HomeMy WebLinkAboutPL PACKET 06192012CITY OF ST. ANTHONY
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AGENDA
TUESDAY, JUNE 19, 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 June 4, 2012.
VI. Public Hearings.
VI.1. Request for a Variance to Exceed the Amount of Lot Coverage for 3301 -31St
Avenue NE; Curt & Jane Wollan
VII. Concept Reviews.
VII. 1. Request for a to the Rear Yard Setback Permit City Code Section 152.039 (g) for
3207 Silver Lake Road NE; David & Meridith Socha.
VII. 2. Request for a Variance to the Side Yard Setback City Code Section 152.104 (E) at
3700 Foss Road /3405 37th Avenue. St. Anthony Healthcare Center.
VIII. Other Business.
IX. Reports from Staff.
X. 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 farm 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.
XI. Information and Announcements.
XII. Adjournment.
FAPlanning Commission\2012 \6 \6 Regular \06192012 pc agenda.docx
I CITY OF ST. ANTHONY
2
3 SPECIAL PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
4
5 JUNE 4, 2012
6 7:00 p.m.
7
8
9 I. CALL TO ORDER.
10
I I Chair Heinis called the special meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
12
13 II. ROLL CALL.
14
15 Commissioners Present: Chairperson Heinis Commissioners Chaput, Crone, Jensen, Niccum, and
16 Poucher.
17 Absent: Commissioner Cincoski
18 Also Present: City Manager Mark Casey, City Attorney Jay Lindgren, and Interim City
19 Planner Jacqueline Corkle.
20
21 III. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE.
22
23 Chair Heinis invited the Commission and the audience to join in the Pledge of Allegiance.
24
25 IV. APPROVAL OF MEETING AGENDA.
26
27 There were no changes to the published agenda.
28
29 Motion by Commissioner Crone, second by Commissioner Niccum, to approve the Planning
30 Commission Meeting agenda of June 4, 2012.
31
32 Motion carried 6 -0
33
34 V. APPROVAL OF MEETING MINUTES.
35
36 The following corrections were requested to the May 15, 2012, Meeting Minutes:
37 Page 4, line 13, sentence should read: "specific CUP process"
38 Page 4, line 13, sentence should read: "Industrial District, places of worship are conditional uses
39 within"
40 Page 4, line 33, sentence should read: "will not drive alone"
41
42 Motion by Commissioner Crone, second by Commissioner Jensen, to approve the Planning
43 Commission meeting minutes of May 15, 2012, as revised.
44
45 Motion carried 6 -0.
46
47 VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS.
48
49 None.
Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes
June 4, 2012
Page 2
2 VII. CONCEPT REVIEWS.
3
4 None.
5
6 VIII. OTHER BUSINESS.
8 VIII.1 ACCEPTING THE RESULTS OF THE STUDY REGARDING REGULATIONS OF
9 ASSEMBLIES. MEETING LODGES AND CONVENTION HALLS
10
I 1 Interim City Planner Corkle stated the St. Anthony City Council directed staff to prepare a study
12 regarding the regulation of assemblies, meeting lodges and convention halls as conditional uses
13 in the Light Industrial and Commercial Districts. In addition, the City Council has passed a
14 moratorium on the issuance of Conditional Use Permits for Assemblies, Meeting Lodges or
15 Convention Halls within Commercial and Light Industrial Zoning Districts in order to allow the
16 study to be completed and to allow for any potential changes to the City's Zoning Code.
17
18 The study on the regulation of assemblies, meeting lodges and convention halls as conditional
19 uses in the Light Industrial land Commercial Districts has recently been distributed to the
20 Planning Commission and has been provided for public review. This evening the study is
21 presented to the Planning Commission for recommendations to the City Council.
22
23 Interim City Planner Corkle stated the purpose of the study was six -fold:
24 1. Determine the meaning of "assembly" as used within the existing Zoning Code.
25 2. Determine whether the City intended religious assemblies to exist as conditional uses in
26 commercial ( C) and light industrial (LI) zoning districts.
27 3. Ensure that any amendment to the Zoning Code does not conflict with the City's intent in
28 planning for property in the C and LI districts.
29 4. Ensure that, if amended, the Zoning Code is improved in regard to consistency and clarity
30 with respect to the use of "assemblies."
31 5. Ensure that the Zoning Code is consistent with federal law.
32 6. Respect any applicants currently having a pending application.
33
34 Interim City Planner Corkle reviewed the key findings and recommended Option 3. Option 3
35 suggests allowing all assembly use (religious and non - religious) within the C zoning district and
36 eliminating all "assembly" use from the L 1 district. This option would provide a reasonable
37 alternative to applicants seeking places for assembly within the City and work to treat assemblies
38 equally within the specific zoning districts. This option would also fully preserve the LI district
39 as an area of the City devoted specifically to industry- oriented development and economic
40 growth, and thus meet the City's general planning goals.
41
42 Interim City Planner Corkle reviewed the study recommends pursuing Option 3. This option
43 would recommend that the City Council amend the Zoning Ordinance in a manner that balances
44 the City's economic development and job growth interests with the interest of groups in
45 establishing places of secular and religious assembly. Furthermore, the study recommends:
46
Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes
June 4, 2012
Page 3
1 Allowing all types of assemblies — religious and non - religious — to exist within the
2 commercial zoning district.
3
4 Excluding all types of assemblies — religious and non - religious — from the light industrial
5 zoning district.
Clarifying the definition of "assembly" to include both religious and non - religious
assemblies.
10 Commissioner Chaput asked if this would have any impact on a business wanting to hold a Town
I 1 Hall Meeting. City Attorney Lindgren stated this would not have any impact on existing
12 businesses wanting to have a Town Hall Meeting.
13
14 Commissioner Niccum asked the definition of "assembly." City Attorney Lindgren stated any
15 type of assembly would be allowed in the Commercial Zoning District. Commissioner Niccum
16 asked if other cities were researched as to what they have done. Interim City Planner Corkle
17 confirmed other city codes were researched.
18
19 Commissioner Jensen asked what "future." Interim City Planner Corkle stated this would refer
20 to future applications (new applications). Commissioner Jensen asked about the moratorium and
21 asked since the Planning Commission does not have the final word, would the moratorium be
22 lifted by the Council. Ms. Corkle stated the moratorium would remain in place until the Council
23 removes it. City Attorney Lindgren added there is a statutory deadline of June 12'' that the
24 Council must meet.
25
26 Interim City Planner Corkle provided three potential actions:
27
28 Recommend Accepting the Study Findings and Adopt Option 3. In the event the
29 Planning Commission agrees with accepting the study findings and pursuing option 3, the
30 Planning Commission may refer to Exhibit B, and may modify the draft resolution for
31 approval.
32
33 Recommend Accepting the Study Findings and Adopt Option 1 or Option 2. In the event
34 the Planning Commission agrees with accepting the study findings and pursuing Option 1
35 or Option 2, it should clearly state its reasons for its recommendations.
36
37 Recommend Rejecting the Study Findings. In the event the Planning Commission
38 disagrees with study findings and wishes to reject them, it should clearly state its reasons
39 for its recommendations.
40
41
42 Motion by Commissioner Niccum, second by Commissioner Chaput, to accept the results of the
43 study regarding regulations of assemblies, meeting lodges, and convention halls and recommend
44 Option 3 as presented.
45
46 Motion carried 6 -0.
Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes
June 4, 2012
Page 4
3 VIL2 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW A RELIGIOUS ASSEMBLY FOR 3055
4 OLD HIGHWAY 8: ABU - HURAIRA ISLAMIC CENTER. (CONTINUED FROM
5 MAY 15, 2012.)
6
7 Interim City Planner Corkle presented a review of the application submitted by Muxamedrashid
8 Ali on behalf of the Abu - Huraira Islamic Center requesting a conditional use permit to allow an
9 "assembly" at 3055 Old Highway 8. The Applicant's representative (Michael Medina) has stated
10 that the "assembly" would occupy the lower level of the south building. There is also a space on
11 the main floor of the building that will act as the "receiving room" for the center. The Islamic
12 Center would host a daily prayer hour and special prayer and potluck dining events during
13 Ramadan.
14
15 According to information provided by the Applicant, the lower level of the south building
16 comprises approximately 13,280 square feet with approximately 1,625 square feet leased to a
17 tenant. This leaves approximately 11,655 square feet for assembly use in the lower level. The
18 space identified for assembly is 12,940 square feet (11,655 in lower level and 1,286 on the main
19 level). The entire building is approximately 103,460 square feet. The rest of the building (the
20 three story office tower and the first level of the south building) less the receiving room, would
21 remain as office /tenant space.
22
23 The underlying zoning district is LI — Light Industrial which does not include assemblies as a
24 permitted use. However, as noted in Title XV, Chapter 152, Section 152.142 (G) Assembly,
25 meeting lodge or convention halls are considered a "permitted conditional use." The Zoning
26 Code does not define assembly, meeting lodge or convention hall. However, an interpretation of
27 the term "assembly" would allow for religious uses.
28
29 The assembly is proposed to be located in the basement of an existing building. No exterior
30 expansions or modifications to the building are proposed with the application. The interior will
31 be modified to meet current building codes. The proposed assembly is located in the basement
32 of the southern building. The main floor of the southern building would remain as office /tenant
33 space. The entire north building would remain as office /tenant space. The hours of operation for
34 the "assembly" area include the following: Daily prayer from 1:00 — 2:00 pm and evening
35 worship and food sharing during Ramadan. The Abu - Huraira Islamic Center will be staffed by
36 four people.
37
38 The total amount of parking required for the assembly area, under a scenario where the lounges
39 were taken into account would be 165 spaces.
40
41 A decision needs to be made by the City Council by June 12, 2012. Staff recommends approval
42 of the CUP.
43
44 Commissioner Crone asked if the CUP is approved, what it is called. Ms. Corkle stated if Option
45 3 is passed, it would be considered a non - conforming use. City Attorney Lindgren clarified this
46 would be an allowed use.
Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes
June 4, 2012
Page 5
2 Commissioner Jensen stated he is uncomfortable with the kitchen described in item #7 in the
3 resolution. If a full kitchen would be added, it would require an additional Conditional Use
4 Permit. City Attorney Lindgren stated a full kitchen is not included at this point and would not
5 be constructed. Application to construct a full kitchen would need to be made in the future, if
6 desired.
7
8 Commissioner Jensen asked if only the square footage requested is being applied for. City
9 Attorney Lindgren stated a kitchen would not determine whether it was a place of assembly.
10
11 Commissioner Jensen asked if #I I is the portion of the building included in the CUP. Ms.
12 Corkle answered in the affirmative.
13
14 Commissioner Poucher asked if this would be transferable. Interim City Planner stated it would
15 be transferable unless the use had lapsed. Commissioner Poucher asked if it could be made non-
16 transferable. City Attorney Lindgren advised it could not be made non - transferable.
17
18 Commissioner Jensen asked about # 15 and if there would be a review period. City Attorney
19 Lindgren stated it is implied in the Code.
20
21 Motion by Commissioner Chaput, second by Commissioner Crone, to recommend approval with
22 conditions of the Conditional Use Permit as presented.
23
24 Motion carried 5 -1 (Niecuml
25
26 Commissioner Jensen volunteered to attend the City Council Meeting of June 12 representing the
27 Planning Commission.
28
29 IX. REPORTS FROM STAFF.
30
31 None
32
33 X. COMMUNITY FORUM.
34
35 Mr. Ron Hansen, 3220 Belden Drive, stated he was disappointed there was no published notice
36 regarding this meeting. He would not have known without reading the article in The Bulletin.
37 He requested residents be made aware of what is going on in the City. Chair Heinis stated the
38 meeting was announced at the last Planning Commission meeting. Mr. Hansen asked if there
39 will be a tax consequence. He quoted the City Manager saying "the things approved today will
40 have long -term implications." Mr. Hansen noted his taxes were increased and the City cannot
41 afford to lose the tax on this property. He thanked Commissioner Niccum for his "no" vote. Mr.
42 Hansen quoted the Mayor that whether or not this property is not on the tax rolls is not an issue
43 in this decision. Mr. Hansen stated the City will lose $56,000 in taxes, he is not happy with the
44 decision made tonight, and he will attend the Council Meeting.
45
Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes
June 4, 2012
Page 6
Mr. Rob Lundeen, 3912 Fordham Drive NE, stated he does not understand what was done and
felt everyone should have received a copy of the Options. He asked if this property would be tax
exempt and if the entire building can become an assembly. Interim City Planner Corkle stated
they will be limited to the area of the building petitioned.
6 Commissioner Crone stated it is about 10% of the building and she has friends who will attend
7 the assembly. A copy of the report was available at the City Hall office for interested residents.
8 Mr. Lundeen stated currently there are 4 -5 tax- exempt properties in the City. Once a property
9 becomes tax exempt, it will not be changed to non -tax exempt.
10
11 Mr. Lundeen indicated he did not believe other businesses would want to share the building with
12 the assembly. Commissioner Jensen stated land use changes throughout the state all the time.
13 The Planning Commission is not to speculate on land values, etc. Commissioner Jensen stated
14 the Planning Commission made the decision to let this move forward to the City Council for
15 final approval. Mr. Lundeen stated industrial areas should be kept for industrial.
16
17 Ms. Judy Makowske, 2919 Rankin Road, stated she has two issues to discuss and had notified
18 the City Manager regarding those issues. The first one is notification, which has been brought
19 up. The other issue is traffic. She is concerned about traffic and getting in/out of the apartment
20 building.
21
22 Mr. Sadik Warfa, 620 East Franklin Avenue, Minneapolis, thanked the Planning Commission for
23 recommending approval of the CUP. His community will be very happy with this decision and
24 he is proud to be an American. Mr. Warta asked that the Council approve with no changes,
25 noting they are only requesting tax- exempt status for their small portion of the building.
26
27 Mr. Khadar Abdi, 1247 St. Anthony Avenue, thanked the Planning Commission for their
28 recommendation to the City Council. He stated they come as guests to St. Anthony and the
29 Planning Commission has been very gracious. He feels visitors to the center will visit area stores
30 and pay taxes on what they buy. He hopes their presence will add value to the City and to the
31 properties. The Muslims were pioneers and brought many benefits to the world. Mr. Abdi stated
32 they will be the best neighbors to the area.
33
34 Mr. Lary Rannalla, 3224 Renken Road, asked if at a later date a request can be made to expand
35 their center. Commissioner Jensen stated if the Planning Commission's recommendation is
36 passed it would be unlikely it could get any larger. Mr. Rannalla asked if this would be
37 considered a community center. Chair Heinis stated the number of people capacity would be
38 covered by the zoning code. Mr. Rannalla asked if they would be able to meet until late hours
39 into the night and Chair Heinis said if they were on their own property.
40
41 Mr. Ali Giarush, 6220 132nd Street N., White Bear Lake, stated everyone has their rights to be a
42 non - profit tax- exempt property. There are many Muslims in surrounding areas and the other
43 centers do not draw crime to the area. He indicated he is proud to be part of this transaction.
44
45 Mr. Robert Lundeen asked who owns the building and why is this such a big secret. Chair
46 Heinis stated it is public record and can be obtained from Hennepin County.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
J
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes
June 4, 2012
Page 7
XI. INFORMATION AND ANNOUNCEMENTS.
None.
XII. ADJOURNMENT.
Motion by Commissioner Jensen, second by Commissioner Poucher, to adjourn the meeting at
8:20 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Debbie Wolfe
Timesaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc.
Motion carried unanimously.
A
WSB
-
& A. odw., Inc.
Infrastructure • Engineering . Planning a Construction
9 9 9
701 Xenia Avenue South
Sui[e 300
Minneapolis, MN 55416
Tel: 763 - 641 -4600
Fax: 763- 541.1700
CITY OF ST. ANTHONY VILLAGE MEMORANDUM
To:
St. Anthony Village Planning Commission
From:
Jacqueline Corkle, PTP, AICP Interim City Planner
Date: June 11, 2012
Planning Commission Regular Meeting for June 19, 2012
City Council Regular Meeting for June 26, 2012
WSB Project No. 01626 -630
Request: Request for a Variance to Exceed the Amount of Lot Coverage
RECOMMENDATION
The Applicant's request for a variance to exceed the maximum amount of impervious surface is
reasonable and consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan. Based on our review, staff recommends
approval of the requested variance to exceed the maximum amount of impervious surface for the property
located at 33013 1 st Avenue subject to the conditions as outlined in Exhibit D.
GENERAL INFORMATION
Applicant: Curt and Jane Wollan
Owner: Same as above
Location: 33013 Ist Avenue NE
Existing Land Use / Low Density Residential/zoned: Rl; Single Family
Zoning:
Surrounding Land North: Low Density Residential; 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; zoned Rl; Single Family
Deadline for Agency Application Date: 05 -4 -12
Action: 60 Days: 07 -2 -12
Letter Sent: N/A
120 Days: 08 -30 -12
CONSIDERATIONS RELATING TO THE PROPOSED VARIANCE
1. Background
The property owners are interested in adding steps to the front of their house and constructing a
sidewalk and patio from the driveway to the front steps. The property currently does not have
permanent steps to the front door area. The property owner had submitted a building permit for staff
approval of the proposed improvement. Staff reviewed the proposed improvement and recognized
that the subject property already exceeded the impervious surface limits for the R -1 district and that
the proposed improvement would exacerbate the situation.
June 11, 2012
Page 2
Staff informed the property owners that a variance would be required if they wanted to proceed with
the proposed improvement. The property owner has submitted the required paperwork for a variance
application. At the May 15, 2012 Planning Commission meeting, the Planning Commission directed
the property owner to verify the amount of impervious surface by recalculating the driveway totals
from the property line instead of from the street. The Planning Commission also asked the owners to
investigate permeable pavers as possible options for constructing the patio area.
Since the May 15, 2012 meeting, staff has consulted with the property owner and they have
recalculated the amount of impervious surface on their driveway. As expected, the amount of
impervious has decreased. Staff also encouraged the property owner to use pervious pavers for the
patio portion of the improvement to reduce the amount of water runoff on the site or to reduce the size
of the patio area to limit the increase in impervious surfaces.
The property owner has recalculated the amount of impervious surface to exclude the portion of the
driveway that is in the right of way. The owner has also reduced the size of the patio so that it really
functions as a landing for the stairs rather than a patio.
2. Overview
The property is located at 33013 1 st Avenue NE. According to Hennepin County property records,
the lot is 68 x 134.27. The lot is approximately 9,131 square feet. Current impervious surface on the
site includes the following:
• Garage =437 square feet
• House = 2,565 square feet
• Driveway = 2,009 square feet
Total impervious surface is 5,011 square feet. Approximately 54.9 percent of the property is covered
by impervious surface. The Zoning Ordinance limits impervious surface to 35 percent on properties
that are 9,000 square feet or larger. The proposed improvement will add 180 square feet of
impervious surface to the lot, bringing the total impervious surface to 5,191 square feet. This would
result in approximately 56.9 percent of the property being covered by an impervious surface.
The amount of impervious surface currently on the property can be attributed to the house being
constructed in the 1940s, prior to the implementation of the impervious surface ordinance. When the
home was constructed, the garage was placed in the rear of the property, resulting in an unusually
long driveway, which accounts for 40 percent of the existing impervious surface.
The proposal would allow for a safer access between the driveway and the front door. The lack of an
existing walkway and stairs creates unsafe conditions on the property, especially during the winter
months. A paved walkway could be shoveled and the stairs would reduce the possibility of slipping
due to an unsafe grade.
3. Ordinance Authority. Title XV Land Usage, Chapter 152 Zoning Code, Section 152.039
Dimensional Regulations, (H) "The lot coverage for residential structures on lots with an area 9,000
square feet and above may not exceed 35 %."
4. Criteria for Variance. 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:
June 11, 2012
Page 3
1. The subject matter of the application is within the scope of this section.
The application for a variance is necessary considering the proposal would result in the property
further exceeding the maximum amount of allowable impervious surface. Criteria 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 home currently does not have front steps or a connection from the front entrance to
the driveway. Front steps or a walkway to the driveway are common among most homes
in the neighborhood. The lack of an existing walkway from the driveway to the front
door creates unsafe conditions on the property. Therefore, staff finds the proposal
reasonable. Criteria met.
b. The plight of the property owner is due to circumstances unique to the property not
created by the property owner;
The home was built in the 1940s prior to the implementation of the impervious surface
ordinance. The garage was constructed in the back of the property and the driveway
extends nearly the depth of the property to reach the garage, accounting for a significant
portion of the impervious surface. These conditions existed when the homeowner
purchased the property and are, therefore, not the fault of the property owner. Criteria
met.
C. The variance, ifgranted, will not alter the essential character of the locality; and
Granting the variance would not alter the essential character of the locality. The use of
the property would not change if the variance is granted. Walkways connecting the
driveway to the front door are common in the neighborhood. Granting the variance
would improve the appearance of the property and have a positive impact on the
neighborhood. Criteria met.
d. Economic considerations alone are not the basis of the practical difficulties.
The applicant wishes to construct a sidewalk for safer access from the driveway to the
front door and to provide an entrance step to the front door. While the proposed
enhancements will improve the appearance and property value, economic considerations
alone are not the basis of the practical difficulties. Criteria met.
3. The variance, if granted, would be consistent with the city's comprehensive land use plan.
If the variance is granted, the use of the property would remain the same. The comprehensive
plan guides this property for low density residential and is consistent with the application for a
variance. 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:
June 11, 2012
Page 4
a. Protect the use districts;
The proposal would not change the use of the property. The current use is consistent
with the zoning code. Criteria met.
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 proposal seeks to improve access to the home.
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;
The proposed improvement will increase lot coverage on a lot that already exceeds the
limits in place by the City's Zoning Code. The additional increase in impervious surface
has been minimized by the property owner to the extent practical in order to complete a
connection between the home and the driveway. In discussions with the City Engineer, it
is not believed that the additional square footage of impervious surface would have a
negative impact on water drainage in the area. 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.
POTENTIAL 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 D, 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.
June 11, 2012
Page 5
ATTACHMENTS
Exhibit A: Location Map
Exhibit B: Applicant's Application
Exhibit C: Revised Proposed Improvement
Exhibit D: Draft Resolution — Approving the Variance Request
`s
,1 F
I
7
IV low' I
TOWNVIEW AVE -
• 1+ I _ f Q ,
t
t.ql
31ST'AVE 4 t .
r, r�
w
• ��•r W
•` K
�w-- CROFT DR
:w
' ARMOURTER
t-
�' • « �~
thoony Exhibit A 3301 31st Ave N E N A
eC% 0 50 100 n WSB
Saint Anthony Village MN mmmmm::� Feet rA
3301 Silver Lake Road
FEE
A. GENERAL DATA
• St. Anthony, MN 55418 • (p) 612.782.3301 • (1) 612.782.3302
www.ci.saint- anthony.mn.us
VARIANCE APPLICATION
$60 Residential $100 Other Zoning Districts
APPLICANT'S NAME: L:12 r -- r- ' `L'"-W GJy ���t ✓
Exhibit B:
Application
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.
Wo // ,IN i�t.r�- 4 la -qyo -725
Contact Person Last Name First Day Phone
B. subject INFORMATION 33o) 31s I' 4,P-. /IlE
2. Specify the nature of the project for which a variance is sought: wt✓ pvo L. ld A jee.. 'ha o v } i u el
3. Explain how you wish to vary from the applicable provisions of the Ordinance:
5-0'70 0 F- mVr la.,.d ;M Cea..e 4 d,r +n n 0E, -., 1u. �,.:.✓
4. Explain in a 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 to help explain this project proposal:
Site Plan' ❑ Topographic Map
Required
❑ Other (specify)
Can attach additional pages to fully explain proposal and need for wriance.
I HEREBY CERTIFY WITH MY SIGNATURE THAT ALL DATA ON MY APPLICATION FORMS, PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS ARE TRUE AND
CORRECT TO THE BE=OOWLEDGE. )
Li ✓CZL -1 v�D /'--
Signature of Applicant D to
EXPIRATION
Within one (1) year after the approval of a variance or appeal if the property owner or applicant has not substantially
started the 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 Assistant City Manager not les 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 the
variance, and it shall state the additional time being requested to begin the proposed construction. The Qty Council
may grant extensions not to exceed one (1) year. (Rev. July 2011)
F: \2011 website\ Variance Amendment Application July 2011.doc
VARIANCE APPLICATION ADDENDUM
Curt & Jane Wollan
330131s'Ave. NE
St. Anthony, MN 55418
We would like to have concrete front steps for our front door put in. Since we have
a slope down to our driveway to the right of the proposed front steps, we would like
to pour a short walkway to the driveway culminating in a smaller concrete step unit
that would meet the driveway. The short walkway would allow us to shovel to the
front door from the driveway. The small steps at the driveway would eliminate the
possibility of slipping and falling in the winter due to an unsafe grade going up from
the driveway to the front door.
We now have a little over 50% of our property in cement because of an unusually
long driveway made in the 1940's to a garage set back at the back end of our
property line, also build in the 1940's. The rest of the property is house and garage
making up the amount of cement I mentioned.
Granting our Variance Application would allow us a safe and practical way to get to
our front door and enhance the look of our front property and the neighborhood.
Without the improvements mentioned, the walkway to the door will become a dirt
path.
Thank you for considering our proposal.
Curt & Jane Wollan
q37
�(-,t eway
�oC) /
U('ruK4 4�
1LU�S '
S+-ps
-06 y .s ,z
W o w de„ Deu{c.
heJ,w)
Donr
Q.0
331
6 S1. J( `
Plcw� �� Prap
I mS�rdve.w�Er�} .
hy"l,
V � �
.-e VA
Ila Q
C i4a Isis Calif a
win:rinnnnnnnnnnnni
G
'7'
elt i c
-- - - -- If
m �
a
- �w
M_
In
s
00 EA
v u
�y F7 Please Note: this
V " m eoncept is being
by the
\ \ concept in Exhibit C
L
V
aG
V--%
Exhibit C:
Concept
v>
J
a
01
�d
J
Revised
S 1
GG�
- O
E
m
0� M ! �
�oQ
-dmV
VI
u
.1l
EXHIBIT - D:
CITY OF ST. ANTHONY VILLAGE
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION APPROVING A VARIANCE TO EXCEED THE MAXIMUM
ALLOWABLE AMOUNT OF IMPERVIOUS SURFACE FOR THE PROPERTY
LOCATED AT 330131ST AVENUE
WHEREAS, the City of St. Anthony Village received a request from the
Applicants Curt and Jane Wollan for a variance to exceed the allowable amount of
impervious surface for the property located at 33013 Ist Avenue on May 4, 2012, legally
described as follows:
SOUTH'/2 OF THAT PART OF LOT 38 LYING SOUTH OF THE NORTH 30 FEET OF SAID
LOT, BLOCK 1, `BONNIE -VIEW HEIGHTS, HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINN"
WHEREAS, the Applicant has requested a variance to exceed the allowable
amount of impervious surface in order to construct a walkway and patio in the front yard;
and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission reviewed and considered the request
based on the related documents shown in the Applicant's application and revised
improvement plan at their regular meeting on June 19, 2012; and
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of
St. Anthony Village approves the Applicant's variance request based on the following
findings:
1. The requested variances are 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 is proposing to use their property in a reasonable
manner not permitted by the zoning code. Most homes in the
neighborhood have an entrance that is connected from the driveway to the
front door.
b. There are circumstances unique to the property not created by the property
owner. The home, garage and driveway were built in the 1940s according
to the property owner. This would have been prior to lot coverage surface
rules. As a result, the garage is located at the back of the property,
resulting in an unusually long driveway. This driveway accounts for a
significant portion of the existing impervious surface. These conditions
were not created by any persons presently having an interest in the parcel
of land.
c. Granting the variance will not alter the essential character of the locality.
If anything, it will make the home more in keeping with the surrounding
neighborhood by having a front step and connecting walkway.
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
Zoning 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 Zoning Code relating to promoting orderly development and
redevelopment. Staff believes that providing a front door step and
walkway is consistent with promoting orderly redevelopment.
g. Granting the variance is in harmony with the general purposes and intent
of the City's Zoning Code relating to providing adequate light, air and
access to property. The project will not impact adjacent properties in their
ability to receive adequate light and air, or to access their property.
h. Allowing the variance is in harmony with the general purposes and intent
of the City's Zoning Code relating to preventing congestion in public
streets. The project will have no impact on congestion.
i. Allowing the variance is in harmony with the general purposes and intent
of the City's Zoning Code to provide for compatibility of different land
uses. The project will have no impact on land use compatibility.
Allowing the variance is in harmony with the general purposes and intent
of the City's Zoning Code to prevent overcrowding of land and undue
concentration of structures by regulating land, buildings, yards and
densities. The Applicant has minimized the amount of additional
impervious surface to the extent possible. The City Engineer has reviewed
the proposed plan and has determined that the additional amount of
impervious surface will not be detrimental.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City Council's
approval of the requested variances are contingent on the following:
1. The Applicant shall submit the appropriate plans and permits for review and
approval before beginning construction of the proposed walkway and patio.
2. The Applicant shall use the revised proposed improvement plan shown in
Exhibit C for their building permit application.
3. The proposal shall result in an addition of no more than 180 square feet of
impervious surface.
4. (Insert other conditions as desired.)
APPROVED in the regular session of the City Council on June 26, 2012.
Jerome O. Faust, Mayor
Attested:
Barb Suciu, City Clerk
A
WSB
&As, «tale.., Inc. Infrastructures Engineering . Planning . Construction 701 Xenia Avenue South
Suite 300
Minneapolis, MN 55416
Tel: 763 -541 -4800
Fax: 763 - 541 -1700
CITY OF ST. ANTHONY VILLAGE MEMORANDUM
To: St. Anthony Village Planning Commission
From: Jacqueline Corkle, PTP, AICP Interim City Planner
Date: June 11, 2012
Planning Commission Regular Meeting for June 19, 2012
WSB Project No. 01626 -630
Request: Concept Review - Request for a Variance to the Rear Yard Setback at
3207 Silver Lake Road
GENERAL INFORMATION
Applicant:
David and Meridith Socha
Owner:
Same as above
Location:
3207 Silver Lake Road
Existing Land Use /
Low Density Residential /zoned: Rl; Single Family
Zoning:
Surrounding Land
North: Low Density Residential; 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; zoned Rl; Single Family
Deadline for Agency
Application Date: 05 -16 -12
Action:
60 Days: 07 -15 -12
Letter Sent: N/A — to be sent after concept review
120 Days: 09 -12 -12
CONSIDERATIONS RELATING TO THE CONCEPT REVIEW FOR THE PROPOSED
VARIANCE
1. Background
The property owners wish to construct a detached garage at 3207 Silver Lake Road. The property
currently does not have a garage. The proposed garage is 27 feet by 24 feet for a total of 648 square
feet. The garage has been proposed to be located 30 feet from a street side lot line and 17 feet from
the rear of the lot. As shown in Exhibit A, the front of the property is located on Silver Lake Road.
Silver Lake Road is the property address and it is where the front door to the house is located. As
such, the area between Silver Lake Road and the home is considered to be the front yard. The
driveway, however, provides access to the property off of Hilldale Avenue.
As proposed, a variance would be needed for the rear yard setback (31 feet is the required distance).
A garage setback permit was not pursued for this application due to the size of the proposed garage.
Consultations with the City Attorney confirmed that a variance application was appropriate for this
request. The applicant has provided the city with a revised plan due to the determination that the
front yard is along Silver Lake Road versus Hilldale Avenue. The revised plan has been altered
slightly. The newly proposed plan has a garage that is approximately 72 square feet smaller and is
setback 30 feet from Hilldale Avenue.
June 11, 2012
Page 2
2. Property and Zoning Code Information
The property is located at 3207 Silver Lake Road and is a corner lot in the R -1 zoning district. The
Zoning Code requires a rear yard setback equal to the greater of 20 percent of the depth of the entire
lot or 25 feet (152.039 (G)). The setback for the property is 31 feet using the 20 percent rule.
Therefore, the variance is necessary due to the garage being proposed within the setback.
Additionally, the Code indicates that garages cannot be larger than the principal structure or be more
than 1,000 square feet in R -1, R -IA and R -2 zoned property.
The City's Zoning Code has a provision for a garage setback permit. This option, however, limits the
property owner to a garage that is 528 square feet. The proposed garage is 648 square feet, so a
variance would be needed from the garage setback permit process. In discussing the situation with
the city attorney, there would be two options to pursue: 1) a rear -yard setback variance or 2) a
variance from the garage setback permit process. Given the stipulations for the garage setback permit
process, legal and planning staff agreed that the cleaner approach to the variance is a simple rear -yard
variance.
3. Proposed Change
As indicated above, the property owner wishes to construct a detached garage on the east end of the
property. The proposed garage is 27 feet wide and 24 feet deep. It has a total area of 648 square feet.
The applicant proposes to construct the garage 30' from the side lot line and 17' from the rear yard
line. A copy of the site plan and concept plan for the garage are shown in Exhibit B.
The property owners state that placing the garage completely outside the rear setback would place the
garage only 14 feet from the eastern wall of the house which would be harmful for several reasons.
The garage would block light coming into the dining room, affecting the enjoyment of the room. It
would also prohibit building any deck or patio off of the eastern wall of the house. Locating the
garage 14 feet from the home could also have an impact on drainage, as there would be limited space
between both structures. The property owners have stated that an attached garage is not a feasible
option, as it would fundamentally change the character and form of the house. The only location for
an attached garage would be the eastern wall, which would require that the owners enter the garage
through the dining room. This action would result in the house not meeting the occupancy
requirements stated in the code (150.095 (A)). It should also be noted that this property has a large
front yard which impacts the amount of land available for a rear yard. It is difficult to fit a structure
in the rear yard and meet all the setback requirements.
ATTACHMENTS
Exhibit A: Location Map
Exhibit B: Applicant's Application
• Application
• Legal Description
• Practical Difficulties
• Old Sketch Plan
• Purchase Agreement
• Building Design
• Revised Sketch Plan
Hennepin County GIS - Printable Map
Interactive
Ii
Maps. j,f�:
Page I of I
Exhibit A: Location
Map
Note - 2 parcels
Parcel 06- 029 -23-42 -0019 A -T -B: Torrens Map Scale: 1" - 50 ft.
ID: Print Date: 619/2012
Owner Market
D F Socha 8 M J 0 Socha
Name: Total:
Parcel 3207 Silver Lake Rd
Address: St. Anthony, MN 55418
Property Residential
Type:
Home- Homestead
stead:
Parcel 0.23 acres
Area: 10,061 sq ft
Tax
Total:
qft
Sale
Price:
_
Sale
1112011
Date:
Sale Warranty Deed
Code:
This map is a compilation of data from various
sources and is furnished "AS IS" with no
representation or warranty expressed or
implied, including fitness of any particular
purpose, merchantability, or the accuracy and
completeness of the information shown.
COPYRIGHT ® HENNEPIN COUNTY 2012
rA - +Green,
http://gis.co.hennepin. mn.us/Property /print /default.aspx ?C= 482856.04540508,4985934.286... 6/9/2012
thorny
3301 ills
3301 Silver Lake Road • St. Anthony, MN 55418 • (p) 612.782.3301 • (f) 612.782.3302
www.ci.saint-anthony.irm.us
VARIANCE APPLICATION
FEE: $60 Residential $100 Other Zoning Districts
A. GENERAL DATA
APPLICANTS NAME: David & Meridith Socha
'file 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.
Socha
David
Contact Person Last Name First
m PROp:CI' INFORMATION
I. Subject Property Address: 3207 Silver Lake Road NE, St. Anthony, MN 55418 -2405
763 - 670 -6763
Day Phone.
2. Specify the nature of the project for which a variance is sought: New construction of a garage. No existing
garage on eremises
3. Explain how you wish to vary from the
r,
of the Ordinance: We desire to have a garage
nq of the naraae are 27' wide by 24' deep. Thi
,I. Explain in a 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 to help explain this project proposal:
® Site Plan* ❑ Topographic Map ® Other (specify) Front elevation; written statement
* Required Corr attach additional fm,�ws In filly ecfdaht pmfr�vd mud nerd Ji-r lonam e.
1111; EI3Y(:ERTIIY WrrJ4 MY SIGNATURE THAT ALL DATA ON MY APPLICATION FORMS, PLANS AND SPECIFICNrIONS ARE TRUE AND
COItItC:CI "CO Tt1E BEST' OF �Y KNOWLEDGE.
J 5 / 1 c��r 7-01 Z.
�Signat roof Applicam Ihlc
rXillItA'I'ION VV
Within one (1) year after the approval of a variance or appeal if the properly owner or applicant has 1104 substantially
started the construction of any building, structure, addition or alteration requested as part of the approval, said variance
shall lxcome 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 Assistant City Manager not les 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 uiilize the
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. (Rev. July 2011)
F: \2011 website \Variance Amendment Application July 2011.doe
Legal Description
The South 65 feet of the North 95 feet of that part of the West 1/5 of the South 1/2 of the North 1/2 of the
Northwest Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of Section 6, Township 29, Range 23, lying West of the East 75 feel
thereof upon which Judicial Landmarks have been placed on the Northeast and Southeast Corners thereof;
Together with an easement for road purposes over the North 30 feet of the West 1/5 of the South Half of the North
Half as shown in deed Doc. No. 456814.
Legal Description 1005352/50
15 May 2012
MEMORANDUM FOR RECORD
SUBJECT: Variance Justification Written Statement for Property located at 3207 Silver Lake
Road NE, St. Anthony, MN 55418 -2405, Zoned R -1 Single Family District
1. General. This memorandum serves as a written statement explaining why strict enforcement
of the Ordinance would cause practical difficulties for the applicants, David F. Socha and
Meridith J.O. Socha.
2. References:
a. St. Anthony, Minnesota Code of Ordinances, dated 28 June 2011
3. Justification:
a. David and Meridith Socha, henceforth referred to as the property owners, desire to have a
variance from § 152.176 (f) St. Anthony, Minnesota Code of Ordinances, dated 28 June 2011.
The property owners desire to build a garage with dimensions 27' wide by 24' deep (total size
648 sq. ft.) of which 528 sq. ft. would be located in the rear setback of 3207 Silver Lake Road
NE, St. Anthony, MN 55418 -2405, henceforth referred to as the property.
b. 'The property owners reside at 3207 Silver Lake Road NE, St. Anthony, MN 55418 -2405.
This property is zoned R -1 Single Family District. Not having a garage materially affects the use
of the property by the property owners. The property owners believe that a garage with
dimensions of 27' wide by 24' deep would not alter the essential character of the locality. In
addition a garage with the previously specified dimensions is consistent with existing homes and
current garage sizes. Building a garage would increase usability of the property and have a
positive affect on neighborhood property values.
c. Strict adherence to the ordinance would create a practical difficulty for the property owners
in the following ways:
i. Placing the garage completely outside of the rear setback of the property would place the
garage only 14' from the eastern wall of the house. This would block light coming into the
dining room, materially affecting use and enjoyment of the room. In addition, this would
effectively prohibit building any deck or patio off of the eastern wall of the house, rendering the
existing sliding glass doors useless and materially detracting from the use of existing yard space.
ii. Placing the garage at a distance of 14' from the primary dwelling could also cause
several environmental and safety concerns. A limited distance between buildings increases fire
SUBJECT: Variance Justification Written Statement for Property located at 3207 Silver Lake
Road NR, St. Anthony, MN 55418 -2405
hazards and could result in unnecessary damage to both structures and loss of property if either
were ever to catch on fire. Drainage is also a significant concern. Having limited space between
both structures could cause large amounts of rain and storm water to be funneled into a small
space, potentially causing water problems and flooding in the principal dwelling, as well as
causing excessive storm water runoff into city sewage and drainage systems. This is further
exacerbated due to the clay soil on the property.
iii. Between 7 October 2011 and 14 October 2011, David Socha met with Kim Moore -
Sykes and was informed that she was willing to treat Hilldale Avenue as the front yard for
purposes of garage construction. This information was relied upon when purchasing the property
insomuch as the property owners chose not to enact a garage contingency that was specified in
the purchase agreement with the previous owner. See appendix 2, excerpt from purchase
agreement dated 15 September 2011. On or about 15 November, after purchasing the property,
David met with Kim and presented a proposed site plan for a garage with dimensions 30' wide
by 24' deep. See appendix 1, 3207 Silver Lake Road Garage Proposal dated 14 October 2011,
for the original site plan. This plan was approved by Kim Moore - Sykes.
iv. An attached garage is an unacceptable option as it would fundamentally change the
character and form of the house. In addition building an attached garage would be cost
prohibitive in the near -term future. Furthermore, the only location for an attached garage would
be on the eastern wall of the house, transforming the dining room into a walkway to the garage,
and effectively eliminating the dining room. This would result in the house not meeting
occupancy requirements under § 150.095 (A), Maximum Occupancy, at such time when the
property owners have children.
4. The point of contact for this memorandum is the undersigned at phone 763 - 670 -6763.
Cncls: DAVID F. SOCHA
I Appendix 1 - 3207 Silver Lake
Road Garage Proposal dated
14 October 2011
2 Appendix 2 - Excerpt from
Purchase Agreement dated
15 September 2011
W
2
Y
S gry?
%U
W
w s�s
�<N
0.
ZD�
ConLcQ}
CDt��
OD
0
N
`I
W
w�
N
O�
Ovo 94v9 ap'sc.
6
m
b
H
0
4
6
0
a
<
J
K
h
ADDENDUM TO PURCHASE AQRSEMENT
TbhmmM0*mi aimA"Wam dRumfi , wmcA W ff ftwYy
A mm ow of We al malt" of In Alm,
D2mNWwHb Aaodedald P.MMfW, LQNe. fm
1• Dale
2 Page
0. AddandumloPuMheso Agreomenlbatwaanpartlao ,dated ��'._ �_, 20..x- I.._,per{alntngrotho
,4. PUldWseandWoofthe Propartyat G;I LVCY^ L -,A,
a_
11.
12,
1g.
ig.
17,
(i 10.
10.
21.
22.
24.
25.
20.
27,
20.
20.
30.
run cowl QUM
32 ta�a 1a,w1 Tityic� �Clc(1Afv% wu16 Q -16 ��! mml
A9, THIS IS A LEGALLY BINDING CONTRAOT BETWEEN BUYERS AND SEL 6:
34. WYOU DESIRL LBOAL OR TAX ADYICB, CONSULT AN APPROPRIATE PROPESEIONAL.
an Ua U1ma1
APPF N oSX Z
4
Z
N
r � � i �
0
A
WSB
- Infrastructure ■ Engineering ■ Planning . Construction 701 Xenia Avenue South
& A.asnoiorrs, lno. 9 B 9
Suite 300
Minneapolis, MN 55416
Tel: 763- 541 -0800
Fax: 763 -541 -1700
CITY OF ST. ANTHONY VILLAGE MEMORANDUM
To: St. Anthony Village Planning Commission
From: Jacqueline Corkle, PTP, AICP Interim City Planner
Date: June 11, 2012
Planning Commission Regular Meeting for June 19, 2012
WSB Project No. 01626 -630
Request: Concept Review - Request for a Variance to the Side Yard Setback at
3700 Foss Road / 3405 County Road D W (37th Ave NE)
GENERAL INFORMATION
Applicant: St. Anthony Health Center
Owner: St. Anthony Nursing Home LP
Location: 3700 Foss Road/3405 County Road D W (37th Ave NE)
Existing Land Use / Institutional/zoned: R4; Multiple Dwellings
Zoning:
Surrounding Land North: High Density Residential; zoned R -4; Multiple Dwellings
Use / Zoning: South: Low Density Residential, Intuitional; zoned R -IA Single Family Res; R -2
Two Family Res; ROS Recreation/Open Space
East: High Density Residential; zoned R -4; Multiple Dwellings
West: High Density Residential; zoned R -4; Multiple Dwellings
Deadline for Agency Application Date: NA — concept only, no application yet
Action: 60 Days:
Letter Sent:
120 Days:
CONSIDERATIONS RELATING TO THE CONCEPT REVIEW FOR THE PROPOSED
VARIANCE
1. Background
The St. Anthony Health Center wishes to construct a light well on the south elevation of the building
located at 3700 Foss Road. The light well is intended to provide natural light into the basement area
where a physical therapy area is located. The light well is proposed along the south side of the
property, in front of the 30 -foot segment of the building that protrudes out from the rest of the
building. This portion of the building is 32 feet from the property line. The proposed light well is
approximately 15 feet long and five feet wide. The light well would extend five feet from the
building, which would require a three -foot variance.
Although locating the light well in almost any other location would negate the need for a variance, the
applicant has expressed that the natural light is needed for the area in the basement that serves as the
physical therapy center. The physical therapy center is located in the area where the building juts out.
Placing the light well along the eastern side of the jut out is not practical and would require relocating
the gas line serving the site, relocating the gas meter and reworking the gas lines in the building.
June 11, 2012
Page 2
Placing the light well along the western side of the jut out also would not work due to the location of
the electrical utilities and generator that are currently in place. Relocating these utilities also causes
problems with serving the site.
In addition to the utility issues, the light needs to serve the area where the physical therapy unit is
located. Moving the light well to the other locations would not serve the physical therapy area as well
as it does from the front of the building. Moving the location of the physical therapy unit is also
challenging to do. St. Anthony Health Center is required to meet specific criteria for its operations as
regulated by the state, which makes moving different operations from part of the building to another
difficult without impacting some other operation on site. Therefore, the facility would not be able to
simply move its physical therapy operations to another part of the building and provide a light well at
a location that may be able to meet setback requirements.
2. Property and Zoning Code Information
The property is located at 3700 Foss Road and is a corner lot in the R -4 zoning district. The Zoning
Code requires a minimum side yard setback of 30 feet along a public street (152.104, (E)).
3. Proposed Change
As indicated previously, the property owner wishes to construct a light well on the southern portion of
the property that juts out from the rest of the building in order to serve a designated physical therapy
area. The proposed light well will extend three feet into the required side yard setback, therefore a
three -foot variance is needed.
ATTACHMENTS
Exhibit A: Location Map
Exhibit B: Materials Submitted by Applicant
• Original Survey
• Zoom in of Survey Area
• South Elevation
• Photos
r M-
%
4w
T
w�
4
Pfi
ir
r
o y;
t
wt
ft MERE AVE t Lim „
_T
i
f
am tho►ty 3700 Foss Rd N
i a 'e(!7 A 0 50 100 n {q/SB
Saint Anthony Village MN Feet /V
Exhibit a
�'
d+ t9
�95a5$9
5yy Yai P" �
'
I,
_
pZ;ijp.I
Pa qAe E•
N � A
o '
Yom➢ Y
a
E
_
a G
I J� O p• -0♦• e f o e B {< I,.
C
� C 4R
3j3
FE� %�f�'E*�
: �
3 REEE@i Y
e
8
Qpyg ;5Y
�L�.--
1 .ib':f E o
@4 fYEP➢
y`` @�yy��
83938 d„:'.
de
E* {Y }(��Bpg➢
FEa f # ➢+"
9'glig
p'4 -" i'
EY(6a��Ya.�➢
J
ow..
Wt —iniw—
( 4 Ka9
;_-1 IA.
arQ _. -
� �� _�,n
I+
�
I
I
Y.
J Q1
A9@ f i
G- I
P I o EI 3
Y
f 1,3
4
ie
➢.f
I
p$ $ 9
I e8 i$
yes iyk3a
2i'p {aE
953ay Yd
SsF`Z"'S?3 a `�8
all
r
i•
3 s
s`Ed'xs
@@J$e
£ai$aaggg
f ➢yeE��pk
a$8^aaP�
I�
jj
Fd a 9 A
dd,�,R
!'6
gp
@ gAit§
@ jRg•i�rR
t
y �
4
q
FF' d � p i
I Ye I p A
�-a3
S E S
.#
.rt' Sayc3E CE3
I>
Pg
& Ea d �J
Pik i �R
P I gpP'. •
I 3P 3 3 3
'Si�
�'
I �
I
�I�I
g
,
iy I; ��T
��� � o .. �.
�
�, I p °'•,
� �
g
q
�g�_�
y 4.PBaF
�'; 3_�-�g s
y E�1.0
I
q•, `7/ �. �S
1
R.
I as I
�
�_ �E
'�
`7 I;.i°h
1fl _ gg
"IN l
e
�
�
a
E
o ➢I
I ••
"� ^_ _
«
�r
4
aaa
Iz bit
st3a
Ii
er'•
JI..G.,
f
I
1
d
9Y
ONpI'.! 'QO]]ILLi atA35-G • s ,�PY
5v�}�"�' -�•
(�k .A
1
I
I O F ES (
i Q AEA F
;8 P
F '�
° � ♦ g�b
S A� -�
_, a
�
I
!'F
f
F,
� i
� ` °Ory �',.(
I �
r
'y
•
IY s :
��S
`g�g`�6
I
,�X
NlVn SaLVM 'd'1 3 .9
0
ssod
z
MOA A2NLINtlg dTO Ot
s
S-
Ll--A-Il�4
W
L L-
.3S3W3
Hryri SVO 13315 S-
�33 AL
LL,
3NC
GWOZ 961W
OWHWJ&O T41-
00,0
at
LL,
C>
DPMH"o TZ 1
aLs K'LZ
Of Im
z
Ll--A-Il�4
zl
L L-
LL,
GWOZ 961W
OWHWJ&O T41-
at
LL,
C>
DPMH"o TZ 1
aLs K'LZ
o
F-
Wv
< o
wx
2w
to
U) V)
0
Won
I
aa.,
m
0
N
E
0
0
0
zl
Wv
m
0
E
0
0
l I
=d
Ci \
a
4'I
O
ri
omw.tl l-
8AA
ayam
'I
.IS SI'.l
a,
'I
.IS SI'.l
a,
,4
(J
g
o
m
r
sQ
r
2 E 1 Y
C
O
I+
'O
Q
� C
VO1 O
G.-
am
IL .°j
40
H
O W
be
to C
+�+ O
n O
M J
CL
I map
�_ t_ye5s
v
3
>i
fa
�A
t
r
MAN,-
-