02-27-17 PC Minutes Regular Meeting of the
Golden Valley Planning Commission
February 27, 2017
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,
February 27, 2017. Chair Segelbaum called the meeting to order at 7:04 pm.
Those present were Planning Commissioners Baker, Btum, Kluchka, Segelbaum, and
Waldhauser. Also present were Planning Manager Jason Zimmerman, Associate
Planner/Grant Writer Emily Goellner, and Administrative Assistant Lisa Wittman.
Commissioners Blenker and Johnson were absent.
1. Approval of Minutes
February 13, 2017, Regular Planning Commission Meeting
Waldhauser referred to the last sentence on page five and clarified that she thinks a teen
member would be better suited for the Planning Commission rather than the Board of
Zoning Appeals. Segelbaum added that he was concerned that a teen might not want to
participate in the entirety of Planning Commission meetings.
MOVED by Waldhauser, seconded by Baker and motion carried 2 to 2 to approve the
February 13, 2017, minutes with the above noted amendment. Commissioners Blum and
Kluchka abstained.
2. Informal Public Hearing —Zoning Code Text Amendment—Adding a Youth
Member to the Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) —ZO00-110
Applicant: City of Golden Valley
Purpose: To consider language regarding the appointment of a youth member
to the Board of Zoning Appeals
Goellner stated that staff is recommending approval of the proposed amendments to
Section 11.90 of the Zoning Code regarding appointing a youth member to the Board of
Zoning Appeals (BZA) as a non-voting member. She noted that proposed amendments
to the Board's bylaws and Section 2.50 of City Code which pertains to all of the City's
boards and commissions will also be considered at the March 21, 2017 City Council
meeting.
Waldhauser asked if the BZA currently has four or five members. Goellner stated that
the BZA currently consists of four regular members and one rotating Planning
Commission representative. Waldhauser asked if the Planning Commission will be
reviewing the proposed language for other boards/commissions. Goellner said no and
explained that Section 2.50 of the City Code pertains to all of the boards and
commissions expect for the BZA which is part of the Zoning Code (Section 11.90) and
therefore has to have a public hearing before the Planning Commission.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
February 27, 2017
Page 2
Segelbaum asked if all of the boards and commissions will be getting a teen member.
Goellner said yes, that is the intention.
Segelbaum opened the public hearing.
Paula Pentel, 941 Angelo Drive, said she has served on the Planning Commission, the
City Council, and a representative on the BZA. She said she has some concerns about
this proposal. She stated that a youth member on the Open Space and Recreation
Commission, the Human Rights Commission, and the Environmental Commission
would be great but when she was on the City Council and interviewed people for boards
and commissions she was looking for people with some expertise particularly for the
BZA because they are making decisions that are very technical and binding. She said
while she was on the Council they tried to set up a youth committee with limited success
and she doesn't know if a youth member would bring value to the BZA or if it would be
great for the student or the staff. She said she would rather have staff spending their
time on what is happening at the BZA with the applicants and the neighbors, and the
technical issues, not with a member who wouldn't be voting but could be asking
questions. She reiterated that she just doesn't see the value in having a youth member
on the BZA like she does for the other boards and commissions.
Segelbaum asked Pentel why she thinks a youth member would be more appropriate
for other boards and commissions versus the BZA. Pentel said the youth member may
not understand setbacks and variances and other things like hardships and unique
circumstances. She stated that BZA members are homeowners or are in the industry in
some way and they just understand variances more than others would. She reiterated
that having a youth member on other boards and commissions would be wonderful, just
not on the BZA who deal with a particular piece of property rather than long term goals
or initiatives like other boards or commissions.
Blum asked Pentel if she would change her mind if the age range was expanded, or if a
person's knowledge could be demonstrated. Pentel said a person should be appointed
if they are 18 or older and they would be more useful as a seated member rather than a
figurehead. She added that she thinks it would be good for a youth member to observe,
but not to be appointed as a member.
Seeing and hearing no one else wishing to comment, Segelbaum closed the public
hearing.
Kluchka referred to the fifth sentence in Section 11.90, Subd. A(1) and suggested it be
changed to read "All of the votinq members of the Planning Commission are alternates
to the Board of Zoning Appeals." He referred to the seventh sentence in that same
subdivision and suggested it be changed to read "At least one votin member of the
Planning Commission shall be present at each meeting of the Board of Zoning
Appeals." He referred to Article III in the bylaws of the BZA and suggested the third
sentence be changed to read "A votinq Planning Commissioner shall be the 5th regular
member."
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
February 27, 2017
Page 3
Segelbaum said there are reference terms that are not consistent. For example, the
words member, regular member, and non-voting member. He proposed the language
be changed to state that the BZA includes six members total. Four regular members,
one youth non-voting member, and one Planning Commission member. He suggested
that the language also specify who is eligible for the different offices and various other
elements.
Waldhauser said she appreciates Pentel's point of view and history with all of the
boards and commissions. She said she shares her concerns about having a youth
member on the BZA because that board needs people who have an investment and
stake in the community which a youth member might have, but there may be a fleeting
commitment. She said she also thinks homeowners need quick decisions about their
variance proposals so they can move on and the BZA is not there to provide a broad
community building service, their role is more narrowly defined.
Baker asked if the BZA is the only appointed board that is not advisory. Zimmerman
said yes. Baker said his biggest concern is that the BZA is a decision making board and
he doesn't feel comfortable having a youth member as a part of that dynamic.
Segelbaum asked Baker if he would feel more comfortable if the youth member didn't sit
at the dais with the rest of the board. Baker said he thinks that would be better, but then
they are not participating in the same way and it just doesn't feel right to have a youth
member on the BZA. He added that he would be willing to consider having a teen
member on the Planning Commission, but he thinks it would be great to have a teen
member on other commissions like the Environmental Commission or the Open Space
and Recreation Commission.
Blum suggested offering an internship opportunity for youth with staff instead.
Zimmerman stated that the City does have an internship program for college students
and graduate students and they typicalty cover Planning Commission and BZA
meetings. Goellner added that teens are also employed in the Park and Recreation
Department.
Kluchka said he likes it when youth and teens give input and feedback, but sometimes
background information isn't articulated during discussions and a lot of time might be
spent going backwards in trying to bring someone up to speed. He stated that as much
as he values youth input he thinks in a formal environment like the BZA, it would upset
the apple cart to bring in a person who is underage and may not have any background
to present to the conversation, and to be in front of people when they don't know what
they are talking about could be problematic. He added that BZA meetings can be
contentious and it might get uncomfortable for a youth member so he would be opposed
to having a youth member on the BZA, but incrementally less opposed to having a
youth member on the Planning Commission. He referred to the BZA bylaws and
proposed that instead of saying that a youth member shall be enrolled in grades 9
through 12, it should state that nobody under age 13 will be considered so there is no
confusion.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
February 27, 2017
Page 4
Segelbaum said he understands the goal is to get youth involved but his view is that a
youth member would be ok if they are in a designated observer position and if questions
could be asked ahead of ineetings, after meetings, or discussed with staff. Kluchka
questioned the value of having a designated observer. He said he is concerned about
the staff time involved in training someone every year or more because he doesn't
expect a youth member to participate consistently. He reiterated that he doesn't think
there is a role for a teen member on the BZA and questioned what problem is trying to
be solved by this proposal.
Waldhauser said she doesn't have a problem with teens being involved and having the
experience for their resumes, but it won't be helpful if they don't make a contribution so
she wouldn't be interested in having a designated observer who has no way to
contribute or participate.
Kluchka suggested having board and commission members be mentors to a group of
youth members instead. That way the youth members could get background information
from the various commissioners and rotate through other boards and commissions in
order to provide a better civic engagement opportunity. Segelbaum asked Kluchka if he
thinks the BZA should be included. Kluchka said no, but he would like to bring someone
he is mentoring to his assigned BZA meeting with him.
Segelbaum questioned if there might be a way to designate interested teens as a junior
commissioner or something other than a member. He said he also likes the idea of
having a mentorship or a designated observer that doesn't take a lot of staff time.
MOVED by Baker, seconded by Kluchka and motion carried unanimously to
recommend disapproval of the amendments to Section 11.90 of the Zoning Code
adding language regarding the appointment of a youth member to the Board of Zoning
Appeals.
--Short Recess--
3. Discussion — Height and Average Grade
Zimmerman stated that staff is looking for some clarity regarding the regulations for height
and average grade. He explained that the four topics he would like to discuss include:
using average grade to set the base for measuring the height of homes; the need for
flexibility in the current limit of a one-foot increase in average grade from an old house to
a new house; potential revisions to height limits for flat roofed homes; and relocating the
language regarding average grade regulations from the definition section of the Zoning
Code to the individual zoning districts.
Zimmerman referred to a picture of a house plan and explained that the "base" of a
structure's height is determined by taking a measurement along the street side of a
structure at three points of elevation (two corners and one midpoint) where the grade
meets the structure. He added that more points of elevation (five) are used if the property
is a corner lot.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
February 27, 2017
Page 5
Segelbaum asked if the average grade is always measured at the front of a lot.
Zimmerman said yes, average grade is measured on the street side of a property. He
showed the Commission several photos of properties and noted where the average grade
is located.
Baker asked why average grade measurements aren't taken at points all the way around
a house. Zimmerman stated that most cities measure from the street side because
generally the street is fairly level and there is a uniform street presence whereas back
yards can have very different topography with walk-out homes, etc. He noted that a lot of
work regarding height was done as part of the in-fill study in 2008 and the system is
working well for establishing the base line. The problem really is in the current limit of
allowing only a one foot increase in average grade when homes are demolished and new
homes are built. Also, there isn't much historic information available when determining the
average grade on vacant lots.
Segelbaum asked if it is up to the applicant to prove that their proposed average grade
meets the Code requirements. Zimmerman explained that the Code states that the
average grade has to be established at the time of subdivision. He stated that there are a
number of lots in the City that haven't had the grade established. He explained that with
tear downs and replacements the proposed survey will typically list the elevation of the
finished floor, the garage floor, and/or the top of block, but the City is unlikely to have the
average grade information for homes that were demolished so it is difficult to evaluate if
the average grade of a new home is no more than one foot over the average grade of the
home that was removed. He added that the language regarding the one foot limit causes
additional challenges because there are times when the grade needs to be raised more
than one foot to get proper drainage, proper driveway grade, and proper slope for sanitary
sewer lines.
Zimmerman stated that the Planning Commission recommended allowing for flexibility in
average grade in 2009. That recommendation was tabled at the City Council and died. He
referred to Edina's code and stated that they measure height based on the average
ground elevation at the front building line to the highest point of the roof and that the
ground elevation is the lowest of either the grade approved at subdivision, the grade at
the time of last demolition, or the grade at the time of building permit application. He
stated other codes offer flexibility by limiting elevation to one foot over the existing first
floor elevation, or requiring a variance if more than a one foot change is needed to meet
flood standards, protection against ground water intrusion, is needed to meet building or
other codes, or if it remains in character with the neighborhood (height, mass, and scale).
Segelbaum asked if the advantage of ineasuring from the existing first floor elevation is
so that someone can build a really tall structure by digging into their lot in order to bring
down the average grade. Zimmerman stated that measuring from the first floor elevation
would bring the average up. Waldhauser added that part of the issue when the Planning
Commission studied this in the past was people bringing in a lot of dirt and creating an
artificial grade and building on top of that.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
February 27, 2017
Page 6
Baker said his main concern has always been about the overall height of a house and he
wants to avoid creating loopholes in the Code. He said it seems to him that the one foot
rule avoids opportunity to build a taller house. Zimmerman stated that the current code
makes it difficult when the grade has to be raised more than one foot to get the drainage
to work properly. Waldhauser noted that the one foot rule can be a problem if an existing
house was built below the level of the street because if someone wants to redevelop a
property they can't because they wouldn't be allowed to raise the grade more than one
foot over the previous grade. Baker said the City has a tendency to want to make every
lot buildable. It is really a buyer beware situation because not every lot in Golden Valley is
buildable. He said he doesn't want to change the character of neighborhoods or the flow
of water because someone has to change the grade so much in order to make a new
house work. Kluchka questioned if the grade in backyards should also be considered.
Zimmerman stated that the feedback he is looking for is if the City should keep using
average grade to establish height, if additional information should be required before
demolitions occur, if the City should move forward with allowing some flexibility in
increasing average height beyond one foot when necessary, if that increase should be
allowed only through the variance process, and what the standards should be.
Waldhauser suggested that the language state that there should be no increase allowed
over what is necessary to meet current building standards. Then there would be no need
for the one foot rule because if the previous house was fine, the new grade should not
need to be raised. Baker said he thinks a cap needs to be placed on how much the grade
of a lot can be changed.
Blum said the proposed language seems broad and subject to interpretation. He said he
is concerned about consistency issues and he thinks there needs to be concrete numbers
to avoid getting results that they can't foresee. Zimmerman said he thinks some threshold
regarding grade needs to be established, there needs to be some flexibility, and anything
beyond that would require a variance. Kluchka said he agrees with Blum that there is a
consistency issue. He said he thinks if the grade is changed at all a variance should be
required because then there would be a quality check, more than one person would be
reviewing plans, and the rules would not be misinterpreted. Segefbaum said he thinks the
City Engineer can make a much more precise determination than the BZA could. He said
he would like to see staff have some leeway before a variance is required. Baker said he
is surprised the current system isn't working because anyone can go to the BZA and ask
for a variance. He said he doesn't want to give staff leeway because it might put them in
an awkward position of having to decide how a person's home is designed. He added that
the one foot rule takes care of about 80% of the issues and the rest might need to ask for
a variance. He said he is not convinced that the average grade language needs to
change.
Waldhauser asked if the BZA has approved any variances regarding grade changes.
Zimmerman said there was one request approved last year. More often, proposals have
either not needed to go to the BZA, or the applicants change their house or grading plans
instead. He stated that the issues with grading are going to happen more and more with
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
February 27, 2017
Page 7
teardowns and that the City has lots that are low and the grade of these lots need to
change in order to make drainage work properly.
Blum said one thing that is giving him pause in regard to granting more flexibility in height
is light blockage and aesthetic issues. He suggested maybe tying flexibility in grading to
greater setbacks or lot size which would mitigate light loss issues and would allow people
to buitd the type of home they want to build. Baker reiterated that his main concern is
building height and he doesn't want grade to be used as an excuse to build a taller house.
Kluchka said he likes the idea of the building envelope staying the same. He said the
grade could change to address drainage issues, but the building envelope and height
could start where they always have which gets into the issue of depth which they haven't
discussed before.
Zimmerman next referred to the issue of flat roofed houses. He explained that the current
height limit for a flat roof is 25 feet. Pitched roofs can be 28 feet tall at the midpoint of the
highest pitched roof, and there is no overall maximum height limit. He referred to the new
"tent shaped" building envelope regulations and explained that those regulations prevent
flat roofs from rising above 15 feet at the side yard setback line so he questions if it may .
be time to consider increasing the height limit for flat roofs. He showed the Commission a
plan of a house that recently received a variance to allow for a penthouse/elevator access
area on top of a flat roofed house. The overall height of that house will be 28.5 feet and
would be within the building envelope if it were a pitched roof house. He asked the
Commissioners for feedback on the following questions: should the 25 foot flat roof height
limit be modified, what would be the appropriate height, should the City allow rooftop
stair/elevator access, and should a maximum overall height be imposed on pitched roof
structures.
Baker said the questions imply that the way pitched roofs are measured is right and that
the way flat roofs are measured isn't. He asked if using an overall maximum height
instead of ineasuring height at the midpoint level would be more fair. Zimmerman said it is
not really a question of fairness, it is if the City wants to allow rooftop access on flat
roofed houses.
Blum asked if this is about preventing a third story. Zimmerman said no, it's about
keeping heights down and not having one home towering over a neighboring home. Blum
asked if there is room for flexibility while still addressing concerns about light and distance
between homes yet still respecting different types of home designs. Zimmerman said the
"tent-shaped" method of determining the building envelope addresses that, but staff has
realized that it is penalizing flat roof homes. Blum suggested allowing additional height for
flat roofed homes, but then making the side setbacks bigger.
Kluchka said he would recommend using the "tent-shaped" building envelope for every
house regardless of the type of roof. The envelope is specific to light and the space
between homes and not specific to height. Waldhauser said the concern is that a tall,
blockish, flat-roofed house could be built which has living space taking the place of roof
space. Segelbaum agreed that the living space and roof top space in a flat roofed house
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
February 27, 2017
Page 8
could look down on a neighboring house instead of there just being roof space.
Waldhauser added that living space could also be added in pitched roof areas with
dormers.
Baker said the issue isn't just about light and space befinreen houses; it is about massing
and he doesn't want to encourage massing. He said doesn't object to a variety in the
housing stock and various heights but he thinks not having a cap on the overall maximum
height limit could allow people to connive their way in to building a super tall house.
Kluchka said there are practical limits in building something that tall and that the "tent
shaped" building envelope already limits the massing. Goellner reiterated that if the roof in
the example that Zimmerman showed would have been slightly pitched instead of flat the
owners would not have needed a variance at all. She added that it is an issue of clarifying
a discrepancy in the existing code because one section of the Code has building
envelope requirements and in another section it has height requirements. Baker said he
has concerns about allowing rooftop access rooms.
Segelbaum asked if all of staff's questions from the presentation have been addressed.
He said he thinks there should be some flexibility to allow the City Engineer to raise the
grade a little bit when necessary with some sort of trade off, and there should be the
possibility for homeowners to go to the BZA when needed. Zimmerman said that average
grade issues can get very technical and he's not sure if the BZA has those technical
skills. Goellner explained that plans sometimes change after they are reviewed at the
planning level and that the Engineering Division reviews the stormwater and grading
during the building permit process so she thinks staff needs a little more flexibility.
4. Reports on Meetings of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority, City
Council, Board of Zoning Appeals and other Meetings
No reports were given.
5. Other Business
• Review Planning Commission Annual Report
Zimmerman reminded the Commission that he sent them an email regarding their
Annual Report and stated that they are scheduled to present at the Council/Manager
meeting in May.
• Council Liaison Report
No report was given.
6. Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned at 9 pm.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
February 27, 2017
Page 9
/P� ���
John Kluchk , Secretary Lisa ittman, Administrative Assistant