Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2016/11/29 - ADMIN - Agenda Packets - Board of Zoning Appeals - Regular AGENDA BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS COUNCIL CHAMBERS 6:00 P.M. NOVEMBER 29, 2016 1. Call to Order – Roll Call 2. Approval of Minutes: June 23, 2016 3. Consent Agenda: None 4. Public Hearings A. Variance: Square footage accessory buildings Location: 3338 Library Lane Applicant: Library Lane, LLC Case No. 16-42-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. OFFICIAL MINUTES OF JUNE 23, 2016 BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK The St. Louis Park Board of Zoning Appeals conducted a meeting on June 23, 2016, 6:00 p.m., at St. Louis Park City Hall, 5005 Minnetonka Boulevard, St. Louis Park, Minnesota in the Council Chambers Members Present: Susan Bloyer, Justin Kaufman, James Gainsley, Henry Solmer Members Absent: Paul Roberts Staff Present: Gary Morrison, Assistant Zoning Administrator 1. CALL TO ORDER – ROLL CALL 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF MARCH 24, 2016 Commissioner Solmer made a motion recommending approval of the minutes of March 24, 2016. Vice Chair Kaufman seconded the motion, and the motion passed on a vote of 2-0-1 (Gainsley abstained). Commissioner Bloyer arrived at 6:15 p.m. 3. CONSENT AGENDA: None 4. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Variance: Maximum Allowed Floor Area Location: 4331 Excelsior Boulevard Applicant: Salon Concepts, Brent Van Liev, CEO Case No: 16-22-VAR Gary Morrison, Assistant Zoning Administrator, presented the staff report. He explained that the applicant is requesting a variance to increase the allowed floor area from 2,500 square feet to 5,100 square feet so the Salon Concepts can occupy the existing building as the sole tenant. He reviewed the definition of service land use in the zoning ordinance which includes salon use. He discussed existing and proposed property conditions. Mr. Morrison went over the variance criteria. He said staff has discussed number of parking spaces in great detail with the applicant. He said in order for the variance criterion regarding effect on health, safety, and welfare of the Official Minutes Board of Zoning Appeals June 23, 2016 Page 2 community to be met the Applicant will maintain and enforce a parking plan that outlines parking alternatives and procedures with the goal to avoid any commercial customers or staff from parking in the surrounding residential neighborhoods. Mr. Morrison stated that staff recommends adoption of a resolution approving the requested variance for a 5,100 sq. ft. salon instead of the maximum 2,500 sq. ft. allowed. Commissioners Gainsley and Solmer asked how parking could be enforced to prevent parking in residential areas. Mr. Morrison said the intent is that employees would not park in residential areas. If problems arose staff would go back to the contingency parking plan as part of the variance approval. Mr. Morrison spoke about the Excelsior Blvd. Ellipse development parking plan which has been monitored and enforced successfully. Vice Chair Kaufman asked if there have been any parking issues at the site in the past. Mr. Morrison responded that there have not been any issues and the site has been a very low traffic generator. Vice Chair Kaufman opened the public hearing. Jake Stein, attorney, Salon Concepts, spoke about the company. He said they are confident based on company experience that there shouldn’t be any issues with the parking lot. He commented that the lease is for 10 years. Brent Van Liev, CEO, Salon Concepts, was present to answer any questions. Gregory Rich, property owner adjacent to Salon Concepts, said he was present to speak in favor of the variance request. The Vice Chair closed the public hearing as no one else was present wishing to speak. Commissioner Gainsley stated he thinks it is an excellent plan with a great use of building space and use that is intended. He made a motion to adopt a resolution approving the variance. Official Minutes Board of Zoning Appeals June 23, 2016 Page 3 Commissioner Solmer spoke about staff’s attempt to find the origin of the 2,500 sq. ft. allowed floor area. He said perhaps City Council needs to take a look at this and reevaluate it. Vice Chair Kaufman said he supported the variance request. Commissioner Bloyer commented that she was sorry to have missed the discussion. She said based on the report she did not support the request. Commissioner Solmer seconded the motion. The motion to approve variance passed on a vote of 3-0-1 (Bloyer opposed). Mr. Morrison read the statement regarding appeal to the City Council. 5. UNFINISHED BUSINESS: None 6. NEW BUSINESS: None 7. COMMUNICATIONS: None 8. ADJOURN The meeting was adjourned at 6:21 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Nancy Sells Recording Secretary Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting of November 29, 2016 4A Variance to the Accessory Building Ground Floor Area Location: 3338 Library Lane Applicant: Library Lane LLC (Marge Nelson) Case No.: 16-42-VAR Recommended Action: Motion to adopt a resolution denying an application for a 256 square foot variance to allow 1,056 square feet of ground floor area for accessory buildings instead of the 800 square feet maximum allowed. REQUEST: The Applicant, Marge Nelson, is requesting a 256 square foot variance to the required 800 square foot ground floor area maximum for accessory buildings. She owns a duplex, and would like to have two detached garages (one per dwelling unit) for a total of 1,056 square feet. LOCATION: Board of Zoning Appeals – November 29, 2016 Marge Nelson, 3338 Library Lane 2 BACKGROUND: Comprehensive Plan: Low Density Residential (RL) Zoning: R-2 Single-Family Residence Existing Conditions: The property is improved with a side-by-side duplex which was constructed in 1949. The duplex became legally non-conforming in 1959 when the current R-2 Single-Family Residence district was established, and two-family dwellings were not allowed. In September of 2016 a building permit was issued for a 22 x 26 foot garage. In conjunction with the garage, the applicant constructed a 22 x 22 foot concrete slab next to the garage. The intent of the slab is to construct another garage on top of the slab if the variance is approved, or to use it for parking if the variance is denied. Prior to constructing the garage and slab, there were five off-street parking spaces located in the back yard accessed from the alley. Below is a picture of the subject property’s back yard. Proposal: The applicant would like to construct a second detached garage that is slightly smaller than the first garage, 22 x 22 feet. The second garage would be constructed on the concrete slab constructed last month. There is currently a 22 x 26 foot detached garage on the site. The total square feet of the existing and proposed garages is 1,056 square feet, which is 256 square feet more than allowed by code. The applicant desires two detached garages so each dwelling unit will have a private two-car garage. One garage is slightly larger to accommodate storage for property maintenance equipment. Board of Zoning Appeals – November 29, 2016 Marge Nelson, 3338 Library Lane 3 Current Zoning Regulations: The property is zoned R-2 Single-Family Residence. Two-family dwellings are not permitted in this district, and the existing duplex is legally non-conforming. City code allows up to 800 square feet of accessory buildings per single-family and non- conforming two-family lots in the R-1, R-2 and R-3 Districts. Since the subject property is a legally non-conforming duplex, it is limited to 800 square feet of accessory buildings. The section of city code that is the subject of the variance is as follows: City Code Section 36-162(d)(2)a. The total cumulative ground floor area of all accessory buildings on single-family lots and on non- conforming two-family lots in the R-1, R-2 and R-3 Districts shall not exceed the smaller of 800 square feet or 25 percent of the back yard. This provision shall not prohibit the construction of a detached garage that is no greater than 576 square feet in area provided there are no other accessory buildings. 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 intent of the maximum accessory building area is to promote and preserve open space on residential lots and to ensure that accessory buildings remain smaller than the principal building. The purpose of the open space is to provide outdoor recreation opportunities for the residents and to preserve areas for water to infiltrate into the ground as opposed to runoff into R-2 DISTRICT STANDARDS COMPARISON STANDARDS MINIMUM REQUIREMENT PROPOSED/EXISTING DIMENSION Minimum lot size: 7,200 square feet 10,495 square feet (existing) Minimum lot width (corner lot): 70 feet 75 feet (existing) Principal building setbacks: Minimum front yard 34.9 feet 34.5 feet (existing) Interior side yard (west side) 5.0 feet 3.9 feet (existing) Side yard abutting a street (east side) 15 feet 11.1 feet (existing) Minimum rear yard 25.0 feet 139.87 feet (existing) Accessory building setbacks: Interior side yard (west side) 2.0 feet 4.6 feet (existing) Side yard abutting a street (east side) 15.0 feet 16.1 feet (proposed) Rear yard 2.0 feet 9.0 feet (existing & proposed) Accessory building maximum ground floor area ratio (GFAR) 800 square feet 1,056 square feet (proposed) Board of Zoning Appeals – November 29, 2016 Marge Nelson, 3338 Library Lane 4 the public storm water system. The proposed project, with the variance, however, will actually increase the amount of open space that currently exists on the property, and it will decrease the amount of impervious surface. There is currently approximately 2,048 square feet of gravel parking area, and the proposed garages, including driveway and sidewalk between the garages is approximately 1,683 square feet. Approval of the variance will result in 1,056 square feet of detached garage in the back yard instead of the 800 maximum allowed by code. The increased building mass is out of character for the neighborhood, however, this is the only duplex in the immediate vicinity, and the majority of the lots in the neighborhood are 50 feet wide. The subject property is 75 feet wide, so the additional lot area may off-set the additional accessory building ground floor area. The applicant states that it will no longer be necessary to store toys and lawn equipment outside. However, the existing 24x26 garage includes room for storage. Also, the applicant could construct a second building, up to 176 square feet, that can be used for storage without a variance. The applicant also states that if the variance is approved, it will no longer be necessary to park six vehicles on the street which can create a problem for emergency vehicles. As noted in the report, there are currently five parking spaces in the back yard, so it should not be necessary to park six vehicles on the street. (Although the property is a corner lot, and there are several on- street parking spaces available.) Additionally, vehicles parked on both sides of the street is common in St. Louis Park, and does not present a problem for emergency vehicles. While the request is for 256 square feet of accessory building more than allowed by code, the resulting project as proposed will actually improve the open space available for the property, reduce the impervious surface, and provide indoor storage opportunities for both tenants in the duplex. Staff believes this criterion has been met. 2. Whether or not the request is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the Zoning Ordinance. The applicant is requesting a variance to provide a two-car garage for each of the dwelling units. This request is similar to the section of city code that allows each single-family home to have a two-car garage, even if a two-car garage up to 576 square feet exceeds the maximum ground floor area allowed. The requested variance is to allow 1,056 square feet of garage space for two dwelling units, which equates to 528 square feet per dwelling unit, 48 square feet less than what is typical for a single-family home. The request, however, is not consistent with the intent of the section of code that is the subject of the variance request, which is to keep the amount of accessory building at legally non- conforming duplexes consistent with what the neighboring single-family properties are allowed to have. 3. Whether or not the request is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. It is a goal of the Comprehensive Plan to “Promote and facilitate the expansion of existing homes through remodeling projects which add more bedrooms and more bathrooms, 2+ car Board of Zoning Appeals – November 29, 2016 Marge Nelson, 3338 Library Lane 5 garages and other amenities.” The maximum of 800 square feet of accessory building is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The 800 square feet can be split into two 20 x 20 detached garages so that each dwelling unit in the duplex can have a private two-car garage without a variance. Staff finds that this criterion has not been satisfied. 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. Duplexes are not a permitted use in the R-2 Single-Family district. The existing duplex is legally non-conforming, and as such it is allowed to continue as a legally non-conforming use. The code states that legally non-conforming duplexes can be improved with up to 800 square feet of accessory buildings. b. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property and not created by the landowner. The property is allowed up to 800 square feet of accessory buildings. This is sufficient to construct two 20 x 20 foot garages. 20 x 20 feet is the smallest practical two-car garage that can be built. This is sufficient to park two vehicles, but does not leave room for storage in addition to the vehicles. The property owner applied for a building permit to construct the 22 x 26 garage and the 22 x 22 foot garage at the same time. Upon receipt of the building permit application, the applicant was notified that the request exceeded the 800 square feet allowed. Options were discussed which includes constructing two 400 square foot garages, or one 800 square foot garage. Either would accommodate four vehicles. The applicant opted to proceed with the 22 x 26 foot garage, and ask for a variance for the second garage. Staff informed them that this places the BOZA in a position of considering a variance that could have been avoided had they not proceeded with the construction of the large garage. The reasons for proceeding with the construction of the larger garage are discussed in the applicant’s letter which is attached. The reasons stated include needing additional space for storage of property maintenance equipment. They also note that some tenants have large trucks that do not fit in a 20 x 20 garage. While two 20 x 20 foot garages may not accommodate oversized trucks, staff believes they would accommodate most parking needs, and that consideration for a variance should not include a use or machine as transient as a specific vehicle a current tenant may own. c. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. The 800 square foot maximum allowed is applied to all the properties in the district to minimize the impact the accessory buildings have visually from the adjacent properties, and also directly by way of shading. The addition of detached garages on this site will improve the character of the area by providing opportunities to store vehicles and equipment inside. The variance to construct Board of Zoning Appeals – November 29, 2016 Marge Nelson, 3338 Library Lane 6 256 square feet more of garages than allowed by code will not alter the essential character of the area. The garages are accessed by an alley, so the additional length created by two garages built side-by-side will not shade or visually obstruct the neighbor located directly behind them. d. Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties. In addition to the benefits of the detached garages discussed above, the additional garage space can be viewed as an amenity that aids in attracting and retaining renters. 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 is a corner lot, rectangular, flat and accessed by an alley. It is 75 feet wide which is five feet more than the 70 foot lot width required for corner lots. There are no known physical characteristics that impede the normal use of the property. 6. Whether or not the granting of the variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right. The code allows up to 800 square feet of garage space, which can accommodate four standard sized vehicles. In addition to the garage, there is sufficient room in the back yard to construct off-street parking spaces without impacting the useable open space utilized by the residents. Additionally, the applicant had the ability to construct two garages without a variance, but decided to proceed with the construction of one oversized two-car garage (22 x 26) knowing they would need a variance for the second garage as proposed. The applicant states that the materials for the 22 x 26 and 22 x 22 garages were purchased after talking with city staff. They were informed that they can have up to 1,200 square feet of detached garages, so the materials were ordered, and cannot be returned. Unfortunately, they were misinformed. Duplexes in the R-3 Two-Family Residence can have up to 1,200 square feet, however, legally non-conforming duplexes in the R-2 Single-Family Residence district, such as the subject property, are limited to 800 square feet. While the error is unfortunate, errors on the part of city staff or property owners cannot be the grounds for granting a variance. Staff believes the variance is not necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right. 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 garages are accessed by an alley, so the additional length of the garages that would result from the additional 256 square feet of garage space will not impact the neighboring property located on the other side of the alley. Board of Zoning Appeals – November 29, 2016 Marge Nelson, 3338 Library Lane 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. As noted above, the code allows up to 800 square feet of garage space, which is the equivalent of two 400 square foot garages each being 20 x 20 feet. The applicant states that the additional space is needed to fit large trucks, toys and maintenance equipment. Staff does not believe a variance should be granted to accommodate a particular vehicle a current tenant owns. Additionally, off-street parking spaces can be constructed on the property to accommodate the larger vehicles. Staff finds that this criterion has not been satisfied. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff finds the proposed application for a 256 square foot variance to the required 800 square foot maximum ground floor area for accessory buildings does not meet the criterion required for granting a variance. Therefore, staff recommends adoption of the attached Resolution denying the requested 256 square foot variance to allow up to 1,056 square feet of accessory building instead of the 800 square feet maximum allowed. 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 – November 29, 2016 Marge Nelson, 3338 Library Lane 8 AERIAL PHOTO Board of Zoning Appeals – November 29, 2016 Marge Nelson, 3338 Library Lane 9 BOZA RESOLUTION NO. _____ A RESOLUTION DENYING A 256 SQUARE FOOT VARIANCE TO THE REQUIRED 800 SQUARE FOOT MAXIMUM ALLOWED FOR ACCESSORY BUILDING GROUND FLOOR AREA FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 3338 LIBRARY LANE BE IT RESOLVED BY the Board of Zoning Appeals of St. Louis Park, Minnesota: FINDINGS 1. On October 28, 2016, Marge Nelson, on behalf of Library Lane, LLC applied for a variance from the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance (Section 36-162(d)(2)a to allow up to 1,059 square feet of accessory building ground floor area instead of the 800 square foot maximum allowed for a legally non-conforming duplex in the R-2 Single-Family Residence District. 2. The property is located at 3338 Library Lane and described below as follows, to wit: Lots 17, 18, and 19, Block 194, REARRANGEMENT OF ST. LOUIS PARK, Hennepin County, Minnesota, according to the recorded plat thereof. 3. The Board of Zoning Appeals has reviewed the application for variance Case No. 16-42- VAR on November 22, 2016. 4. Based on the testimony, evidence presented, and files and records, the Board of Zoning Appeals has determined that the requested variance does not meet 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 no factors related to the shape, size or other extraordinary conditions on the lot which prevent a reasonable use. b. Granting of the requested variance is not necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right. The property has a reasonable use consisting of a duplex and the city code allows up to 800 square feet of accessory buildings. c. The need for a variance is the result of the applicant’s decision to construct a 572 square foot detached garage leaving only 228 square feet available for a second garage, which is sufficient for a one-car garage, but not a two-car garage. Whereas the applicant could have constructed two 400 square foot two-car garages. d. There are no demonstrable or undue hardships or difficulties under the terms of the Zoning Ordinance or Minnesota Statue, and therefore, conditions necessary for granting the requested variance do not exist. 5. The contents of the Board of Zoning Appeals Case File 16-42-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 – November 29, 2016 Marge Nelson, 3338 Library Lane 10 CONCLUSION The Board of Zoning Appeals hereby denies the requested 256 square foot variance to allow up to 1,056 square feet of accessory building instead of the 800 square feet maximum allowed for the property located at 3338 Library Lane. Adopted by the Board of Zoning Appeals: November 29, 2016 Effective date: December 9, 2016 ___________________________ Paul Roberts, Chairperson ATTEST: _______________________________________ Gary Morrison, Assistant Zoning Administrator