The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutPL PACKET 09282015 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 September 28, 2015 Planning Commission Meeting Agenda. (action requested) II. Approval of the July 27, 2015 Regular Planning Commission Meeting Minutes. (pp.1-4) III. Public Hearing. A. Consider a request for a variance to reduce the required front yard setback for a two story addition at 3425 Sky Croft Circle. (pp.5-34) B. Consider a request for a variance to reduce the required front yard setback for a covered front porch at 3323 Sky Croft Drive. (pp.35-62) C. Consider a request for a variance to exceed the 75 foot height allowance for Wireless Telecommunication Towers at 2801 37th Avenue NE. (pp.63-85) 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 SEPTEMBER 28, 2015 COUNCIL CHAMBERS 7:00 PM CITY OF ST. ANTHONY 1 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 2 3 JULY 27, 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 Foster, Gondorchin, Heinis, 17 Papatola, and Poucher. 18 Absent: Commissioner Bartel. 19 Also Present: City Manager Mark Casey and City Planner Erin Purdu. 20 21 I. APPROVAL OF THE JULY 27, 2015, PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 22 AGENDA. 23 24 Motion by Commissioner Foster, seconded by Commissioner Poucher, to approve the July 27, 25 2015, Planning Commission agenda. 26 27 Motion carried 6-0. 28 29 II. APPROVAL OF THE JUNE 22, 2015, REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION 30 MEETING MINUTES. 31 32 Motion by Commissioner Papatola, seconded by Commissioner Heinis, to approve the June 33 22, 2015, Regular Planning Commission Meeting Minutes. 34 35 Motion carried 5-0 (Poucher abstained). 36 37 III. PUBLIC HEARING. 38 39 A. Consider a request for a conditional use permit amendment to expand the 40 existing daycare facility to 5,000 square feet at the property located at 3055 Old 41 Highway 8. 42 43 City Planner Purdu presented the applicant’s CUP amendment request to expand the existing 44 day care use at 3055 Old Highway 8 and presented an aerial site map depicting the existing 45 day care use and proposed expanded day care within the building. She advised the applicant 46 wishes to take on a new tenant, Minnesota Education and Child Care Academy (MECCA), 47 that will offer drop-in after school and summer care that would expand the existing use from 48 2,300 square feet to approximately 5,200 square feet. She explained the proposed use is one 49 1 of the conditional uses specifically listed in the ordinance and pointed out there are some 1 conditions that the City Council specified in the previous CUP related to traffic control, 2 parking, compliance with applicable State and Federal laws, and hours of operation. She 3 stated that staff believes the proposed use is not detrimental to the health, safety, or general 4 welfare and the proposed use would contribute to the general welfare because a drop-in day 5 care is needed in the area. She advised that staff recommends approval of the CUP 6 amendment to allow expansion of the day care with the conditions outlined in the staff report. 7 8 Chairperson Crone opened the public hearing at 7:10 p.m. 9 10 Ms. Nicki Carlson, representing the applicant, stated the proposed use is a separate tenant. 11 She referenced page 17 of the staff report depicting the existing CUP for the Ikram Day 12 Center and stated the footprint is correct but the green space on the right side of the diagram is 13 a different tenant called Family Care Transportation and has nothing to do with the Ikram Day 14 Care Center. She described the proposed new day care on the drawings included in the staff 15 report and stated they would like to leave the existing day care where it is and move the 16 business tenants to the tower portion of the site and use the tower exclusively for businesses. 17 18 Mr. Fatah Abdi, owner and manager of MECCA, stated their summer hours would be limited 19 to approximately one and one-half months and limited to Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday 20 from 10:00 a.m. and 2:00 p.m. He stated that Saturday and Sunday hours would be 9:00 a.m.-21 5:00 p.m. He stated summer hours would start June 20th and run until July 31st. 22 23 Ms. Carlson stated the after school program would open between 3:00 and 4:00 p.m. and close 24 by 7:00 or 8:00 p.m. She added the Ikram Day Care has CUP hours of 6:00 a.m.-6:00 p.m. 25 26 Commissioner Foster asked if the existing day care facility is licensed by the State and if the 27 proposed new facility is licensed by the State. 28 29 Ms. Carlson stated that Ikram Day Care is licensed by the State and MECCA is not required 30 to be licensed by the State. 31 32 Commissioner Papatola asked about capacity of the drop-in center and how the facility would 33 regulate the number of children. 34 35 Ms. Carlson stated that the maximum number of children at any one time is 75 children based 36 on the square footage of the facility and staffing ratios. 37 38 Ms. Adrianna Surmak, 5424 Bryant Avenue South, stated she is the Director of Human 39 Resources at Family Care Transportation, LLC, and they have 250 independent contractor 40 drivers and 13 full-time staff and most of the drivers and staff have children and many of them 41 live in the area. She encouraged the Planning Commission to grant the CUP for the after 42 school day care and stated it will be a safe, quiet space for children to come after school to 43 have a healthy snack, do their homework, rest, and have access to multi-lingual tutoring when 44 necessary and they believe this would be a nice amenity to have in the building. 45 46 2 Mr. Abdirahmam Ahmed stated he is 13 years old and his father is one of the mosque leaders. 1 He stated on August 24th, he will be starting 8th grade at Farnsworth Aerospace Academy in 2 downtown St. Paul and they have a lot of homework and he felt that having an after school 3 day care where kids can do their homework and get help is a good idea. 4 5 Ms. Sherry Granrud stated she resides on Croft Drive and was concerned about where these 6 kids were going to play because there is no facility for them to play outside. She was also 7 concerned about weekend hours and traffic. She asked about any impact of the proposed use 8 on what proportion of the building could be used for religious purposes. She also asked if the 9 children would be contained at all times in the building and how they will be supervised. 10 11 Mr. Abdi stated they have no plans to use the play space and they plan to use their space for 12 homework and tutoring. He stated they are a private nonprofit organization and they do not 13 need a State license. He stated they will be open every weekend except a few holidays. He 14 stated there will not be any buses and parents will have to drop off and pick up their children. 15 16 Chairperson Crone asked about the religious use as part of the Settlement Agreement. 17 18 Ms. Carlson stated the proposed day care use would not affect the PUD. 19 20 Chairperson Crone closed the public hearing at 7:40 p.m. 21 22 Chairperson Crone requested clarification regarding the original CUP for the existing day care 23 and the proposed expansion for the after school program. 24 25 City Planner Purdu explained the City’s Ordinance has one definition for day care that is 26 fairly broad and staff evaluated the proposed use as part of the same day care use, which is 27 allowed as a conditional use in this zoning district and which goes with the building and not 28 just a specific tenant. 29 30 Commissioner Foster stated the applicant has indicated they are not a day care facility, that 31 they are not licensed as a day care facility and that they are an after school tutoring program 32 and asked if a CUP is needed if this is not a day care facility under the current ordinance. 33 34 City Manager Casey explained there is not a separate definition in the City Code and staff felt 35 that the proposed use would most closely follow within the intent of that portion of the CUP. 36 He stated that staff felt this was more appropriate than not issuing a CUP because the 37 proposed use will be enforced by the existing CUP conditions, e.g., compliance with State and 38 Federal laws. 39 40 Commissioner Foster stated he continued to be troubled by the fact that they have indicated 41 they are not a day care facility and do not have to be licensed and did not agree with trying to 42 shoehorn this use into the existing CUP when it is not a day care facility. 43 44 City Manager Casey stated that staff felt the proposed use was similar and without having 45 specific definitions in the Code to delineate between a drop in center and day care center, staff 46 3 felt the proposed use was similar and felt the CUP conditions would protect the applicant and 1 the City’s interests. 2 3 Commissioner Foster stated he would be voting against this CUP amendment and explained 4 that while he applauds the proposed after school tutoring program, he did not believe the 5 procedure was being done correctly. 6 7 Motion by Commissioner Papatola, seconded by Chairperson Crone, to recommend that the 8 City Council approve a conditional use permit amendment to expand the existing daycare 9 facility to 5,000 square feet at the property located at 3055 Old Highway 8, as amended to 10 include a condition that the proposed day care use shall have hours of operation limited to 11 3:00-8:00 p.m. Monday through Friday and 9:00 a.m.-5:00 p.m. on Saturdays and Sundays. 12 13 Motion carried 5-1 (Foster opposed; Bartel absent). 14 15 IV. STAFF REPORTS – NONE. 16 17 V. OTHER BUSINESS. 18 19 Chairperson Crone stated that Commissioner Papatola would attend the August 11th City 20 Council meeting. 21 22 VI. COMMUNITY FORUM. 23 24 Mr. Marshall Lichty, 3321 Skycroft Circle, referenced the notice in Village Notes about the 25 Planning Commission and stated he is a lawyer and is interested in land use planning and was 26 attending this evening as an observer. 27 28 VII. INFORMATION AND ANNOUNCEMENTS. 29 30 Chairperson Crone referenced her recent article in Village Notes about the Planning 31 Commission’s role and stated the Planning Commission will have three open seats at the end 32 of the year and encouraged interested persons to apply. 33 34 Commissioner Poucher reminded residents about VillageFest this weekend. 35 36 VIII. ADJOURNMENT. 37 38 Chairperson Crone adjourned the meeting at 7:58 p.m. 39 40 Respectfully submitted, 41 Barbara Hughes (TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc.) 42 4 MEMORANDUM To: St. Anthony Village Planning Commission From: Breanne Rothstein, AICP, City Planner Date: September 21, 2015 Planning Commission Regular Meeting for September 28, 2015 WSB Project No. 02170-210 Request: Request for a variance from the required front yard setback to allow the construction of an entryway addition at 3425 Skycroft Circle. RECOMMENDATION The City Code requires a front yard setback of the greater of 30 feet or the average of the front yard depths of the 2 adjacent lots. The home to the west has a front depth of 34.75 feet and the home to east has a front yard depth of 35 feet resulting in the average of 34.87 feet. The applicant requests a variance to construct a two story addition to encroach 6.87 feet into the required front yard setback to result in a front yard depth of 28 feet. The Applicant’s request for a variance from the front yard setback to allow for the construction the two story addition is reasonable, per the findings listed in city code. Therefore, staff recommends approval of the variance to encroach into the front yard setback. GENERAL INFORMATION Applicant/Owner: Gordon and Becky Januszewski Location: 3425 Skycroft Circle 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: 08-12-15 Action: 60 Days: 10-11-15 Letter Sent: No 120 Days: 12-10-15 CONSIDERATIONS RELATING TO THE PROPOSED VARIANCE 1. Background The Applicants propose to construct a two story addition to the front of the house on the property located at 3425 Skycroft Circle. According to the submitted plans, the addition would be 12 feet wide by 7 feet deep. Within the addition would be a new entry and a staircase leading up to the second floor and is proposed as part of a larger remodel of the home. 5 The property currently has a front yard depth of 35 feet. The applicants’ request would result in a front yard depth of 28 feet. 2. Applicable Codes. Title XV Land Usage, Chapter 152 Zoning Code, Sections §152.035 through 152.039 R-1 Single-Family District apply to this proposal. Section 150.039 (E) requires a front yard setback of the greater of 30 feet or the average of the front yard depths of the 2 adjacent lots. The home to the west has a front depth of 34.75 feet and the home to east has a front yard depth of 35 feet resulting in the average of 34.87 feet. The applicant requests a variance to encroach 7 feet to result in a front yard depth of 28 feet. 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 reasonable. The proposed addition will be occupied by an expanded entry and a staircase, which are common in all two story homes. Criterion met. b. The plight of the property owner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the property owner; The R-1 Single Family Residential zoning district designates the front yard setback based on the average setback of the adjacent lots. The home to the west has a front depth of 34.75 feet and the home to east has a front yard depth of 35 feet resulting in the average of 34.87 feet. The house at 3425 Skycroft Cir has an existing front yard setback of 34.92 feet, which in not unique and the desire to add on to the house is causing the need for a variance. Criterion not met. c. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality; and Granting of this variance would not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. While it appears that many of the other homes in the neighborhood also have about a 35 feet front yard setback, granting the 7 foot encroachment into the front yard would not be out of character for this neighborhood. There are been previous requests of this nature in the past that have been approved consistent with this criterion. Criterion met. 6 d. Economic considerations alone are not the basis of the practical difficulties. The basis for the practical difficulties is that the existing house has an existing front yard setback similar to the other homes in the neighborhood. The components within the addition could be constructed elsewhere and comply with the ordinance standards. However, the desire to improve the entry level of this split level home and remodel the interior to improve livability is the primary reason for the request. While economic considerations are a factor, 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 front porch will not alter that land use. Therefore, granting of the variance related to lot coverage would be consistent with the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan. Criterion 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 these factors, this application is in keeping with the intent of the ordinance to prevent overcrowding of land and undue concentration of structures and provide adequate access to light and air. Criterion met. POSSIBLE ACTIONS 1. Recommend Approval (with or without conditions) of the variance and adopt the resolution found in Exhibit C. 2. Recommend Denial (with or without conditions) of the Variance. In the event of a recommendation for denial (with or without conditions), the Planning Commission must state its findings and any conditions related to denial. 3. 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. ATTACHMENTS Exhibit A: Location map Exhibit B: Application and Supporting Material Exhibit C: Draft Resolution 7 THIS PAGE LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK 8 3425 Skycroft Circle test Legend September 21, 2015 Map by: WSB & Associates 1 in = 100 ft ± 9 THIS PAGE LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK 10 11 12 13 We are requesting a variance to the current street side setback requirements in order to accommodate a small addition to the front of the house for the purpose of creating a new entryway as part of a larger remodeling project which includes a redesigned kitchen/dining area, master bedroom and master bath. Currently we would have to have a minimium setback, based upon the two adjoining properties of thirty four feet ten and one half inches. The proposed front addition will be six feet six inches deep by eleven feet seven inches wide and would have a new setback from the street of twenty eight feet. The proposed entryway would include a new, larger entryway, new door as well as direct access to the main living area on the second floor bypassing the current entryway. We believe this request is made in compliance with Section 152.245 for the following reasons: (C) (1): The subject matter is within the scope of the afore mentioned section. (C) (2) (a): We believe we will be using the property in a reasonable manner by redesigning the entryway, modernizing the appearance of the current house and entryway by creating a larger, more open entryway and updating the street appearance of the house. (C) (2) (b): Because the current entryway is part of an original split level design we have no other options to provide for an updated entryway but to include the front addition to allow for a new entryway door, foyer and stairway that provides direct access to the main living area of the house. This is unique to the original design of the split level entry style home. (C) (2) (c): We believe the redesigned entryway will not alter the essential character of the locality. The property will still be a single family home, as are the rest of the houses in the neighborhood. The proposed addition will only provide for a much needed redesigned front entryway and direct access to the main living area of the home. (C) (2) (d): Economic considerations alone are not the basis for the request. Because of the how the house sits on the lot the only design option that would provide for a new front entryway is to add on to the front of the house and this requires relief from the current setback requirements. (C) (3): We believe the variance is consistent with the city’s comprehensive land use plan because as mentioned before the variance will only provide relief for a redesigned front entryway. The rest of the project complies with all other city requirements with the house remaining a single family dwelling. The only other changes will be an update appearance as well as functional improvements to the interior. (C)) (4): We believe the variance is in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the zoning code for the reason stated in the previous paragraph. In closing we would like to state that we believe the variance, if approved will provide for a much improved entryway and will actually enhance the character of the house as well as the neighborhood. We believe our architect has provided us with a unique and creative way to update our house in a manner that meets our criteria for a more open floor plan as well as the increased functionality that we sought in a redesigned home. Thank you for considering our request and we hope you will agree with us in our reasoning and approve the variance as requested. Gordon & Becky Januszewski 14 130' 4 : 1 2 4 : 12 4 : 1 2 4 : 1 2 4 : 1 2 4 1/16 : 12 EXISTING ROOF 4 : 12 4 : 1 2 4 : 12 4 : 1 2 4 : 12 28' +/- EXISTING ROOF P R O P O S E D P O R C H A D D I T I O N 35' +/- RE V I S I O N T A B L E NU M B E R D A T E R E V I S E D B Y D E S C R I P T I O N SHEET: SCALE: DR A W I N G S P R O V I D E D B Y : ST A C Y D E N N I S D E S I G N S 60 1 2 1 4 T H A V E S . MI N N E A P O L I S M N 5 5 4 1 7 PH : 6 1 2 - 2 9 6 - 2 2 5 0 DATE: GO R D O N & B E C K J A N U S Z E W S K I 34 2 5 S K Y C R O F T C I R . ST . A N T H O N Y V I L L A G E M N 55 4 1 7 SITE PLAN Scale: 1/8"=1'-0" 8/7/2015 1/8"=1'-0" SI T E P L A N 15 16 17 18 19 20 16 0 7 0 30 6 8 2668 2668 30 1 6 F X 30 6 8 3016FX3016FX 26 6 8 UP 5'-2" x 7'-6" 11'-7" x 4'-10" 21'-5" x 18'-5" 188 sq ft LIVING AREA GARAGE ENTRY DN? BATH 1st Floor 16 0 7 0 26 6 8 2668 3068 30 6 8 30 6 8 30 6 8 30 6 8 26 6 8 3016FX3016FX 26 6 8 UP UP 4 ' - 1 1 " x 1 8 ' - 5 " 11'-7" x 7'-6" 21'-5" x 18'-5" 5'-3" x 7'-6" 435 sq ft 6'-6" x 11'-7" 5'-1" x 7'-6" 18 ' - 5 5 / 8 " 5'-3 7/16" LIVING AREA GARAGE COUNTER? DN 1/2 BATH? STORAGE NEW ENTRY LAUNDRY/MUDROOM BATH S T O R A G E 1st Floor A# RE V I S I O N T A B L E NU M B E R D A T E R E V I S E D B Y D E S C R I P T I O N SHEET: SCALE: DR A W I N G S P R O V I D E D B Y : PA G E T I T L E DATE: 7/16/2015 21 RB45 B24R B24R BCB24R SB 3 9 B18RRB45 B24R B24R BCB24R SB 3 9 B18R U2 7 2 4 9 0 2133SC 40 4 0 D C 3068 40 4 0 D C 2868 80 4 3 F X 2668 2 6 6 8 UP 16'-3" x 19'-11" 13'-4" x 10'-0" 590 sq ft 7'-2" x 9'-6" KITCHEN DINING LIVING AREA ? WINDOW? LIVING DINING 2nd Floor DN DN 40 4 0 D C 40 4 0 D C 3068 2668 41 6 8 80 4 3 F X UP 17'-5" x 19'-11" 17'-4" x 12'-3" 3'-3" x 1'-10" 5'-7" x 7'-6" 5'-6" x 3'-11" 714 sq ft 10'-9" x 7'-8" STAIRWELL PANTRY ? LIVING AREA WINDOW? LIVING DINETTE KITCHEN STAIRWELL 2nd Floor RE V I S I O N T A B L E NU M B E R D A T E R E V I S E D B Y D E S C R I P T I O N SHEET: SCALE: DR A W I N G S P R O V I D E D B Y : DATE: 7/16/2015 22 DN SB39 SB 5 0 SB39 SB 5 0 1968 26 6 8 2668 26 6 8 3016FX3016FX 42 4 2 D C 42 4 2 D C 21 3 3 S C 21 3 3 S C 42 3 1 1 D C 50 6 8 266 8 26 6 8 26 6 8 4968 5068 9'-7" x 12'-0" 3'-3" x 13'-0" 1 ' - 1 1 " x 5 ' - 3 " 11'-0" x 11'-8" 5'-9" x 4'-2" 644 sq ft 5'-9" x 8'-6" 3'-4" x 3'-3" 10'-9" x 12'-10" 5'-6" x 1'-10"5'-2" x 1'-10" BATH LANDING? WINDOW?WINDOW? BEDROOM BEDROOM BEDROOM C L O S E T CLOSETCLOSET HALL BATH LIVING AREA 3rd Floor DN 12 6 8 26 6 8 24682668 5068 3016FX3016FX 50 4 2 T C 21 3 3 S C 21 3 3 S C 26 6 8 26 6 8 2668 26 6 8 2668 50 6 8 5068 9'-7" x 16'-0" 3' - 6 " x 4 ' - 2 " 4'-8" x 4'-2" 8'-1" x 2'-0" 5'-9" x 8'-6"15'-10" x 5'-2" 3' - 4 " x 3 ' - 3 " 5'-10" x 4'-2" 14'-11" x 12'-10" 779 sq ft 5'-1" x 8'-6" 3' - 3 " x 8 ' - 1 0 " 9'-7" x 2'-0" 2' - 1 " 2' - 1 " 8' - 7 1 / 8 " 6 1/2"9'-8" 12 ' - 1 1 " 10'-6 1/2" BATH LANDING? WINDOW?WINDOW? CLOSET LIVING AREA ST A I R W E L L CLOSET BATH SH O W E R BATHLANDING BEDROOM BEDROOM CL O S E T CLOSET open below 3rd Floor RE V I S I O N T A B L E NU M B E R D A T E R E V I S E D B Y D E S C R I P T I O N SHEET: SCALE: DR A W I N G S P R O V I D E D B Y : DATE: 7/16/2015 23 THIS PAGE LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK 24 CITY OF ST. ANTHONY VILLAGE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. __________ RESOLUTION APPROVING A VARIANCE FROM THE REQUIRED YARD SETBACK IN ORDER TO CONSTRUCT A TWO STORY ADDITION AT THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 3425 SKYCROFT CIRCLE WHEREAS, the City of St. Anthony Village received a request from the Applicants Gordon and Becky Januszewski for a variance from the front yard setback to allow the construction of a two story addition closer than 34.87 feet from the front property line at the property located at 3425 Skycroft Circle on August 12, 2015, legally described as follows: Lot 022, Block 001, St. Anthony Terrace Manor Addition, Hennepin County, Minnesota WHEREAS, the property located at 3425 Skycroft Circle is located within the City’s R-1 Zoning District; and WHEREAS, per Section 150.039 of city code, a front yard setback is required the distance of the greater of 30 feet or a distance equal to the average of the front yard depths of the 2 adjacent lots is required within the R-1 Zoning District; and WHEREAS, the average front yard depth of the 2 adjacent lots is 34.87 feet; and WHEREAS, the Applicant has requested a 7-foot variance from the front yard setback to allow for the construction of the two story entryway and landing; 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 September 28, 2015 and recommended approval of the request; 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 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 justified for the following reasons: a. Strict enforcement of the setback would cause a practical difficulty in updating the home, improving aesthetics, and allowing a better use of the entry of the home; b. The request will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood; 25 c. 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 not have an impact on land use compatibility overcrowding the land and concentrating structures nor will it impede access to light or air. NOW THEREFORE BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City Council’s hereby approves the requested variance, 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 26 3425 Skycroft Circle Variance Request Planning Commission Meeting September 28, 2015 3425 Skycroft Circle General Information Applicants: Gordon and Becky Januszewski Owners: same Location: 3425 Skycroft Circle Existing Land Use Low Density Residential / Zoning: R-1 Single Family Residential 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 27 3425 Skycroft Circle 3425 Skycroft Circle •Overview –Front Yard Setback requirement is 34.87 feet (based on the average of two adjacent homes) –Proposal to construct an addition to the front of the home (entry way and landing for a remodel) –Request for a 6.87 foot variance to construct at 28 feet 28 3425 Skycroft Circle 29 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 met •The plight of the property owner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the property owner; –Criterion not met 30 •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 met • The granting of the variance is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the zoning code; –Criterion met Variance Criteria Review 3425 Skycroft Circle •Recommendation –The Applicant’s request for a variance from the front yard setback to allow for the construction the two story addition is reasonable, per the findings listed in city code. –Staff recommends approval of the variance to encroach into the front yard setback. 31 3425 Skycroft Circle Questions? 32 NOTICE OF A PUBLIC HEARING Notice is hereby given that on September 28, 2015, 7:00 p.m. at City Hall, 3301 Silver Lake Road, the Saint Anthony Village Planning Commission will hold a public hearing to solicit public response to a request for a variance to reduce the required front yard setback for a two story addition at 3425 Sky Croft Circle. The Planning Commission will make a recommendation regarding the proposed request to the City Council for their meeting to be held on October 13, 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 online at www.saint-anthony.mn.us. Breanne Rothstein, AICP City Planner 33 THIS PAGE LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK 34 MEMORANDUM To: St. Anthony Village Planning Commission From: Breanne Rothstein, AICP, City Planner Date: September 21, 2015 Planning Commission Regular Meeting for September 28, 2015 WSB Project No. 02170-200 Request: Request for a variance from the required front yard setback minimum of 35 feet at 3323 Skycroft Drive RECOMMENDATION The City Code requires a front yard structure setback of the greater of 30 feet or the average of the front yard depths of the 2 adjacent lots. The home to the west has a front depth of 34.85 feet and the home to northeast has a front yard depth of 35.14 feet resulting in the average of 35.00 feet. Covered porches are allowed to encroach into the required front yard setback a maximum of 5 feet. The applicant requests a 2.36 foot variance to construct a covered front porch that encroaches 7.36 feet to result in a front yard depth of 27.64 feet. The Applicant’s request for a variance from the front yard setback to allow for the construction a covered front porch is reasonable, based on the findings in city code. Therefore, staff recommends approval of the variance to encroach into the front yard setback. GENERAL INFORMATION Applicant/Owner: Patrick and Patricia Niccum Location: 3323 Skycroft Dr 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: 08-25-15 Action: 60 Days: 10-24-15 Letter Sent: No 120 Days: 12-23-15 CONSIDERATIONS RELATING TO THE PROPOSED VARIANCE 1. Background The Applicants propose to construct a covered front porch on the property located at 3323 Skycroft Dr. According to the submitted plans, the covered porch would be 23.5 feet wide by 8 feet deep. 35 The roof over the porch would extend another 2.5 feet into the front yard. The height of the front porch is proposed to be 7.87 feet. The existing house currently has a front yard setback of 34.92 feet. The applicants’ request would result in a front yard setback of 27.64 feet. 2. Applicable Codes. Title XV Land Usage, Chapter 152 Zoning Code, Sections §152.035 through 152.039 R-1 Single-Family District apply to this proposal. Section 150.039 (E) requires a front yard setback of the greater of 30 feet or the average of the front yard depths of the 2 adjacent lots. Furthermore, Section 152.177 allows steps, stoops, and porches to encroach into the front yard by 5 feet. The home to the west has a front depth of 34.85 feet and the home to northeast has a front yard depth of 35.14 feet resulting in the average of 35.00 feet. The applicant requests a variance to encroach 7.36 feet to result in a front yard depth of 27.64 feet, and necessitating a 2.36 foot variance. 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 setbacks is an eligible subject matter for variance criteria because these factors are related to dimensional 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 reasonable. A front porch is normal feature of a single family house and is becoming increasingly common. Criterion met. b. The plight of the property owner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the property owner; The R-1 Single Family Residential zoning district designates the front yard setback based on the average setback of the adjacent lots. The home to the west has a front depth of 34.85 feet and the home to northeast has a front yard depth of 35.14 feet resulting in the average of 35.00 feet. The house at 3323 Skycroft Dr has an existing front yard setback of 35 feet, which is not unique to this property. Since the construction of a new addition will necessitate the variance, staff finds this Criterion is not met. c. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality; and Granting of this variance would not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. The two adjacent lots have a front yard setback of 35 feet. It appears that many of the other homes in the neighborhood also have a minimum of a 35 feet front yard setback, as illustrated in the variance request for 3425 Skycroft Cir that is also on the agenda tonight. However, several requests have been made for front yard setback variances for 36 additions in the past few years, and people are seeking to update the usability and livability of their homes. Therefore, staff believes that while most setbacks in the neighborhood are 35 feet, this addition would not unreasonably alter the character of the neighborhood. Criteria met. d. Economic considerations alone are not the basis of the practical difficulties. The basis for the practical difficulties is that the existing house has an existing front yard setback similar to the other homes in the neighborhood. The sole basis for the request is to improve the usability of the home and improve the aesthetic view from the street; economic considerations are not the sole basis for the request. 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 front porch will not alter that land use. Therefore, granting of the variance related to lot coverage would be consistent with the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan. Criterion 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. While the encroachment may impact the consistency and uniformity of the setbacks within the neighborhood, the request would not impact orderly development, impede access to light or air, or increase congestion or density in the area. Given all the factors, this application is in keeping with the intent of the ordinance to prevent overcrowding of land and undue concentration of structures. Criterion met. POSSIBLE ACTIONS 1. Recommend approval (with or without conditions) of the variance and adopt the resolution found in Exhibit C. 2. Recommend denial (with or without conditions) of the variance. In the event of a recommendation for denial (with or without conditions), the Planning Commission shall state additional findings and any conditions related to approval. 3. 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. ATTACHMENTS Exhibit A: Location map Exhibit B: Application and Supporting Material Exhibit C: Draft Resolution 37 THIS PAGE LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK 38 3323 Skycroft Drive test Legend September 21, 2015 Map by: WSB & Associates 1 in = 100 ft ± 39 THIS PAGE LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK 40 41 42 43 THE NICCUM RESIDENCE 44 4 5 4 6 4 7 4 8 4 9 5 0 5 1 THIS PAGE LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK 52 CITY OF ST. ANTHONY VILLAGE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. __________ RESOLUTION APPROVING A VARIANCE FROM THE REQUIRED FRONT YARD SETBACK IN ORDER TO CONSTRUCT A COVERED FRONT PORCH AT THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 3323 SKYCROFT DRIVE WHEREAS, the City of St. Anthony Village received a request from the Applicants Patrick and Patricia Niccum for a variance from the front setback to allow the construction of a covered front porch closer than 35 feet from the front property line at the property located at 3323 Skyview Drive on August 25, 2015, legally described as follows: Lot 017, Block 003, St. Anthony Terrace Manor Addition, Hennepin County, Minnesota WHEREAS, the property located at 3323 Skycroft Drive is located within the City’s R-1 Zoning District; and WHEREAS, per Section 150.039 of city code, a front yard setback is required the distance of the greater of 30 feet or a distance equal to the average of the front yard depths of the 2 adjacent lots is required within the R-1 Zoning District; and WHEREAS, per Section 152.77 of city code, a porch is a permitted encroachment into the front yard, up to 5 feet. WHEREAS, the average front yard depth of the 2 adjacent lots is 35.0 feet; and WHEREAS, the Applicant has requested a 2.36-foot variance from the required 30 foot (35-5) front yard setback to allow for the construction of the covered front porch; 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 September 28, 2015 and recommended approval of the request; 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 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 justified for the following reasons: a. Strict enforcement of the setback would cause a practical difficulty in updating the home, improving aesthetics, and allowing a better use of the entry of the home; 53 b. The request will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood; c. Allowing the variance would be in keeping with the general purposes and intent of the City’s Code and Comprehensive Plan to provide for compatibility of different land uses and protect the access of light and air. The project will not overcrowd the land or concentrate structures. NOW THEREFORE BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City Council’s hereby approves the requested variance, 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 54 3323 Skycroft Drive Variance Request Planning Commission Meeting September 28, 2015 3323 Skycroft Drive General Information Applicants: Patrick and Patricia Niccum Owners: same Location: 3323 Skycroft Drive Existing Land Use Low Density Residential / Zoning: R-1 Single Family Residential 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 55 3323 Skycroft Drive 3323 Skycroft Drive •Overview –Front Yard Setback requirement is 35 feet (based on the average of two adjacent homes) –Proposal to construct a porch to the front of the home (entry way and landing for a remodel) –Porches are permitted to encroach up to 5 feet –Request for a 2.36 foot variance to construct at 27.64 feet 56 3323 Skycroft Drive 57 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 met •The plight of the property owner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the property owner; –Criterion not met 58 •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 met • The granting of the variance is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the zoning code; –Criterion met Variance Criteria Review 3323 Skycroft Drive •Recommendation –The Applicant’s request for a variance from the front yard setback to allow for the construction a porch is reasonable, per the findings listed in city code. –Staff recommends approval of the variance to encroach into the front yard setback. 59 3323 Skycroft Drive Questions? 60 NOTICE OF A PUBLIC HEARING Notice is hereby given that on September 28, 2015, 7:00 p.m. at City Hall, 3301 Silver Lake Road, the Saint Anthony Village Planning Commission will hold a public hearing to solicit public response to a request for a variance to reduce the required front yard setback for a covered front porch at 3323 Sky Croft Drive. The Planning Commission will make a recommendation regarding the proposed request to the City Council for their meeting to be held on October 13, 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 online at www.saint-anthony.mn.us. Breanne Rothstein, AICP City Planner 61 THIS PAGE LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK 62 MEMORANDUM To: St. Anthony Village Planning Commission From: Breanne Rothstein, AICP, City Planner Date: September 21, 2015 Planning Commission Regular Meeting for September 28, 2015 WSB Project No. 02170-220: Verizon Cell Tower Variance Request: Request for a variance from the required maximum tower height of 75 feet at 2801 37th Avenue NE RECOMMENDATION The Applicant’s request is for a variance to increase the height of the existing wireless telecommunications tower to 83 feet and install antennas that would extend to a height of 87 feet. City Code Section 90.04 (B) (8) (a) states that towers shall not exceed 75 feet. Verizon’s RF Engineer has provided an analysis that a coverage gap for Verizon customers would remain in the Silver Lake area if Verizon installed their antennas on the existing pole beneath the existing AT&T antennas. The purpose statement of the Wireless Telecommunication Towers Chapter of the City Code (City Code Section 90.02 (B) (4)) promotes and encourages shared collocation of towers and antennas rather than construction of additional single-use towers. Therefore, staff recommends approval of a variance to exceed the wireless telecommunication tower height to a maximum tower height of 83 feet and a maximum antenna height of 87 feet. GENERAL INFORMATION Applicant: Verizon Wireless Owner: 2801 Coho LLC (Herb Houndt) Location: 2801 37th Ave NE Existing Land Use / Industrial and Utility / Zoned: L-1: Light Industrial Zoning: Surrounding Land North: Commercial and High Density Residential / Zoned: PUD Use / Zoning: East: Commercial / Zoned: L-1: Light Industrial South: Low Density and Medium Density Residential / Zoned: R-2 West: Commercial / Zoned: C: Commercial Deadline for Agency Application Date: 08-24-15 Action: 60 Days: 10-23-15 Letter Sent: No 120 Days: 12-22-15 63 CONSIDERATIONS RELATING TO THE PROPOSED VARIANCE 1. Background There is an existing wireless telecommunications tower to the north (rear) of the building at 2801 37th Ave NE. The tower is currently 75 feet in height and AT&T has antennas mounted at the 73 feet point of the tower. The Applicant (Verizon Wireless) wishes to install antennas on this tower to provide service to the Silver Lake neighborhood to north and provide increased capacity to the general area. Directly north of the site is railroad right-of-way and there are existing mature trees between 65 and 70 feet in height within the right-of-way. If the height is not increased, Verizon would need to install their antennas at the 59 feet point of the tower below AT&T antennas. Verizon’s RF Engineer has provided a coverage maps that shows that the Silver Lake neighborhood would maintain significant coverage gaps, partially due to the reduced height but primarily due to the existing trees blocking the signals. If the variance was approved for an extension to increase the tower height to 83 feet, then Verizon’s antennas mounted at 83 feet would provide coverage for the majority of the Silver Lake neighborhood. 2. Applicable Codes. Title IX General Regulations, Chapter 90 Wireless Telecommunication Towers, Section §90.04 (B) (8) HEIGHT apply to this proposal. Section (B) (8) (a) states that wireless telecommunication towers shall not exceed 75 feet. 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 height is an 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 applicant is proposing to co-locate antennas on an existing tower that is permitted in the zoning district and encouraged by the wireless telecommunications towers chapter. The applicant cannot provide coverage mounting antennas on the tower below the existing AT&T and would otherwise need to install a new tower to provide coverage, which is discouraged by the wireless telecommunications towers chapter. Increasing the height of the tower by eight (8) feet, to a total height of 83 feet, would provide coverage. Therefore, the property owner is proposing to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by the zoning code. Criterion met. b. The plight of the property owner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the property owner; 64 The property is located adjacent to a railroad right-of-way and there are existing mature trees that are between 65 and 70 feet tall. These trees prevent the existing telecommunication towers from providing service from a second set of collocated antennas. These trees were not planted by the property owner. Therefore, the plight is due to circumstances unique to the property that are not created by the property owner. Criterion 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 tower is already located on the property and already supports antennas providing service for AT&T customers. The character of the locality would be altered greater if a second tower was constructed to provide Verizon coverage instead of granting the variance for the increased height. Criterion met. d. Economic considerations alone are not the basis of the practical difficulties. Increasing the height of the tower would likely cost more than installing the antennas at the 59 foot height, but that would height would not provide coverage. The request to increase the height of the tower is not related to cost, it is related to coverage. 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, light industrial. The comprehensive plan guides this area for light industrial and the proposed tower extension will not alter that land use. Additionally, the Comprehensive Plan speaks to the investments that St. Anthony has made in redeveloping Apache Plaza into Silver Lake Village. The proposed extension would provide Verizon wireless telecommunication coverage to Silver Lake Village that otherwise would not occur from the existing tower. Criterion 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. A wireless telecommunications tower existing on the site that is permitted within the LI: Light Industrial zoning district. If the height of the tower were not increased, the coverage could only be provided by constructing a second tower, which is discouraged by the Wireless Telecommunications Tower chapter and would increase the concentration of structures. Therefore, allowing the increase in height would meet the intent of the zoning code by preventing undue concentration of structures. Criterion met. POSSIBLE ACTIONS 1. Recommend Approval (with or without conditions) of the variance and adopt the resolution found in Exhibit C. 2. Recommend Denial of the Variance. In the event of a recommendation for denial, the Planning Commission may state its findings related to denial. 65 3. 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. ATTACHMENTS Exhibit A: Location map Exhibit B: Application and Supporting Material Exhibit C: Draft Resolution 66 2801 37th Avenue test Legend September 21, 2015 Map by: WSB & Associates 1 in = 100 ft ± 67 THIS PAGE LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 CITY OF ST. ANTHONY VILLAGE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. __________ RESOLUTION APPROVING A VARIANCE FROM THE WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATION TOWER HEIGHT REQUIREMENT AT THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2801 37TH AVE NE WHEREAS, the City of St. Anthony Village received a request from the Applicant Verizon Wireless and Property Owner 2801 Coho LLC for a variance from the wireless telecommunication tower height requirement to allow an extension of the existing tower to the height of 83 feet at the property located at 2801 37th Ave NE on August 24, 2015, legally described as follows: Lot 2, Block 1, Apache Terrace 2nd Addition, Ramsey County, Minnesota WHEREAS, the property located at 2801 37th Ave NE is located within the City’s LI: Light Industrial Zoning District; and WHEREAS, per Section 90.04 of city code, the height of a wireless telecommunication tower shall not exceed 75 feet; and WHEREAS, the Applicant has requested an eight (8) foot variance from the tower height requirement; and WHEREAS, the Applicant has provided an analysis from the RF engineer that states that coverage, particularly within the Silver Lake neighborhood, cannot be provided by co-locating at a lower height on the existing tower; 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 September 28, 2015 and recommended approval of the request; and NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council’s hereby approves the requested variance, subject to the following conditions: 1. The height of the wireless telecommunication tower at 2801 37th Ave NE shall not exceed 83 feet. 2. The height of any antenna installed on the wireless telecommunication tower at 2801 37th Ave NE shall not exceed 87 feet. 3. Issuance of a building permit for the extension of the tower and installation of the antenna that meets all the requirements of the building code, all other provision of the zoning code not subject to this variance, and all other applicable regulations. APPROVED in the regular session of the City Council on ________________, 2015. 77 ___________________________________ Jerome O. Faust, Mayor Attested: ___________________________________ Nicole Miller, City Clerk 78 2801 37th Ave Variance Request Planning Commission Meeting September 28, 2015 2801 37th Avenue General Information Applicants: Verizon Wireless Owners: 2801 Coho, LLC Location: 2801 37th Avenue Existing Land Use Industrial and Utility / Zoning: L-1 Light Industrial Surrounding Land Use/ Zoning: North: Commercial and High Density Residential / Zoned: PUD East: Commercial / Zoned: L-1: Light Industrial South: Low Density and Medium Density Residential / Zoned: R-2 West: Commercial / Zoned: C: Commercial 79 2801 37th Avenue 2801 37th Avenue •Overview –Verizon desires to increase the height of the existing telecommunications tower located on the subject property –Currently a height of 75 feet (maximum allowed per code) –Proposed to increase height to 83 feet 80 2801 37th Avenue 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 met •The plight of the property owner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the property owner; –Criterion met 81 •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 met • The granting of the variance is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the zoning code; –Criterion met Variance Criteria Review 2801 37th Avenue •Recommendation –The purpose statement of the Wireless Telecommunication Towers Chapter of the City Code (City Code Section 90.02 (B) (4)) promotes and encourages shared collocation of towers and antennas rather than construction of additional single-use towers. –Staff recommends approval of a variance to exceed the wireless telecommunication tower height to a maximum tower height of 83 feet and a maximum antenna height of 87 feet. 82 2801 37th Avenue Questions? 83 THIS PAGE LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK 84 NOTICE OF A PUBLIC HEARING Notice is hereby given that on September 28, 2015, 7:00 p.m. at City Hall, 3301 Silver Lake Road, the Saint Anthony Village Planning Commission will hold a public hearing to solicit public response to a request for a variance to exceed the 75 foot height allowance for Wireless Telecommunication Towers at 2801 37th Ave NE. The Planning Commission will make a recommendation regarding the proposed request to the City Council for their meeting to be held on October 13, 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 online at www.saint-anthony.mn.us. Breanne Rothstein, AICP City Planner 85