HomeMy WebLinkAboutPL PACKET 08112022CITY OF SAINT ANTHONY VILLAGE
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AGENDA
Tuesday, August 16, 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 07 -19 -2022.PDF
Public Hearing
Code Amendments: Animals, Natural Landscape, Right Of Way Management
And Fences
Steve Grittman, City Planner, presenting.
COVER MEMO.PDF
FENCE -BUS BENCH -ANIMALS ETC CODE REVISIONS TABLE (VER6).PDF
NOTICE -PUBLIC HEARING CODE TEXT AMENDMENTS.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
Next Meeting: September 20th
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, August 16, 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 07 -19 -2022.PDFPublic HearingCode Amendments: Animals, Natural Landscape, Right Of Way Management And FencesSteve Grittman, City Planner, presenting.COVER MEMO.PDFFENCE-BUS BENCH -ANIMALS ETC CODE REVISIONS TABLE (VER6).PDFNOTICE -PUBLIC HEARING CODE TEXT AMENDMENTS.PDFStaff 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
Next Meeting: September 20th
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 JULY 19, 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, Gaveske, Hendrickson,
17 Kuykendall, Morita and Rude.
18
19 Absent:None.
20
21 Also Present: City Planner Stephen Grittman and Assistant City Manager Nicole
22 Miller.
23
24
25 I.APPROVAL OF THE JULY 19, 2022 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
26 AGENDA.
27
28 Motion by Commissioner Morita, seconded by Commissioner Rude, to approve the July 19,
29 2022, Regular Planning Commission Meeting Minutes.
30
31 Motion carried 7-0.
32
33 II.APPROVAL OF THE MAY 17, 2022, REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION
34 MEETING MINUTES.
35
36 Motion by Commissioner Rude, seconded by Commissioner Morita, to approve the May 17,
37 2022, Regular Planning Commission Meeting Minutes.
38
39 Motion carried 7-0.
40
41 III.PUBLIC HEARING.
42
A.43 Code Amendment Request – Fence Height
44
45 Chair Socha opened the public hearing at 7:04 p.m.
46
47 Mr. Grittman stated the applicant (Mr. Mark Tomas 3308 Skycroft Drive) is proposing that
48 the City amend the current fence regulations to allow an increase in residential fence height.
49 The amendment would alter fence height throughout the zoning districts or land uses to which
Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes
July 19, 2022
Page 2
1 it is effective. In this case, the relevant land uses are single family residential parcels in the R-
2 1 zoning district.
3
4 The current fence ordinance has a number of issues, related to permit processing, code
5 consistency (including consistency with building code), and technical or practical aspects
6 including measurement. The City’s Code Review Committee has separately been
7 contemplating a series of amendments to the fence regulations for these reasons. While a
8 number of those amendments are likely to come forward with other code amendment
9 recommendations, this resident is seeking amendments to the height regulations as a separate
10 application. The applicant’s request specifically relates to the section of the fence code
11 relating to height.
12
13 The section of the code was provided for Commission review.
14
15 When this code was written, fences of more than 6 feet in height required a building permit,
16 with review and permitting through the Building Official. The revised building code has
17 changed this height to 7 feet. One of the reasons for this change is an acknowledgement that
18 fence construction often occurs over uneven terrain, and a fence that uses 6 feet tall material
19 (a commonly available dimension) is often a few inches more than 6 feet above the ground
20 below it. Many types of fence construction include post design where the tops of the posts
21 extend a few inches above the top line of the fence panel. These conditions have been
22 prevalent for many years. Technically, such fences were required to obtain building permits,
23 be reviewed by building inspection staff, and be inspected by the building official. In practice,
24 this was not happening, whether in St. Anthony or most of any other locality when these
25 variations were only a few inches above the 6 foot mark. The writers of the Building Code
26 amended that code from 6 feet to the 7 feet now in force.
27
28 The taller dimension accommodates the variations noted (terrain and post design), with the
29 understanding that the majority of such fences utilize fence panels of 6 feet.
30
31 To remedy this conflict, staff believes that an amendment to the existing code is appropriate.
32 Although the applicant has suggested that the fence height be increased to 6 feet, 6 inches,
33 staff recommends the 7 feet dimension used by the Building Code. A redline code was
34 provided to the Commission.
35
36 The applicant noted in his application materials that other nearby communities have amended
37 their fence regulations to make this change or something similar. These include Columbia
38 Heights, New Brighton, Fridley, and Roseville. It is the planning staff’s experience that many
39 other communities have adopted similar changes. To construct a fence over 7 feet would
40 require a building permit and variance.
41
42 A letter from another resident was presented to the Commission and noted he was not in favor
43 of the change in height. He suggested this be moved to another date and the height maximum
44 be lowered.
45
Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes
July 19, 2022
Page 3
1 Commissioner Rude asked about a building permit over 7 feet high and is the review the same
2 for both permits. Mr. Grittman a zoning permit would be required for a fence under 7 feet.
3
4 Commissioner Hendrickson asked if inspections are not happening because the building code
5 does not align with the City Code. Mr. Grittman noted anything under 7 feet is not under the
6 building inspector’s jurisdiction.
7
8 Chair Socha stated she built a fence two years ago and no inspection was required. Mr.
9 Grittman stated inspections are not part of this request. Cities have various requirements as far
10 as inspections.
11
12 Commissioner Erickson asked about the change in height and asked if 7 foot fence panels are
13 common and Mr. Grittman stated prefab panels are normally 6 foot. Mr. Grittman stated if a
14 fence exceeds 7 feet a building permit is required.
15
16 Commissioner Kuykendall stated the wording addresses front fences but side and back yard
17 fences were not addressed. If someone has a six foot panel, based on the grade it could be up
18 to 7 feet.
19
20 Commissioner Rude stated materials normally come in 2 foot increments. A building permit
21 does not come before the Planning Commission for approval. If the request is for a fence
22 higher than 7 foot a variance would be required along with a building permit.
23
24 Mr. Rob LaFleur is the person that wrote the letter that the Commission had before them. He
25 thinks 7 foot fences are contrary to being welcoming and also limits what can be seen as to
26 what is going on in the neighborhood. Lots in St. Anthony are smaller than neighboring
27 communities and having a 7 foot fence around a smaller lot is not welcoming. A 5 foot fence
28 would be more welcoming. He participated via zoom.
29
30 Ms. Maggie Tomas, resident of St. Anthony, is in favor of having a fence up to 7 feet. A fence
31 with 6 foot posts and 6 foot panels may go above 6 feet high. To be straight at the top the
32 additional height would be needed. Most fencing contractors suggest a 6 foot fence that is
33 made attractive and may be higher than 6 feet. She participated via zoom.
34
35 Commissioner Morita asked if this request is not approved, the requester could still construct
36 a 7 foot fence with a variance.
37
38 Commissioner Rude stated the Code Committee is addressing this code. Is this something that
39 should be considered when addressing that entire section of the code. He suggested this be
40 tabled and considered with the rest of the fence code. Mr. Grittman stated this was on the list
41 that the Code Committee is addressing. It could be held over for a meeting or two.
42
43 Chair Socha stated the Commission needs to make a formal recommendation to the City
44 Council on this request. This could be discussed when looking at this again in the future.
45
46
Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes
July 19, 2022
Page 4
1 Commissioner Hendrickson stated the applicant had requested less than a 7 foot height. She
2 stated the code could be revised giving a little wiggle room without going to a 7 foot height.
3 She asked if there were any disadvantages to doing this. Mr. Grittman stated it is very
4 common to have decorative post caps on fence posts. It’s more of a practical matter.
5
6 Chair Socha referred to Mr. LaFleur’s comment regarding safety. She stated it is difficult to
7 see over a 6 foot fence so she does not see a difference between 6 or 7 feet. Dogs are
8 generally not able to jump over a 6 foot fence. It is a good idea for homeowners to be able to
9 contain large dogs and a 6 foot fence should be sufficient. She does not want to consider a
10 lower fence. She suspects there are a large number of fences that are currently over 6 feet
11 which would make a number of fences out of compliance. She is in favor of supporting this
12 request either at the 6 foot or 7 foot height.
13
14 Commissioner Morita stated to custom build fences to accommodate changes in terrain is not
15 feasible. Residents should be able to build fences with standard materials and he is in favor of
16 the request.
17
18 Commissioner Rude stated he has concerns about material selection and maintenance. He
19 believes the code needs to be more specific on maintenance of a wooden fence. He feels there
20 is a lot more to discuss regarding fences. He would like to table this and would prefer 6.5 feet.
21
22 Commissioner Morita stated that is not what the request consists of and this is what the
23 Commission needs to address at this time. Chair Socha stated she agrees with Commissioner
24 Morita.
25
26 Commissioner Erickson stated he is in favor of the proposal with the inclusion of the post
27 caps.
28
29 Chair Socha stated she has heard from Commissioners as to whether 6.5 feet or 7 feet. She
30 feels this may need further discussion.
31
32 Commissioner Rude stated he does not understand why this makes a difference. Mr. Grittman
33 stated the building code allows for this.
34
35 Commissioner Morita stated he would like to stick to 7 feet height.
36
37 Commissioner Erickson stated he agrees and it would be more cost effective to be able to use
38 standard building materials.
39
40 Commissioner Kuykendall stated he has a sloping yard with a fence that has to slope. It
41 doesn’t mean all fences will be built at 7 feet. It allows for changes in grade to be considered.
42 When considering building materials custom materials can be very spendy. He is in favor of 7
43 feet from a practical standpoint. People try to do what is right, although some people will not.
44 He believes an inspection process needs to be added. Chair Socha stated she agrees. Lot lines
45 are very difficult to figure out. She would like this brought to planning staff or administration
46 for an inspection process when other factors are discussed.
Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes
July 19, 2022
Page 5
1
2 Commissioner Rude suggested neighbor buy-in be needed when considering putting in a
3 fence.
4
5 Chair Socha closed the public hearing at 7:44 p.m.
6
7 Staff recommends approval of an amendment to the fence regulations as identified in the
8 report, with the following findings:
9
A.10 The current fence regulations related to height are inconsistent with the regulations of the
11 Building Code.
B.12 The current fence permitting practices are not consistent with the procedures required by
13 the code.
C.14 The current height regulations for residential fences do not comport with common
15 construction practices, nor account for inconsistencies in grade or terrain.
D.16 The amendment would be consistent with current practice, with the language of the
17 Building Code, and the practices of many other nearby communities.
18
19 Mr. Grittman reviewed staff has reviewed for consistency with related codes, including the
20 building code, and practical issues related to construction styles, permitting, city review, and
21 common building practices, both in St. Anthony and nearby communities. Staff recommends
22 approval of the amendment increasing the maximum height of residential fences and
23 establishing clearer standards for measurement.
24
25 Motion by Commissioner Morita, seconded by Commissioner Gaveske, to approve the request
26 for an amendment to the fence regulations and direct staff to prepare an ordinance for City
27 Council consideration with language that the fence cap be included in the 7 foot height.
28
29 Motion carried 1(Rude)-6.
30
31 IV.STAFF REPORTS.
32
33 Mr. Grittman stated the Doran Group has applied for building permits for their second phase.
34 There is more to come. The Bremer Bank project is under construction. The senior housing on
35 Stinson is wrapped with some exterior being put on. They hope to occupy sometime during
36 the winter.
37
38 V.OTHER BUSINESS.
39
A.40 R-1 Zoning Amendment Updates
41
42 Mr. Grittman reviewed in May, the Planning Commission began a discussion about the
43 potential pros and cons of altering setbacks on Single Family lots in the Village. The
44 Commission requested additional information as to the actual “as-applied” impacts of
45 changes.
46
Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes
July 19, 2022
Page 6
1 In researching the issue further, there are scant examples of mature neighborhoods where
2 these kinds of setback changes can be seen. A number of similar regulations apply in various
3 areas for newer construction, but the visuals do not provide any reasonable comparisons.
4
5 A few existing neighborhoods in St. Anthony have been examined to gain (and illustrate) a
6 clearer understanding of how reduced setbacks might be applied, especially given the
7 restraints on impervious surface coverage that will limit any additional construction.
8 Illustrations showing a couple of short segments of Pahl Avenue in the south portion of the
9 City and a short segment of Penrod Lane in the north area near the New Brighton boundary.
10 The materials include a clip of the aerial photo, along with a graphic of several of the lots on
11 the relevant street. The graphic is paired with some lot data, which we have estimated from
12 the aerial photos – thus these are not exact, but should provide a reasonable representation of
13 the options for the various parcels. Some of the lots have small opportunities for expansion if
14 the setbacks were modified. The lots along Pahl Avenue take advantage of access from the
15 alley to the rear. Their front yard setbacks have some flexibility. A change in setbacks would
16 allow for some expansion to the front of the property.
17
18 The graphic example identifies lot size for each neighborhood clip, impervious surface
19 amounts, and potential expansion areas if the front setbacks were reduced from 30 feet to 20
20 feet. Some of the lots cannot take full advantage of the additional encroachment due to
21 impervious surface limitations. The houses along the Penrod block range from 22 feet to 25
22 feet, with some up to 30 feet in depth. A reduction to 20 feet would not seem to be a
23 significant change in this area. The Pahl Avenue lots are typically 25 feet to 30 feet in front
24 yard depth, which the St. Anthony Boulevard homes typically range from 30 feet to 35 feet.
25 There are exceptions on all blocks to the primary range, and corner side yard setbacks are
26 almost always reduced in depth. The Penrod area has homes which are closer to the street.
27 The homes along St. Anthony Boulevard have very few opportunities for expansion.
28
29 Mr. Grittman asked the Commission if there was any interest in modifying the setbacks. If
30 there is interest some code language could be developed and brought back to the next
31 Planning Commission meeting.
32
33 Chair Socha asked how much community engagement was there about not being able to
34 expand. Mr. Grittman stated staff has not reached out in any way to canvass thoughts from the
35 community. He does receive some calls asking about expansion plans. Some along Silver
36 Lake Road were asking about side yard expansions.
37
38 Commissioner Hendrickson stated last time a number of options were reviewed. She agrees
39 with Mr. Grittman that there may be more opportunities for side yard expansion. She would
40 prefer to see changes to the rear or side setback rather than the front.
41
42 Commissioner Erickson stated he agrees with Commissioner Hendrickson. He did not have a
43 chance to drive past the neighborhoods. The impervious requirement would not allow for
44 large expansions. He would be opposed to changing the front setback.
45
Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes
July 19, 2022
Page 7
1 Commissioner Morita stated if changes are not made, residents may be tearing down existing
2 homes and building very large homes. He is supportive of looking into options of expanding
3 existing homes. Mr. Grittman stated there are guidelines as to the height of new construction.
4
5 Commissioner Rude stated he would not mind seeing new houses. He agrees expansion in the
6 rear yard would be acceptable. He is hesitant about the side yards on the more square yards.
7
8 Chair Socha stated the total current setback is 15 feet on both sides. It would be 5 feet on one
9 side and 10 feet on the other side. There is a 15 foot separation between homes.
10
11 Commissioner Hendrickson stated the corner lots are where the side setbacks are most
12 affected. Mr. Grittman stated on corner lots the front is supposed to be 30 feet and the side is
13 supposed to be 30 feet. Mr. Grittman asked if these setbacks could be more flexible.
14
15 Commissioner Gaveske stated it would make sense to be more flexible on the corner lots as
16 that would make a big difference. Commissioner Morita stated he agreed.
17
18 Mr. Grittman stated one thing that was considered on the front setback would be reducing 30
19 feet to 25 feet as the minimum would not create a big impact. Most of the neighborhoods have
20 homes up to the 30 feet setback.
21
22 Commissioner Gaveske stated it would be nice to allow expansion in the front as an larger
23 entry.
24
25 Chair Socha stated she is not opposed to expansion in the front yard setback. She would like
26 to gain resident input. She would consider the front yard setback being flexible.
27
28 Commissioner Morita stated if adjustments were made and it did not include changes to the
29 front yard setback, residents could make a variance request if they wanted to expand in the
30 front yard. Mr. Grittman stated each case would need to be reviewed. He is supportive of staff
31 continuing investigation of side and rear setback flexibility.
32
33 Commissioner Rude asked why the corner lots were 30 feet. Mr. Grittman stated the codes
34 were developed in the 1950’s and 1960’s. The thought was all houses would be setback 30
35 feet and all codes were written that way. A number of communities have softened that corner
36 side setbacks. Commissioner Rude believes on corners there are two front yards. Mr. Grittman
37 stated one is a front yard and one is a side yard.
38
39 Commissioner Gaveske stated she appreciates the clarification on the corner lots.
40
41 Chair Socha stated the consensus of the Commission was interest in being flexible on the
42 setbacks and requested staff to come back with some proposed language on the rear yard and
43 side yards.
44
45 Mr. Grittman will develop some code language and show some examples.
46
Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes
July 19, 2022
Page 8
1 Commissioner Gaveske asked if the garage setback should be addressed. Mr. Grittman stated
2 the plan was to retain the same garage setback.
3
4 VI.COMMUNITY FORUM.
5
6 No one appeared to address the Planning Commission.
7
8 VII.INFORMATION AND ANNOUNCEMENTS.
9
10 Commissioner Rude stated he read two articles. One was for a food truck ordinance. The other
11 was in NE Minneapolis where there was a project that was a mess and a lawsuit was brought
12 against the 2040 plan. There was a push for high density and this would lock lower income
13 individuals into being renters rather than being able to afford a single family home. Mr.
14 Grittman stated it was more an environmental issue. It will be interesting to see what
15 Minneapolis does with their plan.
16
17 Chair Socha stated she was under the impression that high density helps diversity.
18
19 Commissioner Rude stated the premise was rental does not allow people to build wealth. Mr.
20 Grittman stated owners stay in their homes longer than renters which creates community.
21
22 Mr. Grittman asked the Commission if they would be interested in receiving articles such as
23 this. Chair Socha stated that would be helpful.
24
25 Mr. Grittman stated food trucks were discussed in a Council workshop and it was determined
26 it was in need of further study.
27
28 VIII. ADJOURNMENT.
29
30 Motion by Commissioner Morita, seconded by Commissioner Erickson, to adjourn the
31 meeting at 8:35 p.m.
32
33 Motion carried 7-0.
34
35 Respectfully submitted,
36 Debbie Wolfe
37 TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc.
MEMORANDUM
To:St. Anthony Village Planning Commission
From:Stephen Grittman, City Planner
Date:August 11, 2022
Meeting Date:August 17, 2022
NAC Project No.323.02 – 22.01
BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS
As the Commission is likely aware, a committee of staff has been reviewing the City Code to address
various aspects of the language, looking for updating needs, and incorporating staff experience with
permitting issues, property owner questions, and code enforcement experience. In the prior round of
these amendments, the Commission reviewed (and the City Council adopted) regulations related to
Swimming Pools, Dumpsters, Natural Landscapes, Non-commercial Signs, and a variety of other
inconsistencies that had been ongoing issues for staff.
This memorandum provides a second round of updates to the table-form list of proposed City Code and
Zoning Code amended language for Planning Commission consideration. Staff noticed a public hearing
for the August Planning Commission meeting to formally consider the proposed language, and make any
final edits or recommendations, prior to sending the material on to City Council for consideration.
The topics covered in this version include Animals; a brief supplement to the previously approved
Natural Landscapes language; extensive updates to the regulations relating to Fences; use of the Public
Right of Way; and regulations relating to Bus Benches.
Two other sections that are being studied but brought forward at a later date will be Brewery-Taprooms
(holding until the City can review on-sale “Growlers” before finalizing), and Food Trucks. The City
approved the inclusion of Brewery-Taprooms as a commercial use in its update to that zoning district,
but alcohol licensing requirements necessitate some addition study. Food Trucks have a number of
possible impacts, and additional review is being conducted prior to formalizing ordinance options.
The table includes the original language in black, the proposed changes in redline. Text that is
proposed to carryover from the existing code is referenced in the second column. The third column
includes changes to each of the proposed sections highlighted as noted above. The fourth column
provides some commentary explaining the purpose of the changes (or in a few cases, why no change is
proposed).
As with the prior set of amendments, we are not expecting to address the boundaries of any zoning
districts with this material. The changes have arisen from staff experience with various permitting or
construction issues, and various code enforcement activities.
August 17, 2022
Page 2
The last section addresses bus benches, which is a new section of Code. The language is developed from
other various sources, and is proposed here due to the occupation of the pubic right of way, and the
observance that in some cases, there have been maintenance issues in the right of way which has raised
problems for (especially) sidewalk snow maintenance. Since this benches serve an advertising purpose
for their sponsors, but can raise issues for public pedestrian circulation and/or maintenance problems,
staff is bringing this forward for consideration.
This material codifies the regulation of Bus Benches that are placed by private vendors on public right of
way at bus stops in the city. This is an aspect of the City’s right of way management, not technically a
zoning code element, although a few changes to the Sign section of the code will need to accompany
this section, included after the Bench Section below. They are usually located on main roadways, and
often on sidewalks.
Staff has found that these benches can generate significant income for the bench owners through
leasing advertising space on the bench. Staff has also found that neither Metro Transit nor the right of
way owners (usually Hennepin and Ramsey Counties) do not regulate these benches in their rights-of-
way. This licensing process will allow the city the opportunity to ensure that any such benches are
properly placed and maintained. It further provides for appropriate insurance of those occupying the
right of way, and requires a clause indemnifying the city in the event of a liability claim.
The benches serve a public purpose in that persons utilizing scheduled transit often rely on them as both
markers and rest while waiting for their ride. Because these benches provide advertising, they become
a de facto sign. As such, the proposed regulations provide for size, location, and various other
requirements to ensure that they serve their public purpose, but do not become a nuisance.
The Planning Commission is asked to provide comments and thoughts on the proposals at the upcoming
meeting and public hearing, after which staff will prepare formal ordinances amendments for
consideration by the City Council.
The Comprehensive Plan material below is carried over from the original staff memo as background for
the Public Hearing.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION
1.Staff recommends approval of the proposed amendments to the City Code as reflected in the
attached ordinance redline version, with final comments and edits from the Commission
following the public hearing.
Alternative Motions
2.Motion to recommend denial of the amendments, based on findings to be identified as a part of
the discussion following the public hearing.
3.Motion to table action on the amendments and continue the public hearing, to allow for further
research and editing as directed by the Commission.
Code Section No.
Existing Text to Remain as
is
Proposed Text (redlined) Issue/Discussion
Animals
§ 91.06 Domesticated animals means
house pets such as dogs, cats, and
birds, or other common pets kept
in small containments which can be
contained within a principal
structure throughout the entire
year, provided that containment
can be accomplished without
special modification to the
structure requiring a building
permit from the city. In addition,
the term "domestic animals"
includes birds (other than chickens,
ducks and geese) and rabbits
normally sheltered outside the
home.
Farm animals means cattle, hogs,
bees, sheep, goats, chickens,
turkeys, horses and other animals
commonly accepted as farm
animals in the state, and/or which
are kept for agricultural purposes
or food production.
Wild Animal: Any animal which is
not a domesticated animal as
defined herein, or which is not
naturally tame or gentle, but is of a
wild nature or disposition, or which
would constitute a danger to human
life or property. The term includes
animals and birds, the keeping of
which is licensed by the State or
federal government, such as,
wolves, raptors, and pheasants. By
way of example and not of
limitation, the term includes: ducks,
pheasants, geese, turkeys, birds of
prey, squirrels, chipmunks,
raccoons, coyotes, weasels, wild
ferrets, sheep, goats, swine,
monkeys, chimpanzees and deer.
This section adds
definitions for 3 classes of
animals: Domesticated,
Farm, and Wild.
The current regulations in
code address how
“domestic” animals are
regulated, but have no
definition.
A few farm animals are
listed as being prohibited,
but the list is not very
inclusive, so the ordinance
creates a definition, and a
list that is more inclusive.
(Chickens would continue
to be treated as they
currently are: prohibited,
but with the allowance by
Council permit).
Finally, a definition for wild
animals is created, and
then a series of provisions
to regulate/prohibit the
feeding of such animals is
new text. An exception
made for songbirds and a
few other specific
situations.
§ 91.56 KEEPING OF CERTAIN ANIMALS. No
person may keep swine, cattle,
horses, goats farm animals or wild
animals as defined in this Code, nor
more than 2 dogs or 3 dogs allowed
under § 91.01 through 91.05 or
fowl, within the city nearer than 500
feet to any human habitation or
platted land, without approval of
the City Council. The City Council
may, before approving or denying
any request for approval, request a
report from the Health Officer
concerning the effect on public
health.
The current language
allows 2 dogs, or a “kennel”
license for 3 dogs. No
change is proposed in that
language. Cats (addressed
by some city’s codes), are
not subject to these
limitations.
§ 91.57 KEEPING OF CERTAIN ANIMALS.
FEEDING OF WILD ANIMALS.
1) ) No person shall intentionally
feed wild animals within the City.
Intentional feeding means the
provision of any grain, fruit,
vegetables, nuts, salt licks, or any
other food that attracts wild
animals.
a) Living food sources such
as trees and other live vegetation
shall not be considered food for wild
animals.
2) Feeding Songbirds. The feeding of
songbirds is permitted under the
following conditions:
a) Feeding is done from a
bird feeder that is designed
to prevent other wild
animals from feeding and is
placed at least 5 feet above
the ground.
b) The bird feeder does not
become an attractive nuisance to
other wild animals.
c) Songbird feeding occurs
on private property owned or
controlled by the person
responsible for the feeder.
3) Exemptions.
a) Specific to Section
91.57(2a), persons that
cannot physically place
materials 5 feet or higher
from the ground, must place
feeder at the highest point
physically possible and must
comply with the other
standards contained in
Section 91.57(2).
b) Snakes (less than four (4)
feet in length), gerbils,
hamsters, guinea pigs mice,
turtles, fish (not prohibited
by Minnesota DNR) and
birds (not prohibited by
Minnesota DNR) kept inside
of a residence and within a
restrictive cage or habitat
c) Animal Species otherwise
allowed and/or licensed by
the City.
d) The provisions of Section 91.57
shall not apply to the employees or
agents of the City, County, the
State, the Federal government or
veterinarians who in the course of
their official duties have wild
animals in their custody or under
their management.
§ 91.5758 INTERFERENCE WITH CITY
PERSONNEL. No person may in any
manner molest, hinder, or interfere
with any person employed by the
city to capture and impound dogs or
other animals while the person is
within the course and scope of
employment.
This section is renumbered,
with no text changes.
Gardens and
Yards
§150.094 (E) (E) Yard cover. Every yard of
premises on which a dwelling stands
must be covered by lawns and/or
ground cover of vegetation,
gardens, hedges, shrubbery, rock or
wood mulch, or related decorative
materials consistent with those
commonly available at home and
garden stores, and must be
maintained. Once an area has been
converted to turf grass the land
owner shall not allow the turf grass
to exceed the height of 6 inches or
be allowed to go to seed. No land
owner may permit or maintain on
the land any growth of weeds, grass,
brush or other rank vegetation to
exceed the height of an average
height greater than 6 inches, any
This proposal cleans up a
reference that should have
been removed from the
Code as a part of the prior
round of updates. That
Code established a setback
requirement of 3 feet from
adjoining property; and it
has been the City’s policy to
allow/promote pollinator-
friendly plantings in the
right of way. This change
deletes the conflicting
language.
Additional language will
help limit the
encroachment and extent
of natural landscapes in the
setback or public areas.
accumulation of dead weeds, grass
or brush, or any noxious weeds or
plants as defined by the Minnesota
Department of Agriculture. Gardens
(pollinator, vegetable, flower, rock,
etc.) are permitted types of yard
cover, and must be maintained. and
not encroach on other property or
the right of way.
Fences
§ 150.071 BUILDING ZONING PERMITS
REQUIRED.
A building zoning permit is required
for the construction or alteration of
a fence, and for any additions to a
fence. The permit must be obtained
in the name of the owner of the
property on which the fence is or
will be located. Applications must be
made on forms provided by the city.
The applicant must provide the
Building Inspector with a set of
plans and specifications for the
fence. Permit fees must be paid in
accordance with Ordinance 33.061
of the City Code.
This change corrects the
application process and
permitting, which is no
longer a building permit
under that separate code.
The zoning ordinance
regulations fences, so a
zoning permit is the proper
avenue.
§ 150.072 REQUIREMENTS.
(A) Location. Any fence constructed
or altered after 6-3-1982 must be
located entirely upon the private
property of the owner to whom the
building permit was issued.
Ownership of the permit fence
passes with ownership of the
property. The fence must be setback
a distance from the owner’s
property line sufficient to avoid
encroachment onto adjoining
private or public property or a
public right-of-way. The applicant
represents that the fence will be
entirely on the property of the fence
applicant. At its sole discretion, the
city may require the applicant for
the permit to locate and mark the
property line abutting the public
property by having a registered
surveyor place permanent survey
pins or stakes on the property line.
Add the requirement for
survey data to the location
section, as it applies to any
fence permit (not just when
the fence is adjacent to the
public right of way as in (B)
below).
If the survey information is not
available and the applicant elects
not to establish the property line by
survey, the permit will not be issued
unless the applicant signs an
affidavit stating that the applicant is
the owner of the premises upon
which the fence exists or is to be
located.
(B) Abutting public property. If a
fence is or is to be adjacent to a
street, alley, public right-of-way, or
other public property, the city may
require the applicant for the permit
to locate and mark the property line
abutting the public property by
having a registered surveyor place
permanent survey pins or stakes on
the property line. If the survey
information is not available and the
applicant elects not to establish the
property line by survey, the permit
will not be issued unless the
applicant signs an affidavit stating
that the applicant is the owner of
the premises upon which the fence
exists or is to be located.
This section is deleted, with
the elimination of the
building permit
requirement, and the
inclusion of the property
line notes in (A) above.
(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 higher of the two
posts between which such fence is
constructed.
These sections are under
separate consideration by
the City Council due to a
pending application. The
Commission may consider
this and move it forward, or
await action on the pending
application.
This addition specifies
measurement
requirements. Because
land can fluctuate, there is
a potentially infinite
number of locations for
fence measurement. By
restricting the
measurement locations to
the posts only, planning,
construction, and
enforcement of fence
regulations is simplified.
The proposed language
specifies that the fence
sections may not exceed
the height of the post(s) to
which it is attached.
These clauses also
accommodate fences
constructed on a slope, in
which the manufactured
fence panels can be
installed without running
afoul of the height
regulations as the ground
falls away to the next
(lower) post location.
(C)(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 , fence post,
or post cap shall be over six (6)
seven (7) 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, fence post,
or post cap, shall be over six (6)
seven (7) feet in height.
Height is changed here to
accommodate the
fluctuations noted above by
allowing a slight increase
over current height
limitations, again to
accommodate slope, and to
acknowledge that posts
(and ornamental post caps)
will often extend above the
top line of the fence itself.
Further, the change from 6
feet to 7 feet incorporates
the building code change
that increased the height
threshold for when a
building permit is required
for fences and other
structures.
150.072
C.2, C.3, D, and E.
C. (2) Commercial/Industrial Uses.
a. Front Yards. No fence shall be
over six (6) seven (7) feet in height
within a required front yard setback.
Fences may extend to a total height
of eight (8) with a security arm for
barbed wire if a conditional use
permit is obtained.
b. Side Yards. No fence shall be over
six (6) seven (7) feet in height.
Fences may extend to a total height
of eight (8) with a security arm for
barbed wire if a conditional use
permit is obtained.
c. Rear Yards. No fence shall be over
six (6) seven (7) feet in height.
Fences may extend to a total height
of eight (8) with a security arm for
This section incorporates
the changes from 6 feet to
7 feet heights into the
Commercial District.
No changes are proposed to
Industrial or Recreational
fencing standards. Sight
visibility at intersections is
likewise retained as
currently stated.
barbed wire if a conditional use
permit is obtained.
d. Exemption. Through the approval
of a conditional use permit (CUP),
Ffence heights as listed above in
§150.072, C, 2, a-c may be increased
for the following types of fencing
§ 150.073 CONSTRUCTION AND
MAINTENANCE.
Every fence must be
constructed in a
substantial manner and of
substantial material,
reasonably suitable for the
purpose for which the
fence is intended as listed
in the criteria below. Any
fence which is dangerous
by reason of its
construction or state of
disrepair or is otherwise
injurious to public safety,
health, or welfare is
hereby declared to be a
nuisance.
(A) Fences and walls shall be
constructed in a manner and of such
materials that do not adversely
affect the appearance of the
neighborhood or adjacent property
values. Fences shall not be
constructed from poultry netting
(chicken wire), non-prefabricated
welded wire, snow fence, branches,
or materials originally intended for
other purposes, unless upon the
showing of a high degree of
architectural quality achieved
through the use of such materials
and prior approval is granted by the
Zoning Administrator or other
Authorized Agent.
Staff discussed the
prohibited materials
portion of this section,
acknowledging that some
(particularly the welded
wire) were commonly
available as fencing
material within wood
framing or other options.
Apart from this note, and
because this element has
not otherwise been a
significant issue, no other
changes are proposed.
(B) Fences and walls
hereafter erected shall be
durable, weather
resistant, rust proof, and
easily maintained.
(C) Fences shall have structural
supports (posts/footings) as
required by the Building Official to
This change replaces
“Building Official” review
(which does not occur) with
general language.
ensure that the fence will continue
to be structurally sound.
(D) Fences and walls shall be
constructed of new or like new
materials. Like new materials used
shall require prior approval is
granted by the Zoning Administrator
or other Authorized Agent prior to
issuance of the required zoning
permit.
Amending this section to
clarify the use of materials
that may require additional
review.
(E) The finished appearance of
fences and walls shall be
constructed with the higher quality
finish directed toward the exterior
of the property outward toward
adjoining property or public right of
way if the visual quality of the fence
or wall is not the same on both
sides.
Minor change to clarify
intent.
(F) The framing and posts
of wood, chain link, picket,
stockade, and decorative
metal fences shall face the
inside of the parcel area
fenced. The side of the
fence considered to be the
face (facing as applied to
fence posts) shall face the
abutting property.
(G) No more than two (2)
types of related fencing
materials shall be used in
any fence and wall.
(H) Both sides of any fence or wall
shall be maintained in a condition of
reasonable repair and appearance
by its owner and shall not be
allowed to become and remain in a
condition of disrepair or danger, or
constitute a nuisance, public or
private. Property owners should
take due care in selecting
maintenance-free fence materials,
or in placement of fence location, in
areas where ongoing maintenance
activities may require access
through adjoining property or is
otherwise restricted.
This addition reinforces the
caution to fence builders
that maintenance should
be considered and will
continue to be a
requirement, despite
conditions that could
restrict maintenance
requirements.
(I) The property owner is
responsible for providing proof of
property line location.
Deleted, covered in 150.072
(A) and (B).
(I) Where permitted, temporary
fences used for site protection
during construction shall be no less
than four (4) feet in height, shall be
secured and/or anchored in such a
way as ensure upright position, and
shall be constructed so as to
prohibit a 4-inch sphere from
passing through any portion of the
temporary fence.
Added text to address
height and construction of
temporary construction
fences (created by a prior
amendment to swimming
pool protection fencing).
(J) Retaining walls shall
not be placed within any
drainage, utility or
ponding easements unless
also reviewed and
approved by the City
Engineer.
Depositing of
Snow and/or
debris on public
ROW
§ 94.15 OBSTRUCTIONS PROHIBITED.
No person, except under a proper
building permit issued by the City
Manager or otherwise permitted in
this code, shall obstruct or
encumber any sidewalk, street,
avenue, alley, lane, or other public
way in the city with yard clippings,
leaves, stone, brick, sand, lumber, or
other material or property.
Consistent with Minnesota Statute
160.2715 Section (a) subdivision (1)
which advises that pushing /
blowing snow from driveways and
sidewalks onto public roads may be
punishable as a misdemeanor, no
person shall plow, shovel or blow or
permit the plowing, shoveling or
blowing of snow onto any sidewalk,
street, avenue, alley, lane, or other
public way in the city. except as
permitted in this code.
These two sections relate
to use of the public right-of-
way, and clarify prohibition
to obstruct or deposit
materials in the right of
way consistent with the
relevant statutory sections
for each.
§ 96.02 ELECTION TO MANAGE THE PUBLIC
RIGHTS-OF-WAY Pursuant to the
authority granted to the city under
state and federal statutory,
administrative and common law,
the city hereby elects, pursuant
Minn. Stat. 237.163 subd. 2(b), to
manage rights-of-way within its
jurisdiction.
Except as specifically authorized by
this Chapter, no person shall deposit
or permit to be deposited onto the
traveled portion of any public street
or alley, leaves, grass, sand or
similar materials, nor shall any
person plow, shovel or blow or
permit the plowing, shoveling or
blowing of snow onto the traveled
portion of any public street or alley.
Violation of this provision shall
constitute a petty misdemeanor.
This provision shall not apply to any
person who is in the process of
constructing or maintaining a yard
or drive provided that the materials
are immediately removed from the
street. Nothing in this section is
intended to exempt any person
from the requirement for permit
under this Chapter.
Adding a specific
prohibition to blowing
leaves, grass, snow, etc.
into the public street or
alley. This prohibition
applies to the traveled
portions of streets or alleys
only, not the “boulevard”
or easement areas.
Bus/Transit
Benches
Section
96.03 –
Definitions
Bus/Transit Bench - A bench
maintained on a publicly dedicated
street or right-of-way for the
convenience and comfort of persons
waiting for buses or other vehicles.
Section 96.38 –
Bus/Transit
Benches
Purpose. The purpose of this section
is to regulate the placing and
maintenance of bus/transit benches
in public rights of ways in order to
control location, appearance,
proliferation and traffic safety.
A) License Required: No bench may
be placed or maintained in a public
right of way without securing a
License from the City Manager, or
designee thereof, and the payment
of an annual license fee as
established in Section 33.061.
B) Application: Applications for
licenses shall be made to the City
Manager. The application shall
contain the following:
(1) Scale drawing showing the size
and location details of the
bus/transit bench relative to all other
objects on the property including the
layout of applicable adjacent
roadways, intersections, traffic
signage, sidewalks, trails, utility
poles, fences and other objects in the
vicinity.
(2) Written consent of the road
authority, as defined in Minnesota
State Statutes 160.02, if the City of
Saint Anthony Village is not the road
authority.
(3) Detailed plans and
specifications of the proposed bench
including the general nature of the
advertising matter, if any, to be
posted thereon and total surface
area intended as signage not to
exceed 12 square feet using the
front, or seating side surface only of
the bench backrest.
(4) General liability Certificate of
Insurance from an insurance
company rated “A” by A.M. Best
Company and authorized to do
business in the State of Minnesota,
naming the City as additional insured
in the minimum amount of one
million dollars ($1,000,000) for any
and all claims arising out of the use
or existence of a bus/transit bench.
The certificate shall provide for
automatic notification of the City
with a minimum thirty (30) days
advanced notice in the event of
cancellation.
(5) An executed hold harmless
agreement from the licensee,
protecting the City from any and all
claims arising out of the use,
existence and potential removal of
the bus/transit bench.
C) Bus/Transit Stops: A bench shall
only be placed at a bus/transit stop
on an established bus route.
D) Location: A bench shall be placed
parallel to and no nearer than three
(3) feet from the roadway curb or
the edge of the roadway where no
curb exists and shall not obstruct a
pathway.
E) Number: No more than one
bus/transit bench, located outside
of a shelter, may be placed at a
single established bus/transit stop
location.
F) Proximity to Other Benches: No
bus/transit bench may be placed
within 300 feet of any other bench
on the same side of the roadway
from which service is to be
delivered.
G) Materials: A bus/transit bench
shall be constructed of durable
materials including, but not limited
to concrete, wood, plastic, or
combination thereof, with colors
limited to whites, earth tones of
subdued greens, grays, browns,
reddish-browns, and golds.
H) Construction and Size: The
bus/transit bench shall be of
sufficient weight or shall be secured
in a manner to minimize the
potential of accidental tipping or
vandalism. No bus/transit bench
shall be fastened, secured, or
anchored to any property of the
City, County or public utility. Size
limitations of bus/transit benches
shall be; Height – 42 inches
maximum, Width – 30 inches
maximum and Length – seven feet
maximum.
I) Structure Maintenance: When
directed by the Code Official,
Licensee shall within forty-eight (48)
hours remedy any report of refuse
and litter issues. Within 72 hours of
a snow fall or other weather event,
removal of ice and snow in a
manner such that each bench shall
be fully accessible to and from any
sidewalk or roadway adjacent to the
bus/transit bench shall be achieved.
Licensee shall inspected benches
monthly for any grass or weeds in
excess of six (6) inches, graffiti,
damaged or broken parts and shall
remedy deficiencies within 48 hours
after being discovered or reported.
J) Revocation of License: The City
Council may revoke a license for
failure to comply with the
conditions of the license by three (3)
affirmative votes.
K) Removal: At the request of the
City, a bench shall be removed
within thirty days of notice, at the
permittee’s sole expense, if;
1) to permit right of way
improvements or maintenance,
2) the location of the bench is a
safety hazard or if it interferes with
pedestrian or vehicular traffic on
the right of way,
3) if the bus stop location is
removed from service or
4) the license issued by the City is
allowed to expire or is revoked. The
licensee shall incur the cost of
removal within thirty (30) days of
notice to remove. Licensee shall
make repairs to the vacated space
within the right-of -way to make it
visibly consistent with the
surrounding space. If licensee fails
to remove the bench within the
prescribed time, the City shall
remove licensee’s bench and hold at
the City Public Works facility for no
less than thirty (30) days, after
which time the bench may be
disposed of. All costs for removal,
disposal and remediation of ground
shall be payable to City by licensee.
L) Advertising Matter: Advertising
matter may be displayed only on
the front (roadway side) surface of
the backrest of bus/transit bench
and shall not exceed 12 square feet
in surface area. Advertisements for
liquor or beer, tobacco, political
advertisements, obscene, immoral
or illegal matter is prohibited on all
transit bench signs. No advertising
matter on any transit bench may
display the words “Stop”, “Look”,
“Drive In”, “Danger” or any other
word, phrase or symbol, reflective
material, or illumination device,
which might interfere with, mislead
or distract traffic.
155.03
DEFINITIONS.
Bus/Transit Bench Sign: A bench
maintained on a publicly dedicated
street or right-of-way for the
convenience and comfort of persons
waiting for buses or other vehicles,
which may include off-premise
advertising content, not to exceed
12 square feet in surface area.
155.22
PROHIBITED
SIGNS.
(20) Off-premise signs; with the
exception of bus/transit bench signs
as defined in Section 96.03
155.23 SIGNS
REQUIRING NO
PERMITS.
(D) Signs affixed on benches at
public bus stops or signs within
bus/transit benches as defined in
Section 96.03.
NOTICE OF A PUBLIC HEARING
August 16, 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 the following City Code text amendments: Sections §91 regarding
Keeping of Animals, §94 regarding Natural Landscape, §96 regarding Right of Way Management, §150
regarding Fences and Section §155 regarding Bus/Transit Bench Sign. These amendments have been
proposed by the City of St. Anthony Village, which is the applicant.
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=1607
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 September 13, 2022 at 7:00 p.m. at City Hall.
Steve Grittman
City Planner