Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2014/07/24 - ADMIN - Minutes - Board of Zoning Appeals - Regular OFFICIAL MINUTES OF JULY 24, 2014 BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK The St. Louis Park Board of Zoning Appeals conducted a meeting on July 24, 2014, at St. Louis Park City Hall, 5005 Minnetonka Boulevard, St. Louis Park, Minnesota – Council Chambers. Members Present: Susan Bloyer, Justin Kaufman, James Gainsley Henry Solmer Members Absent: Paul Roberts Staff Present: Gary Morrison, Assistant Zoning Administrator Emily Goellner, Community Development Intern Nancy Sells, Administrative Secretary 1. CALL TO ORDER – ROLL CALL Chair Gainsley called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF MAY 27, 2014 Chair Gainsley made a motion to approve the minutes of May 27, 2014. The motion passed on a vote of 3-0. (Commissioner Kaufman arrived at 6:01 p.m.) 3. CONSENT AGENDA: None 4. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Variance: Side yard setback for construction of single-family home Location: 3911 W. 31st St. Applicant: Joe Meyer Homes Case No. 14-14-VAR Emily Goellner, Community Development Intern, presented the staff report. She stated that the applicant is requesting a variance from side yard setback requirements to allow the construction of a single family home with a 7 foot setback on each side yard. A variance of 5 feet is requested from the required 12 feet setback requirement on the west side of the proposed home to allow for a total setback of 7 feet. On the east side of the home, a variance of 8 feet is requested from the required 15 feet setback requirement to allow a total setback of 7 feet. Ms. Goellner explained that the lot is smaller than most lots in the R-4 Official Minutes Board of Zoning Appeals July 24, 2014 Page 2 District, which makes building to the required side yard setbacks more challenging. Ms. Goellner reviewed the required criterion for a variance. She said staff finds the proposed application does meet the criterion required for granting a variance because it is within reasonable distance from the surrounding properties and the proposed home fits the character of the neighborhood. Staff recommends adoption of a resolution granting the requested variance of 5 feet and 8 feet to allow the construction of the proposed single-family home. Ms. Goellner stated the conditions and read the appeal process. Commissioner Bloyer asked how much of the neighborhood is zoned R-4 Multiple Family Residential. She asked if future plans for the neighborhood include demolition of single family homes. Ms. Goellner responded that there are no current plans to demolish homes on the block for multiple family residential. The R-4 District extends to Cedar Lake trail to the south and to County Rd. 25 to the north. Commissioner Solmer asked if the city permits the garage door to be at the front of the house closest to the street. Ms. Goellner replied that the zoning ordinance does not prohibit that kind of design. She added that in this application the garage does not cause the need for the side yard setback variance. The Chair opened the public hearing. Joe Meyer, Joe Meyer Homes, the general contractor, said he was available for any questions. Commissioner Solmer said he noticed that the driveways of the adjacent properties are located at the edge of the property which helps them meet the setback requirement. He asked if that had been considered for this construction. Mr. Meyer stated that the steep grade would make that very difficult. Commissioner Solmer said he noticed there is currently a fabric covered temporary garage on the property. Mr. Meyer said that will be removed. As no one else was present wishing to speak Chair Gainsley closed the public hearing. Official Minutes Board of Zoning Appeals July 24, 2014 Page 3 Commissioner Bloyer said she had no issues with the request. Commissioner Solmer asked where the city is going long term with the single family properties on the block. Gary Morrison, Assistant Zoning Administrator, stated that the single family homes are permitted uses in the R-4 District so are legally conforming to code. Commissioner Solmer said part of his concern is that the proposed house is going to be of a different character because it will be garage front design. Chair Gainsley made a motion to adopt Resolution No. 04-14 approving a 5 foot variance to the required 12 foot side yard and an 8 foot variance to the required 15 foot side yard for the construction of a single family home. The motion passed on a vote of 4-0. B. Appeal of a Zoning Determination Location: 2211 Florida Ave. S. Applicant: Marty Bell, Marty Bell Properties, LLC Case No.: 14-18-AP Gary Morrison, Assistant Zoning Administrator, presented the staff report. He stated that the appellant is appealing staff’s determination that the Outdoor Storage conducted by Tim’s Tree Service at 2211 Florida Ave. S. is a principal land use. Mr. Morrison pointed out that in the staff report Marty Bell and Tim’s Tree Service were named as appellant in the staff report. He noted that since the report went out Tim’s Tree Service has asked not to be named as an appellant of the appeal. Mr. Morrison provided a definition of Outdoor Storage from the zoning ordinance. He provided background on the 2211 Florida and 2220 Florida properties. He presented photographs of equipment and materials being stored on the properties. Mr. Morrison discussed the structure of zoning districts. He spoke about the conditions of outdoor storage as an accessory use in the code. He discussed the definitions in the City Code for principal use and accessory use. Mr. Morrison noted that the appellant did send a response to the staff report by email on July 22, 2014. That response was emailed to the board on July 22nd for review. Mr. Morrison discussed his responses to that document. Commissioner Bloyer asked if the city has a definition of land or same land. Mr. Morrison responded that it is not defined in the code. Official Minutes Board of Zoning Appeals July 24, 2014 Page 4 Commissioner Kaufman asked if Tim’s Tree Service is a licensed business in St. Louis Park. Mr. Morrison answered that the business doesn’t have a Registration of Land Use for the outdoor storage. The City doesn’t license all of its businesses. Commissioner Kaufman asked what the business address is for Tim’s Tree Service. Mr. Morrison said 2220 Florida is listed as the business address for Tim’s Tree Service on Google. He added that the website for Tim’s Tree Service does not include a business address. Commissioner Solmer said nothing has been presented that indicates there was any requirement that additional parking spaces be provided. Mr. Morrison responded there is no documentation indicating that was the expectation. He said the code would allow it but there is nothing in the files indicating that. At that time there would have to be a Letter of Understanding. Currently that would be allowed by Conditional Use Permit. Chair Gainsley opened the public hearing. Marvin Liszt, attorney, Bernick Lifson, asked staff for a set of construction plans which were submitted at an earlier time. Chair Gainsley asked what the plans were for. Mr. Morrison said that the point of the plans was to show that an addition was constructed to the building. One of the plan sheets shows a building and a parking lot across the street. He continued by saying the problem with those plans is that the addition shown on those plans was never constructed. Chair Gainsley remarked that the plans were not relevant. Mr. Liszt responded that the plans were very relevant. A brief recess was held while staff obtained the plans. Mr. Liszt said he wanted the board to see the plans because Mr. Bell bought the property in Dec. 1986, did some work to the building and occupied it a few months later. Some of the work on the plans was done at that time and some of the work was not done. Mr. Liszt said the point of showing the plans is that for as long as Mr. Bell has owned 2220 Florida, the 2211 and 2221 Florida properties Official Minutes Board of Zoning Appeals July 24, 2014 Page 5 have supplied the required parking necessary. 2211 and 2221 Florida are a part of that plan and the property. It has always been required as necessary parking for the 2220 building. Mr. Liszt said that Mr. Bell has always considered it one in the same because he needs that parking. It has always been shown that way. Mr. Liszt went on to say that the use of the parking area by Tim’s Tree Service is in line with other uses in that area. Marcy’s has a large outdoor storage facility, buses are parked in various lots in the area, Swanson Youngdale’s facility is across from Mr. Bell’s property, with all sorts of equipment. He said the area has various types of office/warehouse and storage. He stated that Mr. Bell has owned the property for about 28 years. When he bought the property, and as it exists today, the code allowed that the parking lot at 2211 Florida and 2221 are necessary to meet the code requirements for parking. Mr. Bell considers it all one use and all one entity because they are required for each other. Mr. Liszt said technically under the code it is not outdoor storage. Outdoor storage means the receiving, keeping and shipping of goods and materials outside of an enclosed building. He said the materials on Mr. Bell’s property are not kept there for more than a very short time period, in most cases less than a day. They are used in and out within Tim’s Tree Service business. Mr. Liszt said outdoor storage is prohibited as a principal use in the IP District as indicated in the staff report and as the code sets forth. He said the use is not outdoor storage so that doesn’t apply. If it is not outdoor storage it is an accessory use which is permitted. He read the definition of accessory use from the code as a use or structure subordinate to the principal use or structure on the same land. Mr. Liszt added that it does not say the same lot. He stated that land is a broader term. Accessory use does not use the term lot or parcel, it uses the term land. He stated that 2220, 2211 and 2221 are the same land. It has been treated that way by Mr. Bell and by the City for the last 20 years. He said it is necessary and it is legally required. Land is not defined in the code. He said if it is the same land, which he believes it is, then Tim’s Tree Service as outdoor storage is an accessory use which is permitted under the code. Mr. Liszt said that is the argument, and that is why he believes Tim’s Tree Service can legally operate there. Mr. Liszt said Tim’s Tree Service does rent office space within the building. If outdoor storage is conducted on 2211 Florida Ave. Mr. Liszt said he does believe it is plain and simple an accessory use to that building across the street. He added that the only difference between what is going on with Tim’s Tree Service and the building and every other outdoor storage within a block or two is that the city contends it is done on a different parcel or lot. Mr. Liszt said he thinks that is a distinction without any difference. He went on to say he doesn’t think it is a legitimate distinction when the parking lots are required for 2220. Official Minutes Board of Zoning Appeals July 24, 2014 Page 6 Mr. Liszt said his other argument is that a parking lot can also be a principal land use under the code in this district. In that case, if this is outdoor storage that can be an accessory use to the principal land use which is a parking lot. Martin Bell stated he has owned the property for about 28 years. He provided background on the property. He spoke about the plans that were submitted to the city for the addition. Plans were submitted for warehouse and office space and to include the parking across the street. He felt it was always considered the same land use, which was bisected by the street. There is no parking in front of the building and there are restrictions after 4 p.m. He said he refurbished the office for Tim’s Tree Service. He concluded by saying he hopes the board will allow Tim’s Tree Service to continue tenancy. Commissioner Solmer said he found Mr. Liszt’s discussion on what constitutes land to be very interesting. He said he would leave his comments at that. Commissioner Kaufman said the argument about land sounds logical. He asked if the applicant can provide any more clarity on that issue. Mr. Liszt said there are other places in the code in the IP District that use the terms lot and parcel. The courts presume that when a statute, ordinance, regulation or rule is drafted it means what it says, someone did it for a reason. He said in the case of accessory use the term land was used when other parts of the IP District do use the words lot or parcel. Mr. Liszt said he has to assume by law that the use of land is a broader term. Mr. Morrison stated that the ordinance defines lot and parcel and they refer to each other. Lot is defined and parcel refers to the definition of lot. Land is not defined. He said in looking at the definition of accessory use, “a use subordinate to the principal use on the same land,” he does not follow the logic of how that can extend to another parcel of land that is under common ownership whether it is across the street, next door, next block, or somewhere else in St. Louis Park. Common ownership of the land can’t infer rights of an accessory use to another piece of land. Mr. Liszt replied that is what it says, it doesn’t say lot or parcel it says land. It’s under common ownership and there is a street in-between it. He commented that for the city to say that when they require by code that 2220 Florida is a legal building for parking purposes, it naturally follows that it is all part of the same land. Commissioner Solmer asked if the required parking is contemplated to be for private passenger vehicles. Official Minutes Board of Zoning Appeals July 24, 2014 Page 7 Mr. Morrison responded that the principal use is occurring at 2220. There is a provision in the code that allows the required parking, and only the required parking, to take place on a separate parcel. Commissioner Solmer commented that it isn’t contemplated that the required parking would include overnight storage, weekend/holiday storage, commercial trucks, bobcats, and dumpsters. Mr. Morrison said Commissioner Solmer was correct. He said the code is very clear that only the required parking can take place on this other lot. Commissioner Kaufman asked if there was any requirement that storage has to be on the back lot. Mr. Morrison said as an accessory use in the IP District it is required to be in the rear yard only. As no one else was present wishing to speak the Chair closed the public hearing. Commissioner Bloyer said she was not persuaded by the argument regarding the land for required parking because there are often contract relationships with other landowners for the parking that is required. That does not become the same land as the original business. She said generally when something is not defined it goes into the plain language of how it is ordinarily used. How it is ordinarily used would not include land across the street. Commissioner Bloyer said she was also concerned about the implication of a lessor and lessee and changing the use of a property. She concluded by saying she does not see this as one property. Because of that any other argument doesn’t work. Commissioner Kaufman said land versus parcel seems to be an interesting argument. He said the definition of accessory use also includes “and customarily incidental thereto.” He said in the context of an industrial park and what would be customarily incidental to the type of work that is being done, he questions this. He added that looking at the photographs it does also appear as though there are two other lots that are used for storage that abut the property. Mr. Morrison responded that there is outside storage occurring on other properties. That outside storage is accessory to the office use or manufacturing use, which is permitted in the IP District. The Chair reopened the public hearing. Mr. Liszt stated every building along Edgewood has outdoor storage that abuts Mr. Bell’s property. He said however Tim’s Tree Service use of that property is Official Minutes Board of Zoning Appeals July 24, 2014 Page 8 categorized, it is a similar type of use that goes on within 20 ft. away. It is not necessarily a legal argument but it is a practical argument. Mr. Bell said in the use of that property in the past his own business had at least 7 trucks parked on the property overnight on the weekends, plus semi-trailers and containers bringing product in from overseas. They were always parked in that area, every weekend and every night. He said he sees no difference between that and Tim’s Tree Service truck parking. He said his employees would come in, park their cars on the lot and take the trucks away. The same action that Tim’s Tree Service is doing. Mr. Bell stated that went on for the 20 years his business occupied warehouses and offices on that property. The Chair reclosed the public hearing. Chair Gainsley asked staff if there were any further remarks. Mr. Morrison said when Volkswagen stored vehicles on the site they received notice that was not allowed. They tried but ultimately the City removed the vehicles. Regarding the practical matter of the outside storage, Mr. Morrison said the intent of the IP District is to provide an industrial setting where the primary use is inside the building. It is a jobs oriented district. He said an example is an industrial building at the end of Edgewood. Built 6-7 years ago, it is a multi- tenant industrial building, lots of jobs, warehouse, manufacturing, some office, and no outside storage. That is the intent of the Industrial Park District. Mr. Morrison said that a lot where the principal use is outside storage is not the direction this district is supposed to be going. He spoke about ratios between accessory and principal uses that may make some of the other nearby businesses legally non-conforming. Commissioner Kaufman asked about remediation to make the current use conforming. Mr. Morrison replied that could only occur through a code change. Commissioner Solmer remarked that the applicant could find space for the intended use in other parts of the city. Commissioner Bloyer made a motion to adopt Resolution No. 05-14 denying the appeal. Commissioners Kaufman and Gainsley discussed whether or not a request for a variance would be an option. Commissioner Bloyer commented that technical merits of the appeal have not been presented, making the request for appeal impossible to consider. Official Minutes Board of Zoning Appeals July 24, 2014 Page 9 The motion to adopt Resolution No. 05-14 denying the appeal was approved by a vote of 4-0. Mr. Morrison read the process for appeal to the City Council. 5. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 6. NEW BUSINESS: None 7. COMMUNICATIONS 8. ADJOURN The meeting was adjourned at 7:25 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Nancy Sells Administrative Secretary