Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPL PACKET 11262018 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 November 26, 2018 Planning Commission Meeting Agenda. (action requested) II. Approval of the October 22, 2018 Regular Planning Commission Meeting Minutes. (action requested) III. Public Hearing. A. Consider a request for a 65 foot rear yard variance to allow for the construction of an accessory structure, and consider a request for a 39 foot rear yard variance to allow for the construction of a pool and a 24 foot rear yard variance for location of pool mechanical equipment at 4021 Silver Lake Terrace. IV. Staff Reports. A. Planning Commission Worksession December 17, 2018 at 5:30 PM-Deck Ordinance Discussion. V. Other Business. A. Review recommendations related to the city’s current solar ordinance by Solsmart. B. 2019 Planning Commission WorkPlan. VI. Community Forum. Individuals may address the Planning Commission about any item not included on the regular agenda. Speakers are requested to come to the podium, sign their name and address on the form at the podium, state their name and address for the Clerk’s record, and limit their remarks to five minutes. Generally, the Planning Commission 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 NOVEMBER 26, 2018 COUNCIL CHAMBERS 7:00 PM CITY OF ST. ANTHONY 1 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 2 October 22, 2018 3 7:00 p.m. 4 5 CALL TO ORDER. 6 7 Vice Chair Socha called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. 8 9 PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE. 10 11 Vice Chair Socha invited the Commission and the audience to join her in the Pledge of Allegiance. 12 13 ROLL CALL. 14 15 Commissioners Present: Vice Chair Socha, Commissioners Larson, Neumann, and Westrick. 16 17 Absent: Chairperson Papatola, Commissioners Bartel and Kalar. 18 19 Also Present: Nimo Hashi, Student Liasion, City Planner Breanne Rothstein. 20 21 22 I. APPROVAL OF THE OCTOBER 22, 2018 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 23 AGENDA. 24 25 Motion by Commissioner Larson, seconded by Commissioner Neumann, to approve the October 26 22, 2018 Planning Commission agenda. 27 28 Motion carried 4-0. 29 30 II. APPROVAL OF THE AUGUST 27, 2018 REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION 31 MEETING MINUTES. 32 33 Commissioner Neumann objected to the motion because she did not feel the minutes were 34 detailed enough given her questions were noted but the detailed answers were not provided. City 35 Planner Rothstein stated a third-party minute taker is utilized and staff can request the minutes be 36 verbatim if desired. Ms. Rothstein stated sometimes items are missed and she recommended that 37 anything remembered by the Commission be mentioned and can be added to the minutes. If 38 verbatim minutes are requested, she could make the request to the City Manager. 39 40 Commissioner Neumann stated she is concerned that the minute taker may not be subjectively 41 summarizing what is being said. Ms. Rothstein stated some cities do verbatim minutes including 42 every word said. The meeting is also recorded and if significant items are missing, the City Clerk 43 can review the recording and provide more detail. 44 45 Motion by Commissioner Neumann, seconded by Commissioner Larson, to approve the August 46 27, 2018 Regular Planning Commission Meeting Minutes as presented. 47 48 Motion carried 4-0. 49 Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes October 22, 2018 Page 2 1 III. PUBLIC HEARING. 2 3 A. Consider a request for a variance to allow for the construction of a pool and 4 accessory structure at 4021 Silver Lake Terrace. 5 6 City Planner Breanne Rothstein stated Staff recommends tabling this application due to the need 7 to amend the public hearing notice to increase the variance request. The original notice went out 8 to residents proposing a setback variance 9 feet less than needed. Tabling this request will allow 9 staff to re-notice the public hearing with accurate setback requests. This item will then be 10 considered at the November Planning Commission meeting. 11 12 Vice Chair Socha opened the public hearing at 7:11 p.m. 13 14 No one was present to provide testimony. 15 16 Vice Chair Socha closed the public hearing at 7:12 p.m. 17 18 City Planner Rothstein noted this will be on the agenda at the November 26, 2018 Meeting. 19 20 Motion by Commissioner Larson, seconded by Commissioner Neumann, to table the application 21 for request for a variance to allow for the construction of a pool and accessory structure at 4021 22 Silver Lake Terrace. 23 24 Motion carried 4-0. 25 26 B. Consider Ordinance 2018-01 an amended ordinance related to decks. 27 28 Ms. Rothstein reviewed based on an administrative appeal to staff’s interpretation of the 29 regulations applicable to decks, the Planning Commission directed staff to prepare an ordinance 30 relating to and regulating the setbacks for decks. Currently, the city code does not have any 31 regulations relating to decks. Section 150.124 relates to the definition of Accessory Structures. 32 This section has been what staff has used to apply to decks, but is not ideal in the applicability to 33 decks. The suggested draft ordinance would establish the following provisions: 34 35 1) A definition of “deck”. 36 37 DECK – A platform attached to and projecting from the wall of a building or constructed on top 38 of a building designed to be used by people as space which is part of the structure. For the 39 purpose of this Zoning Ordinance a deck is considered “attached” if any part of it is within five 40 (5) feet of an adjacent wall or building. An unattached deck, or a deck attached to an accessory 41 building, shall be considered an accessory building. 42 43 2) Add language in “permitted encroachments” relating to decks. 44 45 3) Setbacks related to decks. 46 Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes October 22, 2018 Page 3 1 (G) Decks which are not higher than thirty (30) inches above grade at any given point along the 2 grade are permitted to encroach into the rear yard setback by 10 feet and the side yard setback, as 3 long as a minimum side yard setback of 5 feet is maintained. This encroachment does not apply 4 in the R-1A Residential Lakeshore District or to decks higher than thirty (30) inches above grade 5 at any given point along the grade. Such decks must comply with the setbacks for principal 6 structures. 7 8 City Planner Rothstein noted this is the zoning code and does not need to match the building 9 code. She reviewed the discussion held at the last meeting. This Ordinance will have a policy 10 impact closer to the rear property line than currently written. 11 12 Commissioner Neumann asked about not including the R-1A Residential Lakeshore District. Ms. 13 Rothstein stated this section of code allows for an exception and within the R-1A no exceptions 14 are available. If there is a platform deck or a deck at grade those are okay to encroach but if there 15 is a tall deck, on the second story, the 25-foot property setback should remain. 16 17 Commissioner Larson asked if a structure is under 30 inches but closer than 5 feet to the house 18 will it be subject to the setbacks of the primary structure. Ms. Rothstein responded if it is under 19 30 inches that is what is allowed to encroach into the setback. It must maintain 5 feet on the side 20 but can encroach up to 10 feet in the rear setback. A deck is defined as an attached structure if 21 within 5 feet. 22 23 Commissioner Westrick asked for clarification on the definition of deck. Ms. Rothstein stated 24 there are two different sections and if a deck is free standing, it is considered an accessory 25 building. 26 27 Commissioner Neumann asked about those properties that have alleys. Ms. Rothstein stated 28 when setbacks are determined it is from the property line. The property line is at the alley. 29 There are no stricter requirements for alleys than for properties without an alley. Commissioner 30 Neumann asked if someone was not on an alley and wanted to construct a carriage house with a 31 deck on top, would that be exempt. Ms. Rothstein stated that would be allowed. Grade is an 32 issue. Commissioner Neumann asked if Mary Friend would be able to build her deck as she 33 wishes. Ms. Rothstein stated it would not allow her to build her deck at eight feet. 34 35 Commissioner Larson asked what the R-1 rear yard setback is and Ms. Rothstein stated 25 feet 36 or 20% of the depth of the lot whichever is greater. Ms. Rothstein stated the setback varies based 37 on the zoning district and the lot depth. 38 39 Vice Chair Socha opened the public hearing at 7:28 p.m. 40 41 Ms. Mary Friend, 3113 Edward Street NE, stated she is hoping to build a low-level deck in her 42 backyard. She attended the Planning Commission Meeting in September and noted the setback is 43 now 15 feet. The plan she brought to the Commission last year had a 7- or 8-foot setback. She 44 does not think she is asking for anything extreme. Ms. Friend read the definition of a patio and 45 Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes October 22, 2018 Page 4 asked when a deck becomes a patio. She wants to build a deck similar to a patio less than 18 1 inches high and would like the same setback for her low to the ground patio. 2 3 Ms. Rothstein suggested the Commission discuss which depth of setback or setback 4 encroachment is appropriate. The recommendation can move forward to the Council. 5 6 Vice Chair Socha closed the public hearing at 7:33 p.m. 7 8 Vice Chair Socha stated the number of feet the encroachment should be is the point to be 9 discussed. 10 11 Commissioner Larson asked if a person wanted to build a shed within five feet of the rear 12 property line. Ms. Rothstein stated an accessory structure, such as a garage, can be built within 13 five feet of the side or rear property line. Commissioner Larson stated it seems a deck which is 14 also an accessory structure could be built within five feet of the rear property line. Ms. Rothstein 15 stated that a true accessory structure deck can be within five feet of the rear property line but it 16 needs to be unattached from the home. A patio could be restricted due to impervious land but if 17 the patio was completely separate, that could be up to five feet from property line. Commissioner 18 Larson believes this is inappropriate. 19 20 Vice Chair Socha stated a short deck is less intrusive on a neighbor’s property than a garage or 21 other accessory. One of the concerns of having a tall deck near the neighbors, was privacy for the 22 neighbors. It would seem a short deck would not be a problem. 23 24 Ms. Rothstein stated a Commissioner needs to leave and asked if the Commission would like to 25 table this item or make a decision in the next few minutes. 26 27 Commissioner Neumann stated she feels comfortable. 28 29 Commissioner Westrick posed a question about the accessory structure and the five-foot setback. 30 She feels there may be some inconsistencies in the wording. 31 32 Ms. Rothstein asked what the Commission wanted to do regarding attached platform decks, 33 noting she can bring it back or a recommendation can be made to Council on whatever the 34 Commission would like to do. A “deck” is attached regardless of the height and a patio/deck that 35 is not attached is an accessory structure. The height is what determines the setback. Being 36 discussed are attached platform decks under 30 inches in height. 37 38 Commissioner Neuman stated she thinks the Commission wants a 5-foot side and 5-foot rear 39 setback. This would allow Mary Friend to build her deck because it would not encroach her 40 neighbor’s property. Ms. Rothstein stated it would read a 20-foot encroachment in the R-1 41 zoning district. 42 43 Vice Chair Socha stated there is a difference between a patio and a 30-inch-high deck. A 30-44 inch-high deck would need to have handrails. She referred to the definition of the deck and noted 45 it seems rather circular. She suggested revising it to read an unattached platform or a platform 46 Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes October 22, 2018 Page 5 attached to an accessory structure shall be considered an accessory building. Ms. Rothstein stated 1 that would be an acceptable edit. 2 3 Commissioner Neumann asked what Ms. Rothstein meant in saying code changes all the time. 4 Ms. Rothstein stated from time to time, the ordinances get amended. They are kept online as the 5 most updated version. Every update goes through a public hearing at the Planning Commission 6 and then onto the City Council. 7 8 Motion by Commissioner Neumann, seconded by Commissioner Westrick to recommend the 9 City Council adopt Ordinance No. 2018-01; An Ordinance Amending Sections 152.008 10 Definitions and 152.177 Permitted Encroachments in Yards as revised up to a 20-foot 11 encroachment into the rear yard setback and minimum side setback of 5 feet and revising the 12 definition of deck to include platform decks 30 inches or lower. 13 14 Motion carried 4-0. 15 16 Commissioner Westrick left the meeting at 7:45 p.m. 17 18 IV. STAFF REPORTS – NONE. 19 20 V. OTHER BUSINESS. 21 22 A. Review recommendations related to the City’s current solar ordinance by Solsmart. 23 24 This item was tabled due to lack of a quorum. 25 26 Motion by Commissioner Socha, seconded by Commissioner Neumann, to table acceptance of 27 the report by SolSmart as it relates to the City’s Solar Ordinance. 28 29 Motion carried 3-0. 30 31 VI. COMMUNITY FORUM. 32 33 No one appeared to address the Commission. 34 35 VII. INFORMATION AND ANNOUNCEMENTS. 36 37 Commissioner Neumann reported on SAVEC in St. Anthony Village. There was an incident that 38 occurred at the High School where some students of color chose to sit during the National 39 Anthem and a teacher/staff told the students her husband was in the military and their actions 40 were inappropriate. The parents were not notified when the students were called into a meeting. 41 SAVEC was called and asked to make a statement. SAVEC and Communities United Against 42 Police Brutality attended a School Board Meeting, which was closed to the public, and made a 43 joint statement. SAVEC is reviewing its structure and policies to find ways to be better 44 advocates. 45 46 Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes October 22, 2018 Page 6 Vice Chair Socha introduced Nimo Hashi as the student liaison on the Planning Commission. 1 2 VIII. ADJOURNMENT. 3 4 Motion by Commissioner Neumann, seconded by Commissioner Larson, to adjourn the meeting 5 at 7:50 p.m. 6 7 Motion carried 3-0. 8 9 Respectfully submitted, 10 Debbie Wolfe (TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc.) 11   MEMORANDUM           To:      St. Anthony Village Planning Commission               From:      Molly Just, AICP, City Planner      Date:      Planning Commission Regular Meeting for November 26, 2018      WSB Project No.  11104‐00: 4021 Silver Lake Terrace Variance Application  Request:  Request for variances from the rear setback to add an accessory building,  swimming pool, and pool mechanical equipment in the R‐1A Single Family  Lakeshore District at the property located at 4021 Silver Lake Terrace.    SUMMARY  The applicant proposes to add an accessory building, swimming pool and pool mechanical equipment in  the rear yard.  The proposal requires approval of variances from the 75‐foot required rear yard.  For lots  on Silver Lake, the rear yard is measured from the ordinary high water elevation for Silver Lake, which is  934 feet.  The existing home meets this setback.  The following variances are proposed.     1. A 65‐foot variance for an accessory building to be located no closer than 10‐feet to the ordinary  high water elevation of Silver Lake.    2. A 39‐foot variance for a swimming pool to be located no closer than 36‐feet to the ordinary high  water elevation of Silver Lake.  A 24‐foot variance for pool mechanical equipment to be located  no closer than 51‐feet to the ordinary high water elevation.      Several other homes with lake frontage on Silver Lake have accessory buildings in the rear yard setback.   There are two other swimming pools in rear yards along Silver Lake.  Both were approved prior to the  current ordinance requirement for a 75‐foot setback.  Staff has reviewed for height, side/front yard setback, impervious surface and the requests appear to  meet all other code standards.  GENERAL INFORMATION  Applicant:    Dan & Alisa Bartel  Owner:     Dan & Alisa Bartel  Location:    4021 Silver Lake Terrace  Existing Land Use /  Low‐Density Residential / Zoned: R‐1A Single Family Lakeshore District  Zoning:  Surrounding Land  North:  Open Water – Silver Lake  Use / Zoning:    East:   Low‐Density Residential / Zoned: R‐1A Single Family Lakeshore District    South:  Multi‐Family Residential / Zoned: R‐4 Multiple Family District    West:   Low‐Density Residential / Zoned: R‐1A Single Family Lakeshore District  November 26, 2018  Page 2          Initial Application Date:   09‐28‐18     Complete Application Date: 10‐15‐18     Deadline for Agency:  12‐14‐18  Action:  60 Days:       TBD  Letter Sent:      No    120 Days:      NA    CONSIDERATIONS RELATING TO THE PROPOSED VARIANCE  1. Background  The applicant proposes to construct an accessory building, swimming pool and pool mechanical  equipment in the required rear setback along Silver Lake.  The minimum required setback in the R‐ 1A District is 75 feet for lots located on Silver Lake.  Most homes along the lake are located close to  the street, creating a somewhat uniform and pleasing rhythm of building facades along Silver Lane,  Silver Lake Terrace, and Silver Lake Court.  The subject property is complementary to this  predominant home placement and is larger than the average lake front lot.    The R‐1A Single Family Lakeshore District was adopted by St. Anthony Village in 1991.  The purpose  of the district is to create and maintain lakeshore areas for single‐family detached residences which,  due to the natural amenity of the lake, and the topographic characteristics, call for zoning  regulations which are somewhat different from other single‐family districts and which are designed  for the preservation of natural areas.   2. Applicable Codes.  Title XV Land Usage, Chapter 152 Zoning Code:  Accessory Building: Section 152.054 (G) Rear yard applies to the accessory building.  The year  yard requirement for lots along the lake is a minimum of 75‐feet from the ordinary high water  elevation.  Swimming pool:  Section 152.053 (B. 1) and (B. 3) apply to the pool and pool mechanical  equipment.  No part of a swimming pool or its mechanical equipment may be located within the  setback.   Title XV Land Usage, Chapter 152 Zoning Code, Section 152.245 VARIANCE (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 Variance, (C) Evidence, lists the criteria the City Council must consider  in determining whether to grant or deny a variance.    Request: Variance requests for addition of an accessory building, swimming pool, and pool  mechanical equipment within the 75‐foot rear yard setback in the R‐1A Single Family Lakeshore  District.  The applicable criteria include:  1. The subject matter of the application is within the scope of this section.  The application for variances to the rear yard setback is an eligible subject matter for variance  criteria because these factors are related to dimensional and/or bulk standards.  Criterion met  for the accessory building and for the swimming pool/mechanical equipment.    November 26, 2018  Page 3    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;  Accessory Building: The applicant is proposing to add a 150 square foot accessory  building to the rear yard.  The request is reasonable and there are other such buildings  along the lake.  Criterion met.  Swimming Pool with support mechanical equipment:  The applicant is proposing to add  a 963 square foot pool with concrete deck and a 28 square foot concrete pad for pool  mechanical equipment in the rear yard.  There are two other swimming pools in rear  yards along the lake.  Both were approved prior to establishment of the R‐1A lakeshore  zoning designation.  Criterion not met.  b. The plight of the property owner is due to circumstances unique to the property not  created by the property owner;  Accessory Building.  The topography of the property creates a practical difficulty in the  reasonable enjoyment of the lake.  Criterion met.    Swimming Pool.  The owner has not created the need for a variance.  Criterion met.  c. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality; and  Accessory Building.  Granting this variance will not alter the essential character of the  locality.  Criterion met.   Swimming Pool.  The lakeshore zoning district was adopted in 1991 and set express  limitations on swimming pools.  The zoning designation sets the standard for the  essential character for this area of the City.  Criterion not met.  d. Economic considerations alone are not the basis of the practical difficulties.  Accessory Building.  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.  Swimming Pool.  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 for the accessory  building and for the swimming pool/mechanical equipment.  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  November 26, 2018  Page 4  regulating land, buildings, yards, and densities; and provide for compatibility of different land  uses.    Accessory Building.  Such uses are expressly permitted in the zoning district.  The applicant is  seeking a variance for the placement of the 150 square foot building.  Criterion met.   Swimming Pool.  The R‐1 Single Family District has no unique regulations for pools.  The R‐1A  Single Family Lakeshore District was adopted in 1991 and expressly regulates swimming pools.     No part of a swimming pool is allowed within 75 feet of the ordinary high water elevation of the  lake.  The mechanical equipment is also expressly regulated by the same rear yard setback.  All  the pool (963 square feet) and mechanical equipment (28 square feet) would be located within  the rear yard setback.  Criterion not met.  POSSIBLE ACTIONS  1. Motion to recommend approval of part or all the variance requests at 4021 Silver Lake Terrace  and direct staff to prepare a resolution declaring terms of the same.  2. Motion to recommend denial of the variance requests.  In the event of a recommendation for  denial, the Planning Commission must state its findings related to denial.  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.   CONCLUSION  Staff recommends that the following conditions be placed on approval of the proposed variance  requests at 2041 Silver Lake Terrace:  1. The proposed accessory building at 2041 Silver Lake Terrace shall be no closer than 10‐feet  from the ordinary high water elevation of 934 feet and generally located as shown in the  application materials.  2. The proposed swimming pool at 2041 Silver Lake Terrace shall be no closer than 36‐feet from  the ordinary high water elevation of 934 feet and generally located as shown in the application  materials.  3. The proposed pool mechanical equipment and pad at 2041 Silver Lake Terrace shall be no  closer than 51‐feet from the ordinary high water elevation of 934 feet and generally located as  shown in the application materials.   4. Issuance of a building permit for proposed accessory building and/or swimming pool with  mechanical equipment 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.  ATTACHMENTS  Exhibit A:  Location map  Exhibit B:  Application and Supporting Material  Exhibit C:   Draft resolution    4021 Silver Lake Terrace - Context05/03/2018 THIS PAGE LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK October 16, 2018 Breanne Rothstein - City Planner St. Anthony Village City Hall 3301 Silver Lake Road St. Anthony Village, MN 55418 Breanne: I am writing in support of the variance request for 4021 Silver Lake Terrace. My wife and I feel that this variance request is reasonable and will not interfere with the use of the lake or the surrounding area. It will most certainly blend in with the existing structures in the neighborhood. If you would like to contact me for further input on my support of the variance, I can be reached at 612-990-5678. Thank you. Sincerely, Bryan and Kristin Jones 2505 Silver Lane NE St. Anthony, MN 55421 11/21/2018 1 Variance 4021 Silver Lake Terrace, NE Planning Commission Meeting November 26, 2018 Variance Requests Variance to allow the addition of an accessory building, swimming pool and mechanical equipment. •Required rear yard setback of 75-feet. Currently met. •Proposed is 10-feet for the accessory building, resulting in a 65-foot variance. •Proposed is 36-feet for the swimming pool, resulting in a 39- foot variance. •Proposed is 51-feet for the mechanical equipment, resulting in a 24-foot variance. 2 2 11/21/2018 2 3 Proposal 11/21/2018 3 Applicable Codes •City Code Chapter 152 Zoning Code, Section 152.050 R-1A Single-Family Lakeshore District applies to this proposal. •Sections 150.053 (B) (1) and (3) apply to setbacks for swimming pools and pool mechanical equipment. •Sections 152.054 applies to setbacks for buildings. 5 6 Proposed Accessory Building 11/21/2018 4 Criteria For Variance Approval The City Council must consider the following: 1.The subject matter is within the scope of this section. Criterian met for accessory building and for pool/mechanical equipment. 2.Strict enforcement would cause practical difficulties because: a.The applicant proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by the zoning code. Criterian met for accessory building and not met for pool/mechanical equipment. 7 Variance Criteria Continued b.The circumstances are unique to the property and not created by the applicant.Criterian met for accessory building and for pool/mechanical equipment. c.The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. Criterian met for accessory building and not met for pool/mechanical equipment. d.Economic considerations alone are not the basis of the practical difficulties. Criterian met for accessory building and for pool/mechanical equipment. 8 11/21/2018 5 Variance Criteria Continued 3.Consistency with the City’s comprehensive land use plan. Criterian met for the accessory building and for pool/mechanical equipment. 4.The variance is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the zoning code. Criterian met for accessory building and not met for pool/mechanical equipment. 9 Planning Commission Recommendation Planning Commission may recommend approval, approval of part, or denial. 10 11/21/2018 6 Questions? 11 EXHIBIT - C: CITY OF ST. ANTHONY VILLAGE RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION __________ RESOLUTION APPROVING A REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE FROM THE REQUIRED SEVENTY- FIVE (75) FOOT REAR YARD SETBACK AS FOLLOWS: A SIXTY-FIVE (65) FOOT VARIANCE FOR AN ACCESSORY BUILDING, A THIRTY-NINE (39) FOOT VARIANCE FOR A SWIMMING POOL, AND A TWENTY-FOUR (24) FOOT VARIANCE FOR POOL MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT IN THE R-1A DISTRICT AT THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 4021 SILVER LAKE TERRACE WHEREAS, the City of St. Anthony Village received a request from the Applicant and Property Owners Dan & Alisa Bartel for a variance to the seventy-five (75) foot rear yard setback for an accessory building, swimming pool, and pool mechanical equipment in the in the R-1A District at the property located at 4021 Silver Lake Terrace on September 28, 2018, legally described as follows: BEGINNING AT INTERSECTION OF NWLY AND NELY LINES OF SILVER LANE AND SILVER LAKE TERRACE; TH NWLY 244 91/1OO FT ON SD NELY L; TH N 2O DEG 49 MIN E 122 FT; TH NELY TO PT 5OO FT E AND 1125 FT S FROM W AND N LINES OF SE 1/4 OF NW 1/4 TH S PAR WITH W L OF SD 1/4 1/4 T WHEREAS, the property located at 4021 Silver Lake Road is located within the City’s R-1A Single Family Lakeshore District; and WHEREAS, per Sections 152.053 and 152.054 of the city code, lots located along Silver Lake must have a seventy-five (75) foot setback; and WHEREAS, the Applicant has requested a sixty-five (65) foot variance for an accessory building; and WHEREAS, the Applicant has requested a thirty-nine (39) foot variance for a swimming pool, and a twenty-four (24) foot variance for pool mechanical equipment that they propose for their property; 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 November 26, 2018 and recommended approval of the request; and NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council hereby approves the requested variance, subject to the following conditions: 1. The rear yard setback dimension at 4021 Silver Lake Terrace for the proposed accessory building shall not be less than 65 feet from the ordinary high water mark as shown in the application materials. 2. The rear yard setback dimension at 4021 Silver Lake Terrace for the proposed swimming pool shall not be less than 39 feet from the ordinary high water mark as shown in the application materials. 3. The rear yard setback dimension at 4021 Silver Lake Terrace for the proposed pool mechanical equipment shall not be less than 24 feet from the ordinary high water mark as shown in the application materials. 4. Issuance of a building permit for the proposed improvements 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           NOTICE OF A PUBLIC HEARING    Notice is hereby given that on November 26, 2018 at 7:00 p.m. at City Hall, 3301 Silver Lake Road, the  Saint Anthony Village City Council will hold a public hearing to solicit public response to a variance  request for the property located at 4021 Silver Lake Terrace. The request is for a 39 foot variance to  allow for the construction of a pool up to 35 feet from the ordinary high water mark, and a 65 foot  variance to allow for the construction of an accessory structure 10 feet from the ordinary high water  mark.   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:      Molly Just, AICP, City Planner      Date:      Planning Commission meeting on November 26, 2018      WSB Project No.  011104‐00  Request:  Review Solsmart Recommendations regarding the City’s solar ordinance    RECOMMENDATION  Review and accept the report by SolSmart related to the city’s solar ordinance.    BACKGROUND  The city of St. Anthony seeks to get certified as a “SolSmart Community”. This is an initiative to advance  the  city’s  sustainability  work  and  to  implement  certain  provisions of the comprehensive plan. This  designation sets the city apart as one of the leaders in implementing solar friendly and sustainable  principles.  One of the requirements of the designation is that solar industry review and comment on the city’s  ordinance. No action is required of the city except to review and accept the report by SolSmart. It is not  recommended by staff that any changes are made to the city’s ordinance at this time. The city spent a lot  of effort discussing the solar ordinance and staff believes it serves the city well at this time.    RECOMMENDED ACTION  Motion to accept the report by SolSmart related to the city’s solar ordinance. THIS PAGE LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK ZONING REVIEW – St. Anthony Village Potential barriers in current code language Section(s) Element Reviewer Comments Example(s) from other codes Priority level § 152.122 – C General Commercial District Condition al use The zoning ordinance stipulates that solar energy systems are permitted by conditional use permit only. It is a best practice to permit solar energy systems as a by-right accessory use in all zoning districts. More permissive: “Solar Energy Systems as described in this Article are permitted in all zoning districts as an accessory use to a permitted principal use subject to the standards for accessory uses in the applicable zoning district and the specific criteria set forth in this article.” (Renewable Energy Ordinance Framework, DVRPC) Less permissive: “Solar Energy Systems shall be considered an accessory use and permitted by right if mounted to an existing structure and if any percentage of the energy is used for one or more of the principal uses on the same lot.” (Renewable Energy Ordinance Framework, DVRPC) High (Allowing solar as by-right accessory use will significantly reduce installation times and costs, which should encourage further development of solar energy.) § 152.187(B)( 2)(a) Visibility The zoning ordinance limits visibility of solar energy systems from the nearest street frontage. It is not a best practice to screen solar energy systems or limit their visibility from public rights-of- way. More permissive option: Screening of Mechanical and Electrical Equipment: All exterior mechanical and electrical equipment shall be screened on all vertical sides at least to the height of the equipment it is screening and incorporated into the design of buildings to the maximum extent feasible. Equipment to Medium (Screening requirements may increase the cost of installation and could also decrease the efficiency of a solar energy system by PZD-1a: Review zoning requirements and identify restrictions that intentionally or unintentionally prohibit solar PV development. Compile findings in a memo. (Required) To assist your community, the national solar experts at SolSmart have conducted a review of your community’s zoning code to assess possible barriers (i.e. height restrictions, set-back requirements, etc.) and gaps related to solar PV development. Below, please find the outcome of their review. By reading the narrative, reviewing the example code language provided, and signing the statement at the bottom of the page, your community will satisfy PZD-1a and be one step closer to achieving SolSmart designation. be screened includes, but is not limited to, all roof- mounted equipment, air conditioners, heaters, utility meters, cable equipment, telephone entry boxes, backflow preventions, irrigation control valves, electrical transformers, pull boxes, and all ducting for air conditioning, heating, and blower systems. Screening materials may include landscaping or other materials that shall be consistent with the exterior colors and materials of the building. Solar energy systems are exempt from this screening requirement. (emphasis added) The Architectural Review Board or Landmarks Commission may reduce the height of the required screening based on the placement of the equipment on the roof, the existing height of the subject building and surrounding buildings, and the overall visibility of the equipment. (Santa Monica Zoning Code) Less permissive option: Current language in § 152.187(B)(2)(a) increase shading of solar modules.) § 152.187(B)( 3)(a) Setbacks The zoning ordinance requires double the minimum setback for freestanding solar energy systems. More permissive option: (1) Small- and medium-scale ground-mounted solar energy systems accessory to principal use may be located no closer than [1/2 of the setback that would otherwise apply] from the front, side or rear lot line. All ground- mounted solar energy systems in residential districts shall be installed either in the side yard or rear yard to the extent practicable (Massachusetts Dept. of Energy Resources, Model Zoning for the Regulation of Solar Energy Systems) Low (The City may want to consider reducing the setback requirements for solar energy systems and/or allow them to encroach reasonably into the setback so that they can receive adequate sunlight to make them efficient.) Less permissive option: (2) Small- and medium-scale ground-mounted solar energy systems accessory to a principal use may be located no closer than [twenty (20) feet] from the front, side or rear lot line. All ground- mounted solar energy systems in residential districts shall be installed either in the side yard or rear yard to the extent practicable. (Massachusetts Dept. of Energy Resources, Model Zoning for the Regulation of Solar Energy Systems) § 152.187(B)( 3)(a) Placement of free- standing systems The zoning ordinance limits the installation of free-standing solar energy systems to the rear yard. While this is understandable from an aesthetic perspective, it could limit the number of viable sites for installing solar energy systems. More permissive option: Ground-Mounted Systems shall not be permitted in a front yard unless the applicant demonstrates that the rear yard locations will not result in acceptable solar access. (Renewable Energy Ordinance Framework, DVRPC) Less permissive option: Current language in § 152.187(B)(3)(a) Low (Allowing solar energy to be installed in the side, front, or rear yard would increase the viable sites for solar systems, especially if a rear yard and/or roof is shaded.) § 152.187(B)( 3)(b) Freestandi ng solar energy systems The zoning ordinance limits freestanding solar systems to 3% of the lot area. In R-1, R- 1A, that would limit freestanding systems to about 5.3 kW in size. Most permissive option: “For purposes of determining compliance with building coverage standards of the applicable zoning district, the total horizontal projection area of all ground-mounted and free-standing solar collectors, including solar photovoltaic cells, panels, arrays, inverters, shall be considered pervious coverage so long as pervious conditions are maintained underneath the solar photovoltaic cells, panels, and arrays.” (Renewable Energy Ordinance Framework, DVRPC) Less permissive option: “For purposes of determining compliance with building coverage standards of the Low (The existing zoning would limit the size of ground- mounted solar energy systems in the R-1 and R- 1A districts to roughly 5 kW. Systems of this size would produce enough energy to cover about half of an average household’s load. Therefore, the existing ordinance language would prohibit larger systems that could offset more of the energy applicable zoning district, the total horizontal projection area of all ground-mounted and free-standing solar collectors, including solar photovoltaic cells, panels, arrays, inverters and solar hot air or water collector devices, shall be considered ___% impervious coverage. For example, if the total horizontal projection of a solar energy system is 100 square feet, XX square feet shall count towards the impervious coverage standard. For a tracking array or other moveable system, the horizontal projection area shall be calculated at a 33- degree tilt angle.” (Renewable Energy Ordinance Framework, DVRPC) load on site, or which could be sent back to the grid.) Potential gaps in current code language Element Reviewer Comments Example(s) from other codes Priority level Ex. Setbacks, Height Restrictions, Definition, etc. Additional notes I, have received the zoning review and read its findings. [Name] [Title] [State] , as of [Community] , Signature ____________________________________________ Date _________________________ , Approved by City Council on _________          St. Anthony Village Planning Commission  2019 Work Plan   The Planning Commission is a seven member advisory commission, appointed by the City Council and  charged with the following duties (City Code Chapter 32, Section 32.06):  A) Review and make recommendations to the City Council as to a comprehensive municipal plan,  including the land use plan, a community facilities plan, a transportation plan, and  recommendations for plan adoption and execution;  B) Consider and make recommendations to the City Council as to all proposed subdivisions and  plats;  C) Consider and make recommendations to the City Council as to all proposed amendments to the  Chapters 151 and 152 of this code regarding subdivisions and zoning;  D) Consider, hold hearings, and make recommendations on conditional use permit applications;  E) Review all applications for variance to zoning, hold hearings, and make recommendations to the  City Council; and  F) Review requests for sign variances.  In 2019, the Planning Commission will focus on the following items:  1. Continue training on both planning/zoning issues through GTS/WSB partnership.    2. Review and make recommendations on land use and development applications, including  holding public hearings.    3. Upon approval and adoption of the comprehensive plan, begin work on implementation of  zoning amendments needed to effect the plan.  Provide recommendations to the City Council on  such amendments.    From:Thomas Patrick Lavin III To:Nicole Miller Cc:jolynn.lavin@genmills.com Subject:Bartel Variance Date:Sunday, November 25, 2018 9:40:30 PM Nicole: It is our understanding that there will be a discussion and possible decision at your next board meeting regarding a variance that the Bartel family are requesting so that they may put in pool at their home. We will not be able to attend this meeting but as their neighbours, my wife JoLynn and I wish to advocate for this variance. We support their choice to put this additional fixture onto their property and do not believe it will effect our home or property in any way. If you have any further questions please feel free to let us know Thanks, Tom and JoLynn Thomas P Lavin III 651-592-9613