HomeMy WebLinkAboutPL PACKET 09252017
Our Mission is to be a progressive and livable community, a walkable village, which is sustainable, safe and secure.
Call to Order.
Pledge of Allegiance.
Roll Call.
Consideration, discussion, and possible action on all of the following items:
I. Approval of the September 25, 2017 Planning Commission Meeting Agenda. (action requested)
II. Approval of the August 28, 2017 Regular Planning Commission Meeting Minutes. (pp.1-18)
III. Public Hearing.
A. Consider a request for a 17.5 foot variance to build a deck 7.5 feet from the property line at 3113
Edward St. (pp. 19-39)
IV. Staff Reports.
V. Other Business.
VI. Community Forum.
Individuals may address the City Council about any item not included on the regular agenda.
Speakers are requested to come to the podium, sign their name and address on the form at the
podium, state their name and address for the Clerk’s record, and limit their remarks to five minutes.
Generally, the City Council will not take official action on items discussed at this time, but may
typically refer the matter to staff for a future report or direct the matter to be scheduled on an
upcoming agenda.
VII. Information and Announcements.
VIII. Adjournment.
CITY OF SAINT ANTHONY VILLAGE
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AGENDA
SEPTEMBER 25, 2017
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
7:00 PM
CITY OF ST. ANTHONY 1
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 2
August 28 , 2017 3
7:00 p.m. 4
5
CALL TO ORDER. 6
7
Chair person Gondorchin called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. 8
9
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE. 10
11
Chair person Gondorchin invited the Commission and the audience to join him in the Pledge of 12
Allegiance. 13
14
ROLL CALL. 15
16
Commissioners Present: Chairperson Gondorchin, Commissioners Bartel, Foster, Larson, 17
Papatola, and Westrick 18
19
Absent: Commissioner Kalar 20
21
Also Present: City Planner Breanne Rothstein 22
23
24
I. APPROVAL OF THE AUGUST 28 , 2017 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 25
AGENDA. 26
27
Motion by Commissioner Larson, seconded by Commissioner Papatola, to approve the August 28
28, 2017 Planning Commission agenda. 29
30
Motion carried 6-0. 31
32
II. APPROVAL OF THE JUNE 26, 2017 REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION 33
MEETING MINUTES. 34
35
Motion by Commissioner Papatola seconded by Commis sioner Foster to approve the June 26 , 36
2017 Re gular Planning Commission Meeting Minut es as presented. 37
38
Motion carried 5-0-1 (Westrick) 39
40
Commissioner Westrick volunteered to represent the Planning Commission a t the next City 41
Council Meeting on September 26. 42
43
III. PUBLIC HEARING. 44
45
A. Consi der a request for 2401 and 2501 Kenzie Terrace (aka the Village 46
Redevelopment Project). 47
48
1
Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes
August 28 , 2017
Page 2
• Request for Comprehensive Plan Amendme nt to allow for a change in Land 1
Use Guidance from Commercial to High Density Residential on the property 2
located at 2401 Lowry Avenue (Bremer State). 3
• Request for Comprehensive Plan Amendment to allow for a change in 4
density from 40 to 48 units per acre in the High Density Residential land use 5
category. 6
• Request for a Preliminary Planned Unit Development (PUD) Plan to allow 7
833 multi-family units on 2401 Lowry and 2501 Lowry Avenue 8
• Request for a Preliminary Plat to allow the subdivision of the property at 9
2401 Lowry and 2501 Lowry Avenue into 5 multi-family housing lots, one lot 10
for park, 32 lots for townhomes and an outlot for private roads. 11
12
Chairperson Gondorchin explained how the meeting will proceed this evening. 13
14
Chairperson Gondorchin opened the public hearing at 7:10 p.m. 15
16
City Planner Rothstein reviewed the purpose of tonight’s meeting noting this is the first formal 17
step in the city land use approval process. The Planning Commission will receive the staff report, 18
receive a presentation from the applicant, hold a public hearing regarding the proposal, receive 19
input from the public, review all the information submitted in the application and all information 20
presented tonight and formulate a recommendation for the City Council to consider in making a 21
fin al decision (no final decisions are made at Planning Commission). 22
23
City Planner Rothstein reviewed the applicant for the proposal, The Village, LLC, with lead 24
developer Continental Property Group, purchased the Lowry Grove Manufactured Home 25
Community on June 13, 2016. In the ensuing year, the mobile home park, and the former and 26
new property owners were engaged in a series of State statutory requirements for mobile home 27
park closures. The Lowry Grove mobile home park formally closed on June 30, 2017. 28
29
On October 24, 2016, the Planning Commission reviewed an initial Planned Unit Development 30
(PUD) sketch plan submission for the site from The Village, LLC. An Environmental 31
Assessment Worksheet (EAW) for the site was completed in November 2016. 32
33
On July 18, 2017, The Village, LLC submitted a series of land use applications for their 34
proposed redevelopment of the former Lowry Grove site. The proposed redevelopment now 35
includes both 2401 Lowry Avenue (the site of the former mobile home park) and 2501 Lowry 36
Avenue (the current site of Bremer Bank). 37
38
City Planner Rothstein provided a description of the request. The site under re-development 39
cons ideration is approximately 17.2 acres located on the southwestern edge of the city of St. 40
Anthony at 2501 Lowry Avenue and 24 01 Lowry Avenue. Bremer Bank (2 stories) is located on 41
the southwestern-most corner of the property and has been added as part of the re-development 42
plan since the review of the sketch plan. The site has approximately 30% land cover in trees, 43
there are no known wetlands, there are significant elevation variations, it is a low point in the 44
neighborhood and there is access to infrastructure. The historical land uses included agricultural, 45
manufactured home community, dry cleaners and commercial. The neighboring land uses 46
2
Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes
August 28 , 2017
Page 3
include the Bremer Bank which is vacant, to the north single -family homes, to the west single -1
family homes with small scale commercial, to the south high-density housing (Autumn Woods 2
Legacy and to the east high-density housing (Kenzington Ter race) – commercial (St. Anthony 3
Shopping Center). 4
5
The preliminary plat and PUD preliminary development submittal proposes a residential 6
redevelopment that includes several housing types, styles, and ownership models. There is a total 7
of 833 housing units proposed on the site, comprised of five buildings of multifamily housing 8
and 32 for-sale townhome units. Buildings A and C include 300 units of senior housing. 9
Buildings B and D together are proposed to have 391 market-rate apartments and Building E 10
includ es 110 units of affordable housing. Building A and B, set back behind the townhomes on 11
the west side of the development, are proposed to be 55 feet in height (5 stories). Buildings C, D 12
and E are proposed at 66 feet (6 stories). 13
14
The redevelopment proposal includes two storm water retention ponds and a storm water 15
infiltration basin feature. Lot 2 , Block 2, contains a 1.4-acre park with a six-foot sidewalk trail 16
connecting Roads A and B. There are six-foot sidewalks along each of the proposed roadways. 17
Ther e is a total of 1,122 designated parking stalls proposed for the development. These include 18
988 enclosed parking stalls (64 of these are associated with townhome garages), 72 surface stalls 19
(associated with Building E) and 62 on street parking stalls associated with roadway bump-outs 20
across the development site. 21
22
The Village, LLC has submitted the following requests with their land use application for the 23
redevelopment plan for 2401 and 2501 Lowry Avenue: 24
25
Two Comprehensive Plan Amendments: 26
• A C omprehensive Plan amendment to the High Density Residential district to 27
accommodate a higher proposed density on the site. The overall site density is proposed 28
as 48 units per acre. The current Comprehensive Plan allows a maximum density of 40 29
units per acre in areas guided for High Density Residential. 30
• At 2401 Lowry Avenue, a Comprehensive Plan amendment to change the guided land 31
use from Commercial to High Density Residential. 32
33
Rezoning request to change the zoning of the site from R1 – Single Family Residential (at 2 501 34
Lowry Avenue) and C – Commercial (at 2401 Lowry Avenue) to Planned Unit Development 35
(PUD). A Planned Unit Development (PUD) preliminary development plan review is also 36
requested, in accordance with the rezoning request. 37
38
Preliminary Plat review for the ir re-development plan for 2401 and 2501 Lowry Avenue; a 39
preliminary plat submission must include certain required elements to be considered for 40
complete review. 41
42
The Comprehensive Plan’s Land Use Plan discusses the following items related to the sites at 43
2401 and 2501 Lowry Avenue: 44
45
3
Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes
August 28 , 2017
Page 4
• It guides the 2401 Lowry Avenue (Bremer Bank) site for Commercial and the 2501 1
Lowry Avenue site for High Density Residential. It acknowledges that mobile home 2
housing on the former Lowry Grove site was aging and states intent for a long-term 3
redevelopment plan for higher -intensity use of the site. 4
• It states that any changes in land use would be initiated by the landowner, not proactively 5
by the City 6
• It states that any change in land use would require proper notification and pro vision for 7
re-location under state statute. 8
• It states the importance of provision of affordable housing in this area to the community. 9
• It outlines a general vision, should the property re -develop, that includes a mix of multi-10
family housing (“townhomes and condominium apartments”). 11
• It discusses the need for better pedestrian improvements and streetscape on Kenzie 12
Terrace. 13
• The density range for High Density Residential is specified as a minimum of 25 -40 14
dwelling units per acre. 15
16
Ms. Rothstein reviewed the zoning guidance stating the 2401 Lowry Avenue site is currently 17
zoned C – Commercial, which is a zoning district that allows generally for retail sales and 18
service users. The 2501 Lowry Avenue site is currently zoned R-1 Single Family, which is a 19
zoning district that allows for detached single family uses. The applicant is requesting to rezone 20
both sites to Planned Unit Development (PUD). The intent of a PUD zoning designation is “to 21
create a more flexible, creative, and efficient approach to the use of land”, and may include a 22
greater use variety and dimensional flexibility than the underlying zoning district(s) would allow. 23
24
Ms. Rothstein referred the Commission to City Code Section §152.203. For the Preliminary 25
PUD Development Review Staff deemed it complete after reviewing the submitted elements 26
against the required information listed in §151.02. Ms. Rothstein summarized the housing types 27
and massing/height of the buildings A-E and the townhomes for a total of 833 housing units 28
proposed with an overall site density of 47.7 units per acre. 29
30
Traffic, Streets and Access: The development plan proposes two main access points, one from 31
Stinson Boulevard and one from Kenzie Terrace. Building E would also retain its existing access 32
drives off of Stinson and Kenzie, but there are no proposed internal roadway connections 33
between Building E and the remainder of the site. Roads A, B, C, and D are included on the 34
preliminary plat as Outlot A and are proposed as private roadways. A traffic study was 35
completed as a part of the EAW review, and detailed recommendations were included in that 36
report. The traffic study includes a recent additional memo to include and evaluate existing and 37
proposed volumes on Stinson Parkway and Lowry Avenue. 38
39
Ms. Rothstein summarized the 1,122 total parking stalls for the development. She reviewed the 40
Landscaping, Streetscape/Urban Design, Trails/Sidewalks, Public Spaces/Parks, Environmental 41
Assessment Worksheet, Environmental (Contamination), Grading, Storm water Management, 42
Utilities, Phasing, Park Dedication Fees, Development Agreements/Contracts, Other Agency 43
Requirements, State Rules Governing Completion of an EAW, Minnesota Pollution Control 44
Agency, Hennepin County Transportation, Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board and 45
Mississippi Watershed Management Organization. 46
4
Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes
August 28 , 2017
Page 5
1
Ms. Rothstein stated there has been much interest in this proposal, starting last year and 2
continuing to -date. Staff has received almost 100 emails since the sketch plan phase. 3
Additionally, staff has spoken with many residents and concerned neighbors. A summary of the 4
concerns are as follows: 5
• Concerns over the density and height of the proposal. The most common concern is the 6
opinion that the Comprehensive Plan should not be amended to accommodate this 7
development and that heights should be consistent with those around the site. 8
• Concerns over the loss of affordable housing. People have expressed the need to 9
retain/replace affordable housing on the site. 10
• Concerns over traffic and safety. People have stated the increase in traffic on Stinson 11
Parkway will reduce livability and increase congestion at key intersections. 12
• Concerns regarding views for existing Kensington Terrace residents. People have 13
expressed concern over the reduction in views from their units. 14
• Concerns over tree removal. 15
• Concerns over school capacity and other public services. 16
• Concerns over the handling and treatment of storm water runoff. 17
18
Ms. Rothstein stated there have been other concerns expressed, and also support expressed for 19
the project, the overwhelming majo rity have stated the concerns listed above. Staff has 20
evaluated the request for the Comprehensive Plan Amendments using the standards set forth in 21
Section §152.002 which establishes the purpose and intent of the city of St. Anthony’s zoning 22
code. Staff responded to two questions being 1. Does the Comprehensive Plan amendment to 23
increase the maximum allowable density from 40 to 48 units per acre achieve the following 24
findings? 2. Does the Comprehensive Plan amendment to change the land use at 2401 Lowry 25
Avenue from commercial to high density residential achieve the following findings? The written 26
responses to these questions was provided for Commission review. 27
28
Ms. Rothstein stated staff has completed a thorough review of the Preliminary PUD 29
Development Plan and Preliminary Plat proposal and has comments and requested changes for 30
full streetscape exhibit, landscaping plan, details regarding building plans, details on parking, 31
and area breakdown by use, staging detail, revised plans for Building E, and vacation of 32
easement. Engineering and Police and Fire Departments’ comments were provided. A thorough 33
Staff Review was conducted of the Comprehensive Plan, City Zoning Code, Environmental 34
Assessment Worksheet (including traffic study and addendum). Additional information has been 35
requested by Staff on landscaping, streetscape, building elevations (with grades), bio-retention 36
area, retaining walls/grade changes, and parking location details. The increase in density is not 37
supported by staff and it should stay at 40 units per acre as noted in the Comprehensive Plan. 38
39
Ms. Rothstein reviewed Staff’s recommendation that the Planning Commission take the 40
following actions: 41
• Concerning the Comprehensive Plan amendment to increase the allowed density on the 42
site from 40 to 48 units per acre – Staff recommends denial of the Comprehensive Plan 43
amendment to increase density, based on the findings enumerated in the staff report. 44
• Concerning the Comprehensive Plan amendment to change 2401 Kenzie Terrace land use 45
designation from commercial to high density residential – Staff recommends approval of 46
5
Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes
August 28 , 2017
Page 6
the Comprehensive Plan amendment, based on the findings enumerated in the staff 1
report. 2
• Staff recommends tabling of the preliminary PUD plan and preliminary plat until such a 3
time that the Comprehensive Plan amendments are acted upon and revised plans are 4
submitted that are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, as may be amended. 5
6
The following actions are options for the Planning Commission to consider: 7
1. Motion to recommend denial of the Comprehensive Plan amendment to increase density for 8
the subject property from 40 to 48 units per acre, based on the findings listed in the staff 9
report; motion to recommend approval of the Comprehensive Plan amendment to change the 10
land use on 2401 Lowry from commercial to high density residential, based on the findings 11
listed in the staff report; and motion to table action on the preliminary PUD development 12
plan and preliminary plat until resolution of the Comprehensive Plan amendment request. 13
(RECOMMENDED MOTION). 14
15
2. Motion to table action on the Comprehensive Plan amendments, preliminary PUD 16
development plan and preliminary plat, based on the submittal of additional information, as 17
listed in the staff report. 18
19
3. Motion to recommend denial of the Comprehensive Plan amendments, preliminary PUD 20
development plan, and preliminary plat, and direct staff to prepare a draft resolution 21
declaring terms of the same. 22
23
Ms. Rothstein summarized the next steps as: 24
• Move forward negative recommendation for Comprehensive Plan Amendment regarding 25
density to City Council on September 26, 2017. 26
• Move forward recommendation for approval for Comprehensive Plan Amendment 27
regarding land use of 2401 Lowry Avenue (Bremer site) to City Council on September 28
26, 2017. 29
• Planning Commission will re -consider at a later public hearing for a revised Preliminary 30
PUD Development Plan and Preliminary Plat. 31
• Once Planning Commission re -considers a revised application, their recommendation will 32
move forward to City Council for a final decision. 33
• Many other scenarios are possible. 34
• Statutory Review Deadline (unless an extension is granted) is November 15, 2017. 35
36
It was noted that the following attachments to the meeting packet were provided for Commission 37
review: 38
1. Site Location Map 39
2. Village LLC Building Exhibits, with parking information 40
3. Village LLC statement of support of PUD 41
4. Village LLC statement of support of Comprehensive Plan amendments 42
5. Village LLC Civil plans 43
6. Public comments 44
7. Traffic study addendum 45
8. Detailed staff review comments 46
6
Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes
August 28 , 2017
Page 7
9. Building height exhib it 1
2
Public comments were received via email from: Mary Lillestol , Tim and Carolyn Buzza , James 3
Buchta , Jerry and Joan Hoffman, Chuck Haik , Kristi Flynn, Amy Kujawski, Hayden Grooms, 4
Andrea Sledz, Ann Trench, Sandi Sherman, Bob and Andrea Sledz, Rebekah Erler , Eugene 5
Lavrenchuk , Thad Hunter , Ashley Wirig Bachman, Ginny Lahti, Jason Fisher, Kathleen 6
Munson, Ann Haws, Ginny Lahti, Angela Rodgers , Kristine Lizdas , Alex Walker, Carolyn 7
Buzza , Maggie Dreon, Luke Stultz, Kristi Huegel, Carolina F. Branson, Lennis Bentrud , Chad A. 8
Johnson, Alex Ballard , Jeremy Donaldson, Rachel Bode, Karen Rossbach, Mary Lillestol, Dr. 9
L.M. Anderson, Elizabeth and Maynard Shaw , Rachel Bode, Michael and Kate Gardos Reid, 10
Gebhard and Virginia Fuhrken, Julie Nielsen, David B. Johnson, Jessica and Ryan Haas, Moira 11
Heffron, Elizabeth Raivo -Lynch, Stephanie McCann, Melissa Gutierrez Nelson, Mageen Caines, 12
Sandra Sherman, Kate Martin, Tia Weinand, Yvonne Meyer , Rachel Dungca , Ike Whiting, Lorie 13
Haddad, Maggie Whiting, Jennifer Howe Salzwedel, Mitch Martin , Kelly Regan, Nona Kennedy 14
Carlson, Ruth Hedman, Monique Dubos, Marilyn Muller , Kelly M. Wilson, Garrett Larson, 15
Deanne Miller, Marcy Conrad Nutt , Annika Larson, The Residents of Kenzington, All Parks 16
Alliance for Change (APAC), Ginny Laht i, Laurie Parker, Maynard and Elizabeth Shaw, and 17
Mathew and Peggy Kukielka . 18
19
Chairperson Gondorchin asked if for the Bremer Bank site, is the density proposed 55 units per 20
acre. Ms. Rothstein stated if reviewed on a site by site basis of the proposed lots in the project 21
that is correct. 22
23
Commissioner Papatola referred to page 9 of the staff report regarding parking Building A shows 24
1 and Building C shows 1.3. Ms. Rothstein will research and report back to the Commission. 25
26
Ms. Tracy Thomas, Vice President – The Village LLC, made a presentation to the Planning 27
Commission. She introduced the development team present who stood when introduced. Ms. 28
Thomas provided a statement regarding the settlement between Aeon, the Lowry Grove Mobile 29
Home Community and the City of St. Anthony. 30
31
The architectural team representative Chris Palpovich, reviewed the project. Building A usage is 32
for assisted living and memory care so there would be limited need for parking and Building C 33
will be a senior cooperative for higher functioning senior citizens. Mr. Palpovich showed the 34
drawing of the site plan. He reviewed the neighboring buildings and their height. He stated 35
Kenzington is 70 feet high and the project’s highest building will be 66 feet high. They are using 36
good urban design principles for the project. He indicated the building locations and the road 37
locations. The park will be an active park. Since the submission a month ago, work has 38
continued with staff. Some changes have been made adding conductivity to the site. Build ing E 39
would act as a gateway building. The uses of the buildings were reviewed. Building E is the 40
affordable building and the townhomes wrap around the site. A number of trails have been added 41
connecting the buildings to the broader neighborhood. The greenspace is for the entire 42
community. A model is available for review. Mr. Palpovich reviewed the stages of the project. 43
All the buildings would be completed by 2022. As many trees as possible will be preserved. The 44
team focused on the enclosed underground parking. Only 12% of the parking is surface parking 45
which opens the land up to more green space. 46
7
Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes
August 28 , 2017
Page 8
1
Mr. Brady Halverson, BKV Group, reviewed the urban design principles of the project. There 2
will be agreements for easements and the hope is that the entire neighborhood uses the park and 3
greenspace areas. Much of the storm water will be put in underground tanks rather than on the 4
surface allowing for more greenspace. The grading has been modified per staff’s request. Trees 5
will be planted throughout along with lighting. There will be walkup units with front porches 6
everywhere possible. The landscape plan can be conceptually addressed but it is too early to 7
provide a detailed landscape plan. Mr. Halverson showed a number of photographs and drawings 8
with the plans for lighting and plantings. 9
10
Mr. Jerry Board, Civil Engineer on the project, stated this project has many challenges as there 11
are over 17 feet of grade change throughout the site. He reviewed storm water, grading and 12
retaining walls plans. There is a mixt ure of treatment of storm water. 13
14
A member of the architectural team reviewed the elevations for the buildings. He provided 15
drawings of the various buildings. 16
17
Mr. Mike Critch, BKV Group, stated they are a leader in providing housing in the Twin Cities. 18
They were involved in the Apache Plaza site redevelopment and others. Their goal is to provide 19
the highest quality project possible and strength in neighborhoods. He went into greater detail on 20
the items outlined in the staff report. He addressed the higher density issues. The increased 21
density would not be noticeable on the street level. The highest building matches the number of 22
stories of the Kenzington Terrace building. Mr. Critch stated the building heights and locations 23
are located to provide access to light and air as well as street widths providing a boulevard. The 24
grading plan has been altered given staff’s concerns with adjustments made to retaining walls. 25
He addressed the traffic congestion concerns. He stated the addition of this development would 26
not cause more traffic congestion. He stated decreasing the density will not impact the footprints. 27
They are proposing unit sizes that meet market demands. Smaller units create greater 28
affordability. The site plan uses are compatible and provides for different income levels. 29
30
Ms. Tracy Thomas, stated the previous speakers addressed the concerns expressed by staff. She 31
was shocked to see staff’s recommendation to deny the Comprehensive Plan amendment without 32
the opportunity for the developer to present the development to the Commission and the public 33
this evening. There was no discussion or request for information from staff on the density to the 34
developer. The project started out at over 1100 units. Modifications were made for 54 units per 35
acre. She quoted concerns on the Comprehensive Plan. The current Comprehensive Plan is 36
outdated. Renter preferences have changed over the last 10 years. The Zoning Codes are 37
outdated and do not reflect the current market conditions. This project would bring the local 38
bus inesses many more customers, most within walking distance. Ms. Thomas reviewed the 39
benefits of higher density. The MET Council supports higher density. Ms. Thomas stated the 40
density at 48 units per acre carefully balances the diverse interests. This is critical to being able 41
to provide affordable housing. There is a connection between affordability and housing density. 42
There will be 110 units of affordable housing available. 43
44
Mr. Alan Arthur, AON , stated they manage 2 ,700 affordable housing units within the Twin 45
Cities. They have done many properties with more than 50 units per acre or more. The City’s 46
8
Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes
August 28 , 2017
Page 9
own visioning session emphasized affordable housing, emphasized Lowry Grove as a target for 1
density, a target for seniors, the street face should be developed with density and the City would 2
embrace the new residents. The entire site will be significantly more feasible if the requested 3
density is approved to maximize the affordability for the 110 affordable units. The City of St. 4
Anthony Village was a silent partner in the settlement. A partnership of all parties is necessary to 5
make this project successful. 6
7
Ms. Traci Thomas introduced Jack Cann from Housing Justice Center. They represented the 8
Lowry Grove Resident’s Association in the lawsuit against The Villa ge. The settlement 9
agreement is fair, beneficial to all parties to the lawsuit and to the St. Anthony community. The 10
City’s Comp Plan said the City would do but the City never lifted a finger to help the displaced 11
residents. The resident’s association supports all the proposals before the Commission this 12
evening. Mr. Cann reviewed the emails submitted from residents and noted the majority of 13
comments expressed the need for the City to guarantee adequate affordable housing. He stated 14
the settlement depends on City’s approval of all aspects of the proposal. Mr. Cann cited a study 15
of policies pertaining to affordable housing. The presentation to the City explained the 16
importance of TIF. He stated there is essentially no difference between 40 and 48 units an acre. 17
It’s a difference that doesn’t make a difference. 18
19
Ms. Traci Thomas closed by saying she respectfully disagrees with staff’s recommendation to 20
deny approval of the Comp Plan amendment increasing the density. She asked that the Planning 21
Commissioners no t rely on outdated guidelines but look to the future. She requested the Planning 22
Commission approve the Comp Plan amendment to increase the density to 48 units per acre and 23
recommend approval of the Comp Plan amendment to change 2401 Kenzie Terrace land use 24
from Commercial to High Density Residential and recommend tabling consideration of the 25
preliminary PUD and preliminary plat. She will return with revisions she is sure everyone will be 26
comfortable with. 27
28
Chair Gondorchin stated there is a Spanish translator present at the meeting this evening. He will 29
take comments in the order received. There will be no time limitation per speaker but requested 30
speakers try to stay on the topic. 31
32
Ms. Monique Dubos, 2601 Kenzie Terrace, stated she is glad there is an agreement on affordable 33
housing but disheartened that it is conditional upon the proposal. She stated there has been a lot 34
of planning on this project. She noted the comparison was made to the Kenzington Terrace 35
development many times and she feels this development will dwarf the Kenzington 36
development. She believes the Kenzington is an eyesore. She does not see how the traffic will 37
not be impacted by the new project. She delivered a set of petition signatures (from 816 people) 38
from St. Anthony residents and ne ighbors. She read the petition which was signed online as well 39
as by canvassing the neighborhood. The petition asks for density to be no more than 25 units per 40
acre and buildings be no higher than 3 residential stories. 41
42
Ms. Carol Weiler, 2312 St. Anthony Pkwy, commented on building design, height, scale and 43
materials. She asked if the model presented was to scale and the response was yes. Ms. Weiler 44
noted there are homes to the south of Bremer Bank. Most of the homes which bordered Lowry 45
Grove are single story. For 70 years, the tallest thing in the neighborhood were the tall oaks 46
9
Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes
August 28 , 2017
Page 10
within Lowry Grove. She reviewed the information online showing the elevations. She does not 1
feel the design of the townhomes compliment the surrounding homes. They would like to see no 2
more than two story townhomes with setbacks that match the existing homes that they border. 3
She asked that the townhomes extend to the corner of Stinson and Kenzie Terrace. There is no 4
variety to the buildings. She provided her comments on each building. She asked the overall 5
height be reduced. She does not see how the development connects to the neighborhood. She 6
wants the density to be reduced to bring the buildings in scale with the surrounding 7
neighborhoods. 8
9
Ms. Tania Bunik, 2829 Stinson Blvd, stated she has lived in St. Anthony for 25 years. She stated 10
the traffic study was underestimated as far as the number of car trips. This will impact everyone 11
in St. Anthony. Currently all the intersections are crowded at rush hours. She would like other 12
intersections included in a traffic study. Increased traffic will cause accidents. The school on 13
Stinson Blvd will be impacted by the increased traffic. She does not see how the traffic would be 14
decreased making it more walkable along with public transportation. She requested the traffic 15
study be redone and use common sense when reviewing the traffic levels. 16
17
Mr. Dale Nugent, 2734 Stinson Parkway, asked that the comments of neighboring cities be taken 18
into account, stating Stinson Parkway needs to be preserved. He stated there is an application 19
pending with National Registry of Historical Sites. Mr. Nugent believed c urrent traffic puts 20
stress on Stinson Parkway and local wildlife has called Lowry Grove home. He felt the project is 21
a negative change to the Parkway and asked the Planning Commission to protect the Parkway. 22
Mr. Nugent sated p arking on the Parkway should not be part of the plan and requested the 23
density be reduced to 25 units per acre. He felt the project should fit better within the 24
surrounding properties. 25
26
Mr. John Grevious, 2239 Wilson Street, Mpls., stated he lives just 2 blocks from the border. He 27
questioned comparisons to Silver Lake Village and asked how that development went. He does 28
not believe success is likely in this proposal. This wo uld be a 20% increase in population for St. 29
Anthony. He cited comparisons between Silver Lake Village and the proposed project. He feels 30
this is a high -risk development. He asked the density be kept low and the risks will be mitigated. 31
32
Mr. Casey Scott, 2501 Pahl Avenue, stated he has lived north of the development his entire life. 33
He commended staff on their work and stated he is concerned about parking and green space. 34
Staff noted the parking proposal does not meet City Code of two spaces per unit. He stated the 35
public transportation system is inadequate, St. Anthony Shopping Center does not have the 36
amenities needed, and there is no place for overflow parking. Mr. Scott stated the trails are 37
sidewalks and they are included in the park area. The developer has not gone far enough. He is 38
concerned about the conditional part of the settlement. This conditional ploy is being used as 39
leverage against the City. He calculated there should be 8.5 acres of greenspace. He asked the 40
developer to work with the City to increase the greenspace. 41
42
Mr. Alef Valdes, 2404 27th Avenue, commented about the five principles of planning specifically 43
points 2 and 3. He does not feel the development is compatible with the neighborhood. He said 44
the buildings need to be scaled back in height. He commented on infrastructure requirements. 45
There are only two access points for the property and 700 units is not adequate. Mpls Park Board 46
10
Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes
August 28 , 2017
Page 11
would need to approve any modifications to the Parkway. He asked what infrastructure will be 1
put in to protect the school children. He asked for density of 25 units per acre. 2
3
Mr. Perry Thorvig, 3112 Townview Avenue, agreed that the request for Comp Plan amendment 4
increasing density to 48 units per acre should be denied, noting t here are other important issues 5
to address. He stated the staff report does not take into consideration 17 critical points previously 6
submitted via email and also provided to the Chair. He stated if the staff recommendation is 7
adopted, the developer will think there is now a path to a 696-unit development and will believe 8
they have their high-density land use. Mr. Thorvig stated density is a range and the Comp Plan 9
reads that only 425 units may be approved. He noted the residents who submitted the petition 10
and others believe that 425 units at 25 units per acre is in compliance with the Comprehensive 11
Plan . He believed the developer has no legal right to 833 or 696 units, noting t hey are arguing 12
they cannot make a profit if only 425 units are approved. He asked, who’s problem is that? He 13
stated they bought property zoned for single-family homes and it seems they are in over their 14
head. Mr. Thorvig noted t he staff report does not address any of the five principles in the 15
Comprehensive Plan and t his development is not like Silver Lake Village . He believed a 425-16
unit development would reduce the traffic, eliminate the need to use the alley for access to the 17
townhomes , and there would be more room for greenspace. He asked the Planning Commission 18
to review his 17 questions and reconvene in 2 weeks. He also asked the Commission to not take 19
the easy way out and approve staff’s incomplete recommendation that does not address all the 20
key issues. 21
22
Mr. Thomas Isaacson, 2604 Pahl Avenue, reminded the Commission the range is 25 -40 units per 23
acre. He is optimistic on the re -development of Lowry Grove. It would provide additional 24
affordability housing for the community. It can lead to a safer Kenzie Terrace for pedestrian and 25
bicycle traffic. They support the inclusion of the townhomes along the north and we st borders of 26
the development. This would provide a buffer for the SoSo neighborhood. There are 99 family 27
homes with 80 children. They do not want to see that changed. They support the higher buildings 28
along Kenzie Terrace. He commented on traffic. The existing trees connect the spaces. There are 29
no sidewalks in his neighborhood. The children play in the alleys. Safety for the children in the 30
neighborhood is a constant concern. St. Charles brings an additional 300 children into the 31
neighborhood. He does not want the townhouse access to be through the alley and come through 32
their neighborhood. All parking and driveway access should be contained within the 33
development. He noted you cannot turn left on either end of the driveway. He is concerned with 34
the dependence the development has on the alley. He asked the developer to consider tuck under 35
garages with southern access to the driveways. This would not allow additional traffic to enter 36
his neighborhood. Trees could be planted in the backyards of the townhomes. 37
38
Ms. Nina Guertin, 2653 Stinson Blvd, stated she has been a resident for six years and is part of 39
the SoSo neighborhood. She believes it is in the City’s best interest to reduce the density as she 40
is concerned with parking, overcrowding of schools, and fit of the buildings into the 41
neighborhood. She commented on the use of alley and water runoff and stated she is concerned 42
about adding 20 driveways into the alley as there are already water problems with heavy rains in 43
the neighborhood. In addition, there is a safety concern for the 80 children in the neighborhood. 44
She wants the developer to shift the driveways to use the two or more planned access points. 45
46
11
Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes
August 28 , 2017
Page 12
Ms. Carolyn Buzza, 2617 27th Avenue, part of SoSo neighborhood, stated she is in favor of high 1
densit y housing in Lowry Grove when done thoughtfully and done well. She learned this evening 2
about the settlement conditions and s he would like to learn more about the settlement. 3
4
Mr. Andrew May, 2500 27th Avenue NE, member of SoSo neighborhood. He commented about 5
the alley, stating t he alley is 12 -feet wide which is concave to a couple of catch basins. He is 6
concerned about the amount of impervious surface with widening the alley and the driveways. 7
The plan does not add any additional catch basins to the alley. The flooding issues would be 8
exacerbated and he is concerned he will have a wet basement. 9
10
Mr. Jesse Pilaturna, 2616 27th Avenue NE, commented regarding the proposed development and 11
impact on the schools. He cited experiences he encountered in Columbus, Ohio. They selected to 12
live in St. Anthony because of the schools. There is a range of pos sible outcomes to the schools. 13
He noted the schools are currently at capacity and t his development could trigger the need for a 14
new school. He supports the affordable housing of the Lowry Grove development and thinks the 15
site for a new school needs to be found along with the funding source for the new school. 16
17
Ms. Ginny Lahti, 2601 Kenzie Terrace, stated she loves the neighborhood and is concerned 18
about the proposed development and how it will affect her neighborhood. She read the 2008 19
Comprehensive Plan and stated she does not support the Comp Plan amendment to increase the 20
unit. She would like to see 400 total units and believes the heights of the proposed buildings are 21
not compatible with the surrounding area as these tall buildings would limit her view and 22
sunlight. She would like to see the height of the buildings 3-4 stories and the townhomes 1-2 23
stories. She cares about St. Anthony and is concerned about the safety of the pedestrians. 24
25
Mr. Tom Deegan, 2616 Pahl Avenue, stated he is impressed with his neighborhood. He stated 26
the Fire Chief reviewed the plan. Mr. Deegan does not believe a fire truck could enter the 27
northeast corner of the property. He submitted an email with his concerns , stating t here needs to 28
be included in the plan that a fire truck can get in front of a house. He asked that the approval be 29
stopped and also asked what the project value is. He noted the civil engineer did not get the 30
dimensions of a fire truck to ensure it would be considered and t he alley is to be widened to 20 31
feet so it will become a road. Mr. Deegan asked if there would be curb and gutter installed and 32
stated he is not in favor of the proposal until these issues are addressed. 33
34
Mr. Lowell Ludford, 2813 Townview Avenue NE, stated he has lived in St. Anthony for 56 35
years. He summarized some events that have occurred in St. Anthony over the years and 36
suggested the voters be able to vote on the re-development of Lowry Grove on November 7, 37
2017. He felt this was an important tax issue that will affect all St. Anthony taxpayers and stated 38
the Council could have the benefit of resident input. 39
40
Ms. Gayle Bonneville, 1845 Stinson Parkway, Windom Parks Citizens in Action Organization , 41
stated she reviewed a motion passed by the Board of Directors Meeting last week. They request 42
St. Anthony Village commission a new traffic study by a neutral third party, that the density be 43
no more than 25 -40 units per acre, and the buildings be no higher than three residential stories. 44
She stated the architectural style and building materials should match that of the neighborhood 45
and t he lighting in the development be pointed downward. She also asked that active play areas 46
12
Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes
August 28 , 2017
Page 13
for adults and children be incorporated into the plan, that there are no construction vehicles or 1
equipment be allowed on Minneapolis streets, and that construction hours adhere to M inneapolis 2
ordinance. 3
4
Ms. Robin Rovick, 3000 Croft Drive, stated she came to the meeting with an open mind. She 5
works for an engineering firm and her husband is a civil engineer. She explained the two issues 6
that come up are the visual and look of the project and the density. She stated the density in the 7
metro area was not driven by the needs of the population but, rather, developers want to 8
maximize profits. She stated renters are not seeking smaller units as previously mentioned, that’s 9
all they can afford. She felt this piece of property has been watched by developers for many 10
years, noting t he infrastructure costs spread across a higher number of units would benefit the 11
renters which is also untrue according to Ms. Rovick. She believed the increased density only 12
benefits the developer as they walk away with more money but 1,000 additional cars will make 13
an imp act. Ms. Rovick stated other residents will not drive to the development to use the park 14
space within the development and they probably could not find a place to park. 15
16
Mr. Bill V olana, 3501 Coolidge, commented on water conservation. He quoted information from 17
the Met Council regarding the aquifer and asked about the water pumps and will the 20% 18
increase in population have water. He commented on how sewage will be handled. 19
20
Ms. Rachel Bode, 2722 Stinson Parkway, commented she is happy with the groups that worked 21
hard to see that affordable housing would be part of the project. She is disheartened to learn that 22
the settlement has conditions relating to the approval of the higher density requested. She would 23
like to see the residents of Lowry Grove remain in the City but does not feel it is right for The 24
Village to bully the City with the conditions of the settlement. She is thankful the voices of the 25
neighbors are being heard and asked the Commission to follow the recommendations of the staff. 26
She objects to the developer’s request to increase density. She stated the plan should be revised 27
to address the concerns of the residents and suggested some commercial space be added to the 28
development. 29
30
Ms. Nancy Robinett, 3408 31st Avenue NE, addressed the issue of CPG and The Village LLC. 31
She commented on the settlement contingent on density and stated s he thought this settlement 32
was confidential and Lowry Grove residents were under a gag order, which is why none of them 33
spoke this evening. 34
35
Ms. Leah Roddy, 3913 Penrod Lane, stated the submitted plans and drastic change in density 36
will affect the community. She stated there are many parks within the City and t he “selling” of 37
the park within the develo pment is not working. She agreed there should be another traffic study, 38
noting there is not adequate classroom space so there will be a referendum vote in September. 39
She stated she will be voting in favor. She loves living in St. Anthony but thinks this is a terrible 40
plan. 41
42
Ms. Mel Chaput, 3537 Coolidge St NE, stated she has been working with Lowry Grove residents 43
for a year, there are still several that are homeless, and there are children going hungry every 44
day. She believes the biggest priority should be helping the residents of Lowry Grove , noting 45
none of the residents can afford to live in the new development. 46
13
Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes
August 28 , 2017
Page 14
1
Chairman Gondorchin stated all speakers that have signed in have spoken. He asked if there was 2
a list of questions to be answered. City Planner Rothstein stated she does not have any specific 3
questions. 4
5
Commissioner Papatola stated he noticed a few comments about craft, traffic, 27th and 29th traffic 6
changes, the reference to the northern project in comparison to this project, fire truck access, and 7
the speakers wanted more clarity on these issues. 8
9
Chairman G ondorchin opened the floor for anyone that wishes to further speak this evening. 10
11
Mr. Alan Arthur, Aon, stated he felt compelled to clarify that Aon and the resident’s group beat 12
up The Village LLC. He stated the settlement reached was fair and honest and the best 13
resolution. He stated there is no question that the higher density has a direct relationship to the 14
affordable housing created on that site. Mr. Arthur stated he would be happy to do the 15
calculations. 16
17
Mr. Tom Deegan asked if the Commission would be voting this evening and Chairman 18
Gondorchin said the Commission will vote after all the speakers are finished. Mr. Deegan noted 19
there are no engineering statistics that those cities providing mutual aid to St. Anthony, their fire 20
trucks would not be able to access any of the roads based on the design which is against the law. 21
22
City Planner Rothstein stated the St. Anthony Fire Chief has reviewed the plan and made 23
detailed comments that are included in the staff report. One comment was there needs to be 24
appropriate turn-arounds in the NE corner of the site. This was the primary concern the Fire 25
Chief had and r evised plans have been requested from the developer to address this concern. 26
27
Mr. Michael Mergins, Legal Counsel for Developer, stated the preliminary PUD application is 28
before the Commission, comments are received from staff, and the projects are refined. Me 29
stated the Fire Department’s comments will be addressed and that’s why there is a final PUD 30
process. The level of detail is much greater on the final PUD. Mr. Mergins stated the settlement 31
was not a ploy. The parties reviewed the settlement many times, each party had legal 32
representation, and it is contingent upon the approval of the development plans. 33
34
Mr. Steve Baler, 2601 Kenzie Terrace, asked what the affordable housing density per acre is and 35
is there an access and egress out of the NE corner. Chairman Gondorchin stated per the Comp 36
Plan the range is 25 -40 units per acre. Commissioner Papatola clarified Mr. Baler was asking 37
what is the density requested for this project. Chairman Gondorchin stated 55 units per acre. City 38
Planner Rothstein stated there is not an access out of the NE Corner. Mr. Baler clarified the roads 39
do not drive into the alley and Ms. Rothstein agreed. 40
41
Mr. Perry Thorvig, 3112 Townview Avenue, stated earlier in the staff report it was mentioned 42
that in her opinion the use of the alley for access by the townhomes was consistent with City 43
practices. He stated the neighbors would agree what is presented by the developer is 44
unprecedented as there is no other alley with that type of access. 45
46
14
Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes
August 28 , 2017
Page 15
Mr. Thomas Isaacson, 2604 Pahl Avenue, asked about the density range the developer can make 1
work. Commissioner Larson stated the developer is asking that the Bremer Bank portion be 2
include d in the total amount of land and the total amount of land would be 48 units per acre. 3
4
A resident of 2601 Kenzie, stated she is an owner of a unit and asked how this project will affect 5
their future values. Chairman Gondorchin stated no one could give a clear answer to that 6
question. 7
8
Mr. Lowell Ludford commented regarding fire department access it is not a matter of one fire 9
truck coming onto the site as there are several fire engines coming in with two of them being 10
ladder trucks. 11
12
Ms. Susan Guthrie, 26 16 Pahl Avenue, stated the flooding situation needs to be researched 13
further because the development should not compound the situation as it is now. 14
15
Mr. Jared Ward, civil engineer, stated this is under review by the City Engineer also and should 16
not contribute to the surrounding water issues. Ms. Ro thstein stated the staff report contains all 17
the questions and concerns the City Engineer had on the storm water system. The requirements 18
are very detailed and specific from the Mississippi Watershed Organizatio n. There is another 19
layer of permitting that needs to be evaluated. Mr. Ward stated it is a combination of 20
underground storage as well as surface. 21
22
Mr. Dale Nugent, 2734 Stinson Parkway, stated he believes the traffic study has flawed 23
assumptions in it as there are 102 more units not included in the study. 24
25
Chair Gondorchin closed the public hearing at 10:45 p.m. 26
27
Chairman Gondorchin expressed his opinion stating on the request to change the Comprehensive 28
Plan and the Preliminary PUD, the comments expressed by the speakers this evening and adding 29
2,000-3,000 residents to the City of 3 square miles with a population of 8,000 are contrary to the 30
July 18, 2017 narrative by Michael Mergins in support of The Village LLC. Chairman 31
Gondorchin stated he remains unc onvinced the development of 2401 and 2501 Lowry, in the 32
current configuration, is in the best interest of the residents of St. Anthony or even those that 33
would occupy the development. If the re-development is to go forward, he thinks the number of 34
units should be capped at 20 units per acre. That recommendation is guided by Professor Ed 35
Goetz, who was invited by the Council to present his views on good and bad density. Chairman 36
Gondorchin stated densities of 40 units per acre and greater are better suited for cities the size of 37
Minneapolis as they are better positioned to absorb increases in population. He also stated there 38
are negative impacts to property values as density and affordable housing increases. Chairman 39
Gondorchin stated the re -zoning of 2401 Lowry from commercial to high density residential 40
should not be approved as it would increase the density of the site to 55 units per acre. 41
42
Commissioner Foster stated he respectively disagrees with Chairman Gondorchin. He believes 43
the Commission is not in t he position to vote on this tonight . He has compiled a list of issues that 44
have not been adequately addressed by the developer including impact on Stinson Avenue, 45
traffic, density and its impact on having an affordable housing component, fire safety issues, 46
15
Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes
August 28 , 2017
Page 16
garages facing the alley, impact on the school district and surface water issues. He would like the 1
developer to table everything except the commercial to high density which he is in favor of 2
because it allows for an affordable housing component. He is a commercial real estate attorney 3
by profession and believes a certain amount of density is necessary on this project and 20 units 4
per acre would make the project not economically viable. He would prefer to see the density 5
between the 25-40 range as contained in the Comp Plan. More information is needed from the 6
developer before a decision should be made. 7
8
Chairman Gondorchin agreed with Commissioner Foster and noted that if he were to make a 9
motion this evening it would be to recommend denial of the Comprehensive Plan amendments, 10
the preliminary PUD , and preliminary plat and direct staff to prepare a draft resolution 11
containing terms of the same. 12
13
Commissioner Bartel stated he agreed with what was previously said and added one component 14
that hasn’t been addressed is the number of parking units. He stated he lived in an apartment in 15
the city that had underground parking to accommodate the resident’s units. In the spring, he 16
preferred to park on the street as did many of the other residents. The way this is cur rently laid 17
out, 50% of the on-street parking is at one building in the farthest SW corner. As a visitor to the 18
site , he would expect to park close to whatever building he was visiting rather than in the far SW 19
corner. He stated parking needs to be looked at getting closer to City Code on ratios. 20
21
Commissioner Westrick stated she agrees with the Commissioner’s previous comments. Based 22
on what was provided in written material, she found it is difficult to support this development as 23
is with the 48 units per acre. She feels consideration of the Comp Plan at 25-40 is more 24
reasonable. She stated she has a list of 15 issues that she feels need more research. 25
26
Commissioner Papatola commended everyone for what was a very spirited conversation. He 27
stated he falls so mewhat between the other Commissioners, finding t his re -development has the 28
potential to be a positive development for the southern gateway and the City as a whole. He 29
appreciates the developer has brought in Aon to look at affordable housing and also appreciates 30
the developer has taken community comments into account in making revisions to the plan. His 31
conclusion is this is pretty much still in a draft stage. Commissioner Papatola stated s taff and the 32
Commis sion have many questions as well as the Villager s and neighbors. He encouraged the 33
developer to have more dialog with the community. He stated at this point , he would not be 34
willing to vote on any part of this plan and suggests all four parts of the request be denied. 35
36
Ms. Rothstein stated the City has 120 days to take action on any proposal submitted so unless the 37
developer provides a voluntary extension. final action would need to be taken by November 15, 38
2017. If any of the items are acted upon for recommendation, they would proceed to the City 39
Counc il and any items tabled would not be forwarded to the City Council but would come back 40
before the Planning Commission again. 41
42
Commissioner Larson stated as a homeowner in St. Anthony Village, there is a certain right and 43
expectation to improve or change o ur property as we wish. He noted the restrictions placed on 44
individual homeowners are the same as placed on everyone equally and no one is given special 45
16
Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes
August 28 , 2017
Page 17
treatment. He stated the Comp Plan shows a range of 25 -40 so the expectation to increase to 48 1
is excessive to him. 2
3
Motion by Commissioner Papatola, seconded by Commissioner Westrick, to recommend to the 4
City Council denial of the request for the Comprehensive Plan amendment to increase the 5
allowed density on the site from 40 to 48 units per acre as presented . 6
7
Motion carried 5-1 (Foster) 8
9
Motion by Commissioner Papatola, seconded by Commissioner Gondorchin to recommend to 10
the City Council denial of the Comprehensive Plan amendment to change 2401 Kenzie Terrace 11
land use designation from commercial to high density residential as presented. 12
13
Motion failed 2-4 (Larson, Foster, Bartel, Westrick) 14
15
16
Motion by Commissioner Papatola, seconded by Commissioner Larson to recommend to the 17
City Council denial of the preliminary PUD development plan as presented. 18
19
Motion carried 6 -0 20
21
Motion by Commissioner Papatola, seconded by Commissioner Bartel to recommend to the City 22
Council denial of the preliminary plat as presented. 23
24
Motion carried 6-0 25
26
Motion by Commissioner Larson, seconded by Commissioner Bartel to recommend t o the City 27
Council approval of the Comprehensive Plan amendment to change 2401 Kenzie Terrace land 28
use designation from commercial to high density residential as presented. 29
30
Motion failed for lack of a super majority 4-2(Papatola, Gondorchin) 31
32
Ms. Rothstein stated these recommendations will move forward to the City Council tentatively 33
September 26, 2017. Staff will analyze what makes the most sense as far as the Council’s 34
agenda. 35
36
IV. STAFF REPORTS – NONE. 37
38
V. OTHER BUSINESS – NONE. 39
40
VI. COMMUNITY FORUM 41
42
No one appeared to address the Commission. 43
44
VII. INFORMATION AND ANNOUNCEMENTS – NONE. 45
46
17
Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes
August 28 , 2017
Page 18
VIII. ADJOURNMENT. 1
2
Motion by Commissioner Bartel, seconded by Commissioner Papatola, to adjourn the meeting at 3
11:15 p.m. 4
5
Motion carried 6-0 6
7
8
Respectfully submitted, 9
Debbie Wolfe (T imeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc.) 10
18
MEMORANDUM
To: St. Anthony Village Planning Commission
From: Breanne Rothstein, AICP, City Planner
Date: Planning Commission Regular Meeting for September 25, 2017
WSB Project No. 02170-390
Request: Request for a variance from the required rear yard setback to allow for
placement of a proposed deck in the rear yard
RECOMMENDATION
The City Code requires a rear yard setback of 25 feet. The applicant is requesting a variance to construct
a deck that would project 17.5 feet into the required rear yard setback to result in a rear yard depth of
7.5 feet. The Applicant’s request for a variance from the rear yard setback to allow for the construction
the deck addition is not reasonable, per the findings listed in city code. Therefore, staff recommends
denial of the variance to encroach into the rear yard setback.
GENERAL INFORMATION
Applicant/Owner: David and Mary Friend
Location: 3113 Edward St. NE
Existing Land Use / Low Density Residential/zoned: R-1; Single Family Residential
Zoning:
Surrounding Land North: Low Density Residential / Zoned R-1 - Single Family Residential
Use / Zoning: East: Low Density Residential / Zoned R-1 - Single Family Residential
South: Low Density Residential / Zoned R-1 - Single Family Residential
West: Low Density Residential / Zoned R-1 - Single Family Residential
Deadline for Agency Application Date: 9-5-2017
Action: 60 Days: 11-5-2017
Letter Sent: No
120 Days: NA
CONSIDERATIONS RELATING TO THE PROPOSED VARIANCE
1. Background
The Applicant proposes to construct a deck from the back of the house on the property located at
3113 Edward Street NE. This is a new home, built in 2015, after the original home was torn down.
According to the submitted plans, the applicant is requesting to construct a two level deck that is
approximately 16’ x 18’ to lead up to a 6’ deck/stoop from the existing house. This deck design
would put the outermost edge of the deck 7.5 feet from the rear property line. In the R-1 Single
Family Residential district, a 25’ setback from the rear property line is required. The applicant is
proposing that the required setback that a deck with only 6.5’ of depth from the home would be
19
September 25, 2017
Page 2
compliant with the zoning code, but not useable. Therefore, they need the variance to add more
space to make the deck planned as proposed to be more functional.
2. Applicable Codes.
Title XV Land Usage, Chapter 152 Zoning Code, Sections §152.035 through 152.039 R-1 Single-Family
District apply to this proposal. Section 150.039 (G) requires a rear yard setback of 20% of the depth
of the entire lot or 25 feet. The applicant requests a variance to encroach 17.5 feet to result in a rear
yard depth of 7.5 feet.
Title XV Land Usage, Chapter 152 Zoning Code, Section §152.245 VARIANCES (A) Application states
that “An owner of property with an existing structure which does not comply with the zoning code,
or of property on which such a structure is proposed to be constructed, may apply for a variance
upon payment of the fee specified in Chapter 33”.
3. Criteria for and Consistency with Criteria for Variance Approval. Title XV Land Usage, Chapter 152
Zoning Code, Section §152.245, (C) Evidence, lists the criteria the City Council must consider in
determining whether to grant or deny a variance. The applicable criteria include:
1. The subject matter of the application is within the scope of this section.
The application for a variance to the rear yard setback is eligible subject matter for variance
criteria because these factors are related to dimensional and/or bulk standards. Criterion met.
2. Strict enforcement would cause practical difficulties because:
a. The property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted
by the zoning code;
The property owners propose to use the property in a way that is reasonable. However,
the proposed deck does not change the property owners reasonable use of their
property without a deck of this construction, a patio constructed at grade does not
require the variance process. Criterion not met.
b. The plight of the property owner is due to circumstances unique to the property not
created by the property owner;
The plight of the property owner is due to the placement, construction proposed, and
overall square footage of the proposed deck design. The lot is platted and home
placement on the lot is relative to others in the general area. Criterion not met.
c. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality; and
Granting of this variance would not alter the essential character of the neighborhood.
Applicants are not proposing any new use or density, decks do exist in the
neighborhood. Criterion met.
d. Economic considerations alone are not the basis of the practical difficulties.
The basis for the practical difficulties is that the resale of the home without a variance to
grant the proposed deck addition would make the house less appealing to potential
buyers. The addition to the deck is based on the desire of the Applicants to use their
backyard in a different manner. It is that type of construction and the space that is
designed that creates the practical difficulty. Criterion not met.
20
September 25, 2017
Page 3
3. The variance, if granted, would be consistent with the City’s comprehensive land use plan.
If the variance is granted the use of the property would remain the same land use as it is today,
single-family residential. The comprehensive plan guides this area for single-family use and the
expansion of the deck will not alter that land use. However, this is a larger deck than can be
found in the adjoining properties and neighborhood. Therefore, granting of the variance would
not be consistent with the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan. Criterion not met.
4. The granting of the variance is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the zoning
code.
The intent of the zoning code is to protect the health, safety, and general welfare of the city and
its people through the establishment of minimum regulations governing land development and
use. The zoning code is established to: protect the use districts; promote orderly development
and redevelopment; provide adequate light, air, and access to property; prevent congestion in
the public streets; prevent overcrowding of land and undue concentration of structures by
regulating land, buildings, yards, and densities; and provide for compatibility of different land
uses.
Given these factors, this application is not in keeping with the intent of the ordinance to prevent
overcrowding of land and undue concentration of structures and provide adequate access to
light and air. Other properties in this location would not be able to construct a deck this close to
the property line, nor are there decks this close to the property line on other properties.
Criterion not met.
POSSIBLE ACTIONS
1. Motion to recommend denial of the variance and recommend adoption of a resolution
declaring terms of the same.
2. Motion to recommend approval (with or without conditions) of the variance and direct staff to
prepare a resolution which approves the variance.
3. Request Additional Information and Continue the Public Hearing. The Applicant appears to have
provided enough information for the Planning Commission to make a recommendation to
approve or deny the request. Should the Planning Commission request additional information
from the Applicant, the Planning Commission should continue the public hearing until a later
time.
ATTACHMENTS
Exhibit A: Location map
Exhibit B: Supporting Material
Exhibit C: Draft Resolution
21
THIS PAGE LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK
22
3113 Edward St NE
23
THIS PAGE LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK
24
25
THIS PAGE LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK
26
2
7
28
2
9
THIS PAGE LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK
30
CITY OF SAINT ANTHONY VILLAGE
STATE OF MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION 17-XXX
RESOLUTION DENYING A VARIANCE FROM THE REQUIRED REAR YARD
SETBACK TO CONSTRUCT A DECK AT THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 3113
EDWARD STREET NE
WHEREAS, the City of St. Anthony Village received a request from the
Applicants David and Mary Friend for a variance from the rear yard setback to allow the
construction of a deck to result in a rear yard setback of 7.5 feet at the property located at
3113 Edward Street on July 12, 2016, legally described as follows:
Lot 12, Block 1, Wallace Roosevelt Heights Addition, Hennepin County, Minnesota
WHEREAS, the property located at 3113 Edward Street is located within the
City’s R-1 Zoning District; and
WHEREAS, per Section 150.039 of city code, a rear yard setback of 25 feet is
required within the R-1 Zoning District; and
WHEREAS, the Applicants have requested a 17.5-foot variance from the rear
yard setback to allow for the construction of a deck; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission acting as the Board of Adjustments and
Appeals, reviewed and considered the request based on the related documents shown in
the Applicant’s application in a public hearing at their regular meeting on September 25,
2017, and recommended denial of the request; and
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of
St. Anthony Village denies the request for a variance and adopts the following findings
of fact related to the Applicant’s request:
1. The requested variance is inconsistent with the standards for granting a
variance as described in Section §152.245 of the St. Anthony Village Zoning
Code. More specifically, the City Council finds that the requested variance is
not justified for the following reasons:
1) The property owner does not propose to use the property in a
reasonable manner;
2) The plight of the property owner is due to circumstances created by the
property owner;
3) Economic considerations, along with use and enjoyment, are the basis of
the practical difficulties.
31
2. The variance, if granted, would not be consistent with the intent of the City’s
comprehensive land use plan.
3. The granting of the variance is not in harmony with the general purposes and
intent of the zoning code.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City Council’s hereby
denies the requested variance, based on the findings stated herein.
APPROVED in the regular session of the City Council on ________________, 2017.
______________________________________
Jerome O. Faust, Mayor
ATTEST:____________________________
Nicole Miller, City Clerk
Review for Administration: _____________________________________
Mark Casey, City Manager
32
3113 Edward St. NE
Variance Request
Planning Commission Meeting
September 25, 2017
3113 Edward St. NE
General Information
Applicants: David and Mary Friend
Owners: same
Location: 3113 Edward St. NE
Existing Land Use Low Density Residential
/ Zoning: R-1 Single Family Residential
Surrounding Land Use/ Zoning:
North: Low Density Residential / Zoned R-1 - Single Family Residential
East: Low Density Residential / Zoned R-1 - Single Family Residential
South: Low Density Residential / Zoned R-1 - Single Family Residential
West: Low Density Residential / Zoned R-1 - Single Family Residential
33
3113 Edward St. NE
•Overview
–Rear Yard Setback requirement in the R-1 Single
Family Residential District is 25 feet
–Proposal is to construct a deck expanding from
the rear of the existing house
–Request for a 17.5 foot variance from the 25’
rear yard setback to create a rear yard setback
that is 7.5 feet
3113 Edward St. NE
34
3113 Edward St. NE
25’
Setback
3113 Edward St. NE
Proposed Deck Plan
35
3113 Edward St. NE
Proposed Deck Plan
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 not met
•The plight of the property owner is due to circumstances
unique to the property not created by the property owner;
–Criterion not met
36
•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 not met
•The variance, if granted, would be consistent with the City’s
comprehensive land use plan;
–Criterion not met
• The granting of the variance is in harmony with the general
purposes and intent of the zoning code;
–Criterion not met
Variance Criteria Review
•Recommendation
–The Applicant’s request for a variance from the rear yard
setback to allow for the construction of the deck addition
is not reasonable, per the findings listed in city code.
–Staff recommends denial of the variance to encroach into
the rear yard setback.
3113 Edward St. NE
37
3113 Edward St NE
Questions?
38
3301 Silver Lake Road, St. Anthony, Minnesota 55418-1699 • www.savmn.com •(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 September 25, 2017 7:00 p.m. at City Hall, 3301 Silver Lake Road; the
Saint Anthony Village Planning Commission will hold a public hearing to solicit public response to a
request for a 10.5 variance to build a deck 14.5 feet from the property line at 3113 Edward St. The
Planning Commission will make a recommendation regarding the proposed request to the City Council
for their meeting to be held on October 24, 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.savmn.com
Breanne Rothstein, AICP
City Planner
39
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:-Tv" T
Address: a6o `f
A c[,, 5�qA,%
Agenda Item Addressing: SL�
A, k .,a L, rw� � �
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:
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: J IA ,J �f
Address: 1
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:
Name:
Address:
Agenda Item Addressing: Lc,� Gyc)-xC
/b�- )J� a-� �-/