Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPL PACKET 09182012CITY OF ST. ANTHONY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AGENDA Tuesday, September 18, 2012 7:00 P.M. Council Chambers I. Call To Order. II. Roll Call. III. Pledge of Allegiance. IV. Approval of Meeting Agenda. V. Approval of Meeting Minutes of August 21, 2012. VI. Public Hearings. V1. 1. Request for a variance at the property at 2653 Stinson Boulevard for placement of a 10' X 20' shed in the front yard, which will require the issuance of a variance. VII. Other Business. VIII. Reports from Staff. IX. Community Forum. Individuals may address the Planning Commission about any item not included on the regular agenda. Speakers are requested to come to the podium, sign their name and address on the form at the podium, state their name and address for the Clerk's record, and limit their remarks to five minutes. The Planning Commission may refer the matter to staff for a future report or direct the matter to be scheduled on an upcoming agenda. X. Information and Announcements. XI. Adjournment. 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 CITY OF ST. ANTHONY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AUGUST 21, 2012 7:00 p.m. I. CALL TO ORDER. Chair Heinis called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. II. ROLL CALL. Commissioners Present: Chairperson Heinis; Commissioners Chaput, Cincoski, Crone, and Niccum. Absent: Commissioners Jensen and Poucher. Also Present: Interim City Planner Jacqueline Corkle. III. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE. Chair Heinis invited the Commission and the audience to join him in the Pledge of Allegiance. IV. APPROVAL OF MEETING AGENDA. Motion by Commissioner Chaput, second by Commissioner Crone, to approve the meeting agenda of August 21, 2012. Motion carried 5 -0. V. APPROVAL OF MEETING MINUTES OF JULY 17, 2012. Chair Heinis asked if line 24 on page 4 should be corrected to state "generally used for religious uses and assembly is used to describe more ner+-secular uses. She..." Interim City Planner Corkle stated the correct term should be secular and agreed to make this correction to the meeting minutes. Motion by Commissioner Crone, second by Commissioner Niccum, to approve the July 17, 2012, Planning Commission Meeting Minutes as amended. Motion carried 4 -0 -1 ( Chaput abstain). VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS. None. VII. CONCEPT REVIEWS. VII L For the property at 2653 Stinson Boulevard for placement of a 10' x 20' shed in the front yard, which will require the issuance of a variance. Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes August 21, 2012 Page 2 2 Interim City Planner Corkle explained the property owners would like to add a shed next to their 3 garage located on the southern end of the property, noting the house is oriented toward Stinson 4 Boulevard. She stated the proposed shed is angled due to trees in the area and the property 5 owners are trying to avoid impacting these trees. She stated the property owners are requesting a 6 variance for an accessory structure in the front yard and the Zoning Code requires all accessory 7 structures to be located in the rear yard; however, the property is oriented in such a way that an 8 accessory structure cannot be placed in the rear yard. She presented several photographs of the 9 property stating that it would be difficult for the property owners to meet the setback 10 requirements due to the existing garage and the proposed shed would be placed partially in the 11 front and side yard. She indicated the orientation of the home does not allow for an accessory 12 structure in the rear yard, the garage is currently used for storage of equipment, and the proposed 13 shed would be used for storage and would allow a vehicle to be parked in the garage. She 14 advised that other options for the property owner that would not require a variance include 15 expanding the existing garage or adding on to the home to provide the desired storage space. 16 She noted that expanding the garage would require modification to the recently constructed art 17 studio and the owners believe their best avenue is a variance from the front yard setback. 18 19 Chair Heinis asked if the property owners would need a variance if the house faced the street to 20 the north and the side yard faced Stinson Boulevard. 21 22 Interim City Planner Corkle replied that if the house was oriented toward 27h Avenue, the 23 proposed shed would be located in the back yard. She noted the City would also need to look at 24 the rear yard setback but felt it was likely the property owners would have room to put the 25 proposed shed in this location if the house was oriented differently. 26 27 Ms. Nina Guertin and Ms. Patti LaBossiere appeared before the Planning Commission. 28 29 Commissioner Niccum requested information about materials to be used on the shed and asked if 30 the materials would be similar to the art studio. He also asked about the location of the door. 31 32 Ms. LaBossiere stated the proposed shed will look similar to the art studio and will include cedar 33 shakes. She stated the shed will have two doors and one door will face north and the other door 34 will face east toward the house. 35 36 Commissioner Chaput requested that the property owners provide a detailed sketch of the shed 37 showing the placement of the doors and showing the proposed cedar shakes at the public hearing. 38 39 Commissioner Niccum requested that the property owners also show the distances from the 40 street and property line to the fence and then from the fence to the proposed shed to depict how 41 far the proposed shed is from the side yard. 42 43 Commissioner Chaput requested information about other options considered by the owners. 44 45 Ms. Guertin stated they considered placing the shed on the east side against the fence line but 46 that would mean you would see the 20' section of the shed from the street and they felt this Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes August 21, 2012 Page 3 would not be as attractive as having the shorter 10' side in the placement they propose because this would reduce the visual impact. Chair Heinis asked how far the corner of the shed would be from the property line. He also asked if it was possible to move the shed two or three feet further into the yard. 7 Ms. Guertin stated the shed would be three feet from the fence line itself and another three feet 8 from the property line. She indicated they would consider moving the shed towards the house. 9 10 Chair Heinis stated this matter will be considered at a public hearing on September 18`h 11 12 VIII. OTHER BUSINESS. 13 14 VIII. 1. Revise Planning Commission Meeting Schedule. 15 16 Interim City Planner Corkle requested that the Planning Commission consider changing its 17 meeting schedule to the 4`h Monday of the month beginning in October. She stated this change 18 would be helpful to staff by providing extra turnaround time following Planning Commission 19 meetings to get materials ready for the City Council. 20 21 Commissioner Chaput requested that meeting materials be provided to the Planning 22 Commissioners sufficiently in advance of a Monday meeting because this change in meeting 23 schedule could impact Commissioners who leave town for a long weekend. 24 25 Interim City Planner Corkle agreed that staff would provide meeting materials sufficiently in 26 advance of a Monday meeting. 27 28 Motion by Commissioner Crone, second by Commissioner Niccum, to recommend the City 29 Council revise the Planning Commission meeting schedule to the 4'h Monday of the month 30 beginning October 22, 2012. 31 32 Motion carried 5 -0. 33 34 VIII.2. Discussion on Concept Review Process. 35 36 Interim City Planner Corkle explained that communities do not typically schedule concept 37 reviews for CUP requests, interim use permits, or variance requests that are relatively simple in 38 nature and concept reviews are generally used for larger developments or for major 39 redevelopments. She stated she spoke with Mr. Casey and Ms. Johnson regarding whether the 40 City needs a concept review process given the recent staff transition as well as the detailed 41 information now being provided in the staff reports. She added that staff is making sure to meet 42 with applicants before their applications are accepted to make sure all required information is 43 submitted and suggested that the Planning Commission review and approve or deny applications 44 at one meeting rather than having applicants go through the current multi -stage process which is 45 confusing for applicants and takes additional staff time and resources. 46 Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes August 21, 2012 Page 4 1 Commissioner Niccum agreed with the suggestion to eliminate concept reviews at the Planning 2 Commission level because it will shorten up the process and make it less cumbersome for 3 residents. He asked if the proposed change will impact the public's ability to see and/or 4 comment on a project in due time. 5 6 Interim City Planner Corkle advised the public will be given adequate notice in the newspaper 7 and surrounding property owners will continue to receive a notice in the mail. She stated 8 residents are always welcome to come to City Hall or call staff with questions. She added that 9 the City will remain flexible if the Planning Commission feels a concept review should be held. 10 11 Commissioner Crone agreed with the suggestion to eliminate concept reviews. 12 13 Commissioner Chaput asked if applicants would still be able to request a concept review. 14 15 Interim City Planner Corkle replied that staff is proposing to eliminate concept reviews unless 16 staff feels there are a lot of issues that need to be brought before the Planning Commission in a 17 concept review, e.g., a PUD type of development or a major commercial development. 18 19 Commissioner Cincoski agreed with the suggestion to eliminate concept reviews at the Planning 20 Commission level and stated the City has made an investment in providing the Planning 21 Commission with a higher level of professionalism by providing more detailed information and 22 felt it was wise to reduce costs and staff time. 23 24 IX. REPORTS FROM STAFF. 25 26 None. 27 28 X. COMMUNITY FORUM. 29 30 None. 31 32 XI. INFORMATION AND ANNOUNCEMENTS. 33 34 Commissioner Crone reported that she attended the "View from the Big River" event hosted by 35 MWMO and encouraged the other Planning Commissioners to attend this event next year. She 36 stated that MWMO will be holding an open house at its new facility in October and agreed to 37 pass along further information about the open house when it becomes available. 38 39 XII. ADJOURNMENT. 40 41 Motion by Commissioner Niccum, second by Commissioner Crone, to adjourn the meeting at 42 7:39 p.m. 43 44 Motion carried 5 -0. 45 Respectfully submitted, 46 Barbara Hughes (Timesaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc) A WSB & Associarcs, Inc. Infrastructure . Engineering . Planning . Construction CITY OF ST. ANTHONY VILLAGE MEMORANDUM To: St. Anthony Village Planning Commission From: Kelsey Johnson, AICP, City Planner 701 Xenia Avenue South Suite 300 Minneapolis, MN 55416 Tel: 763 -641 4800 Fax: 763 - 541 -1700 Date: September 10, 2012 Planning Commission Regular Meeting for September 18, 2012 City Council Regular Meeting for September 25, 2012 WSB Project No. 01626 -630 Request: Request for a Variance to allow an Accessory Structure in the Front Yard at 2653 Stinson Boulevard RECOMMENDATION The Applicant's request for a variance to allow an accessory structure in the front yard is reasonable and consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan. Based on review, staff recommends approval of the requested variance for the property located at 2653 Stinson Boulevard subject to the conditions as outlined in Exhibit C. GENERAL INFORMATION Applicant: Patricia LaBossiere and Nina Guertin Owner: Same as above Location: 2653 Stinson Boulevard Existing Land Use / Low Density Residential /zoned: Rl; Single Family Zoning: Surrounding Land North: St. Charles Borromeo Catholic Church and School; Zoned Rl; Single Family Use / Zoning: East: Low Density Residential / Zoned Rl - Single Family South: Low Density Residential / Zoned Rl - Single Family West: Low Density Residential / (City of Minneapolis) Deadline for Agency Application Date: 08 -15 -12 Action: 60 Days: 10 -13 -12 Letter Sent: N/A 120 Days: 12 -12 -12 CONSIDERATIONS RELATING TO THE PROPOSED VARIANCE 1. Background The property owners wish to construct a 10 -foot by 20 -foot (220 square feet) shed in the front yard of the property located at 2653 Stinson Boulevard. The property is located at the corner of Stinson Boulevard and 27th Avenue NE. The proposed shed would be located approximately six feet from the front lot line (at the closest point — please note the shed is angled to avoid removing a tree and to provide better screening) and approximately 12 feet from the existing art studio /garage. The proposed shed meets the required side yard setback. September 10, 2012 Page 2 2. Overview As shown in Exhibit A, the front of the property is located on Stinson Boulevard and the home is oriented towards the rear of the lot. As proposed, a variance would be needed for the front yard setback. The property is a corner lot, situated at the junction of Stinson Blvd and 27th Ave. The existing lot is 60 feet by 189 feet. The 189 -foot portion of the lot is parallel to Stinson Boulevard, with the 60 -foot portion of the lot parallel to 27th Avenue NE. This is consistent with the homes located along 27th Avenue. Because the front of the house is oriented towards Stinson Boulevard (long side of the lot) and the home meets existing front yard setback requirements, the house is located only 10 feet from the rear lot line. The City's Zoning Ordinance requires accessory structures to be located in the rear yard. In this case, that is physically impossible to do and still meet City requirements. There is no room to include the construction of a shed in this area and still meet the required rear yard setback. A garage currently exists on the property and is located in the side yard on the southern end of the property. The garage is currently used for storage of equipment such as a lawn mower, snow blower, and outdoor lawn furniture. The Applicants wish to use the proposed shed for the storage of this equipment in order to make room to park a vehicle in the garage. In 2011, the property owner constructed an addition to the north end of the garage, which is used as an art studio. The art studio complicates the possibility of expanding the garage to incorporate additional storage. The art studio would need to be removed in order for the expansion to occur. The owner has stated that they believe the art studio enhances the aesthetic appeal and enjoyment of the property and do not wish to have it removed. See Exhibit B for pictures. The property owners have indicated the proposed storage shed will be located next to a mature pine tree, as well as a fence located on the property so as to provide the most screening from Stinson Boulevard. Other options are available which would not require a variance. The property owners could expand the existing garage or add on to the home. Both of these options would involve substantial construction. Also, because the intent of the request is to provide outdoor equipment storage, staff believes that a shed would be more aligned with this use than an addition to the home or the art studio. 3. Applicable Code. Title XV Land Usage, Chapter 152 Zoning Code, Section 152.176 Accessory Buildings (A) requires that "no accessory building may be located within any yard other than the rear yard, except that garages may be located in side yards ". 4. 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 is necessary considering the proposed shed is located in a yard where it is not allowed. Criteria met. 2. Strict enforcement would cause practical difficulties because: September 10, 2012 Page 3 a. The property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by the zoning code; The property owner wishes to construct the shed to store equipment such as a lawn mower, snow blower, and outdoor lawn furniture, which is currently stored in the existing garage. The Applicants wish to relocate the equipment in order to have room in the garage for their car. Most properties within the City would have an opportunity to have a storage shed in addition to a garage on their property. Having a shed to store such equipment is a reasonable use. Criteria met. b. The plight of the property owner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the property owner; The existing home was constructed at a time when present rules regarding setbacks were not in existence. The home does not meet the required rear yard setback and does not provide sufficient space to locate the proposed shed. If the home were oriented with the front towards 27th Avenue rather than Stinson Boulevard, the Applicants would not need a variance for this project. The rear yard is the only place the Code allows for the shed; however, it is not the Applicants' fault that there is not sufficient room in the rear yard to accommodate an accessory structure. Criteria met. c. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality; and The proposed shed will not alter the essential character of the locality. The Applicant is proposing to construct the shed in a manner that is consistent with the principal structure and existing garage. The proposed use remains a single family home in a single family neighborhood. Staff finds that the essential character of the locality will not be changed. Criteria met. d. Economic considerations alone are not the basis of the practical difficulties. The request and the associated practical difficulties are not soley based on economic considerations. There are no options to construct the shed in the rear yard — some other location must be considered. Criteria met. 3. The variance, ifgranted, 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 as it is today. The comprehensive plan guides this area for single family use and adding the shed will not alter that use. Criteria 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: a. Protect the use districts; The proposal would not change the use of the property or create a disruption to the single family use district. The current use as a single - family home is consistent with the City Code. Criteria met. September 10, 2012 Page 4 b. Promote orderly development and redevelopment; The proposal seeks to make an improvement to the property which staff finds to be orderly. Criteria met. c. Provide adequate light, air, and access to property; The proposal would not negatively impact adequate light or air from reaching the property or adjacent properties. The proposed shed will be nine feet tall and over 30 feet from the property line. This will allow for adequate light, air, and access to the neighboring property. Criteria met. d Prevent congestion in the public streets; The proposal will have no impact on the amount of congestion in the public street. Criteria met. e. Prevent overcrowding of land and undue concentration of structures by regulating land, buildings, yards, and densities; Allowing the requested variance will not result in overcrowding of the land or an undue concentration of structures. The shed would not put the property over the maximum amount of impervious surface allowed by the City Code. In addition, a detached shed is a permitted accessory use and is common within the City. Criteria met. f. Provide for compatibility of different land uses; The proposal will not result in a change of land use, nor will it conflict with adjacent land uses. Criteria met. ACTION 1. 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. 2. Recommend Approval (with or without conditions) of the Variance. In the event of a recommendation for approval (with or without conditions), the Planning Commission may refer to Exhibit C and may modify the draft resolution for approval to include any conditions that it deems necessary. 3. Recommend Denial of the Variance. In the event the Planning Commission chooses denial of the requested variance, it should clearly state its reasons for the denial recommendation. ATTACHMENTS Exhibit A: Location map Exhibit B: Application and supporting material Exhibit C: Draft resolution Ire ir r T• i� w+ F Ys. 1 4 � ♦ r+ 3 27th Ave NE _+e e Ir t. Ow ., AV -.dM6 _ l Lima lain thong 2653 Stinson Blvd N A i a e Exhibit A Saint Anthony Village, MN 0 50 100 vk WSB ® Feet �n the e y ills 3301 Silver Lake Road • St. Anthony, MN 55418 • (p) 612.782.3301 • (t) 61.2.782.3302 www.ci.saint- anthony. mm us VARIANCE APPLICATION FEE: $60 Residential $100 Other Zoning Districts A. GENERAL DATA APPLICANT'S NAME: iA& The above -named individual, firm, or corporation hereby respectfully submits the following information for the purpose of securing a variance from existing land use zoning controls as found in the City of St. Anthony's Zoning Code. � e,re- VV04 1 elierf ivi , mbeut 0-) -- 903-1, Contact Person Cast Name First Day Phone B. PROJECT INFORMA'T'ION 1. Subject Property Address: 2. Specify the nature of the project for which a variance is sought: 15 3.. Explain IJoyv you yvi.)l.to Nary from tile applicable prc"ions of the 4. Explain ilia written statement why the strict enforcement of the Ordinance would cause practical difficulties for the applicant, preventing the subject property to be used in a reasonable manner; that the plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner; that the variance if granted, will not alter the essential the character of the locality; and that economic considerations alone are not the basis of the practical difficulties. Please address each of these items in your written statement. (City Code §152.245(C)) 5. Check all additional supporting documents which are being submitted 1t'ohelp ex llain this project proposal: Site Plan* ❑ Topographic Map Other (specify) !i 4'�il..,rr* LPx &—J *Required Call nflnth additional pages to fiilly exldain pmixual and need forrMrim,re. I nEREBY CEnury wiTti MY SIGNATURE THAT' ALI. DATA ON MY APPLICATION FORMS, PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS ARE TRUE AND CORRECT TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE. Date EXPIRATION Within one (1) year after the approval of a variance or appeal if the property owner or applicant has not substantially started Elie construction of any building, structure, addition or alteration requested as part of the approval, said variance shall become null and void unless an application for extension of the approval has been submitted. A letter to extend the approval of a variance shall be submitted to the City Planner not less than thirty (30) days before the expiration of said approval. Such letter shall state the fact for the request, showing a good faith attempt to utilize tite variance, and it shall state the additional time being requested to begin the proposed construction. The City Council may grant extensions not to exceed one (1) year. F: \2072 Website\ Variance Amendment Application May 2012.docx 08-15-12 Patricia A. LaBossiere / Nina E. Guertin 612 - 770 -8804 / 612 - 803 -9159 2653 Stinson Boulevard St. Anthony Village, MN 55418 August 7, 2012 Ms. Jacqueline Corkle City of St. Anthony 3301 Silver Lake Road St. Anthony, MN 55418 Dear Ms. Corkle: Attached you will find the pre- variance application submittal for our property at 2653 Stinson Boulevard, St. Anthony. The legal description of the property is Lot 28, Block 8, Murray Heights Addition to Minneapolis, Hennepin County, MN. The property is a corner lot, located on the SE corner of 27'" Avenue NE and Stinson Boulevard. Our zoning district is R -1. Unique circumstances and practical difficulties causing the need to seek a variance / variances: We would like to seek a variance of City code 152.176, which states that, "No detached accessory building may be located within any yard other than the rear yard, except that garages may be located in side yards." Unfortunately, our home was built facing Stinson Boulevard, with no back yard, only side and front yards. We have considered the best place for shed placement on our property, and would like to move forward on an application to seek a variance to build a 10' x 20' shed In the front yard, placed in the SW corner of our property, as we feel that the shed would be better hidden in that area of our yard, and it would be more aesthetically pleasing overall. The west- facing 10' side of the shed would be facing Stinson Boulevard, which is the side most seen. The south - facing 20' rear side of the shed would be partially hidden by the fencing as well as by an existing mature pine tree, which is on the outside of the fence, and which faces the alleyway. The20' north side of the shed would be facing the south side of our home, and the 10' east side of the shed would be facing our privacy fence and our garage doors. Note: We did consider placing the shed along the privacy fence bordering the east side of our property, but that placement is much more visible from Stinson Boulevard. Also, if you look at the site plan, placing a shed in that area would seem "plopped -in" rather than "tucked -in ". And, although the exterior would be cedar - shingled, we feel that less siding exposure to Stinson Boulevard would be more aesthetically pleasing. Finally, we found this summer that the east area is prime for raising both vegetables and flowers. The area we have selected for the proposed shed is highly acidic due to the pine tree, and would not be a sustainable garden area. Statement of request: We would like to seek the planning commission's permission to pursue erecting a single -story 10'x 20' shed in the SW corner of our lot, within our front yard. The placement of the shed's end would be 6' in from the property line toward the existing garage, as shown on the attached diagram, and 3' in from the fence line, which is 3' in from the property line. Our plan would be to cedar shingle the exterior of the shed to tie -in with the exterior of the art studio completed in 2011 attached to the garage and located on the north side of the garage / studio building. Pictures of the exterior of the garage / studio are attached. To -scale drawings of the lot size and dimensions, buildings and structures with dimensions, an 11" x 17" copy of plan and 8 -1/2" x 11" copy of plan are also attached. Comments: • Shed would be set on footings rather than placed on a concrete slab. • Shed exterior would be finished with cedar shakes and sealed with Cabot Australian Timber Oil to keep it looking natural and to tie -in with current garage / studio exterior. Our goal is to not only enhance the curb appeal of our property, but also to place a practical outdoor storage building on our property to house our riding lawn mower, walk- behind mower, two wheel barrows, two scooters, outdoor lawn furniture, snow blower, boat and other large items that will not completely fit in our garage along with both of our vehicles (SUV and % ton long -bed pickup). We prefer to place these items into a shed rather than leave them outside covered with a tarp, which we believe is not only insecure, but also unsightly. The art studio enclosure that was completed in 2011 on the north side of the garage was built out at a cost of approximately $15,000. To demolish this space in order to attach shed space is neither a practical nor financially prudent solution, and it is not in keeping with St. Anthony's mission of being a city committed to reduce, reuse, recycle, sustain. We respectfully hope that you can see from the attached photos that the newly- finished studio space is beautifully done and in keeping with the high standards of aesthetics in St. Anthony Village. As mentioned, our desire would be to build a shed that compliments the buildings and the property, which we have worked tirelessly to improve since purchasing the property in May 2011. In closing, please understand that we love our new home and we truly enjoy living in St. Anthony. We appreciate the city's mission ".. , to be a progressive and livable community, a walkable village, which is sustainable, safe and secure." We respect our neighbors and our neighborhood. We have received innumerable compliments from both St. Anthony and Minneapolis residents walking by our home on the improvements we have completed and / or are working on throughout our property. We hope that you can see by the photos attached that we do love and care for our home, and we hope that you will consider our request to move forward and seek a variance to the City's code 152.176. Respectfully submitted, Patricia ssie�l 2� Nina E. Guertin Enc. v SIN C-1. Ct W�v az ee vo 35 t_ '717' TV tl'�Cx az ee vo 0 Q'I Ca rw vf- • ( - � �,' 5�` =_ � �7 -� it � � a� �. �_� : _._._ ......__ . ....�. ;� • , _ (' � I ;�� �7^y � � ..d, j , b` ; �` �� � �� �. � �� �i � � � ha 1,,� L� :1 �� ' ' �,� -- �., ���_ t � e�x � �, rp ( - � �,' i =_ � � �Y � V i � tgqit • , 3i b` ; �` ._ _ � �_ �,� -- T �._ -� i i t � i i i � y, � ^ � � iV.V °{� 1 i `� \�r \r. (� f j 1 a I(1�� � ;� T �;J 1�rN N r � �� �� r ,� u: N of � � i =_ � � �. Y� _� � �} �� i' I� cj I � i � 1 r= l � r .o t m .� Photo Documentation TM f c ' Or A Front of home, 2653 Stinson Blvd. The A frame in white will be Cedar Shingled to match studio in 2013. Studio / Garage, West Facing with Cedar Shingle Siding Completed September 2011 # y Studio / Garage, North Facing, Cedar Shingle Siding, Completed September 2011. This side is 26' wide; proposed shed would be approximately 12' to the right and would also be finished with same shingle siding in keeping with the aesthetics of the property. Proposed location for 10'x20' shed, SW corner of lot. The shed, from this north- facing view, would be 20' wide and nicely proportioned with the studio size. Finish of the shed would be cedar shingled, same as the studio. EXHIBIT - C: CITY OF ST. ANTHONY VILLAGE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION APPROVING A VARIANCE TO ALLOW AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE IN THE FRONT YARD FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2653 STINSON BOULEVARD WHEREAS, the City of St. Anthony Village received a request from the Applicants Patricia LaBossiere and Nina Guertin for a variance to allow an a storage shed in the front yard for the property located at 2653 Stinson Boulevard on August 15, 2012, legally described as follows: LOT 28, BLOCK 8, MURRAY HEIGHTS ADDITION TO MINNEAPOLIS WHEREAS, the Applicants have requested a variance to allow a shed in the front yard on the property; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission reviewed and considered the request based on the related documents shown in the Applicants' application at their regular meeting on September 18, 2012; and NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of St. Anthony Village approves the Applicants' variance request based on the following findings: 1. The requested variance is consistent with all the standards for granting a variance as described in Section 152.245 of the St. Anthony Village Zoning Code. More specifically, the City Council finds that the requested variance is justified for the following reasons: a. The property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner. The shed will be used to store equipment such as a lawn mower, snow blower, and outdoor lawn furniture, which is currently stored in the existing garage. b. The rear yard is the only place the Code allows for the shed; however, it is not the property owners' fault that there is not sufficient room in the rear yard to accommodate the shed. The existing home was constructed at a time when present rules regarding setbacks were not in existence. The home does not meet the required rear yard setback and does not provide sufficient space to locate the proposed shed. c. Granting the variance will not alter the essential character of the locality. If the home were oriented with the front towards 27th Avenue rather than Stinson Boulevard, the Applicants could propose the shed in the same location and would not need a variance. The Applicants are proposing to construct the shed in a manner that is consistent with the principal structure and existing garage. The proposed use remains a single family home in a single family neighborhood. Staff finds that the essential character of the locality will not be changed. d. Economic considerations alone are not the basis of the practical difficulties. e. Granting the variance is consistent with the City's comprehensive land use plan and is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the City's Code relating to protecting the use districts. The use of the property will remain the same as it is today. f. Allowing the variance is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the City's Code relating to promoting orderly development and redevelopment. Allowing the shed at the proposed location on the property is consistent with promoting orderly redevelopment. g. Granting the variance is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the City's Code relating to providing adequate light, air and access to property. h. Allowing the variance is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the City's Code relating to preventing congestion in public streets. The project will have no impact on congestion. Allowing the variance is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the City's Code to provide for compatibility of different land uses. The project will have no impact on land use compatibility. j. Allowing the variance is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the City's Code to prevent overcrowding of land and undue concentration of structures by regulating land, buildings, yards and densities. A detached shed is a permitted accessory use and is common among other homes in the City. The proposed shed would not put the property over the maximum amount of impervious surface. The variance will not result in overcrowding or concentration of buildings. NOW THEREFORE BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City Council's approval of the requested variance is contingent on the following: 1. The Applicant shall submit the appropriate plans and permits for review and approval before beginning construction of the proposed shed. 2. The proposed shed shall at no point be closer than 6 feet from the front property line. 3. The exterior of the shed shall be done in a manner that is consistent with home and garage with regard to color and building materials. 4. (insert additional conditions as discussed) APPROVED in the regular session of the City Council on September 25, 2012. Jerome O. Faust, Mayor Attested: Barb Suciu, City Clerk