Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2015/07/23 - ADMIN - Minutes - Board of Zoning Appeals - RegularOFFICIAL MINUTES OF JULY 23, 2015 BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK The St. Louis Park Board of Zoning Appeals conducted a meeting on July 23, 2015, at St. Louis Park City Hall, 5005 Minnetonka Boulevard, St. Louis Park, Minnesota – Council Chambers. Members Present: Paul Roberts, Susan Bloyer, James Gainsley, Henry Solmer Members Absent: Justin Kaufman 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 MAY 28, 2015 Commissioner Gainsley made a motion to approve the minutes of May 28, 2015. The motion passed on a vote of 4-0. 3. CONSENT AGENDA: None 4. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Variance: Front Setback Location: 3771 Kipling Avenue South Applicant: Beth and Zach Klawitter Case No.: 15-23-VAR Gary Morrison, Assistant Zoning Administrator, presented the staff report. He discussed that they proposal is to construct an addition to the front of the house and to complete this, they need a four-foot variance to the required 34.9’ front yard setback requirement. The property is zoned R2, single family residential and is approximate 6,780 sq. ft. in area. The lot width is 50’ and the minimum is 60’. The lot is approximate 135’ deep. The property has a detached garage located in the back with access out to Kipling. The proposed addition is to enclose the entryway and the kitchen addition to the side. The floor plan is included in the report and shows the existing and proposed conditions. They are primarily looking at the kitchen area. They currently have a pass-through kitchen with appliances and counters on the interior wall and some cupboards and a sink on the exterior wall and the covered stoop to the right of the kitchen. The counter and cupboard space in the existing kitchen compared to the proposal is relatively the Official Minutes Board of Zoning Appeals July 23, 2015 Page 2 same before and after the addition. The primary change was the addition of an island in the kitchen and the walk space behind it, which separated it from the kitchen and an enclosed entryway to the right of the kitchen. The front yard setback requirement came into play in 2005, after the result of a study that took several months. Before the existing regulation came into play, they used to have an averaging formula looking at the properties 150’ in either direction and averaged the existing setbacks to come up with what they had. The disadvantage of that was it wasn’t very intuitive, but also if you have a house that is out front, all of the other ones could never match it. There was also the question of equity and fairness. Alternatives were considered and they looked at every block in the city to find out what each block was like. While there are many similarities, there were many differences block to block. When St. Louis Park was developed, it was the first house that was built on that block that determined the setback for that block and all of the other houses had to match it or be further back. That was why there are different setbacks from block to block. Many cities determined the setback with the zoning. They looked at that as an option when they did the study, but the feedback was overwhelming that they didn’t want a standardized setback because part of the character of St. Louis Park is how it developed over time. The front setback is a key part of that character. That option was thrown out. The next option they came up with was what they adopted today. They look at the house closest to the front property line to establish the setback for that block. It works out pretty good. In the R2 district, there is a minimum of 25’ and it is the greater of the two. There are a couple exceptions that were introduced at that time. The open covered porch was included as an exception to the front setback rule and that was a result of character of St. Louis Park and the intent of having eyes on the street. They are considered to be aesthetically pleasing and encourage people to go in the front yard and engage one another and keep their eyes on the street. Another exclusion is the enclosed entryway. A lot of houses go right into the living room and it is nice to have a little space out front where you can have an enclosed area for a closet and put shoes. They debated and ended up on 5’ x 8’. As they look at the block that was the subject of today’s application, the existing setback to the North the houses line up. As you go to the South, it steps back about five feet. You see a couple bump outs and those are enclosed entryways. They measure this setback to the main wall of the house. The neighboring house to the North is shown to match up to the applicants and as you extend south, it matches with the front of the entryway, but that is an exception. The variance is required for the kitchen portion. Staff is recommending denial of the application and the findings are listed in the report. There was a petition submitted from the neighbors in support of the variance request. Chair Roberts noted the petition would be submitted as Exhibit A into the public record. Official Minutes Board of Zoning Appeals July 23, 2015 Page 3 Zach Klawitter, applicants, stated in addition to the petition, they had letters from neighbors on Kipling to be made part of the record (Exhibits B, C, D). Beth Klawitter stated the reason they were appealing was because they love where they live and love the neighborhood. They want to stay in St. Louis Park. They have three kids under six and it was important to them as a family. They love their house and have been there for eight years and have great relationships with their neighbors. It was pointed out that it was only the island, but it was more than that. It was part of the flow of the home and where they gather. They also use the space for family celebrations. Mr. Klawitter added that they moved into an entry-level house and had done a lot of improvements and remodeling and had done it right. They had increased the property value. They had the support of their neighbors. The last room of the house that needed work was the kitchen. They had looked at many options and couldn’t do anything but move toward the street. It was the last option and would not be intrusive to the neighbors. Commissioner Gainsley asked if they felt there were no alternative proposals that would not require a variance? Mr. Klawitter replied no. Commissioner Solmer asked if they had looked into the possibility of relocating the kitchen? Ms. Klawitter replied they had and Sicora Building came in with different design potentials and this was the best recommendation from the designer for what they were trying to accomplish. Because the kitchen is in the front of the house, in order for them to move the kitchen anywhere else, it would require extensive relocation of mechanicals and would not be possible with a growing family. Allison Landers, Sicora Building Solution for Small Houses designer, stated she does design for resident in St. Louis Park and people go to her to find solutions for small homes. In the past, a lot of people have felt that bigger is better. She had worked with a lot of clients with ramblers and relocating kitchens by flipping them to the other side of the stairs and it is very expensive. She tries to have small steps and small pieces and try to be efficient and sustainable. They are trying not to relocate the kitchen and maintain the integrity of the home. Character had been brought up and Sicora Homes is known for their character in the community. They don’t do really giant additions and take pride in craftsmanship and small and petite solutions for growing families. They try to be efficient with their designs and bigger isn’t always better. Commissioner Gainsley asked if she was knowledgeable with the zoning ordinance? Ms. Landers replied she would never claim expertise in something Official Minutes Board of Zoning Appeals July 23, 2015 Page 4 that she didn’t do every single day. She was here to represent why they designed what they did. Chair Roberts opened the public hearing. As no one else was present wishing to speak, Chair Roberts closed the public hearing. Commissioner Gainsley explained that the problem was the front yard aspect was almost “black letter” law and cast in concrete. There was no way to get around it. What they were doing did not fall into any of the exceptions and there were no practical difficulties with rivers or rocks and there was no hardship. It was a matter of being the way the owner wanted to go and what the designer designed. If they did it, it would be contrary to the Compressive Plan and the Zoning Ordinance. Since they didn’t have a choice, he could not approve a variance for this. Commissioner Solmer thanked Mr. Morrison for the historical background of how they got here on the ordinance. That tells there were previous struggles on expanding toward the street and the intent of the current ordinance is to make a final decision on that and he didn’t think they wanted to reopen that topic. Commissioner Bloyer agreed and remembered the history of front yard debate. The only thing that gave her pause was that they didn’t have any options and that was the one thing that bothered her about this. She was only thinking of the water being a huge problem and not even the mechanicals. She would like to see there being a way to do it, but at the moment she hadn’t heard anything that would let her do it either. Chair Roberts agreed with the rest of the board members. They are a judicial board and have to look at law in front of them. They could all understand what they were trying to accomplish and have empathy for what they were trying to do, but their job was to look at the ordinances and the zoning to come up with the correct solution based on that. He didn’t see another way for them to do it based on the zoning. They have use of the house and use of the property. There is nothing wrong with how the property is laid out that was preventing this, but the zoning calls for the front yard setback to be such as it. Commissioner Gainsley made a motion to adopt a resolution denying an application for a 4.0 foot variance to the required 34.9 foot front yard at 3771 Kipling Avenue South. The motion to deny was approved on a vote of 4-0. Commissioner Gainsley noted that the applicants always have the right of appeal. Official Minutes Board of Zoning Appeals July 23, 2015 Page 5 Chair Roberts stated that there is a 10-day appeal process where they can appeal to the City Council. Mr. Morrison noted an appeal needed to be made to the Assistant Zoning Administrator. They had ten days from today. 5. UNFINISHED BUSINESS: None 6. NEW BUSINESS: None 7. COMMUNICATIONS Mr. Morrison reviewed previous BOZA cases and Council actions. 8. ADJOURN The meeting was adjourned at 6:40 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Amy Stegora-Peterson/ns Recording Secretary