Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPL PACKET 03262018 If you would like to request special accommodations or alternative formats, please contact the City Clerk at 612-782-3313 or email city@savmn.com. People who are deaf or hard of hearing can contact us by using 711 Relay. Our Mission is to be a progressive and livable community, a walkable village, which is sustainable, safe and secure.         Call to Order. Pledge of Allegiance. Roll Call. Consideration, discussion, and possible action on all of the following items: I. Approval of the March 26, 2018 Planning Commission Meeting Agenda. (action requested) II. Approval of the February 26, 2018 Regular Planning Commission Meeting Minutes. III. Public Hearing. Consider a request for a 17.5 foot variance from the required 25 foot rear yard setback to allow for placement of a proposed sunroom at 3421 Skycroft Drive IV. Staff Reports. Comprehensive Plan Open House – April 11th – draft plan on website. V. Other Business. 2018 Planning Commission Work Plan VI. Community Forum. Individuals may address the City Council about any item not included on the regular agenda. Speakers are requested to come to the podium, sign their name and address on the form at the podium, state their name and address for the Clerk’s record, and limit their remarks to five minutes. Generally, the City Council will not take official action on items discussed at this time, but may typically refer the matter to staff for a future report or direct the matter to be scheduled on an upcoming agenda. VII. Information and Announcements. VIII. Adjournment. CITY OF SAINT ANTHONY VILLAGE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AGENDA MARCH 26, 2018 COUNCIL CHAMBERS 7:00 PM CITY OF ST. ANTHONY 1 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 2 February 26, 2018 3 7:00 p.m. 4 5 CALL TO ORDER. 6 7 Chairperson Papatola called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. 8 9 PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE. 10 11 Chairperson Papatola invited the Commission and the audience to join him in the Pledge of Allegiance. 12 13 ROLL CALL. 14 15 Commissioners Present: Chairperson Papatola, Commissioners Bartel, Kalar, Larson, Neumann, 16 Socha, and Westrick. 17 18 Absent: None. 19 20 Also Present: City Planner Breanne Rothstein. 21 22 23 Chairperson Papatola welcomed Bibi Neumann and Meridith Socha to the Planning Commission. 24 25 26 I. APPROVAL OF THE FEBRUARY 26, 2018 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 27 AGENDA. 28 29 Motion by Commissioner Bartel, seconded by Commissioner Westrick, to approve the February 30 26, 2018 Planning Commission agenda. 31 32 Motion carried 7-0. 33 34 II. APPROVAL OF THE OCTOBER 23, 2017 REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION 35 MEETING MINUTES. 36 37 Commissioner Kalar corrected the minutes on page 4 line 6 it should read Commissioner Foster 38 made the comments. 39 40 Motion by Commissioner Kalar, seconded by Commissioner Larson, to approve the October 23, 41 2017 Regular Planning Commission Meeting Minutes as presented. 42 43 Motion carried 6-0-1 Commissioner Bartel abstained. 44 45 III. PUBLIC HEARING. 46 47 A. Consider a request from The Village, LLC for the following land use applications at 48 2501 Lowry Avenue. 49 Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes February 26, 2018 Page 2  Request for a Planned Unit Development (PUD) preliminary development 1 plan review and Re-Zoning Request. 2  Request for Preliminary Plat for The Village, LLC. 3 4 City Planner Breanne Rothstein reviewed the background of the case. The applicant for the 5 proposal, The Village, LLC, with lead developer Continental Property Group, purchased the 6 Lowry Grove Manufactured Home Community on June 13, 2016. In the ensuing year, the mobile 7 home park, and the former and new property owners engaged in a series of State statutory 8 requirements for mobile park closures. The Lowry Grove mobile home park formally closed on 9 June 30, 2017. 10 11 On October 24, 2016, the Planning Commission reviewed an initial Planned Unit Development 12 (PUD) sketch plan submission for the site from The Village, LLC. An Environmental 13 Assessment Worksheet (EAW) for the site was completed in November of 2016. 14 15 On July 18, 2017, The Village, LLC submitted a series of land use applications for their 16 proposed redevelopment of the former Lowry Grove site that also included Bremer Bank. On 17 October 10, 2017, the City Council denied the request and adopted a resolution outlining their 18 stated reasons. 19 20 On December 22, 2017, The Village, LLC submitted new applications and requests for a 21 preliminary PUD plan/rezoning, a preliminary plat, and a comprehensive plan amendment for the 22 site. Their submission was deemed incomplete at that time, due to changes in status of the 23 purchase agreement over the Bremer property. 24 25 On February 8, 2018, The Village, LLC submitted revised plan for preliminary plat and 26 preliminary PUD development plan for the site that excluded the Bremer Bank site. The 27 application was deemed complete by the City and is the subject of this review. 28 29 Ms. Rothstein continued providing a description of the request. The Village, LLC has submitted 30 the following requests with their land use application for the redevelopment plan for 2501 Lowry 31 Avenue: 32  Planned Unit Development (PUD) preliminary development plan review and Re-zoning 33 Request. 34  Preliminary Plat review for their re-development plan for 2501 Lowry Avenue; a 35 preliminary plat submission must include certain required elements to be considered for 36 complete review. 37 38 Ms. Rothstein noted a detailed narrative from the developer was submitted and was included for 39 Commission review. 40 41 Ms. Rothstein described the site under re-development consideration is approximately 15.4 acres 42 located on the southwestern edge of the City of St. Anthony at 2501 Lowry Avenue. The 43 preliminary plan and PUD preliminary development submittal proposes a residential 44 development that includes several housing types and styles; independent senior rental housing, 45 assisted living senior housing, and general occupancy rental housing. There are a total of 430 46 Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes February 26, 2018 Page 3 housing units proposed on the site, comprised of three buildings of multifamily housing. While 1 the floor plans currently show 414 units, the developer is requesting the ability to re-configure 2 the floor plans and unit sizes and number within the current building footprints proposed, up to a 3 hard cap of 430 units. This results in 28 units per acre. 4 5 The independent senior building (Building A) is proposed to include approximately 61 units of 6 studios, 1 bedrooms and 2 bedrooms and is 45.5 feet in height. Building B, consisting of assisted 7 living senior housing, is proposed to have approximately 128 units, which range in size from 8 very small, memory care units to larger 2-bedroom units. This building is proposed to be 45.5 9 feet in height. The general occupancy rental building, Building C is proposed to have a mix of 10 studio (approximately 77), 1 bedrooms (100), 2 bedrooms (36) and 3 bedrooms (12). Building C 11 is proposed to be 44 feet in height. These exact breakdowns are subject to change, based on final 12 market studies and plans. 13 14 There are a total of 693 designated parking stalls proposed for the development. These include 15 407 enclosed parking stalls and 286 surface stalls. The redevelopment proposal includes two 16 storm water retention ponds proposed at grade. The City Engineer has reviewed the surface 17 water management plan and submitted comments. The comments were provided for Commission 18 review. Trails are proposed throughout the development to connect with existing sidewalks and 19 to provide inter-site recreational opportunities. The plan proposes to connect to the existing 20 sewer, water, and storm water facilities located under Kenzie Terrace and Stinson Parkway. 21 22 Ms. Rothstein reviewed the zoning guidance. The site is currently zoned R-1 – Single Family, 23 which is a zoning district that allows for detached single family uses. The applicant is requesting 24 to rezone the site to Planned Unit Development (PUD). The intent of a PUD zoning designation 25 is “to create a more flexible, creative, and efficient approach to the use of land”, and may include 26 a greater use variety and dimensional flexibility than the underlying zoning district(s) would 27 allow. 28 29 Ms. Rothstein reviewed the City Code section §152.203. Upon review of the proposal, the only 30 deviation found from the standards of the R-4 Multiple Family Residential district is the height 31 of the buildings. Maximum height in the R-4 zoning district is 35 feet, and the maximum height 32 of the proposed highest building is 45.5 feet. Staff deemed the preliminary plat submission 33 complete after reviewing the submitted elements against the required information listed in 34 §151.02. Ms. Rothstein provided a summary of the proposal for each element of the preliminary 35 plat and preliminary PUD site plan. 36 37 Site Element Housing Type Total Units Height 38 Building A Senior Independent 61 3 story peaked roof, 39 housing 31’5” to main eave, 40 45.5 feet total 41 Building B Senior housing 128 3 story peaked roof, 42 31’5” to main eave, 43 45.5 feet total 44 Building C Market-rate 225 4 story flat roof, 44’ 45 total 46 Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes February 26, 2018 Page 4 1 Total Units Proposed: 414 housing units on 15.37 acres 2 Overall Site Density: 26.95 units per acre 3 4 Ms. Rothstein noted the density proposed meets the Comprehensive Plan guidance for Multi-5 Family Residential properties. She presented details of the staff report as follows: 6 7 Traffic, Streets and Access: The development plan proposes two main access points, one from 8 Stinson Boulevard and one from Kenzie Terrace. The roadway is included on the preliminary 9 plat as Outlot A and is proposed as private roadways. Access from the alley has been eliminated 10 in the revised plan. A traffic study was completed as a part of the Environmental Assessment 11 Worksheet (EAW) review and has been updated. The proposal has been reviewed by Hennepin 12 County and Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board and have comments and requirements that 13 will need to be met. Ms. Rothstein noted the comments and requirements included an access 14 easement along the southwest corner of the property to accommodate eventual relocation of 15 driveways away from the Lowry/Stinson intersection. City requirements regarding access will 16 match the permits issued by other agencies, since the MPRB and Hennepin County have 17 jurisdiction over these roads. 18 19 Parking: There are 693 total parking stalls proposed which meets city code standards. An 20 additional 37 “proof of parking” stalls are proposed, to serve as additional parking if needed. 21 22 Site Element Enclosed Parking Surface Parking Stalls per 23 Stalls Stalls Unit 24 Building A 92 underground 34 2.06 25 Building B 77 underground 34 0.87 26 Building C 238 underground 218 2.03 27 Total 407 stalls 286 stalls 693 Total 28 29 Landscaping: The plan provides a landscaping program exhibit as well and cross sections and the 30 separation of development from existing structures. Some trees are proposed to remain, 31 especially those along the property borders. No trees will be removed that exist on the 32 Kenzington property or Park Board property. Most trees are planned to be removed and replaced. 33 A landscape buffer is proposed along the northern and eastern edge of the property of evergreen 34 trees. Staff finds the landscaping plan satisfactory to meet buffer goals for those edges. 35 36 Streetscape/Urban Design: The site plan and preliminary plat shows street design, sidewalks and 37 trails incorporated into the project design. Setbacks shown on the site plan have been increased 38 along Stinson to a minimum of 90 feet along the alley setbacks are a minimum of 66 feet and 39 along Kenzington Terrace property, a minimum of 65 feet. The revised plan has building 40 orientation much more inside the proposed development, with large setbacks from property 41 boundaries to the north, east, and west. Staff is requesting an evaluation of shifting the 42 development another 20 feet away from the existing Kenzington Terrace building since there is a 43 development on the eastern side and not as close on the western side of the development. 44 45 Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes February 26, 2018 Page 5 Trails/Sidewalks: The preliminary plat shows 5-foot sidewalks integrated into the site design 1 along all internal roads, as well as an 8-foot sidewalk trail running along the northern site 2 perimeter. While there is an existing sidewalk along both Stinson Blvd and Kenzie Terrace 3 integrated into the project design, there are no proposed enhancements to existing sidewalks. 4 Staff recommends a 6-foot sidewalk instead of a 5-foot sitewide. Coordination with the Park 5 Board to improve tripping hazards and ADA issues along Stinson Parkway will be required, 6 especially at the intersection of the proposed private street. 7 8 Public Spaces/Parks: The preliminary site plan includes several private recreational amenities, 9 including an outdoor pool, patio, two plazas, and a small dog run. The proposal also includes 10 several indoor private spaces. While all trails are proposed to be privately maintained, they will 11 be open to the public to use. 12 13 Environmental Assessment Worksheet: A full report was completed for the analysis of the 14 environmental impacts, including infrastructure impacts, contamination, traffic and permitting 15 required. The traffic report has been updated per the revised site plan. Detailed information was 16 analyzed and the report is available on the city’s website or at city hall. 17 18 Environmental (Contamination): There is contamination on the site from the apparent spreading 19 of oil on dirt roads for dust control (historically), the location of a dry cleaner on the Bremer site, 20 and the siting of underground petroleum tanks (historical). The appropriate Response Action 21 Plan has been submitted and approved by the appropriate agencies. The developer intends to 22 remediate all environmental contamination on the site as a part of redevelopment. The EAW 23 completed for the site has listed the detailed permits and information related to this cleanup 24 effort. 25 26 Grading: Significant grading is required on the property for the accommodation of the 27 development proposal. The City Engineer has reviewed the grading plan and has submitted 28 detailed comments. 29 30 Storm water Management: A storm water management collection and treatment system is 31 proposed through a system of curbing, catch basins, underground conveyance, ponding and bio-32 retention. This includes traditional at grade ponds and below grade bio-filtration systems. 33 Comments are included in the City Engineer’s memo. 34 35 Utilities: Public sanitary sewer and water main extensions and hydrants are proposed as part of 36 this development. The infrastructure is proposed under private streets, with public easements 37 over them. Detailed comments on the utilities are included in the City Engineer’s memo. 38 39 Phasing: After the final PUD approval, work will commence on the assisted senior living 40 building as soon as weather conditions will allow. Construction is expected to take 41 approximately 18 months to complete per building. As crews finish their particular subset of 42 work, they will move to the independent senior living building and then to the market rate 43 building. The Village is hopeful to commence work at the end of 2018 with an aggressive 44 construction schedule to complete all three buildings by late 2020 or 2021. 45 46 Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes February 26, 2018 Page 6 Park Dedication Fees: Park dedication is required on all new subdivisions in St. Anthony. The 1 amount of land (or cash in lieu) will be determined at the time of final plat. The park dedication 2 requests will be reviewed by the Park Commission on March 5th. More details are needed to 3 determine appropriate park dedication obligation and credit. 4 5 Development Agreements/Contracts: A series of development agreements and contracts will be 6 required for this project. These legal documents will be drafted and prepared at appropriate times 7 during the final plat/final development plan stage. 8 9 Other Agency/Department Requirements: In addition to City Code requirements for the review 10 and consideration of a Planned Unit Development preliminary development plan, rezoning and 11 subdivision application, this re-development is subject to other jurisdictional requirements 12 including: 13 14 State Rules Governing Completion of an Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) 15 Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 16 Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board 17 Mississippi Watershed Management Organization 18 19 Ms. Rothstein noted comments from the following were provided for Commission review: 20 Fire Department 21 Public Safety 22 Hennepin County Transportation 23 24 Ms. Rothstein reviewed the community input received to date. Staff has received over 100 emails 25 since the sketch plan phase and spoken with many residents and concerned neighbors. A 26 summary of the concerns is as follows: 27  Concerns over the density and height of the proposal. The most common concern is the 28 opinion that the comprehensive plan should not be amended to accommodate this 29 development and that height should be consistent with those around the site. 30  Concerns over the loss of affordable housing. People have expressed the need to 31 retain/replace affordable housing on the site. 32  Concerns over traffic and safety. People have stated the increase in traffic on Stinson 33 Parkway will reduce livability and increase congestion at key intersections. 34  Concerns regarding views for existing Kenzington Terrace residents. People have 35 expressed concern over the reduction in views from their units. 36  Concerns over tree removal. 37  Concerns over school capacity and other public services. 38  Concerns over the handling and treatment of storm water runoff. 39 40 Ms. Rothstein noted the revised plans reduce the density of the project, which results in almost 41 half the traffic and population within the new proposal, increase the setbacks from property 42 boundaries, and remove access from the alley. The revised plans show significant landscape 43 buffering and some tree preservation, where practical. Storm water management is located 44 primarily in surface level ponds, rather than underground storage. 45 46 Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes February 26, 2018 Page 7 Ms. Rothstein stated staff has completed a thorough review of the proposal and has the following 1 comments and conditions for the Preliminary PUD Development Plan and Preliminary Plat: 2  Setback from Kenzington Terrace Condos – Increase the setback from the property line 3 by approximately 20 feet, shifting the development to the west. 4  Vacation of Easement – There is currently a water main easement through the site, which 5 will need to be vacated through a separate action accompanying a final plat. 6  Engineering Comments – The full City Engineer memo and storm water management 7 memo are available as attachments and all changes should be made, per the memo to the 8 satisfaction of the City Engineer. 9  Agency Comments – Park Board and Hennepin County permits shall be obtained and 10 permit requirements should be incorporated, as final approval by those agencies requires. 11  Revised Traffic Study Recommendations – All traffic mitigation efforts listed in the 12 revised traffic study shall be part of the conditions for approval, as permitted by other 13 regulating agencies (Park Board and Hennepin County). 14  Receipt of All Applicable Permits – All agency permits shall be obtained and plans 15 approved prior to construction on the site. 16 17 Ms. Rothstein stated staff recommends approval of the preliminary PUD plan and preliminary 18 plat, contingent on the requirements and items listed in the staff report and its attachments. Staff 19 offered three options for the Planning Commission to consider: 20 1. Motion to recommend approval of the preliminary PUD development plan and preliminary 21 plat, contingent upon the items listed in the staff report and its attachments. 22 2. Motion to table action on the preliminary PUD development plan, and preliminary plat, 23 based on the submittal of additional information, as enumerated in the staff report. 24 3. Motion to recommend denial of the preliminary PUD development plan, and preliminary 25 plat, and direct staff to prepare a draft resolution declaring terms of the same. 26 27 It was noted that additional items provided for the Commission for review were: 28 1. Village LLC narrative 29 2. Graphic Site Plan 30 3. Landscape Boards 31 4. Village LLC Civil Plans 32 5. Traffic Study, updated 33 6. Village LLC Civil Plans 34 7. Traffic Study, updated 35 8. Village LLC Building Exhibits, with parking information 36 9. City Engineer Memo 37 10. Storm Water Management Memo 38 11. Hennepin County Transportation Comments 39 12. Formal letter from resident (Karen Hanson) 40 41 City Engineer Hubmer in his report, made the following comments and recommendations for the 42 preliminary PUD Plan review: 43 44 45 46 Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes February 26, 2018 Page 8 General 1 1. Prior to the start of any construction, permits will need to be obtained and submitted to the 2 City from the following agencies: 3 a. MPCA Construction General Permit 4 b. MPCA Sanitary Sewer Extension Permit 5 c. MNDH Watermain Extension Permit 6 2. Prior to the start of any construction, project approval will need to be obtained and submitted 7 from the following agencies: 8 a. Hennepin County (access and traffic control associated with Kenzie Terrace/CR 153) 9 b. Minneapolis Park Board (access and traffic control associated with Stinson Parkway) 10 3. An operations and maintenance component will be required to ensure that the storm water 11 treatment facilities will be maintained long term. The declarations must at a minimum 12 include the following: 13 a. Annual inspection and reporting to the city. 14 b. Maintenance of all erosion control measures including, but not limited to: rip rap, 15 storm sewer outlets, catch basin inlets, etc. (annual documentation required). 16 17 Cover Sheet and Project Notes 18 1. Reference the most recent edition (2018) of the City of St. Anthony’s General Specifications 19 and Standard Detail Plates for Street and Utility Construction as a governing specification. 20 21 Preliminary Plat 22 1. Remove the erroneous line within the 15’ drainage and utility easement along Kenzie 23 Terrace. 24 2. Simplify the drainage and utility easements around the ponds and along the west side of the 25 development by squaring them off and combining them with nearby and adjacent drainage 26 and utility easements. 27 3. Provide an easement for the shared hydrant service lead crossing over between both lots 1 28 and 2 of block 1. 29 30 Existing Conditions, Erosion and Sediment Control 31 1. Submit erosion control plans with final plat/construction plan submittal. 32 33 Site Plan 34 1. Provide 6’ wide concrete walks per City standards where 5’ concrete walks are currently 35 shown. 36 2. Show necessary removals for the installation of the proposed utilities along Kenzie 37 Terrace/CR 153. 38 39 Grading Plan 40 1. Structural calculations for the proposed retaining walls greater than 4.0’ in height need to be 41 submitted for review prior to construction of the walls. The submittal will need to include: 42 a. Certification of a qualified MN licensed professional. 43 b. Soil boring logs and geotechnical recommendation for support. 44 c. Identify the type of material for the wall and design details. 45 d. Provide details of the wall construction 46 Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes February 26, 2018 Page 9 e. Provide a safety railing or fence above the wall. 1 2. Driveway ramps into the buildings should not exceed d10%. 2 3. The outdoor patios and plazas with the building do not appear to have any slope. How will 3 surface drainage be accomplished? 4 4. The NWL of the southwestern storm water pond is the same elevation as the Multi-5 residential 1 garage floor (912.0). 6 5. The HWL of both ponds exceed the garage levels of the connected buildings. 7 6. Demonstrate how the proposed improvements accommodate for the current ground water 8 elevations. 9 7. There are areas where the slopes shown do not meet the minimum required 2% or exceed the 10 maximum allowed 3:1. 11 8. The driveway elevations at the top of the ramps need to be raised to achieve a minimum 1’ 12 freeboard above the adjacent road’s EOF. 13 14 Sanitary Sewer and Watermain 15 1. There appears to be a conflict between the storm sewer and sanitary sewer service to the 16 assisted senior living facility. 17 2. Provide 4” thickness of insulation at water main and storm sewer crossings where storm 18 sewer and drainage structures provide less than 3.5 feet of cover (not 2.0’) over the water 19 main. 20 3. Verify an 8” water main as proposed will provide adequate fire flow and pressure to serve the 21 number of units and building elevations being proposed. 22 4. Water and sanitary connections to buildings must conform to the plumbing code as 23 interpreted by the local building officials. 24 5. The applicant shall include a drain tile system behind the curbs to convey sump pump 25 discharge from the units as detailed in the City Standard Specifications. 26 6. The proposed 24” pipe between Ex. Structure 16 and MH 1 appears to be oversized assuming 27 it is proposed to take the existing 9” line from the west and the proposed 10” line from the 28 development. 29 7. Due to the depth, this pipe should be shown as SDR 26 with the construction plans and the 30 adjacent storm sewer should be shown as being impacted with construction. 31 8. Provide for granular bedding for installed utility pipe in unsuitable materials per the 32 applicable City standard detail plate. 33 9. Show and call out the size and material of the existing waterlines where the development is 34 connecting on the west and south. 35 10. The Independent Senior Living facility is shown with an 8” DIP service while the other 36 facilities were shown with 6” DIP services. Was this done by design? 37 11. Provide 45-degree bends in lieu of 90-degree bends near the western connection with the 38 existing water main. 39 12. Place a hydrant at the original proposed location along Kenzie Terrace near the connection to 40 the existing water main on the south side of the development. The main can be 41 capped/plugged at that point. 42 43 Detail Sheet 44 Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes February 26, 2018 Page 10 1. Include all applicable standard detail plates from the most recent edition (2018) of the City of 1 St. Anthony’s General Specifications and Standard Detail Plates for Street and Utility 2 Construction for project construction. 3 4 Mr. Joey Abramson, WSB, submitted a report on the storm water management review. The 5 review has found that the project complies with applicable freeboard and rate control storm water 6 management regulations. The applicant needs to provide updated information related to water 7 quality treatment. The following comments on the storm water management plan were provided: 8 - Ponds should be labeled on the plans to correspond to the IDs in the report and models: 9 North Pond should include “1P” and South Pond should include “2P”. 10 - The EOF for Pond 2P (south) is noted to be “18.90” on the plans, but is noted as 919.0 in the 11 storm water management report. 12 - The report notes that the proposed development will achieve 65% TP loading reduction but 13 the table indicates that 72% removals will be achieved. Revise for consistency. 14 - It should be considered that unless the BayFilter is capable of removing dissolved 15 phosphorus from storm water, its efficacy will likely be reduced from 50% removal if it is 16 downstream of the sedimentation ponds. This is because those ponds already remove a large 17 portion of the particulate phosphorus. Applicant must provide clarification on the BayFilter 18 removal abilities or provide updated calculations for removals. 19 20 Ms. Rothstein reviewed next steps in the process. 21 22 Mr. Link Wilson, Architect, introduced the large team of people present at the meeting. They 23 have done a number of projects near St. Anthony and want this to be a great project. Mr. Wilson 24 provided an outline of the presentation. They are requesting a Planned Unit Development 25 (PUD). They feel this will benefit the community as dramatic improvements have been made 26 since October 2017. Drawing of the building showing the height were shown. He stated there are 27 environmental issues on the site and the October 2017 plan was flawed. They wanted to create a 28 boulevard that went through the site keeping as many trees as they could. Three neighborhood 29 meetings were held, many comments were heard at those meetings, and as many as possible 30 were incorporated into the project plan. 31 32 Mr. Jared Ward, Wenck, Civil Engineer for the project, reviewed the map of the area and 33 addressed parking. He stated storm water is one of the challenges of the site. Mr. Ward reviewed 34 the site access and will continue to work with the Minneapolis Park Board and Hennepin County 35 on the access. The buildings are R1 and he reviewed the safety measures as far as fire, noting the 36 traffic report was updated and some recommendations were made. He indicated that storm water 37 is being addressed by ponds. A drawing of the utilities was presented. Trails around the site 38 would make the project inviting and there would be spots for activities. Mr. Ward stated there are 39 no longer any connections through the alley and much grading will need to be done on the 40 property. Mr. Ward reviewed the landscaping plan, which include adding trees, overstory, 41 shrubs, and perennials. 42 43 Mr. Ken Haberman, Landmark Environmental, stated there have been a number of 44 environmental investigations conducted at this property over the past five years. All 45 investigations identified petroleum contamination and one unknown contamination. There is 46 Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes February 26, 2018 Page 11 surface contamination due to the placing of oil on roads. There was contamination to ground 1 water. The PCA has approved the plans for remediating the ground water contamination. 2 3 Mr. Wilson provided a statistical analysis of who might live in each building. The independent 4 building would be three-stories and 45 feet 7 inches tall. There would be an average age person 5 of 75 years old. He reviewed the units that would be included in the building and he believes 6 many St. Anthony residents will move to this area. 43% of the overall site is green space. Most 7 projects they do have 10-25% greenspace, which includes hard surfaces such as private road, 8 patios, and swimming pool. 9 10 Mr. Wilson continued reviewing the assisted living building with an average age of 85 years old. 11 This could be considered a modern-day nursing home. There would be 16 memory care units and 12 a great deal of common space. There is a very large enclosed patio on the back of the building 13 and 17-25 staff would be working in the building. The surface parking would be mostly for 14 guests. 15 16 Mr. Wilson reviewed the market rate building, noting this included a number of amenities. It will 17 be a multi-generational building. 18 19 Mr. Wilson stated they are not using the alley and drainage of the alley will be done onto the site. 20 There is an area for additional parking that will not be constructed unless it is needed. He 21 indicated the section cuts on the property and indicated the property in relation to other existing 22 properties. Mr. Wilson showed views of the buildings from other directions. 23 24 Mr. Wilson reviewed the culture of a new community, stating 64% of people buy homes where 25 they rent. The national average for millennials’ first home price is $218,000. Renters have more 26 disposable income to spend locally. 27 28 Commissioner Neumann asked Mr. Wilson about the multi-residential and asked if there was 29 anything larger than 2 bedrooms. Mr. Wilson stated market research shows that there is the 30 appropriate unit mix in the plan. 31 32 Commissioner Bartel asked if this was changed from what was originally submitted, noting it is 33 different from the staff report. Mr. Wilson stated there are 12 3-bedrooms and 36 2-bedrooms. 34 35 Chairperson Papatola opened the public hearing at 7:52 p.m. 36 37 Mr. Jack Cann, 1774 Portland, St. Paul, stated he is the attorney for the Lowry Grove Resident’s 38 Association. He quoted the 2008 Comprehensive Plan which included the redevelopment of 39 Lowry Grove, the displacement of 95 mostly low-income families, and the removal of affordable 40 rental housing. The Comp Plan did insure that adequate and affordable replacement housing 41 would be found. He read the planning principles on a document shown on the website in April 42 11, 2017, noting there is no affordable housing available or in the project plan in spite of the 43 City’s promises. He asked what happened and what will be done about it. 44 45 Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes February 26, 2018 Page 12 Ms. Susan Guthrie, 2616 Pahl Avenue, is concerned about the traffic and congestion on 27th 1 Avenue. She lives close to this project. She suggested a one-way going west be put in on 27th 2 Avenue. She also asked that permit parking be implemented. She would like to see the distance 3 maintained between the development and Stinson Blvd. to maintain the parkway and affordable 4 housing be addressed. She hopes the City takes a lead on this and asked that residents have input 5 on landscaping. 6 7 Mr. Lowell Ludford, 2813 Townview Avenue, stated the silent majority may agree and be aware 8 that as a taxpayer, St. Anthony is a high-tax government. He noted the Police Department 9 anticipates the need for added resources for this project and asked the Planning Commission to 10 provide an adequate number of private security employees on a 24-hour basis. He felt they could 11 handle minor issues that would reduce calls to the St. Anthony Police Department, noting these 12 private security personnel could act as first responders and keep this as a crime-free, drug-free, 13 gun-free site. He stated taxpayers should not pay the bill for more police because of high-volume 14 calls from this project. 15 16 Ms. Nancy Robinett, 3408 31st Avenue NE, stated she is a member of SAFCA and opposed to 17 the plan submitted. She said those displaced from Lowry Grove are unable to find low-income 18 housing within St. Anthony and the Met Council has advised St. Anthony that 38 units of 19 affordable housing need to be added in the next decade based on 100 units of new housing. 20 Because of this, remaining properties within St. Anthony need to be thoughtfully planned. Ms. 21 Robinett stated the Bremer Bank site is not for sale and remains Commercial. This project needs 22 to be done right and there needs to be affordable housing. She stated SAFCA signed a petition 23 last year in favor of affordable housing on the site. She asked the proposal be rejected and any 24 form of TIF until affordable housing is part of the plan. She read from the Met Council 25 guidelines and stated the City should be meeting their affordable housing goals within the City. 26 27 Mr. Eugene Lavrenchuk, 2342 Roosevelt Street NE, stated his concern about pollution, 28 overcrowding, traffic, and crime. He does not feel the plan is in character with the surrounding 29 area. 30 31 Mr. Clem Woitas, 2335 Stinson Parkway, asked what happened with the grandfather clause that 32 once the mobile home park was closed, it would go back to a wetland or park. 33 34 Ms. Jo Youngren, 2601 Kenzie Terrace, stated she is speaking for the Kenzie Condos. She said 35 there is 70 feet between them and the closest building, which has a peaked roof. She stated on the 36 other side it is 95 feet and asked if the project could be moved so there would be more room 37 between them and the closest building. 38 39 Ms. Monique Dubos, 2601 Kenzie Terrace, stated she is concerned the terraces that face the new 40 development are their only source of light. She asked if the Kenzington’s site lines will be more 41 private. She is concerned about any assessments or additional taxes from the project and about 42 the holding ponds as she has heard them referred to as rain gardens. She would like to see a 43 uniform design for all buildings. She stated there doesn’t seem to be any retail in the 44 development, she is against any TIF for the development, and thinks affordable housing is a 45 Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes February 26, 2018 Page 13 concern for all. She is disappointed with the City in their level of support for the displaced 1 Lowry Grove residents. 2 3 Mr. Andrew May, 2500 27th Avenue NE, stated they back up to the property. He complimented 4 the development team for listening to the neighborhoods and stated he has a couple of issues. He 5 is in favor of the plan, noting staff’s recommendation to shift the buildings would affect the 6 parkway. He is opposed to TIF financing on this project and doesn’t believe the entire property 7 should be owned by CPG. 8 9 Ms. Antonia Alvarez, Lakeside Mobile Home Park, stated she was displaced from Lowry Grove. 10 She noted in the principles and values of the City is protection for people living in affordable 11 housing, but this has not been accomplished as not one single resident was able to stay in St. 12 Anthony in affordable housing. She stated one person committed suicide and they have been 13 directly affected. She does not know who is benefitting as many of the Lowry Grove residents 14 are still homeless and their families have been separated. She asked the Commission to think of 15 the 100 families that were displaced from St. Anthony and were discriminated against. 16 17 Mr. Perry Thorvig, 3112 Townview Avenue, stated last fall he appeared and gave several 18 recommendations for this project and almost all have been complied with as far as density, 19 height of buildings, no alley use, change in setbacks from Stinson, garage setbacks from the 20 alley, and amount of parking. He recommended 110 affordable housing units and asked what the 21 City will do on the affordable housing. 22 23 Ms. Mary Jean Higgins, 2712 St. Anthony Blvd., stated they bought their house in 1981. She 24 asked about impact on the school district, if a study was done, by whom, and what was the result. 25 26 Ms. Carol Weiler, 2312 St. Anthony Pkwy., stated this has been a long and difficult process. She 27 would have preferred that Lowry Grove continue to be the manufactured home park that it was. 28 She feels the new plan is a significant improvement as its fit with the existing neighborhood. She 29 stated the market rate building is very large and she would like to see more of a variation of the 30 height of that building. She asked the developer to respect the neighborhood in Northeast 31 Minneapolis and stated she feels the traffic study is flawed as Minneapolis is being forced to bear 32 the burden of this project. She does not want to give up their green space and appreciates the 33 developer’s work to try to preserve as many mature trees as possible. 34 35 Mr. John Grevious, Minneapolis resident, applauded the improvements that have been made. He 36 spoke on the housing density, noting the affordable housing needs to be addressed and suggested 37 it be served in a lower density site (Wal-Mart) site. 38 39 Ms. Sandy Sherman, 4008 Foss Road, stated she lives in a high-density area of St. Anthony. She 40 has felt safe there for the last 25 years and is concerned with having affordable housing available 41 to people who need it. She asked what the projected rents will be for each type of dwelling 42 within this project, noting they were promised by the City Council that everyone was concerned 43 about affordable housing. She felt the refusal of the developer to include affordable housing 44 within this project is the issue and she is opposed to the project and to any TIF. 45 46 Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes February 26, 2018 Page 14 Ms. Andrea Voss, 3417 31st Avenue, asked if assisted living will have any group residential 1 housing units and if so, how many and if elderly waiver services will be accepted. She works in 2 this field and the assisted living across the street is not full. 3 4 Mr. Thomas Issacson, 2604 Pahl Avenue, supports the overall density of this development. He 5 referred to the resolutions and stated he would support changing 27th Avenue to one-way and 6 putting in speed bumps. He thanked the developers for taking the time to explain the grading and 7 stated he would like to see affordable housing. 8 9 Ms. Kay Barrett, 2551 38th Avenue NE, stated at the Council meeting following the second 10 presentation meeting, the Mayor stated if there is no affordable housing the project will not go 11 through. She noted the purchasers did not own the Bremer Bank site. 12 13 Chair Papatola stated there were many questions about affordable housing, traffic concerns, 14 private security, buffer zone between existing Kenzington Development, assessments due to 15 infrastructure improvements, water retention, projected rent costs, group residential housing in 16 the assisted living building, school district study, and elderly waivers. 17 18 Ms. Rothstein responded Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board and Hennepin County will 19 permit all access and permits associated with the road and sidewalks in their right-of-way. There 20 is no retail proposed in this project. The project is guided for high density residential. This 21 development is proposed to pay for all the infrastructure required through its private financing. 22 She explained there is a request for TIF that the City Council will determine at a future date. 23 Roadway assessments are done when a street plan is planned at that time. She stated the school 24 district has completed a study of their projected enrollment over the next five years, not 25 including this project. The City has been in close discussion with the School District and they 26 have this project on their radar. 27 28 Mr. Chuck Rickert stated they did not look at changing 27th to a one-way in their study. The 29 study did not show any impact to the north and no improvements were considered as part of the 30 study. The traffic from the mobile home park was just used as a comparison. He stated they also 31 looked at general traffic growth for the study and a full build of the area. 32 33 Mr. Wilson stated there are 17 studio units that are 80% of AMI. 34 35 Ms. Susan Farr, Ebenezer, stated one Elderly Waiver is applied for it is accepted at 10%. They 36 are the largest provider of low income housing in Minneapolis with almost 500 units and anyone 37 in the Ebenezer system is put on a wait list and they get first priorities on projects that they do 38 not manage. Some of the buildings do have GRH and the Elderly Waiver. Ten to twelve units 39 would qualify for elderly waiver. There would be 91 units that have some affordability. 40 41 Mr. Wilson stated they would have no objection to permit parking. The landscape architect 42 would suggest species of plants. He clarified currently they are 70 feet from the property line and 43 the Kenzington is 18 feet from the property line. The real number is 88 feet between the 44 buildings. The surface lot would be constructed and the proof of parking would only be 45 constructed if deemed necessary. The north leg could be moved 17 feet but could not be moved 46 Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes February 26, 2018 Page 15 more because of the storm drain. The setback on Stinson would need to be reduced. He noted 1 there is a considerable amount of environmental issues on the site and a traditional rain garden 2 would not be possible because both ponds need to be lined. The sidewalks in the right of way 3 are subject to Hennepin County and Park Board approval. The width of 6 feet would pertain to 4 the interior trails and the developer will work with the Park Board on the access. In addition, 5 they would be open to speed bumps. He stated the project rents are not currently available and a 6 range would be provided to Council for review. 7 8 Ms. Rothstein asked if private security is in the plan. Mr. Wilson stated there is 24-hour staff on 9 hand in the assisted living building. Private security can be discussed with staff prior to review 10 by the City Council. 11 12 Chair Papatola closed the public hearing at 9:03 p.m. 13 14 Commissioner Kalar had some questions on traffic. He would support the consideration of the 15 intersection being further analyzed. He believes this is less a capacity issue and more of a 16 behavior issue. He asked about the proof of parking, stated he wants to make sure the parking 17 decision is based on sound practices and he does not want to over park it. He does not want to 18 see a lot of parking open and asked if the proof of parking could be expanded. He stated he lives 19 adjacent to the property. Mr. Wilson referred to the drawing of the parking and stated they would 20 be open to any amendments expanding the proof of parking. 21 22 Commissioner Bartel asked if there is a baseline that should be considered as the percentage of 23 affordable housing. Ms. Rothstein stated there is no policy that claims a specific level. The Met 24 Council and HUD had levels, 80% AMI is more affordable than market level. She felt the rents 25 are still very high for those units, noting a family size of 4 is generally the standard. She stated 26 this is a policy question as to what the City wants to achieve. Commissioner Bartel confirmed the 27 Planning Commission has nothing to do with the TIF decision. 28 29 Commissioner Socha asked about moving the assisted living 17 feet as the Kenzington had 30 concerns, noting if it was moved the patio would still be protected. 31 32 Commissioner Larson stated it seems the school district has lost quite a few students from the 33 closing of Lowry Grove. The new development has 12 units of 3-bedroom apartments and he is 34 concerned about the provision for housing for families. He stated it is important to provide 35 housing for all demographics as best we can. He feels the prior proposal had several flaws 36 related to density and he finds the current proposal is more appealing. Commissioner Larson 37 asked if affordable housing is not required in this development, can it be required anywhere. He 38 stated it is important to support people in all levels of life and economic situations. He would like 39 to see more affordable housing and asked what the affordable housing component will be in the 40 Comprehensive Plan and if it can they be applied now. Ms. Rothstein stated affordable housing 41 can be controlled through zoning densities, regulation, and/or financial tools. The draft comp 42 plan will have affordable housing policy discussed. She noted there are tools the City can use to 43 subsidize affordable housing. These need to be policy discussions outside of the project review. 44 Commissioner Larson stated he would like to see the code revised so it is applicable for the next 45 project. 46 Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes February 26, 2018 Page 16 1 Commissioner Neumann stated she agrees with Commissioner Larson’s comments. She is 2 hearing there is affordable housing but it’s being heard in different ways. She asked whether the 3 City is responding to the need within the community or to the need from a survey. 4 5 Commissioner Westrick applauded the developer for the modifications. She stated she is 6 struggling with the affordable housing and commitments the City has made for this project. She 7 would like to see affordable housing better defined. 8 9 Commissioner Larson asked about the setback. Ms. Rothstein stated there is a contingency 10 offered. 11 12 Chair Papatola stated the Commission can accept or remove the contingency regarding the 13 setback. 14 15 Commissioner Westrick asked about the 20-foot setback. Ms. Rothstein noted many of the 16 emails and phone calls received were in regard to the setback from Kenzington. 17 18 Commissioner Bartel suggested the contingency be reworded to only have movement to the 19 north 20 feet. The wording of the first contingency would be on moving the north wing of 20 building A. 21 22 Commissioner Neumann asked how much benefit this would give the Kenzington residents. Mr. 23 Wilson stated he does not know if there would be benefit but they would be willing to do what 24 the Commission directs. Ms. Rothstein referred to the drawing, noting increasing the setback 17 25 feet may benefit a few of the residents. 26 27 Commissioner Neumann mentioned creating policies and asked if that can be added to an 28 upcoming Planning Commission meeting. Ms. Rothstein stated that chapter of the 29 Comprehensive Plan can be reviewed. Commissioner Neumann would like to see it brought back 30 formally for discussion. 31 32 Commissioner Larson stated once the Comprehensive Plan is revised, then zoning would be 33 looked at for inclusion of affordable housing within the zoning. Ms. Rothstein stated this will be 34 brought to the March Planning Commission meeting. 35 36 Commissioner Neumann would like to include the history and prior land use in the 37 recommendation to the City Council. Ms. Rothstein stated that is appropriate and will be 38 expressed in the presentation to the City Council in the draft resolution. 39 40 Chair Papatola stated the Planning Commission does not determine policy. Ms. Rothstein stated 41 the Planning Commission can add contingencies as they wish. 42 43 Commissioner Kalar asked about the financing and whether it would be appropriate to 44 recommend the Council explore financing in exchange for affordable housing, noting that would 45 Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes February 26, 2018 Page 17 be a meaningful way to encourage affordable housing. Ms. Rothstein stated the Planning 1 Commission needs to make a recommendation on the land use with any contingencies they wish. 2 3 Chair Papatola asked for a revision to the recommendation. 4 5 Commissioner Kalar stated he is concerned about being too specific in the recommendation, 6 thinking the Council should define it. 7 8 Commissioner Larson asked Commissioner Kalar if he was saying TIF should be offered in 9 return for affordable housing, noting that is up to the City Council. 10 11 Commissioner Neumann asked if there could be senior affordable housing and affordable 12 housing for families. 13 14 Chair Papatola stated the wording can be changed or he can commit to discuss it at the City 15 Council meeting when the project is reviewed. 16 17 Ms. Rothstein stated she would request a motion be made on the land use this evening then add a 18 request to the City Council for what the Commission would like to have on the record. 19 20 Motion by Commissioner Westrick, seconded by Commissioner Bartel, to approve the 21 preliminary PUD development plan and preliminary plat, contingent upon the items listed in the 22 staff report and its attachments as amended. 23 24 Commissioner Socha stated she is in favor of the plan but there has not been much discussion on 25 the traffic concerns on the parkway. Ms. Rothstein stated the recommendations in the traffic 26 study will go forward. 27 28 Commissioner Kalar would like to amend the motion to have further study on the traffic impact 29 on 27th Avenue NE and TIF financing, if discussed, would be connected to a greater quantity of 30 affordable housing for families and not only targeted to seniors. Commissioner Kalar removed 31 his amendment regarding TIF financing. 32 33 Amended motion by Commissioner Kalar, seconded by Commissioner Socha to conduct further 34 study on the traffic impact on 27th Avenue. 35 36 Motion on amendment carried 6-1 (Papatola). 37 38 Motion on original motion as amended carried 7-0. 39 40 This item will come before the City Council on March 27, 2018. 41 42 Motion by Commissioner Socha, seconded by Commissioner Westrick, to recommend the City 43 Council strongly consider tying any TIF for this development to inclusion by the developer for 44 an increased level of affordable housing. 45 46 Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes February 26, 2018 Page 18 Commissioner Neumann wanted to include language about affordable housing for more than just 1 55 and above. Commissioner Socha stated affordable housing is very important to her also. 2 Commissioner Neumann stated she would like to just add “family” to the motion. 3 4 Amended Motion by Commissioner Neumann to reword the motion “… increased level of 5 affordable housing in the development including family affordable housing.” 6 7 Motion failed for lack of a second. 8 9 Amended Motion by Commissioner Kalar, seconded by Commissioner Larson, to reword the 10 motion “… increased level of affordable housing in the development including affordable 11 housing targeting families in all buildings across the development.” 12 13 Motion on amendment carried 6-1 (Papatola). 14 15 Commissioner Kalar re-read the motion as amended: 16 17 Motion by Commissioner Kalar, seconded by Commissioner Neumann, to recommend the City 18 Council strongly consider tying any financial tax incentives for this development to the inclusion 19 by the developer of increased levels of affordable housing in the development including 20 affordable housing targeting families in all building within the development. 21 22 Motion carried 7-0. 23 24 IV. STAFF REPORTS – NONE. 25 26 V. OTHER BUSINESS – NONE. 27 28 VI. COMMUNITY FORUM 29 30 No one appeared to address the Commission. 31 32 VII. INFORMATION AND ANNOUNCEMENTS – NONE. 33 34 VIII. ADJOURNMENT. 35 36 Motion by Commissioner Bartel, seconded by Commissioner inaudible, to adjourn the meeting at 37 10:00 p.m. 38 39 Motion carried 7-0. 40 41 Respectfully submitted, 42 Debbie Wolfe (TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc.) 43   MEMORANDUM           To:      St. Anthony Village Planning Commission  From:      Breanne Rothstein, AICP, City Planner      Date:      Planning Commission Regular Meeting for March 26 th, 2017      WSB Project No.  011104‐00  Request:  Request for a variance from the required rear yard setback to allow for  placement of a proposed sunroom at 3421 Skycroft Drive    RECOMMENDATION  The City Code requires a rear yard setback of 25 feet. The applicant is requesting a variance to construct  a sunroom that would encroach into the required rear yard setback to result in a rear yard depth of 7’ 4  5/8” feet.  The Applicant’s request for a variance from the rear yard setback to allow for the  construction the sunroom is reasonable, per the findings listed in city code. Therefore, staff  recommends approval of the variance to encroach into the rear yard setback.  GENERAL INFORMATION  Applicant/Owner:  Thomas and Jennifer Gille   Location:    3421 Skycroft Drive  Existing Land Use /  Low Density Residential/zoned: R‐1; Single Family Residential    Zoning:  Surrounding Land  North:  Low Density Residential / Zoned R‐1 ‐ Single Family Residential  Use / Zoning:    East:   Low Density Residential / Zoned R‐1 ‐ Single Family Residential     South:  Low Density Residential / Zoned R‐1 ‐ Single Family Residential     West:  Low Density Residential / Zoned R‐1 ‐ Single Family Residential  Deadline for Agency  Application Date:     2‐29‐2018  Action:  60 Days:       4‐29‐2018  Letter Sent:      No    120 Days:      NA    CONSIDERATIONS RELATING TO THE PROPOSED VARIANCE  1. Background  The Applicant proposes to construct approximetly 11’ 11 ¾” by 30’ 10” for a total of 372 square feet  sunroom at the back of house on the property located at 3421 Skycroft Drive. The sunroom addition  would put the outermost edge of the deck 7’ 4 5/8” from the rear property line. In the R‐1 Single  Family Residential district, a 25’ setback from the rear property line is required. As the applicants  proposed sunroom addition is only 7’ 4 5/8” from the rear property line, a variance is necessary.   2. Applicable Codes.  March 20, 2018  Page 2  Title XV Land Usage, Chapter 152 Zoning Code, Sections §152.035 through 152.039 R‐1 Single‐Family  District apply to this proposal. Section 150.039 (G) requires a rear yard setback of 20% of the depth  of the entire lot or 25 feet. The applicant requests a variance to encroach  17.5 feet to result in a  rear yard depth of 7.5” feet.   Title XV Land Usage, Chapter 152 Zoning Code, Section §152.245 VARIANCES (A) Application states  that “An owner of property with an existing structure which does not comply with the zoning code,  or of property on which such a structure is proposed to be constructed, may apply for a variance  upon payment of the fee specified in Chapter 33”.  3. Criteria for and Consistency with Criteria for Variance Approval. Title XV Land Usage, Chapter 152  Zoning Code, Section §152.245, (C) Evidence, lists the criteria the City Council must consider in  determining whether to grant or deny a variance.  The applicable criteria include:  1. The subject matter of the application is within the scope of this section.  The application for a variance to the rear yard setback is eligible subject matter for variance  criteria because these factors are related to dimensional and/or bulk standards. Criterion met.  2. Strict enforcement would cause practical difficulties because:  a. The property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted  by the zoning code;  The property owners propose to use the property in a way that is reasonable. However,  the proposed deck does not change the property owners reasonable use of their  property without a deck of this construction, a patio constructed at grade does not  require the variance process. Due to the requirement of this lot for two front yard  setbacks, the request to construct a small porch on the rear of the house is reasonable.  Criterion met.  b. The plight of the property owner is due to circumstances unique to the property not  created by the property owner;  The plight of the property owner is due to the placement, construction proposed, and  overall square footage of the proposed deck design. The lot is platted and home  placement on the lot is relative to others in the general area.  Criterion not met.  c. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality; and  Granting of this variance would not alter the essential character of the neighborhood.  Applicants are not proposing any new use or density, similar sunroom additions do exist  in the neighborhood particularly, the property to the north with similar setbacks has  constructed a similar sunroom/porch Criterion met.  d. Economic considerations alone are not the basis of the practical difficulties.  Granting the variance does not effect economic considerations, although it will increase  the resale value of the home thus increasing surrounding land values. The proposed  deck addition would make the house more appealing to potential buyers in the future. It  is the type of construction and the space that is designed that creates the practical  difficulty, not economic considerations alone.  Criterion met.   3. The variance, if granted, would be consistent with the City’s comprehensive land use plan.  If the variance is granted the use of the property would remain the same land use as it is today,  single‐family residential.  The comprehensive plan guides this area for single‐family use and the  expansion of the deck will not alter that land use. Criterio met.  March 20, 2018  Page 3  4. The granting of the variance is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the zoning  code.    The intent of the zoning code is to protect the health, safety, and general welfare of the city and  its people through the establishment of minimum regulations governing land development and  use.  The zoning code is established to: protect the use districts; promote orderly development  and redevelopment; provide adequate light, air, and access to property; prevent congestion in  the public streets; prevent overcrowding of land and undue concentration of structures by  regulating land, buildings, yards, and densities; and provide for compatibility of different land  uses.  Given these factors, this application is keeping with the intent of the ordinance to govern  orderly land development. Other properties in this location have constructed a deck  close to  the property line.. Criterion met.  POSSIBLE ACTIONS  1. Motion to recommend approval of the variance and recommend adoption of a resolution  declaring terms of the same.  2. Motion to recommend denial of the variance, based on the stated findings and direct staff to  develop a resolution denying the application  3. Request Additional Information and Continue the Public Hearing. The Applicant appears to have  provided enough information for the Planning Commission to make a recommendation to  approve or deny the request. Should the Planning Commission request additional information  from the Applicant, the Planning Commission should continue the public hearing until a later  time.    ATTACHMENTS  Exhibit A:  Location map  Exhibit B:  Supporting Material  Exhibit C:  Draft Resolution                                           THIS PAGE LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK 3421 Skycroft Drive March 20, 2018 Map Powered by DataLink from WSB & Associates 1 in = 200 ft ± THIS PAGE LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK THIS PAGE LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK THIS PAGE LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK CITY OF SAINT ANTHONY VILLAGE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. _____________ A RESOLUTION APPROVING A REQUEST FOR A 17.5 FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE REAR YARD SETBACK TO ALLOW FOR PLACEMENT OF A PROPOSED SUNROOM 7.5 FEET FROM THE PROPERTY LINE AT 3421 SKYCROFT DRIVE WHEREAS, the City of St. Anthony Village received a request from Thomas and Jennifer Gille for a variance from the rear yard setback to allow for placement of a proposed sunroom at 3421 Skycroft Drive, legally described as follows; Lot 26, Block 1 St. Anthony Terrace Manor Addition (Subject Property) WHEREAS, the property is located in the R-1 Single Family Residential district and the rear yard setback is 25 feet for the Subject Property; WHEREAS, Title XV Land Usage, Chapter 152 Zoning Code Section §152.245 provides that City Council must provide evidence that the subject matter of the application is within the scope of the section and that strict enforcement would cause practical difficulties; WHEREAS, the Applicant has requested a 17.5-foot variance from rear yard setback dimension requirement to accommodate a proposed sunroom/porch; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission reviewed and considered the request based on the related documents shown in the Applicant’s application in a public hearing at their regular meeting on March 26, 2018 and recommended approval of the request; and NOW THEREFORE MAY IT BE RESOVLED, that the City Council of the City of St. Anthony Village accepts the findings and recommendations documented in the staff report and approves a 17.5 foot variance to the required 25 foot rear yard setback at 3421 Skycroft Drive. Passed in regular session of the City Council on the ___ day of _________ 2018. CITY OF SAINT ANTHONY VILLAGE By:_________________________________ Jerome O. Faust, Mayor ATTEST: By:_________________________________ Nicole Miller, City Clerk Gille Variance Planning Commission Meeting March 26, 2018 Applicants Thomas and Jennifer Gille requesting a variance to construct a sunroom into the required rear yard setback at 3421 Skycroft Drive Variance Request Zoning R-1 Single Family Residential Requires a 25’ setback from the rear property line Sunroom Location Sunroom Location Sunroom Location Applicable Codes •Title XV Land Usage, Chapter 152 Zoning Code, Sections §152.035 through 152.039 R-1 Single-Family District apply to this proposal. Section 150.039 (G) requires a rear yard setback of 20% of the depth of the entire lot or 25 feet. –The applicant requests a variance to encroach 17.5 feet to result in a rear yard depth of 7.5 feet. Criteria For Variance Approval Title XV Land Usage, Chapter 152 Zoning Code, Section §152.245, (C) Evidence, lists the criteria the City Council must consider in determining whether to grant or deny a variance: 1.The Subject Matter of the application is within the scope of this section 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 b.The plight of the property owner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the property owner; c.The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality; and d.Economic considerations alone are not the basis of the practical difficulties. 3.The variance, if granted, would be consistent with the City’s comprehensive land use plan. 4.The granting of the variance is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the zoning code. Recommendation Motion to recommend approval of the variance and recommend adoption of a resolution declaring terms of the same. Questions? THIS PAGE LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK           NOTICE OF A PUBLIC HEARING    Notice is hereby given that on March 26, 2018, 7:00 p.m. at City Hall, 3301 Silver Lake Road, the Saint  Anthony Village Planning Commission will hold a public hearing to solicit public response to a request for  a variance to add a 372 sq. ft. sunroom to the back of the home that currently exists at 3421 Skycroft  Drive. The Planning Commission will make a recommendation regarding the proposed request to the  City Council for their meeting to be held on April 10, 2018 at 7:00 p.m. at City Hall.  Those persons having an interest in said meetings are encouraged to attend. Oral testimony will be  accepted on the above subject at this meeting.  Written comments may be taken at the St. Anthony  Village City Hall, 3301 Silver Lake Road, St. Anthony Village, Minnesota 55418 until the date of the  hearing.  Questions may be directed to the City Planner at 763‐231‐4863.  The Planning Commission agenda and packet item relating to this application will be made available  prior to the meeting online at www.savmn.com .  Breanne Rothstein, AICP  City Planner    THIS PAGE LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK Learn about the city’s community engagement process, what we heard from the community, and draft policies and action items located in the comprehensive plan. Wednesday, April 11, 2018 6:00 p.m. – 8:00 p.m. St. Anthony City Hall/Community Center 3301 Silver Lake Road, St. Anthony, MN 55418 Draft available on the city’s website at: www.savmn.com OPEN HOUSE C o mp r e h e n s i v e P l a n Comprehensive Plan Dr a f t Draft THIS PAGE LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK Approved by City Council on ___________, 2018          St. Anthony Village Planning Commission  2018 Work Plan   The Planning Commission is a seven member advisory commission, appointed by the City Council and  charged with the following duties (City Code Chapter 32, Section 32.06):  A) Review and make recommendations to the City Council as to a comprehensive municipal plan,  including the land use plan, a community facilities plan, a transportation plan, and  recommendations for plan adoption and execution;  B) Consider and make recommendations to the City Council as to all proposed subdivisions and  plats;  C) Consider and make recommendations to the City Council as to all proposed amendments to the  Chapters 151 and 152 of this code regarding subdivisions and zoning;  D) Consider, hold hearings, and make recommendations on conditional use permit applications;  E) Review all applications for variance to zoning, hold hearings, and make recommendations to the  City Council; and  F) Review requests for sign variances.  In 2018, the Planning Commission will focus on the following items:  1. Continue training on both planning/zoning issues through GTS/WSB partnership.    2. Review and make recommendations on land use and development applications, including  holding public hearings.    3. As comprehensive plan steering committee members, shepherd the comprehensive plan into  formal approval, and provide recommendations to City Council on requisite zoning changes  needed to effect the plan.