HomeMy WebLinkAboutPL PACKET 03162021CITY OF SAINT ANTHONY VILLAGE
PLANNING COMMISSION
MEETING AGENDA
March 16, 2021 at 7 PM
Following guidance from state health officials, some commissioners may choose to
participate in upcoming meetings electronically pursuant to MN Stat. §13D.021.
Due to health concerns and limited seating, we encourage the use of our virtual option to
attend this meeting.
Join Meeting via Zoom
Call To Order
Pledge Of Allegiance
Roll Call
Approval Of Agenda
Approval Of Minutes
January 19, 2021 Planning Commission Minutes
PC 01.19.2021.PDF
Public Hearing
Amendment To Zoning Ordinance Section Relating To Accessory Building
Regulations In All Zoning Districts
Steve Grittman, City Planner presenting.
ACCESSORY BUILDING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT.PDF
Staff Reports
Other Business
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.
Information And Announcments
Adjournment
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 welcoming Village that is walkable, sustainable and
safe.
I.
II.
III.
IV.
V.
A.
Documents:
VI.
A.
Documents:
VII.
VIII.
IX.
X.
XI.
CITY OF SAINT ANTHONY VILLAGEPLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AGENDAMarch 16, 2021 at 7 PMFollowing guidance from state health officials, some commissioners may choose to participate in upcoming meetings electronically pursuant to MN Stat. §13D.021.Due to health concerns and limited seating, we encourage the use of our virtual option to attend this meeting. Join Meeting via ZoomCall To OrderPledge Of AllegianceRoll CallApproval Of AgendaApproval Of MinutesJanuary 19, 2021 Planning Commission MinutesPC 01.19.2021.PDFPublic HearingAmendment To Zoning Ordinance Section Relating To Accessory Building Regulations In All Zoning DistrictsSteve Grittman, City Planner presenting. ACCESSORY BUILDING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT.PDFStaff ReportsOther BusinessCommunity 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.
Information And Announcments
Adjournment
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 welcoming Village that is walkable, sustainable and
safe.
I.II.III.IV.V.A.Documents:VI.A.Documents:VII.VIII.IX.
X.
XI.
1 CITY OF ST. ANTHONY
2 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
3
4 JANUARY 19, 2021
5 7:00 p.m.
6
7 CALL TO ORDER.
8
9 Chairperson Westrick called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. She introduced the newest
10 Commission Member to the Planning Commission. She welcomed Commissioner Kuykendall and
11 thanked him for volunteering his time to serve on the Planning Commission.
12
13 PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE.
14
15 Chairperson Westrick invited the Commission and the audience to join her in the Pledge of
16 Allegiance.
17
18 ROLL CALL.
19
20 Commissioners Present:Chair Westrick, Commissioners Socha, Kuykendall, Erickson, and
21 Morita.
22
23 Absent:Commissioner Rude
24
25 Also Present: Interim City Manager Charlie Yunker, and City Planner Stephen
26 Grittman
27
28 I.APPROVAL OF THE JANUARY 19, 2021, PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
29 AGENDA.
30
31 Motion by Commissioner Morita, seconded by Commissioner Erickson, to approve the
32 January 19, 2021, Planning Commission agenda.
33
34 Motion carried 5-0.
35
36 II.APPROVAL OF THE DECEMBER 15, 2020, REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION
37 MEETING MINUTES.
38
39 Motion by Commissioner Morita, seconded by Commissioner Socha, to approve the
40 December 15, 2020, Regular Planning Commission Meeting Minutes.
41
42 Motion carried 5-0.
43
44 III.PUBLIC HEARING.
45
A.46 Consider a request for a Conditional Use Permit by Culvers Restaurant, to Allow
47 for a Dynamic Display Electronic Sign at 4004 Silver Lake Road.
48
Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes
January 19, 2021
Page 2
1 Chair Westrick reviewed how the public hearing will proceed this evening. This item will
2 come before Council on February 9, 2021.
3
4 Chairperson Westrick opened the public hearing at 7:05 p.m.
5
6 City Planner Grittman reviewed the request for a Conditional Use Permit.
7
8 Mr. Trey Watts, Springfield Sign addressed the Commission.
9
10 No one from the public wished to address the Commission.
11
12 Chairperson Westrick closed the public hearing at 7:15 p.m.
13
14 Commissioner Morita inquired if the existing sign is eight feet two inches tall as it stands or if
15 the sign was eight feet and the two inches was different. Mr. Watts indicated as far as the
16 overall height he believed it was at the eight-foot mark, but a full tech survey has not been
17 done yet. The reason for the eight foot two inches is in order to maintain that, because of the
18 electronic portion, roughly two inches would need to be chipped out of the split face block at
19 the bottom of the sign. He understood if the two inches would be a problem it would be an
20 added expense but could be adjusted.
21
22 Commissioner Morita indicated for the two-inch difference and the existing sign is in
23 compliance, for the Commission to consider this, would there need to be a recommendation
24 for the applicant to change the sign or could the Commission allow the two inches because the
25 sign is existing and in compliance. Mr. Grittman explained the intent of staff’s
26 recommendation was that if the applicant is using the existing structure and the existing
27 structure is at eight feet two inches then that condition is grandfathered in and as long as only
28 the moveable portion is being replaced and not increasing the height then staff believes that is
29 an allowable, permitted condition. Commissioner Morita asked if the Commission is allowed
30 to approve this with the additional two inches, so the applicant does not have to chip into the
31 base or because of the law, is it mandatory that this be at eight feet tall. Mr. Grittman
32 explained if the existing height is eight feet, the applicant has not requested a variance to go
33 higher than that so the applicant will either have to maintain an existing eight feet or chip out
34 the two inches of concrete block to make sure they do not increase the height.
35
36 Chair Westrick asked in regard to lumens, she assumed staff knows this would comply and
37 she also wondered if the intent were to have the sign on all night or would it shut off when the
38 business is closed. Mr. Ben Sparks, owner of Culver Restaurant, explained at this point the
39 sign is set to turn off no later than 10:30 p.m. and if there were a different City restriction he
40 would comply with that. He noted the sign can be set to turn off at any time of day.
41
42 Commissioner Socha recalled from when the Commission reviewed the dynamic display sign
43 from Super America that the Commission instituted a 10:00 p.m. shut off time and there was
44 also a church that had a 10:00 p.m. shut off time as well. She thought concerns about lighting
45 are less so in this neighborhood because Culvers is on a main strip so even though it is 10:00
46 p.m. for the other businesses and she did not think it made sense for this to be on all night, but
Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes
January 19, 2021
Page 3
1 she thought the City did not necessarily need to stick to 10:00 p.m. and if 10:30 p.m. or 11:00
2 p.m. meets the applicants more then she would be fine with it. This business is not in
3 residential and is really on a commercial street.
4
5 Mr. Watts explained as far as lumens, the daytime brightness and nighttime brightness settings
6 is not a problem. The board operates in those ranges and also has a dimming feature built into
7 it that adjusts from daytime setting to nighttime setting automatically.
8
9 Motion by Commissioner Morita, seconded by Commissioner Erickson, to recommend that
10 the City Council approve a Conditional Use Permit application for a dynamic display sign,
11 pursuant to findings related to compliance with the applicable city regulations, conditioned on
12 modifications to the sign, along with ongoing operational practices, that meet the
13 requirements of the sign ordinance.
14
15 Motion carried 5-0.
16
B.17 Consider a request for a Preliminary Plan Stage PUD by Development 65, for
18 Construction of a 135 Unit Full Service Senior Living Building on a 4.35 Acre Site
19 Along the Eastern Edge of Stinson Parkway, Between Lowry Avenue and 27th
20 Avenue at 2501 Lowry Avenue.
21
22 Chair Westrick reviewed how the public hearing will proceed this evening. This item will
23 come before Council on February 9, 2021.
24
25 Chairperson Westrick opened the public hearing at 7:30 p.m.
26
27 City Planner Grittman reviewed the request for a Preliminary Plan Stage PUD by
28 Development 65, for construction of a 135-unit full service senior living building at 2501
29 Lowry Avenue.
30
31 Mr. Robert Wall, Development 65, LLC and Mr. Jared Ward, Civil Engineer at Wenk,
32 addressed the Commission.
33
34 Ms. Patty Labasa, 2653 Stinson Boulevard, indicated when there is a huge downfall of water,
35 27th and Stinson floods out very badly and the north side of her house also floods out. The
36 water runs down north to south on Stinson and it was said that a holding pond will be installed
37 on the other side of her garage which will literally not help the situation. The water table is
38 really high as well. She wanted to make sure that the Commission knows there are two
39 situations here, if the area is flattened out, because there is kind of a hill behind her garage and
40 it flattened the water will run down even more. The other one is the fire trucks down the alley
41 way, she did not understand why the City would want to do that. She really thought if it was
42 not required and only suggested for the builders to do then it should not be allowed and should
43 be redirected. She also asked if this were to be built as high as it is, would that give density to
44 build a higher high rise behind that to the east for another builder. She also asked the City to
45 close the exist at 26th and Stinson and put the parking lot on the other side for pedestrian
46 traffic only because there is a lot of traffic and people do drive very fast through there. She
Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes
January 19, 2021
Page 4
1 thought keeping the parkway as residential as it can be for the best. She also stated another
2 thing she was concerned about are the hoods, chillers, boilers, kitchen and all of those things
3 running close to hers and the neighbor’s homes and the noise it will give out. She wanted to
4 make sure that the City understands the residents concerns but there are already a couple of
5 senior homes in the area so if the builder could possibly move the development back or
6 somewhere else would be great. She thought there had to be something better than this.
7
8 Ms. Barbara Sullivan stated her grandfather’s farm was on that site. Her concern was with the
9 EAW that was done by Ken Haberman on this site. One of the big concerns was perk and the
10 developer wants to build an underground garage and t here are still pollutants there and perk
11 comes up through the soil. She thought the City should check into remediation because she
12 thought the owner of the property would be responsible for any kind of cleanup that has to be
13 done.
14
15 Ms. Carol Weiler, 2312 St. Anthony Parkway, Minneapolis, stated in reviewing the
16 documents that were submitted for the development, 65 Project, she noticed that a portion of
17 the land behind the building is part of the easement. She wondered what the exact terms of
18 the easement are and can the easement be removed by either party. The density of the
19 proposed development is significantly higher if the easement is not included in the
20 calculations. The site as described in the project documents as 4.25 acres and she wondered if
21 the 4.25 acres includes the area in the easement. She would appreciate the developer pointing
22 out where the employee entrance is and where also the employee parking is located. The
23 development was proposed initially as 135 units in November 2020 and is being presented as
24 around 155, which is a fifteen percent increase. She mentioned this in part due to the small
25 amount of useable green space in the project. Everyone has noticed a change in their living
26 habits since the beginning of the pandemic and the value and necessity of green space has
27 been foremost in maintaining their physical and mental well-being. She thought it would be a
28 mistake to approve a new senior living building without very careful consideration of outdoor
29 space, its useability and programming. No one knows how long COVID-19 will require
30 social distancing and they also need to be prepared for the next virus. St. Anthony already has
31 two assisted living properties with very little green space and no nearby parks. With 89
32 independent living units and 42 assisted living units there will be many active residents who
33 will want outdoor amenities beyond a small patio and deck.
34
35 Ms. Weiler wondered if raised bed gardens would be incorporated into the plan. She noted
36 water holding ponds take up a large portion of the green space and she wondered if those
37 could be landscaped to provide visual interest to attract wildlife. In looking at the landscaping
38 plan, she suggested reconfiguring the sidewalk on the east side of the property. Walking
39 directly alongside a road is not a pleasant experience. It would be much more pleasant if the
40 sidewalk would meander to the green space on the east side and looped around to a fully
41 landscaped holding pond. The sidewalk on the southern edge of the parcel abuts the road to
42 the parking garage, again, that is not a pleasant walking experience and she wondered if the
43 sidewalk is necessary. She would like the developer to identify which trees currently onsite
44 will be saved and how the trees on the west side of the property will be chosen and will those
45 trees be able to thrive with the existing trees on the boulevard.
46
Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes
January 19, 2021
Page 5
1 Ms. Weiler stated the landscape plan lists two perennials, one hundred Persian blue plants and
2 56 shrub roses. She encouraged the developer to diversify the plant selections to prolong
3 bloom times and also to incorporate more perennials, including pollinator and native plants.
4 Shrub roses are favorites of Japanese Beatles and she did not think they would be a very
5 attractive plant given the propensity of infestation. She thought more consideration needs to
6 be made in really making the ground a beautiful place for the residents to enjoy and also for
7 all of St. Anthony.
8
9 Mr. Jesse Pikturna, 2616 27th Avenue NE, St. Anthony, stated he missed the presentation but
10 did not know how the City could approve this. These density levels are higher than are
11 allowed. He noted the City recently denied a project in part because of these kind of extreme
12 density levels and nothing has changed. There is absolutely no reason why all of a sudden
13 something could be approved at these density levels. He indicated codes are not a minimum
14 to be challenged and pushed against, codes are supposed to be the upper limit. This kind of
15 density does not work in St. Anthony, it does not work with single family and the
16 Commission cannot approve it. This sets a dangerous precedent and the whole site will then
17 be developed with these kinds of density levels and just last year the City said this density
18 cannot be supported by St. Anthony. He thought this needs to be denied and that the City
19 does not have a choice. He did not think this works for St. Anthony.
20
21 Ms. Jeanette Fleming, resident of Kenzington Condominiums, asked how the owner was
22 planning on running this building as a CCRC with entrance fees for the residents. Mr. Wall
23 explained there will not be an entrance fee model where someone pays a large fee to come in.
24 There is generally a community fee when entering, which is nominal, and there it is a base
25 rent plus services that the resident would need.
26
27 Chairperson Westrick closed the public hearing at 8:10 p.m.
28
29 Commissioner Erickson asked Mr. Wall with the change in the number of units to 135, how
30 would that change the allocation of independent living, assisted living and memory care. He
31 also asked if that changed the mix of the one bedrooms and the studio’s and one bedrooms
32 with dens at all. Mr. Wall stated they actually increased the number of one bedrooms in the
33 assisted living, reduced the number of studios in independent living to, he believed, zero or
34 near that and increased the number of one bedroom and den in independent living and
35 increased some of the unit sizes in assisted living. They had a smaller building when this was
36 initially discussed with the City at 133 units and 170 thousand square feet. They are now at
37 181 thousand square feet and have increased the size of some of the buildings in large part,
38 due to COVID-19 and dealing with infection control. He explained the units have gone larger
39 and went closer to what the market wants today for better units. He noted in today’s market
40 studio units do not sell in independent living, these do work in assisted living though.
41
42 Commissioner Erickson asked if the Haven Road project in Bloomington similar amenity and
43 quality wise to this proposal. Mr. Wall indicated it was similar but believed some of the specs
44 on this project might be a little higher quality on the inside but generally speaking their goal
45 was to match it as close as possible.
46
Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes
January 19, 2021
Page 6
1 Commissioner Erickson asked if this project is denser in terms of per acre or comparable to
2 the one in Bloomington. Mr. Wall explained this project is less dense.
3
4 Commissioner Erickson indicated the residents of St. Anthony were concerned about the
5 landscaping and thought it should be more at the premium end of things with this being right
6 on the parkway and he wondered if this project was better in terms of landscaping than the
7 Bloomington project or similar. Mr. Wall explained this development will have more mature
8 trees along the Stinson Boulevard where the mature trees that are currently there could not be
9 kept. The intention is to preserve as many of the mature trees as possible and if not possible
10 than more mature trees will be planted along the Stinson Parkway and trying to carry similar
11 species for this parkway. The selections for this site are not the same selections that are at the
12 Bloomington project.
13
14 Commissioner Socha stated her principal concern with this is the building height, which in the
15 memo from Mr. Grittman states 56 feet but from she understands is actually 46 feet, which
16 gives her less concern, but she was curious what type of effects as far as shading from it being
17 cast onto other properties nearby. Mr. Wall indicated a study has not been done on it, but they
18 have put their focus on understanding where that shade would fall and at the furthest it does
19 not reach beyond the ally to the north and to the access road to the east and to Stinson to the
20 west and there are not any shade casts to the south.
21
22 Commissioner Socha indicated the first resident that spoke did mention a hill that keeps water
23 from running even more and she knew the area did have some water problems and wondered
24 if Mr. Wall was aware of the hill that resident was referencing and if that hill is being
25 removed. Mr. Wall indicated the resident mentioned that hill, storm water run off and a high
26 water table and another resident mentioned the landmark study by Ken Haberman and they are
27 aware of that study and have all of the information and the remediation, the vapor mitigation
28 system, the excavation of some of the surface soils that have some oil on it and all of that,
29 even though it was identified in that study, is understood, it is being planned for and that
30 remediation is a part of what the developer would be doing. The vapor mitigation system
31 would handle the situation the resident mentioned. In regard to the hill and stormwater, he
32 asked Mr. Ward from Wenk to speak to that.
33
34 Mr. Ward explained he was aware of the hill being referenced at the northwest corner of the
35 site where Stinson meets the ally. A good portion of the current site that drains off toward
36 Stinson down that hill. He explained their improvements do actually remove a big chunk of
37 that hill from a height perspective but in doing so, they are taking that drainage that would,
38 under current existing conditions, drain toward Stinson. They are actually pulling that
39 drainage back into the site so when the development is done there will be less drainage that
40 runs toward Stinson and more that runs in. By lowering the hill, from an engineering
41 perspective, they are not going to add more water or allow water to run off, they are actually
42 lowering the whole top and letting that water to continue to flow into the site. This will go
43 into the storm ponds on site which will then discharge into the same direction that the
44 majority of the site does which is through the Urban Grove site down to Kenzie Terrace.
45
Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes
January 19, 2021
Page 7
1 Commissioner Morita asked Mr. Grittman regarding the call out on one of the slides about
2 building height and that Code is 35 feet and three stories. He wondered if that Code was in
3 reference to the existing Code and not PUD or is that PUD and the developer is asking for an
4 exception to the PUD Code. Mr. Grittman explained the Code he was referencing was
5 actually the R4 Zone Code. If the City were to do any straight zoning on this property as an
6 R4 project then the maximum height in that District is 35 feet or three stories. The PUD Zone
7 Code does not have a defined height requirement and is an area of flexibility that the
8 applicants are seeking under the PUD. He referenced the R4 District for comparison and does
9 not technically apply to this property since it is not zoned that way.
10
11 Commissioner Morita indicated he heard one of the residents ask if this sets a precedent for
12 building height on the adjacent property. He thought every situation is addressed individually
13 and by allowing this PUD here, it does not grandfather in a building taller or something else in
14 the adjacent property. Mr. Grittman indicated that was correct, particularly with PUD Zoning,
15 each project stands on its own and the City looks to the guidance of the Comprehensive Plan
16 generally, but each project has to prove out its own benefits and its own advantages in
17 compliance with City Development Goals. There is not precedential aspect to this project that
18 would apply to any other project in the City.
19
20 Chair Westrick asked what the height was of the Kenzie Terrace property. Mr. Grittman
21 indicated he did not know the height of hand.
22
23 Chair Westrick indicated she did know from past proposals that the ground water issue is of
24 concern and wondered how with underground parking is there any concern about the high-
25 water tables and how did they plan to dewater or work around that. Mr. Wall indicated the
26 architect could probably better answer this, but the developer has been aware of this and in
27 designing and laying it out, how they would construct it where the water table will not be an
28 issue.
29
30 Mr. Link Wilson stated they have looked into the water table at this location. One of the
31 strategies is to have a double drain tile. There would be a drain tile on the inside facing the
32 footing and one on the outside facing the footing. Part of the site will drain to an internal
33 sump which then, if water gets too high in a rain situation, can be pumped to the surface but
34 they will also have the ability to drain some of that tile on the south to the stormwater pond to
35 the south. This has been taken into consideration and also having a membrane below the slab,
36 which does two things, if there is moisture it can be moved to the outside parameter but also
37 from the Bremer Bank site they know that there was dry clay in there and most of that is
38 percolating to the east. He noted if they do find particulate matter that is under the garage,
39 having an underground garage is the best thing because there is air moving through the garage
40 24/7. He thought they had both the environmental issues and the moisture issues
41 contemplated with the underground garage.
42
43 Chair Westrick indicated part of this proposal is asking for a variance over the current Code.
44 She asked in regard to the parking spots, it seemed like there are a lot of parking spaces for
45 what the description said and there might not be a lot of cars. She wondered if some of the
46 impervious area could be reduced by reducing parking. She also noted there was discussion
Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes
January 19, 2021
Page 8
1 about the stormwater and the rate and water quality but nothing about the volume, which she
2 believed would also be a standard that had to be met and wondered if someone could give a
3 better indication of maybe pre/post construction rates and volumes.
4
5 Mr. Wall explained regarding the parking, there is 51 parking surface level and the purpose
6 for it is staff on the north, east and northeast side and for visitor parking. If they needed to get
7 under that he would just caution that they do not want to have all of the parking down in the
8 garage because there could be twenty-five cars parking for staff and could cause an issue on
9 Stinson Boulevard. He thought the softest approach would be to leave it as is because they
10 did calibrate to the number of visitors they would assume, as well as staff with all of the
11 residents parking being underground.
12
13 Mr. Ward explained regarding stormwater management, the project is designed to meet rate
14 control and water quality. As indicated within this meeting, the past contaminates that have
15 been on site and the potential for impacted ground water, the volume requirement is
16 something that will not be met, mainly because from MPCA guidance and MPH guidance.
17 They do not recommend trying to infiltrate water into impacted sites. For that reason, they are
18 dealing with it through rate and then filtration to meet the water quality requirements.
19
20 Mr. Wilson indicated they could reduce the number of surface parking spots to forty and he
21 thought Ms. Weiler’s comments were terrific and he took notes on all of those and will
22 continue to work with Menk on the landscape plan to flush out some of those comments and
23 also looking at the mature trees and pollinator plants. He thought they could bring the
24 Council a slightly more refined amenity package.
25
26 Chair Westrick noted just because the issue of noise was brought up with the fans, she was
27 unfamiliar with how loud those could be and was curious what the comments are on that. Mr.
28 Wall explained this was addressed at either one or both of the neighborhood meetings and
29 their intention is to put most of the loud equipment onto the roof of the first floor that extends
30 out to the east in the middle of the building. The building on the west will protect the sound
31 from any residents on the west side and most of the north and then there will be the contour of
32 the building as well as the parapet that will be put on the roof to block most of the sound to
33 the north. He thought from a distance perspective, it is the best position one could put the
34 equipment that could be louder and certainly the exhaust of where the kitchen will be is pretty
35 substantially far away from the neighbors to the north and to the west.
36
37 Chair Westrick asked Mr. Grittman to explain how the Code with the density and the Comp.
38 Plan with the guided density interact. Mr. Grittman reviewed the comparisons and differences
39 between the two with the Commission.
40
41 Commissioner Socha wondered what other Commissioner thoughts were on reducing the
42 parking to increase the impervious surface.
43
44 Chair Westrick recommended putting the motion on the table and then the Commission could
45 discuss or amend the motion as recommended.
46
Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes
January 19, 2021
Page 9
1 Motion by Commissioner Socha, seconded by Commissioner Morita, to recommend to the
2 City Council approval of a Preliminary Plan Stage PUD by Development 65 for construction
3 of a 135 Unit Full Service Senior Living Building on a 4.25 Acre Site along the Eastern Edge
4 of Stinson Parkway, between Lowry Avenue and 27th Avenue at 2501 Lowry Avenue, with
5 the conditions as detailed in the staff report.
6
7 Commissioner Erickson in regard to reducing the parking, the applicant offered to reduce the
8 outdoor parking spots to less than 52 currently being proposed. Since there are so many
9 drainage concerns with the site, that might be something the Commission might consider
10 taking up the offer. He was not sure if the Commission would need to come up with a precise
11 number or how that would work.
12
13 Commissioner Socha thought there were two important reasons why reducing the parking
14 spots seems to be a good idea to her, one is both the aesthetics from the parkway and also to
15 increase the impervious surface, which could help with the drainage issues. What she was
16 going to propose for discussion is that the Commission require it be reduced from the 50.5
17 percent to the 50 percent, which would meet the impervious code requirements and then
18 however many parking spots reduced that would equate to is how many they would have to
19 reduce. It seems to her that given the fact that there does seem to be more than enough
20 parking that they do not need to go from 50 percent to 50.5 percent and should be able to meet
21 the code if it was the R4 Code requirement. She thought the Commission should take the
22 developer up on their offer.
23
24 Commissioner Morita asked if one of the Commissioners would need to propose an
25 amendment to the motion to request the proposal be updated to comply with the 50 percent
26 impervious goal. Chair Westrick indicated it was. Commissioner Morita proposed an
27 amendment to the motion.
28
29 Chair Westrick asked if there is a condition that could be stricken to add this proposed
30 condition. She reviewed a few of the conditions that could be changed, or a condition could
31 be added indicating the Commission would like reduced parking to meet the Code.
32 Commissioner Morita thought the third condition could be stricken and add a new condition
33 for the developer to comply with the 50 percent impervious goal.
34
35 Commissioner Socha thought the third condition should be changed to say, “The City finds
36 the proposed parking supply is adequate to serve the facility and if possible, maintains the
37 fifty percent impervious surface throughout the entire property”. Mr. Grittman suggested the
38 following wording “The City finds the proposed parking supply is adequate to serve the
39 facility and if possible, should be reduced to ensure that the overall impervious surface is less
40 than fifty percent”.
41
42 Motion by Commissioner Morita, seconded by Commissioner Erickson, to amend the motion
43 to modify condition 3 to also add “and if possible, should be reduced to ensure that the overall
44 impervious surface is less than fifty percent”.
45
46 Motion carried 4 Ayes, 0 Nays, 1 Abstain (Kuykendall).
Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes
January 19, 2021
Page 10
1
2 IV.STAFF REPORTS.
3
4 Mr. Grittman indicated City Staff, the City Council and Commission representatives and a
5 number of others met last week to set City goals for 2021. A portion of that discussion was
6 the Planning Commission’s workplan for this coming year. The Commission will work on
7 marching through that document in the coming year. Some will be Code amendments and
8 other aspects, and some will be other parts of implementation of the Comprehensive Plan. He
9 noted he will present a calendar to the Commission in order to spread the work out over the
10 year and prioritize needs that should come up first.
11
12 V.OTHER BUSINESS.
13
14 A. Motion Clarification Regarding Request for Conditional Use Permit for a Car Wash
15 Facility for Boulevard Autoworks at 2701 Kenzie Terrace.
16
17 City Planner Grittman reviewed the request for Conditional Use Permit for a Car Wash
18 Facility for Boulevard Autoworks at 2701 Kenzie Terrace clarification of motion.
19
20 Motion by Commissioner Morita, to bring back the recommended motion from December 15,
21 2020 on the table.
22
23 Commissioner Morita asked since there is a new Commissioner, and he was not at the
24 meeting in December did staff need to provide any background or information to
25 Commissioner Kuykendall to help him with his vote or to make sure he is clear on this item.
26 Mr. Grittman indicated he would leave this up to Commissioner Kuykendall. The original
27 staff report, and background material was included in the packet so if he has questions in that
28 regard staff can answer them.
29
30 Commissioner Kuykendall indicated he did have all the information he needed at this point.
31
32 Commissioner Socha thought this item was thoroughly discussed at the last meeting with
33 public comment and she understood the residents have a lot of concerns based on the standard
34 Mr. Grittman presented but she thought it was thoroughly discussed and at this point did not
35 see much more to discuss.
36
37 Motion by Commissioner Socha, to recommend the City Council approve a Conditional Use
38 Permit for a Car Wash Facility for Boulevard Autoworks at 2701 Kenzie Terrace, with the
39 conditions as detailed in the staff report as well as the condition added that the hours of
40 operation is limited from 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.
41
42 Chair Westrick asked if they have City Code and an applicant applies, she assumed that as a
43 part of that, did they need to specify in the Conditional Use Permit that they have to meeting
44 that Code or is that automatic. Mr. Grittman explained the Code operates for all property
45 owners at all times, whether or not it is specified in a Conditional Use Permit or otherwise and
46 the only exception to that is if the City granted a specific variance to a specific aspect of the
Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes
January 19, 2021
Page 11
1 Code. Short of a variance approval, the City Code is always applicable. Chair Westrick
2 stated because under City Code, she did interpret Minnesota Statute 7030 is referenced in the
3 City Code regarding noise.
4
5 Motion carried 4 Ayes, 0 Nays, 1 Abstain (Kuykendall).
6
7 Mr. Grittman noted this item will go before the City Council on January 26, 2021.
8
9 Chair Westrick noted the time was after 9:00 p.m. and there was another item on the agenda,
10 she wondered if Mr. Grittman thought the next item was worth having a Worksession for or
11 moving this to a different agenda, given the time. Mr. Grittman indicated whatever the
12 Commission wishes to do is fine with him. He noted the item kind of foundered its way
13 through the COVID lack of agenda’s in 2020. He was asked by the Commission for more
14 specific language.
15
16 Chair Westrick asked for Commission feedback.
17
18 Motion by Commissioner Morita, to move Item B to a subsequent meeting, not a
19 Worksession.
20
21 There was not a motion to the second, so the motion failed.
22
23 Commissioner Socha thought the item needed to discuss and would be open for them to do
24 that at a Worksession, which is more informal, but she would be open to either.
25 Commissioner Erickson indicated he would be open to either.
26
27 Commissioner Kuykendall stated he was open to either, as well. Chair Westrick indicated she
28 would be open to either a Worksession or another meeting. She thought Mr. Grittman could
29 decide which based on the upcoming agenda items. Mr. Grittman explained within the next
30 week or so staff should have a handle on upcoming agenda items for the February meeting
31 and if there is not much scheduled for that meeting he will put Item B on the regular agenda
32 otherwise he will schedule a Worksession in March if the agenda is full.
33
34 B. Ordinance Amendment Discussion of Accessory Building Regulations in Zoning
35 Ordinance.
36
37 This item has been postponed due to time constraint.
38
39 VI.COMMUNITY FORUM – NONE.
40
41 VII.INFORMATION AND ANNOUNCEMENTS – NONE.
42
43 VIII. ADJOURNMENT.
44
45 Motion by Commissioner Morita, seconded by Commissioner Erickson, to adjourn the
46 meeting.
Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes
January 19, 2021
Page 12
1
2 Motion carried 5-0.
3
4 Chairperson Westrick adjourned the meeting at 9:15 p.m.
5
6 Respectfully submitted,
7 Sue Osbeck
8 TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc.
MEMORANDUM
To: St. Anthony Village Planning Commission
From: Stephen Grittman, City Planner
Date: Planning Commission Regular Meeting for March 9, 2021
NAC File No: 323.02 – 21.01
Request: Amendment Zoning Ordinance section relating to Accessory Building
Regulations in All Zoning Districts
BACKGROUND AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION
City planning staff is proposing an amendment to the City’s Accessory Building regulations that impact a
series of current zoning ordinance sections, including Zoning Ordinance Definitions (Section 152.08), and
the Accessory Buildings text (Section 152.176),
The following material is presented in table form, indicating updates to the text from the prior
worksession reviews, as well as ordinance form. A public hearing has been scheduled at this meeting to
invite public comment, and the Planning Commission may choose to recommend the amendments, alter
them for City Council consideration, or continue the hearing to consider additional review.
If the Planning Commission believes that the text is ready for review by the City Council as is, or with
specific alterations, planning staff recommends approval of the proposed amendment.
GENERAL INFORMATION
Applicant: City of St. Anthony Village
Owner: NA
Location: NA
Existing Land Use / NA
Zoning:
Surrounding Land
Use/Zoning NA
Deadline for Agency
Action: NA
ANALYSIS
1. Background
The attached material represents a reworking of the draft text discussed at the 2-16-21 Planning
Commission worksession. The substantive changes to that presentation are summarize as follows:
March 9, 2021
Page 2
Definitions (Section 152.08).
The definitions have been reworked to establish a (slighty revised) definition for Accessory Buildings
generally, deleting most references to “structures” and then adding sub-categories of accessory
buildings due to differential treatment of each type in the following text. Those proposed categories are
Accessory Building – Garage; Accessory Building – Major; and Accessory Building – Minor. The terms
related to “garden sheds”, “gazebos”, etc. have been utilized only as examples to remove any
implication that they are a separate category of Accessory Building.
The Garage definition is taken largely from the existing code, modified with the door-size discussion.
The code treats garages and other accessory building differently in a few cases, thus the use of the
Accessory Building is relevant in this case.
A definition has also been added for “Accessory Use”, drawn from other resources, so as to distinguish
between use and building. Similarly, definitions have been added for “Principal Building” and “Principal
Use”, currently missing from existing text, again common language drawn from other sources.
Accessory Buildings (Section 152.176).
Several alterations were made from the prior version, including language, removal of duplicate
provisions, and reorganization of some of the existing and proposed text.
The organization is now structured more clearly as follows:
(A) This text section now refers to the Accessory Building allowances in each of the various districts.
1. Section 1 refers to requirements in the R-1 and R-1A Districts (the Single Family zoning
districts). Items (a) through (f) limit numbers of buildings (including buildings by type), and
other standards that apply to the single family areas.
2. Section 2 refers to requirements for the attached or multiple family districts (R-2, R-3, and
R-4).
3. Section 3 refers to standards for the Commercial and Industrial districts.
4. Section 4 was deleted from this subsection, as building materials requirements will now vary
between single family and other uses.
(B) through (F) are largely drawn from existing text, with minor adjustments.
(G) and (H) distinguish the treatment of building materials and trash enclosures between single
family and non-single family uses.
(L) is deleted from prior proposed text, as noted.
(I) is the table of dimensional and other standards that apply to Accessory Buildings and/or uses,
depending on Yard, Type, and Zoning District. The specific standards that apply to R-1A (shoreland)
uses are also listed here – most of these regulations are missing or unclear from current code.
2. Applicable Code Sections.
Title XV Land Usage, Chapter 152 Zoning Code, Section §152.008 provides definitions related to
Zoning.
Title XV Land Usage, Chapter 152 Zoning Code, Section §152.176 Dynamic Displays regulates the
construction and use of electronic dynamic display signs by Conditional Use Permit, and sets the
various performance standards applicable to such signs.
March 9, 2021
Page 3
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of the proposed amendment to the Zoning Ordinance, due to the various
conflicts and/or missing components of current standards. It is the intention of staff that by
consolidating the regulations as proposed, they will be clearer and more easily applied by staff and
property owners alike.
As such, planning staff recommends the following motion:
1. Motion to recommend approval of the amendment to the Zoning Ordinance relating to
Accessory Buildings and Uses, deleting the current Section 152.176 and replacing it with the
new Section.
ALTERNATIVE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION
2. Motion to recommend denial of the amendment. In the event of a recommendation for denial,
the Planning Commission must state its findings related to denial on the record.
3. Request Additional Information and Table Action. A motion to table should be accompanied by
the specific information requested of staff or the developer necessary to make a
recommendation.
ATTACHMENTS
Exhibit A: Application and Supporting Material
PLANNING COMMISSION
MARCH 9, 2021
ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT –PUBLIC HEARING
Accessory Buildings
152.08 (Definitions)
152.76 (Accessory Buildings)
ACCESSORY BUILDINGS
Definitions:
ACCESSORY BUILDING. A separate building or structure or a portion of
a principal building or structure used for accessory uses.
-ACCESSORY BUILDING –GARAGE: An accessory building
(attached or detached) which is used, or can be used,to store
passenger automobiles and light trucks owned by occupants of
the principal building, and which has a door opening which is six
(6) feet or greater in width.
-ACCESSORY BUILDING –MAJOR:A detached accessory building
sheltering an allowed accessory use, except for storage of motor
vehicles. Accessory Buildings may include garden sheds,
recreational buildings such as gazebos, or other similar uses.
-ACCESSORY BUILDING –MINOR:A detached accessory building
200 square feet or less in floor area.
ACCESSORY USE -A subordinate use which is located on the
same lot on which the principal use is situated and which is
reasonably necessary, incidental to, and supportive of the
conduct of the principal use. An accessory use shall be lesser in
extent, size, and/or area to that of the principal use.
PRINCIPAL BUILDING: The main structure on a parcel or lot which
houses the Principal Use of the property.
PRINCIPAL USE: The primary use of a parcel or lot as opposed to a
subordinate “accessory” use.
Definitions:
ACCESSORY BUILDING. A separate
building or structure or a portion of a
principal building or structure used for
accessory uses.
GARAGE. An accessory building or
portion of a principal building which is
principally used for the storage of
motor vehicles owned by occupants of
the principal building. Garages cannot
be larger than the principal structure
or be more than 1,000 square feet in
size in R-1, R-1A, and R-2 zoned
property.
ACCESSORY USE. A use subordinate to
the main use on a lot and which is
customarily incidental to the main use
ACCESSORY BUILDINGS
152.176 ACCESSORY BUILDINGS.
(A). The following Accessory Buildings shall be allowed as permitted uses, subject
to the requirements of Table 152.176.(I):
1.R-1 and R-1A, Single Family Zones:
a.One (1) Attached Garage.
b.One (1) Detached Garage or One Accessory Building-Major greater than 200
square feet in floor area.No more than two garages, (only one of which may
be a detached garage), shall be allowed on any single family parcel.
c.One (1) Accessory Building–Minor no greater than 200 square feet in floor
area meeting the requirements of this ordinance.
d.Accessory uses which are not accessory buildings, including swimming pools,
hot tubs, play structures, animal shelters of less than 36 square feet in area,
and landscape elements that do not provide any shelter for human occupancy,
provided all other conditions and performance standards are met.
e.Setback from Other Principal Buildings. Unless attached to and made a part of
the principal building, no eave or other portion of an accessory building may
be closer than 5 feet from any eave or other portion of a principal or
accessory building.
f.Design. All accessory buildings constructed after the construction of the
principal building must be designed and constructed in a manner consistent
with the design and general appearance of the principal building. Accessory
buildings constructed primarily of canvas, plastic fabric, or other similar non-
permanent materials shall be prohibited.
ACCESSORY BUILDINGS 2. Attached and Multi-family Buildings. Attached and multi-family buildings in the
R-2, R-3 and R-4 districts are allowed one Accessory Building-Major of up to 500
square feet in area, and one Accessory Building-Minor of 200 square feet or less
per complex, plus detached garage structures as needed to meet the requirements
of the Zoning Ordinance for off-street parking.
3. Commercial or Industrial Districts. No accessory building in a commercial or
industrial district shall exceed the height of the principal building except by
conditional use permit.
4. Building Standards. All accessory buildings in excess of 200 square feet shall be
constructed to the standards of the Minnesota State Building Code. The
architectural appearance of accessory buildings should be visually compatible with
the principal building relative to color, materials, and form.
ACCESSORY BUILDINGS (B). Accessory Buildings without a Principal Building. No accessory
building or structure shall be constructed on any lot prior to the time of
construction of the principal building to which it is an accessory unless
authorized through an agreement as prepared by the City Attorney and
approved by the City Council.
(C). Accessory Dwelling Units. Detached accessory buildings shall be
prohibited from containing complete independent living facilities
(accessory dwelling units), which would include permanent provisions for
living, sleeping, eating, and sanitation.
(D). Driveways.Driveways shall be required for doorway openings
meeting or exceeding 8 feet wide by 7 feet tall. All driveways must meet
the standards as outlined in §152.179.
(E). Drainage and Utility Easements. No part of an accessory building
shall extend into a drainage and utility easement or any required setback.
ACCESSORY BUILDINGS
(F). Landscape Elements. Landscape elements, such as vegetation,
gardens, statuary, and the like shall be allowed in all yards, provided
other applicable regulations are met. Retaining walls shall be considered
fences for the purposes of this ordinance.
(G). Trash Enclosures. Except for Single Family Residential properties,
trash enclosures, where allowed, shall be required to be constructed of
materials that match the materials used on the principal building
exterior, and shall not be located in any yard closer to the public right of
way than the principal structure.
(H). Detached Garage Accessory Building Materials. Detached Garages
Accessory Buildings accessory to attached and multiple family residential
dwellings, or any commercial or industrial use, shall be constructed of
materials that match those used on the principal building.
(L). Recreational Structures and Uses. Gazebos, pools, pool buildings, and
other detached recreational structures shall meet the setbacks, size
requirements, and other standards applicable to Garden Sheds.
ACCESSORY BUILDINGS
ACCESSORY BUILDINGS
ACCESSORY BUILDINGS
ACCESSORY BUILDINGS
Recommended Planning Commission Action:
Motion to recommend adoption of the proposed zoning ordinance
amendment related to Accessory Buildings and Uses.
Motion to deny the ordinance as presented. In the event of a recommendation for denial, the City Council must
state its findings related to denial.
Request Additional Information and Table Action, subject to the submission of additional information from staff.
Proposed changes Existing
Definitions:
ACCESSORY BUILDING. A separate building or structure or a portion of
a principal building or structure used for accessory uses.
- ACCESSORY BUILDING – GARAGE: An accessory building
(attached or detached) which is used, or can be used, to store
passenger automobiles and light trucks owned by occupants of
the principal building, and which has a door opening which is
six (6) feet or greater in width.
- ACCESSORY BUILDING – MAJOR: A detached accessory
building sheltering an allowed accessory use, except for
storage of motor vehicles. Accessory Buildings may include
garden sheds, recreational buildings such as gazebos, or other
similar uses.
- ACCESSORY BUILDING – MINOR: A detached accessory
building 200 square feet or less in floor area.
ACCESSORY USE ‑ A subordinate use which is located on the
same lot on which the principal use is situated and which is
reasonably necessary, incidental to, and supportive of the
conduct of the principal use. An accessory use shall be lesser in
extent, size, and/or area to that of the principal use.
PRINCIPAL BUILDING: The main structure on a parcel or lot which
houses the Principal Use of the property.
PRINCIPAL USE: The primary use of a parcel or lot as opposed to a
subordinate “accessory” use.
Definitions:
ACCESSORY BUILDING. A
separate building or
structure or a portion of a
principal building or
structure used for accessory
uses.
GARAGE. An accessory
building or portion of a
principal building which is
principally used for the
storage of motor vehicles
owned by occupants of the
principal building. Garages
cannot be larger than the
principal structure or be
more than 1,000 square feet
in size in R-1, R-1A, and R-2
zoned property.
ACCESSORY USE. A use
subordinate to the main use
on a lot and which is
customarily incidental to the
main use
152.176 ACCESSORY BUILDINGS.
(A). The following Accessory Buildings shall be allowed as permitted uses, subject to the requirements
of Table 152.176.(I):
1. R-1 and R-1A, Single Family Zones:
a. One (1) Attached Garage.
b. One (1) Detached Garage or One Accessory Building-Major greater than 200 square
feet in floor area. No more than two garages, (only one of which may be a detached
garage), shall be allowed on any single family parcel.
c. One (1) Accessory Building–Minor no greater than 200 square feet in floor area
meeting the requirements of this ordinance.
d. Accessory uses which are not accessory buildings, including swimming pools, hot
tubs, play structures, animal shelters of less than 36 square feet in area, and
landscape elements that do not provide any shelter for human occupancy, provided
all other conditions and performance standards are met.
e. Setback from Other Principal Buildings. Unless attached to and made a part of the
principal building, no eave or other portion of an accessory building may be closer
than 5 feet from any eave or other portion of a principal or accessory building.
f. Design. All accessory buildings constructed after the construction of the principal
building must be designed and constructed in a manner consistent with the design
and general appearance of the principal building. Accessory buildings constructed
primarily of canvas, plastic fabric, or other similar non-permanent materials shall be
prohibited.
2. Attached and Multi-family Buildings. Attached and multi-family buildings in the R-2, R-3
and R-4 districts are allowed one Accessory Building-Major of up to 500 square feet in
area, and one Accessory Building-Minor of 200 square feet or less per complex, plus
detached garage structures as needed to meet the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance
for off-street parking.
3. Commercial or Industrial Districts. No accessory building in a commercial or industrial
district shall exceed the height of the principal building except by conditional use permit.
4. Building Standards. All accessory buildings in excess of 200 square feet shall be
constructed to the standards of the Minnesota State Building Code. The architectural
appearance of accessory buildings should be visually compatible with the principal
building relative to color, materials, and form.
(B). Accessory Buildings without a Principal Building. No accessory building or structure shall be
constructed on any lot prior to the time of construction of the principal building to which it is an
accessory unless authorized through an agreement as prepared by the City Attorney and approved by
the City Council.
(C). Accessory Dwelling Units. Detached accessory buildings shall be prohibited from containing
complete independent living facilities (accessory dwelling units), which would include permanent
provisions for living, sleeping, eating, and sanitation.
(D). Driveways. Driveways shall be required for doorway openings meeting or exceeding 8 feet wide
by 7 feet tall. All driveways must meet the standards as outlined in §152.179.
(E). Drainage and Utility Easements. No part of an accessory building shall extend into a drainage and
utility easement or any required setback.
(F). Landscape Elements. Landscape elements, such as vegetation, gardens, statuary, and the like
shall be allowed in all yards, provided other applicable regulations are met. Retaining walls shall be
considered fences for the purposes of this ordinance.
(G). Trash Enclosures. Except for Single Family Residential properties, trash enclosures, where
allowed, shall be required to be constructed of materials that match the materials used on the
principal building exterior, and shall not be located in any yard closer to the public right of way than
the principal structure.
(H). Detached Garage Accessory Building Materials. Detached Garages Accessory Buildings accessory
to attached and multiple family residential dwellings, or any commercial or industrial use, shall be
constructed of materials that match those used on the principal building.
(L). Recreational Structures and Uses. Gazebos, pools, pool buildings, and other detached
recreational structures shall meet the setbacks, size requirements, and other standards applicable to
Garden Sheds.
Table 172.156 (I) District Performance Standards – Accessory Buildings and Uses. Unless otherwise
specified in this section, all accessory buildings and/or uses shall conform to the following
requirements (except where noted as applying to specific districts):
Accessory Building-
Major or Detached
Garage
Attached Garage Accessory
Building-
Minor
Other Accessory
Uses or Structures
Front Yard Setback No closer than
principal building, or
30 feet, whichever is
greater
30 feet Not Allowed in
front yard
Not Allowed in
front yard
Side Yard Setback 5 feet 5 feet, with an
aggregate total of 15
feet on two sides
Not Allowed in
side yard
5 feet
Side Yard Setback
adjacent to public
street
20 feet, or equal to
principal building
setback, whichever is
greater
20 feet, or equal to
principal building
setback, whichever is
greater
20 feet 20 feet
Rear Yard Setback
from private
property
30 feet 5 feet 5 feet 5 feet
Rear Yard Setback
from Alley
5 feet 30 feet 5 feet 5 feet
Rear Yard Setback
from Public Street
30 feet 30 feet 30 feet 30 feet
Maximum Square
Feet- R-1 and R-1A
750 square feet, or
80% of ground floor
area of principal
building, whichever is
less
No greater than
ground floor area of
principal building, 1
per parcel
200 square
feet, 1 per
parcel
NA, subject to
impervious surface
and other
standards
Maximum Square
Feet – R-2, R-3,
and R-4
500 square feet, 1 per
complex
No greater than
ground floor area of
principal building
200 square
feet, 1 per
complex
NA, subject to
impervious surface
and other
standards
Maximum Square
Feet – C, I Districts
80% of ground floor
area of principal
building
No greater than
ground floor area of
principal building
200 square
feet, 1 per
parcel
NA, subject to
impervious surface
and other
standards
Maximum Height
– R-1, R-1A, R-2
15 feet to average
roof height, and no
more than 20 feet
overall
No greater than roof
height of principal
structure
15 feet to peak
roof height
NA
Maximum Height
– R-3, R-4
30 feet 30 feet 15 feet to peak
roof height
NA
Maximum Height
– C, I Districts
No accessory building
in a commercial or
industrial district shall
No accessory building
in a commercial or
industrial district shall
15 feet to peak
roof height
NA
exceed the height of
the principal building
except by conditional
use permit.
exceed the height of
the principal building
except by conditional
use permit.
Special provisions
for Accessory
Buildings and
Uses in the R-1A
District
Detached Garage
Setback from OHW
Attached Garage
Setback from OHW
Other
Accessory
Building
Setback from
OHW of 200
square feet or
less.
Other Accessory
Use Setback from
OHW
Setback from
Ordinary High
Water (OHW)
Elevation
75 feet, or no closer
than the nearest
building line of the
principal structure,
whichever is greater
75 feet 37.5 feet. No
such structure
shall occupy
land within the
Shore Impact
Zone, defined
as one-half the
setback from
OHW.
37.5 feet.
Exception: Access
to the shoreline
may be provided
within this setback
area via stairs,
pathways, and
landings no
greater than 4 feet
in width. One (1)
surfaced
patio/landing/deck
area of no more
than 96 square
feet in area may
be located within
the Shore Impact
Zone, provided
such patio
maintains a
setback from the
OHW of at least
fifteen (15) feet,
and provided such
structure extends
no more than 30
inches above the
natural grade at
any location.
CITY OF SAINT ANTHONY VILLAGE
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
ORDINANCE NO. _____
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE CITY CODE, CHAPTER 152
BY AMENDING DEFINITIONS AND REQUIREMENTS
FOR ACCESSORY BUILDINGS AND USES
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 delete the
following:
ACCESSORY BUILDING. A separate building or structure or a portion of a
principal building or structure used for accessory uses.
ACCESSORY USE. A use subordinate to the main use on a lot and which is
customarily incidental to the main use.
GARAGE. An accessory building or portion of a principal building which is
principally used for the storage of motor vehicles owned by occupants of the
principal building. Garages cannot be larger than the principal structure or be
more than 1,000 square feet in size in R-1, R-1A, and R-2 zoned property.
Section 2. Chapter 152, Section 152.08, Definitions is hereby amended to add the
following:
ACCESSORY BUILDING. A separate building or a portion of a principal building used for
accessory uses.
- ACCESSORY BUILDING – GARAGE: An accessory building (attached or detached)
which is used, to store passenger automobiles and light trucks owned by occupants of the
principal building, and which has a door opening which is six (6) feet or greater in width.
- ACCESSORY BUILDING – MAJOR: A detached accessory building sheltering an
allowed accessory use, except for storage of motor vehicles. Accessory Buildings may
include garden sheds, recreational buildings such as gazebos, or other similar uses.
- ACCESSORY BUILDING – MINOR: A detached accessory building 200 square feet or
less in floor area.
PRINCIPAL BUILDING: The main structure on a parcel or lot which houses the Principal Use
of the property.
PRINCIPAL USE: The primary use of a parcel or lot as opposed to a subordinate “accessory”
use.
Section 3. Chapter 152, Section 152.176, Accessory Buildings, is hereby deleted in its
entirety.
Section 4. Chapter 152, Section 152.176, Accessory Buildings is hereby amended to
read as follows:
152.176 ACCESSORY BUILDINGS.
(A). The following Accessory Buildings shall be allowed as permitted uses, subject to the
requirements of Table 152.176.(I):
1. R-1 and R-1A, Single Family Zones:
a. One (1) Attached Garage.
b. One (1) Detached Garage or One Accessory Building-Major
greater than 200 square feet in floor area. No more than two garages,
(only one of which may be a detached garage), shall be allowed on any
single family parcel.
c. One (1) Accessory Building–Minor no greater than 200 square feet
in floor area meeting the requirements of this ordinance.
d. Accessory uses which are not accessory buildings, including
swimming pools, hot tubs, play structures, animal shelters of less than 36
square feet in area, and landscape elements that do not provide any shelter
for human occupancy, provided all other conditions and performance
standards are met.
e. Setback from Other Principal Buildings. Unless attached to and
made a part of the principal building, no eave or other portion of an
accessory building may be closer than 5 feet from any eave or other
portion of a principal or accessory building.
f. Design. All accessory buildings constructed after the construction
of the principal building must be designed and constructed in a manner
consistent with the design and general appearance of the principal
building. Accessory buildings constructed primarily of canvas, plastic
fabric, or other similar non-permanent materials shall be prohibited.
2. Attached and Multi-family Buildings. Attached and multi-family buildings
in the R-2, R-3 and R-4 districts are allowed one Accessory Building-Major of up
to 500 square feet in area, and one Accessory Building-Minor of 200 square feet
or less per complex, plus detached garage structures as needed to meet the
requirements of the Zoning Ordinance for off-street parking.
3. Commercial or Industrial Districts. No accessory building in a commercial
or industrial district shall exceed the height of the principal building except by
conditional use permit.
4. Building Standards. All accessory buildings in excess of 200 square feet
shall be constructed to the standards of the Minnesota State Building Code. The
architectural appearance of accessory buildings should be visually compatible
with the principal building relative to color, materials, and form.
(B). Accessory Buildings without a Principal Building. No accessory building or
structure shall be constructed on any lot prior to the time of construction of the principal
building to which it is an accessory unless authorized through an agreement as prepared
by the City Attorney and approved by the City Council.
(C). Accessory Dwelling Units. Detached accessory buildings shall be prohibited from
containing complete independent living facilities (accessory dwelling units), which would
include permanent provisions for living, sleeping, eating, and sanitation.
(D). Driveways. Driveways shall be required for doorway openings meeting or exceeding
8 feet wide by 7 feet tall. All driveways must meet the standards as outlined in §152.179.
(E). Drainage and Utility Easements. No part of an accessory building shall extend into a
drainage and utility easement or any required setback.
(F). Landscape Elements. Landscape elements, such as vegetation, gardens, statuary, and
the like shall be allowed in all yards, provided other applicable regulations are met.
Retaining walls shall be considered fences for the purposes of this ordinance.
(G). Trash Enclosures. Except for Single Family Residential properties, trash enclosures,
where allowed, shall be required to be constructed of materials that match the materials
used on the principal building exterior, and shall not be located in any yard closer to the
public right of way than the principal structure.
(H). Detached Garage Accessory Building Materials. Detached Garages Accessory
Buildings accessory to attached and multiple family residential dwellings, or any
commercial or industrial use, shall be constructed of materials that match those used on
the principal building.
(I) Table 172.156 (I) District Performance Standards – Accessory Buildings and Uses.
Unless otherwise specified in this Chapter, all accessory buildings and/or uses shall
conform to the following requirements (except where noted as applying to specific
districts):
Accessory Building-
Major or Detached
Garage
Attached Garage Accessory
Building-
Minor
Other Accessory
Uses or
Structures
Front Yard
Setback
No closer than
principal building, or
30 feet, whichever is
greater
30 feet Not Allowed in
front yard
Not Allowed in
front yard
Side Yard Setback 5 feet 5 feet, with an
aggregate total of 15
feet on two sides
Not Allowed in
side yard
5 feet
Side Yard Setback
adjacent to public
street
20 feet, or equal to
principal building
setback, whichever is
greater
20 feet, or equal to
principal building
setback, whichever is
greater
20 feet 20 feet
Rear Yard Setback
from private
property
30 feet 5 feet 5 feet 5 feet
Rear Yard Setback
from Alley
5 feet 30 feet 5 feet 5 feet
Rear Yard Setback
from Public Street
30 feet 30 feet 30 feet 30 feet
Maximum Square
Feet- R-1 and R-
1A
750 square feet, or
80% of ground floor
area of principal
building, whichever is
less
No greater than
ground floor area of
principal building, 1
per parcel
200 square
feet, 1 per
parcel
NA, subject to
impervious surface
and other
standards
Maximum Square
Feet – R-2, R-3,
and R-4
500 square feet, 1 per
complex
No greater than
ground floor area of
principal building
200 square
feet, 1 per
complex
NA, subject to
impervious surface
and other
standards
Maximum Square
Feet – C, I
Districts
80% of ground floor
area of principal
building
No greater than
ground floor area of
principal building
200 square
feet, 1 per
parcel
NA, subject to
impervious surface
and other
standards
Maximum Height
– R-1, R-1A, R-2
15 feet to average roof
height, and no more
than 20 feet overall
No greater than roof
height of principal
structure
15 feet to peak
roof height
NA
Maximum Height
– R-3, R-4
30 feet 30 feet 15 feet to peak
roof height
NA
Maximum Height
– C, I Districts
No accessory building
in a commercial or
industrial district shall
exceed the height of
the principal building
except by conditional
use permit.
No accessory building
in a commercial or
industrial district shall
exceed the height of
the principal building
except by conditional
use permit.
15 feet to peak
roof height
NA
Special provisions
for Accessory
Buildings and
Uses in the R-1A
District
Detached Garage
Setback from OHW
Attached Garage
Setback from OHW
Other
Accessory
Building
Setback from
OHW of 200
square feet or
less.
Other Accessory
Use Setback from
OHW
Setback from
Ordinary High
Water (OHW)
Elevation
75 feet, or no closer
than the nearest
building line of the
principal structure,
whichever is greater
75 feet 37.5 feet. No
such structure
shall occupy
land within the
Shore Impact
Zone, defined
37.5 feet.
Exception: Access
to the shoreline
may be provided
within this setback
as one-half the
setback from
OHW.
area via stairs,
pathways, and
landings no greater
than 4 feet in
width. One (1)
surfaced
patio/landing/deck
area of no more
than 96 square feet
in area may be
located within the
Shore Impact
Zone, provided
such patio
maintains a
setback from the
OHW of at least
fifteen (15) feet,
and provided such
structure extends
no more than 30
inches above the
natural grade at
any location.
Section 5. 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 6. This Ordinance shall take effect and be in full force from and after its
passage and publication.
CITY OF ST. ANTHONY VILLAGE
By: _______________________________
Randy Stille, Mayor
ATTEST:
By:________________________________
Nicole Miller, City Clerk
NOTICE OF A PUBLIC HEARING
March 16, 2021, 7:00 p.m.
City Hall, 3301 Silver Lake Road, St. Anthony, MN 55418
Notice is hereby given that the City of Saint Anthony Village Planning Commission will hold a public
hearing to solicit public response to multiple updates to the City of St. Anthony Zoning, Section 152.176
and other sections related to regulation of Accessory Buildings.
The Planning Commission agenda and packet relating to this item will be made available prior to the
meeting online at www.savmn.com.
Ways to Comment:
Online
Those persons having an interest are encouraged to attend via Zoom. The link to participate via Zoom
can be found at https://www.savmn.com/Calendar.aspx?EID=1222
In Person
The public is welcome to attend in person at the City of Saint Anthony Community Center, 3301 Silver
Lake Road, in the Council Chambers at 7:00 p.m. Please note seating is limited due to the pandemic.
Written
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 public hearing.
Comments can also be conveyed via email, to planner@savmn.com until the date of the public hearing.
Questions?
Questions may be directed to the City Planner at 763-957-1100.
Steve Grittman
City Planner