Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2017/04/27 - ADMIN - Agenda Packets - Board of Zoning Appeals - Regular AGENDA BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS COUNCIL CHAMBERS 6:00 P.M. APRIL 27, 2017 1. Call to Order – Roll Call 2. Approval of Minutes: March 23, 2017 3. Consent Agenda: None 4. Public Hearings A. Variance: Variance to the side setback Location: 4306 West 36th Street Applicant: Kristy and Nigel Dahlvang Case No. 17-14-VAR 5. Unfinished Business 6. New Business A. Election of Chair and Vice Chair 7. Communications 8. Adjournment If you cannot attend the meeting, please call the Community Development Office, 952/924-2572. Auxiliary aides for individuals with disabilities are available upon request. To make arrangements, please call 952/928-2840 at least 96 hours in advance of meeting. OFFICIAL MINUTES OF MARCH 23, 2017 BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK The St. Louis Park Board of Zoning Appeals conducted a meeting on March 23, 2017, 6:00 p.m., at St. Louis Park City Hall, 5005 Minnetonka Boulevard, St. Louis Park, Minnesota – Council Chambers. Members Present: Susan Bloyer, James Gainsley, Justin Kaufman, Henry Solmer Members Absent: Paul Roberts Staff Present: Gary Morrison, Assistant Zoning Administrator Nancy Sells, Office Assistant 1. CALL TO ORDER – ROLL CALL Vice Chair Kaufman called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF DECEMBER 22, 2016 Commissioner Bloyer made a motion to approve the minutes of December 22, 2016. The motion passed on a vote of 4-0. 3. CONSENT AGENDA: None 4. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Variance: Setback requirements for a sign Location: 2001 Flag Avenue South Applicant: Minneapolis Golf Club Case No.: 17-02-VAR Gary Morrison, Assistant Zoning Administrator, presented the staff report. The applicant is requesting a seven foot variance to the required ten foot setback for signs. He showed photos and drawings indicating the location of the sign, entryway and proposed sign. Mr. Morrison noted the applicant has requested a change to recommended conditions of approval. The applicant requests that the sign face can be no more than thirteen square feet in area rather than nine square feet in area. Official Minutes Board of Zoning Appeals March 23, 2017 Page 2 Mr. Morrison reviewed the variance criteria. He noted it is a subtle sign and for identification only. Mr. Morrison stated that staff finds the application meets the criterion considered for granting a variance. Commissioner Bloyer asked what the hardship is for the sign. She said it appears there is a legal alternative to the variance. Mr. Morrison responded that the hardship is related to lack of visibility due to shrubbery with the sign structure at three feet off the property line. The shrubs are required by city code to screen the parking lot. Vice Chair Kaufman asked the distance from the roadway to the sign. Mr. Morrison responded that distance was not identified but it looks like the typical 14 feet. He said a typical parking lot is located further away from the property line. Vice Chair Kaufman opened the public hearing. Joseph Zimmerley, Club Manager, Minneapolis Golf Club, said the club has good support from the neighborhood for the sign plan. He stated that the sign works for the city as well as for the club and it marks the historical building. He said that the property line is 20 feet from the current sign. Blois Olson, 1801 Flag Ave. S., said many of the neighbors enjoy the club as a neighborhood amenity and they believe the sign is well designed and doesn’t impact the neighborhood in a negative way. Letters in support of the variance request were received from Nicholas Davis, Flag & 18th, and from Chad and Holly Nichols, 1811 Independence Ave. S. As no one was present wishing to speak, Vice Chair Kaufman closed the public hearing. Commissioner Gainsley said he has no objection to the requested variance. He said the identification aspect of the sign is what is important. Commissioner Solmer said there will be minimal impact on the neighborhood. The sign provides the minimum required to identify the club as vehicles approach it. He added that it lines up with existing parking and won’t be noticed. Commissioner Bloyer said the sign looks good and she has no qualms about the club. She said she is thinking about the last two sign variances before BOZA which BOZA tried to craft so that it applied to those particular buildings. She Official Minutes Board of Zoning Appeals March 23, 2017 Page 3 said she feels granting this variance would open the door for everybody’s signs because a hedge is in the way. She said she is not in favor of the request. Vice Chair Kaufman noted the modification to the resolution regarding square footage area of the sign face. He said all he was bothered about was that the sign was all but created and now BOZA approval is needed. He remarked that the sign impact is minimal and he is in favor of the variance request. Commissioner Gainsley made a motion approving a seven foot variance to allow a three foot setback instead of the ten foot setback required for a sign, with modification to condition in the resolution that the sign face can be no more than thirteen square feet in area rather than nine square feet in area. The motion passed on a vote of 3-1 (Bloyer opposed). Mr. Morrison read the statement regarding appeal to the City Council. The 10- day appeal period ends on April 3, 2017. 5. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 6:25 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Nancy Sells Recording Secretary Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting of April 27, 2017 4A Variance to the side setback Location: 4306 36th Street West Applicant: Kristy and Nigel Dahlvang Case No.: 17-14-VAR Recommended Action: Motion to adopt a resolution approving a one foot variance to allow a five foot side yard instead of the required six feet for a two-family dwelling. REQUEST: The Applicants are requesting a one foot variance to the six foot side yard required for two-family homes in the R-3 Two-Family Residence zoning district. LOCATION: Board of Zoning Appeals – April 27, 2017 Dahlvang – 4306 36th Street 2 BACKGROUND: Comprehensive Plan: Medium Density Residential (RM) Zoning: R-3 Two-Family Residence Zoning Analysis: The property was improved with a single-family home in 1958. Within a few years after construction, city records show that an apartment was constructed in the basement. This is problematic, however, because a 4.0 foot side yard setback was required in 1958, and the house was constructed with a 5.1 foot side yard. The code changed in 1959 to require a 6.0 foot side yard, making the home legally non-conforming. The permits for the apartment are dated 1960 and 1961. Converting a non-conforming single-family home to a two-family home is considered an intensification of a non-conformity, and cannot occur without a variance or the property coming into compliance with codes so that it is no longer considered non-conforming. Neither of these options occurred, and the property continues to be non-conforming to code. However, there is some question as to whether or not it is still considered to be legally non-conforming as a result of the intensification when it was converted to a two-family dwelling. Board of Zoning Appeals – April 27, 2017 Dahlvang – 4306 36th Street 3 Today’s code allows a 5.0 foot side yard setback for a single-family home. This removes the non- conforming status for a single-family home. However, today’s code also requires a 6.0 foot side yard setback for a two-family home, which reinforces the non-conforming status as a two-family home. The problem that needs to be addressed is proving that the property was used as a two-family dwelling continuously since it was established to present. Code allows non-conforming uses to continue, however, rights to a non-conforming use are terminated when the non-conforming use is discontinued for at least one year. Staff believes the non-conforming two-family use was discontinued prior to 2004 because there are no records of a rental license being approved for this property. The city began issuing rental licenses in 2004, and a license is required to rent one or both units of a two-family dwelling. Since a license was never issued for this property, the city cannot determine that the property was used a non-conforming two-family home since 2004 to present. At a minimum, it has been confirmed by the applicant that they purchased the property in June of 2015 with the intent of using the property as a two-family dwelling, however they occupied it as a single-family dwelling since then. Due to the lack of rental licenses since 2004, and that the applicant has used the property as a single-family dwelling since June of 2015, staff concludes that the rights to the non-conforming two-family home have been terminated. The home, however, can be established as a legal two-family dwelling if a variance is granted to the 6.0 foot side yard required for two-family dwellings. Board of Zoning Appeals – April 27, 2017 Dahlvang – 4306 36th Street 4 Current Zoning Regulations: The property is zoned R-3 Two-Family Residence. Two-family dwellings are permitted in this district, however, they are required to have a 6.0 foot minimum side yard. The section of city code that is the subject of the variance is as follows: City Code Section 36-165(f)(6). Lot Area (square feet) Lot Width (feet) Front Yard Depth Rear Yard Depth (feet) Side Yard Width 7,200* 60 25 feet or the front wall of the closest house on the block front, whichever is greater. (See additional exceptions in Section 36-73.)* 25 Single Family: 7 feet on one yard and 5 feet on the other yard, except when there is an attached garage accessible from the street or when the lot abuts an alley both may be 5 feet. Duplex: 9 feet on one yard and 6 feet on other yard, except when there is an attached garage accessible from the street or when the lot abuts an alley, both may be 6 feet. *This minimum lot size is for the development of a single-family house. The minimum lot size for a two- family house is 8,000 square feet. ANALYSIS: As required by City Code, the Board of Zoning Appeals (BOZA) considers the following prior to ruling on a variance. Staff provided an analysis of each point below, and the Applicant also provided an analysis of each point in the attached letter. 1. The effect of the proposed variance upon the health, safety, and welfare of the community. There is evidence that the property was used in the past as a two-family residence, and there are no complaints on file. The applicant proposes no changes to the exterior of the property, and plans improvements inside the building to enhance both dwellings. The property has a detached two-car garage, and a large parking area in the back yard sufficient in size to park three vehicles beside the garage. 2. Whether or not the request is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the Zoning Ordinance. The property is zoned R-3 Two-Family Residence, and as such, two-family dwellings are permitted as long as they meet the six foot side yard requirement. Granting the variance to the side yard to reduce it to five feet is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the zoning ordinance as the use is permitted, and the home has the general appearance as a single- family home, which is allowed a five foot side yard. Board of Zoning Appeals – April 27, 2017 Dahlvang – 4306 36th Street 5 Upon review of the setbacks of the existing duplexes in the neighborhood, it was found that most of them do not meet the six foot side yard requirement. For example, eight of the ten two-family dwellings on Kipling Ave (across the street from the subject property) have a five foot or less side yard according to the surveys on file with the city. 3. Whether or not the request is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The property is guided RM Medium Density Residential in the Comprehensive Plan. This land use designation is consistent with the R-3 Two-Family Residence district which it is zoned. 4. Whether or not the applicant establishes that there are practical difficulties in complying with the Zoning Ordinance. Practical Difficulty means: a. The proposed use is permitted in the zoning district in which the land is located. A variance can be requested for dimensional items only. Two-family dwellings are permitted in the R-3 Two-Family Residence district with the condition that it have a six foot side yard. The building includes structural improvements for a second unit that was established with city issued permits. b. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property and not created by the landowner. The property was constructed as a single-family home five feet from the side lot line which met code in 1958. Permits were issued in 1960 to establish the second dwelling unit. At about the time the permits were issued, the zoning also changed to increase the minimum side yard requirement from five feet to six feet thereby creating a non-conforming status. It is unclear if the non-conforming status was maintained up until the city began issuing rental licenses in 2004. It is clear, however, that a rental license was not issued since 2004, thereby establishing that the property was not lawfully used as a two-family dwelling since 2004 resulting in termination of the legally non-conforming two-family dwelling land use. The second dwelling, however, still exists, and the applicant would like to reestablish it as a legal use. c. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. The applicant does not propose any changes to the exterior, and there is sufficient parking in the back yard for a two-family dwelling. The neighborhood is zoned R-3 Two-Family Residence, and as a result, there are other two-family dwellings in close proximity as indicated below (two-family homes are outlined in yellow): Board of Zoning Appeals – April 27, 2017 Dahlvang – 4306 36th Street 6 d. Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties. The applicant purchased the property with the intent of utilizing it as a two-family dwelling. The second income was anticipated to assist with the purchase. e. Practical difficulties include inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems. This is not applicable to the application. 5. Whether or not there are circumstances unique to the shape, topography, water conditions, or other physical conditions of the property. The property was improved with a second dwelling unit lawfully. As the applicant states, they purchased the property with the understanding that it was a two-family dwelling. The loss of the non-conforming status was not a result of their actions. 6. Whether or not the granting of the variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right. As noted in the zoning description earlier in the report, the building was improved with a second dwelling unit, and later became non-conforming when the side setbacks were changed. The second dwelling unit still exists in the home. While the dwelling exists, it cannot be occupied by a second family without approval of the variance to the side yard. 7. Whether or not the granting of the variance will impair light and air to the surrounding properties, unreasonably increase congestion, increase the danger of fire, or endanger public safety. As noted above, the five foot setback exists today, and has existed since the home was constructed in 1958. The home was used as a two-family dwelling in the past, and there is sufficient parking in the back yard for two families. Board of Zoning Appeals – April 27, 2017 Dahlvang – 4306 36th Street 7 8. Whether or not the granting of the variance will merely serve as a convenience or is it necessary to alleviate a practical difficulty. The property was constructed as a two-family dwelling. The applicant purchased the property with intent of using it as it was constructed. The property is zoned R-3 Two-Family Residence, which supports the intended two-family dwelling use. They were unaware of the non- conforming status of the property, and the city did not investigate the status of the non- conformity until after it was brought to its attention. Unfortunately for the applicant, that was after they purchased it. The original construction of the structure as a two-family dwelling, the comprehensive plan indicating medium density residential for the area, and the zoning of R-3 Two-Family Residence indicates the intent of the area to allow for two-family dwellings. While new construction needs to meet the required six foot setback, the existing five foot setback creates a difficulty for the applicant to use the existing structure in a manner in which the past permits, the comprehensive plan, and the zoning district indicates it could be used. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff finds the proposed application for a one foot variance to the required six foot minimum side yard for a two-family dwelling is supported by the criteria for granting a variance as noted above. Therefore, staff recommends adoption of the attached Resolution approving the requested one foot variance to allow a five foot side yard for a two-family dwelling instead of the required six feet with the following conditions: 1. The variance applies to the structure as it exists today and as shown on the attached exhibit. Additions, including a second story, to the two-family building must meet the requirements of the zoning district at the time the additions are requested. PREPARED BY: Gary Morrison, Assistant Zoning Administrator REVIEWED BY: Sean Walther, Planning & Zoning Supervisor ATTACHMENTS: Aerial Proposed resolution Letter from applicant Survey Board of Zoning Appeals – April 27, 2017 Dahlvang – 4306 36th Street 8 AERIAL PHOTO Board of Zoning Appeals – April 27, 2017 Dahlvang – 4306 36th Street 9 BOZA RESOLUTION NO. _____ A RESOLUTION APPROVING A ONE FOOT VARIANCE TO THE REQUIRED SIX FOOT SIDE YARD REQUIRED FOR A TWO-FAMILY DWELLING AT 4306 36TH STREET BE IT RESOLVED BY the Board of Zoning Appeals of St. Louis Park, Minnesota: FINDINGS 1. On March 27, 2017, Kristy and Nigel Dahlvang applied for a variance from the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance (Section 36-165(f)(6) to allow a five foot sideyard instead of the required six feet for a two-family dwelling in the R-3 Two-Family Residence District. 2. The property is located at 4306 36th Street West and described below as follows, to wit: Lots 14, Huntington Woods First Addition, Hennepin County, Minnesota 3. The Board of Zoning Appeals has reviewed the application for variance Case No. 17-14- VAR on April 27, 2017. 4. Based on the testimony, evidence presented, and files and records, the Board of Zoning Appeals has determined that the requested variance does meets the requirements of Section 36-34(a)(2) of the Zoning Ordinance necessary to be met for the Board of Zoning Appeals to grant variances, and makes the following findings: a. There are factors related to the extraordinary conditions on the lot which prevent a use as a two-family home. It was originally constructed with two-dwellings, and the setback requirement subsequently changed to make it non-conforming even though the use is allowed in the district. b. Granting of the requested variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right. The second dwelling exists in the home, cannot be occupied due to the non-conforming side yard. c. The granting of the variance will not negatively impact the neighborhood. There is sufficient parking in the back yard for two families. d. The neighborhood is guided in the Comprehensive Plan land use map as RM - Medium Density Residential, and is zoned as R-3 Two-Family Residence. 5. The contents of the Board of Zoning Appeals Case File 17-14-VAR are hereby entered into and made part of the public hearing record and the record of decision for this case. Board of Zoning Appeals – April 27, 2017 Dahlvang – 4306 36th Street 10 CONCLUSION The Board of Zoning Appeals hereby approves the requested one foot variance to allow a five foot side yard for a two-family dwelling at 4306 36th Street with the following conditions: 1. The variance applies to the structure as it exists today and as shown on the attached exhibit. Additions, including a second story, to the two-family building must meet the requirements of the zoning district at the time the additions are requested. Adopted by the Board of Zoning Appeals: April 27, 2017 Effective date: May 8, 2017 ___________________________ Paul Roberts, Chairperson ATTEST: _______________________________________ Gary Morrison, Assistant Zoning Administrator BOZA RESOLUTION NO. 02-17 A RESOLUTION APPROVING A ONE FOOT VARIANCE TO THE REQUIRED SIX FOOT SIDE YARD REQUIRED FOR A TWO-FAMILY DWELLING AT 4306 36TH STREET BE IT RESOLVED BY the Board of Zoning Appeals of St. Louis Park, Minnesota: FINDINGS 1. On March 27, 2017, Kristy and Nigel Dahlvang applied for a variance from the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance (Section 36-165(f)(6) to allow a five foot sideyard instead of the required six feet for a two-family dwelling in the R-3 Two-Family Residence District. 2. The property is located at 4306 36th Street West and described below as follows, to wit: Lots 14, Huntington Woods First Addition, Hennepin County, Minnesota 3. The Board of Zoning Appeals has reviewed the application for variance Case No. 17-14- VAR on April 27, 2017. 4. Based on the testimony, evidence presented, and files and records, the Board of Zoning Appeals has determined that the requested variance does meets the requirements of Section 36-34(a)(2) of the Zoning Ordinance necessary to be met for the Board of Zoning Appeals to grant variances, and makes the following findings: a. There are factors related to the extraordinary conditions on the lot which prevent a use as a two-family home. It was originally constructed with two-dwellings, and the setback requirement subsequently changed to make it non-conforming even though the use is allowed in the district. b. Granting of the requested variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right. The second dwelling exists in the home, cannot be occupied due to the non-conforming side yard. c. The granting of the variance will not negatively impact the neighborhood. There is sufficient parking in the back yard for two families. d. The neighborhood is guided in the Comprehensive Plan land use map as RM - Medium Density Residential, and is zoned as R-3 Two-Family Residence. 5. The contents of the Board of Zoning Appeals Case File 17-14-VAR are hereby entered into and made part of the public hearing record and the record of decision for this case. 2 CONCLUSION The Board of Zoning Appeals hereby approves the requested one foot variance to allow a five foot side yard for a two-family dwelling at 4306 36th Street with the following conditions: 1. The variance applies to the structure as it exists today and as shown on the attached exhibit. Additions, including a second story, to the two-family building must meet the requirements of the zoning district at the time the additions are requested. Adopted by the Board of Zoning Appeals: April 27, 2017 Effective date: May 8, 2017 ___________________________ Paul Roberts, Chairperson ATTEST: _______________________________________ Gary Morrison, Assistant Zoning Administrator