HomeMy WebLinkAboutPL PACKET 08272018
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 August 27, 2018 Planning Commission Meeting Agenda. (action requested)
II. Approval of the June 25, 2018 Regular Planning Commission Meeting Minutes.
III. Public Hearing.
A. Consider a request for a Conditional Use Permit to allow for a Dynamic Display Electronic
Sign and a variance to the required setback from the curb at the property located at 3249
Stinson Boulevard.
B. Consider a request for re-zoning located at 3329 and 3331 Stinson Boulevard. The specific
request is to re-zone the property from R-1 Single Family Residential to R-2 Two-Family
Residential.
C. Consider an Administrative Appeal of Zoning Determination regarding decks from Mary
Friend 3331 Edward Street.
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
AUGUST 27, 2018
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
7:00 PM
CITY OF ST. ANTHONY 1
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 2
June 25, 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, Larson, Neumann, and 16
Socha. 17
18
Absent: Commissioners Kalar and Westrick 19
20
Also Present: City Planner Breanne Rothstein 21
22
23
I. APPROVAL OF THE JUNE 25, 2018 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AGENDA. 24
25
Motion by Commissioner Socha, seconded by Commissioner Larson, to approve the June 25, 26
2018 Planning Commission agenda. 27
28
Motion carried 5-0. 29
30
II. APPROVAL OF THE MAY 21, 2018 REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 31
MINUTES. 32
33
Motion by Commissioner Socha, seconded by Commissioner Larson, to approve the May 21, 34
2018 Regular Planning Commission Meeting Minutes as presented. 35
36
Motion carried 5-0. 37
38
III. PUBLIC HEARING. 39
40
A. Consider a request for a seven-foot variance from the required front yard setback in 41
the R-1 district located at 3531 Silver Lake Road. 42
43
Chair Papatola opened the public hearing at 7:06 p.m. 44
45
City Planner Breanne Rothstein reviewed the applicant Nadia Glynn is proposing to construct a 46
278 square foot two story addition to the front of the existing house. The request is for a variance 47
to exceed the R-1 District front yard setback requirements by 7 feet. The existing house has a 48
front yard setback of 33’ 8”. Per City Code Section 152.039 (E) the front yard must have a depth 49
Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes
June 25, 2018
Page 2
equal to the greater of 30 feet or a distance equal to the average of the front yard depths of the 1
two adjacent lots. The front yard setback of the house to the north is 54’ and the front yard 2
setback of the house to the south is 27’ 6” which would make the required front yard setback for 3
this property 40’8”. 4
5
Ms. Rothstein showed an overhead view of the property and surrounding properties. The 6
applicable codes were reviewed and a floorplan of the addition was provided. 7
8
The applicant’s request to construct the addition is reasonable and the addition will not alter the 9
essential character of this neighborhood. Staff recommends approval of the variance request. 10
11
Ms. Rothstein reviewed the Criteria for and Consistency with Criteria for Variance Approval. 12
13
The subject matter of the application is within the scope of this section. The application for a 14
variance to front yard setback is an eligible subject matter for variance criteria because these 15
factors are related to dimensional and/or bulk standards – Criterion met. 16
17
Strict enforcement would cause practical difficulties because the property owner proposes to use 18
the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by the zoning code. The applicant is proposing 19
to add additional living space of 278 square feet. The request is not unreasonable for a family 20
that wishes to increase the capacity of their home so that they may stay in the community. While 21
there may be other options for placement of the addition, an addition to the front of the home 22
will add positive aesthetics to the front view of the home – Criterion met. 23
24
The plight of the property owner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by 25
the property owner. The property is located on a block where most homes have a similar setback, 26
except the house located to the north, which has a setback of 54 feet. The minimum setback of 27
the R-1 District is 30 feet or the average of depth of the adjacent properties, whichever is more. 28
The setback of the home to the north is particularly large and exceeds the setback distance by 24 29
feet otherwise the applicant’s setback of 33’ 8” would be permissible. The conditions created by 30
surrounding property owners are the origin of this variance request, not created by the applicants 31
themselves – Criterion met. 32
33
The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality; and granting of this 34
variance will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. Most homes on this block 35
have similar front yard setbacks – Criterion met. 36
37
Economic considerations alone are not the basis of the practical difficulties. The applicant’s 38
request is not related to any financial considerations and granting the variance would not relieve 39
the applicant of any financial hardship – Criterion met. 40
41
The variance, if granted, would be consistent with the City’s comprehensive land use plan. If the 42
variance is granted the use of the property would remain the same land use as it is today, low-43
density residential. The comprehensive plan guides this area detached housing units and granting 44
this variance will not alter that land use – Criterion met. 45
46
Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes
June 25, 2018
Page 3
The granting of the variance is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the zoning 1
code. The intent of the zoning code is to protect the health, safety, and general welfare of the city 2
and its people through the establishment of minimum regulations governing land development 3
and use. The zoning code is established to protect the use districts; promote orderly development 4
and redevelopment; provide adequate light, air and access to property; prevent congestion in the 5
public streets; prevent overcrowding of land and undue concentration of structures by regulating 6
land, buildings, yards, and densities; and provide for compatibility of different land uses. The 7
addition proposed by the applicant does not in any way conflict with the spirit or intent of St. 8
Anthony’s zoning code. The impact to surrounding property owners and community members 9
will be negligible, and will not be harmful to the health, safety or general welfare of the 10
neighborhood – Criterion met. 11
12
Ms. Rothstein summarized staff recommends approval of the requested variances at 3531 Silver 13
Lake Road with the following conditions: 14
15
1. The front yard setback dimension at 3531 Silver Lake Road shall not be less than 33’ 8” as 16
shown in the application materials. 17
2. Issuance of a building permit for proposed addition that meets all the requirements of the 18
building code, all other provision of the zoning code not subject to his variance, and all other 19
applicable regulations, including review by City Engineer. 20
21
Possible actions are: 22
23
1. Motion to recommend approval of the request for variance at 3531 Silver Lake Road and 24
direct staff to prepare resolution declaring terms of the same. 25
2. Motion to recommend denial of the variance. In the event of a recommendation for denial, 26
the Planning Commission must state its findings related to denial. 27
3. Request Additional Information and Table Action. The Applicant appears to have provided 28
enough information for the Planning Commission to make a recommendation to approve or 29
deny the request. 30
31
Ms. Rothstein provided a location map, application and supporting material and draft resolution. 32
33
Commissioner Bartel asked for clarification if the home to the north had a 30-foot setback no 34
variance would be needed. Ms. Rothstein stated that is true. 35
36
Commissioner Larson asked about existing and current and asked if the variance was granted the 37
setback would be 33 feet 8 inches. The addition is 3 feet 4 inches closer to the setback. 38
39
Chair Papatola closed the public hearing at 7:15 p.m. 40
41
Motion by Commissioner Bartel, seconded by Commissioner Larson to recommend the City 42
Council approve the request for variance at 3531 Silver Lake Road and direct staff to prepare 43
resolution declaring terms of the same. 44
45
Motion carried 5-0. 46
Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes
June 25, 2018
Page 4
1
IV. STAFF REPORTS. 2
3
Commissioner Neumann asked staff how the draft of the Strategic Plan was coming along. Ms. 4
Rothstein stated the Goal Setting Strategic Plan is completed and available on the website. 5
Commissioner Neuman asked about the Comprehensive Plan document including comments 6
from SAFCA. Ms. Rothstein stated the Steering Committee reviewed the comments a couple of 7
months ago and she updated a spreadsheet and decided how to move forward as a Steering 8
Committee. A more final draft will come back before the Steering Committee in November. It 9
will be approved by the City Council and submitted to the Met Council. The Met Council will 10
have 140 days to review. It is also being reviewed by adjacent Cities. There has already been a 11
preliminary review by the Met Council staff. After the formal Met Council review, any 12
comments come back to the City Council for final approval. 13
14
V. OTHER BUSINESS – NONE. 15
16
VI. COMMUNITY FORUM – NONE. 17
18
VII. INFORMATION AND ANNOUNCEMENTS. 19
20
Commissioner Neumann announced there is a Human Rights Convention June 26, 2018 in St. 21
Paul. Cost is $25. 22
23
Chair Papatola noted both State Representatives are present in the Community Center this 24
evening until 9:00 p.m. 25
26
VIII. ADJOURNMENT. 27
28
Motion by Commissioner Neumann, seconded by Commissioner Bartel, to adjourn the meeting 29
at 7:22 p.m. 30
31
Motion carried 5-0. 32
33
34
Respectfully submitted, 35
Debbie Wolfe (TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc.) 36
MEMORANDUM
To: St. Anthony Village Planning Commission
From: Breanne Rothstein, AICP, City Planner
Date:
Planning Commission Regular Meeting for August 27, 2018
WSB Project No. 011104‐00
Request: Request for a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) and a variance from the
required setback from the curb to allow for a double‐sided dynamic display
sign located at 3249 Stinson Boulevard NE.
RECOMMENDATION
The application for a conditional use permit to allow for a dynamic display sign has been reviewed and
appears to meet the requirements. Therefore, staff recommends approval of the request for a conditional
use permit to allow a dynamic display sign on the property at 3249 Stinson Boulevard. Additionally the
City Code requires signs to be setback 15’ from the curb. The current legal non‐conforming sign is located
12’ 6” from the curb. The applicant’s request for a 2’ 6” varia nce from the setback is a reasonable request.
Therefore staff recommends approval of the variance.
GENERAL INFORMATION
Applicant: Rose City Sign Inc.
Owners: Olson Truck Shop‐Super America
Location: 3249 Stinson Boulevard NE
Existing Land Use / Gasoline Station/ C‐Commercial District‐Conditional Permitted Use
Zoning:
Surrounding Land North: Townhomes / Zoned R‐3 Townhouse District
Use / Zoning: East: Low density residential / Zoned R‐1 Single Family Residential
South: Duplexes / Zoned R‐2 Two‐Family Residential
West: City of Minneapolis (Low Density Residential and Commercial)
Deadline for Agency Application Date: 07‐12‐18
Action: 60 Days: 09‐11‐18
Letter Sent: NA
120 Days: NA
CONSIDERATIONS RELATING TO THE REQUEST
1. Background
Olson Truck Shop AKA Super America, located at 3249 Stinson Boulevard NE, wishes to construct a
monument sign with a double‐sided electronic display on the corner of Stinson Blvd. and 33rd Ave.
Page 2
NE, where their current pylon sign is located. This is the first application the city has received for a
dynamic display sign for gasoline prices.
In December 2014, the City amended its sign code (§155) to allow for non‐commercial “dynamic
display” signs in the C‐Commercial district through the issuance of a conditional use permit. The
ordinance stipulates that the conditions with respect to the issuance of any Conditional Use Permit
for a Dynamic Display Sign shall cover at least the following:
(1) Aesthetics of the sign, including, but not limited to message color, construction materials,
and landscaping;
(2) Location of the sign with regard to the surrounding area; and
(3) Position/layout of the sign with regard to the surrounding area.
Additional specifications for dynamic display signs regarding placement, size of display and copy,
illumination, and message transitions are stipulated in §155.29 (DYNAMIC DISPLAYS).
2. Analysis
Design
The applicant has submitted design specifications that indicate the sign will be a monument sign
design located on top of the existing block base. The total allowable square footage of copy sign
surface for a ground sign in this zoning district is 68 square feet. The maximum allowable copy sign
surface for dynamic display is 23.8 square feet (35% of total allowable square footage).
The upper cabinet will contain a 12.7 square foot double‐sided LED illuminated upper cabinet
containing the Super America logo, which is non‐dynamic. The dynamic display component of the
sign will be a double‐sided Monochrome electronic display for the price digits. The total square
footage of the dynamic display area is 6 square feet, which is well under the maximum allowable
(23.8 square feet).
The height of the proposed sign is 7 feet, which meets the requirements of a maximum of 8 feet.
The proposed sign will be placed on the existing sign base. The base design includes retaining wall
block and rock components to enhance the appearance, which is a required component of ground
signs. No external source of illumination is proposed.
Position and Layout
The required setback for a ground sign is 15 feet from the curb line of any public street, and must be
located entirely out of the right‐of‐way. The proposed sign will be constructed on the existing sign
base which is located more than the required setback on 33rd Avenue but only 12’ 6” from the back
of curb on Stinson. The applicant has requested a 2’ 6” variance.
Additional Sign Requirements
The applicant has provided details regarding the dynamic characteristics of the sign. Elements to
consider include the size of the sign text and display area, hours of sign illumination and operation,
brightness, the frequency of message transitions, and the prohibition of audio or video functions.
Size of copy (lettering) is required to be a minimum of 7 inches in height, the applicant has
submitted the text will be 12 inches in height and the digits will be 16 inches in height. The duration
of images and messages must be a minimum of 8 seconds. The transition between sequences must
be instantaneous and no video display is allowed. The messaging must be monochromatic.
Brightness is restricted to 4,500 nits during the day, and 450 nits at night. The applicant has
provided evidence that the signs illumination can be adjusted.
These requirements will be included as contingencies of approval because they are changeable
factors and will need to be verified upon construction.
Page 3
3. Applicable Codes Relating to this request.
Title XV Land Usage, Chapter 155 Zoning Code, Section 152.29 DYNAMIC DISPLAYS (C) Conditionally
Permitted Signs states that Dynamic Displays may be conditionally permitted “as free‐standing
ground signs with the issuance of a Conditional Use Permit from the City Council in the C‐
Commercial District. Dynamic Display Signs are further required to “comply with the height, size,
arrangement, set back, location, and other applicable provisions of this Chapter and the district in
which the sign is located.”
Further specifications and requirements for Dynamic Displays are laid out in Section 155.29, parts D
– Q.
Title XV Land Usage, Chapter 155 Zoning Code, Section 155.30 DISTRICT SCHEDULES (B.1) which
states that in Commercial districts 1 ground sign is permitted subject to the provisions of § 155.01
on the property to which the sign pertains, with the exception of a Dynamic Display Sign, which
requires the issuance of a Conditional Use Permit (CUP).
Additionally, Title XV Land Usage, Chapter 152 Zoning Code, Section § 155.27 GROUND SIGNS (F)(2)
states signs must be located at least 15 feet from curb line of any public street and cannot be placed
within any street right‐of‐way or government easement.
4. Criteria for, and Consistency with, Criteria for Conditional Use Permit (CUP) Approval.
Title XV Land Usage, Chapter 152 Zoning Code, Section §152.243 CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS (C)
Application states that a conditional use permit may be granted only by a majority vote of all
members of the City Council after determining that:
1. The use is one of the conditional uses specifically listed for the district in which the property
is located;
The property at 3249 Stinson Blvd is zoned C‐Commercial. The Commercial District permits signs
as per the stipulations of the sign ordinance (§155). Within §155, Dynamic Display signs are
conditionally permitted solely as free‐standing ground signs with the issuance of a Conditional
Use Permit from the City Council in the C‐Commercial District. Criterion met.
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:
Conditions are introduced in this report and are included in the draft resolution for
consideration. Criterion met.
Conditions include:
a) Receipt of a variance for setback from back of curb.
b) Applicant will conform to all of the sign operation requirements of the Dynamic Display
ordinance.
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
Surrounding land uses in the immediate vicinity are a mix of single and double residential homes
as well as commercial. The sign will be visible from either direction on Stinson Boulevard; it will
also be visible from the intersection on 33rd Avenue NE. The placement of the sign in
perpendicular fashion to the residents along Stinson Blvd, minimizes the exposure of
neighboring residents to the sign’s dynamic and illumination display. Criterion met.
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.
Page 4
Having a medium by which to display current fuel price is a reasonable request from the
applicant, and provides a benefit in that the owner doesn’t have to switch out price manually.
Additionally, electronic display signs are a use being adopted by many other gasoline stations
around the area. Criterion met.
5. 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 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. The new
sign will be placed on the existing signs base. 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 of the existing sign. The
placement of the new dynamic display sign could be located to comply with the setback,
however since the existing base will be used for the new sign this would create an
unnecessary burden and cost to the owner and may impede ingress or egress of vehicles
to the property. 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.
The sign will be located in the same spot but enhanced to a dynamic display. Criterion
met.
d. Economic considerations alone are not the basis of the practical difficulties.
Granting the variance does not affect economic considerations. It is the setback of the
sign 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,
commercial. The comprehensive plan guides this area for commercial and the enhancement of
the sign to a dynamic display 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. Given these factors,
Page 5
this application is keeping with the intent of the ordinance to govern orderly land development. It is
common practice for gas stations to have signs displaying prices, and more commonly now those signs
are digital in nature. Criterion met.
POSSIBLE ACTIONS
1. Motion to recommend approval of the conditional use permit and variance and recommend
adoption of a resolution declaring terms of the same.
2. Motion to recommend denial of the conditional use permit and 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.
ATTACHMENTS
Exhibit A: Location map
Exhibit B: Application and Supporting Material
Exhibit C: Draft Resolution of Approval
3249 Stinson Blvd.
August 21, 2018
Map Powered by DataLink from WSB & Associates
1 in = 100 ft
±
EXHIBIT - C:
CITY OF ST. ANTHONY VILLAGE
STATE OF MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION NO. __________
RESOLUTION APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (CUP) TO ALLOW FOR
A DOUBLE-SIDED DYNAMIC DISPLAY MONUMENT SIGN AND A 2’ 6” VARIANCE
FROM THE REQUIRED SETBACK FROM THE CURB ON THE PREMISES
LOCATED AT 3249 STINSON BOULEVARD NE.
WHEREAS, the City of St. Anthony Village received a request from the Applicant Rose
City Sign Inc. for a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) to allow for a double-sided dynamic display
monument sign on the premises located at 3249 Stinson Boulevard NE Olson’s Truck Stop on
July 12, 2018, legally described as follows:
Lot 016 & 017, Block 003, Clarke & King’s Hennepin Gardens, Hennepin County Minnesota
WHEREAS, the Property located at 3249 Stinson Boulevard is located within the C
Commercial District and the setbacks for signs is 15 feet from curb line; and
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 2’ 6” variance from the setback on Stinson
Blvd. to use existing sign base to place new dynamic display monument sign on top of; and
WHEREAS, Dynamic Display signs are a permitted conditional use with the issuance of
a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) in the Commercial District; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission reviewed and considered the requests based on
the related documents shown in the Applicant’s application in a public hearing at their regular
meeting on August 27, 2018 and recommended approval of the requests, subject to the conditions
listed herein; and
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of St.
Anthony Village approves the Applicant’s Conditional Use Permit (CUP) and Variance request
based on the following findings:
1. The requested conditional use permit (CUP) is consistent with all of the standards for
granting a conditional use permit as described in Section §152.243 of the St. Anthony
Village Zoning Code. More specifically, the City Council finds that the requested
conditional use permit is justified for the following reasons:
a. The use is specifically allowed via conditional use permit in the Commercial
District;
b. The City has specified all conditions which the City Council has deemed
necessary to make the use compatible with other uses in the area;
c. 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
d. The proposed use will provide a service which is in the interest of public
convenience and will contribute to the general welfare.
2. The requested variance is consistent with all the standards of granting a variance as
described in Chapter 152 Zoning Code, Section §152.245 of the St. Anthony Village
Zoning Code. More specifically, the City Council finds that the requested variance is
justified for the following reasons:
a. The requested variance is within the scope of section §152.245.
b. Strict enforcement would cause practical difficulties.
c. The variance, if granted would be consistent with the City’s comprehensive land
use plan.
d. The granting of the variance is in harmony with the general purposes and intent
of the zoning code.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City Council’s
approval of the requested conditional use permit and variance is contingent on the following:
1. Applicant will provide a written certification from the sign manufacturer that light
intensity has been preset to conform to the brightness levels established by the City’s
code;
2. Applicant will conform to all of the sign operation requirements of the Dynamic
Display ordinance.
Adopted this day of , 2018.
_________________________________________
Jerome O. Faust, Mayor
ATTEST: ____________________________
Nicole Miller, City Clerk
Review for Administration: _________________________________________
Mark Casey, City Manager
3249 Stinson Boulevard
CUP and Variance Request
Planning Commission Meeting
August 27, 2018
3249 Stinson Boulevard
General Information
Applicants:Rose City Sign Inc.
Owners:Olson Truck Shop/SuperAmerica
Location:3249 Stinson Boulevard
Existing Land Use Commercial/Gasoline Station
/ Zoning:
Surrounding Land Use
/ Zoning: North: Townhomes / Zoned R-3 Townhouse District
East:Low Density Residential / Zoned R-1 Single Family Residential
South:Duplexes / Zoned R-2 Two Family Residential
West:City of Minneapolis (Low Density Residential and Commercial)
Description of Request
•Conditional Use Permit request to allow for a
double-sided dynamic display sign on the
premises at 3249 Stinson Boulevard NE.
•2’ 6 “ Variance request from required 15 foot
setback from curb line.
Description of Request
•The dynamic display component of the sign will
be 1’ 8” x 3’ 8” double sided Monochrome
electronic display and will display the current
price of fuel.
•The dynamic display will occupy 6 square feet,
which is under the maximum allowable size of
23.8 square feet for this sign. (35% of 68 sq. ft.
allowed)
•The sign base is made of retaining wall block and
rock components.
3249 Stinson Boulevard
•CUP Criteria Review
–Use is one of the conditional uses specifically
listed for the district in which the property is
located; CRITERION MET
–Use will not be detrimental to the health, safety or
general welfare of persons residing or working in
the vicinity; CRITERION MET
–Use will provide a service or facility which is in the
interest of public convenience and will contribute
to the general welfare; CRITERION MET
Operation Requirements of Dynamic
Display Signs
•Every line of copy and graphics must be at
least seven inches in height on a road with a
speed limit of 25 to 34 miles per hour
•May not change more often than once every 8
seconds
•Change sequence must be instantaneous
without any special effects.
Operation Requirements of Dynamic
Display Signs
•Monochromatic in color with a solid black
background
•No video display, flashing illumination, and
audio
•Ability to discontinue if malfunctioning
•Limits on brightness (written certification from
manufacturer)
3249 Stinson Boulevard
Staff recommends approval of the CUP and variance,
subject to the following conditions:
1.Applicant will provide a written certification from the
sign manufacturer that light intensity has been preset to
conform to the brightness levels established by the
City’s code.
2.Applicant will conform to all of the sign operation
requirements of the Dynamic Display ordinance.
3249 Stinson Boulevard
Questions?
NOTICE OF A PUBLIC HEARING
Notice is hereby given that on August 27, 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 to allow for a Dynamic Display Electronic Sign and a variance to the required
setback from the curb at the property located at 3249 Stinson Boulevard. 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
THIS PAGE LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK
MEMORANDUM
To: Planning Commissioners
From: Breanne Rothstein, AICP, City Planner
Date: Planning Commission meeting on August 27, 2018
WSB Project No. 011104‐00
Request: Public Hearing: Request for a re‐zoning from R‐1 to R‐2 for the property
located at 3331 and 33289 Stinson Boulevard
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Staff recommends approval of the re‐zoning request, based on an analysis of the existing and proposed
land uses in the neighborhood.
GENERAL INFORMATION
Applicant/Owner: Dan and Michelle Spriggs
Location: 3331 and 3329 Stinson Boulevard
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: Medium Density Residential/ Zoned R‐2 Two Family Residential
West: City of Columbia Heights
Deadline for Agency Application Date: 7‐30‐2018
Action: 60 Days: 9‐28‐2018
Letter Sent: No
120 Days: NA
BACKGROUND
The applicants have requested to re‐zone the duplex they own located at 3331 and 3329 Stinson
Boulevard. The existing structure is a duplex, but they have be using it as a single family home for many
years. They seek to now re‐use it as a duplex and re‐finance under a two‐unit structure. The property is
currently zoned R‐1 Single‐Family, which does not allow two‐family structures. Since they have not been
using it as a duplex, they are not eligible for such a use either in the zoning code or under the legal, non‐
conforming use statute.
August 16, 2018
Page 2
The current block in wehich this duplex is located consists of 3 single family homes on the northside of
the block, three duplex structures in the middle of the block, and one, six unit townhome development
on the south end of the block. All properties on the block are zoned for their existing use, except the
duplex at 3331 and 3329 Stinson Boulevard.
APPLICABLE CODES AND STATUTES
In Section 152.242, the City zoning ordinance sets forth the review for re‐zonings..
ANALYSIS OF REQUEST FOR A RE‐ZONING REQUEST
The City has broad discretion in the review and approval of a re‐zoning since it is considered a policy
change. City Code does not specifically establish guidance for the City in the re‐zonings. However,
staff would recommend using the following considerations:
1) Is the request consistent with the intent of the R‐2 Zoning Ordinance which states that “the
purpose of the R‐2 District is to provide areas which are best suited for a higher density than
single‐family dwellings, and which may serve as a transitional use between R‐1 or R‐1A Districts
and other districts”
Staff believes the request to re‐zoning the current duplex to R‐2 Two Family Residential is
consistent with the intent of the R‐2 district.
2) Is the proposed use of a two family unit generally acceptable use, as along as reasonable
conditions are applied?
Given the nature of the block, staff finds that a duplex unit on the property is an acceptable use,
especially given the current structure on the property.
3) Is the use consistent with the other uses in the adjacent neighborhood?
This area consists of mostly single‐family homes, duplexes, and medium density housing, which
is consistent with the request.
August 16, 2018
Page 3
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?
In Staff’s analysis, there is a compelling public interest to change the zoning on this property
because the zoning will then match the existing use, which is an acceptable use. It is better from
a planning perspective to have zoning consistent with existing land use, ,unless re‐development
is a desired outcome.
POSSIBLE ACTIONS
1. Motion to recommend that the City Council approve the re‐zoning of 3331 and 3329 Stinson
Boulevard from R‐1 Single Family Residential to R‐2 Two Family Residential.
2. Motion to recommend that the City Council deny of the re‐zoning of 3331 and 3329 Stinson
Boulevard from R‐1 Single Family Residential to R‐2 Two Family Residential.
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
Location Map
Application Materials
Draft Resolution
3331 and 3329 Stinson Boulevard
test
Legend
Address Labels
Zoning Designation
C - Commercial
L1 - Light Industrial
PUD - Planned Unit Development
R1 - Single Family Residential
R1A - Single Family Residential
R2 - Two Family REsidential
R3 - Townhomes
R4 - Multiple Dwellings
ROS - Recreation/Open Space
August 16, 2018 Map Powered by DataLink from WSB & Associates
1 in = 100 ft
±
EXHIBIT - C:
CITY OF ST. ANTHONY VILLAGE
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION __________
RESOLUTION APPROVING A REZONING FROM R-1 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL TO R-2
TWO-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL AT THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 3331 AND 3329 STINSON
BOULEVARD
WHEREAS, the City of St. Anthony Village received a request from the Applicant and Property Owner
Dan and Michelle Spriggs to re-zone the current duplex located at 3331 and 3329 Stinson Boulevard from R-1
Single Family Residential to R-2 Two Family Residential, legally described as:
LOT 8, BLOCK 1, PET PEN ADDITION
WHEREAS, the property located at 3331 and 3329 Stinson Boulevard is located within the City’s R-1
Single Family District; and
WHEREAS, Section 152.036 of St. Anthony’s city zoning code prohibits two-family units in the R-1
zoning district; and
WHEREAS, the current building is a duplex, but has been used as a single family home for many years;
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 August 27, 2018
and recommended approval of the request; and
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council’s hereby approves the requested re-
zoning.
Adopted this day of , 2018.
_____________________________
Jerome O Faust, Mayor
ATTEST:____________________________
Nicole Miller, City Clerk
Reviewed for administration: ______________________________
Mark Casey, City Manager
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
Notice is hereby given that on August 27, 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 for a requested
re‐zoning located at 3329 and 3331 Stinson Boulevard. The specific request is to re‐zone the property
from R‐1 Single Family Residential to R‐2 Two‐Family Residential. The Planning Commission will hear
public comment, review the proposal, and make a recommendation to the City Council.
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
MEMORANDUM
To: Planning Commissioners
From: Breanne Rothstein, AICP, City Planner
Date: Planning Commission meeting on August 27, 2018
WSB Project No. NA
Request: Adminstrative Appeal of Zoning Determination regarding decks
GENERAL INFORMATION
Applicant/Owner: Mary Friend
Location: 3331 Edward St
BACKGROUND
Mary Friend has requested to build a deck on the rear of their property, but could not meet the setback.
They sought a variance for the deck installation, and the City Council denied the request. After several
iterations of trying to come to a conclusion that allowed them to build a larger deck and still meet the
code, the Friends have submitted an administrative appeal to the zoning determination that:
1) A deck is considered a primary structure if connected to the house, and such structure should be
subjected to the principal structure setback; and
2) That a deck is considered an accessory structure if at least 5 feet away from the home, and
therefore subject to accessory structure setback.
APPLICABLE CODES AND STATUTES
Section 155.31 of City Code allows anyone to appeal the zoning decision of the zoning
administrator/planner, and applies to “Appeals where it is alleged that there is an error in any order,
requirement, decision or determination made by an administrative officer in the enforcement of this
chapter”
Section 150.124 relates to the definition of Accessory Structures. This section has been what
staff has used to apply to decks. (ACCESSORY STRUCTURE. A structure subordinate to a principal
dwelling not authorized to be used for living or sleeping by human occupants)
There are currently no regulations specifically regarding decks in the city code.
August 27, 2018
Page 2
RECOMMENDATION
If the Planning Commission is inclined to make an adjustment or change to the staff’s interpretation
related to decks (and NOT subject them to the typical principal structure/accessory structure definitions
and setbacks), staff outlines the following options:
1) Add a section of code relating to decks and evaluate appropriate setbacks for decks;
2) Interpret the zoning code to apply accessory structure setbacks to decks, regardless of the
proximity to the home (attached or detached).
POSSIBLE ACTIONS
Motion to direct staff to bring back a draft ordinance that adds a section of code relating to decks and
evaluate appropriate setbacks for decks; (Recommended Action)
Or
Interpret the zoning code to apply accessory structure setbacks to decks, regardless of the proximity to
the home (attached or detached).
ATTACHMENTS
Exhibit A: Applicant Appeal Letter