HomeMy WebLinkAboutPL PACKET 11162021CITY OF SAINT ANTHONY VILLAGE
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AGENDA
Tuesday, November 16, 2021 at 6:30PM
Join Meeting via Zoom
There is also a dial -in option available. Members of the public who wish to attend the
meeting may do so in person.
Call To Order
Pledge Of Allegiance
Roll Call
Approval Of Agenda
Approval Of Minutes
Approval Of PC Minutes
PC 10.19.2021.PDF
Public Hearing
2654 Kenzie Terrace
COVER MEMO.PDF
LAND USE APPLICATION_10.28.21.PDF
FINAL PLAT DRAFT.PDF
NOTICE -PUBLIC HEARING PLAT BREMER -INTERSTATE.PDF
RESOLUTION 21 -0XX -2564 KENZIE DRAFT.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 AGENDATuesday, November 16, 2021 at 6:30PMJoin Meeting via ZoomThere is also a dial -in option available. Members of the public who wish to attend the meeting may do so in person. Call To OrderPledge Of AllegianceRoll CallApproval Of AgendaApproval Of MinutesApproval Of PC MinutesPC 10.19.2021.PDFPublic Hearing2654 Kenzie TerraceCOVER MEMO.PDFLAND USE APPLICATION_10.28.21.PDFFINAL PLAT DRAFT.PDFNOTICE -PUBLIC HEARING PLAT BREMER -INTERSTATE.PDFRESOLUTION 21 -0XX -2564 KENZIE DRAFT.PDFStaff ReportsOther BusinessCommunity ForumIndividuals 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 OCTOBER 19, 2021
5 7:00 p.m.
6
7 CALL TO ORDER.
8
9 Acting Chair Socha called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
10
11 PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE.
12
13 Acting Chair Socha invited the Commission and the audience to join her in the Pledge of Allegiance.
14
15 ROLL CALL.
16
17 Commissioners Present:Acting Chair Socha, Commissioners Kuykendall, Rude, Hendrickson,
18 and Morita.
19
20 Absent:Chair Westrick and Commissioner Erickson.
21
22 Also Present: City Planner Stephen Grittman and Assistant to the City Manager
23 Nicole Miller.
24
25 I.APPROVAL OF THE OCTOBER 19, 2021, PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
26 AGENDA.
27
28 Motion by Commissioner Rude, seconded by Commissioner Hendrickson, to approve the
29 October 19, 2021, Planning Commission agenda.
30
31 Motion carried 5-0.
32
33 II.APPROVAL OF THE AUGUST 17, 2021, REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION
34 MEETING MINUTES.
35
36 Motion by Commissioner Rude, seconded by Commissioner Morita, to approve the August
37 17, 2021, Regular Planning Commission Meeting Minutes.
38
39 Motion carried 4-0-1 (Socha abstained).
40
41 III.PUBLIC HEARING.
42
A.43 3501 Maplewood Dr. Variance – Fence Height Located in the Front Yard
44 Setback.
45
46 Acting Chair Socha opened the public hearing at 7:08 p.m.
47
48 Mr. Grittman reviewed the applicant proposes to construct a fence to enclose a proposed
49 swimming pool on the west side of their property. Fences are allowed to be up to 6 feet in
50
Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes
October 19, 2021
Page 2
1 height in side and rear yards (behind the front building setback line), and 4 feet in front yards.
2 The applicant is proposing to extend the fence toward the Maplewood Drive property line,
3 into the setback area that requires a height of no more than 4 feet, but build it at the 6-foot
4 height. That encroachment of a 6-foot-high fence requires approval of a variance.
5
6 Since the original application, the applicant has further refined the request, limited the
7 proposed fence encroachment, and added new materials that clarify the proposal for the
8 variance. In the initial review, the proposed encroachment would have been to within a few
9 feet of the front property line. That has now changed, with a proposed encroachment of
10 approximately 8 feet into the required setback.
11
12 Mr. Grittman reviewed the variance criteria. The packet provided to the Commission included
13 a number of photographs submitted by the applicant.
14
15 In reviewing the proposed improvements against the ordinance requirements for lot
16 development, and the considerations for variance, staff has changed its original
17 recommendations to approval of the fence height encroachment as newly proposed.
18
19 Staff has reviewed for height, use, other setbacks and impervious surface on the lot, given the
20 new pool, pool deck, and existing rear yard shed. The applicant has reduced the size of the
21 proposed pool, and will be removing the existing shed to meet the impervious surface
22 standards of the code.
23
24 Staff recommends approval of the requested (and amended) front yard fence height
25 encroachment variance at 3501 Maplewood Drive based on the following findings:
26
A.27 The applicant is able to construct a swimming pool, pool deck, and privacy fencing within
28 the proposed 8-foot setback encroachment.
B.29 A pool of the size, along with any associated construction such as a pool deck, that would
30 encroach into the front yard will require additional verification of compliance with the
31 terms of the City’s impervious surface maximum for residential lots of this size.
C.32 The applicant can show unique conditions on the property that interfere with putting the
33 property to a reasonable residential use, with reasonable use being defined in this case as
34 the significant encroachments towards Maplewood Drive that exist on most of the
35 surrounding properties to the east and west.
D.36 Circumstances that would lead to variance approval are the result of the actions of prior
37 owners, and those owners in the neighborhood, and not the actions of the applicant.
38
39 Mr. Grittman offered 3 alternative actions to the Planning Commission.
40
41 Commissioner Morita asked about the requirement for having a pool being a 6-foot fence and
42 Mr. Grittman stated it is. The applicant’s intent is to surround the pool with a 6-foot fence.
43 The encroachment variance is what is being considered.
44
45 Commissioner Rude asked how far east-west the encroachment would fun and Mr. Grittman
46 stated it is on the west side of the house. The variance is only on the west side of the property.
47
Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes
October 19, 2021
Page 3
1 Commissioner Rude asked about the two houses to the east with the pools and whether
2 variances were granted. Mr. Grittman stated that was before his time and he does not know.
3
4 The applicant, Mr. Anthony Farah, distributed additional pictures to the Commission. He has
5 lived in St. Anthony his entire life. He is trying to give his kids what he didn’t have as a child.
6 He knows what is involved with having a swimming pool. The house is located at an odd
7 angle and the side yard is actually their backyard. They really don’t have a backyard. He has
8 done his best to do this the right way. With an 800-sf pool including 4 feet of concrete around
9 it. They are way below the impervious allotment. The shed will be removed. With an 8-foot
10 variance there would still be 37 feet to the street.
11
12 Commissioner Morita noted the fence would line up with the front porch. Mr. Farah stated he
13 does not want to encroach his neighbor’s property.
14
15 Acting Chair Socha stated she reviewed the code showing 6-foot-high fence surrounding a
16 pool for safety reasons. This is not really a height variance; it is for the distance variance. She
17 feels the request is reasonable.
18
19 Commissioner Rude asked if notice was given to the surrounding residents and Mr. Grittman
20 stated notice was given with no response.
21
22 Acting Chair Socha closed the public hearing at 7:35 p.m.
23
24 Motion by Commissioner Rude, seconded by Commissioner Hendrickson, to recommend the
25 City Council approve the request for 3501 Maplewood Dr. Variance – Fence Height Located
26 in the Front Yard Setback.
27
28 Motion carried 5-0.
29
30 Mr. Grittman noted this item will go before the City Council on November 9, 2021 at their
31 Regular Meeting.
32
B.33 2912 Crestview Dr. Variance – Encroach into the Required Setbacks for Patio,
34 Driveway, Shed and to Exceed Impervious Surface Maximums.
35
36 Chair Westrick opened the public hearing at 7:36 p.m.
37
38 City Planner Stephen Grittman reviewed the applicant has constructed a series of
39 improvements to their property at the above address, including increased driveway width, a
40 rear yard patio, and a rebuilt shed in the rear corner of the property. For the concrete work, the
41 applicable setback for driveways and patios is 5 feet. Both surfaces have been constructed
42 with a 2-foot setback, according to the sketch materials provided by the applicant.
43
44 The shed was constructed in its current location as a replacement for a prior shed that was in
45 poor repair. The original structure was 10 feet by 10 feet, and placed up to the property lines
46 both to the north and west. The applicant’s new shed is 10 feet by 20 feet, also placed adjacent
Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes
October 19, 2021
Page 4
1 to the property line with a zero setback. For such buildings, a setback requirement of 5 feet
2 applies, although an existing non-conforming structure can be replaced in its prior location,
3 provided the non-conformity is not increased.
4
5 Staff’s estimates of impervious surface cover – including all paved areas and the areas of the
6 shed and home, totals approximately 42.5%. For single family parcels less than 9,000 square
7 feet, an impervious surface maximum of 40% is required. As such, on this lot of 8,732 square
8 feet, the allowable impervious area is exceeded by approximately 220 square feet.
9
10 Staff has reviewed for use, setbacks and impervious surface, among other standards. Based on
11 the material presented by the applicant, and the requirements for variance consideration in the
12 City’s zoning ordinance, Staff recommends approval of a portion of the driveway setback
13 encroachment, denial o the patio setback encroachment, denial of the shed setback
14 encroachment, and denial of the impervious surface variance. Because these improvements
15 were completed prior to permitting or zoning approval, denial of the variances noted would
16 require removal of some of the improvements made to the property.
17
18 Four separate variances are necessary to accommodate the improvements that the applicant
19 has made to the property as follows:
20
1.21 Side Yard Setback Variance for Driveway, reducing the required 5-foot setback to 2 feet.
22 Staff recommends approval, based on a finding that the current garage and driveway are
23 inadequate to provide reasonable access and parking area on the property, and that further
24 expansion to the interior of the lot would create other zoning issues.
2.25 Side Yard Setback Variance for Patio, reducing the required 5-foot setback to 2 feet. Staff
26 recommends denial, based on a finding that the threshold requirements for unique
27 conditions and definition of reasonable use are not met according to the requirements of
28 the zoning ordinance for variance consideration. A portion of the patio should be removed
29 to meet the 5-foot setback.
3.30 Side and Rear Yard Setback Variance for Shed Expansion from 5 feet to 0 feet. Staff
31 recommends denial, based on a finding that the threshold requirements for unique
32 conditions and definition of reasonable use are not met according to the requirements of
33 the zoning ordinance for variance consideration. The applicant may choose to remove a
34 portion of the shed to retain the prior non-conformity setbacks for a 10’ by 10’ shed or
35 relocate the expanded shed to meet the 5-foot setback.
4.36 Impervious Surface Variance from 40% maximum coverage to 43% coverage. Staff
37 recommends denial, based on a finding that the threshold requirements for unique
38 conditions and definition of reasonable use are not met according to the requirements of
39 the zoning ordinance for variance consideration. The applicant should work with Code
40 Enforcement to remove at least 220 square feet of impervious area (this amount based on
41 staff estimates) or provide a survey that demonstrates a different amount of removal to
42 meet the maximum allowable coverage of 40% (3,715 square feet).
43
44 Mr. Grittman offered 3 alternatives for each of the 4 decisions.
45
Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes
October 19, 2021
Page 5
1 Commissioner Kuykendall asked if the patio was a deck would the setback requirements be
2 the same and Mr. Grittman stated the requirements are the same.
3
4 Commissioner Hendrickson asked if someone with a mobility device could manage on a
5 smaller patio without issue and Mr. Grittman stated normally the width for accessibility is 3
6 feet and the patio is larger.
7
8 Commissioner Morita asked the purpose of a 5-foot setback for a shed. Mr. Grittman stated
9 the purpose is to allow for the homeowner to get around the shed for maintenance as well as
10 an erosion issue.
11
12 Acting Chair Socha stated could the shed be made smaller, the same as the previous shed. Mr.
13 Grittman stated that would be approved.
14
15 Commissioner Rude stated the homeowner could put a 6- foot fence. There is a very tall
16 garage next door. The biggest problem he has is with the driveway.
17
18 Commissioner Morita stated with winter restrictions and no on-street parking sometimes
19 parking in a driveway that is not wide enough is an issue. He believes there is a practical need
20 for a wider driveway given the accessibility concerns.
21
22 Commissioner Rude stated he does not think the driveway needed to go as wide as it is.
23
24 Acting Chair Socha asked Commissioner Rude if he was considering an alternative to reduce
25 the width of the driveway. Twenty feet would be needed for the accessibility van.
26
27 Commissioner Hendrickson stated she would prefer the applicants decide where they will cut
28 impervious rather than the Commission telling them what they needed to do.
29
30 Acting Chair Socha stated she agrees with Commissioner Rude that the driveway is not
31 aesthetically pleasing. Mr. Grittman stated there are a couple of feet between the driveways.
32
33 There was no further public comment.
34
35 Acting Chair Socha closed the public hearing at 8:02 p.m.
36
37 Mr. Grittman stated the portion of the driveway would not help the impervious percentage.
38
39 Commissioner Morita asked what if the property owner does nothing to resolve. Mr. Grittman
40 stated code enforcement would work with the owner with possible legal actions.
41
42 Motion by Commissioner Kuykendall, seconded by Commissioner Hendrickson, to
43 recommend the City Council approve 2912 Crestview Dr. Variance – Encroach into the
44 Required Setbacks for driveway variance requests.
45
46 Motion carried 3-2 (Socha and Rude against).
Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes
October 19, 2021
Page 6
1 Motion by Commissioner Kuykendall, seconded by Commissioner Rude, to recommend the
2 City Council deny 2912 Crestview Dr. Variance – Encroach into the Required Setbacks for
3 the Patio variance requests.
4
5 Motion carried 5-0.
6
7 Motion by Commissioner Kuykendall, seconded by Commissioner Morita, to recommend the
8 City Council deny 2912 Crestview Dr. Variance – Encroach into the Required Setbacks for
9 variance requests.
10
11 Motion carried 5-0.
12
13 Motion by Commissioner Rude, seconded by Commissioner Kuykendall, to recommend the
14 City Council deny 2912 Crestview Dr. Variance – variance request for Exceed Impervious
15 Surface Maximums.
16
17 Motion carried 5-0.
18
19 IV.STAFF REPORTS.
20
21 Mr. Grittman stated there was not a work session this evening but there will be one for the
22 November 16 meeting at 5:30 p.m. to consider a developer’s proposal for the gas station site.
23
24 V.OTHER BUSINESS.
25
26 Alayna Peterson is the student liaison to the Commission and is online via zoom this evening.
27
28 VI.COMMUNITY FORUM – NONE.
29
30 VII.INFORMATION AND ANNOUNCEMENTS – NONE.
31
32 VIII. ADJOURNMENT.
33
34 Motion by Commissioner Morita, seconded by Commissioner Rude, to adjourn the meeting at
35 8:15 p.m.
36
37 Motion carried 5-0.
38
39 Respectfully submitted,
40 Debbie Wolfe
41 TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc.
42
MEMORANDUM
To:St. Anthony Village Planning Commission
From:Stephen Grittman, City Planner
Date:Planning Commission Meeting – November 16, 2021
NAC Project No.323.01 – 21.09
Request:Request for a Preliminary and Final Plat for St Anthony Bremer Addition
Property Address:2654 Kenzie Terrace
Property PID:07-029-23-24-0021; 07-029-23-24-0020
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
The project consists of a plat of the development parcel for the Bremer Bank project from two
parcels into a single lot and dedication of right of way. The Plat, if approved, would create Lot
1, Block 1, of the St Anthony Bremer Addition. The plat is a requirement of the Final PUD
approvals granted to the Interstate/Bremer Planned Unit Development project which will
accommodate the construction of the new Bremer Bank on the City’s former “bowling alley”
property.
Staff has reviewed the project for land use compliance with the intent and policies of the City’s
Comprehensive Plan, and for zoning consistency with the Interstate-Bremer PUD as a baseline.
In summary, the proposed subdivision is consistent with the terms and requirements of the
approved Final PUD, adopted by the City Council in October of 2021.
GENERAL INFORMATION
Applicant:Interstate Development
Owner:St. Anthony Village HRA
Location:2654 Kenzie Terrace
Existing Land Use Vacant
Zoning:Planned Unit Development, Interstate-Bremer PUD
Surrounding Land North: Mixed Uses, zoned Commercial and Multi-Family PUD
November 16, 2021
Page 2
Use / Zoning:East: Retail Gas Station zoned Commercial
South: Commercial Retail, zoned Commercial
West: Multiple Family Residential, zoned PUD
Deadline for Agency Application Complete Date: October 28, 2021
Action:120 Days:February 25, 2022
ANALYSIS
1.Background
Earlier this fall, the City approved the Final PUD for the Interstate-Bremer Planned Unit
Development, consisting, in part, of a sale of vacant land from the City (HRA) to Interstate
Development for the purpose of constructing a new Bremer Bank facility. That land consists
of two existing parcels, one of which includes a small portion that extends into the “alley”
right of way for Coolidge Street on the southeast corner of the site.
The development parcels in question are shown on the zoning map below, although with
the PUD approval and publication, the zoning will be changed to add the Interstate-Bremer
PUD Overlay District.
As a condition of the Final PUD approval, the applicant is seeking a subdivision to create the
development parcel, with the required retention of the right of way, called Coolidge Street
on the official records.
November 16, 2021
Page 3
2.Analysis
Preliminary Plat
With only limited exceptions, the subdivision of a parcel into two or more development
parcels is done via a plat, which is a mapped and surveyed document recorded with the
County that will officially create the legal parcel. Platting is regulated by the Subdivision
Ordinance, which establishes two steps for consideration of a plat: Preliminary Plat and
Final Plat.
The Preliminary Plat is a record drawing that illustrates the subdivision lines, but also
includes a visual description of the improvements proposed as a part of the plat. The
purpose of the Preliminary Plat is to ensure that the proposed improvements on the new
parcel can be developed in accordance with the requirements of the City’s zoning, building,
engineering, and other public safety standards. In this case, the components of the
Preliminary Plat have been reviewed and incorporated into the PUD documents.
When a Plat is a part of a Planned Unit Development project, the platting aspect is often
subsumed by the PUD review, since the PUD will manage the several zoning particulars that
apply to the site. A PUD is treated as a single development site – even though it may be
broken up into several separate legal land parcels.
November 16, 2021
Page 4
When this project was initially conceived, the applicants utilized the PUD process to define
the various aspects of the proposal, including Architecture, Site Planning, Grading and
Drainage control, Utility services, Emergency vehicle response, and every other factor. With
the PUD in place, development details are specified under the terms of the PUD zoning and
development agreements. As such, the subdivision raises very few new issues that have not
already been addressed by the PUD zoning.
The standard for reviewing a Preliminary Plat is whether the proposed plat conforms to the
requirements of the applicable zoning, and the goals and objectives of the Comprehensive
Plan. As noted, the applicable zoning in this case is the Silver Lake Village PUD, which will be
unaffected by the subdivision. When Preliminary Plat is granted, the applicant obtains
some specific development rights, subject to meeting any attached preliminary plat
conditions, and final plat processing.
Final Plat.
The Final Plat is the recorded document that establishes the new parcel and boundaries.
The Final Plat is a simple map of the proposed subdivision land, without the development
details shown on the Preliminary Plat.
The standard for reviewing a Final Plat is very simple: does it conform to the requirements
and conditions of Preliminary Plat approval. If so, the City’s role in Final Plat consideration
is typically administrative. The Final Plat drawing is reviewed to ensure that it reflects
preliminary requirements, and is then ready for recording. The proposed Final Plat is
consistent with the submitted Preliminary Plat. Subject to final staff review, the plat
appears to be the proper form for approval and recording.
Grading, Drainage, and Utilities. Issues related to grading, drainage and utilities should be
subject to comment and recommendation by the City Engineer. The City Engineer has reviewed
the project at the PUD stage, and has noted that issues related to civil plans will require final
construction review, but none that will impact the Preliminary Plat documents or the general
site planning. Final engineering and public works review of these aspects of the plan would be
a condition of Plat approval.
Development Agreement. As a condition of Final Plat approval, the applicant would be
required to enter into a development agreement with the City and post all the necessary
securities required by it. While the PUD development agreement will continue to control all
aspects of site development, there are likely to be slight amendments required to
accommodate the changes in legal description and some of the phased improvements. The
applicant should expect to cooperate with any development agreement requirements in
concert with the PUD agreements in process.
3.Criteria for and Consistency with Criteria for Plat Approval. Title XV Land Usage, Chapter
151, Subdivision Code.
November 16, 2021
Page 5
SUMMARY AND STAFF/PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS
Preliminary and Final Plat for St Anthony Bremer Addition - Staff recommends approval with
the following conditions:
1.Access and utility easements shall be in place to accommodate the requirements of the
approved PUD development plans. Proof of such easements shall be provided to the City
as a part of the original or amended documentation.
2.Ongoing site development issues shall be subject to comment and recommendation by
the City Engineer, and may be modified to ensure consistency with the intent and
requirements of the PUD zoning.
3.Issues related to grading, drainage and utilities shall be subject to comment and
recommendation by the City Engineer.
4.The applicant enter into the PUD and/or plat development agreement with the City and
post all the necessary securities required by it.
5.Consideration of comments of other City Staff.
This recommendation is based on a finding that the proposal, with the conditions cited, is
consistent with the requirements for Plat consideration as required by the Subdivision
Ordinance, with the long-term objectives of the Interstate-Bremer PUD, and with the
recommendations and policies of the St. Anthony Comprehensive Plan.
ATTACHMENTS
Exhibit A:Location map
Exhibit B:Application and Supporting Material
Exhibit C: Draft City Council resolution
Dear Land Use Applicant:
As a part of the Land Use Permit you are seeking, you will be asked to provide funds to cover the
City’s expected costs of review and processing of your request. There are two components to this
amount.
The first is a base fee, which is a non-refundable amount. This fee covers several expenses,
including:
• The City’s costs of internal review of your application for completeness;
• Ensuring that all required materials are available to properly process your request;
• Public hearing notices which must be published in the City’s official newspaper (the Star
Tribune);
• Mailed notice to all neighboring property owners within 350 feet of your property;
• This base fee also covers a portion of the City’s costs in preparing staff reviews and reports to
the appropriate public officials who will consider and ultimately make a decision on your
request. For most applications, this includes the Planning Commission, which prepares an
advisory recommendation following a formal public hearing on the matter, and the City
Council, which makes the final decision. Other public bodies may be involved as well,
depending on the exact nature of your request.
The second component of the funds is an escrow amount, above the base fee. While the base fee
covers most of the fixed expenses, it is common that staff and consultant review will exceed the base
fee. To ensure that the costs of extraordinary review are not borne by neighbors, the City requires
the escrow from which to draw those costs.
You can minimize the amounts necessary to review your application by making sure it is complete
and clear. Properly drawn plans and thorough narrative descriptions all help to streamline the City’s
processing, which leads directly to lower costs.
Following the final decision on your application by the City Council, staff will account for costs and
review the escrow. If any funds remain, those will be refunded to you. It typically takes a couple of
months to assemble final invoices before the City’s finance department can reconcile the account.
The staff works diligently to finalize accounts as soon as possible, so please be patient. If you are
curious as to the status of your escrow, feel free to contact City Hall.
Before you begin this process, please consider a pre-application conference (by phone, email, or in
person) with City community development staff. We are ready to assist in helping you understand the
complexities of the review process, and the standards on which a potential application will be
considered. We can also advise you on the materials that will help ensure you have a complete and
clear application.
City of St. Anthony City Hall 612-782-3301
Thanks for your interest in improving your property and reinvesting in the St. Anthony Village
community.
Our Mission is to be a progressive and livable community, a walkable village, which is sustainable, safe and secure.
Address of Property Involved: _________________________________________________________________________
Property ID Number: _________________________________________________________________________________
Legal Description: ___________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
Applicant Information
Applicant Name: ____________________________________________________________________________________
Applicant Address: __________________________________________________________________________________
Applicant Telephone Number: ________________________________ Other: ___________________________________
Applicant Fax Number________________________________________________________________________________
Applicant Email Address: _____________________________________________________________________________
Property Information
Property Owner (if different from above):________________________________________________________________
Owner Address: _____________________________________________________________________________________
Owner Telephone Number: ___________________________________________________________________________
Owner Email Address: ________________________________________________________________________________
Type of Request (Check All that Apply)
Appeal ($500 fee + $1,500 escrow)
Comprehensive Plan Amendment ($750 fee + $1,500
escrow if residential; $3,500 escrow if
commercial/industrial)
Conditional Use Permit (CUP) ($1,000 fee+ $450 escrow if
residential; $1,500 escrow if commercial/industrial)
Easement Vacation ($200 fee + $500 escrow)
Preliminary Plat ($500 fee + $500 escrow)
Final Plat ($500 fee + $7500 escrow)
Minor Subdivision/Lot Split ($250 fee + $1,250
escrow)
Planned Unit Development (PUD) ($1,500 fee +
$2,500 escrow)
Rezoning ($750 fee + $1,500 escrow)
Zoning Text Amendment ($500 fee + $750 escrow)
Site Plan ($250 fee + $750 escrow)
Variance ($750 fee + $450 escrow if residential;
$1,500 escrow if commercial/industrial)
3301 Silver Lake Road
St. Anthony Village, Minnesota 55418
Office: (612) 782-3301
Fax: (612) 782-3302
www.savmn.com
-For Office Use Only-
Planning File Number _____________
Project Number _____________
Application Submittal Date _____________
Application Completed Date _____________
Fee Paid _____________
Receipt Number _____________
Planning Commission
Meeting Date _____________
Council Decision _____________
Council Decision Date _____________
LAND USE APPLICATION
Description of the Request (OR a separate detailed narrative explaining the project):
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
Filing and Information Requirements
The City recommends that you contact the planner prior to submission to discuss the application process, requirements,
and deadlines.
Incomplete Applications and Submission Deadline
A complete land use application (including all required fees and escrows) must be received at least 30 days prior to the
meeting of the Planning Commission or City Council meeting at which the request will be heard. Submission of an
incomplete application may delay the processing of your land use request. The application approval time commences
and an application is considered officially filed when the City Planner has received and examined the application and
determined that the application is complete. A decision on whether the application is complete or incomplete shall be
made within fifteen (15) working days following the submittal of the application. When the application is deemed to be
“complete” it shall be placed on the agenda of the first possible Planning Commission meeting provided that all required
public notices have been sent and published. Upon submission of a complete application, state statute requires that a
decision be issued within 60 days regarding each request; however, a 60-day extension may be obtained if more time is
needed.
Notice of Meeting Attendance
In order for the Planning Commission and the City Council to consider any application, the applicant or a designated
representative must be present at the scheduled meeting. If not, the matter may be tabled until the next available
agenda.
Agenda Deadline and Meeting Schedule
Planning Commission meetings are typically held on the third Tuesday of every month at 7:00 p.m., while City Council
meetings are held typically the second and fourth Tuesday of every month at 7:00 p.m. Meeting dates and times are
subject to change so please contact City Hall to verify the meeting date and time. All meetings are held at the St.
Anthony Community Center in the Council Chambers, 3301 Silver Lake Road, St. Anthony, Minnesota 55418, unless
otherwise stated. Applications are advised that additional meetings and/or workshops are scheduled when necessary.
Acknowledgement and Signature
I acknowledge that I have read all of the information listed in the City of St. Anthony Village Land Use Application and
fully understand that I am responsible for all costs incurred by the City related to the processing of this application. If
additional fees are required to cover costs incurred from processing of the application, the City has the right to require
additional payment from one or more of the undersigned, who shall be jointly liable for such fees. Such expenses may
include (but are not limited to) direct city payroll and overhead costs, fees paid to consultants and other professionals,
and the cost of printing, mailing, and supplies. Applicants are advised that an escrow deposit is required at the time of
the submittal of the land use application to offset costs associated with the proposed project. Unused portions of an
escrow are returned to the applicant upon successful implementation of an approved plan. I understand that approval
from other agencies may be required before commencement with the stated project.
__________________________________________________ __________________________
Property Owner Signature (Required) Date
__________________________________________________ __________________________
Applicant Signature (If different than the property owner) Date
Please contact the City Planner at 763-957-1100 or
planner@savmn.com if you have any questions regarding this application.
10/28/21
(80FT.W IDEDEDICATEDPUBLICRIGHTOFW AY)(60FT.WIDEDEDICATEDPUBLICRIGHTOFWAY)4060
8
0
CENTERLINEOFVACATEDSUNSETAVENUE
CENTERLINEOFCOOLIDGEST.NW 'LYLINEOFLOT2&ITSSW 'LYEXTENSION4040INGRESS&EGRESSEASEMENTPERDOC.NO.6485698S62°54'50"E172.07
N50°42'58"E168.74N62°54'10"W357.01 S01°12'10"E130.2034.07
S62°54'10"E
S01°12'10"E45.43S01°12'10"E45.43LOT1
BLOCK 1
34.07
322.94
COLLIDGESTREETDRAINAGE AND
UTILITY EASEMENT
DRAINAGE AND
UTILITY EASEMENT
ST. ANTHONY BREMER ADDITION
CITY COUNCIL, CITY OF ST. ANTHONY, MINNESOTA
This plat of ST. ANTHONY BREMER ADDITIONwas approved and accepted by the City Council of the City of St. Anthony Minnesota, at a regular meeting thereof held
this day of , 20 . and said plat is in compliance with the provisions of Minnesota Statutes, Section 505.03, Subdivision 2.
CITY COUNCIL, CITY OF ST. ANTHONY, MINNESOTA
By By
Mayor Clerk
RESIDENT AND REAL ESTATE SERVICES , Hennepin County, Minnesota
I hereby certify that taxes payable in 20 and prior years have been paid for land described on this plat, dated this day of , 20 .
Mark V. Chapin, County Auditor By
Deputy
SURVEY DIVISION , Hennepin County, Minnesota
Pursuant to MN. STAT. Sec. 383B.565 (1969) this plat has been approved this day of , 20 .
Chris F. Mavis, County Surveyor By
COUNTY RECORDER, Hennepin County, Minnesota
I hereby certify that the within plat of ST. ANTHONY BREMER ADDITION was recorded in this office this day of ,
20 , at o'clock .M.
Martin McCormick, County Recorder By
Deputy
KNOW ALL PERSONS BY THESE PRESENTS: That Interstate Development, partner of the following described property situated in the County of Hennepin, State of Minnesota, to
wit:
Lot 2, Block 2, St. Anthony Village Commercial Center Addition No. 1, Hennepin County, Minnesota.
Together with that part of vacated Sunset Avenue lying northeasterly of the centerline of vacated Sunset Avenue, between the extensions southwesterly of the northwesterly line of
said Lot 2 and the centerline of Collidge Street.
(Abstract Property)
Has caused the same to be surveyed and platted as ST. ANTHONY BREMER ADDITION and does hereby dedicate to the public for public use the public ways and the easements
for drainage and utility purposes as created by this plat.
In witness whereof said Interstate Development, has caused these presents to be signed by its proper officer this day of
, 20 .
Interstate Development
By
Its
STATE OF
COUNTY OF
This instrument was acknowledged before me on this day of , 20 , by , its
of Interstate Development, on behalf of the company.
(Signature)(Name Printed)
Notary Public, County, Minnesota
My Commission Expires
I, Christopher R. Foley, do hereby certify that this plat was prepared by me or under my direct supervision; that I am a duly Licensed Land Surveyor in the State of Minnesota; that
this plat is a correct representation of the boundary survey; that all mathematical data and labels are correctly designated on this plat; that all monuments depicted on this plat
have been, or will be correctly set within one year; that all water boundaries and wet lands, as defined in Minnesota Statutes, Section 505.01, Subd. 3, as of the date of this
certificate are shown and labeled on this plat; and all public ways are shown and labeled on this plat.
Dated this day of , 20 .
Christopher R. Foley, Land Surveyor
Minnesota License No. 55343
STATE OF MINNESOTA
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN
This instrument was acknowledged before me on this day of , 20 , by Christopher R. Foley.
(Signature)(Name Printed)
Notary Public, County, Minnesota
My Commission Expires
C.R. DOC. NO.
Scale in Feet
Denotes 1/2 inch by 14 inch iron rebar set
and marked by License No. 55343
Denotes Found Monument
Being 5 feet in width, unless otherwise indicated, and
adjoining lot lines, and 10 feet in width and adjoining
right-of-way lines as shown on the plat
Drainage and Utility Easements are shown thus:
(Not to Scale)10105
5
The northwesterly line of Lot 2, Block 2, ST. ANTHONY
VILLAGE COMMERCIAL CENTER ADDITION NO. 1, is
assumed to bear N50°42'58"E
0 20 40 60
NOTICE OF A PUBLIC HEARING
November 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 a request for a Preliminary and Final Plat for 2654 Kenzie Terrace to
create a single commercial parcel and dedication of right of way. This subdivision is a requirement from
the October 26, 2021 approval of the Final Plan PUD.
The Planning Commission agenda and packet item relating to this application 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 http://www.savmn.com/Calendar.aspx?EID=1230
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.
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.
The Planning Commission will make a recommendation regarding the proposed request to the City
Council for their meeting, tentatively to be scheduled on December 14, 2021 at 7:00 p.m. at City Hall.
Steve Grittman
City Planner
CITY OF SAINT ANTHONY VILLAGE
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION NO. _____________
A RESOLUTION APPROVING A REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY AND
FINAL PLAT AS “ST ANTHONY BREMER ADDITION”, CREATING
ONE DEVELOPMENT PARCEL AND RIGHT OF WAY DEDICATION,
SUBJECT TO THE REGULATIONS OF THE INTERSTATE-BREMER PUD
AT 2564 KENZIE TERRACE
WHEREAS, the City of St. Anthony Village previously approved a request from Interstate
Development for approval of a PUD, redeveloping various sites to accommodate a mix of uses,
including a retail bank facility on the subject property, with current PIDs as follows:
07-029-23-24-0021; 07-029-23-24-0020; and
WHEREAS, the property consists of two parcels located in the Interstate-Bremer PUD Overlay
district; and
WHEREAS, the subject lot has been vacant and owned by the City’s HRA; and
WHEREAS, the applicant proposes to plat the two parcels into a single developable lot, and
dedicate right of way in the City’s adjoining “alley”; and
WHEREAS, the development plans for the overall Interstate-Bremer PUD will not change as a
result of the plat; and
WHEREAS, the project continues to be consistent with the St. Anthony 2040 Comprehensive
Plan and with the final requirements of the Interstate-Bremer PUD; 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 Planning Commission held a public hearing on November 16, 2021 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 recommended approval of the Preliminary Plat and Final
Plat with the conditions noted in the Staff report, and as modified below; 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 mixed commercial and residential use.
2.The proposed improvements to the property are consistent with the character of the
neighborhood in which it is located.
3.The subdivision does not affect the development aspects of the PUD, and the terms of the
approved PUD continue to regulate the development project.
4.With the proposed plat, under conditions as recommended by the Planning Commission,
the proposed improvements constitute a reasonable use of the property.
5.The redevelopment of the subject site has been an important objective for the community,
including a highlighted goal of the Comprehensive Plan, and the subdivision furthers that
objective.
6.The proposed Plat of St Anthony Bremer Addition 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 Preliminary and Final Plat for the St Anthony Bremer Addition at 2654
Kenzie Terrace:
1.Access and utility easements shall be in place to accommodate the requirements of
the approved PUD development plans. Proof of such easements shall be provided
to the City as a part of the original or amended documentation.
2.Ongoing site development issues shall be subject to comment and recommendation
by the City Engineer, and may be modified to ensure consistency with the intent
and requirements of the PUD zoning.
3.Issues related to grading, drainage and utilities shall be subject to comment and
recommendation by the City Engineer.
4.The applicant enter into the PUD and/or plat development agreement with the City
and post all the necessary securities required by it.
5.Consideration of comments of other City Staff.
Passed in regular session of the City Council on the ___ day of ____, 2021.
____________________________________
Randy Stille, Mayor
ATTEST:____________________________
______________, City Clerk
Review for Administration: ____________________________________
Charlie Yunker, City Manager