HomeMy WebLinkAboutPL PACKET 01252016
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 January 25, 2016 Planning Commission Meeting Agenda. (action requested)
II. Approval of the November 23, 2015 Regular Planning Commission Meeting Minutes. (pp.1-7)
III. Public Hearing.
A. Consider a request for a 1.5 Foot Variance, To Build a New Garage Closer to the Property Line than
Currently Exists at 2841 Coolidge Street. (pp. 9-27)
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
JANUARY 25, 2016
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
7:00 PM
CITY OF ST. ANTHONY 1
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 2
3
NOVEMBER 23 , 2015 4
7:00 p.m. 5
6
CALL TO ORDER. 7
8
Chair person Crone called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. 9
10
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE. 11
12
Chair person Crone invited the Commission and the audienc e to join her in the Pledge of Allegiance. 13
14
ROLL CALL. 15
16
Commissioners Present: Chairperson Crone , Commissioners Bartel, Foster, Gondorchin, Heinis, 17
and Papatola 18
19
Absent: Commissioner Poucher 20
21
Also Present: City Manager Mark Casey and City Planner Breanne Rothstein 22
23
24
I. APPROVAL OF THE NOVEMBER 23 , 2015, PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 25
AGENDA. 26
27
Motion by Commissioner Foster, seconded by Commissioner Papatola, to approve the November 28
23, 2015, Planning Commission agenda. 29
30
Motion carried 6-0. 31
32
II. APPROVAL OF THE SEPTEMBER 28 , 2015, REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION 33
MEETING MINUTES. 34
35
36
Motion by Commissioner Foster, seconded by Commis sioner Gondorchin, to approve the 37
September 28, 2015, Re gular Planning Commission Meeting Minut es as presented. 38
39
Motion carried 5-0-1 (Foster abstain). 40
41
III. PUBLIC HEARING. 42
43
A. Consider a request for an Amendment to Existing Conditional Use Permit to Allow 44
the Sale of Alcoholic Beverages at 2510 Kenzie Terrace 45
46
City Planner Rothstein reviewed the Applicant’s request for an amendment to the existing 47
conditional use permit (CUP) to allow the sale of alcoholic beverages on the Property located at 48
1 1
2510 Kenzie Terrace is consistent with the intent of the Zoning Ordinance and the City’s 1
Comprehensive Plan. Staff recommends approval of the Applicant’s request. 2
3
The Applicant proposes an intensification of the existing sit down restaurant business located at 4
2510 Kenzie Terrace. The Property is located immediately adjacent to a residentially zoned 5
district, with the building locat ed approximately 120 feet from the bordering property line. The 6
request is to allow for the sale of alcoholic beverages on the premises. The restaurant operation is 7
requesting the following business hours: 8
9
6:00 a.m. – 10:00 p.m. Sunday through Thursday 10
6:00 a.m. – 11:00 p.m. Friday and Saturday 11
12
This represents a reduction in the late night hours from the original Busters’ proposal and 13
approved Conditional Use Permit of 11:00 p.m. on weeknights and 1:00 a.m. on weekends. 14
15
The applicant is not requesting any outdoor seating, forms of entertainment or any other changes 16
to the business operations of the restaurant. 17
18
1. The following conditions are proposed for the amendment to the Conditional Use Permit: 19
20
• The Applicant shall submit the appropriate plans and permits for review and approval 21
before beginning any construction or other alterations that requires a permit (i.e. building 22
permit for any interior work, sign permit, electrical permit, plumbing permit, etc.). 23
24
• An exterior dumpster, if proposed, shall be kept behind the existing southernmost 25
building and shall be screened pursuant to 150.072 (2) (d) (3) of the City Code. An 26
escrow shall be established by city staff, and submitted with the city prior to issuance of a 27
certificate for occupancy to ensure that this condition is met. 28
29
• Outdoor seating associated with the restaurant use is not permitted with this Conditional 30
Use Permit (CUP). If outdoor seating is desired, an amendment to this Permit is required. 31
32
• Any radio receiving set, musical instrument, paging system, or other similar device for 33
the production or reproduction of sound may not be played outside of the building 34
between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. 35
36
• Any lighting associated with, or added to, the proposed restaurant use or parking lot area 37
shall be do wnward casting and shielded. 38
39
• Hours of operation shall be limited until 10:00 p.m. Sunday through Thursday and 11:00 40
p.m. Friday and Saturday night. All delivery vehicles after 10:00 p.m. must park on the 41
north side of the building located at 2510 Kenzie Terrace to minimize headlight glare 42
onto the neighboring single -family residential areas to the south. 43
44
• Additional natural landscaping/screening is required along the west side of the existing 45
easternmost drive-aisle across to/from Lowry Avenue along the south border of the 46
2 2
Property. Screening shall consist of coniferous shrubs and/or trees, in a quantity adequate 1
to visually screen as much of the parking lot area as feasible, and shall be at least three 2
feet in height. All screening must comply with the Cit y’s vision triangle standards to 3
ensure adequate clear lines of vision at the intersection of the parking lot drive-aisle to 4
ensure traffic and pedestrian sightlines and safety. An escrow shall be established by city 5
staff, and submitted with the city prio r to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy to 6
ensure that this condition is met. 7
8
2. The City Council has specified all conditions which the City Council deems necessary to 9
make the use compatible with other uses in the area: 10
11
Conditions have been described in the previous Conditional Use Permit and are included in 12
the resolution amending the conditional use permit under consideration. Criteria met. 13
14
3. The use will not be detrimental to the health, safety, or general welfare of persons residing or 15
working in the vicinity or to the values of property in the vicinity. 16
17
Surrounding land uses in the immediate vicinity include single family residential homes east 18
and south, high density residential to the northeast, a vacant parcel to the west and 19
commercial uses and single family residential (Lowry Grove) to the north and northwest. 20
Restaurant uses have occurred on the Property in past and have been seen as a benefit to the 21
area. The expansion of the menu to include alcoholic beverages as a menu option is common 22
for a restaurant operation and will not adversely affect the health, safety, or welfare of the 23
community. Criteria met 24
25
4. The use will provide a service or a facility, which is in the interest of public convenience and 26
will contribute to the general welfare. 27
28
Having a variety of dining options within a community is a convenience that serves the entire 29
community and surrounding area. The inclusion of offering alcoholic beverages as a menu 30
option will further expand the convenience the restaurant offers to the local community. 31
Having dining options within walking distance of your residence is an added benefit that not 32
all areas throughout the community have. Adding a restaurant business will continue to 33
ensure the space is occupied. Criteria met. 34
35
The following recommended options are offered: 36
37
1. Recommend Approval, with conditions, of the Amendment to the Existing Conditional Use 38
Permit. In the event of a recommendation for approval (with conditions), the Planning 39
Commission may refer to Exhibit C and may modify t he draft resolution for approval to 40
include any additional conditions that it deems necessary. 41
42
2. Request Additional Information and Continue the Public Hearing. The Applicant has 43
provided all of the required information for the Planning Commission’s evaluat ions. Should 44
the Planning Commission request additional information from the Applicant the Planning 45
Commission should continue the public hearing until a later time. 46
3 3
1
3. Recommend Denial of the Amendment to the Existing Conditional Use Permit. In the event 2
the Planning Commission chooses denial of the requested Amendment to the existing 3
Conditional Use Permit, it should clearly state its reasons for the denial recommendation and 4
direct staff to prepare a resolution. 5
6
Commissioner Papatola asked if the same footprint would be used for the new business as was 7
for the existing Buster’s business. City Planner Rothstein stated it will be the same. 8
9
Commissioner Foster asked what the other uses are on the site and their hours of operation. He is 10
concerned whether there will be adequate parking. Ms. Rothstein stated the parking variance was 11
approved and is still in place. All the uses are the same and include another restaurant and a 12
daycare center. 13
14
Commissioner Gondorchin asked if the notice to the neighbors was the same as for Buster’s. Ms. 15
Rothstein stated the geographic notification area was the same, however an updated owner list 16
was used. Commiss ioner Gondorchin asked if the CUP was tied to the owner rather than the 17
property and Ms. Rothstein stated it is tied to the owner. Commissioner Gondorchin questioned 18
if Friday and Saturday nights were considered the weekend in the hours listing and Ms. Rothstein 19
stated they are considered the weekend. Ms. Rothstein stated the liquor license is tied to the 20
applicant rather that the property and the hours are tied to the CUP. One of the requests is to 21
adjust the CUP with the modified hours requested. Commissioner Gondorchin asked what the 22
timeline was for the landscaping. Ms. Rothstein stated the landscaping does not have a deadline 23
because staff felt an escrow would be a more effective way of ensuring the landscaping gets 24
done. Ms. Rothstein suggested if the Commission wants to put a date on the landscaping that an 25
installation deadline be added. 26
27
Mr. Lorenzo Tejeda, Mr. Paul Marshall and Mr. David Maceda appeared before the 28
Commission. Mr. Lorenzo Tejeda no ted they have another location C atrinas in Oakdale. That 29
location was opened a year ago and is doing very well. They specialize in fresh Mexican food. 30
The three of them ha ve many years of experience in the restaurant business. At their other 31
location, beer sales are not high but some people like to have a beer or wine with Mexican food. 32
They will be a good neighbor for the community. They fully understand and are willing to 33
comply with the CUP. Mr. Paul Marshall confirmed they only sell beer, not wine, and it 34
amounts to 10% of their total sales. They have never had any problems with serving beer. They 35
have 10 employees and it is a small business. 36
37
Commissioner Bartel asked why there is a difference between the hours at the Oakdale location 38
and the proposed hours for the St. Anthony location. Mr. Lorenzo Tejeda stated they are now 39
able to accommodate more hours since they have the process in place. 40
41
Commissioner Gondorchin a sked what time on Sundays would the restaura nt open and Mr. 42
Lorenzo Tejeda stated it would open at 11:00 a.m. and close at 10:00 p.m. 43
44
4 4
Chair Crone asked how the size of the two locations compared to each other and Mr. Lorenzo 1
Tejeda stated the size is almost identical. This location was selected because it had already been 2
set up as a restaurant and it is very difficult to start from zero. 3
4
Commissioner Papatola asked if one of the three owners would be on site at all times and Mr. 5
Lorenzo Tejeda responded yes. 6
7
Chairperson Crone opened the Public Hearing at 7:28 p.m. 8
9
Mr. Larry Neilson, a lawyer representing Gina Naterstat who lives directly across from the back 10
entrance of the property. Mr. Neilson stated he sent a letter to the City Council back in February 11
when the restaurant was originally proposed and there were quite a few neighbors not happy to 12
have a restaurant in this location (Mpls residents). He stated Taft Street is a very quiet location. 13
None of the concerns in the letter were addressed or responded to. He stated the concerns of the 14
neighbors are noise, traffic, serving alcohol. Currently there is not another resident on that site. 15
There is a daycare on the site. If alcohol is such a minor part of the business, the residents on 16
Taft Street would prefer not to have alcohol. They were disheartened that screening was required 17
but never occurred. There are two exists on the south side and the car lights would shine directly 18
in the houses on Taft Street. He had asked Council to consider closing those exits so the people 19
on Taft would not have the traffic associated with this business. If the exits were to remain open, 20
he would like them to be enter only to limit some of the lights that would shine into the houses. 21
His first request would be to deny the application for liquor. This is a residential neighborhood. 22
Closing earlier would be helpful to the nearby residents. They are very concerned about the 23
parking and fear overflow parking would occur on Taft Street. 24
25
Commissioner Heinis asked for clarific ation that when Mr. Neilson refers to exists, he is 26
referring to exits from the parking lot and Mr. Neilson responded that is correct. Mr. Neilson 27
asked if the exist use could be restricted to limit the lights shining into the windows of the 28
homes. 29
30
Commis sioner Papatola asked if there was overflow parking on Taft from Buster’s. Mr. Neilson 31
stated he does not know because he has not been there. 32
33
Mr. Joshua Levald, 2341 Taft Street, stated he has some of the same concerns with traffic going 34
in and out of the parking lot. There were problems when Buster’s was there not only with the 35
traffic, the oil, the dumpsters and the workers after hours. He noted these hours are extended, as 36
his understanding was the inside of the building was to be closed at 10:00 p.m. The property is 37
65 feet from his house. The previous businesses in the site were cafés that were closed by 2:00 38
p.m. in the afternoon. Buster's was only open a few months and was very disruptive to the 39
neighborhood. 40
41
Commissioner Papatola clarified ther e have been businesses in that location that were open later 42
hours. There was a 7-11 open 24 hours, a video store that was open late in the evening. That was 43
more than 20 years ago. 44
45
Chairperson Crone closed the Public Hearing at 7:38 p.m. 46
5 5
1
C ommissioner Fo ster stated he is in support of this application and is in favor of the liquor 2
license. He is concerned about closing off the Taft Street entrance as it would be difficult for 3
emergency vehicles to exit. He would be in favor of having the screening in plac e by June 1 st as a 4
maximum deadline. 5
6
Commissioner Bartel questioned the hours in the original CUP and Ms. Rothstein stated the 7
request now is to extend the hours of operation. He questioned whether they would have take -out 8
only from 10-11 p.m. Ms. Rothstein stated take-out only hours had not been discussed with the 9
applicant. He would like to keep the closing time at 10:00 p.m. 10
11
Commissioner Papatola was in favor of allowing the later close at 11:00 p.m. on Friday and 12
Saturday evenings. 13
14
Motion by Commissioner Papatola, seconded by Commissioner Heinis , to recommend the City 15
Council approve Resolution with Amendment to Existing Conditional Use Permit to Allow the 16
Sale of Alcoholic Beverages at 2510 Kenzie Terrace with the screening to be in place by June 17
2016. 18
19
M otion carried 5-1 (Bartel nay ) 20
21
This recommendation will go to the City Council for approval on December 8, 2015. 22
Commissioner Papatola will be the Planning Commission representative at the City Council 23
Meeting. 24
25
IV. STAFF REPORTS - NONE 26
27
V. OTHER BUSINESS 28
29
A. Planning Commission Work Plan for 2016 30
31
Ms. Rothstein presented the Planning Commission with a draft of the 2016 Work Plan outlining 32
the charge for the Commission and the items they will focus on for 2016. The work on the 33
Comprehensive Plan is c ontinuing. This is the primary work plan item for 2016. She provided an 34
update on the Met Council process for updating the Comprehensive Plan. The Planning 35
Commission is requested to be part of the Steering Committee along with the addition of two 36
Councilmembers. Monthly meetings will be held and could be part of the Planning 37
Commission’s regular monthly meeting. 38
39
Commissioner Foster stated he is having difficulty understanding how a Comprehensive Plan 40
would be for a fully developed City where there has not been a lot of redevelopment. Ms. 41
Rothstein stated every city needs to do one. A Comprehensive Plan is valuable due to 42
infrastructure needs, maintenance priority, identifying areas for redevelopment and 43
sustainability, etc. Commissioner Foster asked for some notes on where the process is going 44
prior to the Steering Committee begins work. Ms. Rothstein provided some suggestions for more 45
information. 46
6 6
1
VI. COMMUNITY FORUM - NONE 2
3
VII. INFORMATION AND ANNOUNCEMENTS 4
5
A. Recognition of outgoing Commission members: Erica Crone, Brian Heinis and 6
Craig Poucher 7
8
Chair Crone noted Commission Poucher has served two terms and commissioner Heinis and 9
herself have served three terms on the Planning Commission. Chair Crone thanked Staff for their 10
help throughout the ye ars. Chair Crone encouraged residents who are interested in the Planning 11
Commission to contact City Hall. 12
13
Ms. Rothstein thanked Chair Crone and Commissioners Heinis and Poucher for their service to 14
the community and presented them with a small token. 15
16
VIII. ADJOURNMENT. 17
18
Motion by Commissioner Papatola, seconded by Commissioner Bartel, to adjourn the meeting at 19
8:05 p.m. 20
Motion carried 6-0 21
22
23
Respectfully submitted, 24
Debbie Wolfe (T imeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc.) 25
7 7
THIS PAGE LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK
8 8
MEMORANDUM
To: St. Anthony Village Planning Commission
From: Breanne Rothstein, AICP, City Planner
Date: Planning Commission Regular Meeting for January 25, 2016
WSB Project No. 02170-28
Request: Request for a variance from the required side yard setback to allow for an
expansion of the current garage at 2841 Coolidge St.
RECOMMENDATION
The City Code requires a side yard setback of 5 feet. The applicant requests a variance to construct an
addition to the garage which would encroach 3.2 feet into the required side yard setback to result in a
side yard depth of 1.8 feet. The Applicant’s request for a variance from the side yard setback to allow
for the construction of the garage addition is reasonable, per the findings listed in city code. Therefore,
staff recommends approval of the variance to encroach into the side yard setback.
GENERAL INFORMATION
Applicant/Owner: Jason & Lisa Johnson
Location: 2841 Coolidge St. NE
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: 1-4-2016
Action: 60 Days: 3-5-2016
Letter Sent: No
120 Days: NA
CONSIDERATIONS RELATING TO THE PROPOSED VARIANCE
1. Background
The Applicants propose to construct an addition off the back of the house and a small addition to
the garage on the property located at 2841 Coolidge Street NE. According to the submitted plans,
the current garage sits 3.8 feet from the side property line. The applicant is requesting to expand the
garage by 2 feet, which would put the garage 1.8 feet from the side property line. In the R-1 Single
Family Residential district a 5 foot setback from the side property line is required. The Applicants
note that the current garage built in 1948 is very small and it is difficult to make reasonable use of it.
9 9
They are proposing to create a 2-car tandem garage and need the variance to add more space to
make the garage more functional.
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 (F) requires a side yard setback of 5 feet. The
applicant requests a variance to encroach 3.2 feet to result in a side yard depth of 1.8 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 the side yard setback is 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 allow the property owners reasonable use of their garage, which
is not currently possible because of the small size of the garage built in 1948. The
request is the minimum necessary to make reasonable use of the garage. Criterion met.
b. The plight of the property owner is due to circumstances unique to the property not
created by the property owner;
The plight of the property owner is due to the small size of the garage. Many of the
other properties in the area have two-car garages. Criterion 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 Applicants are not proposing any new use or density and two car garages exist in
the neighborhood. Criterion met.
d. Economic considerations alone are not the basis of the practical difficulties.
The basis for the practical difficulties is that the existing house has very small one-car
garage. The addition to the garage is based on the desire of the Applicants to use their
garage in a reasonable manner. It is not perceived that economic considerations 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
expansion of the garage will not alter that land use. Therefore, granting of the variance related
10 10
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 recommend adoption
of the proposed resolution.
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: Supporting Material
Exhibit C: Draft Resolution
11 11
THIS PAGE LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK
12 12
2841 Coolidge Street
test
Legend
January 19, 2016
Map by: WSB & Associates
1 in = 100 ft
±
13 13
THIS PAGE LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK
14 14
Variance – Description of Request
In April 2016 we are planning to remodel our house with an addition off the back
and expansion of our garage. The current garage is a small one‐stall garage that is
attached to the house and next to our neighbor’s house. The current size of the
garage is just barely large enough to pull in a full size car (see image attached). We
are barely able to open the doors on one side of the car (if we pull the car in closer to
one side) when the car is in the garage. To make this garage more useful we would
like a variance to move the outside wall closer to our property line on the South side
of the property. We would like to create a 2‐car tandem garage, we would do this by
bringing the front of the garage forward a few feet, and back a few feet (see example
image below). The majority of homes in our neighborhood were either built with 2‐
car garages, or they were added later. We are hoping we can go to 3’ 6” off our
property line, which would give us about 2 more feet of space in the garage, which
should be enough to make it functional.
Current image of garage:
Image of tandem garage style:
15 15
16 16
17 17
THIS PAGE LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK
18 18
CITY OF ST. ANTHONY VILLAGE
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION NO. __________
RESOLUTION APPROVING A VARIANCE FROM THE REQUIRED YARD
SETBACK IN ORDER TO CONSTRUCT A LARGER GARAGE AT THE
PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2841 COOLIDGE STREET
WHEREAS, the City of St. Anthony Village received a request from the
Applicants Jason and Lisa Johnson for a variance from the side yard setback to allow the
construction of an expanded garage to result in a side yard setback of 1.8 feet at the
property located at 2841 Coolidge Street on August 12, 2015, legally described as
follows:
Lot 24, Block 1, Murray Heights Addition to Minneapolis, Hennepin County, Minnesota
WHEREAS, the property located at 2841 Coolidge Street is located within the
City’s R-1 Zoning District; and
WHEREAS, per Section 150.039 of city code, a side yard setback of 5 feet is
required within the R-1 Zoning District; and
WHEREAS, the Applicants have requested a 3.2-foot variance from the side yard
setback to allow for the construction of a tandem garage; 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 January 25,
2016, 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 and allowing a better use of the home;
b. The request will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood;
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.
19 19
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 ________________, 2016.
___________________________________
Jerome O. Faust, Mayor
Attested:
___________________________________
Nicole Miller, City Clerk
20 20
2841 Coolidge St. NE
Variance Request
Planning Commission Meeting
January 25, 2016
2841 Coolidge St. NE
General Information
Applicants: Jason & Lisa Johnson
Owners: same
Location: 2841 Coolidge St. NE
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
21 21
2841 Coolidge St. NE
•Overview
–Side Yard Setback requirement in the R-1 Single
Family Residential District is 5 feet
–Proposal to construct an addition to the garage
and rear of the existing house
–Request for a 3.2 foot variance from the side
yard setback to construct at 1.8 feet
2841 Coolidge St. NE
22 22
2841 Coolidge St. NE
2841 Coolidge St. NE
23 23
2841 Coolidge St. NE
Tandem Style
Garage
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
24 24
•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
•Recommendation
–The Applicant’s request for a variance from the side yard
setback to allow for the construction of the garage
addition is reasonable, per the findings listed in city code.
–Staff recommends approval of the variance to encroach
into the side yard setback.
2841 Coolidge St. NE
25 25
2841 Coolidge St. NE
Questions?
26 26
NOTICE OF A PUBLIC HEARING
Notice is hereby given that on January 25, 2016, 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 1.5 foot variance to build a new garage closer to the property line than currently exists at 2841
Coolidge St. The Planning Commission will make a recommendation regarding the proposed request to
the City Council for their meeting to be held on February 9, 2016 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
27 27