Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting Date: October 15, 2026
To: Members of the Zoning Board of Appeals
From: Mathias Hugehy, AICP, Interim City Planner
Title
Consideration of a Variance to Exceed the Maximum Corner Side Setback in the N2 Zoning District by Approximately 175 feet.
Body
Action Requested:
The Zoning Board of Appeals will consider the variance request to exceed the maximum corner side setback in the N2 district by approximately 175 feet.
Summary Report:
The applicant, Gracewin Development, is seeking to build a 47-unit multi-family residential building for use as a senior coop, at 1100 Bluebell Rd., a site zoned N2-B: Neighborhood General 2.
Northfield City Code, Chapter 34 Land Development Code (LDC), Section 3.2, Table 3.2-2: Dimensional Standards for the N2 District, sets the maximum corner side setback for buildings with 9 or more residential units at twenty-five (25) feet, and the minimum corner side setback for such buildings at fifteen (15) feet. LDC Section 3.1, Subsection 3.1.5 Build-to-Line and Setback Requirements and Exceptions establishes that the side setback on the street side of a corner parcel shall be measured from whichever of the following points results in the greatest setback from an existing or future roadway:
(i) The nearest point on the side property line bounding the street;
(ii) The inside edge of the sidewalk; or
(iii) The boundary of a planned future right-of-way established as described in Section 3.1.5(D) (1), General Requirements.
LDC Section 3.2, subsection 3.2.2 Residential Site Development Standards. (A) Building Orientation in Residential Districts. Establishes that all residential development shall be located parallel to the associated street or be consistent with existing development patterns rather than being sited at unconventional angles, unless irregular lot layout require alternative orientations, and provides that such alternative orientations shall be subject to approval by the city planner.
The applicant has applied for two concurrent variances, one to exceed the maximum corner side setback for portions of the project, and one to deviate from a parallel orientation for that same portion of the project.
The lot in question is part of the recently platted Cedar Meadows Development. It is located on the northeast corner of the intersection of North Ave. and Bluebell Rd. It includes a 427-foot frontage along North Ave. (southern property line) and an 189-foot frontage along Bluebell Rd. (western property line). The proposed structure includes a 76-foot, 3-story facade along Bluebell Rd. and a 207-foot 1-3-story facade along North Ave. with an outdoor patio space located above the 1-story portion.
The lot is generally rectangular, though the northern property line includes a “zig-zag” where an existing wetland has been preserved. The lot also includes a 20-foot-wide trail easement along the southern and northern boundaries, a 15-foot-wide trail easement along the eastern boundary, and a 35-foot-wide electrical utility easement along a portion of the southern boundary at the eastern edge. To the east and north, the site is bounded by an existing wetland and city stormwater pond accompanied by a multi-use trail.
The city planner determined that the lot layout was not adequately irregular to require an alternative building orientation.
The proposed building features two wings at obtuse angles from a larger central, linear “core.” The developer has proposed locating the building with one wing in the southwest corner of the lot, such that it is parallel to the adjacent streets. The design and positioning of the building results in a building that generally extends from the southwest to the northeast from that corner as it makes two subsequent bends away from North Ave. To mitigate the impact on North Ave., the applicant has added a single-story addition along the south of the building that creates a wall running parallel to the property line for approximately 200 feet.
The positioning and orientation conflicts with the requirement that the building be located parallel to the associated street, and creates a corner-side setback that extends beyond the required maximum 25 feet by approximately 175 feet. The proposed design is the result of the Applicant’s attempt to address the above issues raised by staff at a series of preliminary application meetings beginning in May of 2026. The project has been planned since as early as June 2024, where it was identified in a housing study conducted as part the Comprehensive Plan update. The final plat and development agreement were finalized in early 2026.
The applicant cites several factors in attempting to establish a practical difficulty. First, is the presence of the trail easement and the electrical utility easement along the southern property boundary. Second is the grade of the site, which includes a change in elevation of approximately 11 feet over 427 linear feet, resulting in an average slope of approximately 2.3%, though about 4 feet of elevation change is located within 25 feet of the western property boundary. Third are City access restrictions that limit access to the site. The applicant also cites the provision of separate entrances for at-grade apartments as creating a difficulty. A narrative from the applicant is attached.
Staff Recommendation:
Staff has provided two draft resolutions for consideration by the ZBA, one approving, and another denying the variance request, so that the ZBA may exercise its judgement in considering the requests. Based on the preliminary presentation to the Planning Commission by the applicant, staff determined that while it was noted that a variance establishes a high bar, there was a diversity of opinions and an openness to discussing the merits of the request.
Both draft resolutions are attached.
The same has been prepared for the concurrent variance, and staff recommends that the ZBA consider both in tandem, and that both requests receive the same outcome.
The case for denial is technically sound. However, holding the site to a strict interpretation of the LDC provisions could result in a final project less aligned with the intent and purpose of the LDC. As demonstrated by the Kraewood apartment project, and the proposed Heritage Lofts, where underground parking is provided, it is common to have essentially a large blank wall comprises a significant portion of the façade at the pedestrian level. Where underground parking is not provided, a larger surface lot is required to accommodate the same number of units. In considering hypothetical alternatives for the site, such a design would technically meet these requirements, but would likely be more detrimental to the goal of creating a pedestrian friendly environment. It is also possible that a smaller building, that created larger gaps in the street wall along North Ave., would meet the LDC’s requirements.
The proposed project also meets certain Comprehensive Plan and Strategic Plan goals, including building more housing and increasing density. It also incorporates pro-social design elements and multiple pedestrian connections to the adjacent trails.
The case for approval may be less clear, though there is a case to be made. The Land Development Code is not a perfect tool, and its strict applicant can result in projects that do not meaningfully accomplish, or even contradict, its stated goals. While there are interpretations of the code that undermine the applicant’s claims of difficulty, there is also room for an interpretation that establishes it, and several difficulties of the project are established by adherence to “preferences” within the code.
Due to these considerations, staff are making no further recommendation.
City Plans & Policies Relevance:
Community engagement for the 2045 Comprehensive Plan revealed a strong desire within the community to provide affordable places to live in walkable areas with access to services like groceries. It also revealed that Northfield residents care deeply about protecting the environment, preserving open space, and developing a fiscally responsible manner.
These community desires were translated into series of strategies and actions. Specific strategies addressed by the proposed project and variance request are addressed in Criterion (b) of the required findings incorporated in the attached draft resolution.
The City’s Strategic Plan prioritizes building new housing, which the project would advance.
Alternative Options:
The ZBA may deny the request or approve a modified resolution for a variance. The ZBA is required to make findings that support their action.
Financial Impacts:
NA
Tentative Timelines:
A Site Plan Review is currently underway and is largely contingent on the outcome of the variance hearings.