Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPL PACKET 05172022CITY OF SAINT ANTHONY VILLAGE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AGENDA Tuesday, May 17, 2022 at 7:00 PM 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 Meeting Minutes PC 03 -15 -2022.PDF Public Hearing Staff Reports Other Business 2022 Pyramid Mission Statement Wendy Webster, Councilmember, presenting. ST ANTHONY PYRAMID MISSION STATEMENT 2022 -WW PRESENTING.PDF R -1 Zoning Amendments Discussion Steve Grittman, City Planner, presenting. R -1 ZONING AMENDMENTS -INTRO MEMO.PDF 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 Next Meeting: June 21, 2022 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. VII. VIII. A. Documents: B. Documents: IX. X. XI. CITY OF SAINT ANTHONY VILLAGEPLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AGENDATuesday, May 17, 2022 at 7:00 PMJoin 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 Meeting MinutesPC 03 -15 -2022.PDFPublic HearingStaff ReportsOther Business2022 Pyramid Mission StatementWendy Webster, Councilmember, presenting.ST ANTHONY PYRAMID MISSION STATEMENT 2022 -WW PRESENTING.PDFR-1 Zoning Amendments DiscussionSteve Grittman, City Planner, presenting. R -1 ZONING AMENDMENTS -INTRO MEMO.PDF 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 Next Meeting: June 21, 2022 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.VII.VIII.A.Documents:B. Documents: IX. X. XI. 1 CITY OF ST. ANTHONY 2 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 3 4 MARCH 15, 2022 5 7:00 p.m. 6 7 CALL TO ORDER. 8 9 Chair Socha called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. 10 11 PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE. 12 13 Chair Socha invited the Commission and the audience to join her in the Pledge of Allegiance. 14 15 ROLL CALL. 16 17 Commissioners Present:Chair Socha, Commissioners Erickson, Gaveske, Hendrickson, 18 Kukendall, Morita and Rude. 19 20 Absent:None. 21 22 Also Present: City Planner Stephen Grittman and Assistant to the City Manager 23 Nicole Miller. 24 25 26 I.APPROVAL OF THE MARCH 15, 2022 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 27 AGENDA. 28 29 Motion by Commissioner Morita, seconded by Commissioner Erickson, to approve the March 30 15, 2022 Planning Commission agenda. 31 32 Motion carried 6-0. 33 34 II.APPROVAL OF THE FEBRUARY 15, 2022 REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION 35 MEETING MINUTES. 36 37 Motion by Commissioner Gaveske, seconded by Commissioner Morita, to approve the 38 February 15, 2022, Regular Planning Commission Meeting Minutes. 39 40 Motion carried 6-0. 41 42 Commissioner Hendrickson joined the meeting at 7:04 p.m. 43 44 III.PUBLIC HEARING. 45 A.46 Conditional Use Permit - Fence Variance – 2812 27th Avenue. 47 48 Chair Socha opened the public hearing at 7:05 p.m. 49 Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes March 15, 2022 Page 2 1 City Planner Grittman reviewed the applicant Tom Archambault, on behalf of BLVD 2 Autoworks, is proposing to replace an existing six-foot-high fence located along a portion of 3 the west property line of is business (located at 2812 27th Avenue NE) that screens his 4 business property from the adjoining single family residential parcel. The proposed fence 5 would measure 8 feet in height which requires the processing of a conditional use permit. This 6 would provide better screening between the business and the adjacent resident. The neighbor 7 is in agreement with the request and will provide them with additional protection. Another 8 neighbor to the north also provided their support for the proposal. 9 10 The proposed 8 foot high fence would be erected in the same location upon the subject 11 property and is intended to improve screening between the automotive use and the abutting 12 single family residential property to the west. 13 14 Based on the information as submitted, and a review of the applicable ordinance, staff 15 recommends approval of the Conditional Use Permit, with conditions as follows: 16 1.17 The new fence shall satisfy all applicable fence construction requirements as outlined in 18 Section 150.073 of the Code. 2.19 Comments of other City Staff. 20 21 Mr. Grittman reviewed the background and Section 150.073 of the Code in detail. A drawing 22 of the property was provided for Commission review. 23 24 Staff recommends approval of the requested Conditional Use Permit to allow a fence 25 measuring 8 feet in height in the front yard of a commercial property located at 2812 27th 26 Avenue NE based on the following findings: 27 A.28 The proposed fence height will not negatively impact properties in the vicinity of the 29 subject site. B.30 The owner of the adjacent single-family home to the west is supportive of the proposed 31 fence height change as it will serve to improve screening of the abutting and higher 32 intensity automotive use. C.33 In consideration of existing maintenance issues, the new fence will visually improve the 34 area. 35 36 Mr. Tom Archambault spoke with the Commission via telephone. He noted his neighbor is in 37 agreement with the request and the benefit to the neighbors would be additional screening and 38 noise reduction from the business. The current fence needs to be replaced. The fence would be 39 solid boards. 40 41 Commissioner Rude asked what materials would be used for the fence. Mr. Archambault 42 stated it would be a wood fence. Commissioner Morita stated the CUP is for the fence height 43 and the code must be followed on other items such as materials. 44 45 Commissioner Erickson thanked Mr. Archambault for working with the neighbors regarding 46 this conditional use permit. Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes March 15, 2022 Page 3 1 2 Chair Socha closed the public hearing at 7:12 p.m. 3 4 Motion by Commissioner Kukendall, seconded by Commissioner Gaveske, to recommend 5 approval of the request for a conditional use permit to allow the construction of a fence of up 6 to 8 feet in height in the front yard of a commercial use, based on findings to be identified by 7 the Planning Commission following the public hearing, and direct staff to prepare resolution 8 declaring terms of the same and subject to the following conditions: 9 1.10 The new fence shall satisfy all applicable fence construction requirements as outlined in 11 Section 150.073 of the Code. 2.12 Comments of other City Staff. 13 14 Motion carried 7-0. 15 B.16 Code Amendments Revisions. 17 18 Chair Socha opened the public hearing at 7:13 p.m. 19 20 Mr. Grittman provided an update to the table-form list of proposed amended language for 21 Planning Commission consideration. The changes are based on the discussion held at the 22 February meeting. Staff noticed a public hearing for the March Planning Commission meeting 23 to formally consider the proposed language, and make any final edits or recommendations, 24 prior to sending the material onto City Council for consideration. 25 26 The table includes the original language in black, the previously proposed changes in redline, 27 and new additions/changes in blue. Text that is proposed to carryover from the existing code 28 is referenced in the second column. The third column provides some commentary explaining 29 the purpose of the changes (or in a few cases, why no change is proposed). New information 30 in this section is bolded for clarity. 31 32 Mr. Grittman noted as before, the Commission is not expected to address the boundaries of 33 the districts. The Comprehensive Plan’s recommendations are to retain the existing zoning 34 pattern, with the primary change being a consideration of integrating more residential 35 development into the commercial zones. 36 37 Mr. Grittman provided the relevant Comprehensive Plan language, and the two zoning 38 districts for review, along with the table-form amendments as noted above. The Planning 39 Commission is asked to provide comments and thoughts on the proposals at the meeting and 40 public hearing, after which staff will prepare formal ordinances amendments for City Council 41 consideration. 42 43 Staff recommends approval of the proposed amendments to the Commercial and Light 44 Industrial zoning districts as reflected in the provided ordinance redline version, with final 45 comments and edits from the Commission following the public hearing. 46 Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes March 15, 2022 Page 4 1 Chair Socha referred to the light industrial section (152.141) under permitted uses – motor 2 vehicle repair – no junked, inoperable or unlicensed vehicles can be kept on the property. She 3 believes this is vague. Mr. Grittman stated “kept” does not have a definition but the intent is 4 they would not be on the property. In other communities, without this type of language 5 vehicles are stored for parts. These types of vehicles would not be allowed on the property. 6 7 Commissioner Kukendall referred to a yard on Stinson between 33rd and 29th that this may 8 apply to. He has seen vehicles there but does not know the status of those vehicles. Chair 9 Socha stated she believes they would be grandfathered in and she is familiar with that 10 property. Commissioner Kukendall suggested adding abandoned to the section. Chair Socha 11 suggested adding the words that are not actively undergoing repairs. 12 13 Commissioner Rude asked about someone restoring a truck or bus and taking their time. Chair 14 Socha stated perhaps adding 24 hours to the verbiage. Mr. Grittman stated the City would not 15 know if it is being worked on or not and the burden would be on the City to prove. 16 Commissioner Rude asked if we want vehicles being worked on outside. Commissioner 17 Morita stated it may be better leave it as it is and adding verbiage would create a loophole. 18 Mr. Grittman suggested it can apply to vehicles parked outside. Chair Socha agreed. 19 Commissioner Rude suggested leaving it as it is because if it isn’t outside we wouldn’t know. 20 The consensus was to leave the wording as it is currently. 21 22 Chair Socha stated she liked the wording regarding EV charging stations. 23 24 Chair Socha closed the public hearing at 7:30 p.m. 25 26 Motion by Commissioner Morita, seconded by Commissioner Hendrickson, to recommend 27 approval of the proposed amendments to the Commercial and Light Industrial zoning districts 28 as reflected in the ordinance redline version. 29 30 Motion carried 7-0. 31 32 IV.STAFF REPORTS. 33 34 Mr. Grittman noted Council acted on the recommendation for the application for a 35 comprehensive plan amendment. The Council expressed appreciation for the Planning 36 Commission’s work. 37 38 Mr. Grittman asked if a planning commissioner is interested in presenting the fence cup to the 39 City Council on April 12, 2022. Mr. Grittman will attend and present. 40 41 Mr. Grittman noted the zoning map will be reviewed by the City Council. 42 43 Commissioner Rude stated properties may need to be torn down to make way for higher 44 density buildings. Chair Socha clarified the Urban Growth Mobile Home Community is 45 currently zoned as single family which is not consistent with the zoning or Comprehensive 46 Plan. The suggestion was it be rezoned in the future. Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes March 15, 2022 Page 5 1 2 V.OTHER BUSINESS – NONE. 3 4 VI.COMMUNITY FORUM. 5 6 No one appeared to address the Planning Commission. 7 8 VII.INFORMATION AND ANNOUNCEMENTS. 9 10 VIII. ADJOURNMENT. 11 12 Motion by Commissioner Rude, seconded by Commissioner Morita, to adjourn the meeting at 13 7:40 p.m. 14 15 Motion carried 7-0. 16 17 18 Respectfully submitted, 19 Debbie Wolfe 20 TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc. 21 2022 Mission To be a progressive and welcoming Village that is walkable, sustainable and safe. ………………………………………………………… VISIO N Saint Anthony is an innovative and vibrant community that values our unique environment, providing a full range of quality services, and is a thriving city in which all people can live, work, learn and play. ………………………………………………………………… Environmental Stewardship STR A TEGI C INIT I A T IVE S Safe, Sound & Progressive Community G O A L S Environmental Responsibility Quality Infrastructure Civic Engagement Thriving Neighborhoods Communicate Transparently & Effectively Safe & Secure Community Fiscal & Organizational Strength A C T I O N S T E P S Continue phosphorus reduction initiative Continue a rain barrel & rain garden workshop Maintain highest GreenStep Cities status Promote Annual Water Challenge Continue solar garden participation & explore expansion Continue Fix-it Clinics & TechDump Maintain Tree City certification Comply with MPCA MS4 Phase 2 Explore single-hauler organized collection of recycling, waste, organics Explore traffic safety on County roads Continue LED lighting upgrades city-wide Review adequacy of public facilities Water Tower and Ground Storage Facility Maintenance Seek electric vehicle charging station grants Complete 2022 street utility project Explore options for connecting Mpls Park Board Grand Rounds Missing Link Explore green space vs. density in Silver Lake Village Explore green space options in southern SAV Explore Dog Park Support Police Department Strategic Initiatives Continue Family Services Collaborative initiatives support Participate in Night to Unite Continue youth engagement activities Attract diverse attendees to the Community Academy Encourage engagement with City commissions Expand locations of Coffee w/t Council Monitor flavored tobacco ordinances in surrounding cities Plan future Sister Cities visit to Salo Evaluate services/ policies/procedures through equitable lens Ensure city code reflects sustainability initiatives Explore redevelopment of City-owned property Enhance Mental Health Awareness & Resources for staff Improve welcoming of new residents to St. Anthony Village Monitor trends related to single family zoning district density/uses Explore limits on rental licenses of single family homes Enhance sustainability tour interactive map Enhance use of imagery & videos in city communications Explore options for Mass Emergency Communications Build upon existing engagement with community orgs. Implement enhancements to city newsletter Conduct community survey to help inform decisions Enhance official notification avenues for public hearings Continue operational audits of police officer body cameras Continue public safety community outreach opportunities Explore pedestrian & bike-friendly routes Participate in public safety joint mental health initiatives Foster connection to mental health services for residents with existing resources Upgrade Police Department Records Management System Explore Fire Department Medical Skillset Expansion Continue in regional engagement regarding public safety Track grant outcomes & locate new opportunities Maintain cooperative ventures with other entities & explore expansion Support professional development Review staffing, compensation, benefits and organizational structure Expand online city services on website Develop exit plan for existing TIF districts Establish sanitary sewer Inflow & Infiltration reduction policy Plan 2023 budget and tax levy Underline indicates link to referenced plan on the city’s website Box indicates new or revised for 2022 Quality Infrastructure Robust Technology Quality Housing & Commercial / Industrial Properties Welcoming Village DRAFT C O R E V A L U E S …………………………………………………………………………….. Supportive Effective Responsible Visionary Innovative Courteous Exemplary MEMORANDUM To:St. Anthony Village Planning Commission From:Stephen Grittman, City Planner Date:Planning Commission Regular Meeting for May 17, 2022 RE:R-1 Zoning District – Options for Amendment The purpose of this memorandum is to initiate a discussion over the potential for expanding buildable area on single family parcels in St. Anthony. The simple impetus for this discussion is to consider whether there are opportunities to allow more significant reinvestment in existing housing stock given a changing expectation for single family home design. St. Anthony has demonstrated a strong interest in its single family neighborhoods for a variety of reasons. However, without continuing private reinvestment in housing stock, and attention to the wider residential housing market, there can result a loss in interest, and the fear of housing decline over the longer term. This discussion is intended to head off this potential before it can become a factor in the community’s single family neighborhoods – preserving what is valued, and enhancing those aspects to best take advantage of the community’s housing opportunities. One of the considerations for maintaining the health of single family neighborhoods is allowing homeowners to reinvest in their homes, and consider adding space to accommodate changing demands and patterns of single home use. Among these are an increased need for home office space, and in the case of many of the homes in St. Anthony, more contemporary interior spaces such as dining and kitchen design, owner’s suites and expanded bathroom square footage, entertainment spaces, and others. While considering increasing the livable areas or significantly remodeling homes that were built and designed in the 1940s and 1950s, there are external impacts on neighborhood livability as well. Increasing buildable area on smaller lots will have a visual impact on the streetscape. It can also impact function of the single family lot, which is typically intended to accommodate outdoor recreation space (room to play with children on a lawn, entertain guests on a deck or patio, etc.). Cities that grew up with this suburban model in mind were designed to rely on the availability of private outdoor space. One of the impacts of this pattern is reducing what had been (prior to suburban development) a greater emphasis on small pocket and “tot-lot” style parks. Thus, the availability of private suburban lawn for recreation lessened the need for short walks to public spaces. For fully developed communities like St. Anthony, retrofitting neighborhoods with tot-lot style parks is often impractical, thus, retaining this private recreation role is an important consideration. May 17, 2022 Page 2 Those 1940s and 1950s homes were designed and built when it was common for households to have (maybe) a single car, and limited need to storage space. Current lifestyles have changed that dramatically, with two or more personal automobiles the norm, and a significant increase in the need (or at least desire) for more personal storage. In some communities, desirable land values have driven a trend (and a concurrent controversy) toward tear-downs and replacement on small single family lots with homes of much larger mass – reduced setbacks, taller multi-story homes that have raised issues of shadowing and neighborhood architectural character. Complicating this exercise further is an interest – and need – in managing stormwater and flood control, which has historically been an issue for the community. Every increase in square footage will have a cumulative impact on treatment of stormwater. Thus, there are certain to be other mitigating factors to consider before any changes are made to lot buildability. Staff has asked the City Engineer to provide some discussion of management techniques the City may consider if increased impervious surface is a limiting design element. In the sketches below, we have created three scenarios for Planning Commission consideration and comment. They represent common – although not every – type of single family lot/building arrangement. Each sketch includes a few options to consider for potential reductions in building setbacks. Each will accommodate some measure of new building opportunities for homeowners, but will also have impacts on both lot usage and neighborhood character. Staff would like to discuss each option at the upcoming Planning Commission meeting to determine the levels of acceptability, and perhaps the pros and cons of each idea. From this discussion, we would hope to gain clarity as to what outstanding questions there might be – and what additional research the Commission would like staff to conduct. Eventually, we hope to arrive at a consensus as to the possible changes, at which time we would prepare formal ordinance language to be considered at a public hearing. For reference, the typical requirements for a single family home in St. Anthony are as follows: Lot Area – 9,000 square feet Corner Lot – 11,000 square feet Lot Width – 75 feet Corner Lot – 90 feet Front Setback – 30 feet from property line(ROW)Corner lot – 30 feet from both rights of way Side Setback – 5 feet minimum, 15 feet total between the two sides Rear Setback – 25 feet, or 20% of the depth of the lot Impervious Surface – 35% for lots >9,000 sf Impervious Surface - 40% for lots <9,000 sf Building Height – 25 feet/2 stories Encroachments – Various site elements (patios, decks, stairs, and other features) generally extend 5 feet into the required front setback, and to a 5 foot setback in side or rear yards May 17, 2022 Page 3 Scenario 1 – Typical single family home – Garage front to street In this scenario, the possible expansions to discuss are the following: A – Front Yard setback reduction to 20 feet for the livable area, and retain a required 30 foot setback for the garage. This change would allow the living area of homes to be 10 feet closer to the street, but require that garages maintain the 30 foot setback, ensuring that cars parked in the driveway do not encroach on the boulevard space or sidewalk. B – Side Yard setback reduction to 5 feet on either side, not just one side. This change would have the effect of reducing the overall spacing between homes on a block to a total of 10 feet of building separation, rather than the average of 15 feet separation currently. One aspect of this change is that it may be only sparingly used, since expansion projects that create only 5 feet of additional width would be disproportionately expensive on a square foot basis. C – Rear Yard setback reduction to 15 feet for 50% of the width of the principal structure. This change would allow property owners to construct a rear expansion to within 15 feet of the rear property line (reduced from 30 feet), but for just half of the width of the home. The purpose would be to retain some rear yard area for open green or patio space. May 17, 2022 Page 4 Scenario 2 – Typical single family home - Lot with Alley Access In this scenario, 4 possible (but usually smaller) expansions could be considered A – A reduced front yard expansion toward the street, to a distance of 20 feet rather than the required 30 feet. An option with this change would be to only allow one-half of the building width to encroach, rather than the entire width of the house. This change would create a visual impact on the streetscape view of the neighborhood. Because there is no driveway access to the front, however, on-site parking is not an issue for these front yards. B – As with Scenario 1, an option to expand into the side yard of the home to create two 5-foot wide side yards, rather than the 5 feet and 10 feet minimums that typically apply. Again, this change would have an impact on the overall spacing of houses on any particular block. See note in Scenario 1 as to expense. C – This option would permit the rear expansion of the home to create a rear building expansion, even to the extent of creating an attached garage out of the existing detached garage. The issue raised by this option is how the City might treat the rear building expansion in Scenario 1, which would require a 15 foot setback (if considered as proposed), but here a newly-attached garage would be set at a 5 foot rear setback from the alley. One reason lesser alley setbacks are often allowed is that the building separation from the house to the rear is not as great, with the alley separating the two properties. D – This option is similar to that of item B if livable area is permitted to expand to the side to a 5 foot setback. Detached garages are already allowed to be constructed with a 5 foot side yard. May 17, 2022 Page 5 Scenario 3 – Typical single family lot – Corner lot arrangement A – Front setback reduction for livable area exposed to the street, reduced from 30 feet to 20 feet. Again, the garage front would retain a greater setback (see note D below). B- This change is the largest of the various changes, potentially reducing the required side yard on a corner lot from 30 feet to 20 feet or even 15 feet. For most corner lots, the side yard facing the street is the least usable large land area on a single family parcel. It has traditionally been required to meet the same 30 foot setback as the front, under the expectation that “spaciousness” is the value being pursued in suburban neighborhoods. The primary issue for some lots would be that for the neighbor’s parcel below the one shown, their front would be facing the Corner side street, and would be required to have a greater setback than this encroachment, if allowed. Synching a change to the front setback with this corner side encroachment may be a consideration. C – This is a rear yard expansion similar to that discussed above, permitting a rear building expansion to reduce the required setback from 30 feet to 20 feet for a portion of the building width. D – This option could also apply to Scenario 1, which would be to allow garage setbacks to the front yard to be reduced from 30 feet to 25 feet. This dimension would still allow passenger vehicles to park in the driveway without encroaching into the boulevard portion of the right of way or over the sidewalk. As a part of this consideration, the longest passenger vehicle is an extended cab pickup with an overall length of 20’-6”. Most passenger vehicles are 18 feet in length or less.