Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPL PACKET 07192022CITY OF SAINT ANTHONY VILLAGE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AGENDA Tuesday, July 19, 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 05 -17 -2022.PDF Public Hearing Code Amendment Request - Fence Height Steve Grittman, City Planner, presenting. COVER MEMO.PDF APPLICATION.PDF PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT.PDF Staff Reports Other Business R -1 Zoning Amendments Updates Steve Grittman, City Planner, presenting. R -1 SETBACK UPDATE COVER MEMO.PDF R -1 ZONING AMENDMENTS -INTRO MEMO PRESENTED IN MAY.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: August 16th 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. A. Documents: IX. X. XI. CITY OF SAINT ANTHONY VILLAGEPLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AGENDATuesday, July 19, 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 05 -17 -2022.PDFPublic HearingCode Amendment Request - Fence HeightSteve Grittman, City Planner, presenting.COVER MEMO.PDFAPPLICATION.PDFPUBLIC HEARING NOTICE ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT.PDFStaff ReportsOther BusinessR-1 Zoning Amendments UpdatesSteve Grittman, City Planner, presenting. R -1 SETBACK UPDATE COVER MEMO.PDF R -1 ZONING AMENDMENTS -INTRO MEMO PRESENTED IN MAY.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: August 16th 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.A. Documents: IX. X. XI. 1 CITY OF ST. ANTHONY 2 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 3 MAY 17, 2022 4 7:00 p.m. 5 6 CALL TO ORDER. 7 8 Chair Socha called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. 9 10 PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE. 11 12 Chair Socha invited the Commission and the audience to join her in the Pledge of Allegiance. 13 14 ROLL CALL. 15 16 Commissioners Present:Chair Socha, Commissioners Erickson, Hendrickson, and Rude. 17 18 Absent:Commissioners Kukendall, Morita, and Gaveske. 19 20 Also Present: City Planner Stephen Grittman, Assistant to the City Manager Nicole 21 Miller and Student Liaison Alayna Peterson. 22 23 24 I.APPROVAL OF THE MAY 17, 2022 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 25 AGENDA. 26 27 The agenda was approved as presented. 28 29 II.APPROVAL OF THE MARCH 15, 2022, REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION 30 MEETING MINUTES. 31 32 Motion by Commissioner Erickson, seconded by Commissioner Rude, to approve the March 33 15, 2022, Regular Planning Commission Meeting Minutes. 34 35 Motion carried 4-0. 36 37 III.PUBLIC HEARING – NONE. 38 39 IV.STAFF REPORTS 40 41 City Planner Grittman provided an update on items recommended by the Commission and 42 adopted by the City Council. He noted that the Council was very complimentary about the 43 work of the Planning Commission and wanted to express that appreciation for the work on the 44 recent ordinances. 45 46 V.OTHER BUSINESS. 47 A.48 2022 Pyramid Mission Statement 49 Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes May 17, 2022 Page 2 1 Councilmember Webster provided background information on the goal setting that has 2 occurred in recent years. She thanked the Commission noting that some of the goals related to 3 planning are in addition to the normal workload of the Commission and helps the City address 4 trends and plan for the future. She stated that each of the steps is meant to bring them closer 5 to accomplishing the pyramid mission statement. She welcomed any questions the 6 Commission may have. 7 8 Commissioner Erickson asked for more details on changes that were made. Councilmember 9 Webster noted a boxed area that denotes some of the changes from 2021 to 2022 and 10 highlighted some of those changes and/or additions. She also provided details on the 11 proposed resident survey, noting that a link will be available for residents that are not chosen 12 for the sampling to still complete the survey. 13 14 Chair Socha commented that sometimes the discussions of the Planning Commission go 15 beyond the scope of planning, including economic development. She asked if it would be 16 appropriate for the Commission to also forward comments on other topics in the pyramid 17 outside of planning, as many elements work together, and the Commission members care 18 about more than just planning topics. Councilmember Webster acknowledged the complexity 19 of some of the issues brought before the Planning Commission. She agreed that it is hard to 20 only view something in one lens because issues are intertwined. She welcomed those 21 comments as it helps her to think about unintended consequences and different perspectives. 22 23 Commissioner Hendrickson referenced a new item that mentions comparing greenspace to 24 density in Silver Lake Village and asked for more details. Councilmember Webster 25 referenced the gas station complex at 39th and Stinson Boulevard which the City purchased 26 several years ago. She stated that there has been a proposal to build 38 units with the same 27 floor plan that was already constructed to the south and therefore they are attempting to be 28 mindful of the greenspace that is available. She noted that the highest concentration of 29 children live in apartments, and they do not always have walkable access to greenspace. She 30 stated that they may need to be more intentional about where they plan for greenspace. 31 32 Commissioner Hendrickson agreed that there is a lot of asphalt in that area and there would be 33 a great potential for improvement in that area. 34 B.35 R-1 Zoning Amendments Discussion 36 37 City Planner Grittman explained the purpose of this item is to initiate a discussion over the 38 potential for expanding buildable area on single family parcels in St. Anthony. The simple 39 impetus for this discussion is to consider whether there are opportunities to allow for more 40 significant reinvestment in existing housing stock given a changing expectation for single 41 family home design. He noted St. Anthony has demonstrated a strong interest in its single- 42 family neighborhoods for a variety of reasons. 43 44 Chair Socha stated that she did not see anything in the report proposing a change from the 35 45 to 45 percent impervious surface requirements and asked if that is proposed to stay the same. 46 Mr. Grittman stated that the engineer does not recommend changing those numbers but noted Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes May 17, 2022 Page 3 1 that on a case-by-case basis they could review different ways to treat water. He confirmed 2 that a variance could be used, but if that became a common request, he would suggest adding 3 a process into Code. 4 5 Chair Socha commented that if the impervious surface is not changing, she would question 6 whether there would be room for expansion on the lots. Mr. Grittman commented that it 7 would vary. He recognized that there are properties against that limit now and others close to 8 the threshold. He agreed that building up would be an option and noted that there are some 9 properties that do not have that issue and would have room to expand within the threshold. 10 11 Mr. Grittman recognized the suburban trend for private properties to have their own 12 greenspace and away from pocket park spaces. He stated that if they consume more of the 13 greenspace on private properties, they would need to be mindful of the overall greenspace 14 system in the community. 15 16 Mr. Grittman commented that he provided three scenarios in the case that reflect a general 17 summary of single-family lot conditions. He welcomed input from the Commission. 18 19 Chair Socha commented that it was well laid out and she did not have any questions on the 20 scenarios. 21 22 Commissioner Rude stated that he would like to discuss the overall philosophy before they go 23 too far. He noted that the biggest pressure from the Metropolitan Council is related to density 24 and was unsure that this would equate to higher density. He stated that this only seems to lend 25 itself to bigger homes and was unsure that was the direction they wanted to go. Mr. Grittman 26 stated that many families are already occupying their bedrooms and therefore are using their 27 kitchen table to home office and have expressed that they need additional space to function 28 long-term. He noted that if they cannot add onto their home, the option would be to move to a 29 larger home and therefore this would attempt to provide the opportunity for families to add on 30 to their home and remain in their neighborhood. He recognized that it could change the 31 character of the neighborhood. 32 33 Commissioner Erickson stated that allowing as many changes to a property as feasible would 34 lend itself to a property being more marketable and desirable. He asked the degree of this 35 being an issue in Saint Anthony and whether there are a lot of people that want to expand but 36 cannot because of the setback requirements. Mr. Grittman replied that he has handled a 37 handful of calls with homeowners expressing that interest, as well as from architects working 38 with residents. He noted that home officing is one reason for the request, but aging residents 39 also want to expand without building up as stairs are an issue for those residents. 40 41 Commissioner Rude referenced the apartments that have setbacks near the streets and believes 42 that takes away from the luxury of the community. He stated that he would not anticipate the 43 single-family home stock changing. He stated that this would allow larger homes at the 44 impact of the neighbors. He stated that the reduced setbacks would impact greenspace and 45 trees and therefore he views this as a difficult trade off. He stated that he does want to 46 encourage building and improving but believes the setback provide the luxury feel of living in Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes May 17, 2022 Page 4 1 a single-family community. He believed that reducing the setbacks to that extent would be 2 the wrong way to go if the intention is to keep the housing stock valuable. 3 4 Chair Socha recalled from previous discussions that the community is a suburb, and they have 5 smaller typical lot sizes that other suburbs. She asked if that is accurate. She noted that if the 6 lot sizes are smaller, there would seem to be a reason to preserve the greenspace that they 7 have. She asked if there are trends in surrounding cities to reduce setbacks to allow for 8 expansion. Mr. Grittman replied that Saint Anthony was developed with 8,000 to 9,000 9 square foot lot size range, which is smaller than some of the other communities which he 10 believed use 10,000 to 11,000 during their main development period. He stated that there are 11 some other communities, such as Saint Louis Park, that have smaller lots of about 6,000 12 square feet. He stated that 10,000 to 12,000 square foot lots become more common as the 13 legacy standard for second ring suburban areas. He commented that there is a trend in moving 14 that backward as developers continue to seek 60-foot lots, 7,000 to 8,000 square feet in size in 15 attempt to provide affordability to buyers. He referenced a recent conversation with a 16 developer proposing a project 25 miles from the metro that stated 65-foot lots are needed to 17 provide affordability and those homes still started at $450,000. He stated that many 18 communities are beginning to rethink setbacks, and some have considered allowing accessory 19 dwelling units. He noted that the Council has stated that it is not interested in pursuing 20 accessory dwelling units. He commented that many of the communities that developed in the 21 20s and 30s have struggled to find a way to keep their single-family neighborhoods vital, 22 noting that at some time there is a point where the housing stock needs to be updated and 23 invested in to suit the needs of families. 24 25 Commissioner Erickson commented that it seems that Edina, Minneapolis, and Golden Valley 26 have perhaps changed their setbacks as he notices more older homes being torn down and new 27 homes constructed. He commented that his neighborhood was primarily constructed in the 28 60s and the homes are perhaps above the average square footage but are not large. He stated 29 that does not leave many options for younger families with more than two children and 30 therefore believes something should be done. He stated that the issue that would give him the 31 most pause would be the scenario related to the front setback as that would change the 32 character when driving down the street. He noted that he would be interested in obtaining 33 examples where that has been done. Mr. Grittman commented that he is confident that he 34 could find such examples to share. He agreed that there would be a visual impact to that 35 change. 36 37 Chair Socha recalled a requirement related to average setback and asked if that would remain 38 or whether that would be changed as well. Mr. Grittman replied that if the front setback were 39 changed, that requirement would also need to be removed or changed. 40 41 Commissioner Rude commented that if a home would be allowed to expand in the backyard, 42 he would want to see a height restriction to minimize impacts to neighboring properties. He 43 commented that the new generation does not have interest in yard work or gardens and 44 therefore there is a trend to have bigger homes on smaller lots. He was unsure if that would 45 be done through an addition but rather tearing down the home and building a new home on the Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes May 17, 2022 Page 5 1 lot. He stated that has been done in his neighborhood and they look nice and have been great 2 additions. 3 4 Chair Socha stated that she is torn on the proposals as she does have the attitude that she 5 should be able to do what she wants on her property and not be impacted by a restrictive 6 setback. She noted that many times additions come with related improvements such as 7 residing the entire home, with also provides benefit to the neighborhood. She stated that she 8 also does not want Saint Anthony to feel like Minneapolis or Saint Paul. She commented that 9 changing setbacks make it seem more urban than suburban. She noted that she is torn as she 10 pros and cons to each option. She believed that if changes are made, they should not be 11 drastic but also realized that may not accomplish the desired outcome. 12 13 William Risse, 29th Avenue and Silver Lake Road, commented that he has a corner lot and 14 even though they are a younger generation they enjoy gardening and taking care of their yard. 15 He stated that they have been meeting with staff to discuss options for expanding their home, 16 noting that any of the options would require a variance. He stated that their neighbors have 17 five-foot side yard setbacks, but they are required to have a 30-foot setback. He commented 18 that it is not practical to use the side yard and would prefer to place an addition nearer to the 19 road to maintain their usable backyard space. He stated that they would support a 15-foot 20 setback for corner lots. 21 22 Commissioner Hendrickson commented that she is supportive of doing something because she 23 agrees that household needs are changing, and the housing stock does not necessarily reflect 24 people’s lifestyles. She stated that they would need to determine which of these changes 25 would add the value people are looking for. She believed that some changes would allow the 26 community to remain marketable and better fit the lives of residents. 27 28 Chair Socha commented that it is not ideal to have people come in to request repeated 29 variances and therefore if something makes sense it would make sense to change the 30 ordinance and remove the costly step of residents having to request a variance. She agreed 31 that it does make sense to do something but was still unsure as to what should be done. She 32 noted that she does want to maintain the feeling of a suburb rather than an urban area. She 33 confirmed the consensus of the Commission to continue discussing this topic. She found it 34 helpful to know that the impervious surface limits would not be changing. 35 36 Commissioner Erickson believed that it would be wise to move slowly on this topic and 37 therefore suggested that it would be helpful to have some of the requested information for 38 comparison and review before suggesting language. He stated that there seems to be some 39 agreement that changing the rear setback would be the most supported. 40 41 Mr. Grittman appreciated the input and felt that he had sufficient input to move forward and 42 bring information back to the Commission. 43 44 Chair Socha commented that it would also be helpful to have a summary of past requests that 45 have been approved by the Commission through variance. Mr. Grittman commented that he Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes May 17, 2022 Page 6 1 could collect that information but noted that many times residents call him and do not move 2 forward because of the required setbacks and variance process. 3 4 Commissioner Hendrickson stated that the corner lot scenario would seem to make the most 5 sense. 6 7 Commissioner Erickson stated that he would be interested in knowing whether other 8 communities have altered their setback requirements. 9 10 VI.COMMUNITY FORUM. 11 12 No one appeared to address the Planning Commission. 13 14 VII.INFORMATION AND ANNOUNCEMENTS. 15 16 No comments. 17 18 VIII. ADJOURNMENT. 19 20 Motion by Commissioner Erickson, seconded by Commissioner Rude, to adjourn the meeting 21 at 8:10 p.m. 22 23 Motion carried 4-0. 24 25 26 Respectfully submitted, 27 Amanda Staple 28 TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc. 29 MEMORANDUM To:St. Anthony Village Planning Commission From:Stephen Grittman, City Planner Date:Planning Commission Meeting – July 19, 2022 NAC Project No.323.01 – 22.01 Request:Request for an amendment to the City Code related to fence height Property Address:NA Property PID:NA STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff has reviewed for consistency with related codes, including the building code, and practical issues related to construction styles, permitting, city review, and common building practices, both in St. Anthony and nearby communities. Staff recommends approval of the attached amendment increasing maximum height of residential fences, and establishing clearer standards for measurement. GENERAL INFORMATION Applicant:Mark Tomas Address:3308 Skycroft Drive Deadline for Agency Application Complete Date: Action:60 Days: August 20, 2022 Letter Sent: 120 Days:October 19, 2022 ANALYSIS 1.Background The applicant is proposing that the City amend the current fence regulations to allow an increase in residential fence height. The amendment would alter fence height throughout the zoning districts or land uses to which it is effective. In this case, the relevant land uses are single family residential parcels in the R-1 zoning district. July 19, 2022 Page 2 The current fence ordinance has a number of issues related to permit processing, code consistency (including consistency with building code), and technical or practical aspects including measurement. The City’s Code Review Committee has separately been contemplating a series of amendments to the fence regulations for these reasons. While a number of those amendments are likely to come forward with other code amendment recommendations, this resident is seeking amendments to the height regulations as a separate application. The applicant’s request specifically relates to the section of the fence code relating to height. That section reads as follows: (C) Fence size. All fence and wall heights shall be measured from the finished grade, except that the height of a railing, wall, fence, or screening affixed to a deck constructed on the ground but raised above ground level, will be measured from the elevation of the raised deck for that portion which is affixed to the raised deck. The grade at the fence line shall not be altered in any way that artificially increases the maximum permitted height of the fence. (1) Residential Uses. a. Front Yards. No fence shall be over four (4) feet in height within a required front yard setback. b. Side Yards. No fence shall be over six (6) feet in height. A fence up to six (6) feet in height shall be allowed on corner lots along the corner side behind the nearest front corner of the principal building. c. Rear Yards. No fence shall be over six (6) feet in height. When this code was written, fences of more than 6 feet in height required a building permit, with review and permitting through the Building Official. The revised building code has changed this height to 7 feet. One of the reasons for this change is an acknowledgement that fence construction often occurs over uneven terrain, and a fence that uses 6 feet tall material (a commonly available dimension) is often a few inches more than 6 feet above the ground below it. Moreover, many types of fence construction include post design where the tops of the posts extend a few inches above the top line of the fence panel. These conditions have been prevalent for many years. Technically, such fences were required to obtain building permits, be reviewed by building inspection staff, and be July 19, 2022 Page 3 inspected by the building official. In practice, this was not happening, whether in St. Anthony or most any other locality when these variations were only a few inches above the 6 foot mark. As such, the writers of the Building Code amended that code from 6 feet to the 7 feet now in force. The taller dimension accommodates the variations noted (terrain and post design), with the understanding that the majority of such fences utilize fence panels of 6 feet (see illustration above). To remedy this conflict, staff believes that an amendment to the existing code is appropriate. Although the applicant has suggested that the fence height be increased to 6 feet, 6 inches, staff recommends the 7 feet dimension used by the Building Code, and thus the following amendments are proposed, with the changes shown in redline: (C) Fence size. All fence and wall heights shall be measured from the finished grade, except that the height of a railing, wall, fence, or screening affixed to a deck constructed on the ground but raised above ground level, will be measured from the elevation of the raised deck for that portion which is affixed to the raised deck. The grade at the fence line shall not be altered in any way that artificially increases the maximum permitted height of the fence. Required fence height shall be measured and applied only at each post, and no section of fence between posts shall exceed the height of the lower of the two posts between which such fence is constructed. (1) Residential Uses. a. Front Yards. No fence, fence post, or post cap shall be over four (4) feet fifty-two (52) inches in height within a required front yard setback. b. Side Yards. No fence shall be over six (6) seven (7) feet in height. A fence up to six (6) seven(7) feet in height shall be allowed on corner lots along the corner side behind the nearest front corner of the principal building. c. Rear Yards. No fence shall be over six (6) seven (7) feet in height. The applicant notes in his application materials that other nearby communities have amended their fence regulations to make this change, or something similar. These include Columbia Heights, New Brighton, Fridley, and Roseville. It is planning staff’s experience that many other communities have adopted similar changes. On a separate track, there are related amendments that would be relevant to other portions of the fence code, including permitting, and the application of fence height in commercial and industrial areas. Those amendments are expected to accompany other general code updates being proposed by the Code Review Committee. July 19, 2022 Page 4 2.Representative Codes Referenced. Title XV Land Usage, Chapter 150 Zoning Code, Section §150.70 (Fence Regulations). 3.Criteria for Consideration of a Zoning Amendment. Title XV Land Usage, Chapter 152 Zoning Code, Section §152.242 lists the process the City Council must consider for an amendment. SUMMARY AND STAFF/PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS Application 1. Staff recommends approval of an amendment to the fence regulations as identified in this report, with the following findings: A.The current fence regulations related to height are inconsistent with the regulations of the Building Code. B.The current fence permitting practices are not consistent with the procedures required by the code C.The current height regulations for residential fences do not comport with common construction practices, nor account for inconsistencies in grade or terrain. D.The amendment would be consistent with current practice, with the language of the Building Code, and the practices of many other nearby communities. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS Decision 1. Consideration of an Amendment to Section 150.070.C. related to fence construction and height on residential property. 1.Motion to approve the request for an amendment to the fence regulations and direct staff to prepare an ordinance for City Council consideration. 2.Motion to recommend denial of the amendment as requested. In the event of a recommendation for denial, the Planning Commission must state its findings related to denial. 3.Request Additional Information and Table Action, subject to the submission of additional information from staff and/or applicant. ATTACHMENTS Exhibit A:Application and Supporting Material 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. l Property Owner Signature (Required) Date Property Owner Printed Name (Required) Applicant Signature (If different than the property owner) Date Applicant Printed Name (Required) NOTICE OF A PUBLIC HEARING July 19, 2022, 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 zoning text amendment to allow fences to exceed six feet in height in the Residential Zoning Districts. 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 https://savmn.com/Calendar.aspx?EID=1606 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 to be held on August 8, 2022 at 7:00 p.m. at City Hall. Steve Grittman City Planner MEMORANDUM To: St. Anthony Village Planning Commission From: Stephen Grittman, City Planner Date: Planning Commission Regular Meeting for July 19, 2022 RE: R-1 Zoning District – Options for Amendment In May, the Planning Commission began a discussion about the potential pros and cons of altering setbacks on Single Family lots in the Village. A copy of the memorandum accompanying that initial discussion is attached for reference. The Commission requested additional information as to the actual “as-applied” impacts of changes such as these. In researching this issue further, there are scant examples of mature neighborhoods where these kinds of setback changes can be seen. A number of similar regulations apply in various areas for newer construction, but the visuals do not provide any reasonable comparisons. Instead, we have examined a few existing neighborhoods in St. Anthony just to gain (and illustrate) a clearer understanding of how reduced setbacks might be applied, especially given the restraints on impervious surface coverage that will limit any additional construction. The attached illustrations examine a couple of short segments of Pahl Avenue in the south portion of the City, and a short segment of Penrod Lane in the north area near the New Brighton boundary. The material includes a clip of the aerial photo, along with a graphic of several of the lots on the relevant street. The graphic is paired with some lot data which we have estimated from the aerial photos – thus these are not exact, but should provide a reasonable representation of the options for the various parcels. The graphic example identifies lot size for each neighborhood clip, impervious surface amounts, and potential expansion areas if the front setbacks were reduced from 30 feet to 20 feet. Some of the lots can not take full advantage of the additional encroachment due to impervious surface limitations. For reference, the houses along the Penrod block range from 22 feet to 25 feet, with some up to 30 feet in depth. As such, a reduction to 20 feet would not seem to be a significant change in this area. The Pahl Avenue lots are typically 25 feet to 30 feet in front yard depth, which the St. Anthony Boulevard homes typically range from 30 feet to 35 feet. There are exceptions on all blocks to the primary range, and corner side yard setbacks are almost always reduced in depth. We would encourage you to walk or drive these neighborhoods if you have the chance prior to the Planning Commission meeting. Photographs do not adequately communicate the feel of the neighborhood. We will be prepared to discuss thoughts and suggestions at the upcoming meeting. No public hearing has been scheduled on these items as yet. 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.