Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPL PACKET 06262017CITY OF SAINT ANTHONY VILLAGE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AGENDA Ohurry JUNE 26, 2017 i la C% COUNCIL CHAMBERS 7:00 PM Call to Order. Pledge of Allegiance. Roll Call. Consideration, discussion, and possible action on all of the followine items: I. Approval of the June 26, 2017 Planning Commission Meeting Agenda. (action requested) II. Approval of the March 27, 2017 Regular Planning Commission Meeting Minutes. (pp.1-7) III. Public Hearing. A. Consider a request for a variance to the rear yard setback requirement to allow a deck to be set back 17 feet from rear property line, a reduction from the required 25 -foot rear yard setback. (pp. 8 -30) 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 stafffor a future report or direct the matter to be scheduled on an upcoming agenda. VII. Information and Announcements. VIII. Adjournment. Our Mission is to be a progressive and livable community, a walkable village, which is sustainable, safe and secure. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 I CITY OF ST. ANTHONY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING March 27, 2017 7:00 p.m. CALL TO ORDER. Chairperson Gondorchin called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE. Chairperson Gondorchin invited the Commission and the audience to join him in the Pledge of Allegiance. ROLL CALL. Commissioners Present: Chairperson Gondorchin, Commissioners Foster, Kalar, Lichty, and Papatola Absent: Commissioners Bartel and Westrick Also Present: City Planner Breanne Rothstein I. APPROVAL OF THE MARCH 27, 2017 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AGENDA. Motion by Commissioner Kalar, seconded by Commissioner Lichty, to approve the March 27, 2017 Planning Commission agenda. Motion carried 5-0. II. APPROVAL OF THE OCTOBER 24, 2016 REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES. Motion by Commissioner Kalar, seconded by Commissioner Papatola, to approve the October 24, 2016 Regular Planning Commission Meeting Minutes as presented. Motion carried 5 -0. Chair Gondorchin volunteered to represent the Planning Commission at the next City Council Meeting. 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. OA Chairperson Gondorchin opened the public hearing at 7:03 p.m. 3 City Planner Rothstein reviewed the applicant is proposing to construct a 4.5 -foot by 10.66 -foot 4 wide entryway addition to the front side of their home, with an additional porch and steps 5 extending beyond the entryway into the front yard. The Applicant's request is for two variances; 6 a variance to exceed the R -1 District front yard setback requirements by 4.5 feet, and a 2 -foot 7 variance to exclude a set of porch steps from the 5 -foot encroachment allowance. The proposed 8 entryway extends 4.5 feet beyond the required 35 -foot setback. The porch portion extends an 9 additional 5 feet into the front yard, which is allowable under Section 152.177 which permits up 10 to a 5 -foot encroachment of steps, porches, and stoops. However, the steps themselves extend an 11 additional 2 feet beyond the encroachment allowance. The applicant's request to construct the 12 entryway as proposed is reasonable and the conditions that require the applicant to apply for a 13 variance were not created by the applicant. As entryway encroachment of this size will not alter 14 the essential character of this neighborhood. The steps present very little visual obstruction and 15 are often a required element leading up to a porch or front door. Staff recommends approval of 16 both variance requests. 17 18 The applicants John and Katie Grindeland were present at the meeting. 19 20 Ms. Rothstein reviewed the applicable criteria and noted all criterion are met. Staff is 21 recommending approval of the requested variances at 3216 Croft Drive with the following 22 conditions: 23 24 1. The front yard setback dimension at 3216 Croft Drive shall not be less than 30.5 feet 25 as shown in the application materials. 26 2. Issuance of a building permit for proposed addition that meets all the requirements of 27 the building code, all other provisions of the zoning code not subject to this variance, 28 and all other applicable regulations. 29 30 Ms. Rothstein summarized the possible actions to be taken by the Planning Commission: 31 32 1. Recommend approval of the request for variances at 3216 Croft Drive. 33 2. Recommend denial of one or both variances. In the event of a recommendation for 34 denial, the Planning Commission must state its findings related to denial. 35 3. Request Additional Information and Table Action. The Applicant appears to have 36 provided enough information for the Planning Commission to make a 37 recommendation to approve or deny the request. 38 39 A location map, application and supporting material and a draft resolution was provided for 40 Commission's review. 41 42 Staff recommends approval of the Applicant's request for a variance from the front yard setback 43 to allow for construction of an entryway and porch with steps is reasonable, per the findings 44 listed in city code and approval of the variance to allow an entryway and porch to be located in 45 the front yard setback (4.5 feet for building, and 2 feet for the steps). 46 Commissioner Papatola asked if the height of the entry way is consistent with the height of the house and Ms. Rothstein stated that is correct. Commissioner Foster asked if a variance is required for the addition in the back and Ms. Rothstein stated there is no variance required. All other requirements for setback and lot coverage have been reviewed. 8 Ms. Katie Grindeland, 3216 Croft Drive, thanked the Commission for reviewing this case. They 9 love living in St. Anthony. As their two children get older they need a little more space. She is 10 happy to hear staff is recommending approval of both variances. She thanked WSB and City 11 Staff throughout this process. 12 13 Chairperson Gondorchin closed the public hearing at 7:12 p.m. 14 15 Motion by Commissioner Papatola, seconded by Commissioner Lichty, to recommend to the 16 City Council approval of a Resolution Approving the request for variances at 3216 Croft Drive. 17 18 Motion carried 5 -0. 19 20 IV. STAFF REPORTS 21 22 Ms. Rothstein noted she will be bringing a Work Plan item to the Planning Commission at their 23 next meeting. This will be the Comprehensive Plan Update. The Steering Committee will have 24 one more scheduled meeting to review the draft plan. 25 26 V. OTHER BUSINESS — NONE. 27 28 VI. COMMUNITY FORUM 29 30 Mr. Mike Gondek, 2901 St. Anthony Boulevard, stated he was at the City Council planning 31 meeting a couple of weeks ago, and asked when adding 200 people in Lowry Grove to the City, 32 who is burdened and who benefits. He noted with 200 -250 children coming into the schools, the 33 schools will need to be expanded which will be a cost to the taxpayers. In addition, there will be 34 no parks for the children to play in and there will be 4,000 more car trips into the development 35 and he asked who that will benefit. 36 37 Ms. Mel Chaput, 3537 Coolidge Street NE, stated she has been working with the residents of 38 Lowry Grove, noting in the Mission of the City, a welcoming environment is noted but there are 39 people who will be displaced and homeless and they should not be forced to leave the 40 community. She stated the Planning Commission needs to take a close look at this through an 41 equity lens. She asked if Marshall Lichty was recused from hearing this discussion this evening. 42 43 Commissioner Lichty stated his law firm is representing Continental and he is recusing himself 44 from all formal business related to the project but because there is nothing on the agenda this 45 evening and no action is to be taken, he will sit and hear. 46 E 1 Ms. Chapin requested Commissioner Lichty leave the room so the speakers feel more 2 comfortable. Chair Gondorchin stated Commissioner Lichty will not need to leave the room 3 because no actions will be taken this evening. 4 5 Ms. Mary Jackson, 3605 371 Avenue, stated St. Anthony claims to be a walkable community but 6 she has looked at the City's planning process and various presentations and she has seen no 7 actions addressing ADA for pedestrian transportation. This is a serious matter as cities have been 8 "caught" by not having an ADA transition plan and adequate snow removal on City sidewalks. 9 She noted curb ramps, sidewalks, and pedestrian signals are not being constructed and there 10 needs to be an ADA transition plan in the Comprehensive Plan. There is no evidence of the Civil 11 Rights Act of 1964 Title VI and this is very serious so the City needs to look at this. Ms. Jackson 12 stated the civil rights of the population have not been honored, the Comprehensive Plan 13 documents need to be in other languages, and there is nothing in process to do this. These laws 14 are over 50 years old. 15 16 Ms. Roxy Lindsey, 2210 Stinson Boulevard, Minneapolis, stated her main concern is what all 17 this high- density housing is going to bring to St. Anthony and to Stinson Boulevard. She thinks 18 there will be safety concerns, there currently there are speeding issues, people that drive on the 19 parkway, and these problems are ongoing. 20 21 Ms. Patty LaBossiere, 2653 Stinson Boulevard, stated they are the only house on the corner 22 facing Stinson. She is concerned about increased traffic as there is an issue with fast traffic and 23 people running the stoplight. When there is a good rainfall, the roadway floods and the water is 24 up to her waist. She stated her basement has flooded out many times and development will create 25 more water problems. Because construction vehicles would be using Stinson Boulevard, she 26 asked if Stinson Boulevard will be repaired when damaged. She suggested the development 27 occur in the empty Walmart area. 28 29 Ms. Nina Guertin, 2653 Stinson Boulevard, confirmed they have water in their basement. She 30 stated most of the houses in her area are one -story houses and asked what the height will be of 31 the proposed buildings at the Gateway. She noted many residents play on the grass and have 32 gardens and if a large amount of shadowing occurs from the tall buildings, a shadowing study 33 should be done. They want to be good neighbors also. 34 35 Mr. Lowell Ludford, 2813 Townview Avenue NE, stated he is addressing the Commission on 36 behalf of the children. He has been reviewing the master plan and sees the plan calls for 2,000 37 people living on top of each other on 15 acres with no open space for the children to play. 38 Because of this, the children are going to play on 26`s Avenue and Stinson Boulevard. He stated 39 this is the responsibility of the Planning Commission to address matters such as this and they 40 need to consider there is no open space for children to play in the plan. 41 42 Mr. Bill Volna, 3501 Coolidge, provided a grocery list written when having coffee with some 43 friends. He read the items on the list and stated he feels he is in a vacuum as to what is going on. 44 When zoning changes occur, all should be involved. He noted those items he listed were school 45 crowding as there will be a potential for 2,000 people to be moving into 15 acres. He stated the 46 master plan shows roadways going between those 5 -story buildings and a ladder truck would be 5 I needed, which would have difficulty getting into the narrow streets. His theory is that a modified 2 plan will be forthcoming and asked who is going to pay for a sewage lift system and who is 3 going to pay for street oiling. He would like to see a list of the people that signed the petition for 4 high- density housing. 6 Ms. Jean Volna, 3501 Coolidge, stated too much is being crammed into a small area and this 7 does not enhance a `village' as noted in the City statement and City letterhead. F 9 Ms. Lynne Penke Valdes, 2404 27`s Avenue NE, stated she agrees with many of the comments 10 this evening already heard and does not know how this goes with the sustainability. She asked 11 why a sketch draft is even being considered as there are equity discrepancies in the City and 12 State. She stated this housing does not meet diversity needs of the City and while she wants to be 13 a good neighbor in the community, she does not see any gains. She stated they have two sump 14 pumps in their basement and have had to bale water. They have clay pipes in their yard. She 15 asked who will be paying as streets are torn up as part of the construction, noting there was a car 16 parked in the street that was flooded and totaled. 17 18 Ms. Ann Puglisi, 2227 Stinson Boulevard, Roseville, stated she is a live -in caregiver. She now 19 feels safe and comfortable in the neighborhood but there is not justice for all. Traffic is already 20 difficult and she does not see how many more cars would be helpful. She asked what experience 21 the developer has in senior buildings, noting some buildings don't allow for handicapped access. 22 23 Ms. Kathleen Quinn, 1901 Benjamin Street NE, stated she is concerned about traffic and the 24 ground water reservoir. She has contacted the DNR and this area is part of the groundwater 25 management area. She asked who concerns should be addressed. Ms. Rothstein stated she would 26 be. Ms. Quinn stated the DNR is prepared to do a survey and she is hoping this will throw a 27 monkey wrench into the plan as it is a horrible plan. She suggested putting in houses or leaving 28 Lowry Grove as it is. 29 30 Ms. Maria Antonio Alvarez Baez, 2501 Lowry Avenue NE, Lot 0 -11, stated she did not like it 31 when Mr. Volna was told to stop. She has been organizing campaigns for fair housing for 15 32 years and never imagined she would be involved in this for herself. She stated Continental 33 Property has forced them to sign a contract to leave by June 30 and then she and her daughter 34 will be homeless. This is the same as for many other residents. This has caused her health 35 problems. She stated she does not give up and her thirst for justice is even stronger. She asked 36 the Commission to stay firm with the 2008 plan, noting that according to that plan, 50% needed 37 to be affordable housing and if it is not followed, it will be bad. She asked the Commission not 38 be puppets by the corporation, to show leadership, and for affordable housing in St. Anthony. 39 40 Mr. Perry Thorvig, 3112 Townview Avenue, referred to an article in the Northeaster as to why 41 so much density, which is because this developer paid $6 million for the property, and he 42 wonders why this would have been paid unless they had a notion that the 845 units would be 43 approved. He stated there is something wrong with the way projects are managed in the City, 44 thinking the mosque issue was mismanaged and the Walmart issue is being mismanaged. He 45 asked why was this approved and was against the Comprehensive Plan. 46 M Ms. Carol Johnson 3317 Edgemere Avenue, stated she has lived in St. Anthony since 1951. Her son was stabbed across the street from her house and the City did nothing. She grew up in Lowry Grove Park and it breaks her heart the owner did not maintain the park. She stated the City harassed Toby Swan to sell the park years ago because it did not want to have a mobile home park. She agreed that Mr. Lichty should have been removed, noting residents pay the salaries of the Commission. She stated the decision should have been the resident's, not the Chair of the Planning Commission. She noted that no lighting will be placed on the new sidewalk in front of her house, which is wrong. 10 11 VII. INFORMATION AND ANNOUNCEMENTS 12 13 Chair Gondorchin stated he attended the Strategic Planning session. 14 15 Commissioner Foster thanked the residents for coming to the meeting and stated the Commission 16 needs to be open and listen to both sides. 17 18 It was noted there is a Planning Commission each month on the fourth Monday. The St. Anthony 19 website has the email addresses of all the Councihnembers and letters can be sent to City Hall to 20 the attention of the Planning Commission. 21 22 VIII. ADJOURNMENT. 23 24 Motion by Commissioner Foster, seconded by Commissioner Papatola, to adjourn the meeting at 25 8:15 p.m. 26 Motion carried 5 -0 27 28 29 Respectfully submitted, 30 Debbie Wolfe (Timesaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc) h THIS PAGE LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK MEMORANDUM To: St. Anthony Village Honorable Mayor and Planning Commission Mark Casey, City Manager From: Breanne Rothstein, AICP, City Planner Date: Planning Commission Regular Meeting for June 26, 2017 WSB Project No. 0- 010201 -000 Request: Request for a variance to the rear yard setback requirement to allow a deck to be set back 17 feet from rear property line, a reduction from the required 25 -foot rear yard setback. RECOMMENDATION The Applicant is requesting to construct an attached deck behind their home at 3204 Townview Avenue. The proposed deck is 14 feet by 14 feet in size. Currently, the applicant's home is set back 31 feet from their rear property line. The addition of a 14 -foot deck would reduce their rear -yard setback to 17 feet. The minimum required setback in the R -1 district is 25 feet. The applicants are therefore requesting an eight -foot variance to the 25 -foot setback requirement to allow their deck to be set back 17 feet from their rear property line. The applicant's lot length, at 119 feet, is a short lot compared to nearly all other lots on this block of Townview Avenue. Both neighboring lots, and all lots on the block, have a lot length closer to 137 feet. Were the applicant's lot to be sized similarly in terms of length, the proposed deck would not require a variance as the rear setback would exceed 25 feet. Because the applicant's plight is due to a unique feature of their property dimensions, staff are recommending approval of the variance request. GENERAL INFORMATION Applicant: Viktor & Katherine Adamcsek Owner: Viktor & Katherine Adamcsek Location: 3204 Townview Avenue 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: High Density Residential / Zoned: R -1 Single Family District West: Low- Density Residential / Zoned: R -1 Single Family District Deadline for Agency Application Date: 05 -24 -17 Action: 60 Days: 07 -23 -17 Letter Sent: No 120 Days: 09 -21 -17 June 9, 2017 Page 2 CONSIDERATIONS RELATING TO THE PROPOSED VARIANCE 1. Background The Applicant is requesting to construct an attached deck behind their home at 3204 Townview Avenue. The proposed deck is 14 feet by 14 feet in size. A deck is exempt from impervious surface calculations, but is subject to setback requirements. Currently, the applicant's home is set back 31 feet from their rear property line. The addition of a 14- foot deck would reduce their rear -yard setback to 17 feet. The minimum required setback in the R -1 district is 25 feet, or 20 percent of the lot depth, whichever is greater. The lot in question is 119 feet deep, so in this case a 25 -foot setback is the greater of the two and is therefore the qualifying rear yard setback distance. Because their proposed deck encroaches upon the 25 -foot rear yard setback dimension, the applicants are requesting an eight -foot variance to the 25 -foot setback requirement to allow their deck to be set back 17 feet from their rear property line instead. The applicants' lot, shown below outlined in blue, is notably shorter in depth that nearly all other lots on this block of Townview Avenue. The applicants' lot is 119 feet deep, while neighboring lots on the block appear to be between 134 and 137 feet deep. While the size and shape of the applicant's home does contribute to a smaller rear yard overall, their rear yard depth is also impacted considerably by the short length of their lot. Were the applicants' property to be the same length as either of their neighbor's, the proposed 14 -foot deck would have a rear yard setback closer to 35 feet and would therefore not trigger a variance request. s ` n t' 2. Applicable Codes. I II Title XV Land Usage, Chapter 152 Zoning Code, Section §152.039 DIMENSIONAL REGULATIONS (F) Rear yards in "R-1 Single Family District ". The rear yard must have a depth equal to the greater of 20% of the depth of the entire lot or 25 feet. Title XV Land Usage, Chapter 152 Zoning Code, Section §152.176 ACCESSORY BUILDINGS (C) Accessory buildings attached. If an accessory building is attached to the principal structure, it will be considered a part of the principal building and must comply with all setbacks and other requirements applicable to the principal building. 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. 1. The subject matter of the application is within the scope of this section. June 9, 2017 Page 3 The application for a variance to the rear yard setback is an eligible subject matter for variance criteria because these factors are related to dimensional and /or bulk standards, which are the purview of Zoning Code. 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 construct a 14 by 14 foot deck off the rear portion of their home. The Applicants are proposing to build a deck of a reasonable size and placement, but is not allowed by the Code because deck will encroach upon the rear yard setback. Criterion met. b. The plight of the property owner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the property owner; The plight of the property owner is a not circumstance created by the property owner, because the property in question is of a unique size and depth compared to nearly all surrounding lots in this area. While the size and shape of the applicant's home is a factor in creating a shorter rear yard depth, their home meets the dimensional requirements of zoning code. The greatest factor contributing to the applicant's need for a variance is their anomalous short lot depth. Were the lot to be sized the same as their neighbors on the block, they would not require a variance to construct this deck. Criterion met. c. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality; and The addition of a deck in the rear yard of the property in question will not alter the essential character of the locality. Rear yard accessory uses are common in this area. Criterion met. d. Economic considerations alone are not the basis of the practical difficulties. The Applicants do not stand to receive economic gain from the granting of this variance. 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 for 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. Granting an eight -foot rear yard variance for the construction of a proposed deck will not substantially alter the development order imposed on the R -1 district, and is otherwise compatible with the general purpose and intent of the zoning code. Criterion met. June 9, 2017 Page 4 CONCLUSION Staff recommends approval of the requested variance at 3204 Townview Avenue, on the basis that the request passes the practical difficulties test and meets all of the eligibility criteria for variance approval outlined in Title XV Land Usage, Chapter 152 Zoning Code, Section §152.245, (C). The plight of the landowner and the need for a variance can be attributed to the unique short length of the lot in question, and but for the unique shape of the lot, the applicants would not require a variance. Staff recommends the variance be approved with the following conditions of approval. 1. The rear yard setback dimension at 3204 Townview Avenue shall be 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 a variance at 3204 Townview Avenue. 2. Recommend denial of the variance. In the event of a recommendation for denial, the Planning Commission must state its findings related to denial. 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 12 THIS PAGE LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK Attache *nt A Hennepin County Property Map Date: 6/9/2017 PARCEL ID: 0602923420078 OWNER NAME: V Adamcsek & KAdamcsek PARCEL ADDRESS: 3204 TownviewAve, St Anthony MN 55418 PARCELAREA: 0.19 acres, 8,110 sq ft Comments: This data (i) is furnished 'AS IS' with no representation as to oamplaten ess or accuracy; (ii) is furnished with no warranty of any kind; and (iii) is nolsuitable for legal, engineering or surveying purposes. Hennepin County shall not be liable forany damage, injury or loss resulting from this data. COPYRIGHT ® HENNEPIN COUNTY 2017 14 THIS PAGE LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK Attachment B Lain the ong ) la 3301 Silver Lake Road St. Anthony Village, Minnesota 55418 office: (612)782 -3301 Fax: (612) 782-3302 www.ci.saint-anthony.mn.us Address of Property Involved: 5 L U -1 1 Property ID Number: y Co — O aL q -T - Legal Description: y c Nb" ov) "a Applicant Information UI ��Y } Applicant Name: "� -7- A licant Address: 3 O ()� 1 -For office Use Only - Planning File Number ) 5 Project Number Application Submittal Date Application Completed Date Fee Paid Receipt Number Planning Commission Meeting Date Council Decision Council Decision Date LN \L 7 � UGC A q j PP U Other: Applicant Telephone Number: Applicant Fax Number Applicant Email Address: Y t C l ` COs AC aS YS- Property Information Property Owner (if different from Owner Address: Owner Telephone Number: Owner Email Address: Type of Request (Check All that Apply) Appeal ($100 fee) Comprehensive Plan Amendment ($750 fee + $1,500 escrow if residential; $3,500 escrow if commercial /industrial) Conditional Use Permit (CUP) ($200 fee+ $450 escrow if residential; $850 escrow if commercial /industrial) F] Easement Vacation ($200 fee + $500 escrow) MPreliminary Plat ($500 fee + $500 escrow) 0 Final Plat ($500 fee + $500 escrow) (�Sq)8- eoP hl Ole 1nJ �'44)0 r� 5SLI1� -3S`(- -7e76 ❑Minor Subdivision /Lot Split ($250 fee + $1,250 escrow) Planned Unit Development (PUD) ($750 fee + $2,500 escrow) Rezoning ($S00 fee + $750 escrow) ❑Zoning Text Amendment ($500 fee + $750 escrow) ���❑---7777rrrrSite Plan ($250 fee + $450 escrow) oVaril ance ($200 fee + $450 escrow if residential; $850 escrow if commercial /industrial) Unr Alissiva is ru be it progressive and linable comnuanity. a walkable village, which is sustainable, safe and secure. 16 Description of the Request (OR a separate detailed narrative explaining the project); O o r o i F *Q o u 2 wo t v V cc y Su✓ v< k T� �1U 1(e cc ! Itnc 6 t I n p yq ��.., C i6L WO��I 0 ✓ o c S (,.k v �l C i V, U W U� V U �J S 1' z r tf A C�lnc( li1uS -YheV_ i-kev\ 11 l L 1 Vq A W Filin and Information Requirements application process, The City requests that you make a pre - application meeting with the City Planner to discuss the app requirements, and deadlines. ppl cations• A by hecklist city with additionallrrequirements commission, can nbe found at swwwYu saints property is required for all app antho ny m -us. Incom lete A lications and Submission Deadline A complete land use application (including all required fees and escrows) must be received at least . days prior to the roval time commences meeting of the Planning Commission or City Council meeting at which the request will be heard. Submission o an incomplete application may delay the processing of your land use request. The application app application and and an application is considered officially filed when the City Planner has received and examined the app determined that the application is complete. A decision on whether the application is complete or incomplete shall be be ,,comp e'te" it shall (15) wor o1ngthe agenda of the first possible Planning Commission meeting g provided that al deemed quored public notices have been sent and published. Upon submission of a complete application, state statute requires that a e obtained if more time is decision be issued within 60 days regarding each request; however, a 60 -day extension may b needed. Notice of Mee_U& Attendance In order for the Planning Commission and the City Council to consider any application, the applicant or a designated present at the scheduled meeting. If not, the matter may be tabled until the next available representative must agenda. A enda Deadline and Meeting Schedule Commission meetings are typically held on the fourth Monday Planning of eve day of every month at 7:00 p.m. mlvleet n 7da0 while tes and t mes a're subject meetings are held typically the first and third Tuesg to change so please contact City Hall to verify the meeting date and time. All meetings are held at the St. Anthony CommunitYl cat onrslare advised that t additional ornal meetings and/or Rwo workshops are oscheduled when necessary. stated. Applications otherwise 17 Acknowled¢ementend Signature I acknowledge that I have read all of the information listed in the City of St. Anthony Village Land Use Application and fully understand that I am responsible for all costs incurred by the City related to the processing of this application. If additional fees are required to cover costs incurred from processing of the application, the City has the right to require additional payment from one or more of the undersigned, who shall be jointly liable for such fees. Such expenses may include (but are not limited to) direct city payroll and overhead costs, fees paid to consultants and other professionals, and the cost of printing, mailing, and supplies. Applicants are advised that an escrow deposit is required at the time of the submittal of the land use application to offset costs associated with the proposed project. Unused portions of escrow are returned to the applicant upon successful implementation of an approved plan. I understand that approval from other agencies may be required before commencement with the stated project. sla�li� U Date Property caner Signature (Required) Applicant Signature (If different than the property owner) Date Please contact the City Planner at 763 - 231 -4863 or planner @ci.saint- anthony.mn.us if you have any questions regarding this application. May 2013 18 TOWNVIEIN AVENUE 0 m 68' d EXISTING HOU5E ^ 46.2' 'v 14 PROP05ED DECK SPRING 2011 I• r m VIKTOR & KATHERINE ADAMCSEK 5204 TOYgNVIEYV AVENUE ST. ANTHONY MN 55416 Scale: 1 " = 20' 19 E X 1 5 T I N G H O U S E EXIST. I -MER&H HIH&b REMAIN- INSPECT INTEORITT 5/4X6 I I \ GRIPPABLE CEDAR RAILING CEDAR DECKING PROP05ED DECK PLAN Scale: 1/4" = 1' -0" Q>= I � I DN PAVER LANDIt 5/4X6 I I \ GRIPPABLE CEDAR RAILING CEDAR DECKING PROP05ED DECK PLAN Scale: 1/4" = 1' -0" zo THIS PAGE LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK 21 CITY OF ST. ANTHONY VILLAGE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION APPROVING A REQUEST FOR AN EIGHT FOOT VARIANCE TO ACCOMMODATE A DECK IN THE REAR YARD AT THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 3204 TOWNVIEW AVNUE, LOCATED IN THE R -1 DISTRICT. WHEREAS, the City of St. Anthony Village received a request from the Applicants and Property Owners Viktor and Kate Adamscek for a variance of eight (8) feet from the required rear yard setback in the R -1 District at the property located at 3204 Croft Drive on May 24, 2017, legally described as follows: Lot 33, Block 1, Bonnie View Heights, Hennepin County, Minnesota WHEREAS, the property located at 3204 Townview Avenue is located within the City's R -1 Single Family District; and WHEREAS, per Section 152.039 of city code, the rear yard must have a depth equal to the greater of 20% of the depth of the entire lot or 25 feet; and WHEREAS, per Section 152.176 of city code, an accessory building is considered part of the principal building if it is attached to it and must comply with the setbacks and requirements of the principal building; and WHEREAS, the Applicant's proposal shows the deck leaving only a 17 -foot rear yard setback, which is eight feet short of the required setback dimension; and WHEREAS, the Applicant's lot is uniquely short in depth compared to all surrounding lots on this block; and WHEREAS, but for the unique size and length of their lot the Applicants would not require a variance to construct the proposed deck; 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 June 26, 2017 and recommended approval of the request; NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council's hereby approves the requested variance, subject to the following conditions: 1. The rear yard setback dimension at 3204 Townview Avenue shall be 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. APPROVED in the regular session of the City Council on 2017. Jerome O. Faust, Mayor Attested: Nicole Miller, City Clerk 22 23 THIS PAGE LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK 24 NOTICE OF A PUBLIC HEARING Notice is hereby given that on June 26, 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 for an 8 -foot deviation from the 25 -foot rear yard setback requirement in order to accommodate a new deck on the premises located at 3204 Townview Avenue. The Planning Commission will make a recommendation regarding the proposed request to the City Council for their meeting to be held on July 18, 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.saint- anthony.mn.us. Breanne Rothstein, AICP City Planner 25 THIS PAGE LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK Pill 3204 Townview Avenue Variance Request Planning Commission Meeting June 26, 2017 3216 Croft Drive P nformation Applicants: Viktor & Katherine Adamcsek Owners: same Location: 3204 Townview Avenue Existing Land Use Low Density Residential / Zoning: R -1 Single Family Residential MA 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 aiRt mhon� IYSB OA Hgl 27 3204 Townview Avenue • R -1 Zoning District • "Short" lot compared to almost every other lot on the block �T I _ q 111101 iil n i1. .•;l 4 WSB 104 Townview Avenue 4 '- • Overview — Rear yard setback in the R -1 District is 25 feet, or 20% of lot length, whichever is more. — Lot is 119 feet, so in this case the 25 -foot setback prevails. — Proposal to construct a 14' x 14' deck off the rear portion of the home. — Request for an 8 -foot rear yard setback variance (proposed deck is 17 feet from rear property line) { `+ wse - ket deep •I r.•.w %I Lo[ hne of neighboring properties I � lot line of t is property ncegriteria 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 AR nurL� �e 29 'feria Review • 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 ain ntho C PON �w Ave • Recommendation AB — Staff recommends approval of the requested variance at 3204 Townview Avenue, on the basis that the request passes the practical difficulties test and meets all of the eligibility criteria for variance approval. — The plight of the landowner and the need for a variance can be attributed to the unique short length of the lot in question, and but for the unique shape of the lot, the applicants would not require a variance. in th�ny i p A W SB 30 wwwviewAve • Staff recommends the variance be approved with the following conditions of approval. — The rear yard setback dimension at 3204 Townview Avenue shall be as shown in the application materials. — 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. (�-N' $11r, M OW16 Croft Drive Questions?