Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2017/03/23 - ADMIN - Agenda Packets - Board of Zoning Appeals - Regular AGENDA BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS COUNCIL CHAMBERS 6:00 P.M. MARCH 23, 2017 1. Call to Order – Roll Call 2. Approval of Minutes: December 22, 2016 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 5. Unfinished Business 6. New Business 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. UNOFFICIAL MINUTES OF DECEMBER 22, 2016 BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK The St. Louis Park Board of Zoning Appeals conducted a meeting on December 22, 2016 at St. Louis Park City Hall, 5005 Minnetonka Boulevard, St. Louis Park, Minnesota – Council Chambers. Members Present: Susan Bloyer, James Gainsley, Henry Solmer Members Absent: Justin Kaufman, Paul Roberts Staff Present: Gary Morrison, Assistant Zoning Administrator 1. Call to Order – Roll Call The meeting was called to order at 6:00 p.m. Commissioner Gainsley served as chair. 2. Approval of Minutes of November 29, 2016 Commissioner Solmer made a motion recommending approval of the minutes of November 29, 2016. The motion passed on a vote of 3-0. 3. CONSENT AGENDA: None 4. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Variance: Side and rear yards Location: 3951 Quentin Avenue South Applicant: Kim Erickson Case No.: 16-43-VAR Gary Morrison, Assistant Zoning Administrator, presented the staff report. He stated that the applicant, Kim Erickson, has requested a 20.7 foot variance to the required 25 foot rear yard and a 2.0 foot variance to the required 7.4 foot side yard to construct an addition to the home and garage. The purpose of the addition is to expand the kitchen and attached garage. Mr. Morrison discussed existing conditions of the property. He noted that it is a corner lot. He reviewed R-2 District standards comparison. Mr. Morrison reviewed the remodel proposal. He presented the property survey with proposed addition. Unofficial Minutes Board of Zoning Appeals December 22, 2016 Page 2 Mr. Morrison discussed the property being a corner lot and in this case the front of the house does not face the front yard. The front yard is along Vallacher because it is the shorter of the two property lines. He explained by code the Vallacher property line is the front lot line and thereby the front yard. He indicated the property lot lines, setbacks and buildable area. He said the house currently encroaches into the rear yard. It’s a legally non-conforming situation which can continue to exist but cannot be expanded upon without a variance. Mr. Morrison presented the floor plan of the existing home. He presented the proposed remodel area. The goal of the kitchen remodel is to make it more useable. The garage addition would remain a one car garage with more space for lawn equipment, trash cans and snowblower. Mr. Morrison reviewed the staff analysis of each variance criteria. Staff recommendation is for denial. He said there are criteria staff could agree with but staff looked at the fact that there are options available and that the side yard variance does infringe on the open space of the neighbor’s property. Commissioner Bloyer asked about the buildable area for the detached garage. Mr. Morrison responded that the drawing presented was a little misleading because detached garages work under a different set of rules. He explained those rules. Commissioner Bloyer asked about minimum side yard, interior side. She asked for the current setback. Mr. Morrison showed the side yard setbacks, adding that a wall would continue to maintain the 5.4 setback. Commissioner Gainsley commented that options have been given to the applicant which would not require a variance. He said there is no hardship. Mr. Morrison said the applicant can speak to it but staff heard from the applicant hardship is due to irregular shaped lot. Primarily the reason the applicant chose this design for the remodel is due to the small kitchen. Commissioner Gainsley opened the public hearing. Kim Erickson, applicant, said she has lived in the home 15 years. The hardship is due to the small kitchen they are not able to eat in the kitchen. Most of the time they eat their meals sitting on the sofa in the living room. The porch is a three season porch and they’ve been able to eat in the porch only two months of the year. Unofficial Minutes Board of Zoning Appeals December 22, 2016 Page 3 Ms. Erickson said a standard size single car garage has about 288 sq. ft. She said for whatever reason her garage was built 4 ft. shorter with 223 sq. ft. Once trash cans, lawnmower, snowblower, grill, etc., are in the garage there is not room for a car. She said she wanted to make her garage bigger without losing her backyard. Ms. Erickson said she appreciates the city suggesting options for a two car garage but then she wouldn’t have a backyard. She wouldn’t even be able to see the backyard. She would lose garden and if grandchildren were to play back there she wouldn’t even be able to see them. Ms. Erickson explained that in bumping out the area from the porch she is trying basically to get the fridge in line with the counters. She distributed photographs to the board. She distributed two letters to the board in support of the variance from Carol Olson, 3961 Quentin, and Cameron Stromme, 4921 Vallacher. Ms. Erickson stated that she wants the size of a single car garage and she is willing to scale that back so that there would be 5 feet to appear like a side yard setback. Commissioner Gainsley asked if Ms. Erickson designed the house. Ms. Erickson said it was built in 1947 and she doesn’t know who the builder was. There have been three previous owners. Commissioner Solmer asked how many bedrooms the home has. Ms. Erickson responded it is a 3-bedroom house. She said the bedrooms are all on the Vallacher side of the house. Shawn Nelson, New Spaces, contractor for the applicant, said they looked at various design proposals to meet their needs. He believes the plan meets the zoning intent as well as the goals of the Comprehensive Plan. He spoke about the very irregularly shaped lot. He spoke about the side yard. He said the applicant is willing to redesign that side of the garage to be at the 5 ft. setback which meets the intent of zoning regulations to have a minimum of 10 ft. between adjacent properties. He said doing the attached garage in that way does allow for open space behind the property, which is their backyard. Mr. Nelson said the kitchen proposal would provide the space needed to provide seating in the kitchen. He said the refrigerator is in their living room now. They are looking for a kitchen that would meet their basic needs. The addition doesn’t encroach any further on the neighbor’s property. Mr. Nelson said the minimum normally between two buildings is 10 ft. They have greater than that. If it was considered rear yard to side yard there would be a minimum of 30 ft. Where it is added on there is in excess of 30 ft. of open space behind that because of how their building extends. They are meeting the intent of the zoning regulations. It is consistent with the character of the community. He said the proposal does not negatively impact neighbors or the neighborhood in any way. Unofficial Minutes Board of Zoning Appeals December 22, 2016 Page 4 Mr. Nelson spoke about attached versus detached garage during cold weather. It isn’t simply an economic decision. There are considerations like safety, security and less shoveling. He said the reality with a two car garage option is that almost the entire rear yard would be paved over increasing amount of impervious surface on the lot. The single car garage would be beneficial as well as consistent with the intent of the zoning code. Commissioner Gainsley said the city and state have developed guidelines for pervious and impervious surfaces. He asked if there is any concern about square feet of impervious surface. Mr. Nelson said he isn’t concerned about impervious for the plan they’ve proposed but said he is concerned about a two car detached garage. Commissioner Solmer asked how many cars are routinely kept at the residence. Ms. Erickson said currently they have three cars. Commissioner Solmer asked if there is no parking on Quentin. Ms. Erickson responded that is correct during snow emergency. Quentin is one of the main streets plowed regularly. She said three cars can squeeze in the drive if they are parked right up to the garage door. Which means they can’t remove their snowblower easily. Commissioner Gainsley closed public hearing. Commissioner Bloyer said the hardship is the shape of the lot. Besides the fact of reducing visibility and reducing their own rear yard with a detached garage it would create an incentive for small children to play in the neighbor’s back yard rather than their own legal backyard. She asked why anyone would play behind the garage. A storage shed on the Vallacher side wouldn’t be appreciated by the neighbor. Commissioner Bloyer stated she thinks there is a hardship that warrants giving a variance. Commissioner Solmer said he could see approving the 2 ft. setback along the side by porch for usable space because it’s next to neighbor’s backyard, not their living space. But the 5 ft. setback proposed for the garage makes it directly closer to the windows on the neighbor’s house and cuts off their light. Commissioner Solmer commented that as noted by applicant, parking is an issue. The city tries to promote two car garages. There is no way this one car garage can be expanded into a two car garage. There is no perfect solution given the shape of the lot. He said it is possible to put in a generous sized two car garage without a variance. Commissioner Solmer said he could see expanding the existing kitchen but he has trouble with the garage proposal. It’s already non- Unofficial Minutes Board of Zoning Appeals December 22, 2016 Page 5 conforming and a garage expansion would make it worse for the neighbors. He said the present neighbor may not object but of course they won’t be there forever. Commissioner Gainsley said he agreed with Commissioner Solmer and parts of Commissioner Bloyer’s reasoning. He said he is reluctant to give variances where there are viable options which could mostly serve the applicant’s need and meet the city’s requirements. He said he sees the need from the applicant’s point of view but is not sure he sees it from the city’s point of view. He added that variances aren’t really necessary when other options exist. Commissioner Solmer said he agreed. Commissioner Gainsley made a motion to adopt a resolution denying an application for a 20.7 foot variance to the required 25.0 foot rear yard and a 2.0 foot variance to the required 7.4 foot side yard required for property located at 3951 Quentin Ave. S. The motion passed on a vote of 2-1 (Bloyer opposed). Mr. Morrison read the statement regarding appeal to the City Council. The 10- day appeal period ends on January 3, 2017. 5. Unfinished Business 6. New Business A. 2016 Annual Report Mr. Morrison said he would add this evening’s variance case to the annual report and email the revised version to the board. Commissioner Bloyer noted a minor correction to be made on the 3338 Library Lane report. Commissioner Gainsley made a motion to accept the report as amended. The motion passed on a vote of 3-0. 7. Communications 8. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 6:50 p.m. Unofficial Minutes Board of Zoning Appeals December 22, 2016 Page 6 Respectfully submitted, Nancy Sells Recording Secretary Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting of March 23, 2017 4A Variance to the setback requirements for a sign. Location: 2001 Flag Avenue Applicant: Minneapolis Golf Club (Joseph Zimmerley, Club Manager) Case No.: 17-02-VAR Recommended Action: Motion to adopt a resolution approving a seven foot variance to allow a three foot setback instead of the ten foot setback required for a sign. REQUEST: The Applicant, Minneapolis Golf Club, is requesting a seven foot variance to the required ten foot setback for signs. LOCATION: Board of Zoning Appeals – March 23, 2017 Minneapolis Golf Club 2 BACKGROUND: Comprehensive Plan: Low Density Residential (RL) Zoning: R-1 Single-Family Residence Existing Conditions: The property is improved with a golf course which includes a club house and swimming pool. Proposal: The sign is constructed three feet from the property line. The city code (below) requires the sign to be located at least 10 feet from the property line. Note that none of the exemptions noted apply to the subject property. Section 36-362(f)(2) Required yards. Sign shall maintain a 10 foot minimum yard to property line unless exempted below: a. In the C-1, C-2, BP, and M-X districts the required yard for any sign less than 200 square feet in sign area shall be 5 feet. b. In the C-1, C-2 and M-X districts, a blade sign may project into the required front yard if the sign meets the following requirements: 1. The sign is attached to a wall in such a manner that meets the building code; and 2. The lowest portion of the sign is no closer than 8 feet to the ground; and 3. The sign shall not extend higher than the lowest portion of a window of a residential unit located on the second story of a mixed use building. 4. No portion of the sign shall extend more than 5 feet into the required yard, and in no instances shall the sign project into the public right-of-way. 5. The portion of any sign face extending into the required yard does not exceed 40 square feet. c. Except as allowed under (3)b of this section, a wall sign may extend into the required yard a distance not to exceed 18 inches, and a canopy or awning sign may extend into the required yard as allowed by Section 36-73(a)(5) and Section36-73(b)(3), except that structures that do not meet the current front or side yard requirements shall place signs flush against the front or side walls. d. A sign may be placed on the face of an existing canopy or awning located on a structure classified as conforming or lawful nonconforming use if the sign does not extend above the top or below the bottom of the vertical portion of the canopy or awning face. e. Real estate signs meeting the standards set forth in Section 36-362(h)(1). f. Private directional signs meeting the standards set forth in Section 36-362(h)(2). g. Pedestrian signs meeting the standards set forth in Section 36-362(h)(4). h. Decorative Banners meeting the standards set forth in Section 36-362(h)(5). h. Political signs meeting the standards set forth in Section 36-362(h)(6). i. Project Information signs meeting the standards set forth in Section 36-362(h)(7). k. In the I-P district the required front yard for a freestanding sign shall be 20 feet. The required side yard abutting a street for a freestanding sign shall be 15 feet. Board of Zoning Appeals – March 23, 2017 Minneapolis Golf Club 3 A sign was constructed in 2016 that is three feet from the property line instead of the required ten feet. The sign was constructed without a permit. The Applicant was informed of the ten foot setback, and they applied for the variance so the sign can be kept where it was constructed. Prior to the construction of the new sign, there were two pillars that marked the entrance to the golf course. The pillars were removed to make room for the new sign. Below is a picture of the pillars. Below is a rendering of what the sign will look like when it is completed. Board of Zoning Appeals – March 23, 2017 Minneapolis Golf Club 4 Below is a picture of the portion of the new sign that was built in 2016. The sign face will be installed if the variance is approved. The proposed sign will be ___ feet tall and ___ feet wide. The sign face will be 27 inches tall and four feet wide. The applicant is proposing only one sign, as shown on the plan below. Board of Zoning Appeals – March 23, 2017 Minneapolis Golf Club 5 ANALYSIS: As required by City Code, the Board of Zoning Appeals (BOZA) considers the following prior to ruling on a variance. Staff has provided an analysis of each point below, and the Applicant has 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. The variance will not have an impact on the health, safety and welfare of the community. The sign is subtle with the intent of identifying the site, not advertising to traffic or the neighborhood. The sign is replacing signage that was in the same location as the proposed sign. Although the proposed sign is larger than what was there previously, the increased signage is extending away from the property line and is not decreasing the existing setback. 2. Whether or not the request is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the Zoning Ordinance. The golf course is approximately 152 acres in area, with approximately 1,640 feet of street frontage. While the sign is closer to the street than code permits, the impact is mitigated by the large parcel size, and the large street frontage that is well landscaped with very little visible development. As a result, the smaller setback does not make the street appear cluttered or out of character for the residential neighborhood. As noted by the applicant, golf courses are typically located in residential neighborhoods, and include an identification sign typical of what the applicant wishes to install. Attached to the report are pictures the applicant provided depicting similar golf course identification signs. 3. Whether or not the request is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The property is guided Low Density Residential in the Comprehensive Plan. A golf course is permitted in the R-1 Single-Family Residence zoning district by Conditional Use Permit. 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. A golf course is allowed in the R-1 Single-Family Residence zoning district by Conditional Use Permit. The golf course has the necessary permits to operate. The requested variance is to a setback, which is a dimensional item. Board of Zoning Appeals – March 23, 2017 Minneapolis Golf Club 6 b. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property and not created by the landowner. The Minneapolis Golf Club (MGC) was established in 1916. In 1954, the MGC dedicated 33 feet of right-of-way to the city to be used for Flag Ave. The aerial photo above was taken in 1953. It shows the golf course, club house, and it shows how single-family residential development is occurring around the golf club. The club house and parking lot were already established in their current location before the development occurred. c. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. The proposed sign will not alter the essential character of the locality. The proposed sign face is only 9 square feet in area, and it is mounted to a natural stone sign platform that blends into the natural setting of the area. d. Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties. There are no economic considerations that factor into the variance request. 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. Board of Zoning Appeals – March 23, 2017 Minneapolis Golf Club 7 As noted above, it appears that the club house and parking lot were established before the residential development occurred in the area. Thirty eight years after the club house and parking lot were established, the Applicant dedicated 33 feet of right-of-way so that Flag Ave would meet the required right-of-way width needed for the road and utilities. 6. Whether or not the granting of the variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right. The Applicant requests the variance so the MGC can have an identification sign posted at the parking lot entrance. 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. The variance will not have a detrimental impact on the concerns listed above. 8. Whether or not the granting of the variance will merely serve as a convenience or is it necessary to alleviate a practical difficulty. As noted above, the Applicant is requesting a variance to establish an identification sign at the parking lot entrance. The Applicant pointed out that it is typical for golf courses to have an identification sign so guests who are not familiar with the club or area can positively identify the facility. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff finds the proposed application for a seven foot variance to the required ten foot sign setback meets the criterion considered for granting a variance. Therefore, staff recommends adoption of the attached Resolution approving the requested seven foot variance to allow the identification sign to be three feet from the lot line with conditions recommended by staff. PREPARED BY: Gary Morrison, Assistant Zoning Administrator REVIEWED BY: Jennifer Monson, Planner ATTACHMENTS: Aerial Proposed resolution Letter from applicant Sign Plan Survey Board of Zoning Appeals – March 23, 2017 Minneapolis Golf Club 8 AERIAL PHOTO Board of Zoning Appeals – March 23, 2017 Minneapolis Golf Club 9 BOZA RESOLUTION NO. _____ A RESOLUTION APPROVING A SEVEN FOOT VARIANCE TO THE REQUIRED TEN FOOT SETBACK FOR SIGNS FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2001 FLAG AVENUE SOUTH BE IT RESOLVED BY the Board of Zoning Appeals of St. Louis Park, Minnesota: FINDINGS 1. On February 21, 2017, the Minneapolis Golf Club applied for a variance from the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance (Section 36-362(f)(2) to allow a three foot setback instead of the ten foot setback required for signs. 2. The property is located at 2001 Flag Avenue South and described below as follows, to wit: Par 1: Lot 1, Auditor's Subdivision No. 270, Hennepin County, Minn, and Lot 11, "Auditor's Subdivision Number 285, Hennepin County, Minnesota", Except that part of said Lot 1 lying within Block 2, Westwood Estates 2nd Addition, and except that part of said Lots 1 and 11 described as follows: Beginning at the Northwest corner of said Lot 11; thence East along the North line of said Lot 11 a distance of 225 feet; thence South parallel with the West lines of said Lots 11 and 1 a distance of 400 feet; thence West, parallel with the North line of said Lot 11, a distance of 225 feet to the West line of said Lot 1; thence North along the West lines of said Lots 1 and 11 to the point of beginning, and except that part lying within the most Westerly 33 feet of said Lot 1. Par 2: That part of the Southwest Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of Section 7, Township 117, Range 21, Hennepin County, Minnesota, described as follows: Beginning at a point on the West line of the Northeast Quarter of said Section 7 distant 260 feet North from the Southwest corner of said Northeast Quarter; thence East, parallel with the South line of said Northeast Quarter, a distance of 30 feet; thence North, parallel with said West line, 177.65 feet; thence East, parallel with said South line, 135 feet; thence North, parallel with said West line, to the Southerly line of Lot 1, "Auditor's Subdivision Number 270, Hennepin County, Minnesota" thence Westerly along the Southerly line of said Lot 1 to the West line of said Northeast Quarter; thence South along said West line to the point of beginning; 3. The Board of Zoning Appeals has reviewed the application for variance Case No. 17-02- VAR on March 23, 2017. Board of Zoning Appeals – March 23, 2017 Minneapolis Golf Club 10 4. Based on the testimony, evidence presented, and files and records, the Board of Zoning Appeals has determined that the requested variance 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 shape, size or other extraordinary conditions on the lot which prevent a reasonable location for the sign without a variance. b. Granting of the requested variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right. Granting the variance will allow an identification sign that is reasonably placed to be visible from the public right-of-way, but not adversely impact the neighborhood. c. The Minneapolis Golf Club dedicated right-of-way along Flag Avenue South which diminished the space between the property line and the existing parking lot, making it difficult to locate a sign without the variance. d. Granting the variance does not adversely impact the neighborhood, traffic, congestion or fire hazard. 5. The contents of the Board of Zoning Appeals Case File 17-02-VAR are hereby entered into and made part of the public hearing record and the record of decision for this case. CONCLUSION The Board of Zoning Appeals hereby approves the requested seven foot variance to allow a three foot setback for the sign instead of the required ten feet with the following conditions: 1. The sign face can be no more than nine square feet in area. 2. The sign must be constructed in accordance to the sign plans, approved as Exhibit A – Sign Plan, and Exhibit B – Survey. Adopted by the Board of Zoning Appeals: March 23, 2017 Effective date: April 3, 2017 ___________________________ Paul Roberts, Chairperson ATTEST: _______________________________________ Gary Morrison, Assistant Zoning Administrator