Loading...
pc-agenda-aug-22-22         REGULAR MEETING AGENDA  Planning Commission meetings are being conducted in a hybrid format with in‐person and remote  options for attending, participating, and commenting. The public can make statements in this meeting  during the planned public comment sections. Some members of the Commission may attend virtually.  Members of the public may attend virtually by following instructions below.     Remote Attendance/Comment Options: Members of the public may attend this meeting by watching  on cable channel 16, streaming on CCXmedia.org, streaming via Webex, or by calling 1‐415‐655‐0001  and entering access code 2454 348 4265.  Members of the public wishing to address the Commission remotely have two options:   • Via web stream ‐ Stream via Webex and use the ‘raise hand’ feature during public comment  sections.   • Via phone ‐ Call 1‐415‐655‐0001 and enter meeting code 2454 348 4265. Press *3 to raise your  hand during public comment sections.    1. Call to Order & Land Acknowledgement    2. Approval of Agenda    3. Approval of Minutes  July 25, 2022, Regular Meeting    4. Discussion – ADUs    – End of Televised Portion of Meeting –  To listen to this portion, please call 1‐415‐655‐0001 and enter meeting access code 2454 348 4265.    5. Council Liaison Report    6. Other Business  a. Reports on Board of Zoning Appeals and Other Meetings    7. Adjournment  August 22, 2022 – 6:30 pm  Council Chambers  Hybrid Meeting          REGULAR MEETING MINUTES    This meeting was conducted in a hybrid format with in‐person and remote options for attending,  participating, and commenting. The City used Webex to conduct this meeting and members of the  public were able to monitor the meetings by watching it on Comcast cable channel 16, by streaming it  on CCXmedia.org, or by dialing in to the public call‐in line.     1. Call to Order  The meeting was called to order at 6:30 pm by Chair Pockl.     Roll Call  Commissioners present: E. Brenna, S. Ginis, L. Pockl, M. Ruby   Commissioner absent:  A. Brookins, A. Johnson, C. Segelbaum   Staff present:     Jason Zimmerman – Planning Manager, Myles Campbell – Planner,   Max Gort – Planning Intern   Council Liaison present:   Denise La Mere‐Anderson    2. Land Acknowledgement    3. Approval of Agenda  Chair Pockl. asked for a motion to approve the agenda.  MOTION made by Commissioner Ruby, seconded by Commissioner Ginis, to approve the agenda of  July 25, 2022.   Motion carried.    4. Informal Public Hearing – Zoning Text Amendments for THC Product Sales  Applicant: The City of Golden Valley  Myles Campbell, Planner, started by reviewing the law recently passed by the MN Legislature  regulating the sale of food and beverage products containing hemp‐derived cannabinoids, including  tetrahydrocannabinoids (THC). Staff reviewed the history of the law starting in 2018 and reviewed  the statement from the League of MN Cities regarding products containing nonintoxicating  cannabinoids.  Staff reviewed the Golden Valley City Council discussion; the Council adopted the first consideration  of a licensing ordinance. Council also directed planning staff to add consideration of a zoning  ordinance to the next (August 2022) Planning Commission agenda.    City Council would like to largely use the tobacco ordinances as a solution to the THC sales question.  While licensing may require more revision, translating the zoning restrictions from tobacco to THC  are straightforward and get at the principal concern of the City Council which is to provide a buffer  between these uses and schools.  July 25, 2022 – 6:30 pm  Council Conference Room  Hybrid    City of Golden Valley    Planning Commission Regular Meeting  June 25, 2022 – 6:30 pm       2  Recommendation  Staff recommends revising three zoning codes:   Sec. 113‐1. Definitions  o Add a definition of THC Product Retailers   Sec. 113‐87. Summary Use Tables  o Add THC Product Retailers as a restricted use to the Commercial zoning district   Sec. 113‐92. Commercial Zoning District  o Add a 500‐foot buffer from youth facilities as well as language around multi‐use  buildings to a THC product restriction    Action Request  Recommend approval of draft language for a zoning text amendment regarding the sale of products  containing Tetrahydrocannabinol (THC).    Commissioner Ruby asked about definitions and how “meets the requirement” is defined (testing,  legal enforcement). Staff said compliance checks will occur as part of licensing and the language  specifically refers to the state statute definition. The discussion moved on to labeling and  requirements by the state pharmacy board.     Maria Cisneros, City Attorney, spoke to the group to review the process thus far as well as discuss  licensing and regulation. The conversation went on to review potential licensing processes, labeling  requirements, and ordinances. Cisneros added that the group may see this topic presented again  within the year as the law and landscape evolves.   The discussion moved on to logistics of the distance requirements, current businesses being  impacted by new regulations,     Chair Pockl opened the public hearing at 6:54pm.  No in person comments.  No remote comments.   Chair Pockl closed the public hearing at 6:56pm.    Chair Pockl opened Commission discussion.   Commissioner Ginis stated the plan to follow the tobacco process makes sense, adding there will be  opportunities for amendments as the City learns more, as State legislature changes, and as Federal  regulation changes. Commissioner Ruby agreed and added he’d like to see the licensing details as  they coincide with these regulations for full impact understanding.   Commissioner Ruby added that he’s not familiar with tobacco regulations/licensing and asked for an  update. Maria Cisneros, City Attorney, gave an overview of this process for THC and tobacco. The  tobacco license limit was reviewed and how/if licenses can transfer if a store is sold.   Commissioner Brenna asked about tobacco retail buffers and the response, she was not a  commissioner at the time and asked for background for comparison. Staff responded the process  took a while as there was a lot a headway prior to zoning needs. The buffers provided limitations but  were not overly restrictive and there’s no appeal process to have an additional use in that area.   City of Golden Valley    Planning Commission Regular Meeting  June 25, 2022 – 6:30 pm       3    MOTION by Chair Pockl seconded by Commissioner Ginis to recommend approval of the draft  language for a zoning text amendment regarding the sale of products containing  Tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), as stated in the memo.    5. Discussion – ADUs ‐ Survey Discussion  Myles Campbell, Planner, reminded members about the ADU discussion and a survey that was  presented on the City website through May and June of 2022.  Of 307 participants, 302 completed the demographics questions at the end of the survey, which  meant a very high rate of completion. Responses were spread through all four quadrants of Golden  Valley and 6 folks stated they did not live in the City.   Staff reviewed the survey in its entirety, discussed statistics for each grouping of responses, and  reviewed survey process takeaways.     (There were AV issues during the meeting so staff lost the presenter who was attending remotely)    Commissioner Ruby noted a lot of negativity towards ADUs and also a lot of confusion as apparent in  the survey. He followed up with how the City will engage that confusion. Staff noted this survey  wasn’t set up to address concerns but as a first step to address them in the future. Rules can be  drafted through the process of creating the zoning code for ADUs. Commissioner Brenna asked  about waste removal for ADUs. Staff stated that hasn’t been discussed but will be when they review  sewer systems. Chair Pockl added how appreciative she was for the survey and to see the range of  reviews. The conversation continued around the response rate, age of respondents, acceptance of  change, economic and practical reasons for ADU’s, and the shortage of affordable housing.    6. Council Liaison Report  Council Member La Mere‐Anderson thanked Planning Commission for in depth THC conversation;  nothing the zoning and licensing approach.  City Council is working on rezoning, land use changes –a lot of community feedback, St. Margaret Mary  especially. Most comments are related to traffic, neighborhood feel, and potential loss of green space.    7. Other Business  Tuesday is National Night Out.  Members discussed community gardens and Commissioner Ginis mentioned the need for additional  outreach to help folks connect the removal of tennis courts equals construction of community gardens.  8. Adjournment  MOTION by Commissioner Brenna to adjourn, seconded by Commissioner Ruby and approved  unanimously by roll call vote. Meeting adjourned at 7:53 pm.                                                                                                          ________________________________                                                                                                  Andy Johnson, Secretary  ________________________________  Amie Kolesar, Planning Assistant      Date:  August 22, 2022  To:  Golden Valley Planning Commission  From:  Myles Campbell, Planner  Subject:  Accessory Dwelling Units – Ordinance Discussion   Summary   The City Council has directed Planning Commission to examine new zoning regulations to allow  for Accessory Dwelling Units within the R‐1 and R‐2 residential zoning districts.   This memo will focus on draft language provided by staff in June and the updates that have been  made since, in reaction to discussion with other departments, the feedback from the ADU Survey,  recommendations by Commissioners in previous meetings, and finally additional modeling  examples using Sketchup software.   Proposed Code Changes  For the attached draft code document, black text is language existing in code today, red text  denotes revisions from the June 27th discussion, and blue/green text denotes the most recent  changes by staff, which are summarized below.     Summary Tables  Given that this is where the majority of residents are now directed for information on what is  allowed on their property, staff is including a note in table 87‐1 Residential Land Uses. This will  provide a brief summary of where and how ADUs are permitted as well as linking to the relevant  ADU chapter of zoning code for more info.     Administrative Review + Clarifying other required documentation  Staff initially was planning to rely on the associated building permits and Certificate of Occupancy  in order to track and review ADU code. In talking with the City’s Building Official and in checking  in with other communities about their common practice, it sounds as if a clearer administrative  review requirement should be spelled out in code. Other communities reported that they only  issued certificates of occupancy for detached ADUs being created, and not all permits associated  with an interior remodel (for example mechanical permits for a kitchen) are assigned to planning  staff for review.   2      Establishing as a baseline that ADUs need to have an administrative review means that staff  would be aware of all projects establishing an ADU, regardless of design. For the time being the  code still holds that a detached ADU would be allowed via conditional use permit, which would  supersede the internal review required for attached units, converted internal units, and detached  units which meet principal structure setbacks.     Additionally, while it is laid out in in City Code Chapter 16, Article III that a property must obtain a  rental license before renting out their property or a portion of it, staff added a general  requirement to this effect, again to ensure that someone who is less familiar with the City Code is  getting as much information as possible from the ADU chapter.     Utilities  Planning Staff asked both Engineering and Public Works staff to weigh in on the question of how  utility connections should be managed, either as a separate connection to the City main or  shared off of the home’s own utility hookups. Both Engineering and Public Works staff stated a  preference for the utilities to branch from the home whenever possible. This is in line with  current practice for detached accessory structures with sewer/water.     Design Requirements   Given that design was a major highlighted aspect of ADUs in the online survey, a few small  additions were made to design requirements for both attached and detached ADUs. The City  does not want to get too involved in the architectural requirements of these structures, as that  complicates enforcement and review. However, it seems clear that all residents, regardless of  whether support or oppose ADUs, are interested in them being designed to match the existing  home in some fashion and to not grossly impact neighbors.     For attached structures, we had previously included language from the Minnetonka code that,  “Exterior changes to the home shall not substantially alter the single‐family character of the  structure.” In addition, we have included a new requirement that the ADU entrance itself face  either the side or rear of the property. This would mean that when viewed from the street only a  single door and entrance would be visible, again maintaining the single‐family design style.     For detached structures, we reinforced that the exterior finish should complement the main  home, that a detached ADU could not have a rooftop deck, and finally a new requirement that  the structure not include dormers facing out into adjacent yards. This final requirement is in  response to comments in the survey asking for preservation of privacy. Given the 12’ height limit  for these buildings, window on the main floor are less of a concern for staff, and we’d like to  preserve the flexibility to locate those on all sides to allow light in. However, a dormer at 10’+ in  height could feel invasive if facing a neighbor in staff’s opinion.    Staff is not including any other specific restrictions at this time regarding design, however if the  commissioners have additional suggestions these could be incorporated into draft ordinance  prior to a public hearing on the topic.  3      Detached ADUs – Location and Setbacks  The most common aspect of ADU’s highlighted in the survey was location of the ADU. Many  people had questions on where ADUs, especially detached ADUs would be allowed to locate, and  what regulations would control this.     Amongst changes since the last ordinance discussion, staff included a requirement that explicitly  states that detached ADUs cannot be built closer to the front setback than the home, and that if  not fully to the rear of the home, must be constructed on frost footings (likely most ADUs would  be built on frost footings anyway to avoid issues associated with a slab on grade foundation.) This  language mirrors what we require for detached accessory structures already, but including it here  eliminates any confusion.     At our last conversation on ADU ordinance, Commissioners noted that a conditional use review  would make them somewhat more comfortable with allowing ADUs with the suggested 10’ side  and rear setbacks. The CUP requirement would mean the structure would need review by both  Planning Commission and City Council, and conditions could be placed on the construction  relating to areas such as: traffic generation, noise levels, visual appearance, and Comprehensive  Plan consistency.     Another alternative suggested but one Commissioner would be to allow detached ADUs without  a conditional use permit if they could demonstrate that they meet the same setback  requirements as for the principal structure. The logic being that the stricter setbacks and  separation from adjacent properties would address by itself the issues under review in a  conditional use permit. This type of requirement is new to the code, no other uses are  conditional, but for a stricter requirement, however staff thinks this idea has merit from the  perspective of simplifying the application process and mitigating impacts on adjacent properties.  Obviously not all lots will be eligible to take this route, most likely larger lots and lots with  additional depth would have an easier time satisfying the stricter 25’ rear setback.     The attached ordinance follows this model. A detached ADU would, at a minimum, need to be 10  feet off the side ad rear property lines, 10 feet from the home, and no closer to the front setback  than the home. In this scenario a conditional use permit would be required for the ADU. If the  owner can provide the more significant rear and side setbacks that match those fore the principal  structure, it would be able to go through administrative review.     Minimum Lot Size  While discussed very early on in the process, staff had not seen a huge need for establishing a  minimum eligible lot size for ADUs, relying instead on if the ADU could meet the setback, lot  cover, and other requirements to weed out ineligible lots.     Following some work modelling potential ADUs on example lots in Golden Valley though has  caused staff to reconsider this, at least in the case of detached units. Attached ADUs are still  4    evenly limited by the principal structure setbacks for either the R‐1 and R‐2 districts. And in the  case of an internal conversion of existing home, the lot size would not factor in whatsoever.     For detached however, it seems clear that lots under a certain size would struggle to find the  right balance of side/rear setbacks, separation between structures, and the overall lot cover. Staff  feels comfortable establishing a 10,000 sq. ft. minimum lot size for detached ADUs, as shown in  an early review of properties in the summer of 2021. 10,000 sq. ft. includes almost all R‐1  properties (10,000 is the minimum lot size in subdivision code) but excludes especially narrow  and undersized lots built around the mid‐century period. These lots still could potentially allow  for attached and internal ADUs depending on the site’s characteristics.     Minimum lot size Number of R‐1  properties  Location  10,000 sq ft / 0.23 acres 5700 Most R‐1 lots are at least 10,000 square feet.   12,000 sq ft / 0.28 acres 4921 Many R‐1 lots are at least 12,000 square feet,  but less in the western and northern portions of  the city.   15,000 sq ft / 0.34 acres 2405 While there are large lots in most parts of the  city, they’re concentrated in the southern and  eastern portions of the city.     Engagement and Timeline Update  In addition to the survey conducted on accessory dwelling units, Planning staff is in discussion  with the City’s communications team to make a plan for engagement around the public hearings,  both at this body and City Council. Similarly, to narrow lots, staff would like to provide an option  for residents to use email to provide advanced written comment, which could then be included in  the record for the meeting, in addition to comments the night of the public hearing. This would  also give an opportunity to plug meeting dates and details on the City’s social media accounts  and webpage.     Depending on tonight’s discussion and revision of the proposed ordinance language, staff would  like to target the September 12, 2022, Planning Commission meeting if possible for the public  hearing. However, it’s possible this would need to be delayed to the second meeting in  September if additional prep time is needed for communications staff. In either case, settling on  the date for the public hearing will allow communications staff to promote the date and the  advance comment option, allowing ample time for residents to respond via email or plan to  attend in person.     Action Request  This item is not a public hearing or voting item however staff is looking for any new revisions or  suggestions from Commissioners.   Attachments  Draft Language for portions of ADU code (4 pages)  Sec. 113-87. - Summary use tables. Sec. 113-88. - Single-Family Residential (R-1) Zoning District. ……. (d) Accessory Uses. The following accessory uses shall be permitted in the R-1 Zoning District: (1) When the property owner resides in the dwelling, rental of single sleeping rooms to not more than two people for lodging purposes only. (2) In-home child care licensed by the State. (3) Accessory Dwelling Units associated with a single-family home, as regulated by Section 113- 159 and with either administrative approval or a conditional use permit. (4) Home occupations, as governed by the following requirements: Sec. 113-89. - Moderate Density Residential (R-2) Zoning District. (d) Accessory Uses. The following accessory uses shall be permitted in the R-2 Zoning District: (1) When the owner resides in the dwelling, rental of single sleeping rooms to not more than two people per dwelling for lodging purposes only. (2) In-home child care licensed by the State. Land Use Description R-1 R-2 R-3 R-4 Low to Moderate Density Housing Single-family dwellings P P X X Two-family dwellings X P P X Rowhouses with up to four attached units X P X X Townhouses X X P X Accessory dwelling units are allowed as an accessory use to a single-family dwelling in the R-1 and R-2 zoning districts. These units are subject to either administrative or conditional review, as regulated in Sec. 113-151 of City Code. (3) Accessory Dwelling Units associated with a single-family home, as regulated by Section 113- 159 and with either administrative approval or a conditional use permit. (4) Home occupations, as governed by the following requirements: Sec. 113-151. – Accessory Dwelling Units (a) Purpose. The purpose of this section is to allow for and regulate the location, placement, design, and use of Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU). Accessory Dwelling Units shall be allowed for the following purposes: (1) More efficient utilization of the existing single single-family housing stock in the city; (2) Enjoyment of the benefits of rental income, decreased housekeeping responsibilities or the companionship of tenants by persons residing in houses which are too large for their present needs; (3) Provision of housing which allows privacy and independence for older family members; (4) Preservation of property values and maintenance of the character of existing single family neighborhoods; and (5) Provision of housing for live-in employees, such as nannies. (b) Definitions. The following words, terms and phrases, when used in this section, shall have the meanings ascribed to them in this subsection, except where the context clearly indicates a different meaning: (1) Accessory Dwelling Unit - A smaller, independent residential dwelling unit located on the same lot as a stand-alone single-family home. (2) Living Space - the area within a house which is suitable for human habitation including suitable finished basement areas but excluding garages, services areas and unfinished portions of the building. (3) Owner - the person who holds fee title or is a bona fide purchaser under a contract for deed of the property. (4) Attached ADU – An accessory dwelling unit which involves an addition to the principal structure of a lot to allow for the new secondary unit. (5) Internal ADU – An accessory dwelling unit in which a portion of the existing principal structure is converted for use as a new secondary unit. (6) Detached ADU – An accessory dwelling unit which is stand-alone from the principal structure, or which is incorporated into an existing stand-alone accessory structure. (c) General Regulations. Accessory dwelling units shall not be created or used except in conformity with the following requirements: (1) Accessory dwelling units shall only be allowed on lots zoned for R-1 or R-2 zoning and which have a single-family home present. (1)(2) Establishment of an accessory dwelling unit shall require an administrative review by City Staff in addition to any required permits relating to construction. (2)(3) There shall be no more than one accessory dwelling unit allowed per lot. (4) The owner must have permanent residence established at the property and reside in either the principal or accessory dwelling. (3)(5) An accessory dwelling unit shall not be leased or rented without first receiving a rental license from the City as regulated under Chapter 16, Article III of City Code. (4)(6) The accessory dwelling unit shall not be sold independently of the principal residential dwelling and may not be a separate tax parcel. (7) A minimum of one additional off-street parking space shall be provided for the accessory dwelling unit in addition to those required for the principal dwelling. The creation of the accessory dwelling unit by conversion of garage space shall not reduce the home’s provided off-street parking below the minimum requirements listed in Section 113-151 of zoning code. (5)(8) Utility connections for the accessory dwelling unit shall be provided from the existing principal structure so long as adequate capacity exists or can be provided. (6)(9) no accessory dwelling unit shall be created except in compliance with all applicable building, housing, electrical, plumbing, heating and related codes of the city; (7)(10) all other provisions of zoning code relating to single-family dwelling units shall be met, unless specifically amended by this code section. (d) Attached and Internal ADUs. Accessory dwelling units incorporated with the principal dwelling shall be subject to the following requirements. (1) The floor area of the accessory dwelling unit shall be no more than 35 percent of the home’s gross living area, or 950 square feet, whichever is less. In the case of internal accessory dwelling units, the area being converted for use shall be included in this calculation of gross living area. (2) The accessory dwelling unit shall have a minimum floor area of 250 square feet. (3) Exterior changes to the home shall not substantially alter the single-family character of the structure. (3)(4) Entrance to the accessory dwelling unit shall face either the side or rear yard. (e) Detached ADUs. Stand-alone accessory dwelling units shall be subject to the following requirements. (1) A detached accessory dwelling unit shall be permitted only via a conditional use permit, as defined in Sec. 113-30, unless the accessory dwelling unit is shown to meet the same side and rear setbacks as required of the principal structure. (2) Detached accessory structures shall be located completely to the rear of the principal structure, unless it is built with frost footings. In that case, an accessory structure may be built no closer to the front setback than the principal structure. (3) A minimum lot size of 10,000 sq.ft. is required to establish a detached accessory dwelling unit. (4) The floor area of the accessory dwelling unit shall be no more than 35 percent of the home’s gross living area, or 950 square feet, whichever is less. (5) The accessory dwelling unit shall have a minimum floor area of 250 square feet. (6) Setbacks i. Detached accessory dwelling units shall be located no less than ten feet from a side or rear lot line. (1)ii. Detached accessory dwelling units shall be located no less than ten feet from the principal structure. (2)(7) Detached accessory dwelling units shall be restricted to a maximum height of 12 feet, as measured from the floor to the top horizontal component of a frame building to which the rafters are fastened (known as the "top plate"). (3)(1) Rooftop decks are not permitted in conjunction with a detached accessory dwelling unit. (4)(8) For the purposes of meeting the area limitations established for accessory structures in the R-1 and R-2 zoning districts, only half of the total floor area of the accessory dwelling unit shall be usedThe floor area of a detached accessory dwelling unit shall not count towards the maximum area limitation for accessory structures in the R-1 or R-2 zoning districts. (9) Design Requirements. i. The detached accessory dwelling unit shall be designed and use materials which complement and match the existing principal dwelling. or an accessory structure to which it is attached. ii. Rooftop decks are not permitted in conjunction with a detached accessory dwelling unit. Windowed dormers shall not face towards adjacent properties to the side or rear. (5) iii.