Loading...
03-26-01 PC Minutes Regular Meeting of the Golden Valley Planning Commission March 26, 2001 A regular meeting of the Planning Commission was held at the Golden Valley City Hall, Council Chambers, 7800 Golden Valley Road, Golden Valley, Minnesota, on Monday, March 26, 2001. The meeting was called to order by Chair Pentel at 6:00 PM. Those present were Chair Pentel and Commissioners Eck, Groger, Hoffman, McAleese, Rasmussen and Shaffer. Also present were Director of Planning and Development Mark Grimes, City Planner Dan Olson and Recording Secretary Lisa Wittman. I. Discussion of New Commission Guidelines - Presentation by Mayor Mary Anderson and Council Member Jan LeSuer. Eck referred to the Commission Guidelines and stated that the introduction paragraph states that this is a revision, and asked if it really is a revision of a previously distributed document or if it is a new document. Mayor Anderson stated that it is a revision and that Council Member LeSuer and Council Member Micks formed a subcommittee of the Council and revised it in order to bring all the different commission guidelines together and iron out any inconsistencies and to make the Commission roles clear. Pentel discussed a seminar she attended on ethics at the APA National Conference and stated that Commission members shouldn't talk or meet with anyone regarding projects, but should tell people to come to the public hearings or to put something in writing to all of the planning commissioners. Shaffer stated that if a planning commission member is at a site visit and learns something about a project that the rest of the Commission doesn't know, in effect, it could be considered a public meeting and it's receiving knowledge that the rest of the Commission doesn't have. He stated this is more applicable to the Board of Zoning Appeals because they make decisions, not recommendations. Groger asked if the Planning Commission is allowed to answer questions, without taking commentary. Pentel stated that it's fine to state what you're doing and why. LeSuer stated it would be fine to say you're not permitted to discuss projects and that they have to be discussed in a public forum. Pentel asked for clarification on the three-member rule and how many members can get together outside of a meeting. Mayor Anderson stated that a majority of a quorum should not meet. Hoffman referred to the section in the guidelines about acting as a private citizen and that commissioners have to state that they are acting as a private citizen. He asked about attending neighborhood meetings as a private citizen when speaking at City Councilor other City meetings. Shaffer stated that that would be receiving extra information that is not public and planning commission members are not suppose to be looking at individual neighborhoods but rather the whole community. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission March 26, 2001 Page 2 Rasmussen asked which sections of the guidelines were revised. Mayor Anderson said the biggest change was the mandatory loss of position if absent so many times. Anderson stated that this was just to bring together the different commissions guidelines into one place. LeSuer stated that another concern in doing these guidelines is to help the new commissioners who come in to get some training and orientation. Mayor Anderson discussed having a local training session retreat with the Planning Commission and the City Council to discuss development issues. Groger asked for clarification on presenting before the Council or writing letters to the editor as a private citizen and if he would need to announce he's a Planning Commission Member or state that he's a private citizen. Mayor Anderson stated that nothing he says as a private citizen should be viewed as a planning commission recommendation. Groger asked about the issue of minority reports. Pentel stated that when the Planning Commission has not had unanimous decisions it is common for the commissioner that presents to the council to revisit some of the issues that were raised along with the final decision. Mayor Anderson stated that it's in the guidelines to give members the opportunity to explain if someone really felt strongly about something. Rasmussen asked if these guidelines would be adopted formally in the future. Mayor Anderson stated yes, the revised guidelines would be adopted. -- Short Recess -- II. Approval of Minutes - February 26, 2001 and March 5, 2001 Planning Commission Meetings MOVED by Groger, seconded by Eck and motion carried unanimously to approve the February 26, 2001 minutes as submitted. Chair Pentel indicated that the second sentence on page 6, in paragraph 2 of the March 5, 2001 minutes should be amended to read: It seems that 5 lots would work and could bring very nice housing to this neig hborhood. MOVED by Groger, seconded by Eck and motion carried unanimously to approve the March 5, 2001 minutes with the above revision. III. Planning Commission Approval- Amendment to Golden Hills Tax Increment Financing Plan Finance Director Don Taylor referred to his memo dated March 19,2001, regarding expenditures for the "Northwest Project" in the Central Area (Olympic Printing Site) and Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission March 26, 2001 Page 3 the "East Area Project". He stated since the HRA is currently in negotiations for the purchase of the Olympic Printing Site and could possibly become involved in the future in purchasing property from the State in the East Area, it is the appropriate time to amend the plan budget. He stated that this amendment increases the district budget by $8,500,000 for the Northwest Project and by $1,000,000 for the East Area Project. This would bring the amended budget to $67,616,370. He stated these two projects would probably be the last projects in Golden Hills and that this would be the last amendment to the Tax Increment Financing Plan. He stated there aren't really any planning issues with this amendment, just budget issues and recommended approval. Hoffman asked where the $9.5 million referred to in the memo came from. Taylor stated that he worked with the City Attorney, the City's Relocation Consultant and the City's Public Works Department to come up with best estimates. Pentel stated that the money comes from the tax increment that is generated from the new development. Eck asked when the City sells bonds, if there is a surplus, does the City have the right to retire those bonds early to save interest. Taylor stated the City does have call features on the bonds and could call in all, or a portion, of what was left or use the surplus for other redevelopment expenditures within the development area. Pentel stated that the second paragraph, last sentence on the introduction page of the draft copy of Amendment No.3 to the TIF Plan should read: "Once the Northwest Project property is acquired, the Planning Commission will develop a recommendation for the type of development that will occur. MOVED by Hoffman, seconded by McAleese and motion carried unanimously to approve the Amendment to Golden Hills Tax Increment Financing Plan. IV. Reports on Meetings of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority, City Council, Board of Zoning Appeals and other Meetings Eck stated he attended the City Council Meeting on March 20, 2001 and that the planning commission items were continued to the next meeting. Rasmussen stated the Sheriffs Site Board gave a report to the HRA that suggested a mixed value of housing. V. Other Business A. Election of Officers Pentellisted the current staff positions: Chair Pentel, Vice Chair Shaffer and Secretary Groger. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission March 26,2001 Page 4 Pentel said she would be willing to remain Chair of the Commission. Shaffer said he would like to remain Vice Chair. MOVED by Eck, seconded by Hoffman and motion carried unanimously to keep the existing slate of officers. There was discussion about having a joint meeting between the City Council and the Planning Commission to discuss various Zoning Code issues and to discuss the P.U.D. ordinance. VII. Adjournment The meeting adjourned at 7:45 pm.