HomeMy WebLinkAboutPL PACKET 09152009 Meeting Sheet
IIIIIIVIIIVIIIVIIIVIIIVIIIIIIIIIII
104979
Box: 33
Folder: PL PACKETS 2005-2011
Document: PL PACKET 09152009
CITY OF ST. ANTHONY
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AGENDA
TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 15, 2009
REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
7:00 P.M.
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
I. CALL TO ORDER.
II. ROLL CALL.
III. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE.
IV. APPROVAL OF MEETING AGENDA.
V. APPROVAL OF MEETING MINUTES OF AUGUST 18, 2009.
VI. COMMUNICATION WITH CITY COUNCIL.
VII. PUBLIC HEARINGS.
NONE
VIII. CONCEPT REVIEWS.
VIII.1. Autumn Woods N Assisted Living Project
IX. OTHER BUSINESS.
IX.1. Review of Fence Height Ordinance
X. REPORTS FROM STAFF.
X.1. CUPs and Variances
XI. COMMUNITY FORUM. Individuals may address the Planning Commission 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 The
Planning Commission may refer the matter to staff for a future report or direct the matter to be scheduled on an
upcoming agenda.
XII. INFORMATION AND ANNOUNCEMENTS.
XII. 1. PC Members Terms
XIII.ADJOURNMENT.
FAManningTC Agendas\2009\09152009 pc agenda.doc
I CITY OF ST. ANTHONY
2
3 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
4
5 AUGUST 18, 2009
6 7:00 p.m.
7
8
9 I. CALL TO ORDER.
10
11 Chair Stromgren called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
12
13 II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE.
14
15 Chair Stromgren invited the Commission and the audience to join him in the Pledge of Allegiance.
16
17 III. ROLL CALL.
18
19 Commissioners Present: Chairperson Stromgren; Commissioners Cincoski, Jensen, Heinis,
20 Jenson, and Chaput.
21 Absent: Commissioner Crone.
22 Also Present: Assistant City Manager Kim Moore-Sykes and City Council Liaison
23 Randy Stille.
24
25 IV. APPROVAL OF MEETING AGENDA.
26
27 Chair Stromgren indicated that the Concept Review on the Autumn Woods Assisted Living
28 Project has been postponed at the request of the applicant.
29
30 Motion by Commissioner Jenson, second by Commissioner Heinis, to approve the Planning
31 Commission Meeting Agenda of August 18, 2009 as amended.
32
33 Motion carried unanimously.
34
35 V. APPROVAL OF MEETING MINUTES
36
37 Motion by Commissioner Jenson, second by Commissioner Cincoski, to approve the August 18,
38 2009 Meeting Minutes as presented.
39
40 Motion carried unanimously.
41
42 VI. COMMUNICATION WITH CITY COUNCIL
43
44 None.
45
46 VII. PUBLIC HEARINGS
47
48 None.
49
Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes
August 18, 2009
Page 2
1
2 VIII. CONCEPT REVIEWS
3
4 VIII.1. AUTUMN WOODS ASSISTED LIVING PROJECT
5
6 Pulled from the agenda.
7
8 IX. OTHER BUSINESS.
9
10 Assistant City Manager Moore-Sykes introduced the item and stated because the City has
11 granted two variances associated with fence height, the City Council is requesting that the
12 Planning Commission review the possibility of changing the fence height ordinance. She
13 reported that generally, most communities limit fence height to six feet in side and rear yards.
14 The stated purpose for regulation is"to promote a pleasant physical environment and to protect
15 the public and private property within the City by regulating the location, height, type of
16 construction, and maintenance of all fences." Included in the packet are fence information and
17 requirements from several cities that are either in the metro area or are of similar size to St.
18 Anthony. Staff has found that only the City of Mankato allows the construction of eight foot
19 fences in the residential zoning district. It appears that most communities continue to regulate
20 residential fence heights at four feet in the front yard to the side yard and six feet from the side
21 yard to the back property line in the rear yard.
22
23 Assistant City Manager Moore-Sykes stated the two variances granted for fence height were
24 unique in nature and more for the mitigation of noise and light rather than an increased need for
25 security and privacy. The City of Prior Lake allows the installation of an 8-foot fence, with 90%
26 opacity, for properties abutting a state highway or county road and requires a building permit.
27
28 Chair Stromgren noted for the most part St. Anthony's requirements are consistent with most
29 city ordinances. He asked if St. Anthony distributes handouts regarding fencing requirements.
30 Assistant City Manager Moore-Sykes responded in the affirmative. She stated building permits
31 are required for fences of all heights. Information is attached to the permit about fences and
32 where they need to be placed. The Building Inspector or Public Works Director ensure that the
33 property lines are correct for the placement of fences of higher heights. She reported on the
34 number of fence construction permits and variances issued to St. Anthony residents since 2007:
35 ■ Fence Permits—2007: 16
36 ■ Fence Permits—2008: 19
37 ■ Variances - 2008: 1 variance of 2 feet to 6-foot height restriction; granted to 2916 Silver
38 Lake Court
39 ■ Fence Permits through July 2009: 22
40 ■ Variances through July 2009: 1 variance of 2 feet to 6-foot height restriction; granted to
41 2912 Silver Lake Court
42
43 Assistant City Manager Moore-Sykes reported that looking back five years, the only two
44 variances have been applied for and granted for fence heights. These variances were granted in
45 2008 and 2009 to neighboring properties due to the traffic noise on Silver Lake Road and bright
46 lights from the commercial property in New Brighton on the east side of Silver Lake Road.
• r
Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes
August 18, 2009
Page 3
1
2 Chair Stromgren noted there are four lots located on Silver Lake Court that abut Silver Lake
3 Road. Two of these properties recently received variances and there are two others that would
4 fall under the same parameters. He requested discussion from the Commission on whether there
5 are other areas that would fall under similar criteria.
6
7 Commissioner Jensen stated his support of a special purpose fence category similar to Spring
8 Lake Park. He stated his position that the notion that a 6-foot height is adequate depends on
9 whether the screening the resident desires works where the fence will be placed. He pointed out
10 that this may be affected by issues such as topography. He stated there are several areas along
11 Silver Lake Road where the grade is low and that there are not many properties that could put a
12 fence out to the sidewalk along Silver Lake Road. He noted current fencing includes designs
13 with lattice, two foot strips, and more opaqueness. He stated he is in favor of a process that
14 allows an easier process for properties owners to make their case for fencing requests.
15
16 Commissioner Jenson stated he agrees with much of Commissioner Jensen's statements.
17 However, in reviewing the history there has been little demand for fencing variances. He
18 questioned if there is a need to fix something that may not be broken. He stated there is a
19 mechanism to variances with a process for public awareness. He noted the City of Prior Lake
20 allows higher fences in back yards that abut a sate highway or county road. This is similar to
21 what happened with the variances on Silver Lake Road with the properties affected by the light
22 from the Laundromat.
23
24 Chair Stromgren noted the City of St. Paul fence requirements state that a variance of the fence
25 height regulations may be granted if, after investigation by the building official, it is found that
26 site, or terrain, or nuisance animal conditions warrant a waiver of the height restrictions. He
27 requested staff input on the legal differences between a variance and a conditional use permit.
28
29 There was discussion on applying conditions such as topography to fencing variances.
30
31 Chair Stromgren inquired whether there were comments or questions from the City Council
32 when the fence height variance was approved. Council Member Liaison Stille stated due to two
33 of the same types of variances being granted in a short time the City Council thought it would be
34 appropriate for the Planning Commission to review and debate this ordinance. The Council does
35 not have a sway one way or another on whether they support a change in the code. They would
36 like the Planning Commission to give thought to this ordinance and see if there are any other
37 areas in the community that could benefit from this and see if it would be worthwhile to change
38 the code to accommodate those areas.
39
40 Commissioner Chaput stated when looking at the history of the two variances, the original
41 variance was granted because the owner wanted to replace the 8-foot fence they had on the
42 property. The second variance dealt with the neighbor of the original variance who wanted an 8-
43 foot fence to match the neighbors and for the same hardships associated with the original case.
44 He stated his position that fence height variances are not common and that there is a vehicle in
45 place to deal with them when they do come up.
46
Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes
August 18, 2009
Page 4
1 Commissioner Jensen reiterated his support for consideration of a special purpose fence
2 category.
3
4 Chair Stromgren requested staff to provide feedback on the regulation of fence height through
5 conditional use permits versus variances with fence heights higher than six feet considered based
6 on quantifiable things such as topography and bordering a community that St. Anthony does not
7 have jurisdiction over. He suggested the Commission review this section of the City Code. He
8 noted that a number of the surveyed communities allow 6-foot side yard fences to the front
9 corner of the house which he does not believe is allowed in St. Anthony.
10
11 Commissioner Jensen commented that there are a considerable number of corner lots in the City
12 with 6-foot side yard fences. He noted the requirement for fencing around pools.
13
14 Commissioner Jenson suggested the commissioners conduct drive-bys and put together notes for
15 discussion in addition to the information requested from staff.
16
17 Commissioner Jensen suggested addressing any changes to the fence height ordinance with other
18 housekeeping city code items that will be coming forward. He pointed out that there may be the
19 potential for fencing with the Autumn Woods Assisted Living Project that was postponed from
20 tonight's agenda.
21
22 Commissioner Chaput asked if there has been any feedback from the Public Safety Department
23 regarding fence heights. Assistant City Manager Moore-Sykes responded in the negative.
24
25 X. REPORTS FROM STAFF
26
27 None.
28
29 XI. COMMUNITY FORUM.
30
31 None.
32
33 XII. INFORMATION AND ANNOUNCEMENTS.
34
35 None.
36
37 XIII. ADJOURNMENT.
38
39 Motion by Commissioner Jensen, second by Commissioner Jenson, to adjourn the meeting at
40 7:32 p.m.
41
42 Motion carried unanimously.
43
44 Respectfully submitted,
45 Carol Hamer
46 TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc.
STAFF REPORT
Report No.: VIII. 1.
To: Chair Stromgren and Planning Commission Mem�b�eers
From: Kim Moore-Sykes,Assistant City Manager
Date: August 18, 2009
Subject: Autumn Woods Assisted Living Facility
Property Address and Legal: 2580 Kenzie Terrace
Zoning District PUD- R-4;PUD Amendment in 2003
Requested Action: Concept Review
Background:
Mr. Greg Bronk and the LaNel Group are proposing to construct approximately 50 unites of assisted living units
at 2580 Kenzie Terrace. It is hoped that construction could begin late 2009. Mr.Bronk and Ms. Caitlin Goff
have met several times with City Staff to discuss the project and the implied zoning and land use requirements.
The building is planned to be four stories in height with the end caps being three stories. The general shape of
the building will be L-shaped,with the long portion being parallel to Kenzie Terrace. There is planned to be a
drop-off at the front door,as well as visitor and staff parking. Additional parking is planned as follows: 14
surface spaces will be reserved mainly for visitors and some staff;38 spaces will be planned for the lower level of
the building. In total,these spaces provide approximately 1 car per unit. The setbacks of 30 feet are observed
along Kenzie Terrace on the northwestern side of the property and along the southern property line.
Unit sizes will be about 600 SF for one bedrooms and 750 SF to 800 SF for two bedroom units. Common areas
will include a community dinning area with a full-service kitchen. Other services that will be housed in the
building include: mail area, exercise/craft rooms, library,screen porch,beauty parlor, and a chapel. There will
also be office space planned for two Assisted Living nurses,LPNs, and nurse-aids.
The proposed exterior will consist of materials and finishes that will be consistent with the neighborhood and
adjoining multi-family facilities. At this time, no specific design has been determined but LaNel continues to
discuss possible design standards with Staff. An on-site rain garden is being planned as part of the proposed
landscaping,which tries to maximize the green space of the site.
Mr.Bronk and Ms. Goff held a neighborhood meeting on August 6,2009 at the City Hall. As reported,property
owners adjacent to the proposed project, including those residents of Minneapolis,were noticed of the
neighborhood meeting and were invited to attend. Nine residents attended the meeting. Staff received no calls
from residents before or after the neighborhood meeting regarding this project.
Attachments:
• Written description of the proposed Assisted Living Autumn Woods Project
• Renderings and color drawings of the proposed facility and landscaping
• Meeting Summary of the Neighborhood Meeting held on August 6, 2009
• Staff Report,Autumn Woods Senior Housing Development, 12/17/02
• Staff Report for Amendment to PUD, 10/21/03
• Resolution 03-OXY.,Approving Amendment to PUD
• Plat Map
0
JAY P. NELSON
A R C H I T E C T
AIA, LEED AP,NCARB,
CID
"yl
August 10, 2009
MEMO TO: Q
Frank Lang, Lang-Nelson and Associates,Inc.
Gene Nelson,Lang-Nelson and Associates, Inc. 612 — 812 — 4628
Greg Bronk, LaNel Financial Group 7601 WAYZATA BOULEVARD
Caitlin Goff, LaNel Financial Group SUITE 2 5 0
ST LOUIS PARK,MN. 5 5 4 2 6
iavotavvnelsonarchitect com
Re:Autumn Woods Assisted Living, Saint Anthony,MN.
COMMISSION NUMBER 09:11
Thursday evening August 6, 2009 at 6:00 PM at the Saint Anthony Village City Offices Lang-Nelson
held the neighborhood meeting for the above referenced project. A small group of 9 people
attended.
Greg Bronk welcomed all those attending and introduced himself, Caitlin Goff and myself. Caitlin
circulated a sign-up sheet.
Greg Bronk introduced himself as president of Lanel Financial and said that Lanel Financial was
affiliated with Lang Nelson in the development of this project.He said that Lang-Nelson owned
approximately 1000 apartment units and another 500 assisted living units.Lang-Nelson is looking
forward to serving the growing number of Senior Citizens in Saint Anthony Village. He explained
that the property was acquired from the Saint Anthony Village that had previously purchased
several residential properties fronting on Kenzie Terrace as an urban renewal initiative.He said that
the original plan was to build approximately 38 luxury apartment units and that during the time
after their acquisition of the property in 2004. The present plan is for approximately 50 units of
assisted living units. Lang-Nelson would like to start construction by the end of this year.We
provided two presentation boards showing site, area and vicinity plans, area massing images,
building image and a building elevation study. Greg introduced me to outline the project layout.
I said that the images before the group this evening was purely schematic and could be change
during the ongoing design process.This information did generally speak to the proposed character
and image of the buildings.I went over the schematic site plan and explained that the building
would be L shaped with one leg of the L parallel to Kenzie Terrace. I explained that the building
would be 4 stories tall with the ends stepped down to 3 stories.The existing drive would be rebuilt
Autumn Woods Assisted Living, Saint Anthony, MN Page 2
8/10/2009
to provide a drop-off near the front door and parking for visitors and staff.The compact 4 story
design will preserve the green areas of the site by providing a compact footprint that will shorten
residents walking distance to the centrally located elevator.There will be onsite rainwater retention
and rain gardens. Fifteen exterior parking spaces will spaces for staff and visitors.The rest of the
parking for the project will be inside the building to limit the hard surface areas and maximize green
space areas.The building will be fully fire sprinklered.Typical amenities may include community
dining with a full service kitchen,screen porch, parlor, beauty parlor, library,exercise room, chapel,
activity room. On site staff will provide assisted living services. A major goal will be to maintain the
heavy treeline screening along the south boarder of the site.
One attendee said that the drainage issue off the south end of the existing west parking area should
be resolved because the rainwater spills onto Lowry Avenue.
One lady,Barbara Sullivan who is a descendent of'Kenzie', said that she was an environmental
activist and that she would monitor the public information regarding this project. She is very
concerned about soil testing and if our rain water gardens will cause the homes on Lowry to have
wet basements
One question was about evacuation of the residents if the elevator was disabled in a fire.I explained
that the code required an area of refuge v-i the stair enclosures.
It was suggested that fencing along the south property line of the site would keep visitors from
straying onto adjacent private properties. Perhaps that fence could be a vision barrier,although it
was recognized that much of the new building would be above any fence height. Glenn Gavic's
home is one of the 5 directly behind the site on Lowry. He was mainly concerned about the fence
but did mention that he and 2 others want to sell their property.
Out door patio space was not shown on the plans. Everyone thought that an exterior patio would be
a good idea.
Concern was expressed about traffic issues. I explained that there would be no new curb cuts. Greg
Bronk said that the expectation is that this project will not generate a significant amount of new
traffic because many of the residents will not be drivers.The majority of new traffic would be by
staff, service vehicles, and visitors.
When asked about ground water conditions we could only say that there has not been any soils
testing yet. Greg Bronk said that the underground parking in the existing Autumn Woods
Apartments was working out without difficulty.
A question was asked about environmental testing.I explained that the Phase 1 Environmental Test
was not done yet but that I expected that it will be part of the process ahead for this project.
4
Autumn Woods Assisted Living, Saint Anthony, MN Page 3
8/10/2009
When questioned about the market for assisted living units in this area,Greg said that the market
studies indicated that the area could support more units than planned for this site.The proposed
number of units in this building was determined by the capacity of the site not the market.
When asked about project financing Greg said that it was a firm policy that Lang-Nelson would not
move forward with a project without committed financing.
Caitlin handed out 81/2"x 11"prints of the presentation boards.
This is my understanding of the issues discussed and decisions made. Please contact me with any
comments or questions.
F. \AutumnWoods\AutumnAssisted.3.doc
Assisted Living Autumn Woods
Ingress&egress
Site ingress and egress will be at the existing Curb cut that allows travel access to Kenzie Terrace going in
both directions.The existing drive entrance will be reconstructed as shown on the sketch to adjust the
grade to meet the new floor elevation at the new building entrance.The natural slope of the land is
downward to the south where the parking lot entrance meets the drive to the lower level parking level.
That entry drive will slope downward as necessary to meet the garage level of the building.
Parking(surface&underground)
An additional 14 exterior parking spaces is provided on the west side of the reconfigured entrance drive.
These spaces will serve the new Assisted Living Building mostly for visitors to the building and some
staff.We plan to provide a minimum of 38 interior parking spaces in the lower level garage of the
building.This will afford the typical one car per unit usually anticipated for this building type.The vehicle
access and parking layout minimizes the amount of new hard surface and maximizes the site green
space to promote biodiversity and reduce the impact of rainwater runoff.
Storm water where it goes
A rain water garden surrounds the north,west and south sides of the building. Most of the water
collected in these rain water gardens is surface and roof run-off. From the rain water garden pond area
on the west side of the building there will be a connection for the treated water to enter the storm
sewer located in Kenzie Terrace.This plan minimizes run-off from hard surface parking areas because
only a small amount of new parking and drive areas are added to the site.The water at the south garage
entrance will be drained into a trench drain at the garage door and from there pumped up to an
elevation that will allow flow in a storm drain connected to the storm sewer in Kenzie Terrace.This line
is illustrated on the sketch plan.
Unit sizes
One bedroom units will be about 600 s.f. and two bedroom units will be 750 to 800 s.f. Individual "Care
Suite" units will be about 365 s.f.
Common area
Common areas will include a community dining area served by a full service kitchen.There will be a two
story entry foyer, parlor, mail area,office areas, public wash rooms, meeting rooms, an exercise/crafts
room, library, screen porch, beauty parlor and an average to large sized chapel.An elevator will
connect all floors of the building. 10'x 16'staff offices are planned for each of 2 Assisted Living Nurses
and one for the Assisted Living Nurse's-Aids.There will be a Care Suite area of the building that will
consist of 5 double "Care Suites"that will serve 10 residents and be equipped with one bath room for
each resident.This "Care Suites"area will also include a 10'x 10'office for the "Care Suites" LP-Nurse,a
locked medications room and rest rooms for the for staff and guests.
Building height(#stories)
The building will be 4 stories.This height will minimize foot print area and reduce the visual impact of
the building by consolidating it into a more rectangular shape rather in a long spread out 3 story
building. We are planning to omit units at the ends of the top floor to step the building and reduce the
building's massing and complement the existing Autumn Woods Apartment buildings that also have
stepped end caps.This new smaller footprint building will be more ecological because it will minimize
the amount of rain water run-off and will leave more green space on the site to reduce rain water run-
off issues and promote biodiversity.The residents of this building will be frail and the shorter corridor
lengths to the central elevator will be welcome because many of them are struggling with mobility
issues.The building will consist of 50 to 58 units.
Landscaping
The proposed landscape plan will be consistent with Lang-Nelson's normally high and award winning
standards.The plan will feature base planting around the building perimeter and boulevard trees along
Kenzie Terrace.There will be a lower screen planting supported by a dense application of over story
trees along the south property line next to the southern residential neighbors.The rain water garden
amenity areas will feature tall grasses that can live in wet or dry conditions as dictated by the season
and weather.We also plan on natural wild flowers and grasses to be planted in these decorative areas.
These areas will match landscape vegetation water tolerance to the drainage design component of the
P 9 � ) 9 9 . P
garden. For rain gardens at the locations shown on the design sketches a drain tile would be the
recommended.The tile would allow the gardens to drain themselves of excess water. Drain tile keeps the
gardens from getting waterlogged and provides the drainage design components of detaining the storm
water and providing water quality treatment.The landscape design will be coordinated with the vision of
the Owner and considerations of site conditions and selection of water tolerant plantings.
Construction materials
The proposed exterior materials and finishes will be consistent with the residential nature of the
neighborhood and the adjoining apartments.There is no specific design for the exterior yet.The building
will have a sloped shingled roof.The walls will be finished with"Hardie" panel trim and siding details
including significant areas of brick finish to complement the adjacent structures and styles.The masonry
base of the building will be finished with an integral color cast decorative split stone CMU product.
MEMORANDUM
DATE: 12/10/02 MEETING DATE: 12/17/02
TO: Chair Melsha & Planning Commission Members
FROM: Susan M.H. Hall, Assistant City Manager
SUBJECT: Autumn Woods Senior Housing Development
Background:
City staff has met twice with President Paul Brewer of LaNel Financial Group concerning
their plans for construction of a senior housing development called Autumn Woods
Senior Housing in the 2500 block of Kenzie Terrace. At this point, they would like to
bring their plans forward for informal review and discussion to get feedback on their
preliminary site plan. They hope to bring final plans to the Planning Commission for a
full public hearing in either January or February. They anticipate construction beginning
Spring 2003.
Staff Comments:
LaNel Financial Group proposes to develop a market rate senior rental townhouse style
building. The preliminary plan submitted by the developer shows a total of 34 units with
1 and 2 bedroom units, along with various common activity and recreation areas. There
will be both exterior and interior entrances to units. The building has two and three
stories with underground parking. Seven surface parking spaces are shown on the
preliminary site plan.
According to the developer, the townhomes will have individual entries to the street and
courtyard on the first floor and also to a center hall that will access the underground
heated garage. The building exterior will closely match the adjacent and existing Autumn
Woods development with its step down design at the ends of the building. The entire
development will tie together well, according to the developer.
Also, the preliminary plan shows encroachment into the required 25' side yard setback.
It is not noted on the plan what the side yard setback is. All other required setbacks are
met. LaNel will be asking for a Planned Unit Development (PUD), which will offer
flexibility for both them and the City. In exchange for not meeting the side yard setback,
the City might ask for extra landscaping or lighting, for example.
The property, once constructed, will be managed by Lang Nelson Associates and
become part of the Lang Nelson community of high quality senior rental homes,
according to the developer. The development proposed is similar to The Arbors in White
Bear Lake, which was recently completed by LaNel.
Attachment:
0 Preliminary Site Plan
MEMORANDUM
DATE: 10/14/03 MEETING DATE: 10/21/03
TO: Planning Commission Members
FROM: Susan M.H. Hall, Assistant City Manager
SUBJECT: Autumn Woods PUD Amendment--Rehearing
Requested Action:
President Paul Brewer of LaNel Financial Group, representing Autumn Woods II LLP,
has requested a rehearing to amend their Autumn Woods development to include 38
additional adult rental-housing units.
Background:
On July 15, 2003, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on the Autumn
Woods II Planned Unit Development (,% recommended City Council
approval subject to the following: (1) there will be 38 parking stalls, rather than the 35
proposed; (2) review of the plans and cross easements by the City Attorney; and (3)
completion of the re-plat. Subsequently, on July 22, 2003, the City Council approved the
PUD amendment with the conditions recommended by the Planning Commission (see
attached Council resolution). Attached please find excerpts of the minutes from the July
15 Planning Commission and the July 22 City Council meetings related to the Autumn
Woods II discussion.
e ...ice
Unfortunately, after these approvals, city staff learned that some of the neighbors of the
development were not notified of the July 15 public hearing, as they should have. Mr.
Brewer opted to have a rehearing so these neighbors have an opportunity to speak and
provide input into the development.
Development Details:
LaNel Financial Group proposes to develop a market rate senior rental townhouse style
building on the former city-owned single-family lots of 2534, 2538, 2542, 2546, and 2548
Kenzie Terrace. The plan submitted by the developer shows a total of 38 units with 1
and 2 bedroom units, along with various common activity and recreation areas.
Autumn Woods II has requested to amend its existing (adjacent) PUD that offers
flexibility for both them and the City. In exchange for not meeting typical code
requirements, the City might ask for extra landscaping or lighting, for example. There is
often give and take in a PUD arrangement.
The proposed building will have three stories with 38 underground parking spaces. In
addition, seven surface parking spaces are shown on the site plan. For apartments
buildings, city code requires at least two parking spaces per unit, at least one of which is
enclosed. By this, the developer meets the enclosed parking spaces requirement;
however, not the surface parking requirement. Keep in mind this code information is
given as a backdrop because in a PUD arrangement the developer is not tied to the city
Page 2 —Autumn Woods PUD Amendment
code requirements. The developer has stated that plenty of surface parking is available
at the adjacent Autumn Woods development for visitors, etc. on top of the seven that
will be available. Typically, each unit would have one car, or sometimes not even that,
according to the developer.
The development plan shows an encroachment into the side yard setback, although
Autumn Woods does own the adjacent property. All other required typical setbacks are
met although with a PUD keep in mind there is departure from the strict application of
such requirements. A big advantage of a PUD is that it can maximize the development
potential of land.
According to the developer, the apartments will have individual entries to the street and
courtyard on the first floor and also to a center hall that will access the underground
heated garage. The building exterior will closely match the adjacent and existing Autumn
Woods development. The entire development will tie together well, according to the
developer.
In July, LaNel forwarded the attached final plans that include the site plan, floor plans
and unit plans, elevation showing exterior materials, rendering of elevation, and a
landscape plan. Keep in mind these plans do not indicate the conditions placed on the
applicant at the time of the July 22, 2003, Council approval.
Staff Recommendation:
The developer has proposed an excellent fit with the adjacent Autumn Woods
development. Staff recommends approval of the PUD amendment.
Attachments:
• City Council Resolution 03-051
• July 15, 2003, Planning Commission minutes
• July 22, 2003, City Council minutes
• Autumn Woods Phase 2 Plans
I Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
2 October 21, 2003
3 Page 2
Motion carried unanimously.
5
6 VII. COMMUNICATION WITH CITY COUNCIL.
7 7.1 Designate a Planning Commission member to the October 28, 2003 City Council
8 Meeting.
9
10 Chair Melsha noted that Commissioner Steeves has indicated that he would be available to
11 attend the next City Council meeting on October 28, 2003.
12
13 VIII. PUBLIC HEARINGS.
14 8.1 Autumn Woods II LLP 2534 2538 2542 2546 and 2548 Kenzie Terrace, amend
1.5 Planned Unit Development(PUD) for an additional 38 units of adult rental housing.
16
17 Chair Melsha opened the public hearing at 7:04 p.m.
18
19 Susan Hall stated that on July 25,2003, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on the
20 Autumn Woods II Planned Unit Development(PUD) amendment and recommended City
21 Council approval subject to there being 38 parking stalls rather than the 35 proposed; review of
22 the plans and cross easements by the City Attorney; and completion of the replat. She stated that
23 on July 22, 2003 the City Council approved the PUD amendment with the conditions
24 recommended by the Planning Commission. She stated that after the approvals Staff learned that
25 some of the neighbors of the development had not been notified of the July 15`h Public Hearing,
as they should have. She noted that Mr. Brewer opted to have a rehearing so that these
11 neighbors would have an opportunity to speak and provide input to the development. She
28 provided the Commission with a brief overview of the development details stating that the
29 developer has proposed an excellent fit with the adjacent Autumn Woods development. She
30 further stated that Staff recommends approval of the PUD amendment.
31
32 Chair Melsha confirmed that the July Planning Commission and City Council meeting minutes
33 and all information has been incorporated for a complete review of the information.
34
35 Vice Chair Stille noted that the resolution approval was conditional upon the lot split and cross
36 easements and asked if this had occurred yet. Ms. Hall confirmed that it has not happened yet.
37
38 Greg Brock,Partner, LaNel Financial Group, stated that he is available for any questions the
39 Commission or residents might have regarding the proposed development. He referenced a
40 change from the last set of plans stating that they initially requested approval for 35 underground
41 parking stalls noting that it has been amended for a total of 38 parking stalls. He reviewed the
42 access points and provided an overview of the project to the Commission. He stated that they
43 intend to maintain the same type of architecture as the Autumn Woods I development adding
44 that it would be more upscale and include amenities such as fireplaces and washer and dryers in
45 some units.
46
47 Barbara Sullivan, 2005 22"d Avenue Northeast, referenced Rule 350 stating that the residents
should have been notified. She asked the Commission why they did not receive notification of
this project.
50
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
October 21, 2003
Page 3
1 Chair Melsha acknowledged Ms. Sullivan's concerns and explained that it was an oversight that
2 they did not receive the appropriate notification. He reviewed the PUD with the residents
3 present and clarified that the PUD could be changed or amended depending on the input received
4 from the hearing.
5
6 Ms. Sullivan asked if an environmental impact study had been done prior to the project being
7 approved. She expressed concerns regarding the environmental impact with respect to
8 stormwater runoff and groundwater. She noted that for every five acres a holding pond should
9 be incorporated and asked if this would be done for the Autumn Woods lI project. She strongly
10 encouraged the Commission to consider all issues with respect to the environmental impact of
11 the area.
12
13 Ms. Hall stated that the Engineer has reviewed the site and is not concerned about the issues Ms.
14 Sullivan raised. She further explained the scope of the project noting that an EAW is not
15 necessary for a project of this size.
16
17 Mr. Brock noted that Phase I had an analysis done of the area that included drilling samples. He
18 stated that no issues were found at that time.
19
20 Mark Gibbs, 2617 Lowry, asked if they would be installing some type of barrier between the
21 houses and the project area. He asked if they would be installing a fence. He expressed
concerns stating that they do not want any unnecessary traffic into their yards. He noted that last
2.3 year he was approached by the developer with an offer to purchase his property and asked if they
24 would be coming back with any further offers. He stated that it was his understanding that the
25 City had pulled back the funding to purchase their property. He explained that he had signed a
26 purchase agreement for another home thinking he had sold his property and asked if the
27 developer still intended to purchase their property.
28
29 Mr. Brock addressed Mr. Gibbs concerns regarding the barrier. He referenced the landscaping
30 plans stating that the plans include a heavily treed and bermed area between the houses and the
31 development. He added that the plans do not include fencing. He addressed Mr. Gibbs
32 questions regarding the purchase of his property stating that acquisition of his property was
33 dependent upon the ability for the development to purchase all five properties along Lowry
34 Avenue NE and not portions of the area. He explained that had they been able to acquire all of
35 the properties it would have allowed further development of the area noting that not all
36 homeowners wanted to sell their property. He stated that in reviewing costs to purchase the
37 properties that were available they found that it would have cost too much. He stated that this
38 was the reason for their withdrawal of the offer,not because the City pulled back dollars.
39
40 Glen Gavic, 2605 Lowry Avenue,referenced the fencing stating that he agrees with Mr. Gibbs
41 that they should install a fence between their properties and the development. He also noted that
42 money had been offered for their property that was up to three times the market value and
43 expressed his frustration and disappointment noting that they never heard another word from the
4' developer. He asked the Commission who was in charge of this process.
I Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
2 October 21, 2003
3 Page 4
5 Chair Melsha addressed Mr. Gavic's concerns and explained that the Planning Commission has
6 no decision power with respect to land acquisition.
7
8 Vice Chair Stille agreed with Chair Melsha and suggested that Mr. Gavic discuss his concerns
9 with those who did not want to sell their property.
10
11 Chair Melsha further clarified that in order for the acquisition to be worthwhile they needed to
12 be able to purchase a certain amount of land mass. He explained that this was not accomplished
13 based on the fact there was one property owner that did not want to sell their property.
14
15 Mr. Gavic expressed his disagreement stating that the Planning Commission is responsible to
16 work with the neighbors that surround the project area. Chair Melsha agreed that the Planning
17 Commission should work with the residents and acknowledged their request for fencing and
18 their concern regarding the water runoff. He clarified that both of these issues would be
19 Planning Commission concerns adding that land acquisition is not. He clarified that land
20 acquisition is a private party matter between the property owner and the developer and that it
21 does not involve the Planning Commission.
22
23 Commissioner Tillman further clarified that land acquisition is not part of the City planning
-24 process adding that it is a developer issue.
25
Mr. Gavic suggested that the City Planners work with the Residents to determine the impact it
2, would have on their neighborhood.
28
29 John Sullivan, 2005 22"d Avenue Northeast, asked if they were changing the zoning from Single
30 Family. Chair Melsha clarified the PUD amendment adding that it would not affect any of the
31 current homes,just the new properties to be developed.
32
33 Chair Melsha closed the public hearing at 7:29 p.m.
34
35 Chair Melsha acknowledged the frustrations expressed by the residents. He reviewed the issues
36 regarding the land acquisition concerns and clarified that this issue is outside the City process
37 and referred further questions to the developer. He stated that he is comfortable with the
38 proposed development and stated that he is satisfied with the buffer and stormwater issues.
39
40 Commissioner Hanson suggested polling the residents for fence separation.
41
42 Commissioner Tillman clarified that the fencing would be instead of the landscaping, not in
43 addition to it.
44
45 Mr. Brock reviewed the landscaping proposal stating that they have done this kind of buffer in
46 other areas adding that they have found that berming, heavily treed areas and shrubs work well
47 as a natural barrier and are easier to maintain than fencing.
Vice Chair Stille acknowledged Mr. Gavic's concerns and frustrations with respect to the land
50 acquisition issues and reviewed. He suggested discussing his concerns with the developer.
..
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
October 21, 2003
Page 5
1 Chair Melsha agreed noting that the resident's comments have been duly noted. He stated that
2 he is comfortable with the plan as presented.
3
4 Mr. Gibbs disagreed with the proposed landscaping stating that he would prefer fencing. He
5 expressed concerns regarding safety of the neighborhood adding that he was also concerned _
6 about additional pedestrian traffic. Mr. Gavic agreed adding that he is concerned about the
7 additional pedestrian traffic through their yards.
8
9 Commissioner Stromgren asked Mr. Gavic and Mr. Gibbs where the traffic would come from.
10 Mr. Gavic stated that they are concerned about additional pedestrian traffic coming from the
11 streets and surrounding area.
12
13 Chair Melsha noted the Residents request for fencing adding that he felt that the landscaping was
14 the better choice for the area. He noted the line of vision stating that the taller trees would
15 provide a level of privacy. The Residents acknowledged the line of vision adding that there is
16 also an added concern with respect to a possible increase in pedestrian traffic through their
17 yards. The Residents expressed concerns regarding the safety in the area in addition to privacy
18 issues.
19
20 Chair Tillman noted that the landscaping plan calls for deciduous trees, which would eventually
21 be very large trees, as tall as a building. She asked if they were asking for a fence only or a
fence with the landscaping. She expressed concerns that there would not be enough room for
2-) both. The Residents asked if it would be possible to have both. Chair Melsha suggested having
24 the developer review the plans to determine what could be included as a barrier and leave the
25 final decision to the developer's discretion. He stated that he is comfortable with the proposal as
26 it is.
27 Vice Chair Stille stated that in the long run, landscaping would be more appealing. He noted
28 that the consensus of the residents is that they would prefer fencing.
29
30 Ms. Sullivan asked who would be responsible for maintaining the fencing and the landscaping.
31 Chair Melsha stated that it would be the responsibility of the developer.
32
33 Motion by Chair Melsha, second by Vice Chair Stille, to recommend approval of the PUD as
34 presented, as amended with the additional 38 parking stalls, conditional on the approval and
35 reviewal of plans by the City Attorney, Condition of the Replat and with the condition that the
36 landscape plan, as proposed, can be amended at the discretion of the applicant in lieu of the
37 south end of the property to provide a fence.
38
39 Motion carried unanimously.
40 IX. INFORMATION AND DISCUSSION.
41
42 9.1 St. Anthony Shopping Center, LLC. 2900 Pentagon Drive. Continuation of Public
43 Hearing to Amend Comprehensive Sign Plan.
d'
Susan Hall stated as requested at the September 160'Planning Commission meeting, the St.
46 Anthony Shopping Center has presented sign criteria to address logo signage for their
City Council Regular Meeting Minutes
October 28, 2003
Page 3
Mayor Hodson thanked Ms. Wittsack for being present and thanked the Met Council for the
2 grant that assisted the City in jump-starting the major redevelopments in the City.
3
4 Councilmember Faust thanked Ms. Wittsack for coming to the meeting.
5
6 C. Planning Commission meeting,=October 21. 2003
7 1. Resolution 03-093,re: Autumn Woods II,LLP,2534, 2538, 2542,2546, and 2548
8 Kenzie Terrace:request amendment to Planned Unit Development
9 Planning Commissioner Steeves stated the Planning Commission held a public hearing on July
10 25, 2003,on the Autumn Woods II Planned Unit Development(PUD) amendment and
11 recommended City Council approval subject to there being 38 parking stalls rather than the
12 35 proposed; review of the plans and cross easements by the City Attorney; and completion
13 of the replat. On July 22,2003 the City Council approved the PUD amendment with the
14 conditions recommended by the Planning Commission. After the approvals, Staff learned
15 that some of the neighbors of the development had not been notified of the July 15th Public
16 Hearing, as they should have. Mr. Brewer opted to have a rehearing so that these neighbors
17 would have an opportunity to speak and provide input to the development. The Planning
18 Commission held that public hearing on October 21, 2003. He noted ponding was discussed
19 at this meeting along with screening on this site abutting the residential properties. Planning
20 Commissioner Steeves stated a fencing option was discussed as well, but noted this was left
21 up to the discretion of the developer after fiuther discussions with the neighboring property
22 owners.
7
21, Commissioner Steeves provided the Council with a brief overview of the development
25 details stating that the developer has proposed an excellent fit with the adjacent
26 Motion by Councilmember Thuesen, seconded by Councilmember Faust, to adopt Resolution
27 03-093,re: Autumn Woods II, LLP, 2534, 2538, 2542, 2546, and 2548 Kenzie Terrace;
28 amendment to Planned Unit Development with stated conditions.
29
30 Discussion:
31 Councilmember Thuesen asked what type of fencing was proposed. Commissioner Steeves
32 stated this was not addressed in detail,but the neighboring properties felt that a burm would
33 allow for passage through their property where a fence would increase the privacy of these
34 homeowners. He noted the developer was looking at the issue and noted the Commission was in
35 favor of the landscaping. Commissioner Steeves stated if a fence were put on this site, the
36 proposed landscaping would be scaled back.
37
38 Councilmember Horst questioned if the developer proposed the landscaping and burming.
39 Commissioner Steeves stated this was the case. He indicated however the neighboring
40 homeowners would be in favor of a fence and that it was left up to the developer's discretion to
41 work this out with the neighboring property owners.
42 City Manager Morrison noted there were two action items for this issue, one being the
43 amendment and the other being the rezoning of the property.
44
a Motion carried unanimously.
4�
CITY OF ST.ANTHONY VILLAGE
RESOLUTION 03 -093
A RESOLUTION AMENDING RESOLUTION 03-051,
RELATING TO A REQUEST BY AUTUMN WOODS 11 LP,
FOR AN AMENDMENT TO AN EXISTING PLANNED UNIT
DEVELOPMENT(PUD)
WHEREAS, Resolution 03-051 stated the following:
WHEREAS, LaNel Financial Group(Autumn Woods 11 LP)proposes to develop a market rate senior
rental townhouse-style building on the formerly City-owned single family lots addressed
as 2534,2538, 2542, 2546,and 2548 Kenzie Terrace;and
WHEREAS, a request to amend their existing PUD was made by Autumn Woods 11 LP and was
presented at a public hearing to the Planning Commission on July 15, 2003; and
WHEREAS, after review and discussion of the proposed amendment,the Planning Commission has
recommended Council approval subject to the following:
1. There will be 38 parking stalls,rather than the 35 proposed
2. Review of the plans and cross easements by the City Attorney
3. Completion of the re-plat.
WHEREAS, the amendment to Resolution 03-051 is as follows:
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, at a re-hearing of said request on October 21, 2003,
recommended Council approval and added the following condition:
4. Screening between the subject property and adjacent residential homes will be by either
landscaping or fencing, ,but not both,based on the decision of the developer.
NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of St. Anthony hereby
approves the request by Autumn Woods 11 LP for an amendment to their existing PUD, according to the
findings and conditions made by the Planning Commission, as stated above.
Adopted this .�F� day of CL% �V . 20
ATTEST: , or
City Clerk
Reviewed for Administration:
City Manager
Hennepin County Property Map Print Page 1 of 1
Hennepin County Property Map - Tax Year: 2009
The data contained on this page is derived from a compilation of records and maps and may contain discrepancies that can only be disclosed by an accurate survey performed by a licensed
land surveyor.The perimeter and area(square footage and acres)are approximates and may contain discrepancies.The information on this page should be used for reference purposes only.
Hennepin County does not guarantee the accuracy of material herein contained and is not responsible for any misuse or misrepresentation of this information or Its derivatives.
t rr
i
J
l f
Jf• �
nAx ,f'r ,f
2501
ff,,
/ Js
2548
2546 ,
2580
2542 94
✓t fit\
` 2538
2534 94
�J.
2520 2605 2609 2613 2617 2621
LOWRY AVE N E
t �
lil =
C
2342 t 2341 2342 5 2343 [:2356
H �
2339 2352
Selected Parcel Data Date Printed:9/11/2009 9:09:44 AM
Parcel ID:07-029-23-23-0008 Current Parcel Date:9/4/2009
Owner Name:AUTUMN WOODS III LLC
Parcel Address: 2534 KENZIE TER,ST.ANTHONY,MN 55418
Property Type:VACANT LAND-APA Sale Price: $285,000.00
Homestead:NON-HOMESTEAD Sale Date: 10/2004
Area(sgft):9896 Sale Code:VACANT LAND
Area(acres):0.23
A-T-B:ABSTRACT
Market Total:$65,600.00
Tax Total: $1,226.40
http://gis.co.hennepin.nm.us/HCPropertyMap/Locator.aspx?PID=0702923230008 9/11/2009
f
7.r•''� � � i�l � e
EAST ELEVATION STUDY Iayr.ream*.
Autumn Woods Assisted Living
Sa:e. ne.a •J, Uiea aaa.a a•wr�.a s.��.WaW RJld,���b���P! _ .. -ria
_7
r
• LJ!' n -
c
1
...0 `�. �.
/AY I.\ELfOw
IMAGE STUDY .
Autumn Woods Assisted Living
SAI.a AItA���, NIA�IA.1A Ire.A.I...a. ar Ar. '�
1
J I�
I.00KWCSOI7IILASf •a `. i"f a •' _ LOOKING NORTHRA4T
w�' - i>} , �- rye'♦,, ',I
;,,� `-<•� .,�. =—�..1 LOOKRJcsovrnwm `�JAT I.Ntlfd:
Autumn Woods Assisted Living
,x l Exlsun9 auoimn wooaa n
NORTHgFy
« \: "lents.
"-
%,
�'• 'ham I
*-qy
SITE PLAN
Autumn Woods Assisted Living
Sa,nl A.tYony. Ninwewetw
rt,-.'_ ' 'r►� � , mow'."-Q ' �---'���.
1. 1
WoodsAutumn <t.
� f
STAFF REPORT
To: Chair Stromgren and Planning Commission Members
From: Kinn Moore-Sykes, Assistant City Manager
Date: September 15,2009
Subject: Review Fence Heights
Property Address: N/A
Zoning District: Residential
60-Day Expires: N/A
Requested Action: Possible Amendment to the City Code
Background: As Staff presented information that generally,most communities limit fence height to six feet
in side and rear yards. The stated purpose for regulation is "to promote a pleasant physical environment
and to protect the public and private property within the City by regulating the location,height, type of
construction, and maintenance of all fences." Most communities feel that fences taller than six feet do not
promote a very neighborly community.
Staff reviewed variance applications since 2007 to determine how often variances for fence heights have
been applied for by residents. Since the City began tracking them electronically in 2007, of the 56 variances
applied for, only two variance requests were submitted for fence heights. Because so few variances to the
fence height regulations have been requested,Staff does not recommend changing the City Ordinance to
allow eight-foot fences. That is not to say that occasionally and on a case-by-case basis, that an eight-foot
fence isn't necessary in some situations.
As just stated, the City of St. Anthony granted two variances associated with fence height; one in 2008 and
one in 2009. The two variances granted for fence height were for neighboring properties which were
determined to have situations that are unique in nature. The two neighboring properties are situated such
that their back yards are adjacent to or are in close proximity to Silver Lake Road,which is classified by the
Metropolitan Council in its Transportation Plan as an A-Minor Arterial road north of 37th Avenue. This
means that Silver Lake Road is a reliever route as defined by the Met Council that provides direct relief and
support for congested principal arterials, such as I-694,by carrying traffic toward or away from the core of
the metro area. These types of roads are characteristically very busy and noisy. The variance requests were
more for the mitigation of noise and light rather than an increased need for security or privacy.
Staff found that the City of Prior Lake is one of the few metro area communities that allows for the
installation of an 8-foot fence in the Residential Zoning District, but only for properties abutting a state
highway or county road. If the Planning Commission recommends and the City Council favors changing
the City Code to allow for eight-foot fences in situations similar to those allowed for by the City of Prior
Lake, then Staff would recommend that eight-foot fences be an approved conditional use in the residential
zoning district where the property abuts a county or state road.
f
The Fire and Police departments have stated no firm objections,except there may be some difficulty
accessing the property in an emergency. The Fire Chief stated that he would prefer gates to be required if
eight-foot fences are allowed in certain situations.
Attachments:
• Fence Information—the City of Prior Lake
• Emails from the Police and Fire Chiefs
Kim Moore-Sykes
From: John Ohl
Sent: Thursday, August 20, 2009 7:42 AM
To: Kim Moore-Sykes
Subject: RE: Fence Heights
Kim,
I have no professional reaction, only aesthetics.
John
-----Original Message-----
From: Kim Moore-Sykes
Sent: Wednesday, August 19, 2009 4 :26 PM
To: Jay Hartman; John Malenick; John Ohl
Subject: Fence Heights
Hi - I was asked by the Planning Commission to check with each of you to find out if you
have any issues, thoughts or concerns with/about fences that are more than 6 feet high,
ie, 8-foot fences. Thanks ! Kim
1
kim Moore-Sykes
From: John Malenick
Sent: Wednesday, August 19, 2009 7:09 PM
To: Kim Moore-Sykes; Jay Hartman; John Ohl
Subject: RE: Fence Heights
Hi,
Don't mind an exception now and then for good cause but if all fences were that high, we
could have difficulty moving equipment and hoselines over them.
From: Kim Moore-Sykes
Sent: Wednesday, August 19, 2009 4 :26 PM
To: Jay Hartman; John Malenick; John Ohl
Subject: Fence Heights
Hi - I was asked by the Planning Commission to check with each of you to find out if you
have any issues, thoughts or concerns with/about fences that are more than 6 feet high,
ie, 8-foot fences. Thanks ! Kim
1
STAFF REPORT
To: Mayor and Council
City Manager
From: Kim Moore-Sykes,Assistant City Manager 011b
Date: September 15, 2009
Subject: Conditional Use Permits and Variances
Requested Action: None; Informational Only
Date Application Received: N/A
Property Address: N/A
Zoning District: N/A
60-Day Expires: N/A
Waiver Letter Required: N/A
Future Action: N/A
Background: The Planning Commission asked Staff to provide them with a Staff Report detailing the
differences between Conditional Use Permits and Variances. According to the City Code at §152.002, the intent
and purpose of the CUP is to protect the health, safety and general welfare of the City and the residents; to
protect Use Districts;promote orderly development and redevelopment;and provide for the compatibility of
different land uses. Information from the League of Minnesota Cities also states that CUPS provide for the
compatibility of different land uses.
Providing for the compatibility of different land uses is one of the purposes of the Conditional Use Permit.
CUPs involve uses that generally are not consistent with a particular zoning district (May 2004 Minnesota Cities).
The St. Anthony City Code does require that the use is one of the conditional uses specifically listed for the
zoning district in which the property is located; that the use will not be detrimental to the health, safety or
general welfare of persons residing or working in the vicinity or to the property values in the vicinity;and the
applicant needs to demonstrate that the proposed conditional use will provide a service or a facility which is in
the interest of the public convenience and will contribute to the general welfare.
And lastly, once approved, the CUP is not an indefinite approval. The City Code states at§152.243 (D) that a
Conditional Use Permit expires in 12 months if it is not implemented.
Variances, on the other hand, are intended to grant appropriate relief from a strict adherence to the Zoning
Ordinance in a City's Code. This intent is documented in St. Anthony's Zoning Ordinance and states that a
variance is an approved exemption to the strict enforcement of the Zoning Ordinance granted to a property
owner who has demonstrated that strict enforcement would cause the owner undue hardship (City Code
09152009 CUPS and Variancees.doc
§151.11). The procedural requirements for granting a variance are established by Minnesota Statute 5462.357 (6)
and are supported and further enhanced by the City's Zoning Ordinance (City Code 5152.245).
Like CUPS,variances also have an expiration. Variances are to be applied within 12 months of being approved
(5152.245 (F)).
In contrast to Conditional Use Permits,variances are granted for dimensional provisions of a property and are
granted by City Council after a public hearing is held by the Planning Commission. Variances are not to be
granted for uses.
The basic difference between these two procedures is that: 1.) Condition Use Permits involve uses that are
generally not consistent with a particular zoning district and variances are approved departures from strict
enforcement of zoning requirements for a particular piece of property if enforcement would cause undue
hardship to the owner (May 2004 Minnesota Cities). In both situations,if the applicant meets or satisfies the
standards as established for a CUP or a variance, then the City Council must grant the CUP or variance. The
City Council does have broad discretion in interpretation of those standards but they must not appear to be
arbitrary and capricious in their interpretation and in both situations, the applicant has the right to appeal in state
district court.
Also, for both situations, the 60-Day Rule does apply. If a municipality does not act on a written request within
60 days of submitting the written request, the request is deemed automatically approved.
Attachments:
• League of Minnesota Cities: Conditional Use Permits and Variances
09152009 CUPS and Variancees.doc
DID YOU KNOW ?
Conditional Use Permits and Variances
By Erin Pratt
n Minnesota,property owners been met.If the proposed use satisfies variances.One of the most important
can request deviations from the the standards,however,the council is the application of the 60-day rule,set
strict enforcement of a city's must grant the CUP. forth in Minnesota Statute § 15.99.The
zoning ordi-nance through con- Procedural requirements and standards statute provides that a municipality must
ditional use permits (CUPs) and for granting variances.The procedural approve or deny a written request relat-
variances.On the surface,CUPs requirements for granting a variance are ing to zoning within 60 days.If the
variances appear similar. set forth in Minnesota Statute§462.357, city does not act,the request is deemed
However,city officials should know subdivision 6.Under this statute,the automatically approved.Minnesota
about important differences before board of appeals and adjustments hears courts have generally demanded strict
deciding to grant or deny a request. variance requests.The board may be a compliance with the requirements of
The most important distinction separate body,a planning commission this law.Given the numerous require-
between a CUP and a variance is the or a council.A strict reading of Min- ments of this law,please contact the
type of deviation from the zoning ordi- nesota Statute 462.357,subd.6,does League's Research Department for
nance. CUPs involve uses that generally not mandate a public hearing;however, detailed memoranda outlining the statute.
are not consistent with a particular zon- Minnesota Statute 462.357,subd.3, Right of appeal.Any aggrieved
ing district,but are allowed in specific states:"No zoning ordinance or amend- person can challenge a city's action on a
circumstances set forth in a city's zon- ment ... shall be adopted until a public variance or CUP in state district court.
ing ordinance.For example,a city may hearing has been held."A variance However,the city's zoning ordinance
allow a business in a residential district could be considered an amendment. may require the party to first exhaust
if the business meets the requirements Despite the legal uncertainty,the administrative appeals.When reviewing
set forth in its zoning ordinance.On League recommends holding a public a city's action,courts give the deciding
the other hand, variances are permitted hearing for variance requests.A hearing body broad deference and will look to
departures from strict enforcement of a provides both the property owner and see whether its action was reasonable.
zoning code as applied to a particular affected neighbors a chance to present Courts will overturn a city's decision
piece of property if strict enforcement their views,and may prevent a challenge if it is found to be arbitrary and capri-
would cause the owner undue hardship. to the board's decision. cious,meaning it is not supported by
For example,an owner may apply for The board may grant a variance only factual evidence.Therefore,in acting
a variance from a zoning ordinance's when strict enforcement of the zoning on CUP and variance applications,the
height limitations. ordinance causes the owner undue city should make written finding sup-
Procedural requirements and hardship.Undue hardship means: porting its decision. Courts will look
standards for granting CUPs.The pro- ■ The property cannot be put to reason- to such findings if the grant or denial is
cedural requirements for granting a able use without the variance. challenged.
CUP are found in Minnesota Statute ■ The owner's plight is not caused by For more information. If you have
§ 462.3595.A city council or planning the owner and is due to circumstanc- questions or would like more informa-
commission must first hold a public es unique to the property. tion on this topic,please contact the
hearing.The statute requires at least ■ The variance,if granted,will not League Research Department at (651)
10 days notice in the official newspaper. alter locality's essential character. 281-1220 or (800) 925-1122.Ir
Although not mandated by statute, Under this standard,owners must
many zoning ordinances have a city's show they would like to use their land
planning commission review the re- in a reasonable manner that is prohibited
quest and make a recommendation to by the zoning ordinance.Additionally,
the council.The council,or other des- economic circumstances cannot,by
ignated authority,then decides whether themselves,create an undue hardship.
the proposed use meets the standards The board has broad discretion when
laid out in the zoning ordinance. determining whether an owner will
Councils have wide discretion in suffer an undue hardship. Erin Pratt is research attorney with the
determining whether or not the stan- Application of the 60-day rule.There League of Minnesota Cities. Phone:(651)
dards in the zoning ordinance have are also similarities between CUPs and 281-229, E-mail:epratt@lmnc.org.
MAY 2 0 0 4 MINNESOTA CITIES 19
STAFF REPORT
To: Planning Commission Chair and Members From: Kim Moore-Sykes,Assistant City Manager 01/9
Date: September 15, 2009
Subject: Upcoming Reappointments
Requested Action: None; Informational Only
Date Application Received: N/A
Property Address: N/A
Zoning District: N/A
60-Day Expires: N/A
Waiver Letter Required: N/A
Future Action: N/A
Background: As according to the Planning Commission's by-laws, the City is to consider the reappointment of
Commissioners with expiring terms or appointments to any vacant seat. The Planning Commission has three (3)
terms that are scheduled to expire in December 2009. The Council will meet in November to consider
reappointments and if need be, appointments.
If you are interested in continuing with the Planning Commission, please submit a letter or email to the City
Manager, Michael Mornson, stating your desire to be reappointed. If you are not planning to be reappointed,
please send a letter stating this intent as well. I hope you all will consider being reappointed but whatever your
decision is, please submit your letters of intent by the end of October.
Mike Mornson's email: mmornsongci.saint-anthony.mn.us
Attachments:
• Planning Commission Member List
09152009 Reappointment memo of PC.doc
PLANNING COMMISSION CONTACT INFORMATION
Updated April 2009
Name Term End Date
Joel Stromgren, Chair 12/11
3108 Croft Drive
St. Anthony, MN 55418
(home) 612-781-7048; (work) 612-278-7690 (e-mail) istromgren ,millerdunwiddie.com
Paul Cincoski 12/10
3213 -29 th Avenue NE
St. Anthony, MN 55418
612-207-8360 (e-mail) paul.cincoskigibgroup.com
Don Jensen, Vice Chair 12/11
.3004 Armour Terrace
St. Anthony, MN 55418
(home) 612-789-0325 (e-mail) ditih2@msn.com
Brian Heinis 12/09
3916 Shamrock Drive NE
St. Anthony, MN 55421
(home) 612-968-3534 (e-mail) b heinis a,yahoo.com
Erica Crone 12/09
4033 Fordham Drive NE
St. Anthony, MN 55421
(home) 612-781-2236 (e-mail) acirekay@hotmail.com
Jan Jenson 12/09
2812 Hilldale Avenue
St. Anthony, MN 55418
(home) 612-788-1242 (work) 612-951-5234 (cell) 612-282-0308;janjensonQahoneywell.com
Peter Chaput 12/10
3537 Coolidge Street NE
St. Anthony, MN 55418
(home) 612-788-6506 (e-mail) pachaputLa)earthlink.net
Staff Liaison: Kim Moore-Sykes, Assistant City Manager
City Hall: 612-782-3312 (direct)
Fax: 612-782-3302
E-Mail: kmoore-sykes a,ci.saint-anthony.mn.us
Recording Secretary: Carol Hamer, Time Savers, cdhamera,embargmail.com
FAPlanning\PC Members List\pc address 042009.doc