Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPL PACKET 12172018 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 December 17, 2018 Planning Commission Meeting Agenda. (action requested) II. Approval of the November 26, 2018 Regular Planning Commission Meeting Minutes. (action requested) III. Public Hearing. A. Consider a request for a lot split and 899 foot variance from the minimum lot size for a corner lot at 3713 33rd Avenue NE in the R-1district. IV. Staff Reports. V. Other Business. A. Recognition of Outgoing Planning Commission Members. 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 DECEMBER 17, 2018 COUNCIL CHAMBERS 7:00 PM CITY OF ST. ANTHONY 1 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 2 November 26, 2018 3 7:00 p.m. 4 5 CALL TO ORDER. 6 7 Chair Papatola called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. 8 9 PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 10 11 Chair Papatola invited the Commission and the audience to join him in the Pledge of Allegiance. 12 13 ROLL CALL. 14 15 Commissioners Present: Chair Papatola, Commissioners Kalar, Larson, Neumann (arrived at 7:05 16 p.m.), Socha, and Westrick. 17 18 Absent: Commissioner Bartel 19 20 Also Present: Nimo Hashi, Student Liaison & City Planner Molly Just. 21 22 Chair Papatola introduced City Planner Molly Just. 23 24 I. APPROVAL OF THE NOVEMBER 26, 2018 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 25 AGENDA. 26 27 Motion by Commissioner Larson, seconded by Commissioner Westrick, to approve the 28 November 26, 2018 Planning Commission agenda. 29 30 Motion carried 5-0. 31 32 II. APPROVAL OF THE OCTOBER 22, 2018 REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION 33 MEETING MINUTES. 34 35 Motion by Commissioner Socha, seconded by Commissioner Larson, to approve the October 22, 36 2018 Regular Planning Commission Meeting Minutes as presented. 37 38 Motion carried 5-0. 39 Commissioner Neumann arrived at the meeting at 7:04 p.m. 40 41 III. PUBLIC HEARING. 42 43 A. Consider a request for a 65-foot rear yard variance to allow for the construction of 44 an accessory structure, and consider a request for a 39-foot rear yard variance to 45 allow for the construction of a pool and a 24-foot rear yard variance for location of 46 pool mechanical equipment at 4021 Silver Lake Terrace. 47 48 49 Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes November 26, 2018 Page 2 Chair Papatola opened the public hearing at 7:05 p.m. Chair Papatola noted the applicant is a 1 member of the Planning Commission and he has recused himself from all discussion on this 2 matter. 3 4 City Planner Molly Just reviewed the applicant proposes to add an accessory building, swimming 5 pool and pool mechanical equipment in the rear yard. The proposal requires approval of 6 variances from the 75-foot required rear yard. For lots on Silver Lake, the rear yard is measured 7 from the ordinary high-water elevation for Silver Lake, which is 934 feet. The existing home 8 meets this setback. The following variances are proposed. 9 10 1. A 65-foot variance for an accessory building to be located no closer than 10 feet to 11 the ordinary high-water elevation of Silver Lake. 12 2. A 39-foot variance for a swimming pool to be located no closer than 36 feet to the 13 ordinary high-water elevation of Silver Lake. A 24-foot variance for pool mechanical 14 equipment to be located no closer than 51 feet to the ordinary high-water elevation. 15 16 Ms. Just noted several other homes with lake frontage on Silver Lake have accessory buildings in 17 the rear yard setback. There are two other swimming pools in rear yards along Silver Lake. Both 18 were approved prior to the current ordinance requirement for a 75-foot setback. Staff has 19 reviewed for height, side/front yard setback, impervious surface and the requests appear to meet 20 all other code standards. Maps of the property were provided for the Commission to review and 21 applicable codes were reviewed. Ms. Just read the preamble for the lakeshore district. There have 22 been no variance requests since the ordinance was updated. 23 24 The criteria for variance approval were reviewed by Ms. Just. 25 26 1. The subject matter is within the scope of this section. – Criterion met for accessory building 27 and for pool/mechanical equipment. 28 2. Strict enforcement would cause practical difficulties because: 29 a. The applicant proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by 30 the zoning code. Criterion met for accessory building and not met for 31 pool/mechanical equipment. 32 b. The circumstances are unique to the property and not created by the applicant. 33 Criterion met for accessory building and for pool/mechanical equipment. 34 c. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. Criterion 35 met for accessory building and not met for pool/mechanical equipment. 36 d. Economic considerations alone are not the basis of the practical difficulties. Criterion 37 met for accessory building and for pool/mechanical equipment. 38 3. Consistency with the City’s comprehensive land use plan. Criterion met for the accessory 39 building and for pool/mechanical equipment. 40 4. The variance is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the zoning code. Criterion 41 met for accessory building and not met for pool/mechanical equipment. 42 43 Ms. Alisa Bartel, 4021 Silver Lake Terrace, NE, the applicant, thanked the Commission for their 44 consideration. She noted the reason they are asking for an accessory building is due to the steep 45 nature of their property. They climb three stories to retrieve items for their children to use in the 46 Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes November 26, 2018 Page 3 lake. The accessory building will be pretty much in the hill and only the front of the building 1 would be seen from the lake. There was a similar application on the north side of the lake for an 2 accessory building. The location of the pool is the only one available due to their land. Several of 3 their neighbors have written letters in support of their request. 4 5 Commissioner Socha asked about the accessory structure and noted she reviewed the rules and 6 noted the applicant is well within the definition. She read the applicable rule. She feels there 7 should be a couple of conditions such as no more than 5 gallons of gasoline be stored and the 8 building have a maximum height, a similar square footage maximum if it needs to be rebuilt and 9 be treated to reduce visibility from the lake. She supports the variance request with the proposed 10 four conditions. 11 12 Commissioner Larson asked about the accessory structure requiring excavation and would a 13 building permit be required. Ms. Just stated the building will require permits. 14 15 Commissioner Neumann stated she uses the Silver Lake Park and there is a building and they 16 rent items. She stated the Mayor does not want miniature mansions. She asked what if everyone 17 else on the lakeshore wanted the same. She does not feel there is an issue with the accessory 18 building if it blends in and preserves the lakeshore. There have been some homes rebuilt. She 19 asked if this is approved, how much of it has to do with him being a colleague. 20 21 Commissioner Westrick stated she also reviewed the rules and it seems the accessory structure 22 meets the criteria for a variance. 23 24 Chair Papatola stated the structure on the north side of the lake, at Silverwood, required a similar 25 variance. Ms. Just stated that is her understanding. Commissioner Neumann noted they do not 26 have a pool. 27 28 Commissioner Kalar asked what the rationale is of the 75 feet. Ms. Just stated most jurisdictions 29 with bodies of water, there are setbacks. The setbacks have increased due to environmental 30 considerations. In 1991 the City Council adopted a 50-foot setback and between 1991 and 1993 31 it was increased to 75 feet due to a desire to protect the lake. The 75 feet is the largest setback 32 within the residential districts of the City. 33 34 Commissioner Larson stated there are two other pools on the lake which were constructed before 35 the new ordinance was in place. Ms. Just stated one of the pools were built in the 1960’s and the 36 other was built in the early 1990’s. 37 38 Commissioner Socha stated she does not want to see a precedence set since this pool is totally 39 within the 75-foot setback. The environmental concerns may be elevated because the elevation is 40 higher up. She feels this is against the ordinance that was passed. 41 42 Chair Papatola feels the applicant is a good steward of the lake and has no doubt about that. The 43 zoning modified was clear in 1991 and addressed swimming pools. At this point Silver Lake is 44 not a top-quality lake and he would error with caution on how the property was developed. He 45 Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes November 26, 2018 Page 4 would concur with Commissioner Socha and not be in favor of the variance for the pool being 1 approved. 2 3 Commissioner Larson agreed and if this were recommended for approval the ordinance should 4 be re-written. Every request would need to be approved in a similar nature. 5 6 Commissioner Socha stated she does not believe it is just the ordinance and the 75-foot setback 7 is in the administrative rules. It is the state rules as well as the City ordinance. 8 9 Commissioner Neumann asked Ms. Bartel if there was no pool would the accessory building still 10 be constructed. Ms. Bartel stated the accessory building is for a different need from the pool. It 11 has nothing to do with the pool. Commissioner Neumann asked if the pool was not constructed 12 could the accessory building be in a different location on the property. Ms. Bartel stated the 13 accessory building could not be moved due to the steep nature of the property. Ms. Bartel stated 14 it is a safety issue for them in carrying the equipment from their home down the steep bank to the 15 lake. 16 17 Commissioner Socha asked about the conditions she mentioned and asked Ms. Bartel about the 18 max height (10 ft) and max square foot (250 sf) if these were acceptable and Ms. Bartel stated 19 they were. 20 21 Student Representative Hashi asked if the other pools are within the setback. Ms. Bartel stated 22 they were not within the setback at the time they were built. Currently at least one of the pools 23 would be out of compliance given the current ordinance. 24 25 Chair Papatola closed the public hearing at 7:38 p.m. 26 27 Chair Papatola stated he is hearing the consensus of the Commission to approve the variance for 28 the accessory building but not for the pool or mechanical equipment. 29 30 Motion by Commissioner Westrick, seconded by Commissioner Larson, to recommend the City 31 Council approve the request for request for a 65-foot rear yard variance to allow for the 32 construction of an accessory structure, and deny a request for a 39-foot rear yard variance to 33 allow for the construction of a pool and a 24-foot rear yard variance for location of pool 34 mechanical equipment at 4021 Silver Lake Terrace removing conditions 2 and 3 and 35 incorporating the conditions brought forth by the Commission. 36 37 Motion carried 5-1 (Neumann). 38 39 IV. STAFF REPORTS 40 41 A. Planning Commission Work session December 17, 2018 at 5:30 p.m. Deck 42 Ordinance Discussion 43 44 Chair Papatola stated the City Council has requested the Planning Commission revisit the Deck 45 Ordinance and Staff has recommended this be discussed at the next Planning Commission 46 Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes November 26, 2018 Page 5 Meeting date of December 17, 2018 at 5:30 p.m. Ms. Just suggested the Planning Commission 1 start from scratch and open the matter fresh. 2 3 Commissioner Neumann stated the reason she voted again the prior motion was due to the issue 4 of whether all districts have been considered. 5 6 V. OTHER BUSINESS. 7 8 A. Review recommendations related to the City’s current solar ordinance by Solsmart. 9 10 City Planner Molly Just reviewed the City of St. Anthony seeks to get certified as a “SolSmart 11 Community”. This is an initiative to advance the City’s sustainability work and to implement 12 certain provisions of the comprehensive plan. This designation sets the City apart as one of the 13 leaders in implementing solar friendly and sustainable principles. 14 15 One of the requirements of the designation is that solar industry review and comment on the 16 City’s ordinance. No action is required of the City except to review and accept the report by 17 SolSmart. It is not recommended by staff that any changes are made to the City’s Ordinance at 18 this time. The City spent a lot of effort discussing the solar ordinance and staff believes it serves 19 the City well at this time. The Planning Commission is requested to recommend the City 20 Council accept the report by SolSmart related to the City’s solar ordinance. 21 22 Commissioner Neumann asked if this is related to a grant the City would be receiving. Ms. Just 23 stated this is not part of a grant. The City was approached by the SolSmart group with similar 24 goals and philosophies and a partnership could be developed. The report needs to be accepted as 25 part of becoming a solar community. Commissioner Neumann asked what the benefits for St. 26 Anthony are and Ms. Just stated it is a badge of honor similar to being a TreeCity. 27 28 Motion by Commissioner Neumann, seconded by Commissioner Socha, to recommend the City 29 Council accept the report by SolSmart as it relates to the City’s Solar Ordinance. 30 31 Motion carried 6-0. 32 33 B. 2019 Planning Commission Work Plan. 34 35 Chair Papatola reviewed the St. Anthony Village Planning Commission 2019 Work 36 Plan. He noted this seems consistent with the discussions. Ms. Just stated it is very similar to last 37 years plan. Training can be provided on subjects. Commissioner Neumann stated she believes 38 there is a charge for training and Ms. Just stated the training is available at no cost to the 39 Planning Commission. Once the Comprehensive Plan has been adopted by the City Council it 40 will be implemented. There are zoning matters that will need to be looked at including the R-4 41 zoning. Commissioner Neumann stated affordable housing has been a burning topic. Ms. Just 42 stated there is a lot of language in the Comprehensive Plan regarding higher density. 43 44 Commissioner Neumann asked if the Planning Commission is the only Commission to approve 45 this and Chair Papatola stated this is the Planning Commission Work Plan and this Commission 46 Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes November 26, 2018 Page 6 will recommend approval by the City Council. Chair Papatola stated this lays out what the 1 Planning Commission will have on its plate for work in 2019. 2 3 Commissioner Socha stated when she was looking at the Work Plan and referred to item 3 and 4 saw in the Comprehensive Plan there was an error on the page numbers referencing 5 implementation of zoning. Ms. Just will see that the errors are corrected on the cross-referencing. 6 Commissioner Neumann asked if that would be corrected before the work plan is approved and 7 Chair Papatola stated the Commission is requested to approve the Work Plan. The corrections 8 are in the Comprehensive Plan. 9 10 Commissioner Neumann commented on how hard the previous City Planner worked and she will 11 be missed. 12 13 Motion by Commissioner Neumann, seconded by Commissioner Westrick, to recommend the 14 City Council approve the 2019 Planning Commission Work Plan as presented. 15 16 Motion carried 6-0. 17 18 VI. COMMUNITY FORUM 19 20 No one appeared to address the Commission. 21 22 VII. INFORMATION AND ANNOUNCEMENTS 23 24 Commissioner Neumann stated she attended a meeting on Saturday for Communities United for 25 Police Brutality and there was a presentation from students at the University of Minnesota who 26 are part of a group regarding funds being allocated for SORs. Funds will be allocated for 27 community projects. 28 29 VIII. ADJOURNMENT. 30 31 Motion by Commissioner Socha, seconded by Commissioner Neumann, to adjourn the meeting 32 at 8:01 p.m. 33 34 Motion carried 6-0. 35 36 37 Respectfully submitted, 38 Debbie Wolfe (TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc.) 39   MEMORANDUM           To:      St. Anthony Village Planning Commission                From:      Molly Just, AICP, City Planner      Date:      Planning Commission Regular Meeting for December 17, 2018      WSB Project No.  11104‐00  Request:  Request for lot split and variance from the required lot size for a corner lot  in the R‐1 Single Family District at property located at 3713 33rd Ave NE.    SUMMARY  The applicant requests approval of a lot split into two lots.  The lot split would require a variance from  the corner lot size requirement of 11,000 sqf.  The applicant proposes a 899‐foot variance from the  minimum for a corner lot size of 10,101 sqf.  The other corner lots on this block range in size from 11,  567 sqf to 13,770 sqf.    Staff has reviewed for height, side/front yard setback, impervious surface and the requests appear to  meet all other code standards.  GENERAL INFORMATION  Applicant:    Walter B. Sentyrz  Owner:     Walter Sentyrz Sentyrz, Jr. and Shirley A. Sentyrz  Location:    3713 33 rd Ave NE  Existing Land Use /  Low‐Density Residential / Zoned: R‐1A Single Family District  Zoning:  Surrounding Land  North:   Low‐Density Residential / Zoned: R‐1 Single Family District  Use / Zoning:    East:   City of Roseville – Single Family & Low Density Multi Family Development    South:  Medium Density Residential / Zoned: R‐3 Townhomes    West:   Low‐Density Residential / Zoned: R‐1 Single Family District     Initial Application Date:   11‐20‐18     Complete Application Date:      Deadline for Agency:  TBD  Action:  60 Days:       TBD  Letter Sent:      No    120 Days:      NA                December 17, 2018  Page 2  CONSIDERATIONS RELATING TO THE PROPOSED VARIANCE  1. Background  The applicant has submitted an application for a lot split to two single‐family lots.  The proposed lot  split would require a variance from the lot size for corner lots in the R‐1 Single Family District.  The  lot size minimum is 11,000 sqf for corner lots in the district.  The applicant proposes an 899 sqf  variance to allow a 10,101 sqf corner lot.  The question is whether there is evidence of a practical  difficulty in meeting the minimum lot size.  The criteria for approval of a variance is provided below.  2. Applicable Codes.  Title XV Land Usage, Chapter 152 Zoning Code:  152.039 Dimensional Regulations (B) Area and width.  The minimum lot size for a corner lot is  11,000 sqf.  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 for a reduction to the minimum lot size for a corner lot in the R‐1 Single Family  District.  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 lot size requirement is an eligible subject matter for  variance criteria because it is 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 proposes to create a lot that is smaller than that  allowed by the zoning code.  Criterion not met.  b. The plight of the property owner is due to circumstances unique to the property not  created by the property owner; The lot split request is created by the property owner  and is not an existing condition.  Criterion not met.    c. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality; Granting  this variance would conflict with the zoning standards set for the neighborhood and  locality.  Criterion not met.   d. Economic considerations alone are not the basis of the practical difficulties.  There is no  evidence that economic considerations alone are not the basis of the request. Criterion  not met.  3. The variance, if granted, would be consistent with the City’s comprehensive land use plan.  The  City’s comprehensive plan does not suggest a lot size reduction in the R‐1 Single Family District.   Criterion not met.      December 17, 2018  Page 3  4. The granting of the variance is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the zoning  code.  The intent of the zoning code is to protect the health, safety, and general welfare of the city and  its people through the establishment of minimum regulations governing land development and  use.  The zoning code is established to: protect the use districts; promote orderly development  and redevelopment; provide adequate light, air, and access to property; prevent congestion in  the public streets; prevent overcrowding of land and undue concentration of structures by  regulating land, buildings, yards, and densities; and provide for compatibility of different land  uses.    The applicant has requested a variance from the lot size minimum for the district.  Evidence has  not been provided to support the request.  Criterion not met.   CONCLUSION  Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend denial of the lot split and variance as the  proposal does not meet the criteria to approve a lot split or variance to the minimum lot size for a  corner lot in the R‐1 Single Family District.    POSSIBLE ACTIONS  1. Motion to recommend approval of the request for a lot split and variance at 3713 33rd Avenue  NE and direct staff to prepare a resolution declaring terms of the same.  2. Motion to recommend denial of the lot split and variance.  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.     ATTACHMENTS  Exhibit A:  Location map  Exhibit B:  Application and Supporting Material  Exhibit C:  Draft resolution    THIS PAGE LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK 3713 33rd Avenue Location Map test Legend Address Labels December 12, 2018 Map Powered by DataLink from WSB & Associates 1 in = 100 ft ± THIS PAGE LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK THIS PAGE LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK RESOLUTION NO. _____ A RESOLUTION ADOPTING FINDINGS OF FACT AND REASONS FOR DENIAL OF A LOT SPLIT WITH VARIANCE REQUEST FOR LOT SIZE ON A CORNER LOT BY WALTER SENTYRZ AT 3713 33RD AVENUE NE FACTS 1. Walter Sentyrz is the owner of a parcel of land located at 3713 33 rd Avenue NE, St. Antony Village, Minnesota; and, 2.The subject property is legally described as follows; and, THE EAST 138 FEET OF THE SOUTH 1/3 OF THE EAST 24 RODS OF THE SOUTH 80 RODS OF THE NORTHEAST 1/4 OF SECTION 6, TOWNSHIP 29 NORTH, RANGE 23, WEST OF THE 4TH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, EXCEPT THE NORTH 225 FEET THEREOF, HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA 3.Walter Sentyrz has applied to the City of St. Anthony Village for a lot split and variance to create two lots with one being below the minimum lot size, as described in the application. 4.The proposal would vary from the minimum lot size requirements for the R-1 Single-Family District in that one of the two lots would be 10,101 square feet instead of the 11,000 square foot minimum lot size for a corner lot. 5.Following a public hearing on the application, the St. Anthony Village Planning Commission recommended denial of the lot split and variance on December 17, 2018. 6. The City Council of the City of St. Anthony Village reviewed the requested lot split and variance at its Meeting of ____________. The request is for a lot split and an 899 square foot variance to the minimum lot size for a corner lot in the R-1 Single-Family District. APPLICABLE LAW 7.Minnesota Statute Section 462.357, subd. 6 provides: a.Variances shall only be permitted (a) when they are in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the ordinance and (b) when the variances are consistent with the comprehensive plan. b.Variances may be granted when the applicant for the variance establishes that there are practical difficulties in complying with the zoning ordinance. “Practical difficulties," as used in connection with the granting of a variance, means that (a) the property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by the zoning ordinance; (b) the plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner; and (c) the variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. Exhibit C 8. City Ordinance allows variances as follows. City Code Section 152.245 Variances (C)Evidence. No variance will be granted unless the evidence presented discloses all of the following facts. (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. 9. Relevant City Code. Title XV Land Usage, Section 152.039 (B) the minimum lot size for a corner lot shall be 11,000 square feet in the R-1 Single-Family District.   CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 10. The requested variance is not in harmony with the purposes and intent of the ordinance because 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.   11. The requested variance is not consistent with the comprehensive plan and the plan does not suggest a lot size reduction in the R-1 Single-Family District. 12. The property owner does not propose to use the property in a reasonable manner as they propose to create a lot that is smaller than that allowed by the zoning code. 13. There are not unique circumstances to the property not created by the landowner as the landowner is requesting the lot split which would create a non-conformity. The existing lot is conforming. 14. The variance does not maintain the essential character of the locality as the reduced lot size would conflict with the zoning standards set for the neighborhood and all other R-1 neighborhoods in the locality.   NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ST. ANTHONY VILLAGE, MINNESOTA AS FOLLOWS: The application to approve a lot split and issue a variance to allow Walter Sentyrz to split a conforming lot into two with one lot being below the minimum lot size is hereby denied. Adopted this day of 2019. _____________________________ Jerome O Faust, Mayor ATTEST: ____________________________ Nicole Miller, City Clerk Reviewed for administration: ______________________________ Mark Casey, City Manager THIS PAGE LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK 3713 33rd Ave Lot Split & Variance Planning Commission Meeting December 17, 2018 Lot Split and Variance Request Applicant proposes a lot split to allow two lots on a 19,110 square foot lot on 33rd Avenue NE. The lot split would require a variance to lot size. Lot Required Square Feet Proposed Variance Needed 1 9,000 9,009 No 2 11,000 10,101 Yes –899 sqf Location Map Applicable Codes City Code Chapter 152 Zoning Code, Section 152.039 R-1 Single- Family District Dimensional Regulations applies. Section 150.039 requires a minimum lot size of 9,000 for interior lots and 11,000 for corner lots in this district. To approve a lot split, a variance is required for one of the lots as to lot size. Criteria For Variance Approval City Zoning Code, Section 152.245 The City Council must consider the following in determining whether to grant or deny a variance: 1.The subject matter is within the scope of this section. Met 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. Not met b.The circumstances are unique to the property not created by the applicant; Not met c.The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality; Not met d.Economic considerations alone are not the basis of the practical difficulties. Not met 3.Consistency with the City’s comprehensive land use plan. Not met 4.The variance is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the zoning code. Not met Planning Commission Recommendation Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend denial of the lot split and variance, based on review of the criteria. Staff has provided a draft resolution with findings of fact. Questions?           NOTICE OF A PUBLIC HEARING    Notice is hereby given that on December 17, 2018, 7:00 p.m. at City Hall, 3301 Silver Lake Road, the  Saint Anthony Village Planning Commission will hold a public hearing to solicit public response to a  request for a minor subdivision/lot split to the property at 3713 33rd Avenue NE.   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 612‐364‐4586.  The Planning Commission agenda and packet item relating to this application will be made available  prior to the meeting online at www.savmn.com.  Molly Just, AICP  City Planner