Loading...
PC_Meeting Minutes- 12.09.2024CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Wednesday, December 09, 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 6:31 p.m. and read the Land Acknowledgement • Regular Members Present: Amy Barnstorff, Gary Cohen, Mike Ruby, Chuck Segelbaum, Martin Sicotte, Eric Van Oss • Regular Members Absent: Adam Brookins • Student Member, Status: Vacant • Staff Members Present: Emily Goellner, Community Development Director Jacquelyn Kramer, Senior Planner Steven Okey, Associate Planner • Council Member Present: Sophia Ginis 2. CONSENT AGENDA: a. Agenda Approval or Modifications • Ruby asked for a motion to approve • Cohen moved • Van Oss seconded • Approved unanimously 3. PUBLIC HEARINGS: a. Site Plan Review and Public Hearing Code Amendments • Ruby introduced the topic, Site Plan Review and Public Hearing Code Amendments • Kramer presented the Site Plan Review and Public Hearing Code Amendments. • Ruby asked if there were any questions for staff. • Segelbaum asked do any municipalities include any guidelines for the City Council then as to when or when they should not have their own public hearings, their own entertainment of comments. He stated that he assumed if it was a politically sensitive issue that the City Council would open the meeting for public testimony. He asked if the Council did open the meeting up for public testimony would that be deemed an informal public hearing. • Kramer stated she hasn’t encountered other cities that use the formal, informal monikers and most cities have updated their city code or have city code similar to what is before the Commission in the changes today where it will call out whether Planning Commission or City Council, hold the public hearing. She reiterated City Council always has the option to hold a public hearing or to take additional comments, they have that option for every agenda item. For bigger projects or more controversial projects, staff in the city always have the option of holding one or more neighborhood meetings which are more informal and an take a variety of formats. This allows for feedback from residents and a little bit more time and outreach to work out any issues with the applications. • Segelbaum asked when it would be decided if the City Council wishes to have their own public forum, would it be after a Planning Commission meeting or would it have to be beforehand. • Kramer stated normally City Council wouldn't have a separate meeting outside their meeting because of open meeting laws. If staff is getting a lot of comments, we would through the City Manager to let Council know we anticipate a lot of folks might be at this meeting and there may need to be extra time for testimony. • Ruby asked how we can guarantee what we hear from the community during the public hearing at the Planning Commission meeting gets communicated accurately to City Council. He CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Wednesday, December 09, 2024 – 6:30 p.m. | City Hall Council Chamber 7800 Golden Valley Road Golden Valley, MN 55427 expressed concern about a disconnect between the Planning Commission, a recommending body, and City Council, the deciding/voting body and when this is the case how does the community trust their testimony is heard. He asked how other cities who have this type of plan has managed this challenge. • Kramer stated if there's a controversial recommendation or there's a lot of discussion, staff would give enough time between Planning Commission and City Council so that we can have those robust meeting minutes in the packet. And we would let Council know that we will probably want to take testimony or expect people to testify. • Ruby stated his concern that someone may think as a city resident as long as I voice my opinion loudly and have my neighbors come to, then I can push it on to being heard by the City Council. And they may think what's the point of coming to the Planning Commission, except for to try to escalate it to get to the City Council. • Kramer stated it is kind of the case right now. Folks can and do testify in front of City Council. The difference is we're trying to front load all of the public information, the information that's going out and then the information we get back from the public. Part of that is also doing additional things on the administrative side at the beginning of application. One of which is having a dedicated web page for projects that is something we currently don’t have in Golden Valley. Another may be to do doing more social media outreach on applications and zoning code updates so that folks are aware of projects well before they go to City Council or Planning Commission. It will allow us to gather all of the comments and the public feedback well before City Council and they won’t be presented with a big group of people shouting loudly or caring deeply about whatever application is in front of them right before they have to make a decision. There will always be that opportunity for folks, and we don't want to stop that or limit that, it's just trying to figure out how gather more information and distributing it earlier in the process, so folks have time to digest on all sides. • Ruby asked if there were any other questions. • Van Oss stated the Commission is a technical review board and it makes more sense for the public hearing to take place in front of the Planning Commission as experts for any type of land use or building codes. Having the public hearing be at the Planning Commission allows commissioner to filter some of the comments and if there are legitimate issues with the site plan or the technical issues itself, those can be elevated to City Council. If You just have people saying I don't like that my neighbor can legally have a lot split, those aren't really germane to the review. And does it need to be heard twice or is it just opportunity to get people riled up. This allows the Council the discretion to ask if there were legitimate objections to a land use or zoning question that needs to be addressed. • Kramer noted the Planning Commission is a technical body and the commissioners are supposed to get into the details of the proposal. City Council is supposed to be a little bit higher focus, City Council should be focused on policy on overall health, safety, welfare of the city and they don't necessarily need to get involved with the technical details and the analysis. It is this body’s expertise. • Ruby asked if there are other questions of staff. • Cohen asked about inconsistencies in how notices are sent out. In some places it calls out U.S. mail and in others it doesn’t have that specification. He asked if this needs to be consistent and clearly defined. He also asked about what the vote level is for passage of a proposal, is it a simple majority or are there instances where it needs to be a 4/5 vote. • Kramer responded to the second question first, she stated she believes the Planning CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Wednesday, December 09, 2024 – 6:30 p.m. | City Hall Council Chamber 7800 Golden Valley Road Golden Valley, MN 55427 Commission needs a simple majority due to the fact that the commission is making recommendations. However, in regard to resolutions versus ordinances, and depending on the type of planning application a 4/5 majority may be required. She then moved on to the first question of Public Hearing noticing. The public hearing notice would be the absolutely the same for every type of application. The Letters that go out for the public hearing at Planning Commission to nearby properties, whether a 350-foot or 500-foot radius, and the 10-day prior newspaper notices would be the same for everybody. • Ruby asked about metrics and the types of goals for this process improvement and how would they be measured and tracked. • Kramer noted we don't have metrics right now, and we don't have good data on how long things took in the past to get through the process. A part of this proposal was looking at best practices through the city but also looking at what staff have experienced in our time here in all of the comments and confusion we have already received on when folks are supposed to show up to a meeting and how do they testify. She stated she’s already seen applications where not every department head or every department at the city got a chance to review applications and when it came time to building permits, for example, they didn't know they needed a stormwater permit or they didn't know what the fire department required. The new process is trying to avoid kind of all of those little things and catch them early to speed up the process. • Ruby recommended staff consider setting up metrics to help track the success of the new processes and gauge the impact of these changes. He suggested the possibility of tracking the success by measuring the number of responses to proposals and that we may need to add additional metrics over time. He noted this doesn’t have to be a one and done change and we may need to add additional tactics and strategies and for this we will need to have data to support those changes. • Kramer agreed on the need for some form of metrics, and she thought the metrics for community engagement, how many emails we get, how many calls we get, could be something we can very easily track. • Ruby asked if there were any other questions for staff before moving into deliberation. • Segelbaum stated his concerns about minutes and public testimony submissions from items that have been before the Planning Commission getting to the City Council in a timely manner and that they need to be included in the packets for the City Council. He asked if it is important if those are finalized or approved minutes or can they be informal drafts and if that does not happen should someone from the Planning Commission attend the Council meeting and possibly present to the Council. He asked for staff’s thoughts and how other cities have handled it. • Kramer stated because we usually have less than a month or about a month between Planning Commission and City Council and how the meetings fall within the week, we wouldn't have time to bring minutes back to Planning Commission for approval and get them into the Council packet. Usually there are not drastic changes to the minutes so unapproved draft minutes are usually fine for the packet. Moving forward we are making changes on the administrative side to get more detailed transcripted minutes generated quickly so that will help a lot in beefing up the City Council packets to provide that information. • Segelbaum asked what reassurance if someone submits public testimony, written or during a public hearing, that testimony will be provided to City Council during their meeting on the topic. • Ruby stated one of his concerns is if a member of the public comes to the public hearing and speaks, and the recommendation is based on that, how can we ensure that their testimony is communicated to Council and will carry the same weight as those that provide written testimony. • Segelbaum stated it was his understanding of our process that a summary of any speaker is included in our minutes, is read into the record, and is provided to Council. CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Wednesday, December 09, 2024 – 6:30 p.m. | City Hall Council Chamber 7800 Golden Valley Road Golden Valley, MN 55427 • Ruby asked if the City Council elects to allow someone in the audience to speak would it be beneficial to have the other comments read out to ensure that all voices are heard. • Kramer stated any official comments we get prior to sending out the packet is included in the packet sent to the Commission, if it is after that then it can be read out the day of the Planning Commission meeting. All testimony received is then forwarded on as a part of the City Council packet. • Segelbaum asked if it could be a matter of practice to read out all written testimony. • Kramer stated we sometimes get several really long emails, and it is just easier to put it in writing in the packet so folks can digest it and have time to read it. • Segelbaum stated he noticed a couple typo or framing issues and asked what would be the best and most efficient process to communicate those, none of which are substantive. • Kramer stated Commissioners can email her with those notes. • Ruby asked if there were any other questions for staff. • Ruby opened up the public hearing and noted there wasn’t anyone from the public in attendance. He then asked if there anyone on the phones or virtually who would like to comment. • Okey confirmed there was no one either on Teams or on the phone. • Ruby closed the public hearing and opened the item for discussion. • Ruby stated he thinks the site plan review process makes a lot of sense. He likes the action steps and that it is clearly understood. He noted he is concerned about the public hearing process but that maybe it's just a matter of living it and having that experience. He expressed concern that topics where there may be strong public opinion that we insure there are accurate notes represented to the City Council as they are making their decisions. He asked if the Council would have the ability to read through all the comments and hear exactly what is heard at the public hearing during the Planning Commission meeting since there will not be a formal public hearing at their meeting. • Van Oss state he does not have any concerns. He thinks it is a wonderful change and that he has voiced to staff that these types of changes would be a good thing in the past. He noted that this is the type of process he has seen in other cities he has worked in and that our current process is very unique to Golden Valley. He expressed he appreciates the new staff has taken the leadership to bring these changes that will bring us in alignment with surrounding communities. He noted he is less concerned about City Council not hearing the testimony and that we need to have faith that the City Council will do its due diligence and do right by the public. He stated he would actually push for more aggressive changes where the Planning Commission is the final approver of site plan reviews and if it's not a PUD or CUP it makes a lot of sense to have the Planning Commission be the technical body for planning applications and to have the Council be more legislative, big picture. He noted in his experience as a staffer at different cities it hasn’t been an issue and believes the public has plenty of opportunities to comment in the age of social media, e-mail, and calling, there are multiple avenues for having their opinion heard. • Ruby stated he appreciated Van Oss’ comments. • Cohen stated he thinks it's an education process as we change, and it is letting the public know that Planning Commission is where you come to speak about development projects. It is not the only shot they will have to testify because it is still possible that Council can hold an informal public hearing where the public can also provide testimony. He stated that the education could be through city website, newsletter, and notices. It could have language the Planning Commission is where the public hearing will be held and that is your opportunity to be heard. He noted the education process is important as it is different then what the residents are used to. He then asked if it was appropriate if Council Member Ginis as the City Council Liaison to the Planning Commission and having both served on the Commission and at Council to provide her CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Wednesday, December 09, 2024 – 6:30 p.m. | City Hall Council Chamber 7800 Golden Valley Road Golden Valley, MN 55427 perspective on this discussion. • Ginis stated she would start answering the question by saying that she has been tracking at what has been happening at the Minnesota State Legislature. She noted that at the last session in particular, the legislature has really started pushing for reduction in local control and a lot of that was based on the feeling that Cities aren't responding to public needs at a regional level related to a lot of the development questions that are brought forth. She also noted the League of Minnesota Cities did a really good job in representing cities this last session, but from what she has heard from others that follow these kinds of issues, it's not a dead issue. She stated part of it is that the legislature right now doesn't really quite trust city councils to be impartial and implement some of the technical review that the Commissioners were speaking of, that it gets more political. There are various goals set for cities such as increasing affordable housing and you have communities that are largely opposed to affordable housing, and it could be your neighbors, and you may be voting on it. She noted there is a lot of good precedent being set by other cities where they delineate what is a technical review process and what is a political/legislative process and ensuring those decisions are firmly based in the proper body. She then addressed the due diligence of Council and noted that her packet is kind of her barometer of what may be controversial and often times even before something comes before them, members of the public may already be writing them. She also noted that through what is coming to work sessions initially in their review of council calendars they know what may be controversial. Even before it comes to the Commission officially, she is talking to Noah about it or tracking it, because the big controversial ones, people don't wait to write in. She stated that it will be important to get notes from the Planning Commission and what happens during the public hearing to know if that is something that she may push on or address an issue that wasn’t considered. She stated that because she typically hears early on about proposals, she is not so concerned that it won’t get communicated from the Planning Commission and that currently the Council hears from the public that they are confused by the current system and are not sure where they are supposed to address their concerns. • Ruby commented that he appreciated the feedback and comments from Councilor Ginis. • Van Oss asked if, based on the comments from Commissioner Cohen about educating the public, will there only be one notice going out to the neighbors for the Planning Commission meeting and will there be another notice for the City Council meeting. He also stated that it feels like it isn’t up to the applicant to have to notice the neighbors and also that it is odd that we have residents commenting publicly on an applicant proposal for something that is within their property rights as an owner. • Kramer noted there's always the option that Planning Commission can recommend to staff to send out additional notices to residents who provided comments, at either the Planning Commission meeting public hearing portion or in writing, to let them know when it will be presented to City Council meeting for their approval. She also noted moving forward there will be a Project Web page in some format and there will be meeting updates posted and we can also use our social media accounts post relevant information. • Van Oss asked if we have a requirement for larger projects for a developer to hold some form of community meetings and/or outreach. • Kramer stated she believes we do but has not had to process one of those yet. We would expect for any big redevelopment projects, such as multifamily buildings or a new commercial building, the applicant would be required to hold a neighborhood meeting well before the Planning Commission public hearing, so that all of those comments make it into the Planning Commission packet. This also allows the applicant time to make revisions if need be. She noted that for neighborhood meetings, the applicant would be responsible for sending notices to the property owners within a given radius of the neighborhood meeting. CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Wednesday, December 09, 2024 – 6:30 p.m. | City Hall Council Chamber 7800 Golden Valley Road Golden Valley, MN 55427 • Cohen noted the only place he saw a specific call out to a requirement for a neighborhood meeting was in the preliminary PUD or major PUD at amendment meeting. • Kramer stated often times the big projects do necessitate a PUD. She noted as we utilize our mixed-use districts and work on other zoning code changes to allow more development. without a PUD, we could in future zoning code amendments require neighborhood meetings for big projects. • Cohen stated that a competent developer will want to hold some kind of informal meeting to get feedback from the community on a proposal before it goes on to a formal process otherwise they risk getting a lot of pushback from the public and/or delays in approval. • Segelbaum expressed his concern that the information we are requiring on applications may be too extensive and a one-size-fits-all approach may be onerous for applicants, especially those with minor proposals. He used an example of the minor subdivision is the requirement of building plans necessary and germane to the decision-making process. He asked if there could be a way that it is tailored to the application type. • Ruby agreed with Commissioner Segelbaum and noted it could cause frustration for the home builder. He stated he wouldn’t want to put any unnecessary burdens on the home builders, particularly if it is something they are permitted to do within our codes. • Segelbaum reiterated his concerns with the one-size-fits-all application requirements but did note the information can be helpful to ensure the application is ready for the Planning Commission and/or City Council. He noted that we should be cautious about what we are requiring. • Ruby asked if we are flexible in what we require. • Kramer stated something we're doing on the administrative side is we'll have an application checklist for every type of application that can be individually tailored to the application type for the site plan review process. She noted the checklists weren’t included in the packet so that the focus was on the ordinance itself. • Ruby asked if the application details need to be documented in the ordinance or not. • Kramer stated she doesn’t think it needs to be documented in the ordinance since it's going to a worksheet or a handout that goes with the application. She noted there was an earlier version of one of the application checklists sent out in September and it was more of a one-size-fits-all but will be tailored to the types of application when the ordinance goes into effect. • Segelbaum stated he thinks this is a good change that will remove some of the politics out of the decisions as Council will be able to make a more measured consideration without the reactive influence that can occur during public hearings. He noted that at times we heard from the public that the first time they are hearing about a proposal during the informal public hearing. He asked if we should be adding a condition or language that speaks to a requirement that the information presented at the Planning Commission, including all forms of testimony, is forwarded on to City Council for their meeting. • Ruby asked who is responsible for paying the costs for the required notices for items going to the Planning Commission and City Council. • Kramer confirmed that the city pays for the mailers, and it budgeted for. • Ruby stated he was thinking that if it was the applicant who had to do it, we would need to document that. • Segelbaum noted that using social media for notices or other communications on a proposal is hard and would be difficult to specify that within the code. • Van Oss stated those aren't official and would never be official part. We would rely on the mailers for official notices. • Kramer stated social media could be for getting the word out on an ongoing project but not necessarily an incoming project. CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Wednesday, December 09, 2024 – 6:30 p.m. | City Hall Council Chamber 7800 Golden Valley Road Golden Valley, MN 55427 • Segelbaum noted there are many different ways that people could get noticed but that putting it in the code to use social media could be difficult as social media platforms being used changes frequently. He stated that if there was an aspirational way of saying it may work but he does think we shouldn’t attempt it. • Van Oss stated development proposals are often the topic on existing neighborhood social media groups and the word spreads quickly via that channel. • Segelbaum stated he wants to make sure that the city has taken the necessary steps to notify the public of proposals coming up and agreed with Commissioner Van Oss’ comment that this may already be happening via social media without the city, and it is person to person communication that is helping get the word out. • Ruby asked Commissioner Segelbaum if there was a certain format or timeline he was envisioning for the transfer of community comments and notes to the City Council. • Segelbaum stated he would like to make sure that it is all included within the packet that the Council members see. If we're going to provide a better, more efficient process there should be requirement as part of the new process that the comments from the Planning Commission meeting and other information from the meeting be forwarded along to the City Council. He noted this would apply to all information, even that which the Commission may disagree with. • Ruby asked if we have the staffing resources to be able to compile accurate minutes or do we need to add additional staff. • Segelbaum stated the minutes do not need to be the approved versions, but draft minutes would be acceptable giving the tight timing. • Kramer noted that minutes and any documents that were in the Planning Commission packets would be included in the City Council packets. • Segelbaum asked if he should I be concerned if there are staffing issues how will we guarantee the necessary documents get to the City Council. He asked if it would make sense to wait on sending it to Council until all the documents are ready. • Kramer asked if the Commission was asking for an amendment to the ordinance in front of them. • Segelbaum stated he would be interested in in seeing that in an amendment, but he wasn’t sure the exact language and that it cannot be to overly prescriptive as it may not apply in all situations. He stated he feels as that the input received during a formal public hearing should be required to be passed along in some tangible manner to the Council and typically the vehicle for that is the minutes whether approved or draft versions. • Van Oss asked if when staff writes memos to the Council, don't they include a summary of what happened at Planning Commission. • Kramer confirmed that staff include a summary of what happened at Planning Commission in the executive summary, and then we also attached the full meeting minutes, draft or approved, to the packet, that it is already the process. • Segelbaum asked if he should be worried that that would somehow fall out of the process. • Kramer stated she thinks the city clerk would never allow that, because that's also part of the legal mandate that we have when you gavel in a public hearing and then close the public hearing that becomes an official record. It is a legally required process. • Cohen acknowledged Commissioner Segelbaum's concerns and noted that the Council Members do have the ability to watch video from a controversial public hearing at the Planning Commission. • Kramer stated she knows many of them currently do. • Cohen stated the City Councilors do have the option to watch the recordings of the Planning Commission to get the feel of how meetings went, to get the flavor of the meeting that may not come across in the meeting minutes, particularly for controversial topics. He noted however he CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Wednesday, December 09, 2024 – 6:30 p.m. | City Hall Council Chamber 7800 Golden Valley Road Golden Valley, MN 55427 still shares the other Commissioner’s concerns that the proper documentation from the Planning Commission meetings are included in the packets for the following City Council meeting. He also noted he is comfortable with the current processes but if there are ever issues with consistency it is something that will need to be revisited. • Ruby asked if there was any further deliberation. • Sicotte asked about what is included in the notices, if it is a bit vague, and if there is a way for the packets or other materials be somehow available for the public to view before the Commission meetings. He stated it would be a way for the public to be more informed about exactly what they are commenting on. • Ruby stated it was his understanding there would be a site for each project that the public can visit and see all the details. That it would include everything that would be in the packet. • Kramer stated the staff is working on is a project web page that would include the site information, what the applications are, and any history of the project, with PDFs of the proposed plans. She also noted the public hearing notice would give a brief summary of what the project is, with a little bit more detail than what's in the public hearing notice now and would also have the link to the project web page. There would d be staff contact information so they could reach out to us, hopefully early, well before Planning Commission, • Ruby stated as a resident of St. Louis Park he has experienced this type of webpage, and it works really well. • Van Oss noted currently the agendas with the full packet are sent to Commissioners and it is also available as a link on the city website so there is an opportunity for the public to see it before the meeting. • Ruby asked if we are resourced to do put the new website into action. • Kramer stated we do have the planning staff, and we also can rely on help from the communication staff. • Barnstorff stated one thing she wanted to bring up is that on controversial topics if there were enough loud voices it would cause Council to hold another hearing. She thinks it would be helpful to have a clear line that testimony should be happening at the formal public hearing and that the information from that hearing would be shared with Council for their meeting. • Kramer stated Commissioner Barnstorff’s comments make sense and in staff’s messaging about this new process they will clearly communicate that there will be no informal public hearings, there will be only a formal public hearing at Planning Commission. She noted she just wanted to make it clear that City Council has the discretion to take comments or not take comments, if they so choose. • Ruby asked why the Commission makes recommendations on some of the site plan proposals versus making the decision themselves and is this something that could change. • Kramer stated it is based on each city's code, and it varies city to city. She noted certain staff have experienced in other cities and other states where planning commission does have more final authority in land use decisions. She stated down the road it can be discussed if there are some final decisions that Planning Commission could make for site plan review, those that otherwise do not require other planning applications. • Sicotte stated he thought that in the interest of change management there could be some language that could be read at the start of the Planning Commission meetings and in writing somewhere, describing the new process at least for the first several months. • Kramer agreed it is a great idea and could see putting it at the top of every agenda. • Ruby noted it could be a part of the helper sheet for him to read out to help people understand the new process. • Ruby asked if there was any other discussion or if there was a motion. • Van Oss stated he thinks hopefully we'll be seeing a lot of changes in the future as the city CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Wednesday, December 09, 2024 – 6:30 p.m. | City Hall Council Chamber 7800 Golden Valley Road Golden Valley, MN 55427 updates its processes and becomes a little more streamlined. He also wanted to reiterate the public hearing process is important, but it's also the Commission’s job to ensure that we have a thorough process that is fair for applicants. Also, that when we're hearing from the public the Commission is also insuring the applicant's legal rights to their private property. He noted a public hearing is where you will be heard but that it is not a public debate or negotiations with the public, and it is important to keep that in context as we move forward. What are we doing to make sure that this is a smooth process for something that someone is legally entitled to do with their property. • Ruby stated he feels like they have had these conversations with staff quite a bit that we need to ensure the public understands, and the Commission understands, what is within our purview to make decisions on, and it needs to be documented for everyone to understand. • Cohen asked if the Council approved this, and it is moved forward are there any proposals in the queue that will fall in the middle of the old process and the new one. • Kramer stated we don't have any planning applications in the queue right now so it's a really good time to do this particular zoning change. Also, that in the new year we will probably be focusing more on zoning code amendments, training, and work sessions with the Planning Commission. She noted later in the year there will be some bigger projects as well as smaller projects that will be subject to this new process. • Van Oss asked if there is a plan to do a wholesale comprehensive update of the entire zoning code in the future beyond the text amendments that we are currently updating. • Kramer stated she is not sure of the timing because we have the comprehensive plan update coming and that will have effects on how we approach the zoning code, based on items such as land use maps, policies, and leadership priorities. She noted there is nothing queued up in the work plan but if the Commission would like it to be a priority they should let staff know and it can be added. • Van Oss state he would very much encourage a wholesale overall update of the code. • Ruby asked how that would happen, would it be through work sessions with the Planning Commission and City Council before being presented at regular Commission meeting. • Kramer stated it would probably take place at the regular meetings where we may not have formal applications, but we would have discussions during work sessions. • Ruby stated it get discussed as a future work session item. • Kramer noted bigger code amendments, larger overhauls, and a project such as the sign code amendment may require several work sessions. • Ruby Is there a motion? • Van Oss motioned • Ruby stated there was a motion to recommend approval of the zoning code amendments. • Cohen seconded the motion • All voted in favor and the motion passed. 4. NEW BUSINESS - None 5. STAFF UPDATES: a. Planning Commission Attendance Roster • Okey discussed new attendance roster spreadsheet, 2025 Planning Commission calendar, and Board of Zoning Appeals Commissioner rotation schedule. b. Safe Routes to Schools grant application and task force • Kramer introduced the Safe Routes to School grant program and task force and noted that we need volunteers to serve on the task force. c. Sign Code Update selection committee CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Wednesday, December 09, 2024 – 6:30 p.m. | City Hall Council Chamber 7800 Golden Valley Road Golden Valley, MN 55427 • Kramer discussed the RFP for a consultant for the sign code update and asked for volunteers to help with the review process by serving on the selection committee. • Ruby volunteered to be on the selection committee 6. COMMISSIONER UPDATES: • Ginis highlighted some of the work from 2024 and also previewed some of the continuing work into 2025. She noted two of the recent code amendments that were recommended by the Planning Commission, the Telecommunications and Cannabis zoning code amendments. She expressed her appreciation for Chair Ruby’s attendance at the Council meeting where they received approval. She noted there was a lot of work related to the city budget and how the finance department has worked diligently on improvements in managing the public dollars and specifically noted the contributions of Lyle Hodges, Finance Director. She also highlighted the work done on staff culture and strategic planning. She called out the work done on the downtown Golden Valley visioning and that the work will continue into 2025. Another area of work discussed was the municipal facilities plans for the future. She noted her agreement with the vision of a stronger role for the Planning Commission and how she has seen it work in other cities. 7. ADJOURNMENT: Chair Ruby adjourned the meeting at 7:48 p.m.