Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2013/04/25 - ADMIN - Minutes - Board of Zoning Appeals - RegularOFFICIAL MINUTES OF APRIL 25, 2013 BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK The St. Louis Park Board of Zoning Appeals conducted a meeting on April 25, 2013, at St. Louis Park City Hall, 5005 Minnetonka Boulevard, St. Louis Park, Minnesota – Council Chambers. Members Present: Susan Bloyer, James Gainsley, Paul Roberts, Henry Solmer Staff Present: Gary Morrison, Assistant Zoning Administrator Nancy Sells, Administrative Secretary 1. CALL TO ORDER – ROLL CALL Chair Roberts called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF OCTOBER 25, 2012 Commissioner Gainsley made a motion to approve the minutes of October 25, 2012. Commissioner Solmer seconded the motion, and the motion passed on a vote of 4-0. 3. CONSENT AGENDA: None 4. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Variance: Front and Side Yards Location: 4637 Excelsior Blvd. Applicant: Michael J. Jennings Case No.: 13-15-VAR Gary Morrison, Assistant Zoning Administrator, presented the staff report. The applicant wants to construct an addition to a commercial building and would like a 0.0 ft. front yard and a 0.0 ft. side yard abutting the street. Mr. Morrison stated that a minimum of 20 ft. front yard and a 15 ft. side yard abutting the street is required. The minimum required front setback was recalculated, so what was stated in the report was incorrect. Mr. Morrison reviewed the averaging formula for the setback requirements in the C-1 Neighborhood Commercial District. He said the applicant pointed out the code language does say block front. Staff agrees that the average setback is taken from buildings on this block only. This means that the front yard setback requirement for this property is 12.5 ft. instead of the 20 ft. outlined in the staff report. Official Minutes Board of Zoning Appeals April 25, 2013 Page 2 Mr. Morrison discussed the purpose of setbacks including snow storage and pedestrian/vehicular visibility. He discussed the effect of a variance on the line of sight of the adjacent property and signage. He listed items which the city does not allow to extend into the public right-of-way. Mr. Morrison spoke about the city’s desire and goals for commercial corridors that are pedestrian friendly, have character and activity, are aesthetically pleasing, and enhance the private/public connection. He said the city has pursued this for more than 10 years through goals in comprehensive planning, public meetings and studies. In reference to side yard setbacks, he spoke about the comprehensive planning goal to keep corridors open and wider. Mr. Morrison said staff believes the criteria for granting variances has not been satisfied in the request, therefore recommends denial of the requested variances for the proposed addition. Commissioner Solmer asked if the property two doors east, which has a 6 ft. setback, is non-conforming should it be considered for measuring setback if it is non-conforming. Mr. Morrison responded that is a good question. The code doesn’t get to that. He said what he would do is what has been done in the past using an averaging formula in the R-1 and R-1 Districts. He explained the stop-gap language which prohibits getting closer than 5 feet. So, if there are some non-conformities that pull it forward into the 5 ft. setback it would be stopped at 5 ft. Commissioner Gainsley asked if other alternative methods of accomplishing the expansion were considered, such as less square footage or a smaller plan. Mr. Morrison said a 5 ft. front and sideyard setback was discussed with the applicant’s representative. The applicant felt it was not a feasible option because he would spend money for an addition but get less square footage out of it. Bill Thibault, Thibault Associates, representing the applicant, asked for clarification that after conversations with staff today that the setback be allowed to come within 5 feet of the property line. Mr. Morrison responded that at this time it is just a motion to recommend denial of the requested variances. At the time of the report and presentation the applicant has not stated that a 5 ft. setback will work or is acceptable. Therefore, staff is not making that recommendation currently, but staying with the requested variance. Mr. Thibault said the applicant would like to add about 2,000 sq. ft. to the building, giving him about 4500 sq. ft. 62% of the lot would still be empty. Official Minutes Board of Zoning Appeals April 25, 2013 Page 3 Mr. Thibault discussed the revised state statute and city ordinance on variances which he said allows for flexibility on dimensional items and specifically setbacks. He spoke about the practical problems of expanding this property. The best direction to expand is to the northwest, away from the residential area. Mr. Thibault spoke about items which would remain unchanged: 1) the sidewalk on Excelsior Blvd. is 15 ft. wide. It is the same decorative sidewalk pattern as on the north side of Excelsior Blvd. Sidewalk has decorative lighting, street trees and amenities found on the north side of Excelsior Blvd; 2) the city boulevard on Natchez remains the same; and 3) parking lot and access remain the same. The only thing changing would be the expansion of the building to the northwest. Mr. Thibault said he looked carefully at the Excelsior & Grand documents, buildings, situation, application, and took some photographs of what happens between the building face and the curb. He said on the north side at Excelsior & Grand the sidewalk areas range from 12 – 15 ft. The applicant’s property has 15 ft. Mr. Thibault said on the north side the lot line often runs approximately in the middle of the sidewalk. He said at 4500 Excelsior Blvd. the building line is on the lot line. 4630 Excelsior Blvd. has a 3-4 ft. setback Mr. Thibault said the building materials and building characteristics that Mr. Jennings proposes to use are consistent with the north side of Excelsior Blvd. Mr. Thibault said one of the principal features of setbacks relates to light and air and the proportionality of spaces between buildings. The applicant is proposing the same relationship between the curb line and the building as exists at Excelsior & Grand. Mr. Thibault spoke about the feasibility of building a wall parallel to and 10 feet from the existing wall, assuming staff would recommend the 5 ft. setback. The applicant isn’t sure if that is economically efficient. The applicant wants to think about that and is asking that the public hearing be continued. Mr. Thibault spoke about a practical difficulty. It’s a corner lot. He said he didn’t think there is a corner lot on Excelsior Blvd. that has 30 ft. of landscaping or even 15 ft. of landscaping. The only practical way to expand the building is to the north and west, leaving 60% of the site empty. Commissioner Gainsley asked the applicant to address hardship. Mr. Thibault said state statute has eliminated the hardship criteria from the variance procedure. Practical difficulty remains in state statute. Official Minutes Board of Zoning Appeals April 25, 2013 Page 4 Commissioner Gainsley asked Mr. Morrison about reasonable use and hardship. Mr. Morrison replied that the hardship criterion is still there in its intent. Applicants still have to show the variance is needed to get a reasonable use. He added that the zoning ordinance is the result of a public process; a result of the intent of the City Council to establish standards that need to be met. To vary from those standards applicants need to show that there is a hardship, or practical difficulty, that denies them reasonable use of the land. Mr. Morrison read the five criteria defining practical difficulties in the ordinance. Commissioner Bloyer said a direct comparison can’t be made with the north side of Excelsior Blvd. since those properties are zoned M-X Mixed Use. Mr. Thibault discussed the importance of the traffic signal at the intersection as related to visibility. Chair Roberts asked about the parking requirement for the C-1 District. Mr. Morrison responded that it is one parking space for 250 sq. ft. of retail area and one parking space for 1500 sq. ft. of storage area. He added that there is sufficient parking for the expansion as proposed. Commissioner Solmer asked if the applicant has considered a lesser expansion that would take some of the parking. Mr. Thibault responded that expanding on the south side would begin to block access into the angled parking. On the east side there is about 45 ft. to the lot line from the current building so could expand 3-4 ft. there before it would become difficult to get in and out of the parking stalls. Any expansion beyond 3 ft. would eliminate parking. He said there can’t be much of an expansion without eliminating access or parking stalls. The Chair opened the public hearing Betsy Tarnowski, 3901 Natchez Ave. S., said she has a home office and wasn’t pleased when the building was purchased for a liquor store. Currently there is additional traffic with large truck deliveries and there will be more with an expansion. She said she didn’t see the need for an expansion as the neighborhood has a Trader Joe’s at Excelsior & Grand and Liquor Barrel at Miracle Mile. She said the feeling in the neighborhood is that larger or additional liquor stores aren’t needed. Official Minutes Board of Zoning Appeals April 25, 2013 Page 5 Mr. Thibault said the applicant is concerned about setback and abutting property owners. He said the applicant had a liquor store on the north side of the boulevard. His property was taken for Excelsior & Grand. He wanted a location next to his market. He does need to compete which requires expansion. Commissioner Gainsley made a motion to continue the public hearing so that alternative plans can be examined. Commissioner Bloyer seconded the motion, and the motion passed on a vote of 4- 0. 5. Unfinished Business 6. New Business – Election of Officers Commissioner Gainsley made a motion nominating Susan Bloyer as Chairperson. The motion passed on a vote of 3-0-1 (Bloyer abstained). Commissioner Bloyer made a motion nominating James Gainsley as Vice Chairperson. The motion passed on a vote of 3-0-1 (Gainsley abstained). 7. ADJOURN The meeting was adjourned at 7:04 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Nancy Sells Administrative Secretary