Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPL PACKET 02182020 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 February 18, 2020 Planning Commission Meeting Agenda. (action requested) II. Approval of the October 15, 2019 Regular Planning Commission Meeting Minutes. (action requested) III. Public Hearing. A. Consider a request for a 5 foot variance from the required 10 foot side yard setback on the south side of 3404 Roosevelt Street to add a second garage stall to an attached garage. IV. Staff Reports. V. Other Business. A. Temporary Signage Discussion 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 FEBRUARY 18, 2020 COUNCIL CHAMBERS 7:00 PM CITY OF ST. ANTHONY 1 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 2 3 OCTOBER 15, 2019 4 7:00 p.m. 5 6 CALL TO ORDER. 7 8 Chairperson Papatola called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. 9 10 PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE. 11 12 Chairperson Papatola invited the Commission and the audience to join him in the Pledge of 13 Allegiance. 14 15 ROLL CALL. 16 17 Commissioners Present: Chair Papatola, Commissioners Neumann, Payne, Rude, Socha, and 18 Westrick. 19 20 Absent: Commissioner Bartel 21 22 Also Present: City Planner Stephen Grittman and Student Liaison Bethlehem 23 Beyene 24 25 I. APPROVAL OF THE OCTOBER 15, 2019, PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 26 AGENDA. 27 28 Motion by Commissioner Westrick, seconded by Commissioner Payne, to approve the 29 October 15, 2019, Planning Commission agenda. 30 31 Motion carried 5-0. 32 33 II. APPROVAL OF THE SEPTEMBER 17, 2019, REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION 34 MEETING MINUTES. 35 36 Commissioner Payne indicated on page 2, line 11, there was a typographical error, only five 37 members present so motion should have carried 4-0-1. 38 39 Commissioner Rude noted on page 3, line 18 there was a misspelling and the word should be 40 side and not slide. 41 42 Motion by Commissioner Payne, seconded by Commissioner Rude, to approve the September 43 17, 2019, Regular Planning Commission Meeting Minutes. 44 45 Motion carried 5-0. 46 47 Commissioner Neumann arrived at 7:02 p.m. 48 49 Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes October 15, 2019 Page 2 III. PUBLIC HEARING. 1 2 A. Review Proposed Ordinance Amendments Regarding Walkways, Sidewalks, and 3 Patios. 4 5 Chairperson Papatola reviewed how the public hearing will proceed this evening. This item 6 will come before Council on November 12, 2019. 7 8 Chairperson Papatola opened the public hearing at 7:04 p.m. 9 10 City Planner Grittman summarized the discussions on this item from both Planning 11 Commission and City Council workshops. The proposed ordinance represents the focus of 12 those discussions, as the issues arose from recent zoning applications. Staff is recommending 13 approval of the Ordinance amendment as presented. 14 15 Chairperson Papatola indicated he did not see anyone present who wanted to make a comment 16 on this item. 17 18 Chairperson Papatola closed the public hearing at 7:10 p.m. 19 20 Commissioner Rude asked for clarification on the one-foot setback which is not in the 21 language of walkway but mentioned only side yards and wondered what the setback would be 22 for a rear yard. He indicated another issue is in the current statute it mentions stoops and 23 porches cannot extend so far and never talks about putting in a sidewalk from the front door to 24 the street because of the setback. It is now going to be firmer that a sidewalk cannot be within 25 one foot. He wondered how the new language will impact that. City Planner Grittman 26 explained the idea was to limit the construction of walkways next to the neighbor’s side 27 property line but not to restrict it out to the front. The same would be for going out to the 28 back to the alleyway. What was included in the proposal was the setback requirement to the 29 sidelines assuming there are many times where a setback requirement could not be imposed 30 for that walkway front or rear. City Planner Grittman noted this is an area that allows 31 encroachments into the required yards that would otherwise have a setback applied to them. 32 33 Commissioner Socha asked with corner lots is there a circumstance where someone would 34 want to have a walkway from their house to a side lot when on a corner, then the one foot 35 would not make sense for that corner lot. Should an exception be drafted for corner lots or 36 could there be some sort of language about running perpendicular and not solely for access 37 purposes or is it getting unnecessarily complicated. City Planner Grittman admitted he did not 38 take corner lots into consideration. 39 40 Chairperson Papatola asked if this was a definitional question for Commission Socha in terms 41 of amending the definition of walkway. Commissioner Socha indicated it becomes an issue 42 with the amendment to the setbacks because that is where the side lot line is mentioned in 43 paragraph K. She believed the Commission as a whole, believed it was appropriate to address 44 some sort of wording such as “One foot to any side lotline” and adding some sort of language 45 Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes October 15, 2019 Page 3 that states “or rear and front lot lines.” She thought it was in the setback where it indicates 1 adding something about rear and front lot lines. 2 3 Commissioner Westrick appreciated the Commission wanting to define everything but was 4 concerned because she did not think every unique circumstance can be defined. 5 6 City Planner Grittman explained one way the Commission might think about addressing this 7 is to state “walkways, as defined in the ordinance, should not encroach closer than one foot to 8 any internal side lot line”. He noted the code distinguishes between internal side lot lines 9 which abut other peoples side properties or corner lot lines. This would allow the 10 encroachment onto a corner side street “side”. Commissioner Rude asked if the wording 11 should be referencing a public right of way versus the rear lot line or stop one foot short with 12 a sidewalk. Commissioner Socha did not think the City would want to make people stop one 13 foot short. City Planner Grittman indicated the City could. 14 15 Commissioner Rude asked if an alley would be considered an internal lot line. City Planner 16 Grittman indicated it would be. Commissioner Rude asked if any alley is considered a public 17 right of way. Commissioner Socha explained the way this language is proposed, it would be 18 one foot to any internal side lot line so even though it is an internal rear lot line the one-foot 19 setback would not be an issue once it is applied. It would still be allowed because it is an 20 internal side both. If it said within one foot of any internal lot line, then that would be an 21 issue but since it states internal side it is restricting just to that. She thought that would solve 22 the corner lot issue. 23 24 Chairperson Papatola directed the Commission back to the definition of sidewalk and 25 walkway. He noted City Planner Grittman presented one set of language and Commissioner 26 Rude sent in similar language. He asked Commissioner Rude to explain the differences he 27 saw. 28 29 Commissioner Socha indicated she had another comment to raise on Section K. She 30 explained when she read the following “…provided that the property owner controls 31 drainage”, she was thinking about adding “reasonably controls” because it is hard to 32 absolutely control anything. Commissioner Westrick indicated she was not thinking 33 reasonable but does the sentence mean the property owner has to prove that drainage is not 34 increasing. City Planner Grittman thought practically if someone were to propose a sidewalk 35 or walkway that is within the one foot setback, staff would ask them also to show that they 36 have identified where drainage goes on the property and if it became complicated the City 37 would employ the services of the City Engineer to look at it more closely if there appeared to 38 be a problem. Usually on language like this the City wants to keep it easy in order to avoid a 39 problem. He thought that is how it would be practically applied. 40 41 Commissioner Rude thought there was a body of law in this that the State runs and that the 42 courts have interpreted. He thought the City should leave it alone and the courts and State 43 determine these issues. Commissioner Socha wondered how this would change it because the 44 law basically indicates nothing can be done that would negatively effect change or make water 45 Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes October 15, 2019 Page 4 go onto the neighbor’s yard. Commissioner Rude did not believe that is what the law is. He 1 believed the law is that it flows naturally. 2 3 Commissioner Neumann indicated she was familiar with a case where there was an argument 4 over literally two inches. She thought the piece about where the City wants to have their 5 hands in it, she was confused about that part as well. She did not understand the rationale 6 behind it. It seemed to her that if she was having an issue with a neighbor, she would be more 7 comfortable pursuing a civil process with that and spending the money rather than having to 8 worry about who has a prior relationship with the City. She thought it seemed really messy to 9 her and not sure about how many people would be comfortable with that. Chairperson 10 Papatola asked for clarification on whether her comment was on the entire amendment or 11 what is currently being discussed. Commissioner Neumann stated she was specifically talking 12 about what was currently being discussed, which is sidewalk. 13 14 Chairperson Papatola asked for clarity from City Planner Grittman on this paragraph and 15 consistency with other similar municipalities codes. City Planner Grittman stated the reason 16 he included it in the format proposed was that if the City is going to establish a rule about 17 walkways and allow them to be in the City, even though in practice the City has allowed them 18 to be here, now the amendment is specify what a walkway is and where it will be allowed. He 19 noted the number one issue that will be found is whether it will obstruct the course of natural 20 drainage. He thought it was prudent to have some language in the amendment to give the City 21 the ability to say the applicant needs to change the sidewalk proposal, so it does not obstruct it 22 or allow the City to say no. He thought it was useful to have that standard in this rather than 23 just dump everything into the court system. 24 25 Chairperson Papatola indicated that while he acknowledged the legal expertise in the room, he 26 was not comfortable in making the determination on a legal determination and he did not 27 think that was the Planning Commission’s charge. It feels like the Commission should get 28 some agreement on the language which can then be reviewed by the City Attorney to make 29 sure the City is in conformance with any other Statute’s the City should be in conformance 30 with. 31 32 Commissioner Socha did not think anyone was in disagreement because she agreed it is 33 supposed to be the natural course and the resident is not supposed to do anything to alter it. 34 She thought this amendment language is consistent with what the law is as she understands it. 35 As far as reasonably, that was just a thought she had as well and did not need to be changed. 36 City Planner Grittman indicated he would not have a problem with that standard. 37 38 Commissioner Payne asked if other communities had similar language to the drainage clause 39 because in addition to what Commission Neumann was talking about, he saw it as a way to 40 provide notice to people who would be adding the walkways indicating it is an issue that the 41 resident needed to be aware of. It sounded more like the City would be the arbiter of whether 42 or not the plan is sufficient to deal with the drainage problem and if the City Council makes 43 that decision is the City exposing themselves to liability for wrong. City Planner Grittman 44 indicated he was not sure if that is something he could answer but the definition of walkways 45 and this kind of encroachment language probably does not exist in his experience but his 46 Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes October 15, 2019 Page 5 intent was the City is going to create a clause allowing something in that space that City Code 1 never allowed to happen before. He thought it was reasonable to suggest that the resident did 2 not have unfettered right to do in that space and there are some constraints. He thought it was 3 useful to have that cautionary clause. 4 5 Commissioner Westrick indicated she appreciated the language that was added for the reasons 6 staff indicated. She noted she was concerned it would become over burdensome. 7 Commissioner Socha indicated she was going to take the topic off the table and not propose 8 that “reasonably” be added to the amendment. 9 10 Commissioner Rude thought the sentence could be changed to “Provided that the property 11 owner meets the law in respect to drainage…”, somewhere along those lines so the City is not 12 defining what the law is but indicating the City is not the arbitrator and to be aware of it. 13 Chairperson Papatola indicated he would be more comfortable with something like that. 14 Commissioner Neumann agreed. 15 16 Commissioner Socha suggested “The property owner controls drainage in a manner consistent 17 with existing State and Municipal Law”. Commissioner Neumann thought Commissioner 18 Rude’s suggestion was simpler. 19 20 Commissioner Westrick asked if most residents are going to know what “meets the law” 21 means. Commissioner Rude assumed there were some State Statutes, but most is common 22 law, meaning it has been established by judges in the courts over many years. 23 24 Commissioner Socha liked the idea of staying consistent but she liked the noted aspect of 25 “controls drainage” versus “meets the law” which does not put people on much notice. She 26 asked if the Commission would be ok to leave the sentence exactly has it is proposed to read 27 “controls drainage impacting adjoining property in a manner consistent with existing law.” 28 29 City Planner Grittman indicated he was comfortable with that wording and provides the 30 warning that was his original intent. 31 32 Chairperson Papatola referenced the sidewalk/walkway definition. Commissioner Rude noted 33 in the packet there was site to the MN Statute 169.011 that defined pedestrian and wheelchair 34 and he thought for clarity if there could be reference to a law that is statewide that judges can 35 interpret and people have debated over, he tweaked the language a little bit to read more 36 consistent with that definition. He proposed as an alternative to just site to that Statute instead 37 of even putting it in the amendment. Chair Papatola indicated he would be in favor of putting 38 in the language where someone could take a look at it as opposed to referencing it somewhere 39 else. 40 41 Commissioner Rude indicated the one substantial change he added was “…being used by a 42 disabled person” in the red part. Commissioner Neumann explained she would prefer “person 43 with a disability”. Commissioner Socha indicated she preferred the language Commissioner 44 Rude proposed which more closely mirrors the Statute because there is a time where this 45 could be interpreted, and that interpretation could be used by the Planning Commission or 46 Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes October 15, 2019 Page 6 staff in making decisions. She was always hesitant to reference Statute numbers because the 1 State also changes its Statutes and then the City would have a Code that references an 2 inaccurate Statute number and it also does not put people on notice. She agreed with 3 Commission Neumann’s suggestion as well. 4 5 Chairperson Papatola reviewed Commissioner Rude’s proposed verbiage with Commissioner 6 Neumann’s suggested change to disabled person. City Planner Grittman thought it was proper 7 to import the actual Statutory language rather than referencing the Statute. 8 9 Commissioner Payne asked if the change to the wording in walkway, removing the word 10 internal, if that was based on Statute. Commissioner Rude indicated he did not know what 11 internal meant, so he removed that word. Chairperson Papatola asked if that language was 12 consistent with State Statute. Commissioner Rude indicated he never saw the State Statute. 13 City Planner Grittman was not sure if there was a State Statute referencing this. 14 15 Commissioner Neumann was concerned with this becoming legal jargon where lay people 16 will not understand. Chairperson Papatola understood her concern and indicated the City is 17 trying to keep the language consistent with something that already exists. 18 19 Motion by Commissioner Neumann, seconded by Commissioner Westrick, to recommend that 20 the City Council approve the proposed zoning ordinance amendment establishing definitions 21 and standards for Walkways, Sidewalks, and Patios subject to the findings in the staff report 22 as amended by the Commission. 23 24 Motion carried 6-0. 25 26 IV. STAFF REPORTS. 27 28 City Planner Grittman updated the Commission on the 2020 Workplan. 29 30 V. OTHER BUSINESS – NONE. 31 32 VI. COMMUNITY FORUM – NONE. 33 34 VII. INFORMATION AND ANNOUNCEMENTS. 35 36 Chairperson Papatola indicated applications are open for positions on the Planning 37 Commission. The City Council will be looking for two candidates to serve a three-year term. 38 39 City Planner Grittman indicated the City Council took up the proposed subdivision on 40 Chelmsford and the variances and followed the Planning Commission recommendation to 41 deny those variances in the subdivision for that property. 42 43 VIII. ADJOURNMENT. 44 45 Motion by Commissioner Neumann, seconded by Commissioner Socha, to adjourn. 46 Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes October 15, 2019 Page 7 1 Motion carried 6-0. 2 3 Chairperson Papatola adjourned the meeting at 7:52 p.m. 4 5 Respectfully submitted, 6 Sue Osbeck 7 TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc. 8 THIS PAGE LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK MEMORANDUM To: St. Anthony Village Planning Commission From: Stephen Grittman, City Planner Date: Planning Commission Meeting - February 18, 2020 NAC Project No. 323.01 – 20.01 Request: Request for Variance to Side Yard Setback Requirement Property Address: 3404 Roosevelt Street NE Property PID: 06-029-23-23-0044 STAFF RECOMMENDATION The applicant proposes to construct an additional garage to the south side of an existing home at the above noted address. The proposed addition would increase the current one-car garage in size to accommodate two cars. The addition would approximately 9 feet to the current garage, resulting in a setback of 5 feet from the south property line. Also to be noted, the garage would cover an existing exterior parking space, so the use (parking of a passenger vehicle) would change only in structure. In reviewing the proposal, the additions raise the need for a variance, as the zoning ordinance standard is no closer than 5 feet to a side property line, with a total side setback distance of 15 feet on both sides – the current side setback on the north is shown as 5 feet on the applicant’s site plan. As such, the total side setback area would be reduced to a total of 10 feet, 5 feet short of the standard. A variances from the standard is required to proceed with the project as planned. Without the variance, the applicant is restricted to a single car garage on this parcel. Technically, an expansion to the rear to create a “tandem” garage arrangement could be possible, however, it would result in the loss of significant tree cover in the rear yard. In reviewing the proposed improvements against the ordinance requirements, staff recommends approval of the side yard setback encroachment as proposed. Staff has reviewed for height, use, other setbacks, and impervious surface; the request appears to meet all other code requirements. The proposed impervious surface would be just under 21%, within the allowance for up to 35% coverage. February 18, 2020 Page 2 GENERAL INFORMATION Applicant: Thomas Brama Owner: Travis Hoban Location: 3404 Roosevelt Street NE Existing Land Use Low-Density Residential Zoning: R-1 Single Family District Surrounding Land North: Low-Density Residential / Zoned: R-1 Single Family District Use / Zoning: East: Low-Density Residential / Zoned: R-1 Single Family District South: Low-Density Residential / Zoned: R-1 Single Family District West: Low-Density Residential / Zoned: R-1 Single Family District Deadline for Agency Application Complete Date: 2/19/2019 Action: 60 Days: 4/20/2019 Letter Sent: No 120 Days: 6/19/2019 ANALYSIS 1. Background The applicant is proposing to construct site modifications that will encroach into the required side yard setback. The parcel in question is shown on the zoning map below, and is 75 feet in width and approximately 11,550 square feet in area. The proposed side yard setback would reduce total side yard area on the south side from 14 feet to 5 feet. As noted, the current condition is a paved parking pad on the south side of the single car garage. The zoning ordinance sets out a series of criteria for a request to qualify for variance consideration. Those criteria are found in §152.245, (C) Evidence of the Zoning Chapter, and are included in this report for reference below. The criteria can be summarized as whether there are unique conditions on the property that contribute to creation of a practical difficulty in putting the property to what would otherwise be considered a reasonable use – reasonable use is often thought of as one that would be common and February 18, 2020 Page 3 acceptable in the area. Variances may not be entirely economic in nature, nor be the result of the actions of the applicant. In this case, there are conditions suggesting that this request is within the requirements of the variance ordinance standards. First is the definition of “reasonable use”. By far the most common condition in single family neighborhoods would be a two-car garage, with many areas of three car garages not uncommon. Because the variance standard incorporates conditions common in the area, the lack of a two-car garage can be considered a factor in whether the regulations prohibit reasonable use on the property. Second, the space is already used for automobile parking. The exposed parking area is adjacent to the southerly neighbor’s living space. It is reasonable to believe that an enclosed garage at the same setback distance would be preferable to an open parking stall. The applicants suggest that the requested encroachment will permit them to upgrade the house, retaining or enhancing neighborhood character as a result. It is presumed that the addition will match the existing structure architecturally and with similar materials. The proposed design does not appear to be out of character with the neighborhood. For any variance, the underlying requirement must be that the proposed use of property is reasonable, that is, a condition that most would presume to be a February 18, 2020 Page 4 common and expected use of property. If so, the next test is whether unique conditions exist on the property, and whether those conditions create “practical difficulties” in using the property reasonably. As noted above, the applicants could technically expand garage space to the rear, creating a tandem design. While some homes in the neighborhood have rear yard detached two car garages, the current condition on the subject property does not permit adequate room to construct a driveway that would be able to access such a new garage. Moreover, tandem garages are not common, and result in additional parking/circulation issues for owners and neighbors. As noted above, staff recommends approval of the variance for the side yard encroachment for the proposed garage addition as shown in the applicants’ application. The addition of a second garage stall is a common and reasonable use of single family property, and the encroaching structure occupies what is currently an outdoor parking pad area. It is furthermore noted that the 5 foot setback would be the permissible amount on this side if the other side setback were greater, so the building separation to the south is not out of character with the expectations set by the zoning ordinance. 2. Representative Codes Referenced. Title XV Land Usage, Chapter 152 Zoning Code, Section §152.04 (F) Side yards. Each dwelling must have 2 side yards, each having a width of at least 5 feet and having a combined width of at least 15 feet. Any side yard adjacent to a street must be at least 30 feet in width Title XV Land Usage, Chapter 152 Zoning Code, Section §152.245 VARIANCES (A) Application states that “An owner of property with an existing structure which does not comply with the zoning code, or of property on which such a structure is proposed to be constructed, may apply for a variance upon payment of the fee specified in Chapter 33”. 3. Criteria for and Consistency with Criteria for Variance Approval. Title XV Land Usage, Chapter 152 Zoning Code, Section §152.245, (C) Evidence, lists the criteria the City Council must consider in determining whether to grant or deny a variance. Request: Request for a 5-foot variance from the required side yard setback. The applicable criteria include: 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 February 18, 2020 Page 5 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. SUMMARY AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION Side Yard Setback Variance. Staff recommends approval of the requested side yard setback encroachment variance at 3404 Roosevelt Street NE with the following conditions: A. The applicant is able to verify the setback distance as a part of the building permitting process, based on the existing survey and established lot lines. B. The addition will consist of building materials and architecture that match the existing structure. This recommendation is based on a finding that the proposed addition is consistent with the character of the neighborhood, and constitutes reasonable use of the property, overcoming practical difficulties related to alternatives that would raise issues of impact on adjoining property, or minimize benefit to neighborhood character. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS Decision 1. Variance to Side Yard Setback 1. Motion to recommend approval of the request for a variance to the side yard setback for construction of a single car garage addition, of a single story in height, with the proposed 5 foot setback at 3404 Roosevelt Street NE, and direct staff to prepare resolution declaring terms of the same. 2. Motion to recommend denial of the variance as requested. 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: Application and Supporting Material THIS PAGE LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 18, 2020 3404 ROOSEVELT STREET NE – Side Yard Setback Variance 3404 ROOSEVELT STREET NE SIDE SETBACK VARIANCE 34O4 ROOSEVELT STREET NE SIDE SETBACK VARIANCE Project Description: Garage Addition: Extend existing single car garage to the south a total of 9 feet to accommodate a second attached garage stall. 3404 ROOSEVELT STREET NE SIDE 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. 3404 ROOSEVELT STREET NE PROPOSED SITE PLAN 3404 ROOSEVELT STREET NE AERIAL PHOTO 3404 ROOSEVELT STREET NE STAFF RECOMMENDATION Side Yard Setback Variance Staff recommends approval of the proposed side yard setback encroachment toward the south property line for an attached garage setback of 5 feet (and total side setback distance, north and south, of 10 feet), as shown on the plans, subject to the following conditions: The applicant is able to verify the setback distance as a part of the building permitting process, based on the existing survey and established lot lines. The addition will consist of building materials and architecture that match the existing structure. CITY OF SAINT ANTHONY VILLAGE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. _____________ A RESOLUTION APPROVING A REQUEST FOR A 5 FOOT VARIANCE (SETBACK OF 5 FEET) FROM THE REQUIRED SIDE YARD FOR AN ADDITION TO AN EXISTING ATTACHED GARAGE WHEREAS, the City of St. Anthony Village received a request from Thomas Brama and owner Travis Hoban for a variance from the required side yard setback to allow for an addition to an existing attached garage at 3404 Roosevelt Street NE, legally described as follows: Lot 7, Block 2, Lemke’s 2nd Addition(Subject Property); and WHEREAS, the property is located in the R-1 Single Family Residential district and the applicable side yard setback is 10 feet for the Subject Property on the south side of the home; 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 Applicant has requested a variance from the side yard setback dimension requirements to accommodate an additional attached garage space; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on February 18, 2020 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 Planning Commission has considered all of the comments and the staff report, which are incorporated by reference into the resolution; and WHEREAS, the City Council makes the following findings of fact in support of the resolution for approval: 1. The property is located in an area of varying garage designs. 2. The proposed improvements to the property are consistent with the character of the neighborhood in which it is located. 3. A 2-car garage is a common and reasonable accessory use of property in the community, and this neighborhood in particular. 4. The setbacks required by the ordinance inhibit the reasonable expansion of the property in question. 5. With the variance to accommodate a 5 foot setback as recommended by the Planning Commission, the proposed improvements constitute a reasonable use of the property. 6. Due to the conditions found on the property, there are practical difficulties in complying with the strict terms of the ordinance. 7. The proposed variance will accommodate reasonable use without negative impacts on neighboring property nor on public improvements and services. NOW THEREFORE MAY IT BE RESOVLED, that the City Council of the City of St. Anthony Village accepts the findings and recommendations documented in the staff report and approves variances to the required side setback requirements as shown on the application dated 1/17/20, with the following conditions: A. The applicant is able to verify the setback distance as a part of the building permitting process, based on the existing survey and established lot lines. B. The addition will consist of building materials and architecture that match the existing structure. Passed in regular session of the City Council on the ___ day of _________ 2020. CITY OF SAINT ANTHONY VILLAGE By:_________________________________ Randy Stille, Mayor ATTEST: By:_________________________________ Nicole Miller, City Clerk CORRECTED-NOTICE OF A PUBLIC HEARING Notice is hereby given that on February 18, 2020, 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 5 foot variance from the required 10 foot side yard setback on the south side to allow for an addition of a second garage stall onto the existing attached garage at 3404 Roosevelt Street. The Planning Commission will make a recommendation regarding the proposed request to the City Council for their meeting to be held on March 10, 2020 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 3301 Silver Lake Road, St. Anthony, Minnesota 55418-1699 Office: (612) 782-3301 • Fax: (612) 782-3302 • www.savmn.com Our Mission is to be a progressive and welcoming Village that is walkable, sustainable and safe. MEMORANDUM TO: St. Anthony Planning Commission Mark Casey, City Manager FROM: Stephen Grittman, City Planner DATE: February 12, 2020 RE: St. Anthony Village – PC Work Session – February 18, 2020 Temporary Sign Regulations NAC FILE: 323.01 This memorandum is intended to serve as the basis for reviewing and discussing the City’s sign regulations, particularly those related to temporary and real estate sign displays. The City received a complaint over temporary sign displays at the Urban Grove property. Under current sign regulations, the City has no provision for Temporary signs, although several properties around the community have various displays (some of which are commercial in nature, and some of which are specifically related to real estate s ales or leasing). The Planning Commission will discuss the material at a work session format during the regular meeting on February 18th. The meeting begins at 7:00pm. Just to be clear, this discussion will not focus on political campaign signs or non- commercial speech displays. Those aspects of sign communication are addressed separately, with specific provisions for campaign signs emanating from State Statute. Instead, the intent of this discussion is to determine if the City should consider adopting specific regulations relating to temporary signage, and if so, what types of regulations would be in keeping with the community’s overall character and expectations. It is noted that the City’s general approach to signage displays has been to be more limiting in scope that other communities. The material that follows is a brief summary of St. Anthony’s general sign regulations, along with a similar summary of regulations in the adjoining suburban communities of Columbia Heights, New Brighton, and Roseville. These communities are not offered as recommended examples, but only to create a context for discussion. Also included is a collection of photographs of existing non-permitted temporary signs that exist in the community. The effect of the regulations, if adopted, would potentially apply to existing signs. Although the City has not enforced its prohibition against the existing signs, they have technically been placed illegally, and would not technically ha ve “legal nonconforming” rights to remain. The ongoing enforcement issue is one that the City will need to address separately from any adopted regulations. The expectation with this exercise is that the City will create regulations that reflect the expectations of the community, and follow-up will occur as a separate policy matter. Following is the comparative summary noted above. It is necessarily a summary of regulations, and there are often exceptions to the general rules, or more specific standards that are included in the regulations being reported here. Generally Allowable Signage by Land Use (Number and Size): St. Anthony Roseville Columbia Hts. New Brighton Single Family 6 sf 6 sf 2 sf, 16 sf for non-res; 8 ft max ht. 4 sf Multi-Family 50 sf, 8 ft. ht. 1 @ 50sf, 6 ft. ht.; 1 @ 24 sf, 4 ft. ht. 16 sf, up to 2 per building; 8 ft max ht. 35 sf ground sign, 12 ft. ht.; 200 sf wall sign per street front Commercial 15% of wall area; 32-40 sf ground sign, 8 ft. ht. 1.5 sf per foot of building frontage. 50-200 sf wall sign, 40-75 sf pylon; 25’ max ht. 36-64 sf ground sign, 20 ft. ht.; 200 sf wall sign Industrial 2 sf per foot of building frontage (150 sf max); 15% of wall area 1.5 sf per foot of building frontage. 100 sf wall sign, 50 sf pylon; 25’ max ht. 36 sf ground sign, 20 ft. ht.; 200 sf wall sign Institutional 32 sf ground sign, 8 ft. ht. 1.5 sf per foot of building frontage 40 sf per sign, 2 signs with spacing of 75’ 32 sf ground sign, 200 sf wall sign Temporary Signs Real Estate Specific: St. Anthony Roseville Columbia Hts. New Brighton Days per year 0 60 days 120 total, per below: 56 days Days per display 0 1-60 days per display 30 days 14 days max. Displays per year 0 No limit 4 per year 4 displays per year Performance Standards NA C-I Districts only (not res.); no banners, etc. C-I: 32-48 sf 32 sf Permitting and Code Enforcement Methods NA Permit required – some can be annual Permits required Permits required – no portable signs St. Anthony Roseville Columbia Hts. New Brighton Allowed Specifically? No Yes, during time of sale/lease + 7 days Yes – during time of sale/lease + 7 days Yes Included in Temp Signage? Na Separate separate Separate Allowed Off- site? No No no Yes – 6 sf, 4ft. ht., 3 days per week w/o permit Performance Standards NA Residential: 6 sf, 6 ft ht. C-I/Inst.: 32 sf, 8 ft ht. Development project: 32 sf, 8 ft. ht. Residential: 6 ft. high; 15 sf; C-I: 6 ft. high, 32 sf, one per frontage plus one banner 32-48 sf; Development project: 8 sf per lot Residential: 6 sf, 4 ft. ht.; C-I/Inst: 32 sf, 6 ft. ht. Development project: 32 sf., 10 ft. ht. In considering how to regulate signs, it is important to remember that there are several limitations that flow mostly from First Amendment jurisprudence relating (mostly) to free speech. Principles include generally: • No regulation of content. The regulation must apply equally to any sign display regardless of the message being conveyed. The Supreme Court has carved out some distinctions between “commercial” and “non-commercial” messages, but these are not relevant to this discussion. The City avoids this issue primarily by permitting every property to have a 6 sf (square foot) sign – property owners may display any message on that sign, including opinion messages, “House for Sale”, or pretty much any other message. • The City may regulate “Time, Place, and Manner” issues. This is a general First Amendment protection that allows the City to create non-content-based regulations around the way that sign messages are displayed. So, the City can place limits on sign duration, or sign size, or sign location, or sign design (such as architectural elements, etc.). It is permissible to specify materials, and to limit illumination, or require a permit. It is also permissible to distinguish between sign allowances based on zoning district or land use. Thus, the City can allow or prohibit temporary signs in different districts, and/or create different size, location, or duration requirements based on zoning district. • The content-based aspect raises a particular issue with “Real Estate Signs”. Under this principle, it is not permissible to allow a sign, but limit it to say “House for Sale”, or “Apartment for Lease”, etc. If you allow the sign, of whatever size or location, you have very little flexibility in managing the content. Most cities, if they allow additional real estate signage, do so by specifying that an additional sign is allowed while a property is for sale or lease, without specifying that the message has to be related to the real estate transaction. Thus, a building with office space for rent would be allowed a sign, but they could display a message unrelated to the leasing. The City just presumes that this is an unlikely exception. • An exception to the most significant limitation on content-based regulation is that the Court has allowed cities to distinguish between on-premise and off-premise sign regulation. In the strictest sense, if a property owner can display a sign of a certain size and duration, theoretically they should be able to say “Shop at Walgreens” on their sign, even if the sign is located on a neutral property unrelated to Walgreens. That is, the only way to know whether the sign is violating a prohibition on off-site signage is to read the content of the sign. However, the Court has found that this form of regulation raises other legitimate concerns that permit the content-based restriction. Issues to consider: • Should the City permit temporary signage generally? • If so, should the City call out Real Estate Signs as a separate category? • What types of limitations should be considered for materials? • What sizes of temporary signs should be considered? • How should the rules be administered (permitting, enforcement, etc.)? If the City chooses to accommodate temporary signs, we should be sure to consider: Duration. How many days per display or per year should be allowed? Use. Should the City allow temporary signs ONLY during periods when the subject property is for sale or lease? Materials. Should the City require that temporary signs be made of rigid materials, or should the City permit such signs to be printed and displayed on “banner” materials? Size and Number. What size should the temporary signs be required to meet? Methods would include a “one size fits all” approach, sliding scale based on building or lot size, quantity based on the number of street frontages. Design. Should the City allow portable signs to serve as temporary signs? Portable signs typically include the trailered changeable copy signs that are rented for certain periods. However, there are various other types of temporary sign methods including “feather” signs and other signage that is embedded in the ground. Illumination. Should illumination be allowed or prohibited? Location. What setbacks or other limitations should be imposed on temporary signs? Off site. Should the City consider the allowance of off-site temporary signs? (These are usually employed for real estate sales purposes, but also often include garage sales and similar events). At the upcoming Work Session, we will try to walk through each of these issues to get a common understanding of the possible concerns of allowing – and not allowing – temporary signs. As may be seen from the attached photographs, the City’s previous policy of “benign neglect” can result in abuse. This raises problems when complaints are raised against one property owner, but there are many examples of similar problems unenforced around the community. Photos - Residential (Real Estate) Photos – Commercial/Institutional