Loading...
01-28-19 PC Minutes Regular Meeting of the Golden Valley Planning Commission January 28, 2019 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, January 28, 2019. Chair Baker called the meeting to order at 7 pm. Those present were Planning Commissioners Baker, Blum, Brookins, Johnson, Pockl, and Segelbaum. Also present were Planning Manager Jason Zimmerman and Administrative Assistant Lisa Wittman. 1. Approval of Minutes January 14, 2019, Regular Planning Commission Meeting MOVED by Johnson, seconded by Blum and motion carried unanimously to approve the January 14, 2019, minutes as submitted. 2. Public Hearing —Zoning Code Text Amendment— Firearm Sales —ZO00-117 Applicant: City of Golden Valley Purpose: To amend the Zoning Code to regulate the sale of firearms Zimmerman stated that the Planning Commission has been asked to consider new zoning regulations for the sale of firearms and reminded the Commission that this item has been discussed at the August 15 and November 13 Council/Manager and the December 10 and January 14 Planning Commission meetings. Zimmerman explained that State law limits the ability of local municipalities to regulate firearms beyond State statute but cities can legislate the location of firearm sales and some site specific items within reason. He added that the regulations must be reasonable, nondiscriminatory, and nonarbitrary and that staff is recommending developing regulations that address the separation of firearm sales from other uses, the security of firearm sales buildings, and site requirements. Zimmerman referred to the current City Code and noted that firearm sales are prohibited as a home occupation but they are allowed in the Commercial Zoning District and are treated like any other retail sales use. He noted that in past discussions the Commission discussed shifting firearm sales to the Light Industrial and Industrial Zoning Districts in an effort to move the point of sale further away from concentrations of vulnerable populations. Zimmerman discussed some of the separation requirements of other metro area cities including: separation of sales from residentially zoned properties, schools, religious institutions, libraries, parks, governmental buildings, and community centers. He reminded the Commission that their discussions included having two tiers of separation. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission January 28, 2019 Page 2 Tier 1 which would require a greater distance between sales and places where vulnerable populations would most likely gather and Tier 2 which would require a lesser distance befinreen firearm sales and residentially zoned properties. He added that the proposed new Code language would also require 1,000 feet of distance befinreen any two firearm sales locations. Zimmerman showed the Commission maps that illustrated different tier 1 and tier 2 distance scenarios and said staff feels that the scenario showing a tier 1 distance of 1,000 feet and a tier 2 distance of 500 feet seems almost unreasonable, so staff is recommending using the scenario showing a tier 1 distance of 750 and a tier 2 distance of 375 feet because it seems more reasonable. Baker asked why staff feels that 1,000 foot buffer seems unreasonable. Zimmerman said there would only be a total of four or five locations left in the City for selling firearms if the larger buffer area was selected so a smaller buffer seemed more reasonable. Zimmerman discussed some additional restrictions that have been considered such as security and site requirements including where and how in the building firearms can be stored, the storage of ammunition, the requirements around alarm systems, limits on window displays, and limiting sales to a permanent building as opposed to trailers or other in-vehicle sales. Zimmerman highlighted some the proposed Zoning Code text changes which include adding firearm sales and firing ranges as prohibited uses in the Commercial Zoning District, and adding firearm sales with the recommended distances from other uses in the Light Industrial Zoning District and Industrial Zoning District as restricted uses. Zimmerman noted that the current Zoning Code doesn't list many prohibited or restricted uses and explained the Zoning Code structure which lists principal uses that are permitted by right, accessory uses which are secondary uses permitted by right, restricted uses which are permitted by right, but must follow specific restrictions listed in the Zoning Code, conditional uses which are permitted uses but the City reviews them and retains the ability to establish conditions that mitigate impacts to neighboring properties, and prohibited uses which are uses that are not allowed. Baker asked for some examples of restricted uses. Zimmerman explained that a restricted use may limit the size of a use or distances from other uses such as a bar or restaurant. Segelbaum referred to the maps of the buffer areas and asked if an applicant would be able to ask for a variance from the buffer requirements. Zimmerman said no because variances are not allowed in regard to use. Pockl questioned if the sale of firearms should be specifically listed as a prohibited use in the residential zoning districts or if that wasn't necessary because of the proposed residential buffer areas. Zimmerman said he doesn't think that is necessary and that it was only called out in the Commercial Zoning District language because other retail sales are allowed in that zoning district. Segelbaum asked if that would be the same for firing ranges because those would only be allowed as a recreational use in certain zoning districts. Zimmerman agreed. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission January 28, 2019 Page 3 Baker questioned how to make it clear that firearm uses aren't allowed in the Institutional Zoning Districts and used a school that wanted to do trap shooting as an example. Zimmerman stated that there are other sections of the City Code that deal with the discharge of firearms. Johnson asked about firearm service in additional to sales. Zimmerman said the word "service" could be added anywhere the word "sales" is used. � Baker opened the public hearing. Seeing and hearing no one wishing to comment, Baker closed the public hearing. Segelbaum questioned if more prohibited uses should be listed in the Light Industrial and Industrial Zoning Districts unless staff thinks there is a loophole in the language. Baker suggested that issue be reviewed with the City Attorney. Baker asked the Commissioners how they felt about using scenario 6 which is a 750- foot tier 1 buffer and a 375-foot tier 2 buffer. Johnson referred to the map and said there would be approximately seven areas where firearms could be sold and in a couple of those areas it is highly unlikely so he thinks they should be sensitive to what properties and businesses are in those areas. Baker noted that there are approximately 11 properties. Baker referred to scenario 5 which shows a 1,000-foot tier 1 buffer and 500-foot tier 2 buffer and said there would be five or six properties available properties with this scenario. Zimmerman noted that finro or three properties shown is this scenario might be owned by LubeTech and probably won't change for some time. Segelbaum referred to the State Statute and said he thinks thus far they've been nonarbitrary and nondiscriminatory, but he is not sure how "reasonable" is defined. Baker stated that an extreme view of reasonable would be that as long as there is one location for firearm sales it is reasonable and that allowing none would be unreasonable. Segelbaum noted that the City Council will also be examining what is reasonable. He asked Zimmerman about the City Attorney's opinion. Zimmerman stated that there isn't a lot of clarity around what is reasonable and that the City should be able to defend the rationale behind what is adopted and base its definition of reasonable on something rather than arbitrarily picking numbers. Blum said he thinks any of the scenarios they've been discussing allow for multiple properties where firearm sales could locate and that none of the maps are overly restrictive. He said he thinks they've given their basis for reasonableness which are on record from their prior finro meetings and that the staff report also summarizes a lot of those reasons. Zimmerman asked the Commissioners if any of them feel that any of the scenarios shown aren't reasonable. Segelbaum said scenario 2 (500 feet/250 feet) is the least restrictive and is not reasonable when he considers the areas they are trying to protect. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission January 28, 2019 Page 4 He said scenario 5 (1,000 feet/500 feet) and scenario 6 (750 feet/375 feet) seem more reasonable. Blum agreed and said the more restrictive scenarios are more likely to accomplish their goals and still be reasonable. Johnson agreed. Pockl said she agrees more with the scenarios that are more restrictive. She said she thinks they've done a good job of being nondiscriminatory and nonarbitrary and have described how they've gotten to the point of making a decision as to the populations and areas they want to protect. She said there is a good amount of space shown on the maps in scenarios 5 and 6 that would allow for firearm sales which is another indication of reasonableness. Brookins said he agrees that scenario 6 (750 feet/375 feet) does a nice job of protecting the populations they've discussed while still allowing the sale of firearms. Baker summarized that he feels that the Commission would like to state that they support all of the recommendations made by staff and that they have a slight differing of opinion between scenarios 5 and 6. Johnson suggested that they take a vote regarding preference between all three proposed scenarios. Baker said he would like it noted that all of the Commissioners find scenario 6 acceptable. Segelbaum suggested voting on if the Commissioners find each scenario reasonable. Baker asked the Commissioners if scenario 2 (500 feet/250 feet) is reasonable. Commissioner Johnson said yes. Baker asked the Commissioners if scenario 6 (750 feetl375 feet) is reasonable. All of the Commissioners (Baker, Blum, Brookins, Johnson, Pockl, and Segelbaum) said yes. Baker asked the Commissioners if scenario 5 (1,000 feet/500 feet) is reasonable. Commissioners Baker, Blum, Pockl, and Segelbaum said yes. Commissioners Brookins and Johnson said no. MOVED by Segelbaum, seconded by Johnson and motion carried unanimously to recommend approval of staff s proposed Zoning Code language that regulates the sale of firearms and adopt staff's findings for reasons as to why the recommendations are nondiscriminatory, nonarbitrary, and reasonable including the vote above taken by the Commission. Brookins noted that the words "or service" should be added anywhere "sales" is mentioned. Blum questioned if the word "firearm" should be defined. Baker suggested that question be referred to the City Attorney. --Short Recess-- 3. Reports on Meetings of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority, City Council, Board of Zoning Appeals and other Meetings Zimmerman stated that architectural and materials standards will be discussed at the next finro Planning Commission meetings. He stated that future discussions will include Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission January 28, 2019 Page 5 pedestrian overlay districts starting with Douglas Drive, creating tables of uses in each zoning district, and re-vamping the Mixed Use Zoning District. 4. Other Business • Council Liaison Report Councilmember Schmidgall gave an update on the last City Council meeting where the Fire Department recognized a resident for saving the life of a co-worker using an AED machine. Segelbaum questioned if the City requires businesses of a certain size to have AEDs. Schmidgall reported that there are three or four more years left in the Pavement Management Program and stated that the City Council approved an architectural contract to improve the Council Chambers. He reminded the Commissioners about the Joint Board/Commission meeting on January 29 and Under Pressure Brewery's grand opening on February 1. 5. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 8:03 pm. ,•� :�3� _ ���� �9 `�':` ',,%' ,� f f ;/ c =�°I�{�.�� � �--�� F�on Blum,f�5ecretary Lisa itt an, Administrative Assistant