Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPL PACKET 06222015 Our Mission is to be a progressive and livable community, a walkable village, which is sustainable, safe and secure. Call to Order. Pledge of Allegiance. Roll Call. Consideration, discussion, and possible action on all of the following items: I. Approval of the June 22, 2015 Planning Commission Meeting Agenda. (action requested) II. Approval of the May 18, 2015 Regular Planning Commission Meeting Minutes. (action requested) (pp.1-5) 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. (pp. 7-29) B. Consider a 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. (pp. 31-61) IV. Staff Reports. 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. CITY OF SAINT ANTHONY VILLAGE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AGENDA JUNE 22, 2015 COUNCIL CHAMBERS 7:00 PM CITY OF ST. ANTHONY 1 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 2 3 MAY 18, 2015 4 7:00 p.m. 5 6 CALL TO ORDER. 7 8 Chairperson Crone called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. 9 10 PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE. 11 12 Chairperson Crone invited the Commission and the audience to join her in the Pledge of Allegiance. 13 14 ROLL CALL. 15 16 Commissioners Present: Chairperson Crone, Commissioners Gondorchin, Heinis, Papatola, 17 and Poucher. 18 Absent: Commissioners Bartel and Foster. 19 Also Present: City Planner Breanne Rothstein. 20 21 I. APPROVAL OF THE MAY 18, 2015, PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 22 AGENDA. 23 24 Motion by Commissioner Papatola, seconded by Commissioner Poucher, to approve the May 25 18, 2015, Planning Commission agenda as presented. 26 27 Motion carried 5-0. 28 29 II. APPROVAL OF THE JANUARY 26, 2015, REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION 30 MEETING MINUTES. 31 32 Motion by Commissioner Heinis, seconded by Commissioner Papatola, to approve the 33 January 26, 2015, Regular Planning Commission Meeting Minutes. 34 35 Motion carried 5-0. 36 37 III. PUBLIC HEARING. 38 39 A. Consider a request for a variance from the required side and rear yard setback 40 for pool mechanical equipment and a variance to exceed the permitted lot 41 coverage to construct a pool and patio in the rear yard of the property located at 42 2926 Armour Terrace. 43 44 City Planner Rothstein explained the applicant wishes to construct a pool, hot tub, pool deck, 45 patio, and new studio and proposes to increase lot coverage by 1,738 square feet for a total of 46 6,164 square feet or 63% of the total lot area coverage. She presented a site plan depicting 47 current impervious surface coverage and additional impervious surface and presented an 48 architectural drawing of the proposal and stated the subject matter of the application is within 49 1 the scope of the City Code, however, the applicant has not met the criteria indicating the 1 property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner because of the extent of 2 impervious surface proposed. She stated the applicant has not met the criteria that the plight 3 of the property owner is due to circumstances unique to the property because there are no 4 unique characteristics to the property; the applicant has not met the criteria that the variance if 5 granted would not alter the essential character of the locality because the proposal is not in 6 keeping with the intent of the Ordinance; the applicant has not met the criteria that the 7 variance if granted would be consistent with the City’s Comprehensive Plan and stated the 8 City has policies regarding proper storm water and surface water management and the 9 applicant’s proposal and variance request significantly deviates from those policies. She 10 stated the applicant has not met the criteria that granting of the variance is in harmony with 11 the general purpose and intent of the ordinance because the intent is to protect the 12 neighborhood from flooding and prevent overburdening the storm water management system. 13 14 Chairperson Crone opened the public hearing at 7:11 p.m. 15 16 Mr. Jeff Carlson, 2926 Armour Terrace, stated they are not proposing a new studio and deck 17 because the studio and deck was put in about two years ago and they are just proposing to add 18 concrete in the pool and pervious pavers. 19 20 Mrs. Jeff Carlson stated the studio is elevated on footings and asked if that counts as 21 impervious surface coverage. She stated that outside of the requirement for the 3’-5’ bib of 22 concrete around the pool, they are flexible with creating more green space and not adding any 23 more impervious surface in the back yard. 24 25 City Planner Rothstein stated if there is grass underneath the studio and water can freely flow 26 underneath, then it does not count toward lot coverage. She stated she would use the same 27 interpretation for an elevated structure and that was considered when the original building 28 permit was issued. She stated the City Council recently considered whether to begin an 29 ordinance development process related to pervious pavers and the City Council felt strongly it 30 wanted the ordinance to stay the same given the allowances already contained in the Code for 31 increasing pervious surfaces and the City Council did not want to allow any further 32 consideration for other types of pavers. 33 34 Commissioner Gondorchin requested information about whether the studio is considered 35 impervious or pervious. He asked how much the applicant would gain if the bib went from 5’ 36 down to 3’ and also asked how effective the pervious pavers are at passing water. 37 38 City Planner Rothstein stated that one option is to remove as much hard cover as possible then 39 there would be no need to determine whether the criteria has been met because the legal non-40 conformity can continue as long as the lot coverage is not increased, however, the severity of 41 the variance is not a factor when analyzing the criteria and suggested relying on the criteria of 42 the Code and whether or not any request would meet those criteria. She stated the existing 43 impervious surface is 47% or 4,426 square feet and that would be the number where no 44 variance is needed. She further explained that the nature of the soils in St. Anthony does not 45 allow for infiltration and the City has problems with flooding so the City Council feels 46 2 strongly about not making anything worse and increasing impervious surface including 1 pervious pavers because of the difficulties with the soils in the City. 2 3 Ms. Vicki Krevelen, 2925 Silver Lake Road, stated she is the Carlson’s neighbor and one of 4 her other neighbors put in a pool and there have been no negative effects but her main concern 5 with the Carlson’s plan has to do with previous drainage problems in her yard and she would 6 be concerned about what a pool would do and if there is adequate drainage. She stated they 7 have had the City out to their property to find out if the City could put in a drainage system 8 because of the flooding they have every spring and during heavy rainfall and they have had 9 trouble every year because of the water in their back yard and they have put in drain tile to 10 help drain the water down toward the street and into her front yard and this is working well. 11 12 Chairperson Crone closed the public hearing at 7:34 p.m. 13 14 Mr. Carlson acknowledged the flooding issues in the yards and asked if it would be 15 permissible to put drain tile in her neighbor Vicki’s back yard and then let the water soak in 16 and tap the drain tile in the storm manhole. 17 18 City Planner Rothstein stated that any work that affects any of the public storm water system 19 would need permitting and would need to be reviewed by the City Engineer. 20 21 Motion by Commissioner Papatola, seconded by Commissioner Gondorchin, to table action 22 on the request for a variance from the required side and rear yard setback for pool mechanical 23 equipment and a variance to exceed the permitted lot coverage to construct a pool and patio in 24 the rear yard of the property located at 2926 Armour Terrace. 25 Motion carried 5-0. 26 27 B. Consider request for a conditional use permit to allow for an establishment 28 primarily for the sale of alcohol for consumption on the premises located at 3701 29 Stinson Boulevard and to allow a restaurant within 250 feet of a residential area. 30 31 Chairperson Crone noted that the applicant was not present. 32 33 Motion by Commissioner Gondorchin, seconded by Commissioner Poucher, to table action on 34 the request for a conditional use permit to allow for an establishment primarily for the sale of 35 alcohol for consumption on the premises located at 3701 Stinson Boulevard and to allow a 36 restaurant within 250 feet of a residential area. 37 38 Motion carried 5-0. 39 40 C. Consider a request for a variance from the required side and rear yard setback to 41 construct a detached garage on the property located at 2832 Coolidge St. NE. 42 43 City Planner Rothstein stated the applicant proposes to tear down an existing one car garage 44 and construct a two car garage in a similar location, which does not meet the required 5’ 45 setback. She stated the subject matter of the variance is within the scope of the Code and the 46 3 applicant proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner. She stated the applicant has 1 not met the criteria that the plight of the property owner is due to circumstances unique to the 2 property because the reason for the request is to expand the garage and is not due to any 3 factors outside their control. She stated the variance if granted will not alter the essential 4 character of the locality and is in keeping with the character of the neighborhood; economic 5 considerations alone are not the basis for the variance; the variance if granted would be 6 consistent with the Comprehensive Plan; and granting of the variance is in harmony with the 7 general purpose and intent of the Code. 8 9 Chairperson Crone opened the public hearing at 7:55 p.m. 10 11 Ms. Erin Burns, 2832 Coolidge St. NE, stated there are three other two-car garages near her 12 property with a 1’ setback and they are not significantly increasing their footprint. 13 14 Commissioner Poucher expressed concern about the proximity of the garage to the neighbors 15 and the possibility of fire spreading quickly. 16 17 City Planner Rothstein stated the City’s building official would examine the site to determine 18 if a fire wall is needed due to the proximity to other garages. 19 20 Chairperson Crone closed the public hearing at 7:58 p.m. 21 22 Motion by Commissioner Gondorchin, seconded by Commissioner Papatola, to recommend 23 that the City Council approve the request for a variance from the required side and rear yard 24 setback to construct a detached garage on the property located at 2832 Coolidge St. NE. 25 26 Motion carried 5-0. 27 28 D. Consider code text amendment to Section 152.187 of City Code to allow for solar 29 energy systems on residential structures, and provide standards for such 30 installations. 31 32 City Planner Rothstein presented the proposed Code text amendment to allow for greater 33 applications of solar energy systems and noted this is the first major revision of the Code to 34 expand the applicability and use of solar energy systems. She advised the purpose of the 35 amendment is to incorporate more detailed standards governing the installation of solar 36 energy s ystems, to provide clarity for City staff, solar installers, and property owners, to set 37 standards for building mounted and freestanding systems, and to clarify that solar access 38 easements may be purchased from nearby property owners. She stated the proposed 39 Ordinance requires flush mounted systems in the front yards of homes and on all accessory 40 structures and freestanding solar systems are allowed in all zoning districts but only in the rear 41 yard. She stated solar energy systems would be a permitted use in residential districts and a 42 conditional use in commercial districts and the systems cannot be more than 10’ high. She 43 stated that light poles can have solar and all light pole-mounted solar installations are allowed 44 through the issuance of a CUP and limited to three square feet. 45 46 4 Commissioner Gondorchin referenced Section 152.187 and noted the Planning Commission 1 previously recommended the height must be equal to the ridge line and the proposed text 2 amendment states it can be no higher than 12” from the roof. 3 4 City Planner Rothstein agreed that the text amendment should state that the height of the 5 system cannot extend over the ridge line and must be at or below the ridge line. 6 7 Commissioner Papatola requested further information about the City Council’s rationale with 8 respect to the three square foot standard for light pole mounted systems. 9 10 City Planner Rothstein explained that the City Council wanted to minimize the size because 11 there are so many different types of light poles. She stated the Planning Commission could 12 recommend that the text amendment be revised to say three square feet unless expanded as 13 part of an applicant’s CUP request. 14 15 Chairperson Crone opened the public hearing at 8:15 p.m. No speakers were present. 16 Chairperson Crone closed the public hearing at 8:15 p.m. 17 18 Motion by Commissioner Papatola, seconded by Commissioner Heinis, to recommend that the 19 City Council approve the text amendment to Section 152.187 of the City Code to allow for 20 solar energy systems on residential structures, as amended with respect to language regarding 21 the ridge line and light pole mounted systems. 22 Motion carried 5-0. 23 24 IV. STAFF REPORTS. 25 26 A. GTS Training Session 27 28 City Planner Rothstein presented information regarding training sessions for Planning 29 Commissioners, including a course on the basics of planning and zoning. 30 31 V. OTHER BUSINESS. 32 33 Chairperson Crone stated that Commissioner Gondorchin would attend the June 9th City 34 Council meeting. 35 36 VI. COMMUNITY FORUM – NONE. 37 38 VII. INFORMATION AND ANNOUNCEMENTS – NONE. 39 40 VIII. ADJOURNMENT. 41 42 Chairperson Crone adjourned the meeting at 8:18 p.m. 43 44 Respectfully submitted, 45 Barbara Hughes (TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc.) 46 5 THIS PAGE LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK 6 MEMORANDUM To: St. Anthony Village Planning Commission From: Breanne Rothstein, AICP, City Planner Date: June 15, 2015 Planning Commission Regular Meeting for June 22, 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 (50%). 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: Yes 120 Days: 08-22-15 CONSIDERATIONS RELATING TO THE PROPOSED VARIANCE 1. Background The Applicants wish to construct a pool, pool deck, and patio on the property located at 2926 Armour Terrace. The Planning Commission considered the request on May 18, 2015 for an increase to impervious surface to allow up to 63% of the lot to be covered with hard surface, held a public 7 hearing, and took public testimony regarding the application. At that meeting, the Planning Commission tabled action to allow the applicant to come back with a revised proposal. The plan has been revised to decrease the impervious surface coverage and removal of the hot tub. According to the revised plans, the proposed impervious surface coverage is 50 percent, which would be an increase of 5 percentage points beyond the existing situation of 45 percent. The current property exceeds the impervious surface limitations, and the current plan proposes to increase the lot coverage by 487 square feet, resulting in a total square footage of 4,913 square foot, or 50 percent of the lot area. Also, the location of the pool equipment is shown to be located 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. The applicant has submitted a plan that conforms to the setbacks and impervious surface, and the building permit has been issued for a conforming project. The applicant seeks to improve the property to direct drainage away from their foundation, therefore requesting an increase in the impervious surface. 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. 8 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 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. 9 POSSIBLE ACTIONS 1. Recommend Denial of the Variances. Staff recommends denial of both variances, based on the findings and draft resolution in Exhibit C. 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. ATTACHMENTS Exhibit A: Location map Exhibit B: Application and Supporting Material Exhibit C: Draft Resolution of Denial 10 2926 Armour Terrace Legend May 8, 2015 Map by: WSB & Associates 1 in = 50 ft ± 11 THIS PAGE LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 STUDIO HOUSE DRIVEWAY FENCE ROCK TRAIL RETAINING WALL RETAINING WALL HOUSE N 10 10 5 PROPOSED IMPERVIOUS ADDITION = 5% EXISTING IMPERVIOUS = 4,426 SF (45%) LOT 130'x75' = 9,750 SF PROPOSED CONCRETE POOL EQUIPMENT GARDEN 130 SF RAINWATER PROPOSED GARDEN 130 SF RAINWATER PROPOSED PAVERS EXISTING DESIGNED DRAWN CHECKED SDB SDB SDB LOT EXHIBIT FOR 1 MODEL: FILE:PLOT DATE:$MODELNAME$$FILEL$$TIME$$DATE$ FEETSCALE 20100 JEFF CARLSON LOT 17, BLOCK 5 2926 Armour Terrace, St. Anthony, MN 55418 OF SHEET 1 CRESTVIEW TERRACE ST. ANTHONY, MINNESOTA 19 THIS PAGE LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK 20 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 AND POOL DECKING 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 and pool deck 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 9,000 square feet or larger; and WHEREAS, the existing lot coverage exceeds the maximum, currently at 45 percent. 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 5 percentage points to allow the lot coverage to be 50 percent; 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 continued the public hearing to their meeting on June 22, 2015 for the applicant to come forward with revised plans; 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 variance 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 21 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, which is already a problem in this locality. c. The basis for the practical difficulties is caused by the property owner’s desire to construct a pool, decking, and pool equipment in their backyard which does not meet city code. 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 22 2926 Armour Terrace Variance Request Planning Commission Meeting June 22, 2015 2926 Armour Terrace •General Information Applicants: Jeff Carlson Owners: Jeff Carlson Location: 2926 Armour Terrace Existing Land Use Low Density Residential / zoned R-1: Single Family Residential / Zoning: Surrounding Land Use / Zoning: North: Low Density Residential / Zoned R-1; Single Family Residential 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 23 2926 Armour Terrace 2926 Armour Terrace •Overview –Applicants wish to construct a pool and pool deck on their property –The current property exceeds the impervious surface limitations –Title XV Land Usage, Chapter 152 Zoning Code, Section 152.039 (H) limits lot coverage to 35% on lots greater than 9,000 sq. ft. in size –This plan proposes to increase the lot coverage by 488 sq. feet, which would be 50% of the total lot area 24 2926 Armour Terrace •Overview contd. –The proposed pool equipment is shown to be located approximately 5 feet from the side an rear property line. –Title XV Land Usage, Chapter 152 Zoning Code, Section 152.052 c. (1) requires a 10 foot setback for pool equipment from all property lines –The proposed project would need a variance to the required 10 foot side and rear yard setback. 2926 Armour Terrace 25 Variance Criteria Review •Subject matter of the application is within the scope of this section; –Criterion met •The property owner purposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by the zoning code; –Criterion not met •The plight of the property owner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the property owner; –Criterion not met •The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality; –Criterion met •Economic considerations alone are not the basis of practical difficulties; –Criterion met •The variance, if granted, would be consistent with the City’s comprehensive land use plan; –Criterion not met • The granting of the variance is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the zoning code; –Criterion not met Variance Criteria Review 26 2926 Armour Terrace •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 (50%). 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. 2926 Armour Terrace Questions? 27 THIS PAGE LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK 28 NOTICE OF A PUBLIC HEARING Notice is hereby given that on June 22, 2015, 7:00 p.m. at City Hall, 3301 Silver Lake Road, the Saint Anthony Village Planning Commission will hold a public hearing (continued from May 18th) to solicit public response to 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. The Planning Commission will make a recommendation regarding the proposed request to the City Council for their meeting to be held on July 14, 2015, 7:00 p.m. at City Hall. Those persons having an interest in said meetings are encouraged to attend. Oral testimony will be accepted on the above subject at this meeting. Written comments may be taken at the St. Anthony Village City Hall, 3301 Silver Lake Road, St. Anthony Village, Minnesota 55418 until the date of the hearing. Questions may be directed to the City Planner at 763-231-4863. The Planning Commission agenda and packet item relating to this application will be made available prior to the meeting online at www.saint-anthony.mn.us . Breanne Rothstein, AICP City Planner 29 THIS PAGE LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK 30 MEMORANDUM To: St. Anthony Village Planning Commission From: Breanne Rothstein, AICP, City Planner Date: June 15, 2015 Planning Commission Regular Meeting for June 22, 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: 06-09-15 120 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 31 250 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 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. The applicant has also applied for a liquor license and a code text amendment to increase the liquor licenses in the city from three to four. 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. 32 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. 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: 1. 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. 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. 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 33 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. 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. 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. 2. 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 34 37th Ave Ne St i n s o n B l v d Mc k i n l e y S t N e 37th Pl Ne Ro o s e v e l t S t N e St i n s o n B l v d N e 39th Ave Ne Mc k i n l e y S t N e Exhibit A - Location Map3701 Stinson Boulevard¯0 150 30075Feet 35 THIS PAGE LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 THIS PAGE LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK 54 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. 55 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 56 3701 Stinson Boulevard CUP Request Planning Commission Meeting June 22, 2015 3701 Stinson Boulevard General Information Applicants: SS St. Anthony, LLC Owners: SS St. Anthony, LLC Location: 3701 Stinson Boulevard Existing Land Use Commercial/ Zoned: PUD / Zoning: Surrounding Land Use / Zoning: North: Undeveloped / Zoned PUD- Planned Unit Development East: High Density Residential / Zoned PUD- Planned Unit Development South: Commercial / Zoned C- Commercial West: City of Minneapolis (Commercial and Multi Family Residential) 57 Description of Request •Conditional Use Permit request to serve alcohol on property at 3701 Stinson. •Conditional Use Permit issued in 2010 to allow a restaurant within 250 feet of residential area •Also applied for liquor license and code text amendment. 58 3701 Stinson Boulevard •CUP Criteria Review –Use is one of the conditional uses specifically listed for the district in which the property is located; –City Council has specified all conditions; –Use will not be detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of persons residing or working in the vicinity; –Use will provide a service or facility which is in the interest of public convenience and will contribute to the general welfare 3701 Stinson Boulevard RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the application, subject to the following conditions: •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: –Garbage areas must be enclosed with materials that match the building; –Lighting must be “down spill” with no spillage to affect the adjacent residential properties; –No music or other artificial noise shall be audible from the restaurant to adjacent residential properties; •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 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. 59 3701 Stinson Boulevard Questions? 60 NOTICE OF A PUBLIC HEARING Notice is hereby given that on June 22, 2015, 7:00 p.m. at City Hall, 3301 Silver Lake Road, the Saint Anthony Village Planning Commission will hold a public hearing (continued from May 18th) to solicit public response to a request from SS St. Anthony, LLC 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. The Planning Commission will make a recommendation regarding the proposed request to the City Council for their meeting to be held on July 14, 2015, at 7:00 p.m. at City Hall. Those persons having an interest in said meetings are encouraged to attend. Oral testimony will be accepted on the above subject at this meeting. Written comments may be taken at the St. Anthony Village City Hall, 3301 Silver Lake Road, St. Anthony Village, Minnesota 55418 until the date of the hearing. Questions may be directed to the City Planner at 763-231-4863. The Planning Commission agenda and packet item relating to this application will be made available prior to the meeting online at www.saint-anthony.mn.us . Breanne Rothstein, AICP City Planner 61 Planning Commission Members June 10, 2015 City Council Members c/o Consulting Planners WSB St. Anthony Village City Hall 3301 Silver Lake Road St. Anthony, MN 554189 Re: Case for Carlson Family at 2926 Armour Terrace This summary is to state my support for the variance requests to both items due to practical hardships created by conditions other than the applicant’s sole doing and control. As former chair of the Planning Commission we often discussed the need for compensatory opportunities to be recognized for residents to improve their properties, even if the hard surface coverages percentage already exceeded the arbitrary but common use of City 35% lot coverage. This percentage has been passed from community to community, like a free download, without critical analysis of the sites, locations in the city where practical and impractical and without the necessary update from the engineering side of consulting work to determine if the City has adequate storm storage to increase the percentage either by neighborhood or as a blanket change. In this case, the applicant was not instructed by staff to accurately measure their property, nor was there conversation as to mitigation opportunities. This is a hardship to the practical solutions the City has claimed partnership with the Watershed on in newsletters, demonstration projects, grant applications and in sustainable leadership claims. No options to homeowners for modest increases in site coverage to improve property values, drainage pace and site design are discussed, offered by code or in text. It should not be prohibited by the use of a just say no, take the money, its your right to ask use of professionalized applications. WSB does feature in their home offices storm water solutions, permeable paver use, claims for innovation in design to their clients and has demonstrated that work for St. Anthony. In this case, and in other future cases, there is no work plan to provide equalized treatment of a common restriction. Solely penalizing property owners by providing no options for trading hard surface is a practical hardship not caused solely by the applicant. Many other planning firms, codes in other cities, watershed district permitting all recognize the give and take of redevelopment and property improvements from space and building designs of previous decades to today. They offer compensatory solutions and ways to measure their real and perceived impact and allow reasonable change to occur via a permitting plan. There were no restrictions on site coverage when this lot was created. The neighboring property and grade changes effectively create reasonable and sustainable buffering for the consolidation of pool equipment. The City commonly strives to hide and legislate mechanical equipment from view and in design and site neutral locations. Their application does that. Should the applicant offer ways through grading or rain garden solutions to detain water on a walkout lot in exchange for additional hard surface, this should be given standing as a reasonable compensatory planning area. Having a code which only allows the City to gain and claim credit for regrading City property to create dead storage of storm water is a practical hardship to each property attempting to make changes to their home sites in meaningful ways. Having no credit for permeable pavers and other innovative grading techniques that slow water and allow for modest infiltration that are also prominently featured at Silver Lake Park and many other facilities in the City is a hardship to this application and all our residents. It is again a practical hardship that the City has not taken the time nor effort to place the common and affordable solutions for storm water into the work program for the planning commission, the consulting planners or engineers, given the knowledge that so many properties are higher than 35% in their permitted and as built conditions. The hardship is certainly not because the lots are too small, we have taken pride in the quality and diversity of lot sizes and housing types. The City is encouraging in pamphlets primarily to its residents to improve and maintain their property. The City storm water system takes into account the pluses and minuses of the existing drainage in sizing pipes, the most recent storm ponds, the use of central park for new storage and several of the park spaces for retainage away from home sites. Our code does not specifically prohibit solutions from being recognized, it just doesn’t specifically offer a menu of solutions in ordinance. Much like a land use category not specifically mentioned but meeting the intent of the district can be allowed. Therefore a solution can be allowed. Even if a consulting planner does not create the math for the Commission, by example, a 500 SF bathtub shaped rain garden contains the volume before releasing excess, and it stands to reason that a 500 SF increase is offset. I would encourage the planning commission to find that “compensatory, common sense solutions of rain gardens, regrading to slow pace of runoff, permeable pavers or open ground platforms, as presented at a 1:1 ratio form basis for the volume of increase in hard surface proposed is therefore mitigated and neutral to the City ordinance requirement and goal of no net increase in hard surface from the existing condition, and is therefore allowable under the code provisions to not increase the hard surface”; Your motion to approve would be a signal to provide meaningful and practical options for future residents as well by adding this issue as a work program task this year. There is no practical planning reason that pool equipment cannot be approved as proposed, adjacent to an existing property with pool equipment. Respectfully submitted, Donald Jensen, former PC member and Chair Land Use consultant and Landscape Architect 3004 Armour Terrace, St. Anthony, MN 55418