HomeMy WebLinkAboutPL PACKET 09172019
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 September 17, 2019 Planning Commission Meeting Agenda. (action requested)
II. Approval of the August 20, 2019 Regular Planning Commission Meeting Minutes.
(action requested)
III. Public Hearing.
A. Consider a request for a Subdivision including a Lot Size and Setback Variance at 3645 Chelmsford
Road.
IV. Staff Reports.
V. Other Business.
A. Review proposed Ordinance amendments regarding Walkways, Sidewalks, and Patios.
B. Schedule a worksession for discussion regarding accessory buildings.
VI. Community Forum.
Individuals may address the Planning Commission about any City business 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
SEPTEMBER 17, 2019
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
7:00 PM
CITY OF ST. ANTHONY 1
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 2
AUGUST 20, 2019 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 Bartel, Neumann, Rude, Socha, and 16
Westrick. 17
18
Absent: Commissioner Payne 19
20
Also Present: City Planner Stephen Grittman 21
22
I. APPROVAL OF THE AUGUST 20, 2019 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 23
AGENDA. 24
25
Motion by Commissioner Neumann, seconded by Commissioner Westrick, to approve the 26
August 20, 2019 Planning Commission agenda. 27
28
Motion carried 6-0. 29
30
II. APPROVAL OF THE APRIL 16, 2019 REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION 31
MEETING MINUTES. 32
33
Commissioner Neumann requested on page four, line four the following be added: 34
“Recommended a Work Session to proposing establishing parameters moving forward.” 35
36
Motion by Commissioner Neumann, seconded by Commissioner Rude, to approve the April 16, 37
2019 Regular Planning Commission Meeting Minutes as revised. 38
39
Motion carried 5-0-1 (Bartel abstained). 40
41
III. PUBLIC HEARING. 42
43
A. Consider a request for an amendment to the Silver Lake Village Planned Unit 44
Development (PUD) at 3800 Silver Lake Road NE. This public hearing will be to 45
consider the application of Doran SLV, LLC for a Preliminary Plan stage of the 46
Silver Lake Village PUD. 47
48
Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes
August 20, 2019
Page 2
Chair Papatola reviewed how the public hearing will proceed this evening. This item will come 1
before Council on September 10, 2019. 2
3
Chair Papatola opened the public hearing at 7:05 p.m. 4
5
City Planner Stephen Grittman reviewed the project for land use compliance with the intent and 6
policies of the City’s Comprehensive plan, and for zoning consistency with the R-4, Multiple 7
Family Residential District as a baseline. In summary, the Comprehensive Plan promotes 8
redevelopment of the Walmart site as a major goal, and includes high density multiple family 9
residential uses of up to 40 units per acre as allowable in this area. The applicant is seeking the 10
PUD Amendment at just over 35 units per acre. The pond space in Salo Park is also included in 11
the site but will not be changed. The site is 13 acres in size and currently occupied by an empty 12
WalMart building. The sites were indicated on maps by Mr. Grittman. The proposed site plan 13
drawing was provided. Underbuilding parking will be provided. City Planner Grittman also 14
provided the grading plan, view from the south, view from the north, east elevation concept, east 15
elevation perspective sketch, view of NE corner, view from Salo Park, main floor plan, and 16
landscape concept architectural drawings. 17
18
City Planner Grittman noted the PUD is a three-stage process. The first stage is a joint work 19
session between the Council and the Planning Commission which was held a couple months ago 20
on a sketch plan. The PUD application is now at Preliminary Plan stage and includes a public 21
hearing. The City Council will review the final PUD. 22
23
The proposed PUD meets the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance for the majority of the 24
baseline standards. The principal areas of flexibility under the PUD include: 25
26
1. The proposal to have two principal buildings on a single development parcel. 27
2. Building height (code is 35 feet/3 stories); applicant proposes approximately 52 feet and 4 28
stories (5 including the exposed portion of the lower-level parking garage). 29
3. Parking supply (code requires 2 per unit, total of 928); applicant proposes 813 spaces – 1.75 30
per unit or 1.35 per bedroom. 31
4. Lot coverage/impervious surface (R-4 code limits this to 50%); applicant’s proposal is 32
approximately 75%. The current condition is 85%. 33
5. Density (R-4 code limits this to approximately 24 units per acre, Comprehensive Plan calls 34
for 20-40 units per acre); applicant is proposing approximately 35 units per acre. 35
36
City Planner Grittman summarized the preliminary staff comments as: 37
• Land use – conversion of site from commercial to residential use. 38
• Plan details – height, site planning, landscaping. 39
• Building architecture – massing, orientation, materials. 40
• Access and parking – adequacy, accessibility. 41
• Presentation – entry, views. 42
43
City Planner Grittman stated staff believes that the flexibility requested under the PUD is 44
appropriate, given the objectives of the Comprehensive Plan and the related improvements and 45
Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes
August 20, 2019
Page 3
amenities proposed as part of the project. Staff is recommending approval of the Preliminary 1
Plan stage of the PUD Amendment for Silver Lake Village, with a series of conditions. 2
3
City Planner Grittman reviewed the background of the case stating the applicant is proposing to 4
redevelop the existing WalMart site, including demolition of the building and parking lot, 5
replacing the current structure with a two-phase multiple family residential project of 6
approximately 464 dwelling units. The development parcels in question were indicated on the 7
zoning map shown, and are 13 acres in total area. 8
9
City Planner Grittman noted the project is proposed to be developed in two phases. The Phase 1 10
apartment building is to be located on the northern one-half of the site and includes 230 units. 11
The Phase 2 building is to be located on the southern one-half of the site and includes 234 units. 12
Each building measures five stories in height with the ground level floor being devoted to indoor 13
parking. The apartment project includes several amenities including a 9,300 square foot 14
clubhouse building within which a fitness center, game room, business center and entertainment 15
suites are to be provided. Also include amenities are an outdoor pool, two spas, community grills 16
and outdoor gathering spaces. 17
18
City Planner Grittman stated the Phase 1 apartment building and clubhouse are expected to be 19
completed by the summer of 2021 while the Phase 2 building is expected to be completed by the 20
summer of 2023. Within the apartment buildings, a range of unit types are to be provided 21
including studio/alcove units, one-bedroom units, two-bedroom units and three-bedroom units. 22
The subject site is zoned PUD (Planned Unit Development). Within PUD zoning districts, uses 23
and development parameters/requirements are specified in a PUD development agreement. 24
Modification of the original terms of the PUD approval are subject to PUD amendment 25
processing and specifically the consideration of new Preliminary and Final PUD plans. 26
27
City Planner Grittman explained the applicant wishes to amend the previously approved PUD 28
(presently applicable to the site), to accommodate the proposed apartment building project. In 29
consideration of PUD applications, it is important that the purpose of the planned unit 30
development be considered and that a determination be made that such purposes will be fulfilled. 31
A planned unit development is intended to allow a mixture of uses and/or flexibility from the 32
strict terms of the Zoning Ordinance in return for higher site and building design standards than 33
what would otherwise be allowed. 34
35
Section 152.202 of the Zoning Ordinance allowances were provided for Commission review. 36
The existing PUD was approved in 2004, and overlays more than 60 acres of land. In this regard, 37
the 13-acre Walmart site is a component of a larger PUD site which includes several surrounding 38
commercial and multi-family residential buildings. The project amendment under consideration 39
only encompasses the 13-acre Walmart site. In this regard, all other existing PUD sites/uses are 40
to remain in place and no modifications are proposed. 41
42
City Planner Grittman stated to accommodate the requested PUD amendment, a two-stage 43
review process will take place. The requested amendment will be treated (from a process 44
standpoint) like a new PUD application. The application under consideration is the Preliminary 45
PUD Plan stage. Preliminary Plan approval is similar to a basic rezoning in that it establishes that 46
Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes
August 20, 2019
Page 4
the proposed use is appropriate for the subject site. As part of the Preliminary Plan review, 1
various conditions of approval are typically imposed. The Preliminary Plan is subject to a public 2
hearing, review and recommendation by the Planning Commission and approval by the City 3
Council. 4
5
The second stage is the Final PUD Plan which basically serves to implement the various 6
conditions of Preliminary Plan approval and ensure that such conditions have been satisfied. The 7
Final Plan will be subject to review and approval by the City Council. No public hearing is 8
required for Final Plan. 9
10
City Planner Grittman noted in May of 2019, an Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) 11
was completed for the redevelopment project under consideration by the City. The purpose of the 12
EAW process is to disclose information about potential environmental impacts of a project. 13
Information disclosed in the EAW process is intended to determine whether a more detailed 14
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is needed and to indicate how the project can be modified 15
to lessen its environmental impacts. The EAW review considers the potential environmental 16
impacts associated with the apartment building project, including issues associated with the 17
demolition of the existing Walmart facilities. After receiving comments, the City Council 18
adopted a resolution (Resolution 19-058) of “negative declaration” regarding the potential for 19
significant environmental impacts. This action includes a series of mitigation steps that will be 20
factored into project approval, and finds that no EIS is necessary. 21
22
City Planner Grittman stated the City’s draft 2040 Comprehensive Plan identifies the former 23
Walmart site as a priority redevelopment opportunity. The City is expected to accommodate an 24
increase in population and that little to no vacant land presently exists, redevelopment of 25
previously developed sites is considered the primary means of achieving the City’s residential 26
density objectives. The proposed redevelopment project is considered consistent with the City’s 27
2040 Comprehensive Plan. Regarding land use compatibility multi-family residential uses and a 28
park border the subject site on the west, the proposed multi-family housing project will be 29
contiguous to similar uses and therefore is considered generally compatible with surrounding 30
uses (and not an isolated use). 31
32
City Planner Grittman explained that primary access to the subject site is to be provided from the 33
east via Silver Lake Road. The access previously utilized by Walmart is to be retained. Access to 34
a surface parking lot in the northwest corner of the site is to be provided indirectly from 39th 35
Avenue NE through an abutting commercial property. As a condition of the Final PUD approval, 36
an assurance should be made that an access easement is in place to accommodate the northerly 37
access to the subject site. Proof of such access easement should be provided to the City. Access-38
related issues should be subject to further comment and recommendation by the City Engineer. 39
40
City Planner Grittman stated the site and building layout are considered well-conceived and 41
respectful of the site’s context. The two proposed apartment buildings are situated in a manner 42
which creates an internal court area which is provided a connection to the existing park and 43
multi-family residential uses to the west. The proposed apartment buildings serve to buffer the 44
interior court area from higher intensity commercial uses which exist to the north and east of the 45
site and the fail line located to the south. 46
Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes
August 20, 2019
Page 5
1
City Planner Grittman stated staff would encourage landscaping attention to the east-facing 2
portion of the project to create a more prominent “front door” impression to the most public side 3
of the project. Enhancing the view of the development toward the public side would better meet 4
the expectations of the Silver Lake Village development overall, as well as the expectations for 5
Planned Unit Development design specifically. 6
7
City Planner Grittman noted the PUD zoning district does not impose specific structure setback 8
requirements. The setback requirements for R-4 Multiple Family Residential zoning district were 9
reviewed. It is the opinion of staff that the proposed structure setbacks are acceptable. A total of 10
813 off-street parking stalls are proposed on the site which is 115 stalls less than are required by 11
the Ordinance. In consideration of this parking supply deficit, the City would need to allow 12
flexibility from the general ordinance requirement as part of the PUD approval. As a condition of 13
Final PUD approval, the applicant must demonstrate compliance with American Disability Act 14
parking supply requirements. 15
16
City Planner Grittman explained that as a condition of Preliminary PUD approval, findings 17
should be made by City Officials that the proposed five-story building height is acceptable as 18
component of a project which meets the intent of the City’s PUD requirements (for superior 19
design and amenities). As part of the review process, emergency services (fire and police) have 20
reviewed the project and made a finding that proper emergency vehicle access is provided. As 21
part of Final PUD approval, the submitted development plans should be subject to review and 22
comment by the Fire Chief. 23
24
City Planner Grittman presented the request, noting the number of units for Phase 1 is 230 and 25
for phase 2 is 234 for a total of 464. There will be a total of 57 studio/alcove, 293 one-bedroom, 26
90 two-bedroom, and 24 three-bedroom units. As a condition of Final PUD approval, sample 27
floor plans should be submitted which demonstrate compliance with applicable minimum floor 28
area requirements of the Building Code. The floor plans will be subject to review by the City 29
Building Official as part of building permit review. The apartment building will primarily be 30
finished in varieties of earth tone colors. Colored vertical accents are proposed in strategic 31
locations to add visual interest. The buildings are to be finished in a variety of materials. As a 32
condition of Final PUD approval, details regarding the design of the clubhouse and pool building 33
should be submitted for City review. 34
35
As part of the refinement of the landscape plan, it is suggested that consideration be given to 36
accentuating the primary entrance to the site with an intensified landscaping effort. 37
Consideration could be given to providing a landscape median or other enhancement near the 38
eastern entrance to the site, between the garage entrance driveways and the sidewalk crossing to 39
the east. 40
41
City Planner Grittman stated the site establishes an impervious surface coverage of 75% of the 42
development property, apart from the parcel on which Salo Park is located. Current impervious 43
on the site is in excess of 90% under the original Walmart use. While the resulting impervious 44
exceeds the R-4 standard, it represents a significant increase in green space over the existing 45
condition. 46
Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes
August 20, 2019
Page 6
1
A lighting plan has not been submitted for review. As a condition of Final PUD approval, a 2
lighting plan should be submitted for review which demonstrates compliance with City 3
requirements. 4
5
City Planner Grittman summarized the recommended Preliminary Plan PUD conditions: 6
7
1. An access easement shall be in place to accommodate the northerly access to the subject site. 8
Proof of such access easement shall be provided to the City as a part of the original or 9
amended PUD documentation. 10
2. Access-related issues shall be subject to comment and recommendation by the City Engineer. 11
3. As a part of the Final PUD Plan submission, a plan of the enclosed parking area shall be 12
submitted for City review. 13
4. The City finds that the proposed parking supply (and the deficit based on ordinance 14
requirements) is adequate to serve the facility. 15
5. Internal parking stalls which exhibit “bumper to bumper” or “bumper to wall” conditions 16
should be increased from 18 – 19 feet in depth. 17
6. Final PUD Plans demonstrate compliance with ADA parking supply requirements (for 18
disabled persons). 19
7. City Officials find the proposed five-story apartment building heights to be acceptable 20
(within the context of the PUD). 21
8. Sample floor plans be submitted which demonstrate compliance with applicable minimum 22
floor area requirements of the Building Code. 23
9. Details regarding the design of the clubhouse and pool building shall be submitted for City 24
review. 25
10. As a part of the Final Plan submission, the submitted landscape plan be expanded to specify 26
plant varieties and sizes. 27
11. Consideration be given to accentuating the primary entrance to the site via an intensified 28
landscaping plan and other elements. Specifically, consideration be given to enhanced 29
architectural features as well as provision of a landscape median near the eastern entrance to 30
the site, between the garage entrance driveways and the sidewalk crossing to the east. 31
12. As part of the Final PUD Plan submission, a lighting plan to be submitted for review which 32
demonstrates compliance with City requirements. 33
13. As part of the Final PUD Plan submission, a signage plan be submitted for review which 34
demonstrates compliance with City requirements. 35
14. The applicant provide information regarding trash handling activities. 36
15. Issues related to grading, drainage and utilities shall be subject to comment and 37
recommendation by the City Engineer. 38
16. The applicant enter into a PUD agreement with the City and post all the necessary securities 39
required by it. 40
17. Consideration of comments by other City Staff. 41
42
City Planner Grittman stated this recommendation is based on a finding that the proposal, with 43
the conditions cited, is consistent with the requirements for PUD consideration, with the long-44
term objectives of the Silver Lake Village PUD, and with the recommendations and policies of 45
the St. Anthony Comprehensive Plan. According to the EAW, the project is expected to generate 46
Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes
August 20, 2019
Page 7
2700 average daily trips. The WalMart facility when it was open was expected to generate 7300 1
average daily trips. 2
3
Chair Papatola confirmed that the final PUD will not come back to the Planning Commission for 4
review it will go directly to City Council. 5
6
Mr. Kelly Doran, representing Doran SLV, LLC, reviewed the background of the company. He 7
reviewed a number of the projects they have completed along with awards received. No changes 8
will be made to Salo Park and some enhancements may be done. A drawing of what the 9
underground parking will look like was provided. The underground parking is 1 per unit with 10
additional parking outside. The rents will range from $1,200 - $1,300 for a studio and up to 11
$3,500 for a 3-bedroom apartment. The 16,000 community center was described. Mr. Doran 12
reviewed what would be included in the two phases of the project. A breakdown of the proposed 13
units was shown along with the approximate square feet of the units. Pictures of interior finishes 14
were shown along with an explanation of the entertainment suites. Photographs of common 15
areas, fitness and gaming areas, entertainment suites, community rooms, unit finishes, and 16
exterior amenity spaces. The building will be brought out of the ground to accommodate 17
waterflow. The architecture is still being refined. 18
19
Mr. Doran stated they have reviewed the 17 conditions and they are in agreement with all the 20
conditions. The only condition with some concern is #5. The parking space size does create an 21
issue. There are six parking bays in the parking garage. This would add six feet which would 22
affect greenspace. They ask for some softening of that language and not make that an absolute. 23
24
Commissioner Bartel asked for more clarity of the underground parking and it is actually 25
enclosed on the main level. This enclosed parking makes the building height higher. Mr. Doran 26
reviewed in order to avoid the possible overflowing of the Salo Park pond there needs to be at a 27
higher level. This is a requirement of the watershed district. 28
29
Chair Papatola asked if the roof was flat and has a height of 52 feet. Chair Papatola asked how 30
that height compares to the other buildings in Silver Lake Village. Mr. Doran stated his guess is 31
that the flatness of the roof would be no higher than the peaked roof at The Landings. Chair 32
Papatola asked how 1.75 parking spaces in this project relates to other projects. Mr. Doran stated 33
that would actually be higher than most suburban parking requirements for apartments today. 34
Their other developments have a parking ratio of less than 1.5 spaces per unit. 35
36
Commissioner Rude asked about the length of the parking stalls and is there a concern in the 37
interior parking as much as the exterior parking. Mr. Doran stated it is much less of a concern for 38
the interior parking. Mr. Doran stated 18 feet is a functional depth. Commissioner Rude asked if 39
anything can be stored in front of the vehicles such as bicycles. Mr. Doran stated they would not 40
allow anything to be stored on the floor. Bicycles could be stored on a bike rack above the hood 41
of the car. 42
43
Commissioner Bartel questioned the two phases of the development and after the first phase is 44
done can the parking be re-assessed to determine if parking is sufficient. He asked if people 45
Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes
August 20, 2019
Page 8
wanted to park outdoors how would the outside parking run over to the adjacent businesses. Mr. 1
Doran stated the 2nd phase actually has more parking. Assigned stalls can be utilized if necessary. 2
3
Commissioner Rude stated he understands a purchase agreement is pending and asked if any part 4
of the agreement deals with parking. He also asked about the lot to the east and north of the 5
coffee shop. The reciprocal easement agreement will need to be modified. The commercial 6
tenants will not be able to park in the project lots and vice versa. Commissioner Rude has some 7
concerns with there being more parking added in Phase 2 of the project. Mr. Doran stated there is 8
an entrance at the lower level. This is the only entrance to the north side of the building. They 9
would not have a right to park at Starbucks or Erickson Oil. 10
11
Commissioner Socha stated he had some concerns with losing depth for handicapped parking. 12
She asked if the handicapped parking could be 19 feet. Mr. Doran stated the standard 13
handicapped parking spot is 18 feet in length. They could look at extending the length but there 14
are no accessibility concerns. 15
16
Mr. Gene Bird, asked when the EAW was done was it done prior to Silver Lake Road closing. 17
City Planner Grittman stated it was done during that period. Mr. Bird stated he questions the 18
accuracy of the EAW. The EAW traffic was based on historical data prior to the closing. Mr. 19
Bird stated he is concerned, with having two small boys, about his boys riding bikes in that area. 20
They live just north of the property. He asked how accidents with bicycles and pedestrians can 21
be mitigated. He stated the units overlooking the parking spots may deter people from renting. 22
He would like the lot coverage to come down even more and have the building height lower to 3 23
floors. Mr. Bird would prefer to see it built in one phase rather than in two phases. There will be 24
a lot of traffic and noise from construction with the two-phase plan. Mr. Bird asked how many 25
ADA apartments there will be. He would have preferred to have this issue come out sooner. 26
27
Mr. Clifton Ware asked if the list he sent was received. He read the letter he sent to Silver Lake 28
Village. He is looking forward to what is happening to the area. He noted his sustainability 29
concerns. He questioned energy-efficient construction. He asked if there would be separate 30
meters for water and electricity. He would like to have outlets for electric vehicle. They are 31
concerned about having more native plantings and perhaps a rain garden. He is concerned about 32
the 15-year-old trees on the side of WalMart that may be damaged. He asked about recycling, 33
organic waste, garbage handling, walking paths, and building roofs proving support for solar 34
panels. 35
36
Mr. Corey Erickson made general comments in support of the project, noting Mr. Doran is the 37
only developer to come to the City with a credible re-development proposal. The project should 38
be approved and this tax base will help with amenities in the City. There are currently no Class A 39
apartments in the City. This project will help with retail development in that area. 40
41
Ms. Lindsey Kieffaber agreed density is needed in St. Anthony but she feels the project is 42
oversized and should be broken down to 4 buildings. She agrees with the sustainability concerns 43
raised. If the area were to be re-developed in the future it should be broken into smaller parcels. 44
Pervious pavement and decreasing the lot coverage would be desired. 45
46
Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes
August 20, 2019
Page 9
Mr. Doran was asked to respond to the questions posed. Mr. Doran stated the EAW addressed all 1
issues as far as impact to surrounding roads, sidewalks around perimeter and trails that will tie 2
into existing trails. They do not control access to Silver Lake Road. Mr. Doran stated when 3
something is designed compromises are made. There is surface parking in every development. 4
Parking spaces can be reduced to create more green space but their plan is in response to demand 5
for similar projects. Access to amenities is very important for successful renting. Security is 6
maintained. There is a prescribed threshold about the types of ADA units and handicapped 7
parking. They have separate ADA consultants that review all the plans. Every unit in the 8
building are considered adaptable to ADA. Mr. Doran addressed the sustainability issues raised 9
and noted each unit has individual gas and electric meters. Water is not individually metered. 10
Conduits are available for future solar. The buildings are very well insulated and those units in 11
upper floors benefit. Electric charging stations are available in 20% of the stalls. That’s the 12
maximum the energy company can give them. The landscaping plans are not final as far as 13
native plants. The trees along WalMart may not survive and the retaining wall will need to come 14
down and be rebuilt. The market does not absorb bringing 452 units to the marketplace at one 15
time. Phasing is necessary. It will be built as fast as possible. 16
17
Commissioner Bartel asked City Planner Grittman about the entrance/exit to Silver Lake Road. 18
He asked if the City has any ability to deal with traffic at that specific entrance point. City 19
Planner Grittman stated it is a County Road and the County’s call. The a.m. and p.m. peak times 20
are less with this project than at WalMart. Mr. Doran stated WSB did a traffic study and the level 21
of service was improved on Silver Lake Road over a retail. 22
23
Commissioner Rude asked about bus operations in the area and City Planner Grittman stated he 24
has had discussions with Metro Transit and there will be a major transfer hub on Silver Lake 25
Road. Mr. Doran stated there are four points of access for in/out of the property. Mr. Doran 26
indicated the access points on a drawing. He indicated the garage access points. 27
28
Commissioner Socha asked if this would be a pet friendly building and Mr. Doran stated there 29
will be a dog park and pet relief areas. There are also pet spas. 30
31
Commissioner Westrick asked about the railroad tracks or noise from railroad. Mr. Doran stated 32
they do not see this as a problem. 33
34
Commissioner Rude asked how many people will be employed on the management staff and Mr. 35
Doran stated 8-10 employees on site. 36
37
Commissioner Neumann asked Mr. Doran if he will be living on site and Mr. Doran stated he 38
will not. He does live in one of his own buildings. They were the original re-developer of 39
Apache Plaza. Mr. Doran stated this will be the only time he built something that he will tear 40
down (WalMart). 41
42
Commissioner Rude asked how many people will live in this project and Mr. Doran stated 1.6 is 43
average 600-700 people. 44
45
Chair Papatola closed the public hearing at 8:31 p.m. 46
Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes
August 20, 2019
Page 10
1
Commissioner Socha expressed two thoughts is she doesn’t love the height but it is necessary for 2
the project to have density. If there was less parking there could be more impervious. If the 3
developer believes it can be successful with less parking, she would like that to increase the 4
green space. 5
6
Commissioner Rude asked where the water from the Salo Park pond is running into and 7
mentioned it is into the lake. Mr. Doran stated the flow is correct. Less water is being generated 8
from a runoff standpoint. They will be in compliance with EAW and watershed 9
recommendations. 10
11
Commissioner Socha stated there are more advantages to having more greenspace. 12
13
Commissioner Bartel stated the City could explore the number of parking spaces being 14
decreased. 15
16
Chair Papatola read the condition regarding parking. The City will continue to research parking 17
supply could be amended in the conditions. The parking depth could be 18-19 feet where 18
possible. 19
20
Commissioner Rude stated the main consideration shifting from commercial to residential 21
property. A vacant building does not use City resources. This project may include tax increment 22
financing. Chair Papatola reminded Commissioner Rude that the Commission is looking at land 23
use not financing. Commissioner Rude asked if the City can afford to give up commercial land. 24
25
Commissioner Socha stated it would be nice to have more commercial land in the City but this 26
project would help the retail businesses. 27
28
Commissioner Neumann stated this happened quickly and affordable housing is of issue. She is 29
concerned with a demographic and with making units affordable. She stated 1-17 looks good but 30
is concerned with the developers prior relationship with the city. 31
32
Chair Papatola stated that piece of property has gone through many iterations 33
34
Commissioner Westrick stated she is concerned how we meet our plan goals. This project would 35
be a benefit for the community. 36
37
Motion by Commissioner Socha, seconded by Commissioner Bartel, to recommend the City 38
Council approve a request for a Preliminary Plan Stage PUD, constituting an amendment to the 39
Silver Lake Village PUD, recommending the Silver Lake Village Multi-family Residential 40
Project of 464 Dwelling Units at 3800 Silver Lake Road with the conditions amended. 41
42
Motion carried 4-1-1 (Rude opposed, Neumann abstained). 43
44
IV. STAFF REPORTS 45
46
Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes
August 20, 2019
Page 11
City Planner Grittman stated the Council reviewed some of the workshop items discussed and 1
work is being done on the accessory building issue. A workshop date will be scheduled. 2
3
Commissioner Neumann asked where copies of the Comprehensive Plan are located for 4
members of the public wishing to access, including newer Commissioners. City Planner 5
Grittman stated it is on the City website. 6
7
V. OTHER BUSINESS – NONE. 8
9
VI. COMMUNITY FORUM. 10
11
No one appeared to address the Commission. 12
13
VII. INFORMATION AND ANNOUNCEMENTS – NONE. 14
15
VIII. ADJOURNMENT. 16
17
Motion by Commissioner Neumann, seconded by Commissioner Westrick, to adjourn the 18
meeting at 9:00 p.m. 19
20
Motion carried 6-0. 21
22
23
Respectfully submitted, 24
Debbie Wolfe (TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc.) 25
THIS PAGE LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK
MEMORANDUM
To: St. Anthony Village Planning Commission
From: Stephen Grittman, City Planner
Date: Planning Commission Meeting – September 17, 2019
NAC Project No. 323.01 – 19.15
Request: Request for Subdivision; Lot Size and Setback Variances
Property PID: 06-029-23-11-0004
Property Address: 3645 Chelmsford Rd.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
The applicants are requesting a subdivision of an existing single family parcel, and a series of
variances necessary to establish lot areas on each of the two parcels that are below zoning
ordinance requirements, and a setback variance that would extend the northerly house into the
average setback along 37th Ave. NE. As discussed in the Analysis below, planning staff does not
believe that the tests for “reasonable use” or unique conditions are present to qualify the
request for a significant departure from R-1 Zoning requirements. Staff recommends denial of
the subdivision and the accompanying variances.
Staff has reviewed for height, yard setbacks, and other zoning standards; the request appears
to meet all other code requirements.
GENERAL INFORMATION
Applicant: Anselmo Marquez Montiel and Mary Margaret Reagan-Montiel
Owner: same
Location: 3645 Chelmsford Road
Existing Land Use Single Family Residential
Zoning: R-1, Single Family
Surrounding Land North: Multi-family; Zoned R-4
Use / Zoning: East: Two-family; Zoned R-2
South: Single Family; Zoned R-1
West: Single Family; Zoned R-1
March 19, 2019
Page 2
Deadline for Agency Application Complete Date: 8/1/19
Action: 60 Days: 9/30/19
Letter Sent: 9/12/19
120 Days: 11/29/19
ANALYSIS
1. Background
The applicant is proposing to subdivide an existing single family parcel at the southeast
corner of 37th Avenue NE and Chelmsford Road. The parcel in question is shown on the
zoning map below, and is 92 feet in width and approximately 14,760 square feet in area.
The applicant’s survey shows lot dimensions of 107 feet in width and 220 feet in depth – a
total of 23,540 square feet. However, the 107 foot width includes 25 feet of Chelmsford
Road street easement, and the 220 foot dimension includes 40 feet of 37th Avenue NE right
of way. The dimensions noted on the survey include road area that is not counted toward
lot area for building and zoning purposes.
March 19, 2019
Page 3
A. Subdivision and Lot Size Variances
The applicants own a parcel that is 82 feet wide along 37th Ave. NE, and 220 feet
deep along Chelmsford Road, excluding right of way and street easements of record.
This is a total of 18,040 square feet. A single family home is located on the south
portion of the parcel, approximately 18 feet from the Chelmsford Road street
easement boundary. The typical setback requirement is 30 feet from the right of
way.
The applicants propose to subdivide the property to create a smaller lot containing
the existing home, and a new building lot at the corner of Chelmsford and 37th. The
south parcel (Parcel “B”) would be 75 feet in width along Chelmsford, and at 82 feet
deep, just 6,150 square feet in area. The applicant’s survey shows a lot depth of 107
feet, but that includes 25 feet of dedicated street easement, which is not included in
actual lot area.
The requirements for new single family lots in the R-1 zoning district is 75 feet of
width, and a minimum lot area of 9,000 square feet – the proposal is more than
30% (2,850 square feet) short of the requirement.
The proposed north corner parcel (Parcel “A”) is shown at 105 feet deep by 82 feet
wide – a lot area of 8,610 square feet. For corner lots in the R-1 District, the
requirements are 90 feet in width and 11,000 square feet in area. This lot then, is a
total of 2,390 square feet short of the requirement, a differential of more than 20%.
As such, the subdivision results in the need for lot area variances for both parcels.
When evaluating variances, the City’s zoning ordinance applies the requirement that
can be summarized as whether there is a unique condition on the property that
creates a practical difficulty in putting the property to what would otherwise be a
reasonable use. The language of the code is cited in Section 3. of this report below.
In considering the scope of reasonable use, neighborhood character is often
identified as a factor in understanding what might be “reasonable”, short of the
minimum standard. The R-1 blocks to the west of this site have lots that average
approximately 10,000 square feet in area, and with the exception of one or two
parcels, the majority of those lots are 9,600 square feet or greater.
As noted above, the required lot area for lots in the R-1 District is 11,000 square feet
for a corner lot and 9,000 square feet for an interior lot, a total of 20,000 square
feet. The applicants’ proposed subdivision would create two parcels on a total of
14,760 square feet, an average lot size of less than 7,900 square feet.
As such, planning staff does not believe that the creation of two parcels of the size
proposed by the applicants can be supported as “reasonable use”, given the nature
and size of the adjoining single family neighborhood.
March 19, 2019
Page 4
B. Parcel A Setback Variance.
Complicating this proposal further is that a third variance would be necessary to
accommodate the subdivision, due to setback requirements on Parcel A. The City’s
requirements for setbacks in the R-1 District are 30 feet front and rear, 30 feet on a
corner side yard, and at least 5 feet on the interior side yard.
The street-side setback requirement is also subject to an averaging requirement and
incorporates the average setback of the adjoining buildings if greater than the
standard 30 feet. In this case, the setbacks of the adjoining parcels along 37th
Avenue NE are approximately 62 feet on the westerly parcel, and 80 feet for the
easterly parcel, an average required setback of 71 feet from the 37th Avenue right of
way line.
Moreover, there is a high-capacity overhead power transmission line along this
portion of the 37th Avenue that encroaches onto the applicant’s property. The
easement for this power line is not shown on the applicants’ survey. However, it
would appear to significantly impact the ability to construct a building on proposed
Parcel A, as much as 50 feet of the north side of the property.
This power line would explain the significant setbacks shown on the other parcels
along this right of way. It appears highly unlikely that the applicants would be able
to construct a single family home as proposed on the Parcel A, even if the City were
to grant a significant setback variance.
In summary, planning staff does not believe the reasonable use standard is met for
this variance request. We would further note the power line encroachment that
may make the variance request impossible to achieve in any case.
2. Representative Codes Referenced.
Title XV Land Usage, Chapter 152 Zoning Code, Section 152.035 – 152.039 (R-1 Zoning
District regulations).
3. Criteria for and Consistency with Criteria for Variance Approval. Title XV Land Usage,
Chapter 152 Zoning Code, Section §152.245 lists the criteria the City Council must consider
in determining whether to grant or deny a Variance. Those conditions are as follows:
(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.
March 19, 2019
Page 5
SUMMARY AND STAFF/PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS
Application 1. Staff recommends denial of the proposed subdivision and lot area variances,
based on the following findings:
1. The property is put to a reasonable use as a single family parcel, consistent with the
requirements of the R-1 zoning district.
2. Existing single family parcels in the immediate neighborhood are uniformly larger on
average and individually, the result of which is that the subdivision would create the
smallest lots in the area.
3. Variance approval requires findings that there are unique conditions that create
practical difficulties in the property to a reasonable use. There do not appear to be any
such unique conditions on this property that would distinguish it from other single
family lots, justifying the reduction in lot area.
Application 2. Staff recommends denial of the proposed setback variance for proposed Parcel
A , based on the following findings:
1. The parcels along 37th Avenue NE all demonstrate significant setbacks from the right of
way for several blocks.
2. If granted, the reduced setback on Parcel A would be the only building less than 60 feet
from the right of way.
3. Variance approval requires findings that there are unique conditions that create
practical difficulties in the property to a reasonable use. There do not appear to be any
such unique conditions on this property that would distinguish it from other single
family lots, justifying the reduction in lot area.
ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS
Decision 1. Subdivision and Lot Area Variances
1. Motion to approve the request for a subdivision and lot area variances for the subject
property as shown on the proposed survey, and direct staff to prepare a resolution
declaring terms of the same.
2. Motion to recommend denial of the proposed subdivision and lot area variances as
requested. This recommendation would be based on the findings in the Staff report
and other findings as noted by the Commission on the record following the public
hearing.
3. Request Additional Information and Table Action, subject to the submission of
additional information from staff and/or applicant.
March 19, 2019
Page 6
Decision 2. Parcel A Setback Variance
1. Motion to recommend approval of the request for a setback variance and direct staff to
prepare resolution declaring terms of the same.
2. Motion to deny the setback variance as requested. This recommendation would be
based on the findings in the Staff report and other findings as noted by the
Commission on the record following the public hearing.
3. Request Additional Information and Table Action, subject to the submission of
additional information from staff and/or applicant.
ATTACHMENTS
Exhibit A: Location map
Exhibit B: Application and Supporting Material
Exhibit C: Draft resolution
THIS PAGE LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK
CITY OF SAINT ANTHONY VILLAGE
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION NO. _____________
A RESOLUTION DENYING A REQUEST FOR A SUBDIVISION, VARIANCES FROM
REQUIRED LOT AREA, AND VARIANCE FOR SETBACK FROM THE PUBLIC
RIGHT OF WAY FOR PROPERTY AT 3645 CHELMSFORD ROAD
.
WHEREAS, the City of St. Anthony Village received a request from Anselmo Marquez Motiel
and Mary Margaret Reagan-Montiel for a subdivision and variances from the required lot area
and front setback on a parcel with PID No. 06-029-23-11-0004; and
WHEREAS, the property is located in the R-1 Single Family Residential district and the
applicable minimum lot area is 9,000 square feet for interior lots and 11,000 square feet for
corner lots; and
WHEREAS, the applicants are seeking a subdivision with lot areas of 6,150 square feet (interior
Lot B) and 8,610 square feet (corner Lot A); and
WHEREAS, the applicable front yard setback is approximately 71 feet from 37th Avenue NE for
the Subject Property based on the average setback of the adjoining parcels; and
WHEREAS, the applicants are seeking a setback from 37th Avenue NE of 30 feet; 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; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has considered all of the comments, submissions and the staff
report, which are incorporated by reference into the resolution; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on September 17, 2019 on the
application and the applicant and members of the public were provided the opportunity to present
information to the Planning Commission; and
WHEREAS, the City Council makes the following findings of fact in support of the resolution:
Denial of Subdivision and Lot Area Variances:
1. The property is currently put to a reasonable use as a single family parcel, consistent with
the requirements of the R-1 zoning district.
2. Existing single family parcels in the immediate neighborhood are uniformly larger on
average and individually, the result of which is that the subdivision would create the
smallest lots in the area.
3. Variance approval requires findings that there are unique conditions that create practical
difficulties in the property to a reasonable use. There do not appear to be any such
unique conditions on this property that would distinguish it from other single family lots,
justifying the reduction in lot area.
Denial of a Variance to the Required Setback from the Public Street:
1. The parcels along 37th Avenue NE all demonstrate significant setbacks from the right of
way for several blocks.
2. If granted, the reduced setback on Parcel A would be the only building less than 60 feet
from the right of way.
3. Variance approval requires findings that there are unique conditions that create practical
difficulties in the property to a reasonable use. There do not appear to be any such
unique conditions on this property that would distinguish it from other single family lots,
justifying the reduction in lot area.
NOW THEREFORE MAY IT BE RESOLVED, that the City Council of the
City of St. Anthony Village accepts the findings and recommendations documented in the
staff report and by the Planning Commission and denies a subdivision and accompanying
variances for lot area and setback from a public street.
Passed in regular session of the City Council on the __ day of __, 2019.
CITY OF SAINT ANTHONY VILLAGE
By:_________________________________
Jerome O. Faust, Mayor
ATTEST:
By:_________________________________
Nicole Miller, City Clerk
PLANNING COMMISSION
SEPTEMBER 17, 2019
3645 CHELMSFORD ROAD
-Subdivision
-Lot Area Variances
-Setback Variance
3645 CHELMSFORD RD
SUBDIVISION, LOT AREA VARIANCES, SETBACK VARIANCE
3645 CHELMSFORD RD
SUBDIVISION, LOT AREA VARIANCES, SETBACK VARIANCE
Project Description
Subdivision of a single family
parcel into 2 lots
Parcel “A” –north lot at corner of
37th Ave. NE and Chelmsford Road
Parcel “B” –south lot along
Chelmsford Road contains
existing home
3645 CHELMSFORD RD
SUBDIVISION, LOT AREA VARIANCES, SETBACK VARIANCE
Proposed Subdivision requires Lot
Area Variances for both parcels:
Parcel “A” –Corner lot of 8,610 square
feet (11,000 square feet required)
Parcel “B” –Interior lot of 6,150 square
feet (9,000 square feet required)
Parcel “A” also requires variance to
accommodate setback
encroachment beyond adjoining
building setbacks
3645 CHELMSFORD RD
SUBDIVISION, LOT AREA VARIANCES, SETBACK VARIANCE
VARIANCE CRITERIA:
Use is a reasonable one, given the character of the neighborhood
Unique conditions exist on the property
Those conditions create practical difficulties in putting the property to that
reasonable use; and
Conditions cannot be created by the owner;
Conditions cannot be solely economic in nature.
3645 CHELMSFORD RD
STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS
Subdivision and Lot Area Variances
Staff recommends denial based on these findings:
1.The property is currently put to a reasonable use as a single family parcel,
consistent with the requirements of the R-1 zoning district.
2.Existing single family parcels in the immediate neighborhood are uniformly larger
on average and individually, the result of which is that the subdivision would
create the smallest lots in the area.
3.Variance approval requires findings that there are unique conditions that create
practical difficulties in the property to a reasonable use. There do not appear to
be any such unique conditions on this property that would distinguish it from
other single family lots, justifying the reduction in lot area.
3645 CHELMSFORD RD
STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS
Parcel A Setback Variance
Staff recommends denial based on these findings:
1.The parcels along 37th Avenue NE all demonstrate significant setbacks from the
right of way for several blocks.
2.If granted, the reduced setback on Parcel A would be the only building less than
60 feet from the right of way.
3.Variance approval requires findings that there are unique conditions that create
practical difficulties in the property to a reasonable use. There do not appear to
be any such unique conditions on this property that would distinguish it from
other single family lots, justifying the reduction in lot area.
NOTICE OF A PUBLIC HEARING
Notice is hereby given that on September 17, 2019, 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 lot split and variance to the minimum lot size at 3645 Chelmsford Road. The variance
would result in a 2,390 square foot variance from the required minimum lot size for a corner lot of
11,000 square feet on proposed parcel A, and would result in a 2,850 square foot variance from the
required minimum lot size for an interior lot of 9,000 square feet on proposed Parcel B. The applicant’s
are also seeking a variance of approximately 26 feet from the required front yard setback of 56 feet for
Parcel A.
The Planning Commission will make a recommendation regarding the proposed request to the City
Council for their meeting to be held on October 8, 2019 at 7:00 p.m. at City Hall.
Those persons having an interest in said meetings are encouraged to attend. Oral testimony will be
accepted on the above subject at this meeting. Written comments may be taken at the St. Anthony
Village City Hall, 3301 Silver Lake Road, St. Anthony Village, Minnesota 55418 until the date of the
hearing. Questions may be directed to the City Planner at 763-957-1100.
The Planning Commission agenda and packet item relating to this application will be made available
prior to the meeting online at www.savmn.com .
Steve Grittman
City Planner
THIS PAGE LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK
MEMORANDUM
To: St. Anthony Village Planning Commission
From: Stephen Grittman, City Planner
Date: Planning Commission Meeting – September 17, 2019
NAC Project No. 323.02 – 19.05
Request: Request for Zoning Ordinance Amendments related to standards for
Walkways, Sidewalks, and Patios
Property Address: NA
Property PID: NA
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Planning staff has summarized the discussions on this item from both Planning Commission and
City Council workshops. The proposed ordinance represents the focus of those discussions, as
the issues arose from recent zoning applications. Planning staff recommends approval of the
Ordinance amendment as presented.
ANALYSIS
Earlier this year, the City encountered an issue that raised concern over the application of
zoning ordinance standards to sidewalk and patio requirements.
The Planning Commission initially discussed this issue at a Commission workshop meeting in
May. Staff then brought the item forward for consideration by the City Council at a subsequent
Council workshop, integrating the comments made by the Planning Commission.
The formal step for establishing the proposed change requires a public hearing to be held by
the Planning Commission, after which the Council can take up the ordinance for adoption. The
information below summarizes the materials considered and discussed by the Commission, and
as presented to the City Council workshop. The primary issues raised by the Commission were
the acceptable width of a private residential walkway, and the applicable setback.
As noted below, the Commission’s consensus was to allow an encroachment into the typical 5
foot setback with a 3 foot wide walkway, and a minimum setback requirement of 1 foot. We
have cited some of the existing code language for reference, and highlighted the proposed
language in redline.
Sidewalks, Walkways, and Patios.
As the Planning Commission has observed, and as discussed as part of a Council
application issue recently, this item is rooted in lack of definition in the current Zoning
Ordinance related to private property improvements that can be confused with other
improvements that are both defined and regulated. Specifically, the zoning ordinance
defines “Patios” as:
PATIO. A courtyard or other finished exterior ground surface open to the sky
constructed of rock, brick, concrete, stone, or similar materials and commonly
used for relaxation, socializing, or dining.
Patios are included in a list of private improvements that are required to meet a
minimum 5 foot setback from side and rear property lines.
Sidewalks or walkways are not defined, nor are they required to meet any particular
setback. As issue in the previous planning application was whether a paved concrete
pad was a walkway or a patio. Staff proposed an interpretation for the purposes of
dealing with the application in hand, but as noted by the Commission, the City would be
well served with better definitions and more complete standards.
As a part of the discussion, staff would propose the addition of the following definitions
in Section 152.008 as a starting point:
SIDEWALK: A paved path typically located in a public right of way, on
publicly owned property, or a public easement that is open to members of the
public traveling as pedestrians, and if designated, open to non-motorized wheeled
traffic (such as bicycles or similar vehicles). The term Sidewalk may include
public Trails or Pathways, or similar public improvements.
WALKWAY: A hard-surfaced path (consisting of pavement, rock, stone, brick
or pavers) located on private property for the purpose of providing internal access
to occupants or visitors to the uses on or adjacent to the property. A Walkway
shall be no greater than three (3) feet in width. Any surfaced area greater than
three (3) feet in width shall be considered a “Patio”.
In the Commission’s workshop discussion, staff discussed a potential threshold of four
feet, but the consensus was to use three feet as the limitation for private walkway. This
dimension is adequate to accommodate most accessibility needs, which would be a
minimum threshold for City regulation. The Commission also discussed a minimum
setback for any paved “Walkway” of one foot. This space would allow for fence
construction (which is allowed to be constructed within the setback as long as the fence
is completely on the property of the fence owner).
Section 152.77 provides for “Encroachments in Yards”. Selected exceptions to the
normal setback requirements in this section include:
(D)Steps, stoops, and porches which extend into a front yard not more than 5 feet;
(E)Terraces, steps, stoops, uncovered porches, and patios which extend into a
side yard not more than 5 feet and are not closer than 5 feet from any property
line;
(F)Breezeways, covered or uncovered porches, patios, steps, stoops, and picnic
shelters in a rear yard which are not closer than 5 feet from any property line;
As a part of this amendment, staff would propose the following additional exception, to
read as follows:
(K) Walkways, as defined in this ordinance, which do not encroach closer than
one (1) foot to any side lot line, provided that the property owner controls
drainage to avoid increasing stormwater impacts on adjoining property.
With these changes, it is believed that there will be fewer opportunities to misconstrue the
intent of the ordinance, and fill a gap as it relates to private walkway definition and regulation.
SUMMARY AND STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS
Application 1. Ordinance Amendments to Section 152.008 and 152.177. Staff recommends
approval as submitted.
This recommendation is based on a finding that the proposed ordinance clarifies the zoning
standards for the subject uses, and furthers the intent of the zoning ordinance for the use of
residential property.
ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS
1. Motion to recommend approval of the proposed zoning ordinance amendment
establishing definitions and standards for Walkways, Sidewalks, and Patios.
2. Motion to recommend denial of the ordinance as presented. 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, subject to the submission of
additional information from staff and/or applicant.
ATTACHMENTS
Exhibit A: Draft Ordinance
THIS PAGE LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK
CITY OF SAINT ANTHONY VILLAGE
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
ORDINANCE NO. _____
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE CITY CODE, CHAPTER 152
BY ADDING DEFINITIONS AND REQUIREMENTS
FOR WALKWAYS, PATIOS, AND SIDEWALKS
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ST. ANTHONY VILLAGE HEREBY ORDAINS AS
FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Chapter 152, Section 152.008, Definitions, is hereby amended to add the
following:
SIDEWALK: A paved path typically located in a public right of way, on publicly
owned property, or a public easement that is open to members of the public
traveling as pedestrians, and if designated, open to non-motorized wheeled traffic
(such as bicycles or similar vehicles). The term Sidewalk may include public
Trails or Pathways, or similar public improvements.
WALKWAY: A hard-surfaced path (consisting of pavement, rock, stone, brick or
pavers) located on private property for the purpose of providing internal access to
occupants or visitors to the uses on or adjacent to the property. A Walkway shall
be no greater than three (3) feet in width. Any surfaced area greater than three (3)
feet in width shall be considered a “Patio”.
Section 2. Chapter 152, Section 152.177, Encroachments in Yards is hereby amended to
add the following:
(K) Walkways, as defined in this ordinance, which do not encroach closer than one (1)
foot to any side lot line, provided that the property owner controls drainage to avoid increasing
stormwater impacts on adjoining property.
Section 3. The City Clerk is hereby directed to make the changes required by this
Ordinance as part of the Official St. Anthony City Code, Chapter 152, Zoning Ordinance, and to
renumber the tables and chapters accordingly as necessary to provide the intended effect of this
Ordinance. The City Clerk is further directed to make necessary corrections to any internal
citations that result from said renumbering process, provided that such changes retain the purpose
and intent of the Zoning Ordinance as has been adopted.
Section 4. This Ordinance shall take effect and be in full force from and after its
passage and publication.
CITY OF ST. ANTHONY VILLAGE
By: _______________________________
Jerome O. Faust, Mayor
ATTEST:
By:________________________________
Nicole Miller, City Clerk