The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutPL PACKET 05212018 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 May 21, 2018 Planning Commission Meeting Agenda. (action requested) II. Approval of the March 28, 2018 Regular Planning Commission Meeting Minutes. III. Public Hearing. A. Consider a request for a zoning code text amendment to allow for a childcare facility serving up to 17 children as a conditional use permit in the R-1 Single-Family District; B. Consider a conditional use permit to allow a childcare facility serving up to 17 children on the property located at 3029 Wilson Street. IV. Staff Reports. Comprehensive Plan Update V. Other Business. VI. Community Forum. Individuals may address the City Council about any item not included on the regular agenda. Speakers are requested to come to the podium, sign their name and address on the form at the podium, state their name and address for the Clerk’s record, and limit their remarks to five minutes. Generally, the City Council will not take official action on items discussed at this time, but may typically refer the matter to staff for a future report or direct the matter to be scheduled on an upcoming agenda. VII. Information and Announcements. VIII. Adjournment. CITY OF SAINT ANTHONY VILLAGE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AGENDA MAY 21, 2018 COUNCIL CHAMBERS 7:00 PM CITY OF ST. ANTHONY 1 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 2 March 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 I. APPROVAL OF THE MARCH 26, 2018 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 24 AGENDA. 25 26 Motion by Commissioner Bartel, seconded by Commissioner Westrick, to approve the March 26, 27 2018 Planning Commission agenda. 28 29 Motion carried 7-0. 30 31 II. APPROVAL OF THE FEBRUARY 26, 2018 REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION 32 MEETING MINUTES. 33 34 Commissioner Neumann noted on page 17, line 13 should read “. . . housing for families”. 35 36 Motion by Commissioner Kalar, seconded by Commissioner Larson, to approve the February 26, 37 2018 Regular Planning Commission Meeting Minutes as amended. 38 39 Motion carried 7-0. 40 41 III. PUBLIC HEARING. 42 43 A. Consider a request for a 17.5-foot variance from the required 25-foot rear yard 44 setback to allow for placement of a proposed sunroom at 3421 Skycroft Drive. 45 46 Commissioner Larson will represent the Planning Commission at the April 10 City Council 47 Meeting. 48 49 Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes March 26, 2018 Page 2 City Planner Breanne Rothstein reviewed the City Code requires a rear yard setback of 25 feet. 1 The applicant is requesting a variance to construct a sunroom that would encroach into the 2 required rear yard setback to result in a rear yard depth of 7’4 5/8” feet. The Applicant’s request 3 for a variance from the rear yard setback to allow for the construction of a sunroom is 4 reasonable, per the findings listed in City Code. Staff recommends approval of the variance to 5 encroach into the rear yard setback. 6 7 The Applicants (Thomas and Jennifer Gille) proposes to construct approximately 11’ 11 ¾” x 8 30’ 10” for a total of 372 square feet sunroom at the back of house on the property located at 9 3421 Skycroft Drive. The sunroom addition would put the outermost edge of the deck 7’ 4 5/8” 10 from the rear property line. In the R-1 Single Family Residential district, a 25’ setback from the 11 rear property line is required. As the applicants proposed a sunroom addition is only 7’ 4 5/8” 12 from the rear property line, a variance is necessary. The Applicant provided drawings of the 13 project. 14 15 Ms. Rothstein reviewed the Criteria for and Consistency with Criteria for Variance Approval. 16 17 1. The subject matter of the application is within the scope of this section – Criterion met. 18 2. a. Strict enforcement would cause practical difficulties because the property owner proposes 19 to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by the zoning code – Criterion 20 met. 21 b. The plight of the property owner is due to circumstances unique to the property not 22 created by the property owner – Criterion not met. 23 c. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality – Criterion 24 met. 25 d. Economic considerations alone are not the basis of the practical difficulties – Criterion 26 met. 27 3. The variance, if granted, would be consistent with the City’s comprehensive land use plan – 28 Criterion met. 29 4. The granting of the variance is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the zoning 30 code – Criterion met. 31 32 Mr. and Mrs. Gille, 3421 Skycroft Drive, addressed the Commission. He stated they are trying to 33 improve the livability of their home. They do not plan to leave this home. 34 35 Chair Papatola opened the public hearing at 7:13 p.m. 36 37 Chair Papatola closed the public hearing at 7:13 p.m. 38 39 Commissioner Larson asked if the house faced Skycroft Circle rather than Skycroft Drive it 40 would be a side setback and what would that minimum be and Ms. Rothstein stated the side yard 41 setback would be 5 feet. 42 43 Chair Papatola asked about the other houses on the block that are similarly situated. Ms. 44 Rothstein stated there is a house just to the north on Downers Drive and there is a small addition 45 of a sunroom on that property with a very similar setback. 46 Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes March 26, 2018 Page 3 1 Commissioner Socha asked if the neighbors are notified of this hearing and Ms. Rothstein stated 2 all neighbors within 350 feet are notified. 3 4 Motion by Commissioner Socha, seconded by Commissioner Westrick, to recommend the City 5 Council approve the variance and recommend adoption of a resolution approving a request for a 6 17.5-foot variance from the rear yard setback to allow for placement of a proposed sunroom 7.5 7 feet from the property line at 3421 Skycroft Drive. 8 9 Motion carried 7-0. 10 11 IV. STAFF REPORTS 12 13 A. Comprehensive Plan Open House 14 15 Ms. Rothstein reviewed the Comprehensive Plan Draft Open House will be held April 11, 2018 16 6:00 – 8:00 p.m. at St. Anthony City Hall/Community Center. This will give residents an 17 opportunity to learn about the City’s community engagement process, what we heard from the 18 community and draft policies and action items located in the comprehensive plan. A draft of the 19 Comprehensive Plan is available on the City’s website at www.savmn.com. 20 21 V. OTHER BUSINESS 22 23 A. 2018 Planning Commission Work Plan 24 25 Ms. Rothstein reviewed the Planning Commission 2018 Work Plan. 26 27 The Planning Commission is a seven-member advisory commission, appointed by the City 28 Council and charged with the following duties (City Code Chapter 32, Section 32.06): 29 30 A. Review and make recommendations to the City Council as to a comprehensive municipal 31 plan, including the land use plan, a community facilities plan, a transportation plan, and 32 recommendations for plan adoption and execution; 33 B. Consider and make recommendations to the City Council as to all proposed subdivisions and 34 plats; 35 C. Consider and make recommendations to the City Council as to all proposed amendments to 36 the Chapters 151 and 152 of this code regarding subdivisions and zoning; 37 D. Review all applications for variance to zoning, hold hearings, and make recommendations to 38 the City Council; and 39 E. Review requests for sign variances. 40 41 In 2018, the Planning Commission will focus on the following items: 42 43 1. Continue training on both planning/zoning issues through GTS/WSB partnership. 44 2. Review and make recommendations on land use and development applications, including 45 holding public hearings. 46 Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes March 26, 2018 Page 4 3. As comprehensive plan steering committee members, shepherd the comprehensive plan into 1 formal approval, and provide recommendations to City Council on requisite zoning changes 2 needed to effect the plan. 3 4 Chair Papatola asked if there is action on the part of the Planning Commission this evening. Ms. 5 Rothstein stated generally it is approved by the Planning Commission and brought to the City 6 Council for approval. 7 8 Commissioner Larson mentioned the Commission has discussed updating the zoning code and 9 asked whether that should be included in this or wait until the comprehensive plan is complete. 10 Ms. Rothstein stated the plan should be final before any requests for ordinance changes are 11 made. 12 13 Commissioner Bartel stated over the years there has been a list of ordinances to work on and 14 asked if all these have been completed. Ms. Rothstein stated the urban farming has been put on 15 hold. It could be added back to the work plan if the Planning Commission wants it added. 16 17 Commissioner Kalar stated there is no urgency on the urban farming as no one is complaining 18 and no one is asking for anything different. Ms. Rothstein stated those requests go directly to the 19 City Council. Ms. Rothstein stated Home Occupations may be one theme and not a major 20 priority. 21 22 Motion by Commissioner Kalar, seconded by Commissioner Bartel, to recommend the City 23 Council approve the 2018 Planning Commission Work Plan. 24 25 Motion carried 7-0. 26 27 VI. COMMUNITY FORUM. 28 29 No one appeared to address the Commission. 30 31 VII. INFORMATION AND ANNOUNCEMENTS. 32 33 Chair Papatola stated he will represent the Planning Commission at the City Council Meeting on 34 March 27, 2018. He thanked everyone for their attendance at the February Planning Commission 35 Meeting. 36 37 VIII. ADJOURNMENT. 38 39 Motion by Commissioner Kalar, seconded by Commissioner Westrick, to adjourn the meeting at 40 7:35 p.m. 41 42 Motion carried 7-0. 43 Respectfully submitted, 44 Debbie Wolfe (TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc.) 45 MEMORANDUM To: Planning Commissioners From: Breanne Rothstein, AICP, City Planner Date: Planning Commission meeting on May 21, 2018 WSB Project No. 011104‐00 Request: Public Hearing: Request for a zoning text amendment and conditional use permit to allow for the operation of a daycare facility with 17 children at 3029 Wilson Street NE GENERAL INFORMATION Applicant/Owner: Jen Johnson Location: 3029 Wilson St NE Existing Land Use / Low Density Residential/zoned: R‐1; Single Family Residential Zoning: Surrounding Land North: Low Density Residential / Zoned R‐1 ‐ Single Family Residential Use / Zoning: East: Low Density Residential / Zoned R‐1 ‐ Single Family Residential South: Low Density Residential / Zoned R‐1 ‐ Single Family Residential West: St. Mary’s Russion Catholic Cemetery / Zoned R‐1 ‐ Single Family Residential Deadline for Agency Application Date: 5‐2‐2018 Action: 60 Days: 7‐1‐2018 Letter Sent: No 120 Days: NA BACKGROUND The Applicant currently operates a daycare facility at the home located at 3029 Wilson Street. She holds a Minnesota Child care center License (Rule 3), which is a commercial type license and does not establish a maximum number of children allowed, except through teacher/student ratios and does not require her to live on‐site. She does not live on site and employs a total of three teachers, including herself. Minnesota State Statute protects family childcare centers as a permitted use in the R‐1 district, and family childcare centers are limited to 14 children. Previous to now, it has been staff’s interpretation of the zoning code and the statute that a childcare center having up to 14 children is allowed in the R‐1 district, despite the specific state licensing. The Applicant is requesting an increase in children from 14 to 17 children. Currently, with the three teachers she has on site, her Child Care License allows her up to 17 children. However, it is the May 21, 2018 Page 2 interpretation that the city code does not allow, nor does Statute protect, such a use. Therefore, staff has directed the Applicant that, in order to proceed with the childcare center at 17 children, she would need to make the following requests: 1) A zoning code text amendment to list a Child Center facility with up to 17 children as a permitted or conditional use in the R‐1 district; 2) A conditional use permit to allow for a Child Center facility with up to 17 children on the property located at 3029 Wilson Street. If the Council finds a compelling public interest to change the code to allow for such a use, then a conditional use permit can also be considered. If the Council finds such a use not appropriate in the R‐1 zoning district, the request for a conditional use permit is moot, and must be denied. Staff has received several calls relating to this request, both in favor and against the proposed increase in children. One letter in writing was received opposed to the request, and is included in your packet. APPLICABLE CODES AND STATUTES  Section 152.036, the City zoning ordinance lists “State licensed facilities permitted under M.S. § 462.357, Subd. 7, as it may be amended from time to time,” as permitted uses in the R‐1 district.  In Section 152.242, the City zoning ordinance sets forth the review for zoning text amendments.  In Section 152.243, the City zoning ordinance sets forth the review and approval criteria for conditional use permits.  M.S. § 462.357, Subd. 7 says “a licensed day care facility serving 12 or fewer persons, and a group family day care facility licensed under Minnesota Rules, parts 9502.0315 to 9502.0445 to serve 14 or fewer children shall be considered a permitted single family residential use of property for the purposes of zoning.”  MN.gov’s website page on Child care center License (Rule 3) defines child care: o A child care center, generally, is characterized by a location other than the provider’s or caregiver’s home, larger numbers of children being cared for, and staff qualifications and training requirements. o Family child care is generally provided in the caregiver’s home and no more than 14 children can be cared for at any one time. ANALYSIS OF REQUEST FOR A ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT The applicant is requesting the addition of language to § 152.037, Permitted Conditional Uses for the R‐1 zoning district, to allow for child care centers serving up to 17 persons. M.S. § 462.357, Subd. 7 allows group family day care facilities serving 14 or fewer children. Because the applicant’s business is licensed as a child care center, rather than family child care, it does not have state‐ imposed restrictions on the number of children the center can serve, provided adequate space and services. A zoning text amendment adding a child care center as a conditional use would add a new use to the conditional use chart in the R‐1 zoning district. Generally speaking, conditional uses should be considered generally permitted, with conditions. Therefore, uses in this district should be compatible with other R‐1 Single Family uses. Currently permitted uses include single‐family homes, schools, assembly uses and religious institutions, and parks. The City has broad discretion in the review and approval of a zoning code text amendment since it is considered a policy change. While the requested zoning code text amendment does not by itself allow the requested use as permitted with no conditions, approving such a policy change would May 21, 2018 Page 3 mean that the city is generally comfortable with the use, as long as reasonable conditions were applied in the independent review of an application. City Code does not specifically establish guidance for the City in the review of code text amendments. However, staff would recommend using the following considerations: 1) Is the request in keeping with the intent of the R‐1 Zoning Ordinance “to create and maintain areas which due to the natural amenities of the land, low traffic volumes, and historical development patterns are best suited for single‐family detached residences.” The intent of the Statute protection for childcare centers in the R‐1 district is to allow for such uses on a limited basis (specifically up to 14 children). 2) Is the proposed use of a commercial childcare center serving up to 17 children a generally acceptable use, as along as reasonable conditions are applied? The proposed use is not acceptable, given the desire to increase the number of children beyond what is normally allowed in the R‐1 district (17 children). 3) Is the use consistent with the other uses in the adjacent neighborhood? This area consists of mostly single‐family homes, however there are religious institutions and schools in the surrounding neighborhood. 4) Is there any reason to believe that the proposed use will diminish adjacent property values or disrupt the neighborhood? Staff does not believe property values will be affected. 5) Is there a compelling public interest to change the zoning code in this manner? While the existing use is functioning well within a single‐family context, staff believes there is no compelling public interest to deviate from the 14 children maximum protected by statute. ANALYSIS OF REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT Consideration of the conditional use permit to allow a childcare facility of 17 children at 3029 Wilson is only in order IF the city has taken action to approve the zoning code text amendment to allow a commercial childcare facility serving up to 17 children as a conditional use. Should that action fail to be approved, the city must deny the request as inconsistent with city code. When reviewing the appropriateness of a request for conditional use permit, the following factors must be considered, in accordance with City Code: 1) The use is one of the conditional uses specifically listed for the district in which the property is located; Not as currently listed in the zoning code. The use would have to be added as conditional in the R‐ 1 zoning district via a zoning text amendment. 2) The City Council has specified all conditions which the City Council deems necessary to make the use compatible with other uses in the area; If approved, staff recommends a series of conditions be applied to this permit, including hours of operation, pick up and drop off times, and compliance with all nuisance and other applicable zoning codes. The applicant has stated in their application letter: “Our hours are 8am‐5pm, May 21, 2018 Page 4 Monday‐Friday. Our hours support us living well with our neighbors. Many people leave for work before 8am and come home after 5pm. The preschool is in a home in a neighborhood.” 3) The use will not be detrimental to the health, safety, or general welfare of persons residing or working in the vicinity or to the values of property in the vicinity; and 4) The use will provide a service or a facility which is in the interest of public convenience and will contribute to the general welfare. A child care facility is a public convenience and allows for residents to meet their childcare needs within their neighborhood. RECOMMENDATION The City zoning ordinance does not currently allow child care facilities serving more than 14 persons in a single‐family district. A zoning text amendment allowing child care centers serving up to 17 persons in the R‐1 zoning district would be the addition of a new use to that zoning district, as the proposed child care center is not a family child care (a use that is currently permitted), but more of a commercial child care center. The R‐1 zoning district already allows child care facilities serving up to 14 persons. Staff recommends that the city defer to Minnesota Statute, and maintain the current permitted uses in the R‐ 1 zoning district, based on the above stated findings and deny the request for a zoning code text amendment and conditional use permit, as requested. POSSIBLE ACTIONS 1. Motion to adopt a resolution denying the zoning text amendment and conditional use permit, for the property at 3029 Wilson St NE. 2. Motion to approve the zoning text amendment and conditional use permit as requested, based on the stated findings and direct staff to develop a resolution approving the application. 3. Request Additional Information and Table the Application. The applicant appears to not have provided enough information for the City Council to approve or deny the request. ATTACHMENTS Exhibit A: Applicant Letter Exhibit B: Public Comments Exhibit C: Draft Resolution I own a preschool in St.Anthony Village called Willow & Sprout. We are a holistic early childhood community including children ages 16months -5 years of age. We are licensed under a Rule 3, with which the state allows up to 17 children. However, the city has restricted that number to14 children per day. Our ratios are 3 licensed-teachers to the 14 children. This ratio is small and consistent to provide a high quality early childhood experience. Our hours are 8am-5pm, Monday-Friday. Our hours support us living well with our neighbors. Many people leave for work before 8am and come home after 5:00pm. The preschool is in a home in a neighborhood. I wanted to create an environment for curiosity and learning that felt like the intimacy of home and the transparency of a neighborhood school. Nine years ago I worked with Kim Moore Sykes, the city planner at the time, to create a new and unique preschool. I was so proud at how pro early childhood the city of St. Anthony Village was and continues to be. This is unique to the city. The city heard my vision and supported the unique experience. Kim did provide me a letter stating that the city would allow this business model and defer to the county (Rule 2) and state (Rule 3: up to 17 children allowed) to oversee the details of the program. (see letter attached) I purchased the house in St. Anthony knowing I would be able to run my business in a sustainable and responsible manner: ﬁscally and professionally. I am requesting the city to consider honoring the original letter I received from Kim Moore Sykes allowing me to adhere to the Rule 3 allowance per the State of MN of 17 children. This change will allow me to do what I was originally permitted to do. The state would approve this change. This will allow us to ﬁscally sustain and continue to provide the high quality experience to St. Anthony families and surrounding communities. This is an exciting opportunity for St. Anthony Village to continue to value the importance of early childhood in their community while supporting a progressive, woman owned small business. My business aligns with the cities mission statement: To be a progressive and welcoming Village that is walkable, sustainable and safe. Because of our location in a neighborhood it is walkable and safe. As well as we continue to desire to create a business model that is sustainable. I ask that you join me in continuing to support another option for parents and their families during their early childhood experience. Warmly, Jen Johnson owner of Willow & Sprout THIS PAGE LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK THIS PAGE LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK CITY OF ST. ANTHONY VILLAGE RESOLUTION NO. __________ RESOLUTION DENYING A CODE TEXT AMENDMENT TO ALLOW A CHILDCARE FACILITY SERVING UP TO 17 CHILDREN IN THE R-1 SINGLE FAMILY DISTRICT AND DENYING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW FOR A CHILDCARE FACILITY SERVING UP TO 17 CHILDREN AT 3029 WILSON ST WHEREAS Jen Johnson has made application for a zoning code text amendment to allow as a conditional use permit childcare facilities with up to 17 children in an R-1 Single Family District; and WHEREAS the Applicant has also requested a conditional use permit to allow a childcare facility at 3029 Wilson Street to serve up to 17 children; and WHEREAS Section 152.242 allows for applicants to make requests to change the city’s zoning code through a Code Text Amendment; 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 May 21, 2018, and recommended denial of the request. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of St. Anthony Village adopts the following findings of fact related to the Applicant’s request:  The request is not in keeping with the intent of the R-1 Zoning Ordinance “to create and maintain areas which due to the natural amenities of the land, low traffic volumes, and historical development patterns are best suited for single- family detached residences” because the current code allows for the reasonable and state protected use of childcare centers accommodating up to 14 children.  The proposed use is not acceptable, given the desire to increase the number of children beyond what is normally allowed in the R-1 district (17 children).  This area consists of mostly single-family homes, however there are religious institutions and schools in the surrounding neighborhood.  There is no compelling public interest to change the city code to deviate from the 14 children maximum protected by statute for childcare facilities.  The proposed use is not currently allowed as conditional use in the R-1 zoning district. NOW THEREFORE BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City Council’s hereby denies the requested code text amendment and conditional use permit, based on the findings stated herein. APPROVED in the regular session of the City Council on ________________, 2018. ___________________________________ Jerome O. Faust, Mayor Attested: ___________________________________ Nicole Miller, City Clerk Zoning Text Amendment and Conditional Use Permit Request at 3029 Wilson St Planning Commission Meeting May 21, 2018 3029 Wilson St NE General Information Applicants:Jen Johnson Owners:same Location:3029 Wilson St NE Existing Land Use Low Density Residential / Zoning:R-1 Single Family Residential Surrounding Land Use/ Zoning: North: Low Density Residential / Zoned R-1 -Single Family Residential East: Low Density Residential / Zoned R-1 -Single Family Residential South: Low Density Residential / Zoned R-1 -Single Family Residential West: St. Mary’s Russian Catholic Cemetery / Zoned R-1 -Single Family Residential 3029 Wilson St NE •Overview –Current R-1 zoning district limits enrollment of day care facilities to 14 or fewer children, per state statute MS 462.357 –Proposal is to expand enrollment of existing day care from 14 to 17 children –Request for zoning text amendment to allow increased enrollment as a conditional use. –Request for a conditional us permit subsequent to zoning text amendment. Description of the Request Zoning Text Amendment Review •The request differentiates between family child care and child care centers. –Under state statute, child care centers can have larger enrollments, characterized by a location other than the provider’s or caregiver’s home. •A zoning text amendment would add a new use to the conditional uses, as currently the zoning code only permits family child care. •Recommendation Staff recommends denial of the Code Text Amendment to allow a childcare facility serving up to 17 children as a conditional use in the R-1 district Code Text Amendment Findings of Fact •Is the request in keeping with the intent of the R-1 Zoning Ordinance “to create and maintain areas which due to the natural amenities of the land, low traffic volumes, and historical development patterns are best suited for single-family detached residences.” •The intent of the Statute protection for childcare centers in the R-1 district is to allow for such uses on a limited basis (specifically up to 14 children). •Is the proposed use of a commercial childcare center serving up to 17 children a generally acceptable use, as along as reasonable conditions are applied? •The proposed use is not acceptable, given the desire to increase the number of children beyond what is normally allowed in the R-1 district (17 children). Findings of Fact (cont) •Is the use consistent with the other uses in the adjacent neighborhood? •This area consists of mostly single-family homes, however there are religious institutions and schools in the surrounding neighborhood. •Is there any reason to believe that the proposed use will diminish adjacent property values or disrupt the neighborhood? •Staff does not believe property values will be affected. •Is there a compelling public interest to change the zoning code in this manner? •While the existing use is functioning well within a single-family context, staff believes there is no compelling public interest to deviate from the 14 children maximum protected by statute. –If the Code Text Amendment is denied, the conditional use permit must be denied, due to inconsistency with the city’s zoning code (not an eligible conditional use) –If the Code Text Amendment is recommended for approval, the following findings could be applied: Conditional Use Permit Review Conditional Use Permit Review •The use is one of the conditional uses specifically listed for the district in which the property is located; Not as currently listed in the zoning code. The use would have to be added as conditional in the R-1 zoning district via a zoning text amendment. •The City Council has specified all conditions which the City Council deems necessary to make the use compatible with other uses in the area; If approved, staff recommends a series of conditions be applied to this permit, including hours of operation, pick up and drop off times, and compliance with all nuisance and other applicable zoning codes. The applicant has stated in their application letter: “Our hours are 8am-5pm, Monday-Friday. Our hours support us living well with our neighbors. Many people leave for work before 8am and come home after 5pm. The preschool is in a home in a neighborhood.” •The use will not be detrimental to the health, safety, or general welfare of persons residing or working in the vicinity or to the values of property in the vicinity; and •The use will provide a service or a facility which is in the interest of public convenience and will contribute to the general welfare. A child care facility is a public convenience and allows for residents to meet their childcare needs within their neighborhood. Questions? NOTICE OF A PUBLIC HEARING Notice is hereby given that on May 21, 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 proposed Conditional Use Permit, and Zoning Text Amendment for a Daycare Facility located at 3029 Wilson Street NE. The Planning Commission will hear public comment and review the proposal. 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 ƒ \ ± ± / � ( / � R � m a ) D kkSIR § \ \E( 2�a =7 _£&)� n�7.■ f /n §� k(4 RE FL k \Qn :/ E ®ƒE \2f[ k �§ § \�)ƒ2 � 2 ` � ■ /(J \2 2� §�K � \ \�k E_ eD �)ffD \•�� ; § / \ } & 2 § § \ } q Q k \ / \ im k § » ( / e / C. k ) Z \ / / �\)f \ [E \�( ■��7 A ©7 §■ $ /n §� /(ƒ /? %_ } {\ \�f7 ) �§ kk)f\ k( \�( -/gr CL gr k n ©7 §\ $/n§� §\ ■[) �\ \2f� /2 =\ ) �§ , % / \ / \ AN / \ / \ % § \ } & q \ \ 2 / a § \ w 0. » � � � CD \} ( \ \& u ��E — . r ' /)!.; �■g�, ; «�_- } - { «g)° \ % ( m§� /�\ ©; Ca. _)» CD (D f eb � a { ¢ §a�n \ -cl � ~ $$2E2 � g§ % ikCon ;. g)& �2 ƒ\ �[0m \ $»D /.\ 3 \`: ) f; �CD CD - � \ ƒ\( ; % § \ } & q \ \ 2 / a § \ w » x c ; « / 5 \ \& u / c . r ' /)!.; /�\ ©; Ca. _)» CD (D � a { \ -cl � ~ $$2E2 � g§ g)& \ $»D /.\ 3 \`: �CD CD - � \ ƒ\( )�(e % § \ } & q \ \ 2 / a § \ OF k ( ± ƒ / / ( $ k { > ( x ) / ( Z \ / 7 1¥ \ f Z m / \ & y { .« / / / � ;22> �22;a kg(�� 2�� #E q ®7 §E °�4If k §7�2 � \�\E k \ §/ § ƒ; ; k))cm k \ \�( f /n §n (( ƒ/7 Zg,E� /a%z\ � \ \/k § 7; ; § § � } 2 q % \ \ / § k \ \ ƒ k a � A � ƒ / ± ƒ \ � . q } �, ± / Z = § � ( y ƒ k�§ƒ� k� \�( 2��EE CID to $EnB� §2 f \f k�J /2 -�• /© to CL � \� *E 2�- k[�� \o0 ) �§ *� v _ \�)r n� ■;g f7 \§\ /(Ji2 % \ \*E E` ƒE -� ■E F2�( k ; § § \ q \ 2 \ § \ / ( c m \ \\ x c ;,n *� co $ ; & E2�aCL _ , �cL \ ; R r { /�QK \ ( j n�7)g � / f7G.■\ ® � _ FL � °a£ CD to [ \� {( ) ; % § } } & q