Loading...
03-09-2020       REGULAR MEETING AGENDA      1. Call to Order    2. Approval of Agenda    3. Approval of Minutes  February 24, 2020, Regular Planning Commission Meeting    4. Discussion – Narrow Lot Regulations    5. Discussion – Public Input Process      ‐‐Short Recess‐‐      6. Commissioner Training – Variances    7. Council Liaison Report     8. Reports on Meetings of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority, City Council, Board of Zoning  Appeals, and other meetings    9. Other Business    10. Adjournment  March 9, 2020 – 7 pm  Council Chambers  Golden Valley City Hall  7800 Golden Valley Road         REGULAR MEETING MINUTES      1. Call to Order  The meeting was called to order at 7:00 by Chair Blum    Roll Call  Commissioners present: Ron Blum, Adam Brookins, Andy Johnson, Ryan Sadeghi, and Chuck  Segelbaum  Commissioners absent: Lauren Pockl, Rich Baker, Ari Prohofsky  Staff present:  Planning Manager Jason Zimmerman and City Planner Myles Campbell   Council Liaison present: Gillian Rosenquist      2. Approval of Agenda  Chair Blum, asked for a motion to approve the agenda.  MOTION made by Commissioner Brookins, seconded by Commissioner Johnson to approve the  agenda of February 24, 2020, as submitted and the motion carried unanimously.    3. Approval of Minutes  Chair Blum asked for a motion to approve the minutes from February 10, 2020.     MOTION made by Commissioner Segelbaum, seconded by Commissioner Johnson to approve the  meeting minutes from February 10, 2020, as submitted, and the motion carried unanimously.    4. Informal Public Hearing – Major PUD Amendment  Applicant: John Gabbert  Address:  1601 Noble Drive (Sweeny Lake Woods PUD No. 120)  Purpose:  To subdivide properties within an existing PUD and incorporate some portions of  adjacent properties    Jason Zimmerman, Planning Manager, began the presentation with a recap that this request is  to amend the existing Planned Unit Development (PUD) No. 120. The original PUD was approved  in 2015 for three single‐family lots on Sweeny Lake, all using a private drive. This proposal would  expand the PUD boundary and reconfigure property lines to create additional buildable lots.  Utilizing maps for visual clarity, Zimmerman stated differences between the existing and the  proposed PUD.     February 24, 2020 – 7 pm  Council Chambers  Golden Valley City Hall  7800 Golden Valley Road  City of Golden Valley    Planning Commission Regular Meeting  February 24, 2020 – 7 pm       2    Existing   3 lots inside the PUD (1 with a home, 2 vacant)   4 lots outside the PUD (2 with homes, 2 vacant)  Proposed   4 lots inside the PUD (1 with a home, 3 vacant)   3 lots outside the PUD (2 with homes, 1 vacant)    Regarding community engagement, Zimmerman informed the Commission that a public meeting  was held at City Hall in October 2019. This meeting addressed resident questions about lots,  stormwater management, and the pending variance at the time for the private street. The Board  of Zoning Appeals denied the variance request regarding the street but then was approved by  City Council, following an appeal. This approval included a condition that sprinkler systems be  installed for all new construction. Zimmerman listed the addresses of lots within and outside  both the existing and proposed PUD; all lots are above the minimum lot size of 10,000 square  feet.   Using environmental goals and water policies from the 2040 comprehensive plan as a guide, the  engineering department did a full analysis of this PUD. A construction phasing plan, storm sewer  construction plan, and a detailed tree/landscaping plan will continue to be developed.   When a PUD amendment is evaluated, it’s done so against a list of criteria from the city. The  original PUD met the criteria and the amendment does as well.   Zimmerman listed a number of next steps, such as review and approval from the Bassett Creek  Watershed Management Commission, DNR, and City Council. Existing easements need to be vacated  and new easements need to be dedicated.       Planning staff is recommending approval with the following conditions:   1. The plans dated February 13, 2020, are part of the approval  2. Existing easements are vacated and new easements dedicated as shown  3. City Attorney determines if a title review is necessary  4. Park dedication fee of $34,560 is paid  5. Deferred special assessment of $35,000 is paid  6. Conservation easement for 1640 Noble Drive is signed and recorded  7. Impervious surface area on each of the four undeveloped lots is limited to 10,000 sq ft    Commissioner Segelbaum asked why the Planning Commission isn’t deciding on the subdivision in  addition to the PUD. Zimmerman responded that the Commission is, however it’s already wrapped  up in the PUD approval. Even the lots outside of the PUD that are being subdivided are wrapped up  in the PUD approval.     Representatives for the applicant and project approached the Commission.    Matt Pavek, Civil Engineer, working on the project  City of Golden Valley    Planning Commission Regular Meeting  February 24, 2020 – 7 pm       3   Jackie Day, Realtor, realtor for applicant    Pavek stated that staff presentation was thorough and from an engineering perspective, the plan is  fairly straightforward. The most complicated part is the stormwater component but his team worked  with city staff to create a low impact development plan.   Commissioner Johnson asked the representatives how they intend to mitigate construction noise  and prevent wet basements for owners.   Pavek responded that there are construction best practices through the city and when pulling a  permit, the builder shall adhere to that. Aside from that, it’s a little far down the line and Pavek  stated he couldn’t speak much more to it at this time. Day added that the lots have not even been  made marketable at this point but they’ll be sold individually and then folks will build as they care to.  Regarding stormwater, Pavek stated the groundwater levels are high in this area. New homes will be  built above that level and will have drain tile. Swales and ponds will be placed below the  groundwater level so water will flow away from existing properties.   Segelbaum asked the applicant why they’re developing the property. Day responded that the  property taxes are a part but the owner was waiting to sell to someone who would develop by  enhancing what was present. Pavek added that two current owners were interested in splitting a  plot and part of this amendment addresses that. The other lots needed to be reconfigured in order to  have street access.     Chair Blum opened the public hearing portion at 7:25pm.    Ammar Al‐Shash, 1807 Noble Drive, has three concerns:  1. Construction – There has not been neighboring construction but there is construction across the  street. With this plan in place, Al‐Shash stated he will have construction next to him as well as  behind him.   2. Density – Al‐Shash is concerned about the density and was behind the original PUD of three  homes along the private road past his home. Adding a fourth lot now is concerning as they are  being placed closer to him and further from the cul‐de‐sac at the end of the road.  3. Easement – Al‐Shash objects to the overburdening of his easement with additional traffic.  Steve Maddox, 1604 St. Croix Circle, in general supports the amendment. Maddox is to the west of  the filtration basin and his concerns are related to water flow and stagnant water.   Chair Blum closed the public hearing portion at 7:29pm.    Segelbaum asked staff to respond to the density concern with the original PUD planning for three  lots and the amendment introducing four. Zimmerman responded with slides from the presentation  and elaborated on the narrowness of those preliminary lots in addition to the setbacks. The same  amount of land is utilized. Blum asked about the easement concern and measurements. Zimmerman  responded that the easement came up when the variance was applied for, and the resident who  spoke at the public hearing understood he had an easement over part of the road. After legal  analysis, it was discovered that the easement allowed the 1807 resident to utilize the private road as  City of Golden Valley    Planning Commission Regular Meeting  February 24, 2020 – 7 pm       4  it’s owned by the owner of the PUD. That means that the resident is granted access through that  easement, the access is not under that resident’s control.   Blum addressed the flow of water and the filtration basin. Zimmerman responded that the plans for  the basin were approved by the city and are under review with the Bassett Creek Watershed. If there  were an emergency water situation, the basin is set to flow in to the lake instead of backing up.   Segelbaum asked if the lots would meet requirements to possibly be subdivided one day.  Zimmerman stated that even though the lots were large, they likely wouldn’t be able to be  subdivided due to the frontage access and stormwater needs for that area.   Segelbaum stated that the density is shifting but it’s not overly dense with the modifications, while  another house is being added, the trade‐off is greater water quality in the stormwater and thus  Sweeny Lake. Blum echoed this approval.     MOTION made by Commissioner Johnson, seconded by Commissioner Sadeghi to recommend  approval of the PUD Amendment 120 to subdivide properties within an existing PUD and incorporate  some portions of adjacent properties. The motion carried unanimously.     5. Informal Public Hearing – Zoning Code Text Amendment  Applicant: City of Golden Valley  Purpose:  Amending zoning districts to regulate tobacco sales    Myles Campbell, City Planner, started his presentation by recapping the February 10th meeting. After  reviewing a number of scenarios, commissioners generally preferred a limited definition of youth‐ oriented facilities. This met the goal of mitigating youth tobacco exposure over a broader restriction  based on a zoning category. Commissioners also wanted to preserve a good portion of eligible  commercial land and specifically commercial land in the downtown area. Campbell reminded the  group that the goal for tonight’s public hearing is to come to a consensus on restrictions regarding  tobacco retail establishments and to recommend ordinance language to the City Council for review  and approval.  Campbell continued by summarizing two parallel sets of zoning language: one restricting tobacco  retail establishments based on proximity to parcels zoned for assembly type uses, the other  restricting them based on proximity to a defined set of youth‐oriented facilities. Campbell followed  with proposed language changes to city code, varying slightly depending on the determination of the  commissioners. Campbell added that the zoning category of Assembly has yet to be adopted by the  City Council. In the interim, the existing Institutional designations will need to be utilized until that  code is amended to include Assembly as a zoning category. Commissioner Segelbaum asked for  clarification on those items and where a community center is categorized, staff responded it falls  under an I‐3 zone.   Campbell displayed 6 scenarios maps, three buffer examples for each of the two options.     Staff recommends that commissioners adopt language based on mapped scenario E. This will define  youth‐oriented facilities and establish 750‐foot buffer around any schools, playgrounds, and athletic  fields, within which a tobacco retail establishment would be restricted from locating.    Section 113‐1 would be amended to include a definition of youth‐oriented facilities  City of Golden Valley    Planning Commission Regular Meeting  February 24, 2020 – 7 pm       5   Section 113‐92 would be amended to add tobacco retail establishments as a restricted use  subject to the following restrictions  Segelbaum asked why staff opted for specifically defining schools, playgrounds, and athletic fields  and not categorizing it as areas of assembly. Campbell restated the items from his presentation  regarding language and definition clarity. This direction was also advised from the City Attorney as  an area of assembly encompasses more than just youth oriented facilities.   Commissioner Sadeghi asked for clarity on if a tobacco retailer was able to transfer a license to  allow another retailer to utilize it in the event of a sale. Campbell responded that per the City  Attorney, the license is non‐transferable in a sale. Segelbaum asked what the tobacco retailers are  that fall within the buffers and risk potential loss of license if they lapse or sell. Staff pointed out  two gas stations, a tobacco retailer, and a pharmacy/convenience store.   Chair Blum asked the Commissioners if parks seemed like a youth oriented facility and Segelbaum  pointed out that they are added in the scenario chosen. Campbell restated that parks with  playgrounds and playing fields are included and reminded Commissioners that not including green  space/natural parks was part of a previous conversation. Blum stated some preserve areas may not  attract youth oriented activities but thinks Theodore Wirth Park should be under consideration for  inclusion.   The conversation continued on to the types of activities that take place at Theo Wirth and if those  activities are school or community sanctioned. The conversation also revolved around the  definition of playground and athletic field, as well as how the trailhead at Theo Wirth is defined. A  number of Commissioners expressed anecdotes of attending the nature park with families for  activities. Blum added that because water is near Theo Wirth, it should be added to the  amendment. Segelbaum stated he believes that Theo Wirth should be added but is against limiting  tobacco licenses for current retailers. Specifically gas stations, if the owner sells and can’t transfer a  tobacco license, that will negatively impact the business.  Commissioner Johnson chimed in that this determination has already been made.   Campbell showed a map that was reviewed at a previous Commission meeting, and that scenario  displays a buffer around Theodore Wirth. However, this scenario includes a buffer around  Brookview Park and that buffer really impacts possible retailers in the downtown area. Campbell  continued by referencing the conversation at the February 10th meeting when Commissioners  decided to distinguish between nature parks and recreation parks. Sadeghi added he is concerned  about creating a buffer that impacts gas stations and potentially prevents them from tobacco sales.  Segelbaum asked if there was a way to include a buffer around Theo Wirth but not around  Brookview. Zimmerman responded that there may be a way although this meeting was intended to  be a public hearing. Taking that possibility under consideration would mean postponing the public  hearing and reconfiguring scenario maps. Blum stated that he’s comforted by the fact that buffers  don’t impact current businesses. He added that he’s also comfortable including a buffer around  Brookview. Segelbaum stated a preference for a 500 ft buffer and thus scenario D. Campbell asked  for amendments or changes to the actual ordinance language.  City of Golden Valley    Planning Commission Regular Meeting  February 24, 2020 – 7 pm       6  Johnson stated that the group was just notified that the ComprehensivePplan they all worked on  was approved. He reminded the Commissioners the portions they all worked on and what was  designated to their Commission and then to other Commissions. Johnson went on to state that the  group seemed to be struggling with a final decision because maybe health concerns aren’t within  their purview. He reminded the group that the tobacco retail requirements have already been  determined and that their buffer zones won’t help or hinder that process. Commissioner Brookins  added that he doesn’t care for the Commission’s approach to this issue and should look at it the  same way they looked at the 2040Ccomprehensive Plan. After more discussion about buffers and  chain of events after a determination, Zimmerman reminded the group that the goal is to support  the request of City Council.   Sadeghi suggested looking at where the group would like to see tobacco sales occur and then  create a buffer zone around youth‐oriented facilities to accommodate that. Segelbaum said that if  the Commission can’t come to a decision then they should provide the Council with what  information they uncovered through this process. Brookins stated his desire to table a  determination and to see a scenario where tobacco sales stay in Commercial districts 250 ft from  state highways. He added that he thinks the desired outcome will stay the same. Segelbaum said  they need to understand the parameters from council, the direction was to be from youth‐oriented  facility. Campbell reminded the group that an arbitrary ordinance can’t be put in place, there needs  to be a clear connection and justification. If the goal is to keep tobacco sales away from youth  oriented spaces, then the ordinance needs to written with that clear connection.   The scheduled Public Hearing was not called    MOTION was made by Commissioner Brookins to table the conversation and await more  information from staff and seconded by Commissioner Johnson.   The motion to table carried 4‐1.   Aye: Sadeghi, Brookins, Blum, Johnson  Nay: Segelbaum      Television portion of the meeting concluded at 8:37pm    ‐‐Short Recess‐‐    6. Council Liaison Report   Councilmember Rosenquist provided an update to Commissioners on various topics and discussions  both at the City Council and throughout the City. She reminded Commissioners of the upcoming Joint  Board, Commission, and Council Meeting later in the week. She also provided an update on new Board  and Commission members of the City’s Rising Tides Equity Taskforce, Human Rights Commission, and the  Open Space and Recreation Commission.   City of Golden Valley    Planning Commission Regular Meeting  February 24, 2020 – 7 pm       7    7. Reports on Meetings of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority, City Council, Board of Zoning  Appeals, and other meetings  Rosenquist updated Commissioners on a recent grant awarded to the City by the Department of Natural  Resources and some of the upcoming work for the City’s Housing and Redevelopment Authority  surrounding an ongoing housing study of the City.    8. Other Business  Commissioners and staff reported no other business.    9. Adjournment  MOTION made by Johnson, seconded by Blum and the motion carried unanimously to adjourn the  meeting at 8:50 PM.                                                                                                          ________________________________                                                                                                Adam Brookins, Secretary  ________________________________  Amie Kolesar, Planning Assistant    1      Date:  March 9, 2020  To:  Golden Valley Planning Commission  From:  Jason Zimmerman, Planning Manager    Myles Campbell, Planner  Subject:  Proposed Adjustments to Narrow Lot Regulations      Summary  The City Council has directed the Planning Commission to engage in discussion around the zoning  regulations for narrow lots (generally those under 65 feet in width and specifically for those 50  feet or less in width) and to propose any recommended changes to help mitigate impacts on  surrounding properties. Based on past conversations with subject experts and with feedback  from residents, staff is prepared to lead a discussion on possible changes to the current  requirements.     Requested Action  Staff is looking for discussion and possible consensus around modifications to regulations around  side yard setbacks, garage requirements, height, building envelope requirements, side wall  articulation, secondary front yard setbacks, lot coverage, and impervious percentages for narrow  lots.    Side Yard Setbacks and Garage Requirements  As summarized at earlier Planning Commission meetings, Golden Valley determines side yard  setbacks based on lot width and uses three key thresholds for determining the minimum side  yard setback:    Lot Width Side Yard Setback  Lots with width 100 feet or greater    15 feet  Lots with width greater than 65 feet and less than 100 feet  12.5 feet  Lots with width 65 feet or less    North or west side yard setback  10% of the lot width   South or east side yard setback 20% of the lot width    2    Staff recommends leaving these thresholds in place, but establishing a minimum side yard  setback of 5 feet, regardless of the lot width.    The table below shows the relationships between lot width, setback size, and the subsequent  width of the building envelope using this 5 foot side yard setback minimum.    (all measurements in feet)  Lot Width Side Setback 1 Side Setback 2 Total Setback Building Envelope Width  100 15 15 30 70  80 12.5 12.5 25 55  65 12.5 6.5 19 46  60 12 6 18 42  55 11 5.5 16.5 38.5  50 10 5 15 35  45 9 5 14 31  40 8 5 13 27    There is a close relationship between the side yard setbacks on narrow lots and the design/floor  plan of the homes that are built. The setback size is more critical for lots that are 50 feet or less  because of the limitations that then result for the width of the building envelope. Coupled with  the City requirement that each single‐family lot have a two‐car garage, there is little room for  creativity in design and the result is a garage‐dominated façade. The narrowest reasonable width  of a two‐car garage is roughly 22 feet. Subtracting this from building envelope width  demonstrates how little distance remains to create a welcoming front entry, let alone a front  porch or window out to the front yard. The impact is greatest for lots less than 50 feet wide.    (all measurements in feet)  Lot Width Building Envelope Width Two‐car Garage Width Entry Width Remaining  100 70 22 48  80 55 22 33  65 46 22 24  60 42 22 20  55 38.5 22 16.5  50 35 22 13  45 31 22 9  40 27 22 5    Staff recommends allowing lots 50 feet in width or less to construct a home with only a one‐car  garage, similar to single‐family homes on 50 foot wide lots in the R‐2 zoning district. The R‐2  regulations limit the width of the front garage wall to 65% of the building façade, which then  allows (requires) enough front façade width to remain in which to construct a wider and more  attractive front entry and results in a better floor plan. Assuming a one‐car garage could take up  as little as 12 feet in width (though it could be wider – common single‐car widths include 14 and  16 feet), the following widths would remain within the building envelope for narrow R‐1 lots:  3    (all measurements in feet)  Lot  Width  Total Setback Building Envelope  Width  One‐car Garage  Width  Entry Width  Remaining  50 15 35 12 23  45 14 31 12 19  40 13 27 12 15    On a 40 foot wide lot, a one‐car garage could be up to 17.55 feet wide (using the 65% rule). Even  then, there would be room remaining for a 9.45 foot wide entry.    Height and Building Envelope Requirements  The primary zoning regulation that impacts the height and massing of single‐family homes is the  tent‐shaped building envelope that forces homes that build to the side yard setback line (a  common occurrence on narrow lots) to step back as they rise above 15 feet in height. Unlike  homes constructed on lots greater than 65 feet wide—which have a vertical:horizontal ratio of  2:1 for the step back—narrow lots have a vertical:horizontal ratio of 4:1 which allows for a  steeper roofline and slightly more usable space on the second level. However, this also generates  more visual and shading impacts for adjacent properties.    After talking with City Building Inspectors, staff is recommending a two‐pronged approach to  modifying these requirements. First, staff recommends that the 4:1 ratio of the building envelope  be flattened to 2:1 to match the tent shape allowed on wider lots. This would potentially reduce  some of the building height currently caused by a steep roofline, though it would also reduce the  available headroom of second story living space.    Second, staff recommends the maximum wall height at the side yard setback line be reduced  from 15 feet to 13 feet for lots 50 feet in width or less. This change would reduce the height of  side walls at the setback line as well as lower the tent portion of the building envelope and  therefore push any two‐story side wall further from the adjacent property line. The impact of this  change on a new home would be the reduction in the width of usable living space on a second  story due to height limitations and a narrower floor plan.    In order to help compensate for the loss of usable second story area, staff is further  recommending that dormers be allowed to extend outside of the building envelope on the  second story, but only in limited amounts. Making use of dormers instead of a full second story  accomplishes two goals – it breaks up the amount of shading that might fall on an adjacent  property and it encourages more interesting architectural features on new homes.    The exact regulations around these dormers remains to be determined – they could be limited as  a percentage of the length of the side wall or by a maximum dimensions of any individual dormer  (no more than 6 feet in length, for example).        4    Side Wall Articulation  Attention should be paid to the issue of side wall articulation. The current code requires side  walls over 32 feet in length to articulate in or out 2 feet for a minimum distance of 8 feet. Certain  structural elements – bay windows and chimney chases, for example – are allowed to extend into  the side yard setback to meet this requirement. Residents have expressed concern that these  additional extensions into the side yard setbacks can effectively reduce the distance from the  principal structure to the property line to as little as 3 feet for a 5 foot side yard setback with a  large bay window.    Staff recommends prohibiting these structures from extending into the side yard setback area for  lots 50 feet in width or less. Regardless of the lot width, no part of a principal structure would be  allowed to extend closer than 5 feet to the side property line.    Secondary Front Yard Setbacks  Front yard setbacks, as applied to corner lots, have also been an area of concern from residents  and members of the Board of Zoning Appeals, who have received variance requests related to  this issue. For narrow lots, the typical 35 foot front yard setback – if applied – could render the  lot unbuildable as the amount of total setback (side and front yard) could be more than the  entire width of the lot. Up until 1983, a provision in the Zoning Code carved out an exception to  the front yard setback on the second front yard (or “side” yard) in order to preserve a buildable  envelope. This regulation was removed from the City Code as part of a larger code clean‐up with  no details recorded as to why this particular change was made or if the ramifications were  considered.    Evaluation of peer city regulations showed that exceptions have continued to be made for these  secondary front yards, requiring a setback that is much less than that of the primary front yard.    Staff recommends setting the secondary front yard setback at 15 feet for lots 65 feet in width or  less, with the caveat that this setback be reduced even further when necessary in order to keep  the building envelope at the current 22 foot wide minimum. This additional reduction would only  need to occur on lots under 47 feet in width. For some 40 foot wide lots, this would mean the  secondary front yard setback could be reduced to 10 feet.    Lot Coverage  Lot coverage, or the cumulative size of the building footprints of all structures on a lot, is limited  to 35% for parcels between 5,000 square feet and 9,999 square feet in area. This range captures  lots that are 40 feet wide by 127 feet deep (those under scrutiny located to the southeast of  Theodore Wirth Park). Zoning regulations allow lot coverage to increase to 40% for lots under  5,000 square feet, but there is only one block of lots in the city that are of this size (about two  dozen platted lots in the block between Beverly Ave and Poplar Dr) and given the existing  setbacks it appears unlikely this amount would ever be reached.    Staff examined the amount of a typical 40 foot wide lot already “off limits” for construction of a  home due to required setbacks and found it to be approximately 65% of the lot area, leaving only  5    35% of the lot available for development (around 1,800 square feet). A typical footprint of a  narrow house might be in the range of 1,300 to 1,500 square feet (26’ x 50’ to 26’ x 60’), leaving a  small amount of additional capacity with which to construct a shed or other accessory structure.  Given the current alignment of the lot coverage regulations and typical building footprints, staff  recommends eliminating the 40% allowance for lots under 5,000 square feet and setting it at 35%  so as to be consistent with all lots under 10,000 square feet.    Impervious Percentage  The total amount of impervious surfaces on any residential lot is limited to 50% of the area. This  requirement is constant regardless of the lot size.    Beyond the size of any building footprints (lot coverage), the impervious amount on an individual  lot also incorporates driveways, patios, and other paved surfaces. A driveway for a one car garage  across a front yard setback on a 40 foot wide lot is roughly equivalent to 10% of the lot area,  using up much of the remaining amount of impervious percentage allowed, even without the  inclusion of any patios or other paved areas.    Engineering staff believes the current impervious allowances are a good balance of providing  options and flexibility in design without being overly restrictive. A well‐conceived stormwater  plan is the most effective solution to managing and directing stormwater to the proper locations  (typically to the street). Therefore, staff does not recommend adjusting this regulation.    Summary of Staff Recommendations  1. Set a minimum side yard setback of 5 feet, regardless of lot width.  2. Allow lots 50 feet in width or less to construct a home with only a one‐car garage. Limit  the garage to a maximum of 65% of the front façade.  3. Set the vertical:horizontal ratio of the building envelope at 2:1 instead of 4:1 for all lots.  4. Lower the side wall height from 15 feet to 13 feet at the side yard setback line for lots 50  feet in width or less.  5. Allow second floor dormers to extend outside of the building envelope within limits still to  be determined.  6. Prohibit articulation elements from extending into the side yard setback for lots 50 feet in  width or less. Prohibit any part of a principal structure from extending closer than 5 feet  to the side property line.  7. Reduce the secondary front yard setback for corner lots 65 feet in width or less to 15 feet.  Allow this setback to be reduced to 10 feet if necessary to maintain a 22 foot wide  building envelope.  8. Modify the 40% lot coverage maximum for lots under 5,000 square feet to be 35%,  consistent with all other lots under 10,000 square feet.  9. No change recommended for impervious surface percentages.          6    Next Steps  Staff hopes to bring draft ordinance language around these modified regulations to the next  Planning Commission meeting on March 23 and to hold a public hearing on April 13.    Attachments  Narrow Lot images (6 pages)  15’ 4’8’ 40’ wide lot 28’ 5’27’8’ 13’ Top of foundation First level ceiling Second level floor Second level ceiling 40’ wide lot 5’27’8’ 13’ Top of foundation First level ceiling Second level floor Second level ceiling 14’ 15’ 5’10’ 50’ wide lot 35’ 5’35’10’ 13’ Top of foundation First level ceiling Second level floor Second level ceiling 50’ wide lot 5’35’10’ 13’ Top of foundation First level ceiling Second level floor Second level ceiling 16’   1      Date:  March 9, 2020  To:  Golden Valley Planning Commission  From:  Jason Zimmerman, Planning Manager  Subject:  Public Input Process      Summary  Staff recently brought to the attention of the Planning Commission an online document from the  City website that outlines the public input process for Planning Commission meetings (attached).  While it is generally in alignment with the current public hearing procedures, there are some  slight variations in the guidelines compared to the typical process.    In order to be clear to members of the public who wish to speak at public hearings, staff  suggested printing the guidelines and leaving them at the sign‐in table and at the podium. The  Chair preferred to discuss the guidelines as a group as part of a publicized and televised  conversation before taking action.    The City Attorney has advised staff that the Planning Commission has the ability to set its own  process for taking public input, thought it might be advantageous to follow the process used by  the City Council.    Requested Action  Staff is looking for approval to post the existing public input guidelines or for a consensus from  Commissioners regarding changes to the document.    Attachments  Current Planning Commission Guidelines for Public Input (1 page)  Suggested Planning Commission Public Hearing Protocol (1 page)    Public Hearings & Input The Planning Commission holds informal public hearings on land use proposals so citizens can learn first-hand about such proposals and ask questions and offer comments. Questions and comments become part of the record and will be used by the City Council, along with the Commission’s recommendation, in reaching a decision. Planning Commission Guidelines For Public Input To aid in citizen understanding and to facilitate comments and questions, the Commission will use the following procedure: 1. The Commission Chair will introduce the proposal and the recommendation from staff. Commission members may ask questions of staff. 2. The proponent will describe the proposal and answer any questions from the Commission. 3. The Chair will open the public hearing, asking first for those who wish to speak to so indicate by raising their hands. The Chair may set a time limit for individual questions/comments if a large number of persons have indicated a desire to speak. Spokespersons for groups will have a longer time for questions/comments. 4. Speakers must give their full name and address clearly when recognized by the Chair. Remember, questions and comments are for the record. 5. Direct questions/comments to the Chair. The Chair will determine who will answer each question. 6. No one will be given the opportunity to speak a second time until everyone has had the opportunity to speak initially. Please limit your second presentation to new information, not rebuttal. 7. At the close of the public hearing, the Commission will discuss the proposal and take appropriate action.     Public Hearings  To enhance community understanding during public hearings, the Commission will adhere to  the following protocol during a Planning Commission meeting.      The Commission Chair will introduce the proposal and recommendation from staff.  Commission members may ask questions of staff.   The applicant will describe the proposal and answer any questions from Commissioners.   The Chair will open the public hearing, asking first for those who wish to speak to so  indicate by raising a hand. If a large number of persons wish to speak, the Chair may set  a time limit for individual questions and comments. Spokespersons for groups will have  a longer time for questions and comments.   Speakers must clearly state their full name and address when recognized by the Chair.  Remember, questions and comments are for the record.   Direct all questions or comments to the Chair. The Chair will determine who will answer  each question at the conclusion of the public hearing.   No one will be given the opportunity to speak a second time until everyone has had the  opportunity to speak initially. Please limit second presentations to new information, not  rebuttals.   When public comments are complete, the Chair closes the public hearing. The  Commission will then discuss the proposal and take appropriate action. The audience is  welcome to listen quietly to the discussion but is requested not to make further  comments.  Date: December 13, 2019 To: Jason Zimmerman, Planning Manager From: Maria Cisneros, City Attorney Subject: Land Use Variances INTRODUCTION This memorandum provides an introduction to variances. A variance is a request to deviate from the City’s zoning ordinance and allows a property owner to use their property in a manner normally prohibited by an ordinance. Variance requests are considered and decided by the Board of Zoning Appeals (the “BZA”). The decision to grant or deny a variance is a quasi-judicial decision and is made by comparing the facts against the criteria set forth in Minnesota Statutes, section 462.357, subdivision 6(2) and City Code section 113-27(c). If the BZA denies a variance request, the applicant may appeal the decision to the City Council. Non-applicants whose property interests are directly affected by a BZA decision may also appeal the decision, but their appeal must be brought in District Court and not to the City Council. ANALYSIS A. What is a variance? A variance is a request to deviate from the City’s zoning ordinance.1 A variance allows a landowner to use their property in a manner forbidden by an ordinance.2 Variances may generally only be granted for deviation from a dimensional standard, such as a setback or a height limitation. Use variances, or variances allowing landowners to use a property for a purpose not allowed in the 1 Minn. Stat. § 462.357, subd. 6(2). 2 Holasek v. Village of Medina, 226 N.W.2d 900 (Minn. 1975). 2 zoning district where the property is located, are not allowed under Minnesota law.3 Once a variance is granted, it runs with the land to the benefit of all subsequent owners. B. Who grants a variance? Under Golden Valley City Code, the BZA decides zoning variances.4 When deciding variance requests, the BZA acts in a quasi-judicial capacity. That means the BZA acts like a judge and must apply the facts of the particular variance request against an established legal standard. The legal standard for variances is set forth in state statute and city code.5 As discussed below, if the BZA denies a variance, the applicant may appeal the decision to the City Council.6 C. What is the legal standard for variances? The BZA may only grant a variance if the following requirements are met: 1. The variance must be in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the City’s zoning ordinance. The purpose of Golden Valley’s zoning ordinance is “to regulate land use within the City, including the location, size, use, and height of buildings, the arrangement of buildings on lots, and the density of population within the City for the purpose of promoting the health, safety, order, convenience, and general welfare of all citizens of the City.”7 Developing a record with respect to this factor requires the BZA to compare the proposal against the City’s stated zoning ordinance purpose and determine whether the two are in harmony. 2. The variance must be consistent with the City’s comprehensive plan. The City’s 2040 Comprehensive Plan is available on the City’s website (here).8 Developing a record with respect to this factor requires the BZA to compare the proposal against the City’s comprehensive plan and determine whether the requested variance is consistent with the plan. Courts have upheld denials of variances based on this factor. For example, in VanLandschoot v. City of Mendota Heights,9 the Minnesota Supreme Court upheld the City’s denial of an application for three variances. In that case, the owner applied for a subdivision and three variances: one from 3 Id. 4 City Code, section 113-27(b)(2). 5 Minn. Stat. § 462.357, subd. 6(2); Golden Valley City Code § 113-27(c). See also Sagsetter v. City of St. Paul, 529 N.W.2d 488 (Minn. Ct. App. 1995)(holding that the City’s authority to grant a variance cannot exceed the powers granted by state statute). 6 City Code, § 113-27(d). 7 City Code § 113-2. 8 This memo assumes the 2040 Comprehensive Plan will be formally adopted in February 2020. 9 VanLandschoot v. City of Mendota Heights, 336 N.W.2d 503 (Minn. 1983). 3 the city’s wetland ordinance, one from the front yard setback requirements, and one from the frontage requirements. In its proposed plan, the applicant asked the City to allow a public access road to double as a private driveway serving part of the subdivided property. The city denied all three variance requests. The court upheld the city’s denial based on the city’s finding that the plan would violate the city's comprehensive plan. Particularly, the court found that allowing a public road to double as a driveway conflicted with the section of thecomprehensive plan requiring subdivisions to be planned so as to provide access within and between neighborhoods for public safety and service vehicles. This conflict was a sufficient rational basis for the city’s finding that granting the requested variances would adversely affect the health and welfare of the neighborhood and community. 3. The applicant must establish that there are practical difficulties in complying with the zoning ordinance. This requirement is known as the practical difficulties test.10 To pass the practical difficulties test, the applicant must satisfy all of the following requirements: a. The property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted in the zoning ordinance; b. The relevant circumstances are due to circumstances unique to the property and not created by the landowner; and c. The variance will not alter the essential character of the locality. Each prong of the practical difficulties test is addressed in turn below. a. Reasonableness Under the first prong of the practical difficulties test, reasonableness means that the owner’s proposed use, though not allowed under the ordinance, is reasonable.11 It does not mean that the land cannot be put to any reasonable use whatsoever without the variance.12 10 Minn. Stat. § 462.357, subd. 6(2). 11 See, e.g., Continental Property Grp., LLC v. City of Wayzata, 2016 WL 1551693 (Minn. Ct. App., April 18, 2016) (upholding the City’s determination that the proposed use was not reasonable because the height far exceeded what was allowed under the ordinance). 12 Mohler v. City of St. Louis Park, 642 N.W.2d 623, 631 (Minn. Ct. App. 2002). See also Krummenacher v. City of Minnetonka, 783 N.W.2d 721 (Minn. 2010). Compare Minn. Stat. § 462.357, subd. (6) (2009)(“To hear requests for variances from the literal provisions of the ordinance in instances where their strict enforcement would cause undue hardship”) (emphasis added) and Minn. Stat. § 462.357, subd. 6 (2011)(“Variances may be granted when the applicant for the variance establishes that there are practical difficulties” in complying with the ordinance)(emphasis added). 4 b. Uniqueness With respect to the second prong, uniqueness generally refers to the physical characteristics of the property, not the personal preferences of the owner. For example, in Nolan v. City of Eden Prairie,13 the Minnesota Court of Appeals upheld the city’s finding of unique circumstances justifying a variance where the property was located at the end of a cul-de-sac, there was a significant grade change, and there was a stand of trees. However, the Minnesota Supreme Court has recognized that “unique circumstances are not limited to the purely physical condition of the land” because ”such a limitation would make granting of a variance ‘practically impossible except where the topographic conditions of a specific parcel of land would render the tract of land in question otherwise valueless.’”14 c. Essential Character Under the third prong, essential character, the BZA must consider whether the resulting structure or other physical characteristic allowed by the variance will be out of scale, out of place, or otherwise inconsistent with the surrounding area. Developing a record with respect to this factor requires the BZA to determine whether the proposal is consistent or inconsistent with the surrounding area and to explain how that consistency or inconsistency relates to the essential character of the locality. For example, in Mohler v. City of St. Louis Park,15 the Minnesota Court of Appeals overturned the City’s decision to grant a variance for a garage that was 4 feet higher than the maximum height allowed by code. The Court concluded that there was no evidence to support the City’s decision to grant the variance when it had previously decided that a garage that was 1’ 7” higher would alter the neighborhood’s essential character, and there was no evidence in the record explaining how the 1’ 7” difference resolved the previous concerns regarding to the essential character factor. This case illustrates the importance of providing fact-based rationale for all findings and ensuring the rationale explains how the facts relate to the relevant factor. Prior to 2011, variance decisions were made under the “undue hardship test.” The Minnesota legislature amended the statute and replaced the undue hardship test with the practical difficulties test in 2011. This amendment was made shortly after the Minnesota Supreme Court’s decision in Krummenacher v. City of Minnetonka,16 which interpreted the statute to require the applicant to 13 610 N.W.2d 697, 702 (Minn. Ct. App. 2000). 14 State ex rel Neighbors for East Bank Liveability v. City of Minneapolis, 915 N.W.2d 505, 517–18 (Minn. Ct. App. 2018) citing Merriam Park Cmty. Council, Inc. v. McDonough, 210 N.W.2d 416, 419–20 (Minn. 1973), overruled on other grounds by City of Arden Hills, 281 N.W.2d at 868. 15 Mohler v. City of St. Louis Park, 642 N.W.2d 623 (Minn. Ct. App. 2002). 16 783 N.W.2d 721 (Minn. 2010). 5 show that the property could not be put to reasonable use absent the variance. For this reason, it is essential to pay careful attention when deciding variances to ensure they are made under the new standard and not the old one. Similarly, when analyzing variance decisions, it is important to carefully parse case law interpreting the variance statute to be sure that the precedent relied upon applies to the practical difficulties test and not the undue hardship test. D. Other Considerations State statute and City Code provide the following additional rules applicable to variances: 1. Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties. State statute and City Code specifically state that economic factors alone are not sufficient to justify a variance. This is true regardless of whether the economic factors are based on perceived economic barriers to development, future economic benefit, or expenses already incurred in furtherance of a particular plan. 17 2. Neighborhood opinion alone is not a sufficient basis to grant or deny a variance. While neighborhood comments should be considered as part of the BZA’s consideration of a variance application, neighborhood opinion alone is not a sufficient basis to deny or grant a variance. Instead, neighborhoods “play an advisory part” in variance decisions.18 “Although neighborhood sentiment may be taken into consideration in any zoning decision, it may not constitute the sole basis for granting or denying a given permit.”19 Furthermore, “[a] city may consider neighborhood opposition only if based on concrete information.”20 Thus, when considering neighborhood opinion, the BZA must weigh the credibility and factual merit of the facts offered, and should consider the opinions as advisory.21 3. Use variances are not allowed under Minnesota law. The City may not grant a variance that would allow any use that is not allowed in the zoning area where the affected property is located.22 17 Minn. Stat. § 462.357, subd. 6(2); Golden Valley City Code § 113-27(c). 18 Id. 19 Nw. Coll. v. City of Arden Hills, 281 N.W.2d 865, 869 (Minn. 1979). 20 Yang v. County. of Carver, 660 N.W.2d 828, 833 (Minn. App. 2003). 21 State ex rel Neighbors for East Bank Liveability v. City of Minneapolis, 915 N.W.2d 505, 512 (Minn. Ct. App. 2018) (review denied) (“This advisory role neighborhoods play in city planning is consistent with the current statutory framework delegating power to cities, not neighborhoods.”). 22 Id. See also City Code § 113-1 (defining “use” as “[t]he purpose or activity for which the land, structure, or building thereon is designated, arranged, or intended, or for which it is occupied, utilized, or maintained, and shall include the performance of such activity as defined by the performance standards of [the zoning chapter]”). 6 4. Conditions must be related and proportionate to the impact of the variance. The City may impose conditions in the granting of variances, but the conditions must be directly related and bear a rough proportionality to the impact created by the variance.23 The City may not impose conditions based on other, unrelated sections of code. It is particularly important to keep this distinction in mind when dealing with properties that have existing nonconformities. There may be a temptation to impose conditions related to the existing nonconformities, rather than the impact created by the variance; however, such unrelated conditions are prohibited under state law. E. Who can appeal a variance decision and how? As previously discussed, the BZA has the authority to “hear requests for variances from the requirements of [the City’s zoning ordinances].”24 A party seeking a zoning variance, referred to as a “petitioner” in the ordinance, must file a petition requesting a hearing before the BZA.25 If the petitioner disagrees with the BZA’s decision, the petitioner may appeal the decision to the City Council.26 The Council then has 30 days to hear the appeal and issue a written decision.27 If the petitioner does not appeal the BZA decision, the decision is considered final.28 Only the petitioner may appeal the BZA decision to the City Council under this ordinance. In contrast, under Minnesota Statutes, section 462.361 “Any person aggrieved by an ordinance, rule, regulation, decision or order of a governing body or board of adjustments and appeals. . . may have such ordinance, rule, regulation, decision or order, reviewed by an appropriate remedy in the district court. . . .”29 Minnesota courts have found that this statute allows parties other than the petitioner to appeal BZA decisions to the district court, as long as the BZA decision “operates on [the appellants] rights of property or bears directly upon his personal interests.”30 23 Minn. Stat. § 462.357, subd. 6(2). 24 City Code § 113-27(b)(2). 25 Id. § (d)(1). 26 Id. § (d)(4)(“Within 30 days of the final order of the Board of Zoning Appeals, any petitioner feeling aggrieved by the decision of the Board of Zoning Appeals may file a written appeal with the designated staff liaison, thereby appealing the decision of the Board of Zoning Appeals to the City Council. The City Council shall, within 30 days from the date of such appeal, make its findings and determination with respect to the appeal and serve a written report thereof upon the appellant by United States mail. If no appeal is taken by the petitioner from the decision of the Board of Zoning Appeals in the manner provided above, then the decision of the Board of Zoning Appeals shall be final.”). 27 Id. 28 Id. (“If no appeal is taken by the petitioner from the decision of the Board of Zoning Appeals in the manner provided above, then the decision of the Board of Zoning Appeals shall be final.”). 29 Minn. Stat. § 462.361, subd. 1. 30 Stansell v. City of Northfield, 612 N.W.2d 814, 818–819 (Minn. Ct. App., 2000)(“We therefore interpret the term ‘person aggrieved’ in Minn. Stat. § 462.361 to grant standing to a person when an action by the municipality adversely ‘operates on his rights of property or bears directly upon his personal interest.’”)(finding that a group of 7 Though City Code does not provide a precise procedure governing variance appeals to the City Council, I recommend the council follow the following procedures based on past practice: 1. Staff presents the appeal. Staff’s presentation includes the facts contained in the application, staff’s analysis and recommendation, and a summary of the BZA analysis and decision. 2. The appellant is afforded an opportunity to present its case. The appellant may present relevant evidence and call witnesses. A variance appeal is a quasi-judicial proceeding, not a public hearing; therefore, members of the public have not historically been afforded an opportunity to speak during the appeal. 3. The Council discusses the facts as presented by staff and the appellant and decides the appeal. citizens objecting to a large retail development did not have standing to challenge the City’s decision because the group failed to allege specific injuries as a result of the Council’s actions).