Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2024/12/18 - ADMIN - Agenda Packets - Board of Zoning Appeals - Regular Board of zoning appeals and  Planning commission study session  December 18, 2024   6:00 p.m.  If you need special accommodations or have questions about the meeting, please call Sean Walther at 952.924.2574 or the  administration department at 952.924.2505.  Board of zoning appeals and planning commission study session  The St. Louis Park board of zoning appeals meeting and planning commission study session are  in person at St. Louis Park City Hall, 5005 Minnetonka Blvd. Members of the public can attend  the meeting in person. Visit bit.ly/slppcagendas to view the agenda and reports.  You can provide comment on board of zoning appeals agenda items in person at the meeting or  by emailing your comments to info@stlouispark.org by noon the day of the meeting.  Comments must be related to an item on the meeting agenda. Public comments will not be  accepted during the planning commission study session.  Board of zoning appeals agenda  1.Call to order – roll call 2.Approval of minutes – December 4, 2024 3.Hearing 4.Other business 4a.   Application for variance at 3900 Natchez Ave. S.  Appellants: Danny and Aubrey van der Steeg  Case No: 24‐20‐VAR  5.Communications 6.Adjournment Planning commission study session agenda  1.Commission training (90 minutes estimated) 2. 2025 work plan (20 minutes estimated) Future scheduled meeting/event dates:   January 8, 2025 – planning commission meeting*  January 15, 2025– planning commission meeting   February 5, 2025 – planning commission meeting  February 19, 2025 – planning commission meeting  *Meeting held on January 8 since January 1 is New Year’s Day 1 2 Board of zoning appeals December 4, 2024 6:00 p.m. If you need special accommodations or have questions about the meeting, please call Sean Walther or the administration department at 952.924.2525. Board of zoning appeals Members present: Jim Beneke, Mia Divecha, Matt Eckholm, Sylvie Hyman, Jan Youngquist, Tom Weber, John Flanagan, Estella Hughes (youth member) Members absent: none Staff present: Gary Morrison Guests: 1.Call to order – roll call Commissioners Flanagan and Hughes introduced themselves. Approval of minutes – Aug. 21, 2024 Chair Divecha noted a correction in the minutes where she should be the speaker vs. Commissioner Hyman. The minutes were unanimously approved as corrected. 2.Hearings 3a. Application for variance at 3900 Natchez Ave S Applicant: Danny and Aubrey van der Steeg Case No: 24-20-VAR Mr. Morrison presented the report. Commissioner Weber asked if there was any feedback from the direct neighbor. Mr. Morrison stated there have been no written responses, but he is not sure if the person is at the meeting this evening. Commissioner Weber invited that neighbor to speak at the public hearing if they were in attendance at the meeting. Chair Divecha opened the public hearing. Wendy Freshman, 3912 Natchez Ave. S., stated she is the neighbor, and has lived there for 36 years and has seen the changes in that house and property. She stated this would be an incredible improvement to the property and she complimented the van der Steeg’s on their plans and would encourage them to stay in the neighborhood. She stated this will improve the practicality of the property and it will not affect her sightline. She stated she supports the variance. 3 Unofficial minutes BOZA Dec 4, 2024 Cy Bachus, 7014 – 13th Lane, stated he is the general contractor for the garage and is in favor of the variance, but added it will not affect his property. Commissioner Weber asked about the 24 x 24 size and the driveway. Mr. Bachus stated that it is a decent two-car garage size with room on either side. He added with the driveway there was an older tree in the way, and it would cost too much to remove it, so the extra driveway is being added to allow for this, and for the line of sight. Commissioner Weber asked if the patio can grow. Mr. Bachus stated it will stay the same size. Chair Divecha asked about the alternative being considered. Mr. Bachus stated the tree was considered in the revamping of the garage and also consideration of a new curb cut, which would cause the removal of the tree. He added they also considered remodeling the garage, but it does not meet code, and the slab is cracked. Commissioner Weber asked if the garage would be wider and deeper, could the garage be taken off the property line and make it wider and find a way to make the driveway fit. Mr. Bachus stated they are following the requirements of the city in terms of having it at this size. Rob Ulman, 4709 Vallacher Ave., stated he lives 2 houses down from the home. He stated he understands the situation but noted in that yard, it is difficult to watch children. He stated the van der Steegs are considering trees and the neighborhood and the design is conducive for families and allows them to see their children from the house, while adding livability and usability. He added the garage is very old and will have to come down at some point, so it is in the best interest of the neighborhood to consider this plan. He added it would be a benefit and improvement to the neighborhood, and he is supportive. Commissioner Weber asked Mr. Ulman if the neighbor between him and van der Steeg has a two-car garage. Mr. Ulman stated yes, it is a 2-car garage. He added the garage is old and has been on the property since 1939 when it was built. He stated it will need to go at some point. Chair Divecha stated that neighbor Betsy Tarnowski is in support of the variance but did not want to speak. Danny van der Steeg, 3900 Natchez Ave S, the owner, stated they have lived here for 1 year and have 2 children. He stated they have worked hard on this project and taken into consideration the neighborhood. He noted the line of sight is of concern and the new garage would be 8 feet shorter from the tree and landscape sightline. He stated the majority of their immediate neighbors are supportive. He stated the property narrows down a bit, so it makes it difficult to build in that space. Mr. van der Steeg added an architect has done the plans on this and noted consideration of erosion of the land. He 4 Unofficial minutes BOZA Dec 4, 2024 noted alternative options have been looked at to work around the tree, and they would want to keep the tree. He stated the driveway will also be a patio space and the end goal is to modernize the property while considering the intent of the variance. Commissioner Weber asked about the patio, fence and driveway. Mr. van der Steeg stated the fence has been there for years so a new one will need to be created. He stated the original plan was to bring the patio to the garage, but noted in the plan presented today, it will be a smaller driveway and larger patio, as much as would be allowed. Chair Divecha asked if the patio is fenced out, would the children play on the driveway. Mr. van der Steeg stated their intent is to fence it all the way through and across the driveway. Chair Divecha asked what is in the northern area. Mr. van der Steeg stated they looked at putting a play space there also, but it is a busy intersection. Commissioner Flanagan asked about the elevation differences. Mr. van der Steeg stated the property on the south is slightly higher and helps with the driveway. He added there is a tension wall there that needs improvement also. Commissioner Weber asked if the tree line to the south is on the van der Steeg’s property. Ms. Freshman stated those are on her property. Chair Divecha noted the emails from neighbors that were in support of the variance. Chair Divecha closed the public hearing. Commissioner Eckholm stated he usually defers to staff on these issues, but he is leaning toward supporting the variance, especially with the positive comments from adjacent neighbors. He stated that sightline preservation is important, but hearing about the boulevard tree makes him also support the driveway as presented and city goals of tree preservation. Commissioner Weber stated he is supportive also, however, noted staff’s interpretation is true to code and they did what they are supposed to do. He stated he is looking at this scenario and how it would work within the neighborhood. He also noted the purpose of the provision is to preserve the line of sight and the comments from the neighbor state that her own garage obstructs the view already. He stated it is actually the house that obstructs it because of the shape of the property, so the garage is a non-issue for him. Commissioner Weber stated the greenery is important to him also. He stated he appreciates the rules of the city, but he does have issues with rules on corner lots and the code here does not sit well with him. He stated this leads him to support the variance. 5 Unofficial minutes BOZA Dec 4, 2024 Commissioner Youngquist added there has been a discussion tonight about sight lines and safety. She added there is a safety issue here with the garage placement, and being able to see when backing out of the driveway. She stated the code has requirements for variances and state law also has requirements for variances and one of the key parts of that is there is a practical difficulty that precludes you from complying with the zoning code. She stated a garage can be built to comply with the code, and while it might not be where the owner wants it, in her opinion it does not meet the burden of being a practical difficulty. Commissioner Youngquist reiterated the restricted area and line of sight issue could cause safety issues. Commissioner Weber stated however there is currently obstruction now caused by the trees and shrubs. Commissioner Hyman stated she takes issue with obstruction being a safety issue and noted that people backing out of a driveway need to go at a safe speed and pay attention, and the onus should be on the driver of the vehicle to pay attention and using the tools they have to navigate the space. She added she does think this is a safety issue for the van der Steegs. Commissioner Beneke stated he is supportive but does not want to set a precedent. He added however the characteristic of the property and even though there may be alternatives, they are not good alternatives. He stated that we also want to promote housing that is favorable to families. He stated the safety issue does promote some concern but is not sure how to resolve it. Mr. Morrison stated he agrees with the driveway concerns and safety, but noted the built environment is the best way to preserve safety and not the management of behavior regarding vehicles and pedestrians, adding everyone needs to pay attention. He noted the intent of the code is to encourage a safety through the built environment. Chair Divecha stated this is a difficult one. She noted it is wonderful to see neighbors in support of this issue. She stated she respects the city code but is concerned about setting a precedent and noted the safety piece is certainly valid. However, she stated she will choose livability over a risk, and stated she will support the variance. Commissioner Ekholm asked if there is an ability to approve the variance if there is a cause for it. He stated this is a better use of the space in the plan, vs. as it is today. Mr. Morrison stated the board has the ability to deny or approve the variance. He stated there are recommendations, but if the board of zoning appeals chooses to approve the variance, there will need to be findings, and a new resolution would need to be prepared by staff and brought back to the Dec. 18 meeting for action. 6 Unofficial minutes BOZA Dec 4, 2024 Commissioner Weber added we do not want to set a precedent, but the uniqueness here is the neighbor to the south’s closest part of her property is the garage and not her front window, so there is no obstruction. Commissioner Weber made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Eckholm to direct staff to write a resolution for approval of the variance at 3900 Natchez Ave S, and to present it at the Dec. 18 planning commission meeting. The motion passed 6-1 (Commissioner Youngquist opposed). 3.Other Business-none. 4.Communications BOZA’s decision to uphold staff’s determination was appealed to the city council. The council conducted a hearing and affirmed BOZA’s decision to uphold staff’s determination. 5.Adjournment – 6:57 p.m. ______________________________________ ______________________________________ Sean Walther, liaison Mia Divecha, chair member 7 8 Board of zoning appeals: Regular meeting  Meeting date: December 18, 2024  Agenda item: 4a  4a Request for variance to yard requirements at 3900 Natchez Ave S.  Location: 3900 Natchez Ave S   Case Number: 24‐20‐VAR  Applicant: Danny and Aubrey van der Steeg  Owner:  Danny and Aubrey van der Steeg  Review Deadline:  60 days: December 24, 2024 120 days: February 22, 2025  Recommended  motions:  Motion to adopt resolution approving variance to section 36‐164(f)(4)  for construction of a detached garage within the required restricted  area at 3900 Natchez Ave S.  Request: Applicant requests approval of a variance to section 36‐164(f)(4) which requires a  restricted area on a corner lot when the rear yard of the corner lot is adjacent to the neighbor’s  front yard.    Background: The public hearing for the request was conducted on December 4, 2024, and the  public hearing was closed. Therefore, action can be taken on the attached resolution without  conducting another public hearing.   Staff recommended denial, however, the BOZA voted (6‐1) to direct staff to prepare a  resolution of approval for the BOZA to consider at the December 18, 2024 meeting. The BOZA  gave staff findings supporting the variance that staff used in drafting the resolution of approval.   The resolution approving the requested variance is attached for your consideration.   Supporting documents:  Draft resolution.  Prepared by:  Gary Morrison, zoning administrator Reviewed by:  Sean Walther, planning manager / deputy community development director  9 Regular meeting of December 18, 2024 (Item No. 4a)      Title: Request for variance from yard requirements at 3900 Natchez Ave S  DRAFT BOZA Resolution No. _____    Resolution approving variance to construct a detached garage within the  required restricted area at 3900 Natchez Ave S      Whereas, on October 25, 2024, the owner, Danny van der Steeg, submitted a complete  application for a variance from the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance Section 36‐163(f)(4)  to allow a detached garage to be constructed within the restricted area, which is required when  the backyard is adjacent to the neighbor’s front yard.     Whereas, the detached garage is proposed to be located two feet from lot line to the  eave from the rear lot line instead of the required 25.86 feet, and approximately seven feet to  the wall from the side lot line abutting the street instead of the required 25.86 feet.     Whereas, the property is located at 3900 Natchez Ave S and described below as follows,  to wit:    Lot 1, Block 8, Minikahda Vista, St. Louis Park, Minn., Hennepin County,  Minnesota     Whereas, the property is zoned R‐2 single‐family residence.    Whereas, the Board of Zoning Appeals held a public hearing and reviewed the  application for variance Case No. 24‐20‐VAR on December 4, 2024.    Whereas, the Board of Zoning Appeals did not agree with staff’s recommendation to  deny the variance, and instead, voted (6‐1) to direct staff to prepare a resolution of approval  and present it to the Board of Zoning Appeals at the December 18, 2024 meeting for  consideration.    Whereas, based on the testimony, evidence presented, and files and records, the Board  of Zoning Appeals has determined that the requested variance meets the requirements of  Section 36‐34(a)(2) of the zoning ordinance necessary to be met for the Board of Zoning  Appeals to grant variances, and makes the following findings:    a. The variance will not have an adverse effect on the health, safety, and welfare of the  community. The location of the proposed detached garage would not impede line of  sight from the street to the neighboring property.     b. The location of the proposed detached garage is in harmony with the general  purpose and intent of the zoning ordinance. Visibility from the home to the street is  not blocked by the garage given the curvature of the road. Additionally, the  neighbor’s garage is adjacent to the common property line, not the house. So the  proposed garage will be slightly in front of the neighbor’s garage, not the neighbor’s  house.   10 Regular meeting of December 18, 2024 (Item No. 4a)   Title: Request for variance from yard requirements at 3900 Natchez Ave S  c.A practical difficulty exists necessitating the requested variance for the following reasons: The shape of the lot is not rectangular, which is common in the neighborhood. The shape of the lot, together with the required restricted area, limits were a detached garage can reasonably be placed. The property has very little open recreational area for the owners to enjoy. Strictly applying the code would unreasonably restrict access and visibility to the open recreational area. Visibility and reasonable access to the open recreation area would be blocked by the garage if the garage was required to be constructed outside the restricted area as required by the zoning code. d.The variance is needed for the preservation of a substantial property right. Granting the variance would preserve access and visibility to the small amount of open recreational area the property has. e.The contents of the Board of Zoning Appeals Case File 24‐20‐VAR are hereby entered into and made part of the public hearing record and the record of decision for this case. Now therefore be it resolved by the Board of Zoning Appeals of St. Louis Park, Minnesota,  that the requested variance to section 36‐164(f)(4) is hereby approved.   Adopted by the Board of Zoning Appeals: December 18, 2024  Effective date: December 30, 2024  ______________________________  Mia Divecha, chair  ATTEST:  ______________________________________   Gary Morrison, zoning administrator  11 12 Planning commission: Study session Meeting date: November 18, 2024 Agenda item: 1 1 Commissioner training Executive summary Title: Commissioner training Recommended action: Review the supporting documents in advance and come prepared to listen and ask questions. Summary: City Attorney Soren Mattick, Campbell Knutson, provided several supporting documents that he will draw upon for his presentation to commissioners. There will be ample time for questions. Please review the attached materials before the meeting. The city has usually offered this training every two or three years; however, it has been five years since it was last offered. While staff provides resources and a much shorter version of this during commissioners’ orientation, this depth and format will be new to most commissioners and a refresher for others. The training was originally planned to be earlier in the year but delayed due to busy agendas and to align with the appointment of our newest members. We are pleased to offer it again and to have the city attorney lead the training. Supporting documents: training materials Prepared by: Soren Mattick, city attorney Reviewed by: Sean Walther, planning manager/deputy community development director 13 233963v1 Training materials Land use planning and zoning general considerations for public bodies for St. Louis Park Planning Commission December 2024 14 233963v1 2 LAND USE PLANNING AND ZONING I. MUNICIPAL AUTHORITY TO PLAN. A. Municipal Land Use Planning Act. This Act provides the authority and uniform procedures for conducting and implementing municipal planning for all cities. The Act was adopted by the legislature in 1965. Comprehensive plans and zoning ordinances must comply with both the substantive and procedural requirements under the Act. B. Metropolitan Land Use Planning Act. Cities in the seven-county area are also empowered and governed by the Metropolitan Land Use Planning Act. This, unlike the Municipal Land Use Planning Act, requires adoption of a Comprehensive Plan before a zoning ordinance may be adopted or amended. These requirements do not apply outside of the seven-county metro area. a. Policy. The Metropolitan Land Use Planning Act is based on the following stated policy: coordinated land use plans, controls and programs are necessary to facilitate orderly development and for the general welfare of the public, since metropolitan area local units of government are interdependent, and problems of urbanization and development transcend local boundaries. b. Comprehensive Municipal Plans Required. Under the Act, each local unit of government is required to adopt a Comp Plan that must be approved by the Metropolitan Council. c. Compliance with Met Council Plans. Comp Plans must comply with various metropolitan systems of the Met Council covering such issues as: i. Transportation; ii. Parks; iii. Sanitary Sewer Systems; iv. Airports. d. Prohibition Against Adoption of Inconsistent Official Controls. Once in place, the Met Land Planning Act prohibits cities from adopting official controls that conflict with the Comp Plan. In 1997, the legislature amended the relevant statutes to require conflicting ordinances to be “consistent” with the Comp Plan. State law also requires that when the plan is amended, zoning ordinances and other official controls must be amended within nine months so as not to conflict. 15 233963v1 3 II. ROLE OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION. The Municipal Land Planning Act imposes several duties on a Planning Commission: A. Preparation and Review of Comprehensive Plan. The planning commission creates the comprehensive plan and coordinates planning activities with other departments, typically with the help of a planning staff, outside planning consultants and the input of the public through neighborhood meetings and/or public hearings. B. Coordination and Review with Other Local Units of Government. Planning Commissions must consider the planning activities of adjacent units of government and other affected public agencies. C. Periodic Review. The Planning Commission must periodically review the Comp Plan and recommend amendments when necessary. D. Adoption of the Comp Plan. The Planning Commission recommends adoption of the Comp Plan or amendments after a hearing preceded by 10 days' publication of notice in the official newspaper. The City Council may not act upon a Comp Plan or amendment until receipt of recommendation by the Planning Commission or until 60 days have elapsed from date amendment was submitted to Planning Commission by Council. After approval by the Planning Commission, the Comp Plan is submitted to the Council for final review and approval by 2/3 vote of the Council. E. Recommendation of the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission must study and propose the means of putting the Comp Plan into effect, including zoning, subdivision regulations, official maps, a program of public improvements and services, city renewal and redevelopment, and a capital improvement program. F. Review of Land Acquisitions and Capital Improvements. Once a Comp Plan is adopted, all proposed land acquisitions and capital improvements of the City must go to the Planning Commission for its review and recommendation to Council. The Planning Commission will then submit a written report describing its findings. However, the Council may dispense with this requirement by a 2/3 vote, if it feels no planning issues are involved. G. Review of Land Use Control Measures. The Planning Commission is responsible for reviewing land use control measures. The Municipal Land Planning Act requires the Planning Commission to review zoning ordinance amendments, subdivision plats and official maps. Public hearings may be held before the Planning Commission, but the Council will make the final determination. 16 233963v1 4 III. ZONING: IMPORTANT TOOL TO IMPLEMENT COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. A. Purpose. Zoning establishes a land use pattern and the orderly development of various types of districts according to the best use of particular areas of a community. Zoning ordinances may be enacted for the general purposes of preserving and protecting the public health, safety, morals and general welfare. Zoning is the most commonly used technique in implementing the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan. It is the legal means to ensure that the goals of the Comprehensive Plan are carried out. B. Authority. M.S. § 462.351-.365. C. What Zoning Ordinances May Regulate. The basic land use controls of the City are found in its zoning ordinance, which regulates among other things: • The location, height, bulk, number of stories, size of buildings and other structure; • The percentage of lot which may be occupied, the size of yards and other open spaces; • The density and distribution of population; • The uses of buildings and structures for trade, industry, residence, recreation, public activities, or other purposes; • The uses of land for trade, industry, residence, recreation, agriculture, forestry, soil conservation, water supply conservation, conservation, conservation of shorelands, access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems, flood control or other purposes, and may establish standards and may establish procedures regulating such uses; Zoning ordinances are construed by the courts according to their plain meaning and in favor of the property owner. D. Zoning Map. Zoning ordinances may divide the city into districts or zones of suitable numbers, shape and area. The zoning map will identify the boundaries of the various zoning use districts. E. Uniformity Required Within Zoning Districts. The zoning regulations may vary across different districts, but within each district the regulations must be uniform for each class or kind of building, structure, land or use. F. Procedures for Adopting and Amending Zoning Ordinances. 1. Similar to Amendments of the Comp Plan. The Planning Commission may submit proposed ordinances to the Council at any time. 2. Studies. After conducting studies to ascertain that the official controls or regulations necessary to implement the Comp Plan, the Planning Commission submits the proposed zoning ordinance to the Council. At this time, the Planning Commission should also consider: a) preparation of a tentative official map; b) 17 233963v1 5 proposed subdivision regulations; and c) capital improvement program and any other necessary official controls. 3. Notice and Public Hearing Requirements. After new zoning ordinances or amendments to existing ones have been proposed, the Planning Commission must hold at least 1 public hearing. Notice of the public hearing must be published at least 10 days prior to the hearing date. Mailed notice to affected property owners may also be required. 4. Revisions. Following the public hearing, the Planning Commission reviews the proposed zoning ordinance or amendment in light of information received at the public hearing and makes any appropriate and reasonable revisions. 5. Submission to Council. The Planning Commission then presents the zoning ordinance or amendment in final draft form along with a report to the Council. 6. Publication. After the Council adopts new zoning ordinances or amendments, the Council must publish or summarize them in the official newspaper. G. Permitted, Accessory and Conditional Uses. 1. Permitted Uses. a. Defined as uses that property owners have a right to engage in as provided within the zoning district. b. No discretion to deny. It is generally arbitrary and unlawful to deny a building permit for a permitted use, unless the zoning is subsequently changed to prohibit the use. c. Normally there is no review by either the Planning Commission or the Council. Rather, the applicant merely applies for a building permit with supporting documentation that the use is permitted. 2. Accessory Uses. Defined as those uses that cannot stand alone and must be accompanied by a principal, permitted use. 3. Conditional Uses. Defined as uses permitted in a zoning district under the zoning ordinance, if certain conditions, designated by the Council or specified in the zoning district, are met. 4. Uses Which Are Not Permitted In Zoning District. a. In order for a use to be allowed in a specific zone or use district, it must be listed as a permitted or conditional use in the zoning ordinance, or 18 233963v1 6 must be similar enough to such a listed use so as to be included by City staff, Planning Commission or Council interpretation or by application of common sense. (e.g. medical clinic includes a dental clinic but not a veterinary clinic) b. No Use Variance May Be Granted, except the temporary use of a one family dwelling as a two family dwelling. c. Applicant Options. If the use is neither permitted or a conditional use in the zone or use district, the applicant can: i) apply for a rezoning to a zone or use district in which it is a permitted or conditional use; OR ii) request that the City amend its zoning ordinance to allow the use as a permitted or conditional use in the zoning or use district where the property is located. H. Interim Uses. An interim use is a temporary use of property until a certain date or until the use is no longer permitted. The intent is to allow a use for limited period of time that reasonably utilizes the property when the use contemplated under the comprehensive plan is not currently reasonable and to allow a use that while currently acceptable, may be unacceptable in light of future anticipated development. Authority of an interim use must be provided for in the zoning ordinance where conditions for the use are also specified. Often interim uses are used for mining activities or agricultural activities in a developing area. 19 233963v1 7 IV. CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS. A. What is it? A type of land use in a particular district which is presumed to be allowed, but requires special, additional standards and review due to the existence of some aspect of the use which may create a nuisance or place an extraordinary burden on public services. By far, the most commonly litigated zoning matter. B. Nexus Requirement. Courts require that any conditions placed on the conditional use permit to be issued must have a direct connection or a nexus between the problem identified and the condition required as the cure. The need for the conditions must be supported by evidence in the record. C. Time Limits. Although previously a common practice in many communities, time limits on a conditional use permit are not a permitted condition. A “sunset provision” is not permissible. If a time limit is determined to be necessary, then the use should be identified as an interim use, not a conditional use. A conditional use permit runs with the land forever, regardless of a change in landowner. A CUP need not be “renewed.” CUPs remain in effect for as long as the conditions are observed. D. Notice And Hearing. State law requires a public hearing preceded by notice. E. Limited Discretion. The City's discretion is limited in the case of an application for a conditional use permit. The City MUST grant the CUP if the applicant has met their statutory burden to satisfy all the conditions. RDNT, LLC v. City of Bloomington, 861 N.W.2d 71, 78-79 (Minn. 2015). NEIGHBORHOOD OPPOSITION OR A COUNCIL MEMBER’S OPINION ALONE IS AN INSUFFICIENT BASIS ALONE FOR A DENIAL. If an applicant fails to meet their burden to prove that all conditions for the CUP are satisfied, but they propose mitigating conditions to address any conditions they failed to meet, the City MUST consider the proposed mitigation. If the City chooses to reject the proposed mitigation, its decision MUST be supported by evidence in the record. Id. CUPs are the most commonly litigated zoning matter and Cities lose challenges to a CUP decision more than any other land use approval. F. Quasi-Judicial Decision-Making. In denying or approving a CUP, a City is exercising quasi-judicial decision-making, in which it is applying specific standards set by the zoning ordinance. This should be contrasted with City legislative decisions, in which the City is engaged in forming public policy, such as the adoption of a comp plan or zoning ordinance. While the courts tend to give great deference to the City when it is acting in its legislative capacity in crafting public policy, the courts give substantially less deference to the City when it exercises quasi-judicial decision-making, e.g. where the public policy has already been established under the zoning ordinance and the inquiry focuses on whether the proposed use is contrary to the general welfare as established in the Zoning Ordinance. Courts tend to think that they can apply the criteria set forth in the zoning ordinance to a particular use, just as well as the City can. 20 233963v1 8 V. VARIANCES. A. Defined. A variance is a request to use property in a way not generally permitted by the zoning ordinance, but which may be allowed by the City in special cases only, e.g., by varying one or more of the performance standards, such as lot area, setbacks, lot width or depth. B. Practical Difficulties. An applicant must demonstrate the existence of “practical difficulties” before a variance may be granted. "Practical difficulties" means the property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner, but the use is prohibited by the ordinance, the plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner, and the variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. Economic considerations alone do not constitute an undue hardship. Further, variances are only permitted when they are in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the zoning ordinance and when the variances are consistent with the comprehensive plan. C. Guidance In Granting Or Denying A Variance From Zoning Restrictions. The “practical difficulties” standard for municipal variances mirrors the standard providing variance authority on the county level. Minnesota courts have interpreted the county statute’s “practical difficulties” standard. Since the wording of the municipal and county statutes are now nearly identical, case law interpreting the county’s finding of “practical difficulties” is instructive in understanding the meaning of the municipal statute. The Minnesota Supreme Court has identified twelve factors for a county to consider when determining whether a landowner faces “practical difficulties,” including: 1. How substantial the variation is in relation to the requirement; 2. The effect the variance would have on government services; 3. Whether the variance will effect a substantial change in the character of the neighborhood or will be a substantial detriment to neighboring properties; 4. Whether the practical difficulty can be alleviated by a feasible method other than a variance; 5. How the practical difficulty occurred, including whether the landowner created the need for the variance; and 6. Whether, in light of all of the above factors, allowing the variance will serve the interests of justice. In situations where a party seeks a variance after already violating a provision of a zoning ordinance, the Supreme Court has recommended consideration of the following additional factors: 7. The applicant’s good faith; 8. The applicant’s attempt to comply with the ordinance; 9. The applicant’s investment in the construction; 21 233963v1 9 10. Whether the construction was completed; 11. Whether similar structures existed in the area; and 12. Whether the benefit to the public in denying the variance outweighs the burden on the applicant to comply with the zoning ordinance. D. Statutory Considerations. Variances may be granted when: 1. The variance is in harmony with general intent and purpose of the Ordinance. 2. The variance is consistent with the comprehensive plan. 3. Applicant establishes that there are practical difficulties with complying with the zoning ordinance. Practical difficulties are: i. property will be used in a reasonable manner. ii. There are circumstances unique to property not caused by landowner. iii. The variance will not alter essential character of locality. E. City Code Considerations. The Zoning Code controls variances. The primary considerations for variance review under the City’s Ordinance, are as follows: a. The effect of the proposed variance upon the health, safety and welfare of the community, b. The request is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the ordinance and, c. The request is consistent with the comprehensive plan. d. The applicant for the variance establishes that there are practical difficulties in complying with the zoning ordinance. “Practical difficulties,” as used in connection with the granting of a variance, means that: 1. The property owner proposes to use the property for a land use permitted in the zoning district in which the land is located. A variance can be requested for dimensional items required in the zoning ordinance, including but not limited to setbacks and height limitations; 2. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner; and, 3. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. 4. Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties. 5. Practical difficulties include inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems. e. There are circumstances unique to the property include the shape, topography, water conditions, or other physical conditions unique to the property; and, f. The granting of the variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant; and, 22 233963v1 10 g. The granting of the variance will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to the adjacent property, unreasonably increase the congestion in the public streets, increase the danger of fire, or endanger public safety; and, h. The granting of the variance will not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant but is necessary to alleviate a practical difficulty. F. Discretion In Granting Or Denying A Variance From Zoning Restrictions. 1. Broad discretion is permitted when denying a request for a variance, but there must be a legally sufficient reason for denial. Written findings of fact should be prepared and adopted concerning the reasons for denial or approval and the facts upon which the decisions is based, based on the statutory requirements. 2. The decision cannot be arbitrary. 3. A variance is typically required only where there has been an unlawful taking of property, demonstrated by the landowner's inability to put the land to any beneficial use unless the variance is granted. 4. Applicant bears the heavy burden to show that a variance is necessary. 5. Variances are not permitted for a use not permitted under the ordinance for property in the zone where the affected land is located. G. PROBLEMS. The approval/denial of variances is often considered one of the greatest land use problems faced by local officials. While some cities strictly adhere to their official controls, granting variances in only those situations required by law, some cities are very liberal in granting variances. The problem arises when a city planning commission and council do not agree on the instances appropriate for granting/denial of a variance. If a City has numerous variance applications, it may be that the City is known for granting variances, or that a change in the City’s official control on a particular performance standard should be reviewed for modification. Ideally, it is better to change an official control to reflect the standard set by the City, rather than to continually grant variances to a standard that is not adhered to. 23 233963v1 11 VI. TIME LIMITS. A. 60-Day Rule. The legislature enacted an ordinance limiting the time in which a local unit of government has to act upon certain land use related applications. Within 60 days of submittal of an application, cities are required to approve or deny the request, or the request is deemed approved. This section does not apply to subdivisions applications, which operate under a separate timeframe of 120 days for approval of a preliminary plat and 60 days to review and approve a final plat (M.S. § 462.358). B. Incomplete Application. The 60 days does not begin to run until the application is complete, but the determination that an application is incomplete must be made within 15 days of its submission by written notice to the applicant or the 60 day period will begin regardless of the incomplete application. C. Extensions. 1. Automatic 60-Day Extension. Within the 60-day period, an automatic extension of no more than 60 days can be obtained by providing the applicant written notice of the reason for the extension and specifying the additional time needed. 2. Applicant Approval. Other extensions are available only with the applicant's written approval. D. Application to Planning Commission. In light of the 60-day time limit for final council action, it is important for the Planning Commission to act well within the 60 day period to allow ample time for Council review. E. Denials in Writing. If a City denies a land use request, it must state in writing the reasons for the denial at the time of the denial or at the next meeting (provided it is within the 60 day time-period). It must also state the reasons for denial on the record and provide the applicant a written statement of the reasons for the denial. The written statement must be consistent with the reasons stated in the record. Because of the foregoing requirement, it is helpful for the City Council if the Planning Commission adopts written findings of fact for its decisions, particularly for recommendations of denial that can be reviewed by the City Council and modified for the City Council's decision. 24 233963v1 12 VII. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Type of Hearings. 1. Statutory 2. Informational B. Purpose. The purpose of a hearing is to give public input. In many instances the hearing is not only a statutory requirement, it is an ordinance requirement. C. Statutory. An example of public hearings required by statute: • Amending Zoning Ordinance • Amending Comprehensive Plan • Approving Preliminary Plats • CUP’s • IUP’s D. Notice. Each statute specifies the type of notice that is required, who it must be sent to, and when it must be sent. Can't simply be an agenda item. E. Due Process/Arbitrary and Capricious. To provide a fair hearing, board and commission members should disclose at any hearing prior to meetings or contact with applicants, opposition groups, and citizens and also disclose what was learned. It is also important to keep an open mind and not to make any commitment or announce how you will vote. “The district court found that Councilmember Goodman, who took part in making the council's decision: “took a position in opposition and exhibited a closed mind with regard to [CPG's] proposed project prior to hearing [CPG's] appeal”; “adopted an advocacy role in opposition to [CPG's] proposed project well before she discharged her quasi-judicial duties”; and “was clearly involved in an effort not only to assist to organize and mobilize neighborhood opposition to the project, but also to sway the opinions of her fellow council members.” The court also noted that “the opinion of the council member in whose ward a project is proposed is given substantial weight” by other members of the council. We therefore conclude that the city council's decision was arbitrary and capricious ….” Continental Property Group v. Minneapolis (Mn. Ct. App. 2011). 25 233963v1 13 GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS FOR PUBLIC BODIES I. CONFLICTS OF INTEREST. A. Contracts. Under Minn. Stat. § 471.87, with limited exceptions, a Council member may not have a personal financial interest in a sale, lease, or contract with the City. This law applies to all public officers who are "authorized to take part in any manner in making any sale, lease, or contract in official capacity." Exceptions and special approval procedure may be available in a given fact situation. Simply abstaining from voting is not enough. Violation of this prohibition is a crime. B. Non-Contracts. The general rule is that any official who has a personal financial interest in a non-contract action is disqualified from participating in the action. Courts evaluate certain factors to determine when a conflict requires disqualification. These include: • the nature of the decision being made • the nature of the financial interest • the number of interested officials • the need, if any, for the interested official to make the decision • other means available, if any, such as an opportunity for review of the decision, that serves to insure that the officials will not act arbitrarily to further their selfish interests. C. Sale or Purchase of City Property. Council members may not purchase any City property except in very limited circumstances specified in Minn. Stat. § 15.054. Violation of this prohibition, either by Council selling City property to council members or individual council members purchasing City property, is a crime. D. Best Practice. If you have an actual or potential financial interest in a decision to be made, disclose the conflict, abstain from voting, and don’t participate in the discussion. If you have any concerns, discuss them with the city attorney. Avoid even the appearance of a conflict. E. Abstaining. Abstaining means to refrain from a vote. In this case, a member of a body would be present at the meeting but would not partake in discussion or voting of the issue before the body. II. GIFT LAW. A. Pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 471.895, "An interested person may not give a gift or request another to give a gift to a local official. A local official may not accept a gift from an interested person." • “Local Official” means an elected or appointed official of a city. • “Interested Person” means a person who has a direct financial interest in a decision that a local official is authorized to make. • “Gift” means money, real or personal property, a service or loan, forgiving a debt or a promise of future employment without the giver being paid equal value. 26 233963v1 14 B. Exceptions include: • campaign contributions • plaques or mementos recognizing service • trinket or memento of insignificant value • food if you appear to make a speech • gifts given because of your membership in a group, a majority of whose members are not local officials • gifts by a member of your family C. When the City receives a gift/donation, it must be accepted by a two-thirds vote of the City Council. Minn. Stat. § 465.03. IV. OPEN MEETING LAW. A. Purpose. The purpose of the Open Meeting Law is to prohibit actions from being taken at a secret meeting where the interested public cannot be fully informed of the decisions of public bodies or detect improper influences, as well as ensure that the public has an opportunity to present its views. B. Open Meetings. Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes § 13D.01 - .07, almost all meetings of the City Council must be open to the public. A meeting exists when a quorum of the city council is together and: 1. Make a decision concerning city business; or 2. Discuss city business; or 3. Obtain information on city business. Be wary of serial communications: do not use the “reply all” function in emails. If a discussion occurs on social media, then that discussion must be open for participation by the public. Councilmembers should be careful to separate their personal and government-associated social media. It is recommended that councilmembers include a disclaimer on any social media accounts/posts communicating personal opinions that such accounts/posts do not represent the official views of the City. Lindke v. Freed, 601 U.S. 187 (2024). C. Other Electronic Communication. Serial communication occurs when one councilmember consults another, who consults another, and so forth. This is not permitted under the Open Meeting Law. One of the main goals of the Open Meeting Law is to ensure that deliberations take place in a public setting. 1. It is not advisable to substantively discuss City matters via text message even with one other councilmember. Text message and/or other electronic communication to other councilmembers during a meeting about City matters is also not permitted. Be careful about engaging in discussion on your personal devices. Discussions about city matters are generally public data, subject to mandatory retention periods and accessible to the public upon request, even if such discussions take place on personal devices. Deliberations and discussions must occur in a public forum. 27 233963v1 15 2. Similarly, a quorum of members having a discussion about public business on social media, such as in the comment section of a private Facebook page, could constitute a meeting in violation of the Open Meeting Law. Minn. Stat. § 13D.065. D. Notice Requirements. The City Council must give the following notices: 1. A schedule of the regular meeting shall be kept on file at the Council’s primary offices. Regularly scheduled meetings on your adopted meeting schedule require no additional notice. 2. Special meetings require mailed & posted or published notice at least three days before the day of the meeting. 3. Emergency meetings – as soon as reasonably practicable. However, what constitutes an “emergency” is narrowly defined and this provision is rarely used. E. Closed Meetings. Notice of the meeting is required stating why the meeting will be closed and the subject of the meeting. The meeting is still recorded. Closed meetings are allowed in limited circumstances: 1. Labor negotiations. 2. Pending litigation (not the same as anticipated litigation). 3. Preliminary consideration of charges against an employee. 4. Evaluation of a person subject to its authority. 5. To determine the asking price of property being sold. 6. To review confidential appraisal data. 7. To develop counteroffers for the purchase or sale of property. 8. To discuss active investigative data. 9. If it would identify victims or reporters of criminal sexual conduct, domestic abuse, or maltreatment of minors. Closed meeting must be reopened once the discussion of voting exceeds the scope of the topics identified above. DPO 23-005. F. Procedure for Closing a Meeting. 1. Start at open meeting 2. Announce basis for closing meeting 3. Describe subject to be discussed 4. Close by majority vote 5. Record closed meeting Except for meetings closed for Attorney-Client privilege G. Penalties. If the court finds that an individual intentionally violated this open meeting law, penalties include: 1. Individual fine of $300.00 per occurrence for an intentional violation, which may not be paid by the City. 2. Three intentional violations in three separate actions can result in removal from office. 3. Additional costs and attorney’s fees may be imposed up to $13,000.00. The City may pay this amount. 28 233963v1 16 V. DATA PRACTICES. A. Data. The Data Practices Act (Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13) presumes that all government data are public. The Data Practices Act obligates all levels of state and local government besides the legislature and the courts to preserve created data and respond to data requests. “Government data” means all data collected, created received, maintained or disseminated by state or local government, regardless of its physical form, storage media, or conditions of use. Data includes: paper documents, emails, CDs, video tapes, computer files, texts, etc. Official work on a personal device still constitutes government data. DPO 12-019; DPO 10-023. B. Classification. To balance the need for transparency with the need to protect individual rights, state and federal law provide for classifications to limit access for private or confidential data. Requests for data can come from the subject of the data (such as an employee) or a member of the public. Responses to data requests depend on how the data is classified. C. The Life Cycle of a Request. 1. A person submits a data request to the Responsible Authority in the City. If the request is for private information, the City may ask for proof of identity. It is impermissible to request for a member of the public’s identity when fulfilling a request for public data. 2. If the request is from the member of the public, the City must respond within a “reasonable amount of time.” 3. If the request is from the data subject, meaning the data is about the requesting individual, then the City is required to respond within ten business days. 4. The City staff then retrieves the data responsive to the request, if there is any. 5. Then the City review the data and determines if there is a justification to deny access to some or all of the data. If responsive data is withheld the City must inform the requestor and cite to the specific law that allows the redaction. 6. The City provides access to the data and collects copy costs, if requested. 29 30 Planning commission: Study session Meeting date: December 18, 2024 Agenda item: 2. 2. 2025 work plan Executive summary Title: 2025 work plan Recommended action: Review the supporting documents. Summary: The city council has asked that we submit 2025 work plans for their review and approval. A priority setting meeting with council and one representative from each board and commission is being planned for February 2025. The commission may receive new council- initiated items and feedback on draft 2025 work plan at that meeting. Council will formally approve the work plans at a regular meeting in March. Please see the attached list of draft 2025 work plan items. Staff prepared the list based the planning commission’s recent study session discussion in October regarding the 2023-2024 work plan. The list is mostly a continuation of the commission’s ambitious work plan and based on budget and staff capacity to support these efforts. Staff reorganized and consolidated the topics and updated them to better reflect the progress that has been made. In 2025, staff also intend to provide periodic updates to the commission regarding the St. Louis Park Vision 4.0 and Metropolitan Council Imagine 2050 regional development framework and policy plans, so we’ve noted that in the work plan, as well. The commission has limited time between now and the end of January to discuss and make further edits to the work plan. Therefore, staff intends to submit the above list for council review and consideration. If commissioners want to offer suggested edits, and most members agree to them, staff will update the plan accordingly before it goes to city council. Supporting documents: Draft 2025 work plan list Prepared by: Sean Walther, planning manager/deputy community development director 31 Study session of December 18, 2024 (Item No. 2.) Title: 2025 work plan Draft 2025 Work Plan List 1. Planning and zoning application review. Review planning and zoning applications submitted to the city; hold public hearings to help inform commission recommendations, and BOZA and council decisions. 2. Zoning code updates. Review and recommend changes to the zoning code better reflect the city’s strategic priorities and implement the comprehensive plan goals, policies and strategies. • Phase 1 – Residential zoning districts. Conclude the two-year effort that included a zoning code audit in 2023, drafting the code in 2024, and collecting community input through surveys, open houses, and online engagement tools at key points in the process. In January 2025, hold the public hearing and recommend changes to the zoning map and residential district zoning standards. • Phase 2 – Commercial, office, business park and industrial districts and related zoning map changes. • Phase 3 – Performance standards (e.g. parking, landscaping, signs, etc.). 3. Review the Arrive + Thrive: St. Louis Park Gateways Plan. Incorporate implementation actions identified in the plan that can be incorporated into phases 2 and 3 of the zoning code update. Explore creation of new transit-oriented development zoning district(s) around the light rail transit stations. 4. Monitor the St. Louis Park Vision 4.0 and Metropolitan Council Imagine 2050 regional planning processes. Monitor how these efforts will inform and impact the city’s 2050 comprehensive planning expected to occur in 2026-2028. 5. Broaden participation. Identify strategies to broaden, and reduce barriers to, public participation. • Hold a planning commission meeting at an off-site location to foster community relationships. (e.g. study sessions with topics of general interest, development project tours, etc.) • Help recruit community members with diverse experiences to apply for vacancies on boards and commissions, task forces, committees, or other volunteer opportunities. Future ideas: • Water conservation and water recycling. Explore ways to encourage reduced water use, capture and reuse of storm water, and protect ground water resources. • Housing analysis. Explore setting policy targets for different housing types in the city based on present inventory and unmet demand and promote homeownership opportunities as well as inclusionary housing goals. • Transitional industrial zoning district. This item was identified in the comprehensive plan. Several amendments have been made to the existing industrial districts that reflect elements of this idea through applicant-driven requests in the past two years. Reforms may be identified in phase 2 of the zoning code updates that further resolves issues. For this reason, it is a lower priority. 32