HomeMy WebLinkAboutPL PACKET 03272017
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 March 27, 2017 Planning Commission Meeting Agenda. (action requested)
II. Approval of the October 24, 2016 Regular Planning Commission Meeting Minutes. (pp.1-9)
III. Public Hearing.
A. Consider a request for a four and one half (4.5) foot variance from the required front yard setback
and a two (2) foot variance to exempt the porch steps from five-foot encroachment allowance in the
R-1 District located at 3216 Croft Drive. (pp. 11-36)
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
MARCH 27, 2017
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
7:00 PM
CITY OF ST. ANTHONY 1
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 2
3
October 24, 2016 4
7:00 p.m. 5
6
CALL TO ORDER. 7
8
Chairperson Gondorchin called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. 9
10
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE. 11
12
Chairperson Gondorchin invited the Commission and the audience to join him in the Pledge of 13
Allegiance. 14
15
ROLL CALL. 16
17
Commissioners Present: Chairperson Gondorchin, Commissioners Bartel, Foster, Kalar, Lichty, 18
Papatola, and Westrick 19
20
Absent: None 21
22
Also Present: City Planner Breanne Rothstein 23
24
25
I. APPROVAL OF THE OCTOBER 24, 2016, PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 26
AGENDA. 27
28
Motion by Commissioner Lichty, seconded by Commissioner Bartel, to approve the October 24, 29
2016, Planning Commission agenda. 30
31
Motion carried 7-0. 32
33
II. APPROVAL OF THE JUNE 27, 2016, REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION 34
MEETING MINUTES. 35
36
Commissioner Papatola referred to page four the vote for The Unofficial, noting he participated 37
in the vote and the minutes should be revised for 5 in favor with 1 abstained. 38
39
Motion by Commissioner Papatola, seconded by Commissioner Westrick, to approve the June 40
27, 2016, Regular Planning Commission Meeting Minutes as revised. 41
42
Motion carried 7-0. 43
44
Commissioner Papatola volunteered to represent the Planning Commission at the next City 45
Council Meeting November 22, 2016. 46
47
III. PUBLIC HEARING. 48
49
1
Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes
October 24, 2016
Page 2
A. Consider a request from Trautz Properties, Inc. located at 2700 and 2702-2714 1
County Road 88 for a preliminary plat request to create three lots on the site and to 2
consider a variance to allow for zero lot line. 3
4
Chairperson Gondorchin opened the public hearing at 7:04 p.m. 5
6
City Planner Rothstein reviewed staff has reviewed the proposed preliminary plat, and variances 7
requested and recommends approval of all the applications, subject to the following conditions: 8
1) Satisfactory submittal and execution of a reciprocal easement agreement which clearly 9
articulates the rights and responsibilities of the three affected landowners; 10
2) Satisfactory submittal of evidence that the final plat includes the names and signatures of all 11
the current fee owners of the land being platted; 12
3) Satisfactory submittal of evidence that the condo ownership structure is, or will be, 13
terminated prior to filing of the final plat; and 14
4) City Attorney review and resolution of any other outstanding legal issues associated with 15
recording of the plat. 16
17
Ms. Rothstein provided background information on the case. Mr. John Trautz of Trautz 18
Properties, Inc. has entered into a purchase agreement with Daniel Shattuck of Shattuck 19
Properties to purchase the multi-tenant strip mall located at 2702 – 2714 County Road 88, which 20
includes the city-owned liquor store. Shattuck is also selling the Village Pub to the current 21
operator. 22
23
The Applicants are proposing a preliminary and final plat of “St. Anthony Village Center” to 24
convert the property located at 2700 and 2703 – 2714 County Road 88 from a Common Interest 25
Community (CIC) plat to a standard “Lot and Block” plat. Additionally, variances are needed to 26
accommodate a zero setback on the proposed property line in several areas. Furthermore, two 27
additional variances are requested to bring existing lot line encroachments into conformity 28
through consideration of variances for existing non-conforming situations. 29
30
The primary reason for processing this application is to eliminate the defunct Condo Association 31
in favor of a private Easement Agreement. This easement agreement would establish a process 32
for shared maintenance of the parking areas and landscaping areas to more closely match current 33
practice. Additionally, it would be a three-party agreement among the City for the liquor store, 34
John Trautz, the new owner of the strip mall and Corey Burstad, the new owner of Village Pub. 35
This change would also be a chance to amend the existing parking and access agreement and 36
CIC documents into one, comprehensive easement agreement. Staff does not expect anything to 37
change with regard to the way the property is managed or costs are divided from current practice, 38
but to amend the documents to reflect current practice and bring in the new third party (Village 39
Pub). Because the City owns the liquor store through the CIC, the City is a party (co-applicant) 40
to this plat. 41
42
Ms. Rothstein reviewed Applicable Codes, Criteria for and Consistency with Criteria for 43
Approvals of the Preliminary Plat, Final Plat, and Variances. Ms. Rothstein noted the following 44
on the variance criteria review: 45
• Subject matter of the application is within the scope of this section – Criterion met. 46
2
Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes
October 24, 2016
Page 3
• The property owner purposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by the 1
zoning code – Criterion met. 2
• The plight of the property owner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created 3
by the property owner – Criterion not met. 4
• The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality – Criterion met. 5
• Economic considerations alone are not the basis of practical difficulties – Criterion met. 6
• The variance, if granted, would be consistent with the City’s comprehensive land use plan – 7
Criterion met. 8
• The granting of the variance is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the zoning 9
code – Criterion met. 10
11
Ms. Rothstein stated staff recommends approval of the preliminary plat and final plat for St. 12
Anthony Village Center; and the associated variances, subject to the following conditions: 13
• Satisfactory submittal and execution of a reciprocal easement agreement which clearly 14
articulates the rights and responsibilities of the three affected landowners, and is substantially 15
consistent with the rights and responsibilities set forth in the current Condo Association 16
documents; 17
• Satisfactory submittal of evidence to provide proof of clear title (and resolution of any 18
outstanding title issues); 19
• City Attorney review and resolution of any other outstanding legal issues associated with 20
recording of the plat. 21
22
Ms. Rothstein provided three possible actions for Planning Commission consideration: 23
1. Recommend Approval (with or without conditions) of the preliminary plat for St. Anthony 24
Shopping Center, the final plat for St. Anthony Shopping Center, the 6 associated variances 25
and adopt the resolution. 26
2. Recommend Denial (with or without conditions) of the applications. In the event of a 27
recommendation for denial (with or without conditions), the Planning Commission must state 28
its findings and any conditions related to denial. 29
3. Request Additional Information and Continue the Public Hearing. The Applicant appears to 30
have provided enough information for the Planning Commission to make a recommendation 31
to approve or deny the request. Should the Planning Commission request additional 32
information from the Applicant, the Planning Commission should continue the public hearing 33
until a later time. 34
35
Mr. John Trautz, the applicant appeared before the Commission to stand for questions. There 36
were no questions of Mr. Trautz. 37
38
Chairperson Gondorchin closed the public hearing at 7:15 p.m. 39
40
Motion by Commissioner Bartel, seconded by Commissioner Westrick, to recommend to the 41
City Council approval of a Resolution Approving the Preliminary Plat and Final Plat for St. 42
Anthony Village Center and Associated Variances. 43
44
Motion carried Voting in Favor 5 – Abstaining – 2 (Lichty and Foster) 45
46
3
Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes
October 24, 2016
Page 4
IV. STAFF REPORTS - NONE 1
2
V. OTHER BUSINESS 3
4
A. Presentation from The Village, LLC. Regarding Planned Unit Development Sketch 5
Plan at 2501 Lowry Avenue 6
7
Chair Gondorchin stated this meeting is not a public hearing. There will be an opportunity for 8
those present to speak. 9
10
Commissioner Lichty noted he will recuse himself from this discussion as his law firm represents 11
one of the parties involved in the project. 12
13
Mr. Aaron Roseth, ESG Architects and Ms Traci Thomas, The Village, presented the review of 14
the project. He noted this is an important project for the community. They strive to make the 15
designs relate to key design decisions and principles. A neighborhood meeting was held last 16
week with over 40 attendees to review the preliminary sketch plan. This type of dialogue will 17
continue. A drawing of the Southern Gateway Redevelopment was provided for Commission 18
review. Mr. Roseth noted a tree survey will be done in order to keep as many of the trees as 19
possible. He reviewed engineering slides. There are a few places on the site that needs to be 20
cleaned up. Some ground water issues have been found but no ground water remediation is 21
necessary. Many options were reviewed. 22
23
City Planner Breanne Rothstein provided the following information in a staff report to the 24
Commission. According to Section 152.209 of City Code, the sketch plan for a Planned Unit 25
Development is not considered a formal application, but an informal opportunity for the 26
developer to show their “basic intent and general nature of development”. This is the Planning 27
Commission’s and the public’s opportunity to hear the developer’s initial presentation of the 28
plans for the redevelopment of 2501 Lowry Avenue. No action is recommended or needed at this 29
time. 30
31
Ms. Rothstein provided a background summary of this case. The applicant for the proposal, The 32
Village, LLC, with lead developer Continental Property Group, purchased the Lowry Grove 33
Manufactured Home Community on June 13, 2016. On June 15, the City received official 34
correspondence from the owner regarding their intent to close Lowry Grove. This closure notice 35
triggered a series of statutory requirements of both the landowner and the city. 36
37
On October 11, 2016, the required public hearing was held, and the following actions were 38
taken: 39
1. Hold a public hearing regarding the closure notice. 40
2. Review and evaluate the impacts of the closure on residents 41
3. Inform residents of their rights to access the Manufactured Home Park Trust Fund 42
4. Appoint a neutral third party. 43
44
45
4
Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes
October 24, 2016
Page 5
On August 26, 2016, The Village LLC submitted an application for a Planned Unit Development 1
sketch plan review of re-development plan for 2501 Lowry Avenue. 2
3
To date, 10 homes have been purchased and demolished within the park. Another 8 have been 4
moved from the location to another park. 5
6
The developer has conducted a neighborhood meeting on October 18 and has invited residents 7
from the surrounding areas. 8
9
Ms Rothstein reviewed the description of the request. The site under re-development 10
consideration is approximately 15 acres located on the very southwestern edge of the city of St. 11
Anthony at 2501 Lowry Avenue. Bremer Bank (2 stories) is located on the southwestern-most 12
corner of the property and currently is not part of the re-development plan. Kenzington Condos 13
(ownership condos for seniors) are located immediately to the east (5 stories, plus at grade 14
garage). To the south is The Legacy that is 4 stories (rental, assisted living for seniors), Walker 15
Senior Housing that is 3 stories (rental, assisted living for seniors) and Autumn Woods that is 3 16
stories (general occupancy rental units). 17
18
The PUD sketch plan submittal is attached for Planning Commission’s review, as well as a 19
narrative outlining the request. The total density proposed for the site is 52 units per acre and 20
height is proposed as 5 stories (2 buildings), 4 stories (1 building), and 3 stories (2 buildings). 21
22
The PUD sketch plan proposes several housing types, unit sizes, styles and ownership models. 23
For sale townhouse units (37) are proposed on the northern and western edges of the property. 5 24
buildings of multi-family housing are shown. The sketch plan outlines a total of 837 housing 25
units. Ownership options include townhomes (37) and senior co-op (100). The plan shows 700 26
rental units, including senior assisted living (100), age-restricted rental (100), general occupancy 27
apartments (340), affordable rental apartments (60), and general occupancy micro apartment 28
units (100). A total of 60 units are included at below market-rate rental apartments. 29
30
Ms. Rothstein reviewed Other Requirements and Comprehensive Plan Guidelines. 31
32
Ms. Rothstein reviewed the Next Steps in the process. The PUD sketch plan is the first in many 33
steps towards re-development of the property at 2501 Lowry Avenue. There are many agencies, 34
plans, and permits to be reviewed, commented on, and completed over the next several months. 35
• The Environmental Assessment Worksheet is expected to be complete in November, with an 36
official 30-day agency comment period in December. 37
• The developer is currently compiling information for submittal of their preliminary plat. The 38
next item the Planning Commission will review will be a request for re-zoning to Planned 39
Unit Development, a PUD preliminary development plan, and a preliminary plat. These 40
applications are considered formal applications. 41
• A public hearing will be completed at the preliminary plat stage, which is the opportunity for 42
comments, input and decision as part of the public record. 43
• Final Development Plan, Final Plat, and Development Contract will be the final steps, only 44
after consideration of preliminary plat and development plan and a re-zoning to Planned Unit 45
Development. 46
5
Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes
October 24, 2016
Page 6
1
Ms. Traci Tomas, Vice President, The Village, LLC provided a letter to Mayor Faust and 2
Councilmembers dated August 26, 2016 re – Sketch Plan for Redevelopment of 2501 Lowry 3
Avenue, St. Anthony, MN (the “Property”). This is a narrative to provide additional detail for 4
the Sketch plan. 5
6
Mr. Rothstein reviewed the Master Plan of the Southern Gateway Redevelopment shown in a 7
drawing. As much of the parking for the development as possible will be underground. There 8
would be many courtyards throughout the project. Mr. Rothstein showed a perspective View 9
looking to the northeast. Vision sketches were also shown. Favorable feedback was received at 10
the neighborhood meeting. 11
12
There were no questions from the Commission. 13
14
Ms. Traci Tomas showed some of the feedback received at the neighborhood meeting. The 15
majority of the comments were very detailed, specific and thoughtful. There were some concerns 16
about Building C and discussions are being held and revisions will be made. There will be 17
additional neighborhood meetings in the future. 18
19
VI. COMMUNITY FORUM 20
21
Ms. Antonia Alvarez, who lives in Lowry Grove, using an interpreter, stated in April, Traci 22
Tomas and others entered Lowry Grove as a violator attacking a victim. Along with Phil 23
Johnson, and ever since then they have tried to save Lowry Grove. They raised $6M but 24
believed they stole from them the opportunity to save Lowry Grove. The photos shown were the 25
worst images of Lowry Grove, which is not maintained. She stated for the last 10 years, Phil 26
Johnson and Traci Tomas have been planning this great work. They were not included in Phil 27
Johnson’s plans. She stated they have made the conditions unlivable to try to stop their work. 28
Traci Tomas thinks with $2,000 – $9,000 the residents will be able to survive someplace else. On 29
October 17-18, Traci Tomas sent in her work equipment to rapidly remove two older mobile 30
homes. She believed they delivered dangerous equipment that put the elderly and children at risk. 31
Ms. Alvarez feels discriminated against and that the community at Lowry Grove is being 32
discriminated against. She noted the Latino community lives in Lowry Grove and unless they 33
bring their own interpreter they do not understand what is being discussed. She feels an 34
interpreter should have been provided and once again they have lost this opportunity. 35
36
Ms. Alvarez feels Traci Tomas and her corporation are bringing a project that will harm their 37
community. She brings in poor quality equipment and charges high prices. No residents of 38
Lowry Grove could afford to live in the buildings Ms. Tomas is proposing. Ms. Alvarez hopes 39
their efforts to save Lowry Grove will be recognized as Traci Tomas is putting them out on the 40
street. She is afraid of the people working for Traci Tomas in Lowry Grove and believes she is in 41
danger. If something happens to Ms. Alvarez it is the responsibility of Traci Tomas as they are 42
paying her rent. She wants Traci Tomas and her corporation to leave St. Anthony and for the 43
Planning Commission to understand, noting residents of Lowry Grove were present at the 44
meeting with the majority being Latinos. Ms. Alvarez believed many of the elders are in danger 45
6
Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes
October 24, 2016
Page 7
in Lowry Grove. She stated they want Traci Tomas not to demolish Lowry Grove and they want 1
to stay because there is no other space for low income families in St. Anthony. 2
3
Ms. Malina Taplia, 11 years old, Lowry Grove, stated when she was young she saw her brothers 4
leave the house and go to college. She thinks Traci Tomas is throwing her out and she wants a 5
better future. 6
7
Ms. Jackie Devor, Arden Manor mobile home park, asked how many of the new units will be set 8
up for the low income, noting these people should have an option of moving into the units. They 9
saved their park. She believed no one is fighting hard for them and everyone should take notice 10
of the fact they are talking about beautiful new buildings but none for low income families. 11
12
Mrs. Jo Youngren, Kensington Terrace, stated she loves the trees but no mention of what was 13
going to happen to the people who live there. She wants to hear more about that plan if there is 14
one. 15
16
Ms. Marisol Marino, Lowry Grove, single other with four children, stated last Saturday she was 17
very affected by the demolition of a home which is next to hers. The corporation knows the cold 18
is coming to Minnesota and at 3 p.m. they shut off her gas. When she got home from work she 19
realized the heat was not working for her four children. She stated it is not fair that because of 20
this woman she and her children were cold. Ms. Marino stated she had no plans to leave her 21
home – she has nowhere to go. She believed that Ms. Tomas does not think of the residents. She 22
feels peaceful in Lowry Grove and St. Anthony. Ms. Marino stated it took the gas company a 23
long time to turn the gas back on. She stated she does not have money to live anywhere else and 24
asked for help to save Lowry Grove. She needs her home to keep her kids safe. 25
26
Ms. Esavia stated she is only one to support her family. It is difficult to find an apartment as she 27
has two daughters and one son with Downs Syndrome in Mexico and the rent is too high. She 28
asked for the value of her home, noting Traci is offering her $4,000 but that is not what she paid 29
for her home. They were excited to move to Lowry Grove as it was safe. She stated when she 30
moved to St. Anthony, her kids had to adapt in changing schools and now they will need to adapt 31
again. She has been told by other schools they have no space for her. 32
33
A St. Anthony resident asked the Commission to listen to her community as it cost her a lot to be 34
here tonight. She lived in Lowry Grove for ten years. Ten years ago, she fixed the home up and 35
invested a lot of money. She explained from the outside the home does not look good but it is 36
beautiful on the inside. She stated the life for the residents who are senior citizens or single 37
mothers or orphaned children and opined God will hold the Commission accountable. She 38
quoted from the Bible and stated people don’t have anywhere to go, will die of hunger, and die of 39
cold. She stated God is real and all should believe in him. She thanked Alan for his intention to 40
help the residents. 41
42
Ms. Megalina, 2501 Lowry Avenue, stated she was happy in Lowry Grove because it was a good 43
place for her to live with her children. Her children attend Edison School, which is very close. 44
She stated now that they have to move, they don’t know which school her children will attend. 45
7
Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes
October 24, 2016
Page 8
They are sad they are being kicked out but God can do a lot. She stated only God can touch the 1
heart of Traci Tomas and she should show compassion to them. 2
3
Resident of St. Anthony and Edison High School student, she lives in Lowry Grove and it is hard 4
because they did not know this was coming. They recently lost her dad and he is in Mexico. She 5
stated it is hard for her mom to find a new house. 6
7
Resident of St. Anthony, Lot H20, Lowry Grove, stated what is going on has affected the 8
residents in different ways and impacted her personally. At school, they are taking oral rhetoric. 9
She is talking about poverty and high class for her paper. She noted not everyone has the same 10
privileges and a good business person doesn’t cause a problem and not offer a solution. She 11
believed that the solutions offered were not realistic solutions as no one can buy a house for 12
$4,000. She stated she had hopes to attend nearby college, they paid their rent, and they wanted 13
the best. She noted there used to be community picnics where residents would get to know each 14
other and grow as a community but this has stopped and become a poor community. She stated 15
Traci Tomas said this had been planned for ten years but no one knew about it. Now, no 16
maintenance was being done to the park, they don’t know what to do, they don’t want to leave, 17
and they can’t leave. 18
19
Mr. Ned Moore, Development Director for Assembly for Civil Rights, stated they have helped 20
with the campaign to save Lowry Grove. He believed simply to listen to the stories being told 21
tonight is not enough and it is not acceptable to say you are powerless. He felt the Planning 22
Commission does have power over the development and that this deal was illegal. Mr. Moore 23
stated the judge has not ruled yet and encouraged the City to wait until the judge decides. He 24
noted currently the developer is under investigation by the Department of Housing and Urban 25
Development. They are the first ones harmed and last ones to benefit. He believed this is 26
immoral, this is not development, this is demolition, and the amounts being offered are unfair 27
compared to the amounts the developer will make. Mr. Moore stated this conflicts with St. 28
Anthony’s Mission and these residents deserve equal representation. He noted the Lowry Grove 29
residents were not invited to the neighborhood meeting. Mr. Moore referenced the 30
Comprehensive Plan and stated none of the Lowry Grove residents can afford to live in the new 31
development. He believed this does not follow the City’s plan and asked that all requests be 32
denied until the HUD investigation is complete and the court makes its decision. 33
34
A St. Anthony resident asked the Commission to listen to the residents, noting low income 35
residents are moving, their homes are being damaged, and they were told they had to pay $800 36
for the welding. He stated other neighbors do not want the high buildings as their view will be 37
diminished and this issue is very serious. 38
39
Mr. Michael Mergins, attorney for The Village, LLC, stated to correct the record they are NOT 40
under investigation by HUD. They have been in communications with Mr. John Meek to address 41
any complaints at the earliest opportunity, no complaint has been filed so they cannot respond, 42
the Federal Fair Housing Act has not been violated, and there has been no discrimination. He 43
stated The Village has not violated State Statute. The sale is 100% legal. Mr. Mergins stated 44
there are special statutes that address mobile homes and one way is the provision of the Trust 45
Fund. They are entitled to compensation that no other renters get. Mr. Mergins stated The 46
8
Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes
October 24, 2016
Page 9
Village has been offering more than the statutory cap. There cannot be vacant homes in the park 1
and they must be demolished. He stated The Village has acted appropriately 100% of the time 2
and tonight, only the design was to be reviewed and asking for neighbors input and ideas. 3
4
Ms. Alvarez provided the Commission and Continental Property Group’s attorney with a copy of 5
a letter written by HUD. She asked the attorney to stop destroying their community and stated 6
they have $6M to pay. 7
8
Mr. Bill McConnell stated he has lived in Lowry Grove for 30 years and some of the hard 9
questions are not being asked. He has not heard anything about how the land can support this 10
type of building when there is possibly a lake under the land. He stated he does not believe any 11
underground work can be done and asked if there has been an environmental impact study or has 12
the Mississippi Watershed been notified as he believes there is a water table on the land. 13
14
A St. Anthony resident stated she lives in a mobile home and her daughter lives on McKinley. 15
She explained when there was a major storm, she had to pump water out of her basement so she 16
believes there is underground water in this area. 17
18
VII. INFORMATION AND ANNOUNCEMENTS - NONE 19
20
VIII. ADJOURNMENT. 21
22
Motion by Commissioner Bartel, seconded by Commissioner Foster, to adjourn the meeting at 23
8:40 p.m. 24
Motion carried 7-0. 25
26
27
Respectfully submitted, 28
Debbie Wolfe (TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc.) 29
9
THIS PAGE LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK
10
MEMORANDUM
To: St. Anthony Village Honorable Mayor and City Council
Mark Casey, City Manager
From: Breanne Rothstein, AICP, City Planner
Date: Planning Commission Regular Meeting for March 27, 2017
WSB Project No. 02170-460: 3216 Croft Variance Application
Request: Request for a four-and-one-half (4.5) foot variance from the required front
yard setback and a two (2) foot variance to exempt the porch steps from
five-foot encroachment allowance in the R-1 District at the property
located at 3216 Croft Drive.
RECOMMENDATION
The applicant is proposing to construct a 4.5-foot by 10.66-foot wide entryway addition to front side of
their home, with an additional porch and steps extending beyond the entryway into the front yard. The
Applicant’s request is for two variances: a variance to exceed the R-1 District front yard setback
requirements by 4.5 feet, and a 2-foot variance to exclude a set of porch steps from the 5-foot
encroachment allowance. The proposed entryway extends 4.5 feet beyond the required 35-foot
setback. The porch portion extends an additional 5 feet into the front yard, which is allowable under
Section 152.177 which permits up to a five foot encroachment of steps, porches, and stoops. However,
the steps themselves extend an additional 2 feet beyond the encroachment allowance. The applicant’s
request to construct the entryway as proposed is reasonable and the conditions that require the
applicant to apply for a variance were not created by the applicant. An entryway encroachment of this
size will not alter the essential character of this neighborhood. The steps present very little visual
obstruction and are often a required element leading up to a porch or front door. Staff recommends
approval of both variance requests.
GENERAL INFORMATION
Applicant: John and Katie Grindeland
Owner: John and Katie Grindeland
Location: 3216 Croft Drive
Existing Land Use / Low-Density Residential / Zoned: R-1 Single Family District
Zoning:
Surrounding Land North: Low-Density Residential / Zoned: R-1 Single Family District
Use / Zoning: East: Low-Density Residential / Zoned: R-1 Single Family District
South: Low-Density Residential / Zoned: R-1 Single Family District
West: Low-Density Residential / Zoned: R-1 Single Family District
Deadline for Agency Application Date: 02-17-17
Action: 60 Days: 04-18-17
11
February 23, 2017
Page 2
Letter Sent: No
120 Days: 06-17-17
CONSIDERATIONS RELATING TO THE PROPOSED VARIANCE
1. Background
The applicant is proposing to construct 4.5-foot long by 10.66-foot wide entryway addition to front
side of their home, with an additional porch and steps extending beyond the entryway into the front
yard. The applicant indicates that the entryway is part of a larger home addition intended to add
living space to their home, which would provide extra room for their family. The home currently has
a front yard setback of thirty-five (35) feet. The proposed entryway would extend four-and-a-half
(4.5) feet into the property front yard, reducing the home’s setback dimension to thirty-and-a-half
(30.5) feet.
The minimum required setback in the R-1 District is 30 feet or the average setback dimension of the
two adjacent lots. All homes on the applicant’s block, including the two adjacent homes, have a
setback distance of 35 feet. The applicant’s proposed setback distance of 30.5 feet after entryway
construction will require a 4.5-foot variance in order to be compliant with the requirements of the
R-1 District.
It is common for the majority of homes on a St. Anthony block to share a similar setback distance.
However, in this neighborhood of St. Anthony, a 35-foot setback distance appears to be the
exception and not the rule. An examination of the blocks surrounding this property reveals that 30
feet, the minimum front yard setback dimension in the R-1 District, is the standard for the majority
of homes.
A porch is “a structure projecting from and structurally attached to an exterior wall of a building,
covered by a roof and having a floor elevation not more than 3 feet above grade.” The porch
component of the proposed entryway, including the porch overhang, extends five (5) feet beyond
the edge of the home into the front yard, which is permissible under Section 152.177 which states
that steps, stoops, and porches may extend into a front yard not more than 5 feet. The steps extend
an additional 2 feet beyond the porch, which exceeds the encroachment maximum by 2 feet. Steps
are a necessary feature to reach the front door because of the lot grade and the way the home is
built. However, because steps are listed in the encroachment language of the code, a variance is
required to approach the steps configuration as proposed by the applicant.
2. Applicable Codes.
Title XV Land Usage, Chapter 152 Zoning Code, Section 152.039 (E) Front yard apply to this proposal.
City Code Section 152.039 (E) states the front yard must have a depth equal to the greater of 30 feet
or a distance equal to the average of the front yard depths of the two adjacent lots.
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”.
Title XV Land Usage, Chapter 152 Zoning Code, Section §152.177 ENCROACHMENT IN YARDS (D)
states that “Steps, stoops, and porches which extend into a front yard not more than 5 feet;” are
permitted encroachments in yards.
12
February 23, 2017
Page 3
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.
Request #1: Request for a 4.5-foot variance from the required front yard setback. The applicable
criteria include:
1. The subject matter of the application is within the scope of this section.
The application for a variance to front yard setback is an eligible subject matter for variance
criteria because these factors are related to dimensional and/or bulk standards. Criterion met.
2. Strict enforcement would cause practical difficulties because:
a. The property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted
by the zoning code;
The applicant is proposing to extend an entryway area into the front yard of their
property as part of a larger addition to accommodate more interior living space within
their home. The request is not unreasonable for a family that wishes to increase the
capacity of their home so that they may stay in the community, and who wish to
complete a desired entryway expansion at the time of this addition. While there may be
other options for the design of a front entryway that could be considered, the request
to construct a small entryway addition on the front side of the home is reasonable.
Criterion met.
b. The plight of the property owner is due to circumstances unique to the property not
created by the property owner;
The property is located on a block where, contrary to the norm of other surrounding
blocks, the front yard setback measures an average of 35 feet including the property’s
own setback and that of the neighboring properties. The minimum setback of the R-1
District is 30 feet or the average of depth of the adjacent properties, whichever is more.
But for the fact that the homes on this block exceed the minimum setback distance by
five feet, the property owner’s proposed new setback of 30.5 feet would be permissible.
The conditions created by surrounding property owners are the origin of this variance
request, not created by the applicants themselves. Criterion met.
c. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality; and
Granting of this variance will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood.
Although homes on this block generally have a setback distance of 35 feet, homes on
surrounding blocks generally have a 30-foot setback distance. On this particular block,
there are many trees and natural vegetation features in the front yard that break up
the continuity of the front yard setbacks. The dimensions of the encroachment are
minimal relative to the overall size of the home, and will not cause visual disharmony.
Criterion met.
d. Economic considerations alone are not the basis of the practical difficulties.
The applicant’s request is not related to any financial considerations and granting the
variance would not relieve the applicant of any financial hardship. 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,
low-density residential. The comprehensive plan guides this area detached housing units and
granting this variance request will not alter that land use. Criterion met.
13
February 23, 2017
Page 4
4. The granting of the variance is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the zoning
code.
The intent of the zoning code is to protect the health, safety, and general welfare of the city and
its people through the establishment of minimum regulations governing land development and
use. The zoning code is established to: protect the use districts; promote orderly development
and redevelopment; provide adequate light, air, and access to property; prevent congestion in
the public streets; prevent overcrowding of land and undue concentration of structures by
regulating land, buildings, yards, and densities; and provide for compatibility of different land
uses.
The entryway addition proposed by the applicant does not in any way conflict with the spirit or
intent of St. Anthony’s zoning code. The impact to surrounding property owners and community
members will be negligible, and will not be harmful to the health, safety or general welfare of
the neighborhood. Criterion met.
Request #2: Request for a 2-foot variance to exempt the porch steps from five-foot
encroachment allowance
1. The subject matter of the application is within the scope of this section.
The application for a variance to encroachment length is an eligible subject matter for variance
criteria because these factors are related to dimensional and/or bulk standards. Criterion met.
2. Strict enforcement would cause practical difficulties because:
a. The property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted
by the zoning code;
The applicant is proposing two steps that lead up to a proposed porch. The porch itself
meets the encroachment requirements. Steps are a necessary element for this home,
given the lot grading and the height of the front door, and the inclusion of the proposed
steps in the proposed location is reasonable. Criterion met.
b. The plight of the property owner is due to circumstances unique to the property not
created by the property owner;
Given the depth of the porch necessary to accommodate the range of motion of the
front door, the steps extend past the maximum encroachment depth by necessity.
Criterion met.
c. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality; and
Granting of this variance will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. A set
of steps leading up to a front entrance that extend beyond the front façade of the home
is a common occurrence on this block and in the City of St. Anthony in general where
often the lot grade requires steps in order to reach the front entrance. At their low
height, the steps as proposed do not create a visual impairment or obstruction for
neighboring property owners. Criterion met.
d. Economic considerations alone are not the basis of the practical difficulties.
The applicant’s request is not related to any financial considerations and granting the
variance would not relieve the applicant of any financial hardship. Criterion met.
3. The variance, if granted, would be consistent with the City’s comprehensive land use plan.
14
February 23, 2017
Page 5
If the variance is granted the use of the property would remain the same land use as it is today,
low-density residential. The comprehensive plan guides this area detached housing units and
granting this variance request will not alter that land use. 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.
The entryway addition proposed by the applicant does not in any way conflict with the spirit or
intent of St. Anthony’s zoning code. The impact to surrounding property owners and community
members will be negligible, and will not be harmful to the health, safety or general welfare of
the neighborhood. Criterion met.
CONCLUSION
Staff recommends approval of the requested variances at 3216 Croft Drive with the following
conditions:
1. The front yard setback dimension at 3216 Croft Drive shall not be less than 30.5 feet as shown
in the application materials.
2. Issuance of a building permit for proposed addition that meets all the requirements of the
building code, all other provision of the zoning code not subject to this variance, and all other
applicable regulations.
POSSIBLE ACTIONS
1. Recommend approval of the request for variances at 3216 Croft Drive.
2. Recommend denial of one or both variances. In the event of a recommendation for denial, the
Planning Commission must state its findings related to denial.
3. Request Additional Information and Table Action. The Applicant appears to have provided
enough information for the Planning Commission to make a recommendation to approve or
deny the request.
ATTACHMENTS
Exhibit A: Location map
Exhibit B: Application and Supporting Material
Exhibit C: Draft resolution
15
THIS PAGE LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK
16
3216 Croft Drive
test
February 23, 2017 Map Powered by DataLink from WSB & Associates
1 in = 100 ft
±
17
THIS PAGE LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
EXHIBIT - C:
CITY OF ST. ANTHONY VILLAGE
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION NO. __________
RESOLUTION APPROVING A REQUEST FOR A FOUR-AND-A_HALF (4.5)
FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE REQUIRED FRONT YARD SETBACK AND A
TWO (2) FOOT VARIANCE TO EXEMPT THE PORCH STEPS FROM FIVE-
FOOT ENCROACHMENT ALLOWANCE IN THE R-1 DISTRICT AT THE
PROPERTY LOCATED AT 3216 CROFT DRIVE.
WHEREAS, the City of St. Anthony Village received a request from the
Applicants and Property Owners John and Katie Grindeland for a variance of four-and-a-
half (4.5) feet from the required front yard setback in the R-1 District at the property
located at 3216 Croft Drive on February 17, 2017, legally described as follows:
Lot 3, Block 2, Gabriel’s Addition, Hennepin County, Minnesota
WHEREAS, the plans for their home addition also required a request for a two
(2) foot variance to allow a set of front porch steps to extend past the allowed
encroachment distance of five (5) feet; and
WHEREAS, the property located at 3216 Croft Drive is located within the City’s
R-1 Single Family District; and
WHEREAS, per Section 152.039 of city code, the front yard must have a depth
equal to the greater of 30 feet or a distance equal to the average of the front yard depths
of the two adjacent lots; and
WHEREAS, the properties adjacent to the applicant’s property each have front
yard setback dimension of 35 feet; and
WHEREAS, per Section 152.177 of city code, a front porch and steps may have
a maximum encroachment distance of five (5) feet; and
WHEREAS, the Applicant’s proposal shows the front porch steps extending two
feet past this maximum encroachment distance; and
WHEREAS, the Applicant has requested a 4.5-foot variance from front yard
setback dimension requirement to accommodate a proposed entryway addition; and
WHEREAS, the Applicant has also requested a 2-foot variance to accommodate
their front porch steps extending past the otherwise permitted encroachment into the front
yard; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission reviewed and considered the request
based on the related documents shown in the Applicant’s application in a public hearing
at their regular meeting on March 27, 2017 and recommended approval of the request;
and
29
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council’s hereby
approves the requested variance, subject to the following conditions:
1. The front yard setback dimension at 3216 Croft Drive shall not be less than 30.5
feet as shown in the application materials, and 28.5 feet for the steps.
2. Issuance of a building permit for proposed addition that meets all the
requirements of the building code, all other provision of the zoning code not
subject to this variance, and all other applicable regulations.
APPROVED in the regular session of the City Council on ________________, 2017.
___________________________________
Jerome O. Faust, Mayor
Attested:
___________________________________
Nicole Miller, City Clerk
30
3216 Croft Drive
Variance Request
Planning Commission Meeting
March 27, 2017
3216 Croft Drive
General Information
Applicants: John and Katie Grindeland
Owners: same
Location: 3216 Croft Drive
Existing Land Use Low Density Residential
/ Zoning: R-1 Single Family Residential
Surrounding Land Use/ Zoning:
North: Low Density Residential / Zoned R-1 - Single Family Residential
East: Low Density Residential / Zoned R-1 - Single Family Residential
South: Low Density Residential / Zoned R-1 - Single Family Residential
West: Low Density Residential / Zoned R-1 - Single Family Residential
31
2841 Coolidge St. NE
•Overview
–Front Yard Setback requirement in the R-1 Single
Family Residential District is 30 feet, or average
of adjacent two homes (35 feet in this case).
–Proposal to construct an entry way addition and
porch on the front of the house.
–Request for a 4.5 foot front yard setback
variance, and additional 2 foot encroachment
from the allowed encroachment for steps.
3216 Croft Drive
32
3216 Croft Drive
3216 Croft Drive
33
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
•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
34
•Recommendation
–The Applicant’s request for a variance from the front yard
setback to allow for the construction of an entryway and
porch with steps is reasonable, per the findings listed in
city code.
–Staff recommends approval of the variance to allow an
entryway and porch to be located in the front yard setback
(4.5 feet for building, and 2 feet for the steps).
3216 Croft Drive
3216 Croft Drive
Questions?
35
3301 Silver Lake Road, St. Anthony, Minnesota 55418-1699 • www.ci.saint-anthony.mn.us •(612) 782-3301 Fax (612) 782-3302
Our mission is to be a progressive and livable community, a walkable village which is sustainable, safe and secure.
NOTICE OF A PUBLIC HEARING
Notice is hereby given that on March 27, 2017, at 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
from the property owners at 3216 Croft Drive for (1) a variance to allow a front entryway to extend 4’ 8”
into the front yard, and (2) a 1’ 10” variance to allow the front porch steps to extend beyond the
allowed encroachment distance in the front yard on the premises located at 3216 Croft Drive. The
Planning Commission will make a recommendation regarding the proposed request to the City Council
for their meeting to be held on April 11, 2017, 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.ci.saint-anthony.mn.us.
Breanne Rothstein, AICP
City Planner
36
PUBLIC INPUT SHEET
In order to address the City Council and to be heard on an
agenda item, please complete the following and pass this
completed sheet to the City Manager. Speakers are
requested to come to the podium, clearly state their name
and address for the City Clerk's record.
Date: P` a g�
Name: -761` fo L /,
Address: �a �0 �7 �?y66tOtc1 cf �� ✓ f
Agenda item Addressing;
U
PUBLIC INPUT SHEET
In order to address the City Council and to be heard on an
agenda item, please complete the following and pass this
completed sheet to the City Manager. Speakers are
requested to come to the podium, clearly state their name
and address for the City Clerk's record.
Date: 319-711-7
Name: ( a -r0 JO `b/1 50A
Address: -331-7
172 ✓ S�S ���d/
Agenda item Addressing: /� SPU int
--r z - a t� r KL 5� zz-
PUBLIC INPUT SHEET
In order to address the City Council and to be heard on an
agenda item, please complete the following and pass this
completed sheet to the City Manager. Speakers are
requested to come to the podium, clearly state their name
and address for the City Clerk's record.
Address: / 4._
Agenda item Addressing: Ift
PUBLIC INPUT SHEET
In order to address the City Council and to be heard on an
agenda item, please complete the following and pass this
completed sheet to the City Manager. Speakers are
requested to come to the podium, clearly state their name
and address for the City Clerk's record.
Date: 'I�
Name: ��I� �
Address: / X�
Agenda item Addressing; L &, i? ���/ `•.✓ Y l`-��-
PUBLIC INPUT SHEET
In order to address the City Council and to be heard on an
agenda item, please complete the following and pass this
completed sheet to the City Manager. Speakers are
requested to come to the podium, clearly state their name
and address for the City Clerk's record.
Date: r: _
Name: 41� r:
Address:
h�
Agenda item Addressing; l r` "
PUBLIC INPUT SHEET
In order to address the City Council and to be heard on an
agenda item, please complete the following and pass this
completed sheet to the City Manager. Speakers are
requested to come to the podium, clearly state their name
and address for the City Clerk's record.
Date: 3 T) 0
Name:U\\
Address:
Agenda item
//Addressing: 1 ^ \
PUBLIC INPUT SHEET
In order to address the City Council and to be heard on an
agenda item, please complete the following and pass this
completed sheet to the City Manager. Speakers are
requested to come to the podium, clearly state their name
and address for the City Clerk's record.
Date:
Name:'
Address: �4%`� �?2 �U t P14
ck/
Agenda item Addressing:
PUBLIC INPUT SHEET
hi order to address the City Council and to be heard on an
agenda item, please complete the following and pass this
completed sheet to the City Manager. Speakers are
requested to come to the podium, clearly state their name
and address for the City Clerk's record.
Date:
3/2W )
i
Name: L O A � �� � �� J
f
Address:jl Wo
Agenda item Addressing;
PUBLIC INPUT SHEET
In order to address the City Council and to be heard on an
agenda item, please complete the following and pass this
completed sheet to the City Manager. Speakers are
requested to come to the podium, clearly state their name
and address for the City Clerk's record.
Date: 91 ZZ )17
Name: T3 ( L I % O L— of J4
Address: 9 sh 1 c'°" n t E:
PUBLIC INPUT SHEET
In order to address the City Council and to be heard on an
agenda item, please complete the following and pass this
completed sheet to the City Manager. Speakers are
requested to come to the podium, clearly state their name
and address for the City Clerk's record.
Date: 3))--2117
Name: Ji�:Ah 6(--N14
Address: 3S• � )"t—
Agenda item Addressing; I Agenda item Addressing;
PUBLIC INPUT SHEET
In order to address the City Council and to be heard on an
agenda item, please complete the following and pass this
completed sheet to the City Manager. Speakers are
requested to come to the podium, clearly state their name
and address for the City Clerk's record.
Date: 3
(, j 1/ 7 --
Name:
Address: ! 1 W
Agenda item Addressing; `, n --f1 � �j t p VAS
PUBLIC INPUT SHEET
In order to address the City Council and to be heard on an
agenda item, please complete the following and pass this
completed sheet to the City Manager. Speakers are
requested to come to the podium, clearly state their name
and address for the City Clerk's record.
h%'C,V\L,kfi )(VkvwT
Date:T Z.G Z
Name: Aki in p) -a5 i
Address: .2 cl0l7 n5 oyt LA.
GS
Agenda item Addressing;!) e UP L o P vvnf Vl l
PUBLIC INPUT SHEET
In order to address the City Council and to be heard on an
agenda item, please complete the following and pass this
completed sheet to the City Manager. Speakers are
requested to come to the podium, clearly state their name
and address for the City Clerk's record.
Date: '' l i} R H v -), o
Name: / 1 H Le'� j (X � / /'GAJ
Address: % ! 19 / RFVj-fijV l/f 3 % lk
M I & NF -P+ Pn L, 05 At) SsZ1i
Agenda item Addressing; 16W4 W4 y Qoyy
PUBLIC INPUT SHEET
In order to address the City Council and to be heard on an
agenda item, please complete the following and pass this
completed sheet to the City Manager. Speakers are
requested to come to the podium, clearly state their name
and address for the City Clerk's record.
Date:
Name:
Address: _
Agenda item Addressing; CPG
PUBLIC INPUT SHEET
In order to address the City Council and to be heard on an
agenda item, please complete the following and pass this
completed sheet to the City Manager. Speakers are
requested to come to the podium, clearly state their name
and address for the City Clerk's record.
Date: 3 �
Name: FE7,w y I HOK ✓I CI,
Address:
0
tj
Agenda item Addressing:
1 - l� h� + V /✓ r iw {�f"z , , ILI