HomeMy WebLinkAboutPL PACKET 05182015CITY OF SAINT ANTHONY VILLAGE
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AGENDA
� hey May 18, 2015
1 la
(y COUNCIL CHAMBERS
7:00 PM
Call to Order.
Pledge of Allegiance.
Roll Call.
Consideration, discussion, and possible action on all of the following items:
Approval of the May 18, 2015 Planning Commission Meeting Agenda. (action requested)
II. Approval of the January 26, 2015 Regular Planning Commission Meeting Minutes.
III. Public Hearing.
A. Consider a request for a variance from the required side and rear yard setback for pool mechanical
equipment and a variance to exceed the permitted lot coverage to construct a pool and patio in the rear yard
of the property located at 2926 Armour Terrace.
B. Consider request for a conditional use permit to allow for an establishment primarily for the sale of alcohol
for consumption on the premises located at 3701 Stinson Boulevard and to allow a restaurant within 250 feet
of a residential area.
C. Consider a request for a variance from the required side and rear yard setback to construct a detached
garage on the property located at 2832 Coolidge St NE.
D. Consider code text amendment to Section 152.187 of City Code to allow for solar energy systems on
residential structures, and provide standards for such installations.
IV. Staff Reports.
A. GTS Training Session
V. Other Business.
VI. Community Forum.
Individuals may address the City Council about any item not included on the regular agenda. Speakers are requested to come to the podium, sign
their name and address on the form at the podium, state their name and address for the Clerk's record, and limit their remarks to five minutes.
Generally, the City Council will not take official action on items discussed at this time, but may typically refer the matter to staff for a future report or
direct the matter to be scheduled on an upcoming agenda.
VII. Information and Announcements.
VIII. Adjournment.
Our Mission is to be a progressive and livable community, a walkable village, which is sustainable, safe and secure.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
CITY OF ST. ANTHONY
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
JANUARY 26, 2015
7:00 p.m.
CALL TO ORDER.
Chairperson Crone called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE.
Chairperson Crone invited the Commission and the audience to join her in the Pledge of Allegiance.
ROLL CALL.
Commissioners Present: Chairperson Crone, Commissioners Bartel, Foster, Gondorchin,
Heinis, Papatola, and Poucher.
Absent: None.
Also Present: City Planner Kelsey Johnson and City Attorney Lindgren.
I. ORGANIZATIONAL BUSINESS.
Chairperson Crone noted that the City Council appointed her to serve as Chair and Dan Bartel
as Vice Chair for the 2015 term.
II. APPROVAL OF THE JANUARY 26, 2015, PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
AGENDA.
Motion by Commissioner Heinis, seconded by Commissioner Bartel, to approve the January
26, 2015, Planning Commission agenda as presented.
Motion carried unanimously.
III. APPROVAL OF THE NOVEMBER 24, 2014, REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION
MEETING MINUTES.
Motion by Commissioner Bartel, seconded by Commissioner Papatola, to approve the
November 24, 2014, Regular Planning Commission Meeting Minutes.
Motion carried 4-0-3 (Crone, Foster, and Gondorchin abstain).
IV. PUBLIC HEARING.
A. REQUEST — Request from Timothy J. Keane on behalf of Muxamedrashid Ali and
Mr. Michael Medina on behalf of the Property Owner, St. Anthony Business Center
Corporation, for a Rezoning from LI — Light Industrial to PUD — Planned Unit
Development to permit the following land uses on the Property located at 3055 Old
Highway 8 (PID 0602923410140 and PID 0602923410139)
Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes
January 26, 2015
Page 2
1 City Planner Johnson explained that Timothy Keane, on behalf of the property owner, has
2 submitted a request for rezoning of the property located at 3055 Old Highway 8 and provided
3 background information regarding the request including the settlement agreement reached
4 with the United States Department of Justice. She explained that the application includes
5 creation of a PUD overlay district with permitted use of religious assembly at times chosen by
6 the property owner limited to the lower level consisting of 11,655 square feet and a portion of
7 the main level consisting of 1,286 square feet for a total of 12,941 square feet of the
8 approximate 105,000 square feet in the building. She explained that the 2012 application
9 indicates the religious assembly use would need a total of 105 parking spaces given the
10 number of people that would occupy the use, plus four parking spaces for staff, or 109 parking
11 spaces; in addition, staff determined that 139 additional seats would be permitted through the
12 use of the lounge area requiring an additional 56 spaces, for a total of 165 parking spaces
13 required for the religious assembly use. She noted that staff used the calculations for the
14 City's industrial uses, which require one space per every 1,000 square feet of building floor
15 area, subtracting 12,000 square feet for the religious assembly use, resulting in 91 additional
16 parking spaces, however, because of the day care CUP, an adjustment was made for the
17 parking spaces for that use resulting in 89 spaces for the remainder of building, or 268 total
18 spaces required for all uses and there are 283 parking spaces that exist on the site. She noted
19 that the applicant has indicated if the dimensions of the parking spaces were reduced to meet
20 City standards, there could be 303 total parking spaces on site and staff recommends that a
21 parking analysis be performed to ensure that adequate parking exists if the parking lot is
22 restriped. She stated there are two separate parcels on this site and staff recommends
23 approving a lot combination pursuant to the City's subdivision regulations. She stated that
24 staff also recommends that the City review any change in occupancy within the building to
25 make sure adequate parking exists on the site to accommodate uses in the building. She
26 advised that staff also recommends that a traffic/parking study be performed within one year
27 of issuance of an occupancy permit to determine if adequate parking exists or if the parking
28 area needs to be restriped and that only vehicles accessory to permitted uses be allowed to
29 park in the parking lot and that no external vehicles would be allowed to rent space. She
30 advised that no signage plans have been submitted, however, all signage must comply with
31 Ch. 155 of the City Code. She explained that creation of the PUD rezones the property from
32 LI to PUD overlay with a LI underlying zoning district and also approves the preliminary and
33 final PUD plans.
34
35 Chairperson Crone opened the public hearing at 7:17 p.m.
36
37 Ms. Barbara Huso, 3101 Croft, requested clarification regarding uses of the parking lot and
38 stated there are semi trucks in the parking lot and there have been trailers coming and going in
39 the lot. She asked if these vehicles would be allowed when the PUD is approved.
40
41 Mr. Steve Goemer, 3424 3 I st Avenue, stated it was his understanding there is enough parking
42 and they should not see overflow parking in the street. He asked what the City is going to do
43 if that is not the case and there is overflow parking in the neighborhood. He stated he has also
44 seen the semi trailers unloading cars and other vehicles in the parking lot and asked if they are
45 going to be allowed to displace parking onto the City streets.
46
Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes
January 26, 2015
Page 3
Ms. Joanne Griffin, 3044 Croft, requested more information about other potential businesses
or activities in the building particularly related to clinics.
4 Ms. Nicki Carlson, on behalf of Abu-Huraira Islamic Center, explained that she manages the
5 building and they rented 50 parking spaces this winter to Cedar Towing because they have
6 been struggling to pay the building costs but the building tenants did not like it so they have
7 terminated the lease with Cedar Towing. She stated that they will abide by all City laws
8 related to overflow parking and if anyone visits the building and parks in a no parking zone,
9 they should be towed. She stated this is their first time owning a building and figuring out the
10 best use of the building as well as ingress/egress issues, etc., and they have reached out to all
11 the major health systems to see if they want to rent a floor in the building, adding that any
12 clinic would be open to the public. She stated there was a misunderstanding about a wellness
13 facility and there will be no wellness facility for tenants. She apologized to the neighbors
14 about their concerns with the parking lot and encouraged residents to call her if they have
15 questions or concerns.
16
17 Commissioner Bartel asked when the religious assembly would have the highest demand for
18 parking and whether that would overlap with any of the business tenants. He also asked about
19 current occupancy of the building.
20
21 Ms. Carlson stated there are approximately 300 parking spots and they have never come close
22 to using 100 parking spots. She explained that every Friday around 1:15-1:30 p.m., Muslims
23 are called to pray together so they would start parking around 12:30-1:00 and then the cars
24 would be gone by 3:00 p.m. and this parking would not interfere with the daily comings and
25 goings in the lot. She stated they could also mark the parking lot to limit parking past the first
26 10 or 20 spots for prayers on Fridays. She added she could not imagine that the mosque
27 would ever fill up and if it does, then they would restripe the parking lot. She stated the long
28 building is 100% full and the tower building is almost empty, with the first floor about 2/3 full
29 and the 2nd and 3rd floors are empty. She stated that tenants include IT work, staffing services,
30 engineers, an organization that trains mental health providers, a medical transportation
31 company, and cab companies.
32
33 Commissioner Foster asked if they anticipate any parking issues with Friday prayers when the
34 building is 100% occupied.
35
36 Ms. Carlson stated she could not imagine the Friday prayers filling the parking lot.
37
38 Commissioner Gondorchin asked about occupancy limits.
39
40 City Planner Johnson advised the applicant stated in its 2012 submittal a total of 261,
41 however, the Fire Marshal will need to review the rooms allocated for the specific use to
42 determine occupancy and compliance with the Fire Code.
43
44 Chairperson Crone referenced a letter submitted for the public hearing and included as part of
45 the public record.
46
Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes
January 26, 2015
Page 4
Chairperson Crone closed the public hearing at 7:40 p.m.
3 Commissioner Poucher asked if a future owner of the property would be allowed to have a
4 religious assembly use in the same location.
6 City Planner Johnson replied that the religious assembly use would go with the property and
7 would transfer to a new property owner.
9 City Attorney Lindgren explained that a PUD is a rezoning and a new category for this land is
10 being established.
11
12 Motion by Commissioner Papatola, seconded by Commissioner Bartel, to recommend that the
13 City Council approve Ordinance Creating the 2015-01 PUD — Planned Unit Development
14 Overlay Zoning District Associated with the Property located at 3055 Old Highway 8 (PID
15 0602923410140 and PID 0602923410139).
16
17 Motion carried unanimously.
18
19 V. STAFF REPORTS.
20
21 A. REQUEST — Request from Joel Janssen for a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) to Allow
22 a Restaurant to be located Less than 250 Feet from a Residentially Zoned District and
23 Variance from the Minimum Required Parking Stalls on the Property Located at 2510
24 Kenzie Terrace (Tabled from the December 9, 2014, City Council Meeting).
25
26 City Planner Johnson presented background information regarding the request for a CUP and
27 variance for 2510 Kenzie Terrace and stated that the City Council requested the Planning
28 Commission review potential conditions to restrict hours of operation for the restaurant as
29 well as screening along the south portion of the property. She reviewed the proposed hours of
30 operation submitted by the applicant and stated that the Planning Commission could consider
31 limiting the hours of operation for the dine -in portion to 10:00 p.m. every night and require
32 that all delivery vehicles park on the north side of the building to minimize headlight glare to
33 the residential area to the south. She advised there are two access points onto Lowry Avenue
34 to the south of the building and an opaque fence between those access points along the
35 southern portion of the property. She stated there is a parking lot to the east with six parking
36 spaces facing toward the south, however, one or two of those spaces do not align with the
37 opaque fence or mature trees. She presented a map depicting the access points and several
38 pictures of the surrounding area and stated that the Planning Commission could add a
39 condition requiring additional screening between the easternmost access and where the fence
40 stops in order to mitigate headlight glare. She noted that the City would need to maintain
41 sight lines and review the screening to ensure public safety for pedestrians and vehicles
42 coming to and from the property. She stated that the Planning Commission could require
43 additional natural landscaping for screening consisting of coniferous shrubs or trees in a
44 quantity and height sufficient to visually screen as much of the parking lot as possible, adding
45 that all screening must comply with the City's vision triangle standards to ensure adequate
46 sight lines.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes
January 26, 2015
Page 5
Commissioner Heinis asked Mr. Janssen if he would be interested in having the option to stay
open later on New Years Eve or other holidays if the holiday falls during the week.
Mr. Janssen replied he would like the option of being able to stay open until 1:00 a.m. on
those days.
Commissioner Poucher stated it appears the majority of parking and traffic occurs on the
north side and it seems logical to put some screening on the median to prevent glare.
Mr. Janssen stated he has no problem with screening but was concerned about the south
entrance and being able to see pedestrians and oncoming traffic. He stated when you come
out on Kenzie Terrace, the landscaping there right now makes it hard to see traffic going
westbound.
Commissioner Poucher indicated there is still a big gap where that incoming curb cut is
located and the bushes only block the headlights to a certain point. He was not sure if a fence
or something solid in this area would completely block out headlights from hitting the
neighbors but felt it might mitigate some of the issues.
Commissioner Papatola stated he was sensitive to Commissioner Poucher's concern but was
hesitant to recommend an alternation without knowing what the impacts could be.
Motion by Commissioner Papatola, seconded by Commissioner Heinis, to direct staff to
prepare a list of acceptable holidays during which the business may be open additional hours
for delivery.
Motion carried unanimously.
Motion by Commissioner Poucher to direct staff to amend the conditions to include the
addition of a fence or wood screening 3' in height to be located on the median on the east side
of the building and with additional natural screening on the east side boundary of the property.
Motion failed for lack of a second.
Motion by Commissioner Bartel, seconded by Commissioner Papatola, to recommend that the
City Council approve the required screening as suggested by staff and outlined in the
resolution.
Motion carried unanimously.
VI. OTHER BUSINESS.
A. CONSIDER APPROVAL — 2015 Planning Commission Meeting Schedule
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes
January 26, 2015
Page 6
Motion by Commissioner Poucher, seconded by Commissioner Bartel, to approve the 2015
Planning Commission meeting schedule.
Motion carried unanimously.
B. CONSIDER APPROVAL — 2015 Planning Commission Work Plan
Motion by Commissioner Gondorchin, seconded by Commissioner Poucher, to approve the
2015 Planning Commission Work Plan.
Motion carried unanimously.
II. COMMUNITY FORUM
None.
VIII. INFORMATION AND ANNOUNCEMENTS.
Chairperson Crone reported she attended the annual goal setting and strategic planning
session with the City Council and advised that the 2015 pyramid will be presented at the joint
Planning Commission/City Council meeting in March. She also announced the vacancy on
the City Council and encouraged all interested commissioners and residents to apply, adding
that applications are due Wednesday, February 4, 2015, at 12:00 noon.
IX. ADJOURNMENT.
Chairperson Crone adjourned the meeting at 8:08 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Barbara Hughes
(TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc.)
5thony
ain
illa e C�
MEMORANDUM
To: St. Anthony Village Planning Commission
From: Breanne Rothstein, AICP, City Planner
Date: May 11, 2015
Planning Commission Regular Meeting for May 18, 2015
WSB Project No. 02170-170
Request: Request for a variance from the required impervious surface maximum of
35% lot coverage and a variance from the side and rear yard setback
requirements for the location of pool equipment
RECOMMENDATION
The Applicant's request for a variance to allow for the construction a pool, pool deck, and expansion of
the patio area is not reasonable, given the extent of the proposed impervious surface (63%). The
request to locate the pool equipment closer than permitted to the side and rear property line is not
reasonable, given the opportunity to locate the equipment in a conforming location. Therefore, staff
recommends denial of the variance to exceed impervious surface maximum and to encroach into the
side and rear yard setback.
GENERAL INFORMATION
Applicant/Owner: Jeff Carlson
Location: 2926 Armour Terrace
Existing Land Use / Low Density Residential/zoned: R-1; Single Family Residential
Zoning:
Surrounding Land North: Low Density Residential / Zoned R-1- Single Family Residential
Use / Zoning: East: Low Density Residential / Zoned R-1- Single Family Residential
South: Low Density Residential / Zoned R-1- Single Family Residential
West: Low Density Residential / Zoned R-1- Single Family Residential
Deadline for Agency Application Date: 04-24-15
Action: 60 Days: 06-23-15
Letter Sent: No
120 Days: 08-22-15
CONSIDERATIONS RELATING TO THE PROPOSED VARIANCE
1. Background
The Applicants wish to construct a pool, hot tub, pool deck, patio, and new studio on the property
located at 2926 Armour Terrace. According to the submitted plans, the proposed impervious
surface coverage is 63 percent, including the area of pervious pavers. The current property exceeds
May 11, 2015
Page 2
the impervious surface limitations, and this plan proposes to increase the lot coverage by 1,738
square feet, resulting in a total square footage of 6,164 square foot, of 63 percent of the lot area.
Also, the location of the pool equipment is shown to be located approximately 5 feet from the side
and rear property line, resulting in a need for a variance to the required 10 foot side and rear yard
setback.
2. Applicable Codes.
Title XV Land Usage, Chapter 152 Zoning Code, Section §150.05 to 150.058 SWIMMING POOLS apply
to this development project. Section 150.052 c. (1) requires a ten foot setback for pool equipment
from all property lines.
Additionally, Section 152.039 (H) of the zoning chapter also applies, which limits lot coverage to 35
percent on lots greater than 9,000 square feet in size.
Title XV Land Usage, Chapter 152 Zoning Code, Section §152.245 VARIANCES (A) Application states
that "An owner of property with an existing structure which does not comply with the zoning code,
or of property on which such a structure is proposed to be constructed, may apply for a variance
upon payment of the fee specified in Chapter 33".
3. Criteria for and Consistency with Criteria for Variance Approval. Title XV Land Usage, Chapter 152
Zoning Code, Section §152.245, (C) Evidence, lists the criteria the City Council must consider in
determining whether to grant or deny a variance. The applicable criteria include:
1. The subject matter of the application is within the scope of this section.
The application for a variance to lot coverage and setbacks are eligible subject matter for
variance criteria because these factors are related to dimensional and/or bulk standards.
Criterion met.
2. Strict enforcement would cause practical difficulties because:
a. The property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted
by the Zoning code;
The property owners propose to use the property in a way that is not reasonable. The
current property already exceeds the lot coverage maximum, and the proposed project
will significantly add to the imperviousness of the lot, resulting in a coverage of 63
percent. The construction of the pool could be accommodated with no substantial
increase in impervious surface, if some hard cover is removed from the patio or
driveway area to accommodate the increase in hard cover resulting from a pool deck.
Criterion not met.
b. The plight of the property owner is due to circumstances unique to the property not
created by the property owner;
The property constraints are caused by the desire of the property owner to have a pool
and large deck, and to locate the pool equipment in a more advantageous location for
the deck layout. The need for the variances is caused by the property owner. Criterion
not met.
c. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality; and
Granting of this variance will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. The
proposed pool would be located behind a fence. Furthermore, since all of the
May 11, 2015
Page 3
improvements are proposed in the backyard, a pool would not be out of the ordinary in
a residential neighborhood Criterion met.
d. Economic considerations alone are not the basis of the practical difficulties.
The basis for the practical difficulties is the existing presence of lot coverage and the
property owner's desire to enhance the livability of the backyard. While economic
considerations are a factor, as the value of the home will probably increase as a result of
the proposed project, it is not perceived that they are the sole basis of the practical
difficulty. Criterion met.
3. The variance, if granted, would be consistent with the City's comprehensive land use plan.
If the variance is granted the use of the property would remain the same land use as it is today,
single-family residential. The comprehensive plan guides this area for single-family use and the
proposed pool project will not alter that land use. However, Section 5-7 of the Comprehensive
Plan incorporates the Surface Water Management Plan, which sets forth policies related to the
management and limitation of water run-off on residential properties. Therefore, granting of
the variance related to lot coverage would not be consistent with the goals and policies of the
Comprehensive Plan. Criterion not met.
4. The granting of the variance is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the zoning
code.
The intent of the zoning code is to protect the health, safety, and general welfare of the city and
its people through the establishment of minimum regulations governing land development and
use. The zoning code is established to: protect the use districts; promote orderly development
and redevelopment; provide adequate light, air, and access to property; prevent congestion in
the public streets; prevent overcrowding of land and undue concentration of structures by
regulating land, buildings, yards, and densities; and provide for compatibility of different land
uses.
Given all the factors, this application is not in keeping with the intent of the ordinance to protect
the use districts or promote orderly development because stormwater management is a critical
issue in St. Anthony and the city has flooding issues. Allowing increases in impervious surface on
this lot will contribute to the amount of water in the stormwater system and while one property
probably will not significant increase flooding, staff believes granting such a variance is not in
keeping with the intent of the ordinance related to impervious surface coverage limitations.
With regard to the setback variance request, requiring pool equipment to be located 10 feet
from side property lines is intended to protect the neighbor from excess noise from such
systems, and staff does not believe it is keeping with such intent to grant this variance. Criterion
not met.
POSSIBLE ACTIONS
1. Recommend Denial of the Variances. Staff recommends denial of both variances, based on
the findings and draft resolution in Exhibit D.
2. Recommend Approval (with or without conditions) of the Variances. In the event of a
recommendation for approval (with or without conditions), the Planning Commission may state
its findings and any conditions related to approval.
Request Additional Information and Continue the Public Hearing. The Applicant appears to have
provided enough information for the Planning Commission to make a recommendation to
approve or deny the request. Should the Planning Commission request additional information
May 11, 2015
Page 4
from the Applicant, the Planning Commission should continue the public hearing until a later
time.
ATTACHMENTS
Exhibit A: Location map
Exhibit B: Application and Supporting Material
Exhibit C: Site Photos
Exhibit D: Draft Resolution of Denial
2926 Armour Terrace
I in=50ft
May 8, 2015
Map by: WSB & Associates
015
r
3301 Silver Lake Road
St. Anthony Village, Minnesota 55418
Office: (612) 782-3301
Fax: (612) 782-3302
www.cl.saint-antbony.Mn.us
Address of Property Involved: 9a
Property ID Number: 0
Legal Description: rtt- '7--,-
Applicant
T-
Applicant Information
Applicant Name: C�i, IY
Applicant Address: 199,2E Q„_-. _
For Office Use Only -
Planning File Number
Project Number —�
Application Submittal Date
Application Completed Date
Fee Paid
Receipt Number
Planning Commission
Meeting Date
Council Decision —�
Council Decision Date
oT 0/7 131, c& ooS
Applicant Telephone Number:o�AV . ox6
Other: �ofar' av$ _ Oo 3
Applicant Fax Number
Applicant Email Address: c,c�l q ,,
poo- k c
Property Information
Property Owner (if different from above): -
Owner Address:
Owner Telephone Number:
Owner Email Address:
Type of Request (Check All that
❑ Appeal ($100 fee)
❑ Comprehensive Plan Amendment ($750 fee + $1,500
escrow if residential; $3,500 escrow if
c o m m e rc i a l/in d ustrial )
❑ Conditional Use Permit (CUP) ($200 fee+$450 escrow if
residential; $850 escrow if commercial/industrial)
❑ Easement Vacation ($200 fee + $500 escrow)
❑ Preliminary Plat ($500 fee + $500 escrow)
❑ Final Plat ($500 fee + $500 escrow)
(c
❑ Minor Subdivision/Lot Split ($250 fee+ $1,250
escrow)
❑ Planned Unit Development (PUD) ($750 fee +
$2,500 escrow)
❑ Rezoning ($500 fee + $750 escrow)
❑ Zoning Text Amendment ($500 fee + $750 escrow)
❑ Site Plan ($250 fee + $450 escrow)
P/Variance ($200 fee + $450 escrow if residential,
$850 escrow if commercial/industrial)
Our Mission is to be a progressive and livable community, a walkable village, which is sustainable, safe and secure.
Application for Variance to the City of St. Anthony
Jeff and Nona Carlson
2926 Armour Terrace
St. Anthony, MN 55418
St. Anthony — Land Usage:
The subject matter of the application is within the scope of this section. We are
requesting a variance in order to install an in -ground pool on our property at 2926
Armour Terrace.
Strict enforcement of the land use ordinance would cause practical difficulties because
we propose to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by the zoning code.
Our property at 2926 Armour Terrace, through no efforts of our own, has already
exceeded the maximum amount of impervious surface allowed on a single lot (35%) for a
single-family home in St. Anthony.
The plight of the property owners is due to circumstances unique to the property not
created by the property owners. The existing footprint of our property, as well as the
subsequent sidewalk and driveway, were established in 1955 when our home was built
and the ordinance was passed in 2008, three years after we purchased the property in
2005.
The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality, and in fact,
will improve the essential character and quality by increasing the value of our home,
which in turn increases the property value of the surrounding homes in the neighborhood.
We have hired an architect who has developed a comprehensive plan to include
landscaping, green areas, and pervious patio surface in order to maximize ground water
retention and minimize run-off.
Economic considerations are not at all the basis of the practical difficulties.
The variance, if granted, would be consistent with the city's comprehensive land use plan
and is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the zoning code in that we, the
property owners, will create pervious space around the pool wherever possible and
necessary. Due to continuous drainage issues on our property, which necessitated a sump
pump installation last fall, we originally planned to pour concrete over much of the area
around the pool*, allowing for landscaping and green space. After being made aware of
the city's ordinance, however, we had our design modified to include pervious pavers.
(See attached plan.)
*A minimum bib of three feet of concrete is required around the perimeter of the pool.
Five feet is recommended for support, stability, and longevity of the pool.
The variance also aligns with the city's vision outlined in the City of St. Anthony
Comprehensive Plan 2008, section 2.
Land Use Plan
In the neighborhoods, owners will continue to enlarge and remodel their
properties as those houses are reaching 50 years of age and a new wave of
youngfamilies will be moving into the community.
These and other improvements will help the City of St. Anthony Village live up
to its name.
In addition, the city's comprehensive plan includes the following:
Encourage expanded choices in housing location and types, and
improved access to jobs and opportunities -Section 1-5 under
Community ProFle
• a Plan for and guide infill development, redevelopment, and adaptive reuse
of structures to diversify housing, connect housing and jobs, and integrate new
development into existing neighborhoods. *
• • Adopt and pursue reinvestment strategies to achieve housing goals of the
Metropolitan Land Planning Act and Livable Communities Act.
• ff Encourage the preservation of existing neighborhoods and expansion of
housing choices within the city. *
• ■ Adopt ordinances to increase lifecycle and affordable housing (examples:
increased multi family use, reduced front and interior setback requirements;
cluster development ordinances). *
In the ten years since we purchased our home, we have seen additions constructed to
older existing homes, changing the footprint and increasing impervious space on small
lots. We have also seen smaller, older homes demolished and new, larger homes erected
on small lots, which also increases the amount of impervious space.
The City of St. Anthony Comprehensive Plan 2008, contains the following declaration
with regard to housing conditions and improvement to property:
Housing Conditions
2
Physical housing conditions in St. Anthony are generally good, with minor amounts of
deferred maintenance and very little severe deterioration. The housing stock is an
average of 50 years old and, thus, has not reached the point where major renovation is
needed Household incomes in the community has been generally moderate to high,
which has enabled owners to maintain their properties adequately. The private market
has been generally very effective at remedying problems related to physical conditions.
Also, there have been few instances of incompatible land use relationships that might
lead to disinvestment
St. Anthony has taken the following actions to promote the development of new
affordable housing units:
• Approved variances for lot width and lot area
We have made dramatic changes and improvements to our home, but have not modified
its footprint. If we were to do so, we would need to apply for a variance for the same
reasons we must apply for one in order to install a pool. Families in the community make
improvements to their properties for various reasons: to accommodate a growing family,
to add to the quality of life in and outside their homes, to create spaces that serve the
needs of their growing children and foster family and community. Our desire to add a
pool aligns with the city's vision to—enlarge and remodel properties... as well as our
values as a family and as members of this community in that as our children grow, their
desire for activity increases, and their boundaries stretch. It is our desire to create a space
where our teenage children want to be, and where their friends want to be — a fun and
safe place to land in The Village.
Thank you for your consideration.
Jeff and Nona Carlson
3
Description of the Request (OR a separate detailed narrative explaining the project):
r,
Filing and Information Requirements
The City requests that you make a pre -application meeting with the City Planner to discuss the application process,
requirements, and deadlines. Unless waived by the City Planner or Planning Commission, a certified survey of the
property is required for all applications. A checklist with additional requirements can be found at www.ci.saint-
anthonv.mn.us.
Incomplete Applications and Submission Deadline
A complete land use application (including all required fees and escrows) must be received at least 30 days prior to the
meeting of the Planning Commission or City Council meeting at which the request will be heard. Submission of an
incomplete application may delay the processing of your land use request. The application approval time commences
and an application is considered officially filed when the City Planner has received and examined the application and
determined that the application is complete. A decision on whether the application is complete or incomplete shall be
made within fifteen (15) working days following the submittal of the application. When the application is deemed to be
"complete" it shall be placed on the agenda of the first possible Planning Commission meeting provided that all required
public notices have been sent and published. Upon submission of a complete application, state statute requires that a
decision be issued within 60 days regarding each request; however, a 60 -day extension may be obtained if more time is
needed.
Notice of Meeting Attendance
In order for the Planning Commission and the City Council to consider any application, the applicant or a designated
representative must be present at the scheduled meeting. If not, the matter may be tabled until the next available
agenda.
Agenda Deadline and Meeting Schedule
Planning Commission meetings are typically held on the fourth Monday of every month at 7:00 p.m., while City Council
meetings are held typically the second and fourth Tuesday of every month at 7:00 p.m. Meeting dates and times are
subject to change so please contact City Hall to verify the meeting date and time. All meetings are held at the St.
Anthony Community Center in the Council Chambers, 3301 Silver Lake Road, St. Anthony, Minnesota 55418, unless
otherwise stated. Applications are advised that additional meetings and/or workshops are scheduled when necessary.
Acknowledgement and Signature
I acknowledge that I have read all of the information listed in the City of St. Anthony Village Land Use Application and
fully understand that I am responsible for all costs incurred by the City related to the processing of this application. If
additional fees are required to cover costs incurred from processing of the application, the City has the right to require
additional payment from one or more of the undersigned, who shall be jointly liable for such fees. Such expenses may
include (but are not limited to) direct city payroll and overhead costs, fees paid to consultants and other professionals,
and the cost of printing, mailing, and supplies. Applicants are advised that an escrow deposit is required at the time of
the submittal of the land use application to offset costs associated with the proposed project. Unused portions of an
escrow are returned to the applicant upon successful implementation of an approved plan. I understand that approval
from other agencies may be required before commencement with the stated project.
/ / 3 /S'
Signature (Required)
Date
Applicant Signature (If different than the property owner) Date
Please contact the City Planner at 763-287-8521 or
planner@ci.saint-anthony.mn.us if you have any questions regarding this application.
May 2013
n" S j( Tq
f
U
� o
wF
U
Y � N
U w
Owl
3f
tiw..
i
F ? 0
0 0
�wx
s�
u�
a
Q
3
O
Z
}
Z
Q
O
�w
_>
�
O
s o
Oo
m �=
XoQ�
W"Ua
0 LL
LL
J W �
� o
J
€
Q
(Y
H
w
N
�
Y
U
O
�
O
D
O
I
=
i
w
i
(n
i
Q
00
n
o
a
�
f �
i
LJ
O Z
io ��OJ
i
C -
O
O
o
i
Cf)
(n co w
..� Z
cr)
i
o Ln Q
7 — <
> j w..
rn
>,O>
_.._.._.._.._.._.._.._.._.._.
.._..._.._........ ............................
....... 1
r
Ch
O
&
F
a-
W
x� 00-D
x
Dw
—
Q Z N
J
s a
�aQa
o
U) O w
Oxc�Oa
_
o
EXHIBIT - D:
CITY OF ST. ANTHONY VILLAGE
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION APPROVING A VARIANCE FROM THE REQUIRED REAR
AND SIDE YARD SETBACKS IN ORDER TO CONSTRUCT A NEW GARAGE 1
FOOT FROM SIDE AND REAR PROPERTY LINE ALONG THE ALLEY OF
THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2832 COOLIDGE STREET NE
WHEREAS, the City of St. Anthony Village received a request from the
Applicant Kevin Burns for a variance from the rear and side setback to allow for the
construction of a new garage at the property located at 2832 Coolidge Street, NE on April
23, 2015, legally described as follows:
Lot 003, Block 002, Murray Heights Addition to Minneapolis, Hennepin County, Minnesota
WHEREAS, the property located at 2832 Coolidge St, NE is located within the
City's R1 Zoning District; and
WHEREAS, a 5 -foot rear and side yard setback is required within the R1 Zoning
District for detached garages; and
WHEREAS, the Applicant has requested a 4 -foot variance from the rear and a 4 -
foot variance from the side yard setback to allow for the construction of a new garage
located 1 foot from both the side and rear property line; and
WHEREAS, the existing garage is located 1 -foot from the north property line;
and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission acting as the Board of Adjustments and
Appeals, reviewed and considered the request based on the related documents shown in
the Applicant's application in a public hearing at their regular meeting on May 18, 2015;
and
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of
St. Anthony Village approves the Applicant's variance request based on the following
findings:
1. The requested variance is consistent with all the standards for granting a
variance as described in Section § 152.245 of the St. Anthony Village Zoning
Code. More specifically, the City Council finds that the requested variance is
justified for the following reasons:
a. The property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner.
b. The existing garage is current 1 foot from the side and rear property line,
rendering it a legal nonconforming structure. Therefore, there is no way
the garage could be expanded and adhere to the City's Zoning Code.
c. Allowing the proposed new garage will have no impact on the essential
character of the locality. In fact upgrading the home with a two -car garage
enhances the neighborhood.
d. The basis for the practical difficulties is that the garage is already
constructed one foot from the rear and side property lines.
e. If the variance is granted the use of the property would remain the same
land use as it is today. The comprehensive plan guides this area for single
family use and adding a larger garage will not alter that use.
f. The proposal would not change the use of the property or create a
disruption to the Single -Family Residential District. The current use as a
single-family home is consistent with the City Code.
g. The proposal seeks to make an improvement to the property by allowing
the property owners to make better use of the garage by expanding it. The
proposal does not increase the non -conformity.
h. The proposal would not negatively impact adequate light or air from
reaching the property or adjacent properties.
i. Allowing the variance is in harmony with the general purposes and intent
of the City's Code relating to preventing congestion in public streets. The
project will have no impact on congestion.
j. Allowing the requested variance will not result in overcrowding of the
land or an undue concentration of structures.
k. Allowing the variance is in harmony with the general purposes and intent
of the City's Code to provide for compatibility of different land uses. The
project will have no impact on land use compatibility.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City Council's
approval of the requested variances is contingent on the following:
1. The Applicant shall obtain all necessary permits and approvals prior to
beginning construction.
2. This variance shall expire one (1) year from the date of the resolution if
the construction of the new garage does not commence. City Council
approval shall be required for an extension.
APPROVED in the regular session of the City Council on 52015.
Jerome O. Faust, Mayor
Attested:
Nicole Miller, City Clerk
ahon �illa eV
MEMORANDUM
To: St. Anthony Village Planning Commission
From: Breanne Rothstein, AICP, City Planner
Date: May 11, 2015
Planning Commission Regular Meeting for May 18, 2015
WSB Project No. 02170-120
Request: Request for a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) to Allow for an Establishment
Primarily for the Sale of Beverages for Consumption on the Premises
located at 3701 Stinson Boulevard
RECOMMENDATION
The Applicant's request for a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) to allow for an establishment primarily for
the sale of beverages for consumption on the premises located at 3701 Stinson Boulevard is consistent
with the intent of the Zoning Ordinance and the City's Comprehensive Plan. Staff recommends approval
of the Applicant's request as outlined in Exhibit C.
GENERAL INFORMATION
Applicant:
SS St. Anthony, LLC
Owners:
Same as above
Location:
3701 Stinson Blvd.
Existing Land Use /
Commercial/zoned: PUD
Zoning:
Surrounding Land North: Undeveloped / Zoned PUD — Planned Unit Development
Use / Zoning: East: High Density Residential / Zoned PUD — Planned Unit Development
South: Commercial / Zoned C — Commercial
West: City of Minneapolis (Commercial and Multi Family Residential)
Deadline for Agency Application Date: 04-10-15
Action: 60 Days: 06-09-15
Letter Sent: N/A
120 Days: 08-08-15
CONSIDERATIONS RELATING TO THE REQUEST
1. Background
The Applicant wishes to open a new neighborhood restaurant and bar in the former IHOP building
located at 3701 Stinson Boulevard. The restaurant would be named "The Unofficial". A conditional
use permit was previously granted in 2010 to allow for the use of the property as a restaurant within
May 11, 2015
Page 2
250 feet of a residential structure or zoning district. The proposed restaurant would still be subject
to those conditions which include:
1. Garbage areas must be enclosed with materials that match the building;
2. Lighting must be "down spill" with no spillage to affect the adjacent residential properties;
3. No music or other artificial noise shall be audible from the restaurant to adjacent residential
properties;
4. The remodel and redevelopment of the property shall conform as closely as possible and
practicable to the Village at St. Anthony design standards and PUD documents.
The newly proposed restaurant tenant wishes to obtain a liquor license which is why the requested
CUP is needed. The site is proposed to be used in accordance with the site plan submitted for the
previous restaurant. The outdoor seating is proposed, and the applicant is aware that a conditional
use permit amendment would be needed to accommodate the addition of outdoor seating. The
underlying zoning for the property, within the greater Planned Unit Development, is Commercial,
which lists "establishments primarily for the sale of beverages for consumption on the premises" as
a conditional use. The Applicant has stated that the beverage menu will focus on craft beers and
seasonal cocktails. The food menu would consist primarily of American food including burgers, fries,
sandwiches, wings, salads and soups among others.
Hours of Operation
Title XI Business Regulations, Chapter 111 Licenses, Permits, and the Like, Section §111.172 HOURS
OF OPERATION states that every recreational establishment within the city must be closed to the
public between the hours of 1:00 a.m. and 5:00 a.m. "Recreational Establishment" includes
restaurants. At this time, the proposed hours of operation would be 11:00 a.m. to 1:00 a.m. The
proposed hours would be similar to the Village Pub, located at 2720 Highway 88, which also has a
CUP to operate within 250 feet of a residential structure or zoning district.
Parking
The City's parking ordinance requires that the number of parking spaces for restaurants be equal to
the total designed seating capacity of the structure divided by 2.5, plus 1 parking space for each
employee on the largest shift. The proposed number of seats in the restaurant is 110 and the
estimated number of employees on the largest shift is 15. Based on this information, a total of 59
parking spaces are required for the proposed use. There are at least 80 parking spaces on the
property, meeting the minimum required for the proposed restaurant.
Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan
The City of St. Anthony Village Comprehensive Plan (2008) guides the subject property for high
density residential on the Future Land Use Plan (Figure 2-5), which is identified as a change from the
Existing Land Use Map (Figure 2-1) which designates the property as currently being used for
commercial use. Although the requested CUP is not consistent with the future land use, the
comprehensive plan states that any land use changes will be initiated by the property owner, not
the City. In addition, a CUP was approved for the property to allow for a restaurant within 250 feet
of a residential structure or district in 2010, following the adoption of the Future Land Use Plan.
Therefore, the Planning Commission may find that it is the intent of the Comprehensive Plan to
support existing land uses based on the current zoning and not on the Future Land Use Plan.
2. Applicable Codes Relating to Conditional Uses.
Title XV Land Usage, Chapter 152 Zoning Code, Section §152.122 PERMITTED CONDITIONAL USES
(WITHIN THE C DISTRICT) (L) states that "Establishments primarily for the sale of beverages for
consumption on the premises" is permitted in the C District only by conditional use permit issued by
the City Council.
May 11, 2015
Page 3
3. Criteria for, and Consistency with, Criteria for Conditional Use Permit (CUP) Approval. Title XV
Land Usage, Chapter 152 Zoning Code, Section §152.243 CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS (C) Application
states that a conditional use permit may be granted only by a majority vote of all members of the
City Council after determining that:
The use is one of the conditional uses specifically listed for the district in which the property is
located,
The property at 3701 Stinson Boulevard is zoned PUD with an underlying zoning of C -
Commercial, which allows "establishments primarily for the sale of beverages for consumption
on the premises" as a permitted conditional use. Within the Commercial District, "Restaurants,
cafeterias, and delicatessens located less than 250 feet from a residential structure or district"
are also a permitted conditional use, for which the property has already obtained the required
CUP. Criterion met.
2. The City Council has specified all conditions which the City Council deems necessary to make the
use compatible with other uses in the area:
Conditions have been described in this report and are included in the draft resolution for
consideration. Criterion met.
Conditions include:
1. All conditions stated in resolution 10-052 approving a conditional use permit for a
restaurant located within 250 feet of a residential structure or district shall remain in full
effect.
The Applicant shall submit the appropriate plans and permits for review and approval
before beginning any construction or other alterations that requires a permit (i.e.
building permit for any interior work, sign permit, electrical permit, plumbing permit,
etc.).
Outdoor seating associated with the restaurant use is not permitted with this
Conditional Use Permit (CUP). If outdoor seating is desired, an amendment to the CUP
allowing a restaurant within 250 feet of a residential district is required.
3. The use will not be detrimental to the health, safety, or general welfare of persons residing or
working in the vicinity or to the values of property in the vicinity; and
Surrounding land uses in the immediate vicinity include undeveloped property to the north, high
density residential to the east, and commercial to the south located on the other side of the rail
road tracks. Property to the west, in the City of Columbia Heights, includes commercial and high
density residential. The site has been used as a restaurant in the past (IHOP and Baker's
Square).
Having the business open until 1 a.m. may have an impact on noise associated with patrons
leaving the restaurant in the morning hours; however, with the proposed conditions outlined in
the staff report and resolution, staff does not believe that the proposed use will be detrimental
to the health, safety, or general welfare of persons residing or working in the vicinity or to the
values of property in the vicinity. The hours of operation and proposed conditions are similar to
those for the Village Pub and Applebee's, which is also within 250 feet of a residential structure
or zoning district. Criterion met.
4. The use will provide a service or a facility which is in the interest of public convenience and will
contribute to the general welfare.
May 11, 2015
Page 4
Having a variety of dining options within a community is a convenience that serves the entire
community and surrounding area. Having dining options that include establishments with a
liquor license is an added benefit to the community when certain criteria are met. Additionally,
the space is currently vacant and therefore the property is underutilized. Adding a restaurant
business will fill the space and add some vibrancy to the area. Criterion met.
CONCLUSIONS
The Property has been utilized as a restaurant in the past and has been in close proximity to adjacent
residential uses. A CUP was previously approved in 2010 to allow for a restaurant within 250 feet of a
residential structure or district. All conditions from the previous CUP will remain in full effect. The
requested CUP is necessary because the restaurant tenant wishes to obtain a liquor license for their
restaurant. A primary concern with this type of use in close proximity to a residential area is noise. City
Code allows for restaurants to be open until 1 a.m. Although noise may potentially be an issue for
restaurant patrons leaving the restaurant late at night, there will be no outdoor seating or activities
allowed with the issuance of this CUP. If outdoor seating or activities were desired in the future, the
Applicant would need to amend the existing CUP. With the conditions from the previous CUP and those
outlined with this CUP, staff does not believe that the proposed use will be detrimental to the health,
safety, or general welfare of persons residing or working in the vicinity or to the values of property in
the vicinity. Staff believes that the proposed use will provide a benefit to the community by providing
another dining option in the community within a building that is currently vacant.
RECOMMENDED ACTION
1. Request Additional Information and Continue the Public Hearing. It appears the Applicant has
provided all of the required information for the Planning Commission's evaluation. Should the
Planning Commission request additional information from the Applicant, the Planning
Commission should continue the public hearing until a later time.
2. Recommend Approval of the Conditional Use Permit. In the event of a recommendation for
approval, the Planning Commission may refer to Exhibit C and may modify the draft resolution
for approval to include any conditions that it deems necessary.
3. Recommend Denial of the Conditional Use Permit. In the event the Planning Commission
chooses denial of the requested CUP, it should clearly state its reasons for the denial
recommendation and direct staff to prepare a resolution.
ATTACHMENTS
Exhibit A: Location map
Exhibit B: Application and Supporting Material
Exhibit C: Draft Resolution of Approval
IN
Exhibit A - Location Map ain th�ouy
A
0 75 150 300
eet 3701 Stinson Boulevard ills eC%
3301 Silver Lake Road
St. Anthony Village, Minnesota 55418
Office: (612) 782-3301
Fax: (612) 782-3302
www.ci.saint-anthony.mn.us
-For Office Use Only -
Planning File Number
Project Number
Application Submittal Date
Application Completed Date
Fee Paid
Receipt Number
Planning Commission
Meeting Date
Council Decision
Council Decision Date
Address of Property Involved: -f)] 0 1 '5V 1 til fwd
Property ID Number: 1.30.3.33. DD 14 1 �O .23 33 0013
Legal Description: Sem 0.C�lECi
Applicant Information
Applicant Name: SS pSN• {{C1MnOY1q , LLC,
Applicant Address: P•O. BOX 49rJlq , �t`eCrl'
Applicant Telephone Number: L 33 (o 8 i a - 3 314 Other: a3eo) 812:- 3313
Applicant Fax Number.
_ r
Applicant Email Address: --Aerie �& ckeepriver. co,y-) I �n�p d��P�,yer. eor►-i
Property Information
Property Owner (if different from above): "ScLC'VX, CCS CLbo" i
Owner Address:
Owner Telephone Number:
Owner Email Address:
Type of Request (Check All that Apply)
❑ Appeal ($100 fee)
❑ Comprehensive Plan Amendment ($750 fee +$1,500
escrow if residential; $3,500 escrow if
commercial/industrial)
❑ Minor Subdivision/Lot Split ($250 fee + $1,250
escrow)
❑ Planned Unit Development (PUD) ($750 fee +
$2,500 escrow)
X Conditional Use Permit (CUP) ($200 fee+ $450 escrow if ❑ Rezoning ($500 fee + $750 escrow)
residential; $850 escrow if commercial/industrial)
❑ Zoning Text Amendment ($500 fee + $750 escrow)
❑ Easement Vacation ($200 fee + $500 escrow)
❑ Site Plan ($250 fee + $450 escrow)
❑ Preliminary Plat ($500 fee + $500 escrow)
❑ Variance ($200 fee + $450 escrow if residential;
❑ Final Plat ($500 fee + $500 escrow) $850 escrow if commercial/industrial)
Our Mission is to be a progressive and livable community, a walkable village, which is sustainable, safe and secure.
Description of the Request (OR a separate detailed narrative explaining the project):
See OAh,6P-8.
Filing and Information Requirements
The City requests that you make a pre -application meeting with the City Planner to discuss the application process,
requirements, and deadlines. Unless waived by the City Planner or Planning Commission, a certified survey of the
property is required for all applications. A checklist with additional requirements can be found at www.ci.saint-
anthonv.mn.us.
Incomplete Applications and Submission Deadline
A complete land use application (including all required fees and escrows) must be received at least 30 days prior to the
meeting of the Planning Commission or City Council meeting at which the request will be heard. Submission of an
incomplete application may delay the processing of your land use request. The application approval time commences
and an application is considered officially filed when the City Planner has received and examined the application and
determined that the application is complete. A decision on whether the application is complete or incomplete shall be
made within fifteen (15) working days following the submittal of the application. When the application is deemed to be
"complete' it shall be placed on the agenda of the first possible Planning Commission meeting provided that all required
public notices have been sent and published. Upon submission of a complete application, state statute requires that a
decision be issued within 60 days regarding each request; however, a 60 -day extension may be obtained if more time is
needed.
Notice of Meeting Attendance
In order for the Planning Commission and the City Council to consider any application, the applicant or a designated
representative must be present at the scheduled meeting. If not, the matter may be tabled until the next available
agenda.
Agenda Deadline and Meeting Schedule
Planning Commission meetings are typically held on the fourth Monday of every month at 7:00 p.m., while City Council
meetings are held typically the second and fourth Tuesday of every month at 7:00 p.m. Meeting dates and times are
subject to change so please contact City Hall to verify the meeting date and time. All meetings are held at the St.
Anthony Community Center in the Council Chambers, 3301 Silver Lake Road, St. Anthony, Minnesota 55418, unless
otherwise stated. Applications are advised that additional meetings and/or workshops are scheduled when necessary.
Acknowledgement and Signature
I acknowledge that I have read all of the information listed in the City of St. Anthony Village Land Use Application and
fully understand that I am responsible for all costs incurred by the City related to the processing of this application. If
additional fees are required to cover costs incurred from processing of the application, the City has the right to require
additional payment from one or more of the undersigned, who shall be jointly liable for such fees. Such expenses may
include (but are not limited to) direct city payroll and overhead costs, fees paid to consultants and other professionals,
and the cost of printing, mailing, and supplies. Applicants are advised that an escrow deposit is required at the time of
the submittal of the land use application to offset costs associated with the proposed project. Unused portions of an
escrow are returned to the applicant upon successful implementation of an approved plan. I understand that approval
from other agencies may be required before commencement with the stated project.
Tt�n
`�- 7- T
Y'
Q
Property Owner Signature(Required) nQq@Date
//A
ff��
Applicant Signature (If different than the property owner) Date
Please contact the City Planner at 763-287-8521 or
planner@ci.saint-anthony.mn.us if you have any questions regarding this application.
May 2013
EXHIBIT A
LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF DEMISED PREMISES
THE LAND REFERRED TO HEREIN BELOW IS SITUATED IN THE COUNTY OF
RAMSEY, STATE OF MINNESOTA AND IS DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
A portion of Lot 1 and all of Lot 2, Block 1, Pillsbury Addition, Ramsey County, Minnesota.
Page 16 of 21
EXHIBIT A
LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF DEMISED PREMISES
THE LAND REFERRED TO HEREIN BELOW IS SITUATED IN THE COUNTY OF
RAMSEY, STATE OF MINNESOTA AND IS DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
A portion of Lot 1, Block 1, Pillsbury Addition, Ramsey County, Minnesota.
Page 20 of 28
We seek to obtain a conditional use permit for the purpose of earning a liquor license with the goal of
renovating and re -opening the vacant building which was formerly an IHOP. The new concept will be a
neighborhood restaurant and bar. The menu will feature American food. Appetizers, burgers, baskets,
fries, sandwiches, salads and soups. The food program will feature scratch cooking. Our burgers will be
hand pattied, our fries will be hand cut, all of our sauces and dressings will be made from scratch in
house. House roasted pulled pork and turkey. Hand breaded chicken tenders and onion rings. Hand
battered cheese curds. Hand breaded chicken wings. We will have a happy hour menu that will feature
chef inspired small plates. Things like house made jalapeno poppers which will be prepared by slow
roasting the jalpenos and then removing the seeds and ribs to keep the heat to a minimum. Then we will
fill them with our house made cream cheese blend. They will be finished by wrapping them in bacon and
served with a cool pineapple ranch sauce. Our kitchen will be open during all hours of operation so our
neighbors have a place to eat late if they choose. We will also have specials for all seasons. Homemade
corned beef and cabbage for St Patricks day. Fish and chips for lent. Mother's day brunch etc. The
beverage program will include a full bar, but will focus on craft beer and seasonal cocktails. All of the
servers will be trained in responsible alcohol service and the policies and procedures will be well
documented.
Our restaurant plans to create 30-40 full time jobs. We plan to generate 2m in annual sales bringing 2-
250k in local tax revenue.
We look forward to being a positive and productive member of the St Anthony community!!
Sincerely,
Chris Christopherson
Proposed tenant
m
m
0
m
m
0
0
m
mn
v
v90
X00
T
S
c
PL N
9.
("
)
p
0D
-
->T
Eox
zo
N
m
�O
y
V
=
EXHIBIT - C:
CITY OF ST. ANTHONY VILLAGE
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (CUP) TO ALLOW FOR
AN ESTABLISHMENT PRIMARILY FOR THE SALE OF BEVERAGES FOR
CONSUMPTION ON THE PREMISES LOCATED AT 3701 STINSON BOULEVARD
WHEREAS, the City of St. Anthony Village received a request from the Applicant SS
St. Anthony, LLC for a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) to allow for an establishment primarily for
the sale of beverages for consumption on the premises located at 3701 Stinson Boulevard on
April 10, 2015, legally described as follows:
A portion of Lot 1 and all of Lot 2, Block 1, Pillsbury Addition, Ramsey County, Minnesota
WHEREAS, the Property located at 3701 Stinson Boulevard is located within the PUD —
Planned Unit Development District, with an underlying zoning of C -Commercial Zoning District;
and
WHEREAS, establishments primarily for the sale of beverages for consumption on the
premises are a permitted conditional use with the issuance of a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) in
the C — Commercial Zoning District; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of St. Anthony previously passed resolution
10-052 which approved a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for the property located at 3701 Stinson
Boulevard to allow for a restaurant located less than 250 feet from a residential structure or
district, for which all conditions are still in full effect.
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission reviewed and considered the request based on the
related documents shown in the Applicant's application in a public hearing at their regular
meeting on May 18, 2015; and
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of St.
Anthony Village approves the Applicant's Conditional Use Permit (CUP) request based on the
following findings:
1. The requested conditional use permit (CUP) is consistent with all of the standards for
granting a conditional use permit as described in Section § 152.243 of the St. Anthony
Village Zoning Code. More specifically, the City Council finds that the required
conditional use permit is justified for the following reasons:
a. The use is one of the conditional uses specifically listed within the C -
Commercial Zoning District in which the Property is located in.
b. The City has specified all conditions which the City Council has deemed
necessary to make the use compatible with other uses in the area;
c. The use will not be detrimental to the health, safety, or general welfare of persons
residing or working in the vicinity or to the values of property in the vicinity; and
d. The proposed use will provide a service which is in the interest of public
convenience and will contribute to the general welfare.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City Council's
approval of the requested conditional use permit is contingent on the following:
1. All conditions stated in resolution 10-052 approving a conditional use permit for a
restaurant located within 250 feet of a residential structure or district shall remain in
full effect, which are:
a. Garbage areas must be enclosed with materials that match the building;
b. Lighting must be "down spill" with no spillage to affect the adjacent
residential properties;
c. No music or other artificial noise shall be audible from the restaurant to
adjacent residential properties;
d. The remodel and redevelopment of the property shall conform as closely as
possible and practicable to the Village at St. Anthony design standards and
PUD documents.
2. The Applicant shall submit the appropriate plans and permits for review and approval
before beginning any construction or other alterations that requires a permit (i.e.
building permit for any interior work, sign permit, electrical permit, plumbing permit,
etc.).
3. Outdoor seating associated with the restaurant use is not permitted with this
Conditional Use Permit (CUP). If outdoor seating is desired, an amendment to the
CUP allowing a restaurant within 250 feet of a residential district is required.
4. (insert additional conditions as discussed)
APPROVED in the regular session of the City Council on
Jerome O. Faust, Mayor
Attested:
Nicole Miller, City Clerk
5thony
ain
illa e C�
MEMORANDUM
To: St. Anthony Village Planning Commission
From: Breanne Rothstein, AICP, City Planner
Date: May 11, 2015
Planning Commission Regular Meeting for May 18, 2015
WSB Project No. 02170-180
Request: Request for a Variance from the Required Rear and Side Yard Setback in
Order to Re -Construct and Expand a Garage on the Property located at
2832 Coolidge St NE.
RECOMMENDATION
The Applicant's request for a variance to allow for the re -construction and expansion of the existing
garage is reasonable and consistent with the intent of the Zoning Ordinance and the City's
Comprehensive Plan. Based on the review, staff recommends approval of the requested variance for
the property located at 2832 Coolidge St., subject to the conditions as outlined in Exhibit D.
GENERAL INFORMATION
Applicant/Owner: Kevin Burns
Location: 2832 Coolidge St
Existing Land Use / Low Density Residential/zoned: R-1; Single Family Residential
Zoning:
Surrounding Land North: Low Density Residential / Zoned R-1 - Single Family Residential
Use / Zoning: East: Low Density Residential / Zoned R-1- Single Family Residential
South: Low Density Residential / Zoned R-1- Single Family Residential
West: Low Density Residential / Zoned R-1- Single Family Residential
Deadline for Agency Application Date: 04-23-15
Action: 60 Days: 06-22-15
Letter Sent: No
120 Days: 08-21-15
CONSIDERATIONS RELATING TO THE PROPOSED VARIANCE
1. Background
The Applicants wish to tear down and re -construct a garage on their property in a location that does
not meet the required 5 foot setback. The garage is located one foot from the rear property line.
Because the applicant is planning to tear down and expand the existing, legal non -conforming
garage, a variance is needed in order to construct in the same, but expanded, location.
2. Applicable Codes.
May 11, 2015
Page 2
Title XV Land Usage, Chapter 152 Zoning Code, Section §152.176 ACCESSORY BUILDINGS (B)
Minimum Setback states that "the wall of an accessory building shall not be locate less than five feet
from any property line.
Title XV Land Usage, Chapter 152 Zoning Code, Section §152.245 VARIANCES (A) Application states
that "An owner of property with an existing structure which does not comply with the zoning code,
or of property on which such a structure is proposed to be constructed, may apply for a variance
upon payment of the fee specified in Chapter 33".
3. Criteria for and Consistency with Criteria for Variance Approval. Title XV Land Usage, Chapter 152
Zoning Code, Section §152.245, (C) Evidence, lists the criteria the City Council must consider in
determining whether to grant or deny a variance. The applicable criteria include:
1. The subject matter of the application is within the scope of this section.
The request for a variance for a setback for a garage is within the scope of this section because a
setback is a dimensional standard, and city code allows deviations from setbacks through the
variance process. Criterion met.
2. Strict enforcement would cause practical difficulties because:
a. The property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted
by the zoning code,
The property owners propose to increase the size of their garage from an existing one -
car garage to a two -car garage. They are not proposing to increase the non -conformity
from the rear setback, and are proposing to locate the new garage in its current, but
expanded, location. Therefore, the use of the property, as proposed is reasonable.
Criterion met.
b. The plight of the property owner is due to circumstances unique to the property not
created by the property owner,
The existing garage does not meet the setback, which is out of the control of the
property owner. However, the property owner is proposing to expand the garage, which
is an action by the property owner, which is necessitating the need for the variance.
Criterion not met.
c. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality;
The existing garage, and the garages on the alley, are set back one foot from the
property (see pictures in Exhibit C). Since the garages on the block are set back one foot,
and many are two car garages, granting this variance would be in keeping with the
character of the neighborhood. Criterion met.
d. Economic considerations alone are not the basis of the practical difficulties.
The basis for the practical difficulties is that the garage is currently set back one foot
from the property line. Also, increasing the size of the size increases the livability of the
home and property, which may have a positive impact on the property's value. While
economic considerations are a factor, as the value of the home may increase as a result
of the new garage, it is not perceived that they are the sole basis of the practical
difficulty. Criterion met.
3. The variance, if granted, would be consistent with the City's comprehensive land use plan.
If the variance is granted the use of the property would remain the same land use as it is today,
single-family residential. The comprehensive plan guides this area for single-family use and the
proposed garage will not alter that use. Criterion met.
May 11, 2015
Page 3
4. The granting of the variance is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the zoning
code.
The intent of the zoning code is to protect the health, safety, and general welfare of the city and
its people through the establishment of minimum regulations governing land development and
use. The zoning code is established to protect the use districts; promote orderly development
and redevelopment; provide adequate light, air, and access to property; prevent congestion in
the public streets; prevent overcrowding of land and undue concentration of structures by
regulating land, buildings, yards, and densities; and provide for compatibility of different land
uses.
The proposed garage addition is keeping with the intent of the zoning ordinance. It does not
threaten the nature of the neighborhood and it promotes the orderly improvement of
properties in the area without impeding the general purposes of the zoning ordinance to protect
surrounding properties from incompatible land uses.
POSSIBLE ACTIONS
1. Recommend Approval (with or without conditions) of the Variance. In the event of a
recommendation for approval (with or without conditions), the Planning Commission may
refer to Exhibit D and may modify the draft resolution for approval to include any conditions
that it deems necessary.
Request Additional Information and Continue the Public Hearing. The Applicant appears to have
provided enough information for the Planning Commission to make a recommendation to
approve or deny the request. Should the Planning Commission request additional information
from the Applicant, the Planning Commission should continue the public hearing until a later
time.
Recommend Denial of the Variance. In the event the Planning Commission chooses denial of
the requested variance, it should clearly state its reasons for the denial recommendation and
direct staff to prepare a resolution to be brought back at the next meeting.
ATTACHMENTS
Exhibit A: Location map
Exhibit B: Application and Supporting Material
Exhibit C: Draft Resolution of Approval
2832 Coolidge
lin= 50ft
N
A
May 8, 2015
Map by: WSB & Associates
3301 Silver Lake Road
St. Anthony Village, Minnesota 55418
Office: (612) 782-3301
Fax: (612) 782-3302
www.ci.saint-anthony.mn.us
Address of Property involved. 2832 Coolidge St NE
Property 0 Number: 07-029-23-21-0021
-For Office Use Only -
Planning File Number
Project Number
Application Submittal Date
Application Completed Date
Fee Paid
Receipt Number
Planning Commission
Meeting Date
Council Decision
Council Decision Date
Legal Description: Murray Heights Addition to Minneapolis, Lot 003, Block 002
L9212-1—ro _090n� � n _koor mn a --roo ru
Applicant Name: Kevin V Burns
Applicant ddress.- 20832 Coolidge St NE , St. Anthony, MN 55418
A
Applicant Telephone Number. 651=3008=1590
0 -t- h e r:
Applicant Email Address. paavo329@yahoo.com
•
Property Owner (if different from above): Same as above
Owner Address:
Owner Telephone Number:
Owner Email Address:
D-102- __qLRA==C2I1 iul�
Appeal ($1100 fee)
Comprehensive PlanArniendrinent ($750 fee + $1,500
escrow if residential® $3,500 escrow if
commercial/industrial)
Use Pevm,'H� �CUP) ($200 fee+ $450 escrow if
residential,; $850 escrow if comimercial/industrial)
Easamero� Vaca),Vcon ($200 fee + $500 escrow)
Preliminary Nat ($500 fee + $500 escrow)
Final Plat ($500 fee + $500 escrow)
hfilg n a r 5u h, d,! �,&A s 11 cari I L oo �� 5p � K ($250 f e e + $1,250
escrovu7)
1 1
P (c,] U n'u -il- De eq- � c-�, p rn e mL�- P U, 10i 750 f e e +
$2,500 escrowf)
ReRardnrg($500 fee + $750 escrow)
Zanngg TaKfil-"'minendd, rno entl ($500 fee + $750 es crow)
LI Site Plan ($3250 fee +$450 escrow)
Variance ($200 fee +$,-)450 escrow if residential -
$850 escrow i -F comanercial/industrial)
Our iWission is to be a progressive and livable community, a walkable village, which is sustainable, safe and secure.
Description of the Request (OR a separate detailed narrative explaining the project):
Sca?e se-parate c�wp�an2tdon.
�gq 0 q, 'Im OLI F 0- �,nn
011 PI —Z] nid � rd f op rvnn a", V 00, nr RII e
The City requests that you make a pre -application meeting with the City Planner to discuss the application process®
requirements, and deadlines. Unless waived by the City Planner or Planning Commission® a certified survey of the
property is required for all applications. A checklist with additional requirements can be found at www.ci.saint-
E,), llqi It h o ny. rn nn. u s.
nicnmn[p�ee Arp p � "JcVRIJo ns a n d Su hnvn�ssio n Dead fil Ple
A complete land use application (including all required fees and escrows) must be received at least 310 days prior to the
meeting of the Planning Commission or City Council meeting at which the request will be heard. Submission of an
incomplete application may delay the processing of your land use request. The application approval time commences
and an application is considered officially filed when the City Planner has received and examined the application and
determined that the application is complete. A decision on whether the application is complete or incomplete shall be
made within fifteen (15) working days following the submittal of the application. When the application is deemed to be
®®co plete" it shall be placed on the agenda, of the first possible Nanning Commission meeting provided that all required
public notices have been sent and published. Upon submission of a complete application, state statute requires that a
decision be issued within, 60 days regarding each request; however, a 60 -day extension may be obtained if more time is
10
needed.
N\ U0 PA e ENon gg a n fl, FJ rrivc a
in order for the Planning Commission and the City Council to consider any application, the applicant or a designated
representative must be present at the scheduled meeting. K not, the matter may be tabled until the next available
agenda.
Planning Commission meetings are typically held on the fourth Monday of every month at Imo® p.m., while City Council
meetings are held typically the first and third Tuesday of every month at 7-00 p.m. Meeting dates and times are subject
to chanes please contact City Hall to verify the meeting date and time. All meetings are held at the St. Anthony
Community Center in the Council Chambers,, 3301 Silver Lake Road® St. Anthony, IINWmnesota 554186 unless otherwise
stated. Applications are advised that additional meetings and/or workshops are scheduled when necessary.
,In ou �Jvu �' a �rni a n cd 5 zwfla
LIP- � VcI , 'Jll� _r' mm
I adknow!hedge that u have read all of the information listed in the City of St. ALnthony Village Land Use App'Hcation and
fully understand that am responsible for all costs incurred by the City related to the processing of this appkation. If
additional fees are required to cover costs incurred from processing of the appkation, the City has the right to require
additional payment from one or more of the undersigned, �vvho shall be jointly liable for such fees. Such expenses may
include (but are not limited to) direct city payroll and overhead costs, fees paid to consultants and other professionals,
and the cost of ;printing, mailing, and supplies. Applicants are advised that an escrovtl deposit is required at the time of
n
the submttal� of the lana? ruse application to offset costs associated with the proposed project. Urused portions of an
escrow are returned to the applicant upon successful implementation of Can approved plana i understand that approval
from other agencies may be required before commencement with the stated project.
ID
Property Owner Signature (Required) Date
Applicant Signature (if different than the property owner)
Please contact the City INanner at 763-287-8521 or
planner@ci.saint-anthony.mn.us if you have any questions regarding this apphcation.
May 2013
Description of Request
We would like to build a new 2 -car garage to replace our existing 1 -car garage. In order to
maintain the consistency of the garages along our alley, and to minimize the loss of yard space,
we request a variance to allow the new garage to be built with the same setbacks as the
existing garage. A picture is included with this request showing an overhead view of the alley.
The desired location of the garage and driveway is sketched on the picture, along with the
approximate location needed to meet the 5 -foot setback requirement. Additional photographs
show the relationship of the current garages along the alley.
Currently, the 3 other garages along the alley are all 2 -car garages, and all are built 1 foot from
the alley -side property lines. In addition, our current garage is directly behind the garage of our
neighbor to the north, and we plan our garage to be the same width as that garage. By building
our garage that width, and using the setbacks of the existing garage, the uniformity of the
garages along the alley will be maintained, as well as the sight lines between yards.
Utilizing the setbacks of our current garage will also reduce the loss of yard, and increase in
width (and cost) of the driveway. The garage immediately behind our existing garage is less
than 1 foot from the side property line, so moving our garage farther away would create a
larger strip of unusable space between the garages that would get very little sunlight and would
be difficult to maintain. By maintaining the existing setbacks of the garage, more space would
be available for lawn and gardens.
J
w
�- '- Desired
rY f garage a n d
driveway
^�` � location
Other ��,.�
garages_,
along .
alley fir- 4 •�
Garage and
driveway
f location
o with 5'
.,_`� .k�w setbacks
w
t '
g
a
.090
M." PL
w
EXHIBIT - D:
CITY OF ST. ANTHONY VILLAGE
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION DENYING A VARIANCE FROM THE REQUIRED REAR AND
SIDE YARD SETBACKS AND DENYING A VARIANCE TO LOT COVERAGE
IN ORDER TO CONSTRUCT A POOL, POOL DECKING, HOT TUB, AND
STUDIO AT THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2926 ARMOUR TERRACE
WHEREAS, the City of St. Anthony Village received a request from the
Applicant Jeff Carlson for a variance from the rear and side setback to allow the location
of pool equipment closer than 10 feet from the side and rear yard property line and a
variance to exceed the maximum lot coverage of 35 percent for the construction of a
pool, pool deck, hot tub, and studio at the property located at 2926 Armour Terrace on
April 24, 2015, legally described as follows:
Lot 017, Block 005, Crestview Terrace, Hennepin County, Minnesota
WHEREAS, the property located at 2926 Armour Terrace is located within the
City's R1 Zoning District; and
WHEREAS, a 10 -foot rear and side yard setback is required within the R1
Zoning District for pool equipment; and
WHEREAS, a 35 percent lot coverage maximum is required on lots 91000 square
feet or larger; and
WHEREAS, the Applicant has requested a 5 -foot variance from the rear and a 5 -
foot variance from the side yard setback to allow for the construction of pool equipment
located 5 feet from both the side and rear property line; and
WHEREAS, the Applicant has requested a variance of 28 percentage points to
allow the lot coverage to be 63 percent; and
WHEREAS, the existing lot coverage exceeds the maximum, currently at 45
percent.
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission acting as the Board of Adjustments and
Appeals, reviewed and considered the request based on the related documents shown in
the Applicant's application in a public hearing at their regular meeting on May 18, 2015;
and
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of
St. Anthony Village adopts the following findings of fact related to the Applicant's
vanance request:
1. The requested variance is not consistent with the standards for granting a
variance as described in Section § 152.245 of the St. Anthony Village Zoning
Code. More specifically, the City Council finds that the requested variance is
not justified for the following reasons:
a. The property owner proposed project would not use the property in a
reasonable manner, due to the excessive use of hard cover and the ability
for the property owner to locate the pool equipment in a conforming
location.
b. Allowing the proposed project, while it does not have an impact on the
essential character of the locality, could impact the drainage and flooding
potential of the community.
c. The basis for the practical difficulties is caused by the property owner's
desire to construct a pool, decking, pool equipment, and studio in their
backyard.
d. The comprehensive plan guides this area for single family use and adding
impervious surface will not alter that use, however, the project is
inconsistent with the goals stated in the surface water management chapter
of the comprehensive plan.
e. Allowing the variance is in harmony with the general purposes and intent
of the City's Code to provide for compatibility of different land uses. The
project will have no impact on land use compatibility.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City Council's hereby
denies the requested variances, based on the findings stated herein.
APPROVED in the regular session of the City Council on , 2015.
Jerome O. Faust, Mayor
Attested:
Nicole Miller, City Clerk
lNiu.
thr
e
MEMORANDUM
To: Planning Commission Members
From: Breanne Rothstein, AICP, City Planner
Date: May 18, 2015, 7:00 p.m. Planning Commission meeting
WSB Project No. 02170-002
Request: Public Hearing Amending Sections 152.008 and 152.187 of City Code
Pertaining to Solar Energy Systems
OVERVIEW
In completion of the 2015 Work Plan, the Planning Commission is pursuing the development of an
amended solar ordinance to allow for greater applications of solar on residential and commercial
structures. An ordinance to allow solar energy systems was adopted in 2014 to allow systems within the
ROS — Recreational/Open Space and LI — Light Industrial Districts. With increased interest in renewable
energy by homeowners, more specifically for the installation of solar energy systems, staff has prepared
a draft Ordinance relating to Solar Energy Systems, specifically in residential and commercial zoning
districts.
The purpose of the amendment is to incorporate more detailed standards governing the installation of
solar energy systems. The ordinance is expected to provide clarity and predictability while ensuring that
solar energy systems may be installed in a manner that allows for effective energy production. Further,
the standards are intended to ensure that these systems are installed in a manner that would not
unduly affect community character. The proposed text amendment would:
• Provide clarity for City staff as well as solar installers and property owners;
• Set standards for building -mounted and freestanding (i.e. ground mounted) systems;
• Clarify that solar access easements may be purchased from nearby property owners, consistent
with state statute.
The Planning Commission held a work session on February 24, 2015 to review and discuss a draft
ordinance to permit solar energy systems in residential and commercial zoning districts. The Planning
Commission had several recommendations that Staff brought to a City Council worksession for
discussion. At this worksession, staff received a number of recommendations from City Council, as
outlined below.
The Planning Commission met at a worksession on April 27, 2015 and reviewed the revised ordinance.
They directed staff to make several changes, as indicated through tracked changes on the enclose
ordinance, including:
1) Allowing solar on accessory structures;
2) Requiring solar systems to be located at or below the ridgeline of the home;
3) Adding a clause to allow the continuation of existing solar systems, unless an upgrade requiring
a building permit is proposed;
Page 2
PC Public Hearing
May 18, 2015
4) Clarifying the structural integrity requirement to add "to the satisfaction of the building
inspector"
5) Referencing conditional use permit criteria in city code;
6) Eliminating the requirement for a licensed contractor- allow homeowner to install, with the
issuance of a building permit.
The City Council held a work session on May 4, 2015 and again reviewed the revised ordinance. They
accepted the recommended changes of the Planning Commission and recommended the following
additional changes:
1) Solar energy systems on accessory structures must be flush mounted;
2) Any solar installation mounted to a light pole shall not exceed three (3) square feet.
SUMMARY OF THE PREVIOUS DISCUSSIONS
Flush mounted vs. building mounted systems. The Council provided direction to staff and the
Planning Commission to allow only flush mounted on the front of homes and commercial
structures, but to allow building mounted in the rear portion of the roof, and that all accessory
structure mounted systems be flush mounted.
Example "flush -mounted" solar energy systems
Page 3
PC Public Hearing
May 18, 2015
Example "building -mounted" solar energy systems
2. "Freestanding" solar energy systems should be
allowed in ALL Zoning Districts.
The City Council provided direction that
freestanding solar energy systems be allowed in all
zoning districts, but only in the rear yard and twice
the required structure setback from rear and side
yards.
Example "freestanding" solar energy systems
3. Requiring a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for Commercial applications.
The City Council provided direction that all solar installations in commercial districts be through
the issuance of a conditional use permit.
4. Allow light pole mounted systems in ALL Districts.
The City Council gave direction that all light pole mounted solar installations be allowed through
the issuance of a CUP. Council limited the size to 3 square feet.
Example "light pole mounted" solar energy systems
SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS
As proposed, this draft ordinance, as written, makes the following changes from the original solar
ordinance:
1) Adds a clarifying definition of "flush mounted solar energy systems"
2) Clarifies and expands the purpose of the ordinance
3) Allows for solar panels in residential districts and required standards
4) Requires conditional use permit for all commercial installations
5) Added a caveat about ready roof access for emergency access
Page 4
PC Public Hearing
May 18, 2015
6) Requires proof of structural integrity to the satisfaction of the building inspector
7) Allows free standing solar energy systems in the rear yards of residential, with applicable
standards, including double the side yard setback
8) Added specific standards for lightpoles
9) Added design and performance standards for solar energy systems
RECOMMENDED ACTION
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the enclosed ordinance
amending Sections 152.008 and 152.187 of City Code to incorporate revised standards for solar
energy systems, and forward to the City Council for consideration.
Draft revised 5.12.2015
ORDINANCE NO. 2015 -
SAINT ANTHONY VILLAGE, MINNESOTA
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER § 152.187 TO INCLUDE PROVISIONS
PERTAINING TO SOLAR ENERGY SYSTEMS
The City Council of the City of Saint Anthony Village ordains as follows:
Section One. Amendment to the City of Saint Anthony Village City Code to Amend Section
15& 2.187. Section § 152.187 of the City Code of the City of Saint Anthony Village is hereby amended as
follows. The deleted language is represented by strihedffett text. The additional language is
represented by double underlined text.
§152.008 DEFINITIONS.
BUILDING -INTEGRATED SOLAR ENERGYSYSTEM. A solar energy system that is
an integral part of a principal or accessory building, rather than a separate mechanical device,
replacing or substituting for an architectural or structural component of the building. Building -
integrated systems include but are not limited to active photovoltaic or hot water systems that are
contained within roofing materials, windows, walls, skylights, and awnings, or passive systems
that are designed to capture direct solar heat.
BUILDING MOUNTED SOLAR ENERGYSYSTEM. A solar energy system affixed to
a principal or accessory building.
FLUSH MOUNTED SOLAR ENERGYSYSTEM. A solar energy system that is
installed on the roof of a; building in which the solar panels are parallel with the finished roof Formatted: Font: Italic
materials.
FREESTANDING SOLAR ENERGYSYSTEM. A solar energy system with a
supporting framework that is placed on, or anchored in, the ground and that is independent of any
building or other structure. Garages, carports or similar structures that incorporate building -
integrated or building -mounted solar energy systems shall not be classified as freestanding solar
energy systems and shall instead be subject to regulations governing accessory structures.
SOLAR COLLECTOR SURFACE. Any part of a solar energy system that absorbs solar
energy for use in the system's transformation process. The collector surface does not include
frames, supports, and mounting hardware.
SOLAR ENERGY. Radiant energy received from the sun that can be collected in the
form of heat or light by a solar collector.
Draft revised 5.12.2015
SOLAR ENERGYSYSTEM A device, set of devices, or structural design feature
intended to provide for collection, storage, and distribution of solar energy for purposes including
heating or cooling buildings or other energy -using processes, electricity generating by means of
any combination of collecting, transferring, solar -generated energy, or water heating.
§152.187 SOLAR ENERGY SYSTEMS
(A) Purpose. Regulations governing solar energy systems are established to provide for appropriate
locations for solar energy systems, to ensure compatibility with surrounding uses, and to promote safe and
effective use of solar energy to increase opportunities for generation of renewable energy. St. Anthony
Village finds that it is in the public interest to encourage the use and development of renewable energy
systems that enhance energy conservation efforts, but result in limited adverse impacts on nearby
properties. As such. the City supports the use of solar energy systems.
(B) Permitted Uses and Specific Standards
(1) In general. Solar energy systems shall be permitted in those zoning districts where permitted
as an accessory use, subject to the standards of this article. Solar collector surfaces and all mounting
devices shall comply with the minimum yard requirements of the district in which they are located.
Screening of solar collector surfaces shall not be required.
(2) Building -mounted solar energy systems.
a) Zoning district standards.
(1) Residential zoning districts. Notwithstanding the height limitations of the zoning
district, building mounted solar energy systems shall be constructed and maintained at or
below the ridge level of a roof on a structure with a gable, hip, or gambrel roof as In and
not visible from the nearest edge of the street frontage right-of-way other than an alley.
-Building- mounted solar energy systems that are visible from the nearest edge of the
street frontage right-of-way shall be flush -mounted and not have a highest finished pitch
steeper than the roof pitch on which the system is mounted, and shall be no higher than
twelve12) inches above the roof Solar energy systems on accessory structures shall be
flush -mounted, regardless of the location on the structure.
Building integrated solar energy systems shall be allowed regardless of whether the
system is visible from the public right-of-way, provided the building component in which the
system is integrated meets all required setbacks, land use or performance standards for the
district in which the building is located.
(2) Commercial, industrial and recreational open space (ROS) zoning districts.
Notwithstanding the height limitations of the zoning district, building mounted solar energy
systems shall be constructed and maintained at or below the ridge level of a roof on a
structure with a gable, hip, or gambrel roof and shall not extend higher than ten (10) feet
above the surface of the roof when installed on flat or shed roof.
Draft revised 5.12.2015
(b) The solar collector surface and mounting devices for building -mounted solar energy
systems shall be set back not less than one (1) foot from the exterior perimeter of a roof for every
one (1) foot that the system extends above the roof surface on which the system is mounted to
ensure ready roof access in the event of a fire or other safety related occurrence whereby roof
access is needed. Solar energy systems that extend less than one (1) foot above the roof surface
shall be exempt from this provision, however shall be set back from the roof edge by a minimum
of 1 foot.
(c) The collector surface and mounting devices for building -mounted solar energy systems
shall not extend beyond the exterior perimeter of the building on which the system is mounted or
built.
(d) Solar energy systems shall be designed to blend into the architecture of the building to
the maximum extent practical. eF be ee ed f-af r ....no view ffem ..__blie fights Of way
than alleys. The color of the solar collector is not required to be consistent with the roofing
materials.
(e) Building -mounted systems, excluding building -integrated systems, shall not cover more
than 80% of the roof upon which the panels are mounted to ensure ready roof access in the event
of a fire or other safety occurrence whereby roof access is needed.
(fl A conditional use permit is required for any solar installations in the commercial district.
subject to the conditions and criteria for review in accordance with Section 154.243 (C) of the
City Codo-
3) Freestanding solar energy systems.
a) Freestanding solar energy systems, measured to the highest point of the system, shall not
exceed ten (10) feet in height and shall meet double the minimum setback requirements of an
accessory structure as outlined in S 152.176, as measured from the outermost perimeter of the
solar panel to the property line. Freestanding solar energy systems are only permitted in rear
M&
b) In all residential districts, the area of the solar collector surface of freestanding solar
energy systems shall not exceed three (3) percent of the lot area. In all other districts. the area of
the solar collector surface of freestanding solar energy systems shall not exceed five (5) percent
of the lot area. Notwithstanding any other provision to the contrary, the maximum area of solar
energy systems shall be calculated independently of the floor area of all other accessory structures
on the zoning lot.
c The supporting framework for freestanding solar energy systems shall not include
unfinished lumber.
4) Lightnole mounted solar energy systems.
Draft revised 5.12.2015-
(a) Any solar installation on a light pole shall require the issuance of a conditional use Hermit.
and shall take into account the surrounding land uses, the proposed visual impact. and the
structural integrity relative to size and height of the proposed solar installation. No lightnole
mounted solar installation shall exceed 3 square feet in size, unless through the issuance of a
conditional use permit.
(C) Design and Performance Standards. In addition to the standards required above. the Following
standards shall apply to all solar energy systems.
(1) Compatibility with nearby properties. The visual impact of rooftop equipment on nearby
properties shall be minimized through such means as location on the roof flush -mounting to the roof.
screening, or other integration into the roof design. Screening shall be of durable nermanent materials
that are compatible with the primary building materials. Screening shall be done to the extent
possible without reducing the systems efficiency.
21 Feeder lines. Any lines accompanying a solar energy systems, other than those attached to
on-site structures by leads, shall be buried within the interior of the subject parcel, unless there are
existing lines in the area which the lines accompanying a solar energy system can be attached. The
Zoning Administrator may grant exemptions to this requirement in instances where shallow bedrock
water courses, or other elements of the natural landscape interfere with the ability to bury lines.
31 Maintenance. Solar energy systems shall be kept in good repair and free from damaged
supports, mounts, framework, or other components.
41 Abandonment. A solar energy system that is allowed to remain in a nonfunctional or
inoperative state for a period of twelve (12) consecutive months, and which is not brought in
operation within the time specified by the City shall be presumed abandoned and may be declared a
public nuisance subject to removal at the expense of the operator.
51 Compliance. All solar energy systems shall be designed, constructed, and operated in
compliance with any applicable federal, state, and local laws, codes, standards, and ordinances, as
well as adhere to the requirements of local utilities if connected to utility lines, including, but not
limited to the State of Minnesota Building Code, Minnesota State Electric Code. and Minnesota State
Plumbing Code.
(6) Interference. Solar energy systems shall be designed to not cause electrical, radio frequency.
television, and other communication signal interference.
7) Installation. Solar energy systems shall require the issuance of a building permit.
81 The structure upon which the solar energy system is mounted shall have the structural
integrity to carry the weight of the solar energy system. Proof of structural integrity shall be submitted
to the satisfaction of the buildjng inspector.
�D- Administrative Review Process
Draft revised 5.12.2015-
(1) In general. Applications that meet the design requirements of this policy shall be granted
administrative approval by the Zoning Administrator or other Authorized Agent. Plan approval does
not indicate compliance with Building Code or Electric Code. All systems shall comply with the
Minnesota State Building and Electric Code.
(2) Submittal requirements. An application for a solar energy system shall be filed on a form
provided by the City. In addition, the applicant shall submit the following:
(a) Plan application for solar energy systems shall be accompanied by scaled horizontal and
vertical (elevation) drawings. The drawings must show the location of the system on the
building, or on the property for a ground -mounted system, including the property lines.
1. For all building -mounted systems other than a flat roof the elevation drawings
shall show the highest finished slope of the solar collector and the slope of the
finished roof surface on which it is mounted.
2. For flat -building -building systems a drawing shall be submitted showing the
distance to the roof edge and any parapets on the building and shall identify the
height of the building on the street frontage side, the shortest distance of the
system from the street frontage edge of the building, and the highest finished
height of the solar collector above the finished surface of the roof.
(b) Written evidence that the electric utility service provider that serves the proposed site has
been informed of the applicant's intent to install a solar energy system, unless the
applicant does not plan, and so states so in the application, to connect the system to the
electricity grid.
(c) Written evidence that the electric solar energy system components have a UL listing.
(DE Conditional uses. Solar energy systems that do not comply with the standards as stated in provision
§ 152.187 above may be allowed by conditional use permit, subject to the provisions of Section § 152.243,
Conditional Use Permits, provided that requests to exceed the permitted amount of impervious surface
shall be by variance.
(liF) Solar access. Solar access easements may be filed consistent with Minn. Statute Section §500.30 as
may be amended from time to time. Any property owner may purchase an easement across nearby
properties to protect access to sunlight. The easement is purchased or granted by owners of nearby
properties and can apply to buildings, trees, or other structures that would diminish solar access.
(G) Legal, non -conformities. Solar energy systems in existence prior to adoption of this ordinance shall be
permitted to exist and be repaired in their current form. However, any changes, expansions, or upgrades in
the solar energy system, that would require a building Hermit. shall necessitate conformance with this
section.
§152.038 Accessory Uses (R-1 District)
Draft revised 5.12.2015
Subject to the provisions of §152.175 through §152.186, the following accessory uses are
permitted in the R-1 District:
I) Solar energy systems, subject to the provisions of §152.187
§152.103 Accessory Uses (RI -A District)
Subject to the provisions of §152.200 thro .g §152.210 152.175 through—§1-52.186, the
following accessory uses are permitted in the RI -A District:
F) Solar energy systems, subject to the provisions of §152.187
§152.122 Conditional Accessory Uses (Commercial District)
Subject to the provisions of § 152.175 through § 152.186, the following aeeesser}-conditional uses
are permitted in the C District:
(ZE) Solar energy systems, subject to the provisions of S 152.187
Section Two. Findings for Amending the Citv of Saint Anthonv Village Citv Code by Adding
Section § 152.187. In amending the City of Saint Anthony Village City Code by adding Section § 152.187
relating to the regulations of solar energy systems, the City Council of the City of Saint Anthony Village
finds that the amendment is required for the public good; is in the interest of public health, safety and
welfare; and is compatible with the City's Comprehensive Plan.
Section Three. Effective Date. This Ordinance amendment shall be in full force and effect upon
its publication as provided by law.
Passed in regular session of the City Council on 12015.
CITY OF SAINT ANTHONY VILLAGE
By:
Jerome O. Faust, Mayor
ATTEST:
BY:
Nicole Miller, City Clerk
6.1o•s16uw•MMM Te a4Isq@m ino TlslA 'sa:)uaaa4uo pue sdogsNioM i@g4o uo uoi4euaaopl snld saTepdn jod
LET 'ON T!uaaad
NW 'salTlD ulm-L
aPdd
a6e1sod 'S'fl
lIVW SSVID J-SW1
'uolTezluebjo anon( ul saaq o pm uogeuaao4ul slur aaeys aseald
paTsanba-1 a:)imaS uanTad
6.io•s46uua'MMM
t,TTSS NW 'Ined 'TS
OST aTlnS "M anuaAV /qIsaaAlun ££zz
s;uaA3 leuoijeonp3 S1J
2015 LAND USE PLANNING WORKSHOPS
FOR LOCAL GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS — Appointed, Elected, Staff
AND I NTERESTED CITIZENS
PROGRAM FEATURES
♦ Accomplished faculty with extensive backgrounds in both planning and instruction
♦ Focus on current issues and timely information
♦ Practical content designed by a committee of planning experts and local officials
♦ Opportunities for in-depth study and hands-on application
♦ Extensive handouts and reference materials assembled to make your job easier
Sponsored by GTS Educational Events
Co-sponsors:
♦ APA Minnesota <� Association of Minnesota Counties o Initiative Foundation ♦ League of Minnesota Cities
.Y Metropolitan Council Minnesota Association of Townships o, National Joint Powers Alliance
CORE WORKSHOPS
Basics of Planning & Zoning
This workshop covers the nuts & bolts of planning, zoning & subdivision
regulation. Participants will learn how planning and zoning is developed,
where they fit into the process, and how the different "players" can maximize
their impact. Among topics to be addressed are:
• The history, how the system has gotten to where it is today, the authority
and limits to planning and zoning
• The basic land use and zoning tools: comprehensive plans, zoning and
subdivision ordinances, amendments, permits, enforcement
• Legal basics: avoiding litigation, what is "due process," what is a taking,
conducting public hearings, making findings of fact, and the 60 -day rule
• Who participates in the planning & zoning process; YOUR role,
responsibilities and opportunities
• Hands-on simulations of actual planning and zoning dilemmas
• Hot issues, answers to your questions
Audience: Designed for those new to land use planning or interested in a
review of the fundamentals.
Presenters:
Michael Couri, Attorney, Couri & Ruppe.
Anita Rasmussen, Community Development/Assistant City Administrator,
City of Sartell
Wednesday, May 27, 2015 — 9:00 AM - 4:30 PM (check-in - 8:30 AM)
Location: Little Falls Fee: $135 (includes lunch)
Thursday, September 10, 2015 — 9:00 AM - 4:30 PM (check-in - 8:30 AM)
Location: Shoreview Fee: $135 (includes lunch)
in conjunction with the 2015 APA Minnesota Conference
Wednesday, September 23, 2015 — 8:00 AM -12:00 PM (check-in - 7:30 AM)
Location: Bemidji Fee: $70 (Note: This is a condensed session)
Beyond the Basics of Planning & Zoning:
Variances and More!
Participants learn how planning and zoning tools are used to deal with a wide
variety of development Issues. The complexities of variances are a major focus.
Presenters cover the what, when and why (complete with "how-tos" and "how-
not-tos") with numerous examples and case studies'
• Quick review: planning history, comprehensive planning, and zoning tools
• Innovative ways to guide land use and development, from PUDs and
performance zoning to design guidelines and "cutting edge" applications
• Sustainability – what it is and how to apply sustainable principles to
planning and zoning
• The environmental review process – EAWs, EISs, and AUARs: tools to
expedite careful review of complex projects
• Detailed discussion of zoning tools to handle various development issues
• Legal issues in more depth: How to implement the comprehensive plan in
zoning and subdivision ordinances? What to require for variances? When
to grant conditional uses? When to use interim use permits? How to treat
nonconforming uses? When to require easements?
• Case studies—actual urban, suburban and rural situations
• Answers to your questions on community zoning issues
Audience: Those who have a solid general knowledge of the planning process
(1-2 years on the council, board or zoning/planning commission).
Presenters:
Phil Carlson, Planner, Stantec
Kori Land, Attorney, LeVander, Gillen & Miller, P.A.
Tuesday, June 9, 2015 — 9:00 AM - 4:30 PM (check-in - 8:30 AM)
Location: Little Falls Fee: $135 (includes lunch)
Thursday, November 19, 2015 — 9:00 AM- 4:30 PM (check-in - 8:30 AM)
Location: Shoreview Fee: $135 (includes lunch)
Your Role as Planning Commission Member
As a Planning Commission member, you contribute hours of unpaid time to your community. Have you discovered that serving in this capacity is a
bit more challenging than anticipated? This workshop will focus on what you need to know to be successful in this important position. You'll learn
practical tips that can make the difference between results and regrets. Topics include:
• Keeping the "Big Picture" in mind
• Setting significant (but realistic) Commission goals
• Preparing an annual work program
• Changing non-productive patterns of work
• Forging healthy relationships with elected officials and staff (Plus ... what to do if those relationships are unhealthy!)
• Ways to facilitate public participation in the planning process
• Effective tools & techniques (models for planning reports and findings of fact, primer on parliamentary procedure)
• Handling controversial issues
Audience: Those who have a solid general knowledge of the planning process (1-2 years on the council, board or zoning/planning commission).
Presenters:
John Shardlow, Principal, Stantec
Wednesday, June 10, 2015 — 6:00 - 9:00 PM (check-in - 5:30 PM)
Location: St. Paul Fee: $50 (does not include dinner)
Wednesday, November 4, 2015 —1:00 - 5:00 PM (check-in -12:30 PM)
Location: Little Falls Fee: $70
SPECIAL FOCUS WORKSHOPS
FREE 90 minute Workshop in four locations!
Understanding Groundwater:
An Invisible Yet Critical Resource
Presented by the Minnesota Association of Soil and Water
Conservation Districts (SWCD) with funding and support
from the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources.
Every living thing requires water and it is a resource that we all share in
Minnesota. While it appears on the surface that Minnesotans are water -rich, the
availability of groundwater varies a lot throughout the state, with SW Minnesota
having limited groundwater supply and the metropolitan region having fairly
good groundwater availability. Come and hear about groundwater quality and
quantity issues in your part of the state from local and state experts. Learn:
• Partial results of a statewide survey of SWCD staff
• Local groundwater issues
• Why these issues are important
• What local officials can do to help address those issues
Audience: Local elected and appointed officials
Presenters: A panel of state and local experts
FREE, but registration is REQUIRED.
Wednesday, July 15, 2015 — 4:00 - 6:00 PM (check-in - 3:30 PM)
Location: Southwest State University, Marshall
Wednesday, July 29, 2015 — 4:00 - 6:00 PM (check-in - 3:30 PM)
Location: Thumper Pond Resort, Perham Area
Thursday, August 13, 2015 —4:00 - 6:00 PM (check-in - 3:30 PM)
Location: Cascade Meadow Wetland, Rochester
Wednesday, August 19, 2015 — 4:00 - 6:00 PM (check-in - 3:30 PM)
Location: Stearns County Service Center, Waite Park
Community Solar Gardens
Community Solar Gardens (CSGs) have quickly become one of the hottest
energy topics in Minnesota. Xcel Energy's program received over 400
applications for solar gardens in its first week, and several other utilities already
have projects underway. With the advent of this new opportunity to participate
in local solar power, many local units of government are considering their
role in Minnesota's new Community Solar Garden market. This workshop will
cover what local governments need to know about developing community
solar gardens, including best practices for regulating land use, options for
encouraging CSGs to capture benefits of local solar resources, and alternatives
for participation. Participants will also learn about some of the tools being
developed to help both consumers and local governments make informed
decisions. Topics include:
• What CSGs are — policy intent, legal foundation, differences from other
types of solar development
• Business models and likely markets; regulatory best practices
• Participation possibilities — host site, subscriber, developer
• What's involved in developing an RFP
Audience: Local government staff, appointed and elected officials
Presenters:
Lissa Pawlisch, Clean Energy Resource Teams (CERTs) Director,
University of Minnesota's Regional Sustainable Development Partnerships
and Extension
Brian Ross, Senior Program Director, Great Plains Institute
Trevor Drake, Project Coordinator, Great Plains Institute
Thursday, May 21, 2015 — 8:00 AM - 12:00 PM (check-in - 7:30 AM)
Location: Shoreview Fee: $70
A Practical Guide to Variances in
Shorelands and Floodplains
Minnesota variance laws have changed. Learn from the experts how to make
decisions in light of the purposes and intent of those regulations. Topics include:
• The criteria for reviewing variance requests in cities and counties
• How to evaluate and develop findings for typical shoreland and floodplain
variance requests
• How to determine whether a practical difficulty exists
• What it means to alter the essential character of a shoreland or floodplain
• When to impose conditions to mitigate impacts on public water resources;
examples of what's appropriate
Audience: Elected officials, appointed planning commissioners and members
of boards of adjustment, local staff making recommendations on variances
Presenters:
Jed Burkett, Land Use Attorney, League of Minnesota Cities
Dan Petrik, Land Use Planner, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources
Paul Radomski, Research Scientist, Minnesota Department of Natural
Resources
Thursday, October 22, 2015 —1:00 - 5:00 PM (check-in - 12:30 PM)
Location: St. Cloud Fee: $70.00
Emerging Issues for Professional Planners
(Advanced Zoning for Staff)
Co -Sponsored by APA Minnesota
Application forAlCP CM credits in process
Designed in response to demand for in-depth offerings for practitioners, this
workshop combines a rapid-fire review of fundamentals with a focus on key
responsibilities they face as well as current challenges. Participants will:
• Receive a complete refresher on planning principles, source and limitations
of local government authority, different levels of legal discretion and an
extensive review of frequently misused and misunderstood zoning tools
• Learn how to avoid frequent mistakes when pursuing such advanced
zoning techniques as community design standards, form -based codes and
performance standards
• Gain an in-depth understanding of the importance and specifics of an
effective and complete public record (from administrative procedures to
contents of planning reports, to solid findings of fact for supporting records
of decision)
• Understand the differences between hardship and practical difficulty as a
result of recent case law and Minnesota statute changes
• Test their ability to draft effective findings—through small group discussions
regarding complicated hypothetical case studies
• Become familiar with key recent court cases that affect local planning as
well as results of on the current legislative session
Participants will have the opportunity to identify priorities on a survey sent
before the workshop.
Audience: Planning professionals serving in staff or consultant positions,
targeted to those with at least two years of professional planning experience
Presenters:
John Shardlow, Principal, Stantec
Soren Mattick, Attorney, Campbell Knutson, PA.
Thursday, July 23, 2015 — 8:30 AM - 12:30 PM (check-in - 8:00 AM)
Location: St. Paul Fee: $70
SPECIALPROGRAM
WORKSHOP LOCATIONS
Bemidji
Comprehensive Planning — It's Not The Same Old, Same Old
Sanford Convention Center
1111 Event Center Drive NE
With funding from Greenstep Cities
Bemidji, MN 56601
This fall the Metropolitan Council will be issuing its new system statements for the required 2016 comp plans to
218-441-4000
be completed by local jurisdictions in the seven-county area. Because there has been a relative lack of land use
changes since the last plan was submitted (due to the recession), many metro communities believe there is a
Bloomington
limited need to devote time, energy and resources to their upcoming comprehensive planning process. The reality
Doubletree by Hilton
is that there are compelling issues confronting local governments as they plan for the next 30 years. This workshop
7800 Normandale Blvd.
is an excellent opportunity to gain a "big picture" perspective on the issues and how they interrelate plus practical
Minneapolis, MN 55439
information on how to implement an effective planning process. In addition, participants can select two of four
952-835-7800
breakouts to explore specific needs in more depth.
Little Falls
Topics include:
Initiative Foundation
• What's required, contents, options for organizing, possible resources
405 First Street SE
• New resources available to communities in the Local Planning Handbook
Little Falls, MN
• Gathering data; understanding trends; translating these into decisions about the future
320-632-9255
• In-depth focus on housing, energy, water, and sustainable infrastructure investment & resiliency in breakout
sessions
Marshall
Audience: Planners, local elected officials and planning commission members
Southwest State University
1501 State Street
Presenters:
Marshall, MN 56258
John Shardlow, Principal, Stantec
1-800-642-0684
Barbara Thomson, Planning Manager, City of Plymouth
Angela Torres, Senior Planner, Metropolitan Council
Perham Area
Cathy Bennett, Housing Initiative Director, Urban Land Institute Minnesota
Thumper Pond Resort
Brian Ross, Senior Program Director, Great Plains Institute
300 Thumper Lodge Road
Pete Willenbring, Vice President, WSB &Associates
Ottertail, MN 56571
Wednesday, October 28, 2015 — 9:00 AM - 4:30 PM (check-in - 8:30 AM)
218-367-2000
Location: Bloomington Fee: $110 (includes lunch)
Rochester
Cascade Meadow Wetland
2900 19th Street NW
Rochester, MN 55904
HOW TO REGISTER
507-252-8133
Shoreview
Go online to www.mngts.org/LandUse to register for all workshops. This is the
Shoreview Community Center
preferred registration method. You will be able to print or email an invoice or receipt and make
4580 Victoria Street North
group registrations. Payment methods include credit card, purchase order and check. If you
Shoreview, MN 55126
cannot register online, a paper form is available on the above-referenced website. This can
651-490-4790
be completed (one form per person only) and returned to GTS (2233 University Avenue West,
St. Cloud
Suite 150, St. Paul, MN 55114), or faxed to 651-223-5307 or email kwielinski@mngts.org
Best Western Kelly Inn
100 4th Avenue South
Questions?
St. Cloud, MN 56301
Contact GTS Educational Events, 651-222-7409 or 800-569-6880
320-258-8404
Registration: Kim Wielinski, Registrar, ext. 200 kwielinski@mngts.org
Workshops: Dolly Parker, Program Manager, ext. 201, dparker@mngts.org
St. Paul
League of Minnesota Cities
145 University Avenue West
NOTE: The registration fee for all workshops held at Little Falls is free of charge to
St. Paul, MN 55103
representatives of jurisdictions providing services in the National Joint Powers Alliance (NJPA)
651-281-1200
Region 5 counties (Cass, Crow Wing, Todd, Morrison or Wadena). This is made available
through financial support provided by NJPA. Online registration system allows for this
Waite Park
registration option. All questions regarding this matter should be directed to Anna Gruber
Stearns County Service Center
(anna.gruber@njpacoop.org).
3301 County Road 138
Waite Park, MN 56387
320-656-3600
�p GTS is a nonprofit organization dedicated to helping those who provide
services to Minnesota
Ag citizens and communities meet current needs for knowledge and
skills, plus anticipate and prepare
for changes to come. We have worked with policymakers, staff and
appointed officials from all levels
educational events of government and all types of nonprofit agencies—and their collaborators in associations, business,
higher education and community groups—since 1977.