Loading...
01 27 2025 PC Packet January 27, 2025 — 6:30 PM Council Chambers Hybrid Meeting 1.Call to Order, Land Acknowledgement, and Attendance Attendance by presence, not roll call 2.Consent Agenda All matters listed under Item 2 are considered routine in nature and will be enacted by one motion. Individual discussion of these items is not planned. A member, however, may remove any item to discuss as an item for separate consideration under New Business. 2.A.Approval of Dec. 9 meeting minutes 2.B.Approval of Jan. 13 meeting minutes 3.Public Hearings 4.New Business 4.A.New Staff Introduction: Chloe McGuire, Deputy Community Development Director 4.B.Annual Board and Commission Training 5.Staff Updates 6.Commissioner Updates 7.Adjourn PLANNING COMMISSION 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. You may attend virtually by: Watching on cable channel 16 Streaming on CCXmedia.org Streaming on Microsoft Teams: meeting ID 297 731 355 148, passcode aQaE4J Calling 1-872-256-4160 and entering conference ID number 738 266 392# City of Golden Valley Planning Commission Regular Meeting January 27, 2025 — 6:30 PM 1 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 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 2 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 t ype 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 3 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. 4 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 5 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. 6 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. 7 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 8 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 9 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 10 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. Approved by: Attest By: Commission Secretary Jacquelyn Kramer, AICP Senior Planner 11 CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Monday, January 13, 2025 – 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: Amy Barnstorff, Adam Brookins, Gary Cohen, Mike Ruby, Martin Sicotte • Regular Members Absent: Chuck Segelbaum, Eric Van Oss • Student Member, Status: Vacant • Staff Members Present: Jacquelyn Kramer, Senior Planner Steven Okey, Associate Planner • Council Member Present: Sophia Ginis 2. CONSENT AGENDA: Agenda Approval or Modifications 1.A Approval of agenda 2.A Approval of November 13, 2024, meeting minutes • Ruby asked for a motion to approve • Brookins moved • Barnstorff seconded • Approved unanimously 3. PUBLIC HEARINGS: - None 4. NEW BUSINESS: 4.A. 2025 Work Plan • Ruby introduced the topic of the 2025 Work Plan • Kramer started by discussing the new staffing in the Community Development Department. She stated that we are finalizing the 2025 work plan along with working on strategic planning. She noted that City Council has not given a date when they will be reviewing the work plan but that we wanted to bring it to the Commission at the beginning of the year. We want to make sure we are capturing Commission priorities and to bring the staff priorities as well. • Ruby asked once this is voted on and approved and there are changes will it necessitate another vote or will it be just a discussion. • Kramer stated it does not have to be a vote necessarily. It will be a standing item on every Commission agenda. She noted if we need to add, take off, or reorder any of the items without a vote being required but if there were substantial changes it would be good to have a vote. Also, since Council has not given a firm date when they need the updated work plans it isn’t necessary to have a vote tonight if the Commission is not ready and would like to make changes we can bring it back at a later date for a vote. • Ruby asked what a vote tonight would mean. • Kramer stated it would mean that the Commission was happy with the work plan, with the items on it, their order, and your ready for the Council to see what has been identified as priorities. • Ruby asked if the Council has come up with their work plan and if the Commission work plan is tied to it. • Kramer stated it isn’t really park of the Council work plan but in the past Council has approved the work plan of all boards and commissions, and it is also tied in with the annual reports. She 12 CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Monday, January 13, 2025 – 6:30 p.m. | City Hall Council Chamber 7800 Golden Valley Road Golden Valley, MN 55427 noted that it was paused last year and possibly the year before but that the process is being reinstated. She stated she is expecting Council will want to see a work plan from every board and commissions this year. • Kramer continued with presenting each of the items on the work plan. She stated that the first four items are ongoing items we track to keep them in our minds. She also stated if the Commissioners had any innovative planning or zoning item, they may have read about in new articles to let staff know and we can research it and put it on the plan for further discussion. She went on to discuss the ongoing item of equity training and noted currently there were no specific training items identified, but the equity team is working on their own plan and it will have training priorities over the next year. • Kramer continued by bringing up the joint Planning Commission and Board of Zoning Appeals training that will be happening at the January 27, 2025, meeting. She noted if any of the Commissioners cannot attend they will be receiving materials they can review, and staff can schedule one-on-one meetings to go over the materials. She stated the topics of discussion during the training session are partially legal requirements, purpose, and conduct of the Commission, and that Maria Cisneros, City Attorney will be there to answer any questions. • Kramer moved on to the high priority items that we hope to get through in the next couple of months. She started with the Sign Code Amendment that has been discussed a lot of times during the last few months and that we have put out a Request for Proposal (RFP) to consultants to help us update the whole sign code section. She noted that the RFP closes at the end of January, and we should have a consultant on board in February. • Ruby asked if there was an approved budget for the consultant services. • Kramer stated that $45,00 was set aside in the budget approved by Council. She noted that we will have the selection in February and execute the contract at that time. She outlined we will have plan review, zoning diagnosis, and a report to Planning Commission hopefully by the end of March and an ordinance to Council for approval y the end of May. There will likely be multiple discussions necessary to discuss the sign code update. • Sicotte asked what kind of background will the consultant have, will it be something like an urban design firm. • Kramer stated it will be a planning firm or an urban design firm that may have worked with the city previously on projects. • Cohen stated during the cannabis discussion aspects of signage were brought up several times, but it appears that the state cannabis rules are not moving forward very quickly, and he thinks we will have a sign update in place before it is needed to address new cannabis business. • Kramer noted if the RFP we specifically identified signage requirements for cannabis, tobacco and alcohol we want the consultants to review. She stated we also asking for an equity analysis, industry best practices, and fixing other items in the code that are out of date and/or inconsistent. • Ruby asked if while we review signage will we need to address lighting or will it be handled separately. • Kramer stated anything in the signage code section would be covered in this update, but it wouldn’t be all lighting requirements just those related to signage. • Ruby asked if they may have to go into the lighting code section. • Kramer stated if there is something specific that comes up during their review of the signage code or any other code sections the consultants would update those sections as well. • Kramer moved on to the next topic of the Conditional Use Permit (CUP) code section update. She stated it is really outdated with odd language that need to be brought up to date. She 13 CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Monday, January 13, 2025 – 6:30 p.m. | City Hall Council Chamber 7800 Golden Valley Road Golden Valley, MN 55427 noted in its current form it does not have objective standards that are easy to interpret or legally enforceable. She stated as a part of this update we will be looking at the land use tables to determine what uses should remain as conditional and which ones could be permitted by right or restricted. • Ruby asked if we would be looking at the viability of the variables within the CUP and what the city is currently emphasizing, such as public art and the like. • Kramer clarified those are public amenity points that are part of the Planned Unit Development (PUD) process. She noted that we are also going to be looking at public amenity points section of the PUD code section in the future and that because the CUP section is a smaller section that we hope to deal with before we receive a lot of new CUP applications. She stated along with the sign code update it is one we would like to discuss in quarter one and have a public hearing in quarter two. • Kramer then brought up another high priority item labelled Civic Campus. She stated that the Commission got a small introduction to the topic as a part of the Downtown User Experience Framework, a part of it is looking at a new civic campus for City Hall, Public Works, and Public Safety. She noted there will likely be rezoning, re-guiding for future land use, and other miscellaneous zoning code updates since it is a large multi-faceted project to get through this year. She also noted it is currently slated for quarter two or three and it is dependent on factors like land acquisition and budget, and right now we have money to start the initial planning and design. • Kramer moved on to the medium priority items. She stated we are going to be reviewing the parking code section. She noted we are looking at parking requirements to see if they still work for developers, the city and the public. Another item she discussed was missing middle housing and asked if the Commissioners were with the topic. She stated that basically middle housing is housing types between single-detached dwellings and apartment dwellings, they may include duplexes, triplexes, quads, townhomes, rowhomes, smaller apartment buildings, and/or cluster homes. She noted that these housing types existed in many areas but that zoning changes in the 60’s and 70’s eliminated these based on reasoning that was benign and at times with bad intentions similar to red lining to exclude certain groups of people from the city. She stated that the move to more middle housing will help meet the housing needs in the City of Golden Valley and the metro region in general. She noted that currently these housing types if allowed are subject to land use processes that may be onerous. Any such change to the code will require several discussions and looking at our zoning districts particularly the residential zoning districts. • Kramer then mentioned several other zoning code items that need updating. These include reviewing the mixed-use zoning district to see what works and what doesn’t, reviewing PUD amenity points, updated to subdivision codes, and architectural and materials standards. She also noted the items we finished last fall were left on to celebrate the accomplishments. • Ruby asked about how rezoning some areas in advance of it being owned by the city would work and does it open the city up to risk, would we wait until there were more concrete plans before rezoning. • Kramer stated we wouldn’t rezone specific properties unless we owned them. She noted we can do small area planning and look at re-guiding areas where we may want to spur redevelopment. She stated that come of the considerations would be street frameworks that are geared more to the pedestrian experience. She noted we have the Highway 55 Bus Rapid Transit study and once we know of station locations along Highway 55 we may want to plan around those. • Ruby asked if there may be small area plans discussed but rezoning would take place further along in the future. 14 CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Monday, January 13, 2025 – 6:30 p.m. | City Hall Council Chamber 7800 Golden Valley Road Golden Valley, MN 55427 • Kramer stated some of the items on the work plan may have to extend into 2026 and this is all dependent on the workload from development applications. She noted that currently applications submissions have been very light but that if we get a couple of bigger projects that will affect the amount of time spent on the work plan. • Ruby asked if the lack of applications was a seasonal effect or if it is a market trend. • Kramer stated that it may be market trends, and that planning application are not normally tied to seasonality as they have long lead times with a lot of pre-development requirements such as financing or planning. She noted it is difficult to predict the market trends but affects of construction and labor costs are factors in development. • Cohen asked if our new process would have an effect on new applications and that it will be an all-inclusive process. • Kramer stated it was true. She noted if there were other topics the Commission would like to discuss they may not necessary a larger group discussion but could be handled with written reports. • Cohen asked about the student member vacancy and how the Commissioners may be able to assist in recruitment. • Ginis stated it has been difficult to find students to apply. • Kramer stated that if any Commissioner know of any students who may be interested to encourage them to apply. • Sicotte asked what the age range was for student members. • Kramer stated that it was high school students who are eligible. • Ruby asked if there were any other questions or comments on the work plan. He then asked for a motion. • Cohen made the motion. • Barnstorff seconded the motion. • All voted in favor and the motion passed. 5. STAFF UPDATES: • Kramer stated the Board of Zoning Appeals meeting on January 28, 2025, has been cancelled. 6. COMMISSIONER UPDATES: • Ginis stated that the Planning Commission work plan is a big component of what is coming up for City Council. She noted there we other exciting items to move forward on for 2025, one of which is the HOPE Program and there are components of the program that will be coming in front of the Commission over the next year. Another item she brought up are assignment of Council liaisons to the various commissions, committees, and boards. She stated 2024 was about resetting the foundation and ensuring we know where we we’re going, and we have the staff expertise to lead the efforts. She noted that there is a lot to be excited about in 2025 for the city including furthering culture goals, downtown planning, municipal projects, and comprehensive park plan. She also noted that are finances are in great order. She stated Council meetings have been easy, partly because of the good work the other bodies do, and in 2025 with a new city manager, filled leadership positions, and awesome staff she thinks the city is positioned to do a lot of really great things. • Ruby asked if Councilor Ginis had updates on the timing for the BRT study on Highway 55. • Ginis stated the structure for the study is in place, the Policy Committee has met, and the Technical Advisory Committee has been established. She noted the scope of work has been reviewed and sent out into the world. • Ruby asked if the timing for implementation is a 2025 or 2026 goal. • Ginis stated that it is a longer process, and it is dependent on establishing a market for the 15 CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Monday, January 13, 2025 – 6:30 p.m. | City Hall Council Chamber 7800 Golden Valley Road Golden Valley, MN 55427 service. She noted currently there is no bus line that travels from Minneapolis along Highway 55 with many different service types in the Metro Transit’s network and the question is how to allocate resources, where to place stations, selecting the corridor, and other factor analysis. She stated currently there isn’t a project timeline and there are multiple phases. • Kramer stated that she is on the Technical Advisory Committee and would be able to update the Planning Commission periodically throughout the year. • Ruby asked if there were any other questions. • Kramer asked if the Commissioners were familiar with the HOPE Program. She stated basically that the city has funds to finance affordable housing projects, mainly single-detached and duplexes. She noted we have identified nine or ten sites throughout the city and are partnering with developers, on such developer is Habitat for Humanity. She stated some of the sites will need to be rezoned to allow for some of the duplexes or row houses and they will likely be coming before the Commission over the next year. • Ruby asked if these are similar to parcels we had last year and if the city had identified nine more. • Kramer stated she believes it is nine parcels total, some of which have already been approved and homes built. She noted that many of the newly identified parcels are former Minnesota Department of Transportation properties, and some are tricky to develop with market rate housing, but the city has funds and partners identified who are interested in taking them on to create home ownership opportunities for lower income residents. • Cohen stated he wanted to commend Steven Okey for the wonderful job on the minutes for the long and detailed cannabis discussion at the November 13, 2024, meeting. 7. ADJOURNMENT: Chair Ruby adjourned the meeting at 7:02 p.m. Approved by: Attest By: Commission Secretary Jacquelyn Kramer, AICP Senior Planner 16 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Community Development 763-512-2345 / 763-512-2344 (fax) Golden Valley Planning Commission Meeting January 27, 2025 Agenda Item 4.B. Annual Board and Commission Training Prepared By Emily Goellner, Community & Economic Development Director Maria Cisneros, City Attorney Summary Every year city staff provide training for board and commission members. This year's training will cover the following topics: 1. Roles of commissioners and board members, chair, and city staff 2. Evaluating applications 3. Flow of meetings 4. Conduct and policies Recommended Action Provide staff with feedback or questions. 17