HomeMy WebLinkAboutPL PACKET 06252018
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 June 25, 2018 Planning Commission Meeting Agenda. (action requested)
II. Approval of the May 21, 2018 Regular Planning Commission Meeting Minutes.
III. Public Hearing.
Consider a request for a seven foot variance from the required front yard setback in the R-1district
located at 3531 Silver Lake Road.
IV. Staff Reports.
V. Other Business.
VI. Community Forum.
Individuals may address the City Council about any item not included on the regular agenda.
Speakers are requested to come to the podium, sign their name and address on the form at the
podium, state their name and address for the Clerk’s record, and limit their remarks to five minutes.
Generally, the City Council will not take official action on items discussed at this time, but may
typically refer the matter to staff for a future report or direct the matter to be scheduled on an
upcoming agenda.
VII. Information and Announcements.
VIII. Adjournment.
CITY OF SAINT ANTHONY VILLAGE
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AGENDA
JUNE 25, 2018
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
7:00 PM
CITY OF ST. ANTHONY 1
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 2
May 21, 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 Kalar, Larson, Neumann, Socha, 16
and Westrick. 17
18
Absent: Commissioner Bartel 19
20
Also Present: City Planner Breanne Rothstein 21
22
I. APPROVAL OF THE MAY 21, 2018 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AGENDA. 23
24
Motion by Commissioner Westrick, seconded by Commissioner Larson, to approve the May 21, 25
2018 Planning Commission agenda. 26
27
Motion carried 6-0. 28
29
II. APPROVAL OF THE MARCH 28, 2018 REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION 30
MEETING MINUTES. 31
32
Motion by Commissioner Kalar, seconded by Commissioner Neumann, to approve the March 33
28, 2018 Regular Planning Commission Meeting Minutes as presented. 34
35
Motion carried 6-0. 36
37
III. PUBLIC HEARING. 38
39
A. Consider a request for Zoning Code Text Amendment to allow for a childcare 40
facility serving up to 17 children as a Conditional Use Permit in the R-1 Single-41
Family District 42
43
B. Consider a Conditional Use Permit to allow a childcare facility serving up to 17 44
children on the property located at 3029 Wilson Street. 45
46
Chair Papatola opened the public hearing at 7:03 p.m. 47
48
Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes
May 21, 2018
Page 2
City Planner Rothstein reviewed the applicant Jen Johnson currently operates a daycare facility 1
at the home located at 3029 Wilson Street. She holds a Minnesota Child Care Center License 2
(Rule 3) which is a commercial type license and does not establish a maximum number of 3
children allowed, except through teacher/student ratios and does not require her to live on-site. 4
She does not live on site and employs a total of three teachers, including herself. 5
6
Minnesota State Statute protects family childcare centers as a permitted use in the R-1 district, 7
and family childcare centers are limited to 14 children. Previous to now, it has been staff’s 8
interpretation of the zoning code and the statute that a childcare center having up to 14 children 9
is allowed in the R-1 district, despite the specific state licensing. 10
11
The Applicant is requesting an increase in children from 14 to 17 children. Currently, with the 12
three teachers she has on site, her Child Care License allows her up to 17 children. However, it is 13
the interpretation that the city code does not allow, nor does Statute protect, such a use. Staff has 14
directed the Applicant that, in order to proceed with the childcare center at 17 children, she 15
would need to make the following requests: 16
17
1) A zoning code text amendment to list a Child Care Facility with up to 17 children as a 18
permitted or conditional use in the R-1 district; 19
2) A conditional use permit to allow for a Child Center facility with up to 17 children on the 20
property located at 3029 Wilson Street. 21
22
Ms. Rothstein stated the request differentiates between family child care and child care centers – 23
Under state statute, child care centers can have larger enrollments, characterized by a location 24
other than the provider’s or caregiver’s home. A zoning text amendment would add a new use to 25
the conditional uses, as currently the zoning code only permits family child care. Staff 26
recommends denial of the Code Text Amendment to allow a childcare facility serving up to 17 27
children as a conditional use in the R-1 district. 28
29
If the Council finds a compelling public interest to change the code to allow for such a use, then 30
a conditional use permit can also be considered. If the Council finds such a use not appropriate in 31
the R-1 zoning district, the request for a conditional use permit is moot, and must be denied. 32
33
Staff has received several calls relating to this request, both in favor and against the proposed 34
increase in children. One letter was received opposed to the request and was provided for 35
Commission review. 36
37
Ms. Rothstein reviewed the applicable codes and statutes and provided an analysis of request for 38
a zoning text amendment. 39
40
City Code does not specifically establish guidance for the City in the review of code text 41
amendments. Staff would recommend using the following considerations: 42
43
1. Is the request in keeping with the intent of the R-1 Zoning Ordinance “to create and maintain 44
areas where due to the natural amenities of the land, low traffic volumes, and historical 45
development patterns are best suited for single-family detached residences”. The intent of the 46
Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes
May 21, 2018
Page 3
Statute protection for childcare centers in the R-1 district is to allow for such uses on a 1
limited basis (specifically up to 14 children). 2
2. Is the proposed use of a commercial childcare center serving up to 17 children a generally 3
acceptable use, as along as reasonable conditions are applied? 4
3. Is the use consistent with the other uses in the adjacent neighborhood? This area consists of 5
mostly single-family homes, however there are religious institutions and schools in the 6
surrounding neighborhood. 7
4. Is there any reason to believe that the proposed use will diminish adjacent property values or 8
disrupt the neighborhood? Staff does not believe property values will be affected. 9
5. Is there a compelling public interest to change the zoning code in this manner? While the 10
existing use is functioning well within a single-family context, staff believes there is no 11
compelling public interest to deviate from the 14 children maximum protected by statute. 12
13
Ms. Rothstein provided an analysis of request for a Conditional Use Permit. When reviewing the 14
appropriateness of a request for conditional use permit, the following factors must be considered, 15
in accordance with City Code: 16
17
1. The use is one of the conditional uses specifically listed for the district in which the property 18
is located. Not as currently listed in the zoning code. The use would have to be added as 19
conditional in the R-1 zoning district via a zoning text amendment. 20
2. The City Council has specified all conditions which the City Council deems necessary to 21
make the use compatible with other uses in the area. If approved, staff recommends a series 22
of conditions be applied to this permit, including hours of operation, pick up and drop off 23
times, and compliance with all nuisance and other applicable zoning codes. The applicant has 24
stated in their application letter: “Our hours are 8am – 5pm Monday – Friday. Our hours 25
support us living well with our neighbors. Many people leave for work before 8am and come 26
home after 5pm. The preschool is in a home in a neighborhood.” 27
3. The use will not be detrimental to the health, safety, or general welfare of persons residing or 28
working in the vicinity or to the values of property in the vicinity; and 29
4. The use will provide a service or a facility which is in the interest of public convenience and 30
will contribute to the general welfare. A child care facility is a public convenience and allows 31
for residents to meet their childcare needs within their neighborhood. 32
33
Ms. Rothstein reviewed the recommendation from staff. The City zoning ordinance does not 34
currently allow child care facilities serving more than 14 persons in a single-family district. A 35
zoning text amendment allowing child care centers serving up to 17 persons in the R-1 zoning 36
district would be the addition of a new use to that zoning district, as the proposed child care 37
center is not a family child care (a use that is currently permitted), but more of a commercial 38
child care center. The R-1 zoning district already allows child care facilities serving up to 14 39
persons. Staff recommends that the City defer to Minnesota Statute, and maintain the current 40
permitted uses in the R-1 zoning district, based on the above stated findings and deny the request 41
for a zoning code text amendment and conditional use permit, as requested. 42
43
Ms. Rothstein provided a review of the conditional use permit and noted if the Code Text 44
Amendment is denied, the conditional use permit must be denied, due to inconsistency with the 45
city’s zoning code (not an eligible conditional use). 46
Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes
May 21, 2018
Page 4
1
Possible Actions to be taken are: 2
3
1. Motion to adopt a resolution denying the zoning text amendment and conditional use permit, 4
for the property at 3029 Wilson St NE. 5
2. Motion to approve the zoning text amendment and conditional use permit as requested, based 6
on the stated findings and direct staff to develop a resolution approving the application 7
3. Request Additional Information and Table the Application. The applicant appears to have not 8
provided enough information for the City Council to approve or deny the request. 9
10
Also provided for Commission consideration were Exhibit A – Applicant Letter, Exhibit B – 11
Public Comments and Exhibit C – Draft Resolution. 12
13
A letter stating opposition to the request was received from Lou Ann and Nancy Schmidt dated 14
May 11, 2018. 15
16
A letter stating opposition to the daycare business form Lou Ann and Nancy Schmidt dated 17
October 29, 2010. 18
19
A letter from Kim Moore-Sykes to Lou Ann and Nancy Schmidt dated November 4, 2010. 20
21
This matter will come before the Council on June 12, 2018 and Commissioner Larson will 22
represent the Planning Commission at the meeting. 23
24
Commissioner Larson asked if Ms. Rothstein if she is aware of any other municipality raising the 25
limit from 14-17 and Ms. Rothstein stated it is your City and you can write the policy for the 26
City. It is a challenging issue when someone purchases a single-family home and runs a business 27
out of it. 28
29
Chair Papatola asked if the Commission recommends approval of the zoning change requirement 30
this would apply to the entire R-1 area. Ms. Rothstein responded the code text amendment would 31
apply to all property; however, the Conditional Use Permit would be required for the specific 32
property. The Conditional Use Permit goes with the property rather than the applicant. 33
34
Chair Papatola asked if this is essentially a commercial type day care facility that the City has 35
been treating as a residential based facility. Ms. Rothstein stated that is true and copies of the 36
letters from the previous planner are provided for Commission review. 37
38
Commissioner Westrick asked if this is a difference of interpretation and Ms. Rothstein agreed. 39
40
Ms. Jen Johnson and Tammy Hodgkins appeared before the Commission. Ms. Johnson is the 41
owner and Ms. Hodgkins is a teacher. The house was purchased in March of 2010. She was 42
working with the previous City Planner Kim Moore Sykes who was very excited about Ms. 43
Johnson’s plan for the preschool. It is important that they live well with their neighbors. Ms. 44
Sykes had stated Ms. Johnson would have the full support of the City and they still have the 45
vision to live well with the neighbors. They are asking for 3 additional children and when 46
Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes
May 21, 2018
Page 5
purchased the property they planned to grow their business. They need 17 children to be a 1
sustainable business. 2
3
Commissioner Kalar asked what is the significance of 17 vs. 14 children. Ms. Johnson stated 4
right now they enroll 14 children per day. She provided the ratio of teacher to student. There are 5
4 instructors on staff daily. Ms. Johnson stated they would still be above the ratio. 6
7
Commissioner Larson asked if Ms. Johnson is aware of any other situations where the number of 8
students is increased to 17. Ms. Johnson stated she has visited other cities to find out their rules 9
and she is not aware of another business within her network that were increased. 10
11
Commissioner Neumann asked what the nature of the complaints have been. Ms. Johnson stated 12
the property next door was rental property and there were complaints about parents picking up 13
after 5pm, parking, and flow of traffic. The gate to the property has been relocated to alleviate 14
these issues. 15
16
Commissioner Neumann asked if there were concerns about the quality of the center. Ms. 17
Johnson stated they are very well known in the metro area and they are very plugged into the 18
community. They have a long waiting list and grows every day. Many on the waiting list are 19
from St. Anthony. Many neighbors have stopped by and shown their support. There have not 20
been any State or County complaints. They have annual inspections from various groups and 21
there is a lot of oversight. 22
23
Commissioner Neumann stated she has never heard of Willow & Sprout. Commissioner 24
Neumann asked how inclusive the center is. Ms. Hodgkins stated there have been children from 25
different ethnic groups. They are very passionate about going to training every year. Ms. Johnson 26
stated they have never had to advertise they get their clients by word of mouth. 27
28
Commissioner Socha asked if she ever had 17 children or was it her understanding that at some 29
point she could have 17. Ms. Johnson stated Ms. Sykes was aware of the plan and it was 30
included that there would ultimately be 17 children. Commissioner Socha asked if Ms. Johnson 31
if anyone has lobbied at the State level and how far did that get. Ms. Johnson stated she hopes to 32
do that as part of her career. 33
34
Chair Papatola asked if when the center was opened were there 14 children and Ms. Johnson 35
agreed. He asked at what point did she decide to try to get 17 children and Ms. Johnson said after 36
being in business for two years. The impact by adding 3 more children could be the addition of 37
1-3 more cars dropping off children and picking them up. Chair Papatola asked how many 38
children could be there based on the size of the property. Ms. Johnson stated it is 35sf per child 39
and the house is approximately 2000 sf. 40
41
Ms. Julie Sexton, 2601 30th Avenue NE, has lived there since 1999. She received the public 42
hearing notice. She assumed the question was whether the center would exist. She received a 43
letter from Ms. Johnson. She has no issue with a family daycare. This business is a commercial 44
business in a residential area. Parking is an issue, kids running across the street, and this is a 45
Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes
May 21, 2018
Page 6
neighborhood and not set up for a business or parking for a business. She asked that 1
Commission deny the request. 2
3
Mr. Bob Nehring, 3017 Wilson St NE, been a resident since 1996 and is opposed to the request. 4
This is not a home daycare. There is no one there at night, weekends or holidays. It is licensed as 5
a child care center but it is in a R-1 district. He is concerned about neighborhood safety. Mr. 6
Nehring reviewed the community watch program. He recommends both requests be denied. He 7
also believes it is in violation of State Statute that requires someone be living in the home. 8
9
Ms. Nancy Robinett, 3408 31st Avenue NE, stated she rented the house next door when she first 10
moved to St. Anthony. She knows Ms. Johnson quite well. She supports the small businesses of 11
St. Anthony. However, parking was a nightmare so if this is approved, the Commission would 12
need to make conditions on parking. There were instances when they could not get out of their 13
driveways and there were problems with employees parking. She hates to say these things as she 14
loved the neighborhood but with the addition of 3 children, there would be more cars and that’s 15
the main problem. 16
17
Ms. Holly Wick Bower, 3038 Harding Street NE, stated she can see the center from her 18
backyard. Her children attended Willow & Sprout and she supports their increase to 17 children 19
as it is an asset to the community. There are few neighbors and an ideal location. She feels a 20
preschool in a home environment provides safety and a good environment. Her children are in 3rd 21
and 5th grade and are exceeding academically and socially. She asked for Commission to approve 22
the request. 23
24
Ms. Kelly Godfrey, 2616 31st Avenue NE, she is a neighbor and has never had any issues with 25
the day care center. She lives around the corner so is not affected by the parking problems but 26
would allow people to park on her street. There is a great need for good daycare. 27
28
Ms. Kirstin Blenkush, 2508 36th Avenue NE, she has three children at Wilshire Park. She moved 29
to St. Anthony three years ago and thinks Willow & Sprout is a good center. She wants to be part 30
of a community that supports families and if the center needs 3 more kids they should have 3 31
more kids especially since they are exceeding the guidelines. It is very difficult to find good 32
childcare. 33
34
Mr. Nathan Kerl, 3021 Wilson Street, stated he is 2 houses to the south, they have lived there 35
over 10 years, and enjoy the block they live on. They have interacted with the center and were 36
disappointed to see that a special exception was given for this center. He is not opposed to 37
businesses being run out of homes and asked what is different is that no one lives there. He 38
questioned why more information wasn’t provided. He stated he has friends whose children 39
attended Willow & Sprout. Mr. Kerl noted this is not a commercial zone and while there were 40
promises of an Open House for the neighborhood, it never happened. This is something outside 41
residential zoning. They bought their house expecting R-1 zoning. They live on a very narrow 42
street. They leave for work at about the same time the drop-offs are occurring and the same for 43
pick-up times. There are many good care centers within St. Anthony and he is opposed to the 44
requests. 45
46
Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes
May 21, 2018
Page 7
Ms. Shari Wald, 3024 Harding Street NE, stated she has lived there since 2002 and asked if there 1
is a timeframe on a conditional use permit. Ms. Rothstein stated as long as the conditions are met 2
it runs forever and only can be revoked if the conditions are not being met. Ms. Wald stated she 3
is in support of Willow & Sprout and the addition of 3 more children. There is a sense of 4
community, the Willow & Sprout curriculum is amazing, and it’s a very loving and caring day 5
care center. 6
7
Ms. Nikolina Tushar, 2704 30th Avenue NE, is in support of Willow & Sprout. Her son will 8
attend there this fall and she will be walking to the center. She would like her son to have three 9
more friends and supports the increase to 17 students. 10
11
Ms. Nancy Jean Schmidt, 3025 Wilson Street NE, stated they are the complaining neighbors that 12
lived near Willow & Sprout. It was peaceful when she moved in and now there are 14 kids 13
outside and they are loud and are not disciplined. She works from home herself and is not 14
opposed to in home businesses but feels they came in under false pretenses. Her father bought 15
the property, had it homesteaded, and never lived there. She feels single-family homes have 16
some rights. She stated there will be continuous noise from 8-5 every day yet no one lives there. 17
She is very frustrated because it has gone on for years and no one cares about the private citizen. 18
She asked the Commission to deny the requests. 19
20
Ms. LouAnn Schmidt, 3025 Wilson Street NE, asked when the daycare was to move in 10 years 21
ago, why a meeting wasn’t held like this to inform the residents. She stated this meeting is too 22
late, the use is too loud, and she is against the requests. 23
24
Chair Papatola closed the public hearing at 8:14 p.m. 25
26
Motion by Commissioner Socha, seconded by Commissioner Neumann, to recommend the City 27
Council deny the request for a zoning code text amendment to allow for a childcare facility 28
serving up to 17 children as a conditional use permit in the R-1 Single-Family District. 29
30
Commissioner Westrick stated personally she would not have a problem approving this. It seems 31
parking is a difficult issue. 32
33
Commissioner Larson stated the residents’ comments are from his neighbors. There was a 34
daycare next door to his home. He stated he is sympathetic to the argument that there is a 35
shortage of high quality child care and he has heard good comments from people whose children 36
attended the center but concerns of the neighbors do need to play a role in the decision. 37
38
Chair Papatola stated he has no doubt this is a good child care facility. 39
40
Motion carried 5-1 (Westrick). 41
42
Motion by Commissioner Kalar, seconded by Commissioner Larson, to recommend the City 43
Council deny the request for a Conditional Use Permit to allow for a childcare facility serving up 44
to 17 children on the property located at 3029 Wilson Street. 45
46
Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes
May 21, 2018
Page 8
Motion carried 6-0. 1
2
IV. STAFF REPORTS 3
4
A. Comprehensive Plan Update 5
6
Ms. Rothstein provided an update of the Comprehensive Plan, noting many comments were 7
received and the Steering Committee has met to review the comments. Comments will continue 8
to be collected from other agencies for 6 months, at which point the draft plan can be revised. 9
10
Chair Papatola commended Ms. Rothstein on her work on the Plan along with the Steering 11
Committee and residents. 12
13
V. OTHER BUSINESS – NONE. 14
15
VI. COMMUNITY FORUM 16
17
Ms. Nancy Robinett, 3408 31st Avenue NE, commented on the Comprehensive Plan. She 18
attended the Steering Committee and stated there is not a mechanism for residents to give 19
feedback to the Steering Committee. The meeting in April was titled only as the Steering 20
Committee in the notice of meeting. She explained that members of SAFCA were not aware it 21
was the Comp Plan Steering Committee until the last minute. She asked that in the future, 22
meeting notices be more descriptive. Ms. Robinett made procedural comments about the Comp 23
Plan Steering Committee as far as public engagement and getting public feedback. At the 24
meeting, there was no setting for public comment. At the end of the meeting Ms. Rothstein was 25
requested to work up a consensus of the group’s response to community comment on the Comp 26
Plan. 27
28
Ms. Robinett stated she does not know when the community will see that response or write-up 29
from Ms. Rothstein. She asked for a quicker response. She stated it seemed at the meeting the 30
Steering Committee was not willing to take into account the resident’s comments. She suggested 31
scheduling another session or two to gain resident input. The SAFCA commentary was provided 32
to the Steering Committee and was quickly discussed. Ms. Robinett noted there was no mention 33
that 100 residents signed the SAFCA commentary. She felt the Steering Committee did not give 34
enough time or attention to the resident or SAFCA commentary. Ms. Robinett asked that the 35
Commission take the comments seriously and make time to hear more resident comments. 36
37
VII. INFORMATION AND ANNOUNCEMENTS – NONE. 38
39
VIII. ADJOURNMENT. 40
41
Motion by Commissioner Westrick, seconded by Commissioner Socha, to adjourn the meeting at 42
8:35 p.m. 43
Motion carried 6-0. 44
Respectfully submitted, 45
Debbie Wolfe (TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc.) 46
MEMORANDUM
To: St. Anthony Village Planning Commission
From: Breanne Rothstein, AICP, City Planner
Date: Planning Commission Regular Meeting for June 25, 2018
WSB Project No. 11104‐00: 3531 Silver Lake Rd Variance Application
Request: Request for a seven (7) foot variance from the required front yard setback
in the R‐1 District at the property located at 3531 Silver Lake Road.
RECOMMENDATION
The applicant is proposing to construct a 278 square foot two story addition to the front of the existing
house. The Applicant’s request is for a variance to exceed the R‐1 District front yard setback
requirements by 7 feet. The existing house has a front yard setback of 33’ 8”. Per City Code Section
152.039 (E) the front yard must have a depth equal to the greater of 30 feet or a distance equal to the
average of the front yard depths of the two adjacent lots.
The front yard setback of the house to the north is 54’ and the front yard setback of the house to the
south is 27’ 6”, which would make the required front yard setback for this property 40’ 8”
The applicant’s request to construct the addition is reasonable and the addition will not alter the
essential character of this neighborhood. Staff recommends approval of the variance request.
While there are other options for placement of an addition, the addition to the front of the home will
positively add to the visual appeal and will also not exceed the current front yard setback of 33.8 feet.
Staff has reviewed for height, side/rear yard setback, impervious surface and the request appears to
meet all other code standards.
GENERAL INFORMATION
Applicant: Nadia Glynn
Owner: Nadia Glynn
Location: 3531 Silver Lake Road
Existing Land Use / Low‐Density Residential / Zoned: R‐1 Single Family District
Zoning:
Surrounding Land North: Low‐Density Residential / Zoned: R‐1 Single Family District
Use / Zoning: East: Low‐Density Residential / Zoned: R‐1 Single Family District
South: Low‐Density Residential / Zoned: R‐1 Single Family District
West: Low‐Density Residential / Zoned: R‐1 Single Family District
Deadline for Agency Application Date: 05‐22‐18
Action: 60 Days: 07‐21‐18
Letter Sent: No
120 Days: NA
June 25, 2018
Page 2
CONSIDERATIONS RELATING TO THE PROPOSED VARIANCE
1. Background
The applicant is proposing to construct a two story addition to the front side of their home. The
applicant indicates the addition will add an additional bedroom in the basement and additional
living space on the main level.
The minimum required setback in the R‐1 District is 30 feet or the average setback dimension of the
two adjacent lots. Most homes on the applicant’s block have a setback of 30 to 35 feet, except the
house located to the north, which has a setback of 54 feet. The applicant’s current setback is 33.8
feet, which is legal non‐conforming, however with the expansion of the addition, it will require a 7‐
foot variance in order to be compliant with the requirements of the R‐1 District.
2. Applicable Codes.
Title XV Land Usage, Chapter 152 Zoning Code, Section 152.039 (E) Front yard apply to this proposal.
City Code Section 152.039 (E) states the front yard must have a depth equal to the greater of 30 feet
or a distance equal to the average of the front yard depths of the two adjacent lots.
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.
Request: Request for a 7‐foot variance from the required front yard setback. The applicable
criteria include:
1. The subject matter of the application is within the scope of this section.
The application for a variance to front yard setback is an 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 applicant is proposing to add additional living space of 278 square feet. The request
is not unreasonable for a family that wishes to increase the capacity of their home so
that they may stay in the community. While there may be other options for placement
of the addition, an addition to the front of the home will add positive aesthetics to the
front view of the home. Criterion met.
b. The plight of the property owner is due to circumstances unique to the property not
created by the property owner;
The property is located on a block where most homes have a similar setback, except the
house located to the north, which has a setback of 54 feet. The minimum setback of the
R‐1 District is 30 feet or the average of depth of the adjacent properties, whichever is
more. The setback of the home to the north is particularly large and exceeds the setback
distance by 24 feet otherwise the applicant’s setback of 33.8 feet would be permissible.
June 25, 2018
Page 3
The conditions created by surrounding property owners are the origin of this variance
request, not created by the applicants themselves. Criterion met.
c. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality; and
Granting of this variance will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood.
Most homes on this block have similar front yard setbacks. Criterion met.
d. Economic considerations alone are not the basis of the practical difficulties.
The applicant’s request is not related to any financial considerations and granting the
variance would not relieve the applicant of any financial hardship. 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,
low‐density residential. The comprehensive plan guides this area detached housing units and
granting this variance request will not alter that land use. Criterion met.
4. The granting of the variance is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the zoning
code.
The intent of the zoning code is to protect the health, safety, and general welfare of the city and
its people through the establishment of minimum regulations governing land development and
use. The zoning code is established to: protect the use districts; promote orderly development
and redevelopment; provide adequate light, air, and access to property; prevent congestion in
the public streets; prevent overcrowding of land and undue concentration of structures by
regulating land, buildings, yards, and densities; and provide for compatibility of different land
uses.
The addition proposed by the applicant does not in any way conflict with the spirit or intent of
St. Anthony’s zoning code. The impact to surrounding property owners and community
members will be negligible, and will not be harmful to the health, safety or general welfare of
the neighborhood. Criterion met.
CONCLUSION
Staff recommends approval of the requested variances at 3531 Silver Lake Road with the following
conditions:
1. The front yard setback dimension at 3531 Silver Lake Road shall not be less than 33.8 feet as
shown in the application materials.
2. Issuance of a building permit for proposed addition that meets all the requirements of the
building code, all other provision of the zoning code not subject to this variance, and all other
applicable regulations, including review by City Engineer.
POSSIBLE ACTIONS
1. Motion to recommend approval of the request for variance at 3531 Silver Lake Road and
direct staff to prepare resolution declaring terms of the same.
2. Motion to recommend denial of the variance. In the event of a recommendation for denial, the
Planning Commission must state its findings related to denial.
June 25, 2018
Page 4
3. Request Additional Information and Table Action. The Applicant appears to have provided
enough information for the Planning Commission to make a recommendation to approve or
deny the request.
ATTACHMENTS
Exhibit A: Location map
Exhibit B: Application and Supporting Material
Exhibit C: Draft resolution
3531 Silver Lake Road
test
May 29, 2018 Map Powered by DataLink from WSB & Associates
1 in = 50 ft
±
THIS PAGE LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK
My mother had a stroke in August of 2017 and is no longer able to live on her own or go to work full
time. Due to financial restrictions and the part-time care that my mother requires, we've decided that
living with us is best. However, because our initial plans did not include having additional room for a
situation like this, we needed to figure out another plan to make more room. We first considered a
much larger addition that would include adding a new garage but quickly realized that it would create a
home that is too big for this location and would look more like an “addition” and that would not be as
much in line with the spirit of the neighborhood.
After many ideas came and went, we finally agreed on this design concept of adding onto the front of
the home which would give my mother a room of her own in the basement as well as increasing our
living room size/living space on the upper level.
The reasons we feel this would be the best option and are asking for your approval are as follows:
This proved to be the most practical way to best fulfil our needs for more space
This addition & design adds great curb appeal and continued design aesthetic to a main road in
the village
We are trying to keep & maintain the beautiful mature trees in our backyard along with as much
green coverage as possible. With this design, that allows us to keep that to a maximum while
also keeping the addition to a minimum interference to the front of the house.
In looking at the adjacent properties to mine on Silver Lake Road, it seems to be only one of my
neighbors houses (out of the whole block) that is the outlier in having the furthest set back from
the rest therefore increasing the average set back which is almost 7’ past the Village’s 30’
setback minimum.
The current design would still be further, by 4 feet, than the city’s 30 foot front setback
minimum.
This addition would quite closely put ourselves in line with the majority of the homes on our
street while still adding a beautiful aesthetic to the front and increasing property values here in
the Village.
We hope you will consider my request for this variance so that we can add on to the front of our home.
Attached are the design plans as well as the property survey from the city.
Thank you for your time.
Respectfully,
Nadia D. Glynn, Property Owner
THIS PAGE LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK
WH3068 1607026682668
UP
16'-6"
21'-3"
3'-8"10'-10"22'-4"23'-11"14'-1"
12'-4"2'-5"
14'-9"3'-5"21'-11"
40'-1"
22'-9"11'-1"24'-7"35'-8"10'-8"13'-8"24'-4"35'-8"11'-4"17'-4"
under
stair
storage
EXISTING GARAGE
EXISTING BASEMENT
BACKYARD
LIVING AREAFLOOR TRUSS8" @ 16" O.C.SHEET
#
FILE:
SCALE:
APPROVED:
DRAWN BY:
DATE:
JOB #:
DATE DRAWING BY
AS NOTEDGLYNN RESIDENCE1613 93rd LANE BLAINE, MN 554491
4/4/2018
NDG
EXISTING - basement
SCALE: 3/16" = 1'-0"3531 SILVER LAKE ROAD NEST ANTHONY VILLAGE MN 55418EXISTING - BASEMENT
B6022
ChefSeries DishwasherSB36B15RB41B27RB32B6022
ChefSeries DishwasherSB36B15RB41B27RB32U3924962640DH2640DH2640DH2640DH2640DH3626AW3626AW3626AW2668
5068
3068 2640SC 6340FX
3626AW 3626AW
6340FX2640SC2640DH2640DH2668
5068256823683626AW50684068 4068
2668
26682668
UP
10'-5"
11'-3"2'-4"
17'-3"
8'-2"11'2'-4"
14'12'-1"8'-1"8'-3"8'
11'-6"
18'-4"5'-10"12'-8"
21'-2"
21'-6"
14'5'-5"2'-8"2'-8"12'-7"2'-8"2'-1"
11'-10"28'-1"
39'-11"2'-5"2'-8"19'-4"24'-5"35'-9"11'-4"10'-8"12'-2"12'-6"2'-3"8'-3"12'-9"35'-9"17'-6"
holden
BACKYARD
crosby
CHIMNEYSHEET
#
FILE:
SCALE:
APPROVED:
DRAWN BY:
DATE:
JOB #:
DATE DRAWING BYEXISTING - MAIN LEVELAS NOTED
EXISTING PLAN - MAIN LEVEL
SCALE: 3/16" = 1'-0"GLYNN RESIDENCE1613 93rd LANE BLAINE, MN 554492
4/4/2018
NDG3531 SILVER LAKE ROAD NEST ANTHONY VILLAGE MN 55418
S
S
SB48SB48
WH2620FX2620FX2668
2620FX
30682640DH2640DH2640DH2668
3616FX21016FX2316FX
16070 50682640DH 2640DH
2668
2640DH2668 266826682068
UPUPNRRRRE1E1E2E2S1S116'-6"21'-3"3'-8"12'-6"165'89'-4"33'-8"89'-4"30'-1"16'-8"30'20'10'4'-8"6'
3'-4"
15'-9"2'-7"4'-6"1005 SQ FTunderstair storageEXISTING GARAGEEXISTING BASEMENTBACKYARDLIVING AREAHOW FAR CAN WE MOVEMECHANICALS & LAUNDRY DOOR TO ALLOWFOR MORE MUDROOM SPACE?? WOULD LOVE TO INSTALL DOORWAY HERE INSTEAD--FROMGARAGELIVINGBATHFLOOR JOIST
2X8 @ 16" O.C.NEWBEDROOMWORK SCOPE TBDGARAGEOPTION 1 FOR SAME CEILING HEIGHT
NEW FLOOR JOIST
2X8 @ 12" O.C. DOUBLING UP EVERY OTHER JOIST
OPTION 2 FLOOR JOIST
2X10 OR 9 1/4" I-JST @ 16" O.C.SILVER LAKE ROADSIDEWALKasphalt driveway 1678 SQFT SIDEWALK 122 SQFTEXISTING HOUSE 1222 SQFT
ADDITION TO THE HOUSE 278 SQFT
TOTAL SQ.FT. OF IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE
3,300 SQ.FT. SO 28% OF 11,699 SQ.FT. LOT (LOT
SQ.FT. OF HENNEPIN INTERACTIVE PROPERTY
MAPS)PROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINE
PROPERTY LINE
PROPERTY LINE PROPERTY LINE
PROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINE
PROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINENEIGHBORS TO THE SOUTH:
DISTANCE TO SIDEWALK = 27.6'
NEIGHBORS TO THE NORTH:
DISTANCE TO SIDEWALK = 54'
SHEET
#
FILE:
SCALE:
APPROVED:
DRAWN BY:
DATE:
JOB #:
DATE DRAWING BY
AS NOTEDGLYNN RESIDENCE1613 93rd LANE BLAINE, MN 554493
4/4/2018
NDG3531 SILVER LAKE ROAD NEST ANTHONY VILLAGE MN 55418
SSSB48SB48WH2620FX2620FX26682620FX30682640DH2640DH2640DH2668 3616FX21016FX2316FX160705068
2640DH2640DH26682640DH
26682668 26682068UP
R
R
R
R
S1S1
16'-6"
21'-3"
3'-8"
12'-6"
4'-8"6'3'-4"15'-9"2'-7"4'-6"under
stair
storage
EXISTING GARAGE
EXISTING BASEMENT
HOW FAR CAN WE MOVE
MECHANICALS &
LAUNDRY DOOR TO ALLOW
FOR MORE MUDROOM
SPACE?? WOULD LOVE TO
INSTALL DOORWAY
HERE INSTEAD--FROM
GARAGE
LIVING
BATH FLOOR JOIST2X8 @ 16" O.C.NEW
BEDROOM
WORK SCOPE TBD
GARAGEOPTION 1 FOR SAME CEILING HEIGHT NEW FLOOR JOIST2X8 @ 12" O.C. DOUBLING UP EVERY OTHER JOISTOPTION 2 FLOOR JOIST2X10 OR 9 1/4" I-JST @ 16" O.C.SHEET
#
FILE:
SCALE:
APPROVED:
DRAWN BY:
DATE:
JOB #:
DATE DRAWING BY
AS NOTEDGLYNN RESIDENCE1613 93rd LANE BLAINE, MN 554494
4/4/2018
NDG3531 SILVER LAKE ROAD NEST ANTHONY VILLAGE MN 55418PROPOSED PLAN - BASEMENT
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"PROPOSED - BASEMENT
B6022
ChefSeries DishwasherSB36LCB36R
B12RLCB36R B29B29B422DB21
B6022
ChefSeries DishwasherSB36LCB36R
B12RLCB36R B29B29B422DB21
U392496U362496W2942W3021W2942W42423040SC3626AW5068
3068
3626AW 3626AW
2040SC 5040FX
2668 3040SC256823683626AW50683040SC4068
2668
2668
5040FX2040SC2640SC2640SCUP
new window
new window
new window
new window
new window
S1S1
10'-1"
11'-3"2'-4"
14'
2'-4"
14'12'-1"8'-1"8'-3"8'
11'-9"
19'-1"
21'-2"
14'8'-0 15/16"holden
BACKYARD
crosby
CHIMNEYFLUSH BEAM
2.0E PARALLAM
5-1/4" X 16"HAND FRAMED ROOF RAFTERS2X10 OR 9-1/4" I-JST @ 16" O.C. 1/2" ROOF PITCH 2 PLY 2X10 HEADER
OVER WDW
SOLID BLOCKING TO
FOUNDATION WALL
SOLID BLOCKING TO
FOUNDATION WALL
SHEET
#
FILE:
SCALE:
APPROVED:
DRAWN BY:
DATE:
JOB #:
DATE DRAWING BY
AS NOTEDGLYNN RESIDENCE1613 93rd LANE BLAINE, MN 55449PROPOSED - MAIN LEVEL5
4/4/2018
NDG3531 SILVER LAKE ROAD NEST ANTHONY VILLAGE MN 55418PROPOSED PLAN - MAIN FLOOR
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"
23'-4"15'-7"18'-10"3'-3"4'-3"4'-3"3'-3"7'-5"4'-3"3'-8"
3'
2'-6"1'-9"1'-3"STUCCO TO
MATCH AS CLOSE AS
POSSIBLE TO EXISTING
(FRONT AND LEFT RETURN)
NEW SIDING MATERIALS
TYPE/STYLE/COLOR: TBD
RE-USE STONE FROM
FRONT OF HOUSE AFTER
REMOVAL
TERRAIN WALL AROUND
EGRESS WINDOW
EXISTING STAIRS WERE
NOT MEASURED
SHEET
#
FILE:
SCALE:
APPROVED:
DRAWN BY:
DATE:
JOB #:
DATE DRAWING BY
AS NOTEDGLYNN RESIDENCE1613 93rd LANE BLAINE, MN 554496
4/4/2018
NDG3531 SILVER LAKE ROAD NEST ANTHONY VILLAGE MN 55418
5'-9"
4'-9"
7'-4"4'egress
window
existing stonework
NO WORK HERE
new stucco to
match existing
as close as possible
SHEET
#
FILE:
SCALE:
APPROVED:
DRAWN BY:
DATE:
JOB #:
DATE DRAWING BY
AS NOTEDGLYNN RESIDENCE1613 93rd LANE BLAINE, MN 554497
4/4/2018
NDG3531 SILVER LAKE ROAD NEST ANTHONY VILLAGE MN 55418
SHEET
#
FILE:
SCALE:
APPROVED:
DRAWN BY:
DATE:
JOB #:
DATE DRAWING BY
AS NOTEDGLYNN RESIDENCE1613 93rd LANE BLAINE, MN 554498
4/4/2018
NDG3531 SILVER LAKE ROAD NEST ANTHONY VILLAGE MN 55418
EXHIBIT - C:
CITY OF ST. ANTHONY VILLAGE
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION __________
RESOLUTION APPROVING A REQUEST FOR A SEVEN (7) FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE
REQUIRED FRONT YARD SETBACK IN THE R-1 DISTRICT AT THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT
3531 SILVER LAKE ROAD.
WHEREAS, the City of St. Anthony Village received a request from the Applicant and Property Owner
Nadia Glynn for a variance of seven (7) feet from the required front yard setback in the R-1 District at the
property located at 3531 Silver Lake Road on May 22, 2018, legally described as follows:
S 89 35/100 Ft Of N 1158 75/100 Ft Of W 165 Ft Of Nw 1/4 Of Ne 1/4 Ex Road
WHEREAS, the property located at 3531 Silver Lake Road is located within the City’s R-1 Single Family
District; and
WHEREAS, per Section 152.039 of city code, the front yard must have a depth equal to the greater of
30 feet or a distance equal to the average of the front yard depths of the two adjacent lots; and
WHEREAS, the property located to the South has a 27.6 foot front yard setback, while the property to
the North has a 54 foot front yard setback; resulting in a 40.8 foot required front yard setback and
WHEREAS, the Applicant has requested a 7-foot variance from front yard setback dimension
requirement to accommodate a proposed addition; 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 June 25, 2018
and recommended approval of the request; and
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council’s hereby approves the requested
variance, subject to the following conditions:
1. The front yard setback dimension at 3531 Silver Lake Road shall not be less than 33.8 feet as shown in
the application materials.
2. Issuance of a building permit for proposed addition that meets all the requirements of the building code,
all other provision of the zoning code not subject to this variance, and all other applicable regulations.
Adopted this day of , 2018.
_____________________________
Jerome O Faust, Mayor
ATTEST:____________________________
Nicole Miller, City Clerk
Reviewed for administration: ______________________________
Mark Casey, City Manager
THIS PAGE LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK
Glynn Variance
Planning Commission Meeting
June 25, 2018
–Applicant is requesting a variance to allow the addition of a re-
located front door and living room on to the front of the home at
3531 Silver Lake Road.
–Required front yard setback of 40.67 feet (average of two adjacent
homes). Proposed is 33.67 feet, resulting in a 7 foot variance being
requested.
Variance Request
Addition 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 requires a front yard setback
of 30 feet, or the average of the adjacent two
homes, whichever is greater.
Addition Location
Addition Location
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.
Planning Commission
Recommendation
Staff Recommends approval of the variance,
based on review of the criteria.
Questions?
THIS PAGE LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK
3301 Silver Lake Road, St. Anthony, Minnesota 55418-1699
Office: (612) 782-3301 • Fax: (612) 782-3302 • www.savmn.com
Our Mission is to be a progressive and welcoming Village that is walkable, sustainable and safe.
NOTICE OF A PUBLIC HEARING
Notice is hereby given that on June 25, 2018, at 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
from the property owner at 3531 Silver Lake Road for a variance to exceed the front yard setback by 7
feet on the premises located at 3531 Silver Lake Road. The Planning Commission will make a
recommendation regarding the proposed request to the City Council for their meeting to be held on July
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