobacco regulations that were previously set by prior City Councils. He added he doesn’t think that tobacco regulations should be changed just because cannabis needs to be approved. • Kramer asked for clarification on the amendments being discussed. She asked if what she was hearing is that the Commission wants a clearer definition of youth-oriented facilities and walking back any changes to the tobacco buffer currently in the zoning code. She then stated tobacco changes wouldn’t even be shown in the proposal brought to Council as it would only show proposed changes for cannabis. • Ruby asked if Kramer meant all changes to tobacco would be stripped from the proposal when brought to Council. • Kramer confirmed tobacco uses would stay the same and an amendment would be added to add a 500-foot buffer to all cannabis uses from youth-oriented facilities which will be more clearly defined. • Segelbaum asked if there was a greater chance of Council approval on the amendment if it uses language that is currently in the code, if it uses the existing 500-foot buffer that is applied to THC. • Sicotte stated the buffer is measured from the lot line in the current code. • Segelbaum stated in essence current buffers are retained. CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Wednesday, November 13, 2024 – 6:30 p.m. | City Hall Council Chamber 7800 Golden Valley Road Golden Valley, MN 55427 • Brookins agreed with Commissioner Segelbaum that the Commission is not crossing anything out. • Ruby stated he likes the positioning to City Council that the Commission is recommending there be no changes to tobacco or alcohol codes and that the tobacco buffer be applied to cannabis. • Brookins stated he is comfortable with the tables as presented and that they are appropriate. If he were to change anything he may suggest making them less restrictive. He stated that if there is over 50% retail space that cannabis would be allowed in a commercial district. • Ruby asked where the 50% comes from. • Kramer clarified it was taken from the definition of tap rooms and cocktail rooms. If the retail is under 50% of the entire business then it is permitted by right but over 50% requires a conditional use permit. • Ruby asked if that was for cannabis. • Kramer stated the 50% was what is in place currently for breweries with tap rooms and distilleries, micro-distilleries, and cocktail rooms. • Segelbaum asked if it was being extended to cannabis. • Kramer confirmed it was being applied to cannabis. • Segelbaum asked if Commissioner Brookins if he was saying he thought that this was too restrictive when applied to cannabis. • Brookins stated he thought that it isn’t allowed in the commercial zoning district and it would be more appropriate to potentially being a conditional use permit. • Ruby stated he doesn’t have huge concerns about the 50% topic. • Segelbaum stated if we are adding in the buffers would it be a good idea to ease other restrictions and that it could be a note added to the proposal. • Sicotte asked if the Commission is recommending a more specific definition of youth-oriented facilities. He asked about the topic of parks and due to the fact, there are so many parks in Golden Valley it is important to know how we are defining parks as related to youth-oriented facilities. • Van Oss asked if staff will come back with a clearer definition that may be based on fields or other similar features of parks. • Kramer stated her initial thoughts on youth-oriented facilities would include schools, daycares and then for parks it would include those with playgrounds and ball fields but not necessarily just open space because they account for a large area of coverage. • Sicotte stated when looking at zoning maps you have a park space that is zoned as a park but it is a golf course and we don’t want to include that. • Van Oss asked if that would come at a later date in the amendment process. • Kramer stated it could be presented to Council at the December 3 meeting with all of the other changes. • Cohen stated he would try to come up with a couple of motions to move the topic forward. He stated the motion that is being requested is that the Commission recommend approval of the ordinance amending the City Code to allow cannabis uses and the amendments the Commission would like to add is including a buffer for cannabis, a better definition of youth-oriented facilities, and that no changes be made to the current code for tobacco. • Kramer stated she would need a specific number and asked if that was 500-feet. • Ruby confirmed it is 500-feet as in the current regulations for THC and that it be presented in that way. • Segelbaum stated he thought it would be better to say we are retaining the buffers that in place for THC and applying them to cannabis. CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Wednesday, November 13, 2024 – 6:30 p.m. | City Hall Council Chamber 7800 Golden Valley Road Golden Valley, MN 55427 • Kramer asked if the Commission would want the buffer applied to the cannabis definitions presented in the staff report just so that it is clear. • Ruby stated the Commission is comfortable with the buffers proposed and that there was a possibility in the future to ease some of the other restrictions and that signage will need to be addressed as soon as possible. • Kramer stated the Council will have access to minutes in the staff report and that she would emphasize in her staff report the two concerns expressed by Chair Ruby. • Ruby stated the Commission would like the positioning to be that they are not against the new cannabis code amendment but that there are policies in place for THC and tobacco and would like them applied to cannabis. • Van Oss seconded Commissioner Cohen’s motion. • Ruby asked if staff cold repeat back what was being proposed. • Kramer stated whatever commissioner starts the motion it would read; I recommend approval of the ordinance amending the city code to allow cannabis uses with the following amendments, 1, providing a more detailed and nuanced definition of youth-oriented facilities. • Brookins interjected with a question about the current definition of a school park, athletic field or play field and if it was still in the code. • Kramer confirmed it was in the code. • Sicotte stated the term park is very general. • Kramer asked if we need to update that to make it more specific or just make it clear the buffer applies to the definition that is already in the code. • Segelbaum stated what the Commission should do is recommend the amendments that staff has proposed with the following changes, one of which is that the definition of youth-oriented facilities be modified as it is ambiguous and that updated definition will also apply to the existing requirement of tobacco. Also, the other amendment is to retain the buffer that is already in the code which is a 500-foot buffer. • Ruby added it is also no changes to tobacco. • Van Oss asked if the cannabis uses would replace the THC uses. • Segelbaum stated when the buffer is retained as it related to THC to encompass the new statute definitions. • Kramer stated she would try again with the motion which is; I move to recommend approval of the ordinance amending the city code to allow cannabis uses with the following amendments or changes in those words. Refining the definition of youth-oriented facilities, requiring a 500-foot buffer between all cannabis uses as defined in this in this ordinance from youth-oriented facilities. And walking back any of the strike throughs or changes to tobacco uses. She stated also when Council sees the ordinance in their packet, they will not see the tobacco language. It just won't be there because she is not including the entire entirety of the code. She is only including what part of the code is changing. • Segelbaum stated it was important that it is clear we would be maintaining the existing buffer for THC and applying that to cannabis. • Kramer stated the intention would be made clear to Council. • Sicotte noted in the proposal there is a 200-foot buffer proposed for cannabis cultivation and manufacturing in light industrial zoning districts and asked if it made sense to apply the 500-foot buffer in those instances as well. • Ruby stated if we want to be consistent with the buffers as they are applied to THC then it makes sense to keep the 200-foot buffer for manufacturing and cultivation uses. • Kramer noted the 200-foot buffer was the only buffer recommended in the original amendment but if the Commission wanted to it could be changed to match the 500-foot buffer being CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Wednesday, November 13, 2024 – 6:30 p.m. | City Hall Council Chamber 7800 Golden Valley Road Golden Valley, MN 55427 suggested for other cannabis uses. • Sicotte noted that the 200-foot buffer was not from the previous THC requirements and that the Commission wouldn’t be amending anything related to THC cultivation. • Segelbaum stated there wasn’t TCH cultivation previously permitted in the code • Ruby stated it should be 500-feet across all cannabis uses. • Cohen stated he also thought it would be simpler to have the 500-foot buffer for all new cannabis activity. • Ruby asked for a new motion and a new second for clarity. • Cohen stated he withdrew his previous motion and he would make a new motion. His new motion was to recommend approval of the ordinance amending the city code to allow cannabis uses with the following amendments; we better define youth-oriented activities, and we approve buffers for cannabis consistent with the current THC buffers in the zoning code, and that there are not changes made to the tobacco portions of the codes. • Ruby asked if there was a second. • Van Oss seconded the motion. • Ruby asked all those in favor. • All voted in favor and the motion passed. • Ruby reiterated his desire that related notes are included in the presentation to City Council around easing other requirements if the requested buffer was adopted and updates as soon as possible be made to the sign code for cannabis businesses. • Cohen suggested it would be good for someone from the Planning Commission attend the City Council meeting for the cannabis amendments. • Kramer stated it is always very helpful if a Commissioner attends the City Council meetings to speak for themselves. • Ruby stated he would be happy to attend the Council meeting. 4. NEW BUSINESS: a. Planning Commission Work Plan • Kramer stated there wasn’t anything new to present and that for the following year we would be focusing on sign code updates as soon as possible and that it would likely be the first code amendment brought to the Planning Commission. The work plan would be reviewed next year and be sent to City Council for its approval. 5. COUNCIL MEMBER REPORT: • Kramer stated she did not receive a City Council Report • Ruby noted he would send an email to Council for updates. b. Board of Zoning Appeals Update • Kramer noted there are three applicants going to BZA on November 26. • There was discussion regarding who was next on the schedule. It was confirmed that Commissioner Brookins was scheduled for the November 26 BZA meeting. • Kramer noted the December meeting of the BZA was cancelled due to the holiday. 6. COMMISSIONER TRAINING: • Kramer stated in early 2025 there would be a joint training including Planning Commission and the Board of Zoning appeals. CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Wednesday, November 13, 2024 – 6:30 p.m. | City Hall Council Chamber 7800 Golden Valley Road Golden Valley, MN 55427 7. STAFF COMMENTS: • Kramer expressed her appreciation for the work the Commission had done on the topic of cannabis. 8. COMMISSIONER UPDATES: • Ruby expressed his gratitude for all the work on the Cannabis amendment and reiterated his intent to attend the City Council meeting and encourage other commissioners to attend if able. 9. ADJOURNMENT: Chair Ruby adjourned the meeting at 8:22 p.m.