Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2016/03/24 - ADMIN - Minutes - Board of Zoning Appeals - Regular OFFICIAL MINUTES OF MARCH 24, 2016 BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK The St. Louis Park Board of Zoning Appeals conducted a meeting on March 24, 2016, at St. Louis Park City Hall, 5005 Minnetonka Boulevard, St. Louis Park, Minnesota – Council Chambers. Members Present: Susan Bloyer, Justin Kaufman, Henry Solmer Members Absent: James Gainsley, Paul Roberts Staff Present: Nicole Mardell, Associate Planner Gary Morrison, Assistant Zoning Administrator 1. CALL TO ORDER – ROLL CALL Vice-Chair Kaufman called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF JULY 23, 2015 Commissioner Bloyer made a motion recommending approval of the minutes of July 23, 2015. Commissioner Solmer seconded the motion, and the motion passed on a vote of 3-0. 3. CONSENT AGENDA: None 4. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Variance: Variance for Fence Height in a Front Yard Location: 4120 West 28th Street Applicants: Eric and Johnna Rossbach Case No. 16-10-VAR Nicole Mardell, Associate Planner, presented the staff report. The applicants are requesting a variance to allow the construction of a 6 foot high privacy fence in the front yard of a property zoned R-1 Single Family Residential. The applicants propose to erect a fence located in the front and side yard of the property to create a private outdoor living space. The applicants state that due to the location of the principal building on a corner lot, there is no adequate outdoor living space in the rear yard. The applicants have reviewed the layout of the home with professional landscapers to determine an alternative solution to a fence, but no adequate solution has been found. The current height maximum for a fence in the front yard is 4 feet. Official Minutes Board of Zoning Appeals March 24, 2016 Page 2 Ms. Mardell explained that the property is located on a corner lot with frontage on Inglewood Avenue and a side yard abutting West 28th Street. The home has a minimal setback along the north and east property lines and a large setback on the west and south property lines. Ms. Mardell noted there has been some confusion on the designated yards for the property per the zoning code. She presented an aerial view of the property indicating the designated yards. Ms. Mardell stated that a letter was received from James W. Keenan, 2808 Inglewood Ave. S., on March 21, 2016. The letter of objection was distributed to the board. Mr. Keenan’s key points assert that the variance may set a precedent for similar approvals and that the same level of privacy could be resolved with natural plantings. Ms. Mardell said staff finds the front of the house faces the side yard abutting the street and the placement of the house on the corner presents difficulty in creating a semi-private usable area typical of a single family lot. The narrow lot width presents a practical difficulty resulting in 5 feet of usable space behind the house. The side yard is the only opportunity to provide private open space for the property. The preferred fence is not adjacent to a neighboring driveway and will not impact vehicle sight lines. Ms. Mardell stated staff recommends approval of the 2 foot variance to the fence height requirement in the front yard to allow for a 6 foot fence rather than the allowed 4 foot maximum, subject to the 50 ft. visibility triangle being maintained at Inglewood Avenue and West 28th Street. Ms. Mardell read the 10-day appeal process. Commissioner Solmer said his copy of the zoning ordinance states that the height of the front yard fence is 3 ½ feet. He asked if that has been changed. Ms. Mardell responded that it is 4 feet. Commissioner Solmer asked the procedure for determining what is the front yard and side yard of this house. Ms. Mardell responded said staff determined the front yard looking at the measurement of the lot. The shortest side of the corner lot is determined as the front. Vice-Chair Kaufman said given the letter received from Mr. Keenan and concerns about the neighborhood he wondered if the city granted other similar variances in this neighborhood in the past. Official Minutes Board of Zoning Appeals March 24, 2016 Page 3 Gary Morrison, Assistant Zoning Administrator, responded similar variances have not been granted in this neighborhood. He said other applications have been entertained in the past, but not very often. One such variance was approved but the fence was not built. He said every circumstance is different so the idea of precedent doesn’t come into play. Vice-Chair Kaufman opened the public hearing. Eric Rossbach, applicant, said the staff report properly outlines the request. Commissioner Bloyer remarked that the applicant indicated they had spoken with some landscape architects. She asked if he was looking for something other than a fence. She said she was curious why a landscape architect would not recommend shrubbery. Mr. Rossbach said the idea of shrubbery came up. However they have dogs and will be having children. There will be grills and other items in the outdoor space and they felt the shrubbery wouldn’t provide adequate security and that is why they wanted a fence. He said they did look at having the 6 ft. fence along 28th St. and came to the conclusion that wouldn’t be an adequate aesthetic appeal and character for the home or neighborhood. Commissioner Solmer said he didn’t follow the aesthetic statement. He asked if the applicant felt it would be more aesthetic to run the fence all the way around. Mr. Rossbach said they looked at different variations and thought for a 6 foot high fence they needed to be under current zoning code along W. 28th St. and in order to accomplish that there is more lineal footage. They looked at different designs and given where the front door of the home is located they weren’t able to come up with a design that looked good with the home. Commissioner Bloyer asked if there is a doorway next to the sun room. Mr. Rossbach responded there is not currently a doorway next to the sun room. He said their intent is to have that installed this spring. The Vice-Chair closed the public hearing as no one was present wishing to speak. Commissioner Solmer said he lives nearby. He said he has observed the corner lots recently and most of them do not have a fence. They all have the same problem. Most of their available yard space is devoted to the setback on the two streets. Most do not have a fence. For those that do have a 6 foot fence typically it doesn’t start any further forward than the front part of the house which is what is allowed by current code. He spoke about the visibility triangle issue with this corner house. Official Minutes Board of Zoning Appeals March 24, 2016 Page 4 Commissioner Bloyer remarked the applicant has worked around the visibility triangle issue. Commissioner Solmer said they have to run it at an angle and the point is that is going to cut directly on the land the applicant is hoping to enclose. He said he doesn’t think there is any other house in the area that has a front yard walled off. It would look like a fort or stockade. He said it would set a bad precedent. He spoke about a discussion at the July 23, 2015 BOZA meeting about eyes on the street philosophy and the importance to maintain visibility. He said it helps for security. He stated he thinks the open look of the front yards in St. Louis Park is more friendly, welcoming and neighborly instead of being all blocked off which is seen in other communities. Commissioner Solmer said one of the things BOZA is supposed to consider is the impact on the character of the neighborhood. He said if this variance is approved it would have an irreversible impact on the character of the neighborhood by allowing this front yard to be blocked off. Commissioner Bloyer said it was a mitigating factor for her that the only spot the applicant has for a play and socializing area is the legally defined front yard. She said she thinks they have a legal alternative and that is the problem she has, not to mention that 4 feet is not so low that a dog can jump over it, unless it is a big dog. Vice-Chair Kaufman said the location the fence would not create a wall around the front of the house. It is a fence on the side of the house. It is a high traffic area for pedestrians. A 4 foot fence doesn’t provide privacy. He said given the unique nature of the house and the fact that in the neighborhood there is no real back yard or any privacy area, he is less concerned with what would be a 6 foot wall on the side of the house, than if they would put a 4 foot fence around the actual front of the house, and how that fits in with the community. He said because of that, and with the staff recommendation that this meets the qualifications for a variance, he said his inclination is to approve the variance. Gary Morrison, Assistant Zoning Administrator, showed the side of the house which is technically the front yard as it is constructed. He said the board could choose as a condition of the variance that the homeowner could also be limited to a 4 foot height along the whole side yard abutting the street. He remarked that it is not uncommon for front yards to be up against someone’s back yard and therefore up against a 6 foot fence. Staff’s analysis was that it isn’t uncommon for that neighbor to the north to have a 6 foot fence in the front yard. He said staff’s major concern in considering the request was that there is not a driveway up against the proposed fence so by allowing a 6 foot fence a visibility hazard for a car coming out of the driveway onto the street is not created. The concern was that here is a house that really has no outside privacy and for quality of housing Official Minutes Board of Zoning Appeals March 24, 2016 Page 5 staff felt that was a major concern. He said he would recommend that the board adds a condition that the side yard abutting the street be limited to a 4 foot height and that the 6 foot fence is limited to the front face of the house as constructed along 28th St. That way the sight line down 28th St., which is the front of the house, is preserved just like it normally would be. Commissioner Bloyer asked if there is a point hypothetically at which the fence could be pulled in far enough away from the sidewalk so a variance wouldn’t be necessary. Mr. Morrison responded there is not. The appropriate limit is all the way to the setback line. Vice-Chair Kaufman said the photo provided of a proposed 6 foot fence is not quite the fortress perhaps it is made out to be. Commissioner Solmer said the example provided in the photo is a more typical application where the fence starts next to the house. It does not enclose the front yard. This is seen all over the neighborhood. A lot of people do it but it is often not located in the front of the house but rather the side or rear. Commissioner Bloyer said what would help her would be more emphasis on both minimum lot size and width smaller than the minimum requirements. She said what she wants to avoid is having precedent for tall fences in legally defined front yards. That really is the issue here. She said BOZA needs to make sure that it is narrowed down in scope enough to avoid opening up precedent for more fortresses. It is a problem of precedent plus the fact that the yard has no shrubbery. She said her stipulation is that it is defined more narrowly. Mr. Morrison thanked Commissioner Bloyer and said the condition of 4 foot fence height on the side yard abutting the street along 28th St. is to avoid the barricaded look and preserve the front yard as constructed. He said a condition could be added that the fence must be removed and built to the limiting front yard height should the house be rebuilt or remodeled so that the front faces Inglewood. Commissioner Bloyer said she agrees with that but it also has to say explicitly in the rationale that it is also minimum lot size. Mr. Morrison said that can be called out in the findings along with lot width or lot size, corner lot, house constructed facing side yard instead of front yard, and the fact that the fence does not create a visibility problem for neighbors as far as the driveway is concerned. Commissioner Solmer said hypothetically if the definition was changed for what is front and side for this lot, then the homeowner would not need a variance. Official Minutes Board of Zoning Appeals March 24, 2016 Page 6 Mr. Morrison responded staff wrestles with that as it comes up with more than fences. It comes up with a few situations for residential and commercial. The code is written for the shape of the lot. Commissioner Solmer asked if that should be considered by City Council in a study session. Mr. Morrison said because there are so many situations and circumstances the answer always comes back that it is probably best handled in a variance. Vice-Chair Kaufman said aside from the legal definition of front and side, by every intention the front yard of this property is the side yard. He said setting a precedent isn’t an issue for him as Mr. Morrison came up with one example over eight years and in that case the fence was not even built. Vice-Chair Kaufman said he isn’t very receptive to the argument that the whole character of the city will change by allowing one fence. He said it is just a matter of practicality in this case. Commissioner Bloyer said the board does have a limit as to how much it can interpret. Vice-Chair Kaufman made a motion to adopt a resolution approving an application for a 6 foot fence in a front yard at 4120 W. 28th Street. Commissioner Bloyer made a friendly amendment to the motion to grant the variance with the condition that if the house orientation changes such that the legal front yard becomes the de facto front yard that the fence has to be taken down to 4 feet and that the de facto front yard has the 4 foot height, with the stipulation that it has less than minimum lot width and a less than minimum lot size. The Vice Chair accepted the friendly amendment. The motion was approved on a 2-1 motion (Solmer opposed). Mr. Morrison noted there is a 10-day appeal process to the City Council if written notice is received by April 4. 5. UNFINISHED BUSINESS: None 6. NEW BUSINESS: None 7. COMMUNICATIONS Official Minutes Board of Zoning Appeals March 24, 2016 Page 7 8. ADJOURN The meeting was adjourned at 6:37 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Nancy Sells Recording Secretary