Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2016/06/23 - ADMIN - Agenda Packets - Board of Zoning Appeals - Regular AGENDA BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS COUNCIL CHAMBERS 6:00 P.M. JUNE 23, 2016 1. Call to Order – Roll Call 2. Approval of Minutes: March 24, 2016 3. Consent Agenda: None 4. Public Hearings A. Variance: Maximum Allowed Floor Area Location: 4331 Excelsior Boulevard Applicant: Salon Concepts, Brent Van Liev Case No. 16-22-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 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. Unofficial 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. Unofficial 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. Unofficial 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 Unofficial 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. Unofficial 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 Unofficial 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 Larkin Hoffman ATTORNEYS May 23, 2016 Larkin Hoffman 8300 Norman Center Drive Suite 1000 Minneapolis, Minnesota 55437-1060 GENERAL: 952-835-3800 FAX:952-896-3333 WEB:www.larkinhoffman.com Ms. Meg McMonigal Planning and Zoning Supervisor City of St. Louis Park 5005 Minnetonka Boulevard St. Louis Park, MN 55416-2216 Re:Salon Concepts — Variance Application Our File #39,410-00 Dear Ms. McMonigal: This firm represents Salon Concepts St. Louis Park, LLC ("Salon Concepts") regarding the property located at 4331 Excelsior Boulevard (the "Property") in St. Louis Park, Minnesota (the "City"). Salon Concepts is seeking to establish an approximately 5,100 square-foot salon in the existing building at the Property, in accordance with the attached floorplan and construction drawings. Service uses are permitted on the Property under the City's zoning code (the "City Code"). In order to accommodate the reuse of the Property for a salon, Salon Concepts is requesting a variance to the 2,500 square-foot maximum floor area for service uses in the Neighborhood Commercial District (C-1). Salon Concepts is proposing to make a substantial investment in the Property (over $700,000) to combine the tenant spaces into a single use consisting of individual high-end salon suites, similar to the fit and finish of Salon Concepts' existing 10 stores in the Minneapolis/St. Paul market. The use of the Property was previously separated into three tenant spaces. The last known uses of the Property were for a spa and a pharmacy. Historically, tenants of the Property have not been viable long-term. Salon Concepts is signing a ten (10) year initial term lease with two (2) five (5) year options for the entire building (as is customary at all of their twenty (20) existing locations). As is described below, Salon Concepts' request satisfies the findings under the City Code for a variance to City Code Section 36-193(c)(11), which limits the maximum floor area of a service use to 2,500 square feet. While a salon is permitted in the C-1 District as a service use, we understand that staff has some concerns as to whether the on-site parking will be sufficient for the proposed use. The Property has 26 total parking spaces on-site, which exceeds the 21-space parking requirement under the City Code based on a ratio of 1 space per 250 square feet. City Code Table 36-361(a). As is shown in Exhibit A, Salon Concepts operates in several urban settings with a similar number of salon suites with nearly identical average parking ratios to the 26 spaces provided, without any parking issues. Based on the parking analysis prepared by Salon Concepts, a copy of which is Larkin Hoffi.nruJ Larkin Hoffman 8300 Norman Center Drive Suite 1000 Minneapolis, Minnesota 55437-1060 GENERAL, 952-835-3800 FAX, 952-896-3333 WEB, www.larkinhoffman.com May 23,2016 Ms. Meg McMonigal Planning and Zoning Supervisor City of St. Louis Park 5005 Minnetonka Boulevard St. Louis Park, MN 55416-2216 Re: Salon Concepts - Variance Application Our File #39,410-00 Dear Ms. McMonigal: This firm represents Salon Concepts St. Louis Park, LLC ("Salon Concepts") regarding the property located at 4331 Excelsior Boulevard (the "Property") in St. Louis Park, Minnesota (the "City"). Salon Concepts is seeking to establish an approximately 5,100 square-foot salon in the existing building at the Property, in accordance with the attached floorplan and construction drawings. Service uses are permitted on the Property under the City's zoning code (the "City Code"). In order to accommodate the reuse of the Property for a salon, Salon Concepts is requesting a variance to the 2,500 square-foot maximum floor area for service uses in the Neighborhood Commercial District (C-1). Salon Concepts is proposing to make a substantial investment in the Property (over $700,000) to combine the tenant spaces into a single use consisting of individual high-end salon suites, similar to the fit and finish of Salon Concepts' existing 10 stores in the Minneapolis/St. Paul market. The use of the Property was previously separated into three tenant spaces. The last known uses of the Property were for a spa and a pharmacy. Historically, tenants of the Property have not been viable long-term. Salon Concepts is signing a ten (10) year initial term lease with two (2) five (5) year options for the entire building (as is customary at all of their twenty (20) existing locations). As is described below, Salon Concepts' request satisfies the findings under the City Code for a variance to City Code Section 36-193(c)(11), which limits the maximum floor area of a service use to 2,500 square feet. While a salon is permitted in the C-1 District as a service use, we understand that staff has some concerns as to whether the on-site parking will be sufficient for the proposed use. The Property has 26 total parking spaces on-site, which exceeds the 21-space parking requirement under the City Code based on a ratio of 1 space per 250 square feet. City Code Table 36-361(a). As is shown in Exhibit A, Salon Concepts operates in several urban settings with a similar number of salon suites with nearly identical average parking ratios to the 26 spaces provided, without any parking issues. Based on the parking analysis prepared by Salon Concepts, a copy of which is Ms. Meg McMonigal May 23, 2016 Page 2 enclosed, the Property provides the sufficient and necessary amount of on-site parking required for Salon Concepts' operation. Pursuant to City Code Sec. 36-34(a)(2), the following considerations are required for granting a variance: 1. The effect of the proposed variance upon the health, safety and welfare of the community. Granting the proposed variance to increase the maximum allowed square footage of a salon at the Property to approximately 5,100 square feet will not have any detrimental impact on the health, safety and welfare of the community. The existing building layout consists of smaller unoccupied tenant spaces that have historically been difficult to lease, resulting in regular vacancies. Approval of the variance will allow the existing structure to be efficiently utilized in a manner that benefits the community. 2. The request is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the ordinance. Approval of the variance is consistent with the purpose of the C-1 District, which is as follows: (a) Purpose/effect. The purpose of this C-1 neighborhood commercial district is to provide for low-intensity, service-oriented commercial uses for surrounding residential neighborhoods. Limits will be placed on the type, size, and intensity of commercial uses in this district to ensure and protect compatibility with adjacent residential areas. City Code Sec. 36-193(a). Salon Concepts is a low-intensity service use compatible with the adjacent residential neighborhood. Salon Concepts proposes 30 salon suites for stylists who operate independently. Individual stylists set their own hours based on their client needs. The Property would be Salon Concepts' 21st location nationally. Salon Concepts has 10 existing stores in the Cincinnati, Ohio/northern Kentucky market and 10 existing stores in the Minneapolis/St. Paul market. Based on historical averages, weekly use of the salon is projected to be as follows: • Sunday & Monday: Primarily Closed (estimated 1-3 stylists working) • Tuesday & Wednesday: 30-40% of stylists working • Thursday & Friday: 40-60% of stylists working (peak operation) • Saturday: 30-40% of stylists working Based on these historical averages, the proposed use of the entire building at any given time or day will be equal to or less intense than the current building design, which would allow three separate service or retail operations. Moreover, the design of the Property, with the structure located at the rear, separates and screens all traffic and business activity from the neighborhood to the south and east. Ms. Meg McMonigal May 23, 2016 Page 2 enclosed, the Property provides the sufficient and necessary amount of on-site parking required for Salon Concepts' operation. Pursuant to City Code Sec. 36-34(a)(2), the following considerations are required for granting a vanance: 1. The effect of the proposed variance upon the health, safety and welfare of the community. Granting the proposed variance to increase the maximum allowed square footage of a salon at the Property to approximately 5,100 square feet will not have any detrimental impact on the health, safety and welfare of the community. The existing building layout consists of smaller unoccupied tenant spaces that have historically been difficult to lease, resulting in regular vacancies. Approval of the variance will allow the existing structure to be efficiently utilized in a manner that benefits the community. 2. The request is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the ordinance. Approval of the variance is consistent with the purpose of the C-1 District, which is as follows: (a) Purpose/effect. The purpose of this C-1 neighborhood commercial district is to provide for low-intensity, service-oriented commercial uses for surrounding residential neighborhoods. Limits will be placed on the type, size, and intensity of commercial uses in this district to ensure and protect compatibility with adjacent residential areas. City Code Sec. 36-193(a). Salon Concepts is a low-intensity service use compatible with the adjacent residential neighborhood. Salon Concepts proposes 30 salon suites for stylists who operate independently. Individual stylists set their own hours based on their client needs. The Property would be Salon Concepts' 21 st location nationally. Salon Concepts has 10 existing stores in the Cincinnati, Ohio/northern Kentucky market and 10 existing stores in the Minneapolis/St. Paul market. Based on historical averages, weekly use of the salon is projected to be as follows: • Sunday & Monday: • Tuesday & Wednesday: • Thursday & Friday: • Saturday: Primarily Closed (estimated 1-3 stylists working) 30-40% of stylists working 40-60% of stylists working (peak operation) 30-40% of stylists working Based on these historical averages, the proposed use of the entire building at any given time or day will be equal to or less intense than the current building design, which would allow three separate service or retail operations. Moreover, the design of the Property, with the structure located at the rear, separates and screens all traffic and business activity from the neighborhood to the south and east. Ms. Meg McMonigal May 23, 2016 Page 3 3. The request is consistent with the comprehensive plan. Salon Concepts' request is consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan guides the future land use of the Property as Commercial; Excelsior Boulevard is designated as a Commercial Corridor. The request is consistent with the following Comprehensive Plan goals and policies: Goal #2: Create commercial corridors that are functional, vibrant, and present an aesthetically positive identity for the community. Policy 2-A: Minimize the adverse impacts associated with commercial corridor development using design, performance standards, site planning techniques, and buffering. Policy 2-B: Enhance commercial corridors' compatibility with nearby residential areas. The request will further these goals and policies by ensuring a high-end, viable, low-intensity service use that is compatible with the surrounding commercial and residential uses. The request will allow the structure to be efficiently used as a single tenant space, enabling full occupancy and productive use of the building. 4. The applicant for the variance establishes that there are practical difficulties in complying with the zoning ordinance. "Practical difficulties," as used in connection with the granting of a variance, means that: a. The property owner proposes to use the property for a land use permitted in the zoning district in which the land is located. A variance can be requested for dimensional items required in the zoning ordinance, including but not limited to setbacks and height limitations; The request is for a salon, which is permitted as a service use in the C-1 District. The request is to allow Salon Concepts to occupy the entire existing structure on the Property rather than requiring that it remain artificially segmented into separate tenancies. Salon Concepts' business model does not work in smaller spaces (i.e., less than 4,000 square feet) and the ideal store size is 5,000 square feet. b. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner; and, The request is necessitated by the existing size of the building which cannot, and has not, been efficiently occupied due to the small tenant spaces. The building is currently divided into three separate tenant spaces, none of which has historically been conducive to long-term viable tenants. The request would allow the efficient use of the building with a single tenant consisting of individual salon suites. The parking use by Salon Concepts at the Property would likely be less than the parking use of three separate tenants at the Property. Ms. Meg McMonigal May 23,2016 Page 3 3. The request is consistent with the comprehensive plan. Salon Concepts' request is consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan guides the future land use of the Property as Commercial; Excelsior Boulevard is designated as a Commercial Corridor. The request is consistent with the following Comprehensive Plan goals and policies: Goal #2: Create commercial corridors that are functional, vibrant, and present an aesthetically positive identity for the community. Policy 2-A: Minimize the adverse impacts associated with commercial corridor development using design, performance standards, site planning techniques, and buffering. Policy 2-B: Enhance commercial corridors' compatibility with nearby residential areas. The request will further these goals and policies by ensuring a high-end, viable, low-intensity service use that is compatible with the surrounding commercial and residential uses. The request will allow the structure to be efficiently used as a single tenant space, enabling full occupancy and productive use of the building. 4. The applicant for the variance establishes that there are practical difficulties in complying with the zoning ordinance. "Practical difficulties," as used in connection with the granting of a variance, means that: a. The property owner proposes to use the property for a land use permitted in the zoning district in which the land is located. A variance can be requested for dimensional items required in the zoning ordinance, including but not limited to setbacks and height limitations; The request is for a salon, which is permitted as a service use in the C-1 District. The request is to allow Salon Concepts to occupy the entire existing structure on the Property rather than requiring that it remain artificially segmented into separate tenancies. Salon Concepts' business model does not work in smaller spaces (i.e., less than 4,000 square feet) and the ideal store size is 5,000 square feet. b. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner; and, The request is necessitated by the existing size of the building which cannot, and has not, been efficiently occupied due to the small tenant spaces. The building is currently divided into three separate tenant spaces, none of which has historically been conducive to long-term viable tenants. The request would allow the efficient use of the building with a single tenant consisting of individual salon suites. The parking use by Salon Concepts at the Property would likely be less than the parking use of three separate tenants at the Property. Ms. Meg McMonigal May 23, 2016 Page 4 c. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. If granted, the variance will not alter the essential character of the locality. The existing structure is a commercial building constructed in 1980. It is located on Excelsior Boulevard, a major commercial corridor and surrounded by a mix of commercial and residential uses. Salon Concepts is requesting to use the existing commercial building as a single commercial tenant space instead of three tenant spaces. The variance, if granted, will not result in disturbances to any adjacent or nearby business or residences. d. Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties. The request is necessary to make efficient use of the existing structure as a single tenant space, as opposed to multiple separate tenant spaces. The existing building is approximately 5,100 square feet and divided into three separate tenant spaces, none of which has historically been conducive to long-term viable tenants. Salon Concepts proposes to use all three tenant spaces as a single tenant space. 5. There are circumstances unique to the property including the shape, topography, water conditions, or other physical conditions unique to the property; and, The existing building design and layout is unique to the Property. It was built in the 1980's as a 5,100 square foot building, prior to the adoption of the 2,500 square foot maximum. Under the City Code, the building could be used for multiple independently operated salon tenants as of right. The request would allow for efficient use of the existing building as a single tenant. 6. The granting of the variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant; and, Salon Concepts proposes a facility under which 30 stylists will operate their own salon suites. Individually, the salon suites are permitted in the C-1 District, but collectively the salon suites are precluded by the 2,500 square foot limit. Granting the variance is necessary for the use and enjoyment of the Property. 7. The granting of the variance will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to the adjacent property, unreasonably increase the congestion in the public streets, increase the danger of fire, or endanger public safety; and, Granting the variance will allow use of the existing commercial building as a low-intensity salon and will not be detrimental to congestion, traffic, or life safety. Salon Concepts will be adding a full fire sprinkler/suppression system to the Property at a cost in excess of $55,000 which will ensure that the building complies with all current life safety system code requirements. The peak operation occurs on Thursdays and Fridays and typically consists of 40-60% of capacity utilization and only for a limited period of time. As shown in Exhibit A, Salon Concepts operates in several urban settings with a similar number of salon suites and similar parking to the 26 spaces provided, without any parking issues. Ms. Meg McMonigal May 23, 2016 Page 4 c. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. If granted, the variance will not alter the essential character of the locality. The existing structure is a commercial building constructed in 1980. It is located on Excelsior Boulevard, a major commercial corridor and surrounded by a mix of commercial and residential uses. Salon Concepts is requesting to use the existing commercial building as a single commercial tenant space instead of three tenant spaces. The variance, if granted, will not result in disturbances to any adjacent or nearby business or residences. d. Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties. The request is necessary to make efficient use of the existing structure as a single tenant space, as opposed to multiple separate tenant spaces. The existing building is approximately 5,100 square feet and divided into three separate tenant spaces, none of which has historically been conducive to long-term viable tenants. Salon Concepts proposes to use all three tenant spaces as a single tenant space. 5. There are circumstances unique to the property including the shape, topography, water conditions, or other physical conditions unique to the property; and, The existing building design and layout is unique to the Property. It was built in the 1980's as a 5,100 square foot building, prior to the adoption of the 2,500 square foot maximum. Under the City Code, the building could be used for multiple independently operated salon tenants as of right. The request would allow for efficient use of the existing building as a single tenant. 6. The granting of the variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant; and, Salon Concepts proposes a facility under which 30 stylists will operate their own salon suites. Individually, the salon suites are permitted in the C-1 District, but collectively the salon suites are precluded by the 2,500 square foot limit. Granting the variance is necessary for the use and enjoyment of the Property. 7. The granting of the variance will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to the adjacent property, unreasonably increase the congestion in the public streets, increase the danger of fire, or endanger public safety; and, Granting the variance will allow use of the existing commercial building as a low-intensity salon and will not be detrimental to congestion, traffic, or life safety. Salon Concepts will be adding a full fire sprinkler/suppression system to the Property at a cost in excess of $55,000 which will ensure that the building complies with all current life safety system code requirements. The peak operation occurs on Thursdays and Fridays and typically consists of 40-60% of capacity utilization and only for a limited period of time. As shown in Exhibit A, Salon Concepts operates in several urban settings with a similar number of salon suites and similar parking to the 26 spaces provided, without any parking issues. Ms. Meg McMonigal May 23, 2016 Page 5 8.The granting of the variance will not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant but is necessary to alleviate a practical difficulty. Salon Concepts proposes to use all three tenant spaces as a single tenant space, which will in turn host individual salon suites operated by respective stylists. The City Code would permit multiple salons to operate independently at the Property in the C-1 District; the 2,500 square foot limitation prohibits operating together using common amenities. This outcome is a practical difficulty and would be alleviated by granting the variance request. Based on the above findings and considerations, Salon Concepts' request is justified and would alleviate a practical difficulty. Please contact me with any questions about this letter or the above information. Sincerely, Peter J. Coyle, for Larkin Hoffman Direct Dial:952-896-3214 Direct Fax:952-842-1704 Email:pcoyle@larkinhoffman.com 4844-8521-7841, v. 3 Ms. Meg McMonigal May 23,2016 Page 5 8. The granting of the variance will not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant but is necessary to alleviate a practical difficulty. Salon Concepts proposes to use all three tenant spaces as a single tenant space, which will in turn host individual salon suites operated by respective stylists. The City Code would permit multiple salons to operate independently at the Property in the C-1 District; the 2,500 square foot limitation prohibits operating together using common amenities. This outcome is a practical difficulty and would be alleviated by granting the variance request. Based on the above findings and considerations, Salon Concepts' request is justified and would alleviatea practical difficulty. Please contact me with any questions about this letter or the above information. Sincerely, /~V -I}- (! t_ / T~ ~ hh( Peter J. Coyle, for Larkin Hoffman Direct Dial: Direct Fax: Email: 952-896-3214 952-842-1704 pcoyle@larkinhoffman.com 4844-8521-7841, v. 3 Saint Louis Park Planning Commission Meeting May 18, 2016 Proposed Location: 4331 Excelsior Blvd St. Louis Park, MN, 55416 Company Background: Salon Concepts began in August 2007 in Cincinnati, Ohio at our first location located in Montgomery (see attached analysis for details). The company has grown to 20 locations in three states: Ohio, Kentucky and Minnesota with over 400 independent beauty professionals that we consider our family. Salon Concepts provides independent beauty professionals a turn-key salon suite completely furnished for their specific area of specialty (hair, nails, skin and massage). Our salon suites allow stylists to open their own salon without all of the upfront costs and management headaches. Locations: We have 8 locations in Ohio, 2 in Kentucky and 10 in Minneapolis/St. Paul. (St Louis Park would be 11) Executive Team:  Brent Van Lieu, CEO  Mia Williams, VP Operations  Lance Drinnen, VP Construction/Facilities  Andrew Giannella, General Counsel Investment: Salon Concepts has invested over $6,000,000 in the construction/interior finish of the Minneapolis locations since entering the market in 2013. We have also purchased the real estate centers for our Eden Prairie, Edina and Florence (KY) locations for a combined additional investment of $5,175,000. Site Selection: Site selection for all locations has been performed by Brent Van Lieu and Andrew Giannella along with our local commercial real estate agent in the market. Salon Suites “concept”: Salon Concepts rents individual salon suites to independent beauty professionals. Salon Concepts manages the salon facilities, provides common area janitorial services, all utilities, and maintenance services. The Minneapolis market management team is as follows:  Lis Danielson, Market Manager  Renee Vermilyea, Relationship Manager  Wayne Amandolare, Facilities Manager We provide professional leasing, management and facilities management services with full time employees that support all of our stylists and physical locations. Hours of Operation: Stylists are free to make and maintain their own work schedules. Salon Concepts does not dictate hours of operation or schedules for any of our stylists. The stylists are not required by Salon Concepts to work any minimum hours. Over the last nine years of business we have observed that average days of operation are as follows:  Sunday and Monday closed (possibly 1-3 stylists work on occasion)  Tuesday and Wednesday normal business activity with an average of 30-40% of stylists working  Thursday and Friday peak business activity with an average of 40-60% of stylists working  Saturday normal business activity with an average of 30-40% of stylists working Peak hours of operation (Thursday and Friday) are between 10 am and 3 pm. Peak hours on all other days are similar but will vary slightly by location. Stylist Schedules: Each individual stylist is responsible for managing their own “book” or schedule. Each stylist manages their appointments and hours/days of operation as they choose. Throughout the normal course of business, the stylist has open times in their schedule where they may not have any clients physically in the building. We provide break rooms for the stylists so that they can have a place to relax in between appointments or socialize with other stylists who also have a break in their schedule (and therefore also do not have a client in the building). Many stylists also take advantage of breaks in their schedule to run errands or go to other appointments throughout the course of a day. The effect is that because the stylist is free to come and go as they please, they often leave the premises and therefore reduce the parking requirement at many times during the day. Interior Finish: Salon Concepts prides itself on offering the highest level of fit and finish in the salon suites industry. We invest an average of $700,000 into each locations interior construction only (no exterior work is normally included). We provide custom cabinetry, granite countertops, aluminum sliding doors, molded glass sinks, ceramic tile and custom artwork to create premium salon suites for our stylists. Exhibit A: Parking Analysis: Attached is a parking analysis that compares six of our existing stores based on the physical location size, number of stylist suites, parking available and code requirements for parking per local jurisdiction. The locations selected represent comparable sites (smaller neighborhood centers) with similar parking facilities as the 4331 Excelsior location. Satellite & Parking Counts: Attached are satellite images showing the location of each salon and the surrounding neighborhood characteristics and a close up view showing the actual parking stall counts. Zoning Maps and Parking Codes: Attached are zoning maps and the minimum parking codes for each location and jurisdiction with authority. Exclusive Parking Rights: We do not have exclusive parking rights at any of our locations. Parking is shared by all tenants at any given center. Proportionate Share of Parking: All of our locations (except the proposed St. Louis Park) are in multi- tenant centers. We have used the percentage occupied by Salon Concepts divided by the total center size to show the proportionate share of parking that is theoretically (because we do not have exclusive parking rights) allotted to our salon use. Chanhassen: Our salon is 4503 sq/ft of the total center size of 17,798 sq/ft or 25.03% with 23 total suites. There are 103 total parking spaces that serve the entire center with a minimum parking space requirement by code of 89. As a proportionate share of parking allotted, but not exclusive, to Salon Concepts equals 26 spaces. There are three restaurant co-tenants that have very intensive parking requirements during their lunch and dinner peak hours. There are four other co-tenants that have normal business hours at the center. Summary: We share the center with multiple parking intensive users and have not experienced any parking problems at this location. There is no overflow or on-street parking available at this location. Edina: Our salon is 6202 sq/ft of the total building size of 9653 sq/ft or 68.93% with 30 total suites. There are 56 total parking spaces that serve the building with a minimum parking space requirement by code of 38. Our proportionate share of parking allotted, but not exclusive, to Salon Concepts equals 38. There is office/medical space currently available as a co-tenant. Summary: This location is our 3rd largest salon (by suite count) and parking is adequate for our use. We purchased this location in October of 2015 for $1,475,000 and are not only the tenant but the Landlord as well. We are confident that parking is adequate at this location or would not have invested over $800,000 on the interior build out of our salon and an additional $1,475,000 to purchase the building. There is no overflow or on- street parking available at this location. Oakley: Our salon is 3667 sq/ft of the total building size of 24,557 or 14.93% with 24 total suites. There are only 54 total parking spaces that serve the center with a minimum parking space requirement by code of 90 (this location was grandfathered as an infill site approximately 20 years ago). Our proportionate share of parking allotted, but not exclusive, to Salon Concepts equals 8. There is a restaurant and retail (Fleet Feet Sports) co-tenants that have very intensive parking requirements during their peak hours of lunch/dinner and running group events. Summary: This location has been open for over eight years and operated at 95-100% occupancy almost the entire time. We share this center with multiple parking intensive users and the total parking available is only 60% of the amount required by code. There is no overflow parking available at this location. Anderson: Our salon is 4500 sq/ft of the total building size of 10,000sq/ft or 45% with 26 total suites. There are only 43 total parking spaces that serve the center with a minimum parking requirement by code of 32. Our proportionate share of parking allotted, but not exclusive, to Salon Concepts equals 19. There are two dentist office co-tenants that have intensive parking requirements two days a week (during surgery schedules). Summary: This location has been open for over 7 years and operated at 95- 100% occupancy almost the entire time. We share this center with co-tenants that have set, parking intensive, schedules two days a week. There is no overflow or on-street parking available at this location. Montgomery: Our salon is 5018 sq/ft of the total building size of 14,961 or 33.54% with 30 total suites. There are only 82 total parking spaces that serve the center with a minimum parking requirement by code of 52. Our proportionate share of parking allotted, but not exclusive, to Salon Concepts equals 28. There are a restaurant and large furniture/interior retailer co-tenants that have parking intensive requirements at their peak hours. Summary: This location was our first location that was opened 9 years ago and has operated between 90-98% occupancy almost the entire time. We share this center with parking intensive co-tenants. We have just renewed an additional 10 year lease term in October at this location. There is no overflow or on-street parking available at this location. Florence: Our salon is 4600 sq/ft of the total building size of 10,700 or 42.99% with 25 total suites. There are only 45 spaces that serve the center with a minimum parking requirement by code of 43. Our proportionate share of parking allotted, but not exclusive, to Salon Concepts equals 19. There are a primary care physician and dog groomer/day care co-tenants that have steady parking intensive requirements during their peak hours (early morning, noon and 5-7 pm are dog pick up/drop off times). Summary: This location has been open for 6 years and operated at 95-100% occupancy almost the entire time. We share this center with co-tenants that have regular, parking intensive schedules 5 days a week. We purchased this location in October of 2015 for $1,300,000 and are not only the tenant but the Landlord as well. We are confident that parking is adequate at this location or would not have invested over $600,000 on the interior build out of our salon and an additional $1,300,000 to purchase the building. There is no overflow or on-street parking available at this location. Summary: We have invested well over $10,000,000 into Salon Concepts on the interior build out and physical real estate over the last nine years. We invest an average of $700,000 on the construction of each location and during the site selection process we analyze the available parking at the center, co- tenants and number of suites proposed to determine if it will be adequate for our business and therefore our financial investment. We also sign 10 year initial term leases with our landlord as a show of our commitment to the location and neighborhood. Over the last 9 years we have gained an enormous amount of experience with the salon suites business model and the parking required for the success of not only our business but our co-tenant neighbors as well. The Excelsior Boulevard location has been thoroughly vetted throughout or site selection process and we have determined it to be an ideal location. We believe that Salon Concepts will be an asset to the community and a good neighbor as well. EXHIBIT A LOCATION PARKING ANALYSIS 5/3/2016 Salon Total Sq/ft Salon %Total Pkg Total Salon %Zoning Minimum Minimum Location Sq/Ft of Center Total Center Sq/Ft Spaces/Center Stylist Chairs Total Pkg Spaces Classification Pkg/Code Parking Spaces Chanhassen 4,503 17,798 25.30%103 23 26.06 Bluff Creek Overlay 1/200 88.99 Co-Tenants: District VonHansens Meats, Pizzaioli, Kai's Sushi Grill, Na's Thai Café, Allstate Insurance, Massage, Nail Salon Edina 6,602 9,653 68.39%56 30 38.30 PCD-3 See attached 38 Co-Tenants: Medical/Office Tenant Oakley 3,667 24,557 14.93%54 24 8.06 CCM 1/250 90.23 Co-Tenants: Maribelles Restaurant, Rustic Refinery Furniture, Fleet Feet Sports, House of France 2000 Exempt Anderson 4,500 10,000 45.00%43 26 19.35 E 1/250 32 Co-Tenants: Dentist office, Dental Surgery Office 2000 Exempt Montgomery 5,018 14,961 33.54%82 30 27.50 GB 1/250 51.84 Co-Tenants: Brooklyn Pizza, Sackstedders Interiors, Silver Diva, SuperCuts Salon 2000 Exempt Florence 4,600 10,700 42.99%45 25 19.35 C2/PD/CD/HDO 1/250 42.80 Co-Tenants: Florence Medical Group, Pawsitively Purfect Dog Grooming St. Louis Park 5,108 5,108 100.00%26 27 26.00 C1 1/250 sqft 20.43 Co-Tenants: None ROOM SCHEDULE010305070910121415171921272624232502040608112220181613282930313233343536010305070910121415171921272624232502040608112220181613282930313233343536PARKING LOT24 PARKING SPACES2 ACCESSIBLE PARKING SPACETOTAL: 26 PARKING SPACES0102030405060708091016132525242322212019181715141211Issue For Date IssueDrawingProject No.Alterations for Salon Concepts 4331 Excelsior Blvd. St. Louis Park, MN 5541626030NSPACE PLANSPACEPLAN ANDSITE PLAN402 1NSITE PLAN