HomeMy WebLinkAbout2023/07/05 - ADMIN - Agenda Packets - Planning Commission - Regular Board of zoning appeals and planning commission meeting
July 5, 2023
6:00 p.m.
If you need special accommodations or have questions about the meeting, please call Sean Walther at 952.924.2574 or the
administration department at 952.924.2525.
Board of zoning appeals and planning commission meeting
The St. Louis Park board of zoning appeals and planning commission are meeting in person at
St. Louis Park City Hall, 5005 Minnetonka Blvd. Members of the public can attend the board of
zoning appeals and planning commission meeting in person or watch the meeting by
webstream at bit.ly/watchslppc and on local cable (Comcast SD channel 17 and HD channel
859). Visit bit.ly/slppcagendas to view the agenda and reports.
Due to technical challenges, courtesy call-in public comment is not available for this meeting.
You can provide comment on agenda items in person at the council meeting or by emailing
your comments to info@stlouispark.org by noon the day of the meeting. Comments must be
related to an item on the meeting agenda. The city recognizes the value of the call-in
opportunity to provide access to those who can’t attend meetings in person and is working on a
reliable solution.
Agenda
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS (BOZA)
1.Call to order – roll call
2.Approval of minutes – April 12, 2023
3.Hearing
3a. Variance for 8901 Stanlen Rd.
Applicant: Barry Novak
Case No.: 23-06-VAR
4.Other Business
5.Communications
6.Adjournment
PLANNING COMMISSION
1.Call to order – roll call
2.Approval of minutes – May 3, 2023; May 17, 2023; and June 21, 2023
3.Hearing
3a. Zoning ordinance amendment - floodplain
Applicant: City of St. Louis Park – community development department
Case No.: 23-07-ZA
4.Other Business
5.Communications
6.Adjournment
1
Board of zoning appeals and planning commission meeting
July 5, 2023
Future scheduled meeting/event dates:
July 19, 2023 – planning commission regular meeting
August 2, 2023 – planning commission regular meeting
August 16, 2023 – planning commission regular meeting
September 6, 2023 – planning commission regular meeting
2
Board of zoning appeals
April 12, 2023
6:00 p.m.
If you need special accommodations or have questions about the meeting, please call Sean Walther or the administration
department at 952.924.2525.
Board of zoning appeals
Members present: Jim Beneke, Mia Divecha, Matt Eckholm, Katie Merten, Michael Salzer,
Tom Weber, Jan Youngquist
Members absent: none
Staff present: Jacquelyn Kramer, Gary Morrison, Sean Walther
Guests:
1. Call to order – roll call
2. Approval of minutes – Oct. 12, 2022
Commissioner Divecha noted a comment in the minutes that should be attributed to
Commissioner Youngquist and not to her.
Commissioner Beneke made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Youngquist, to accept
the Oct. 12, 2022, minutes as amended.
The motion passed unanimously.
3. Hearings
3a. Variance for 7710 West 24th Street
Applicant: Josh Fitzpatrick
Case No: 23-01-VAR
Ms. Kramer presented the report.
Commissioner Divecha asked why the car illustrated in the garage is parked at different
angles.
Mr. Fitzpatrick, homeowner at 7710 West 24th St., stated they propose to widen the
garage door by one foot, which would allow for him to enter the garage with his car and
to park it at an angle to provide room to open the car doors.
Commissioner Salzer asked if neighbors had given any feedback. Ms. Kramer stated no,
city staff have received no comments on the project from neighbors.
Mr. Fitzpatrick stated his neighbor to the east was fine with it.
3
Unofficial minutes
BOZA
April 12, 2023
Page 2
Commissioner Salzer noted the finding regarding the uniqueness of the angle of the
property line and if staff could explain that. Ms. Kramer stated if the house is at an angle
at the property line, there is a bit of grace given in the zoning ordinance, but there is still
a minimum of 5 feet setback required.
Chair Weber opened the public hearing.
Mr. Fitzpatrick thanked Ms. Kramer and Mr. Morrison for their help on this project and
noted he and his family are happy to be in St. Louis Park. He also noted in their
neighborhood, they have lost two families because of city codes limiting certain
additions and the families’ interest in adding onto their homes. He stated he hopes their
neighborhood will not lose any other families because of city code and zoning issues.
Commissioner Beneke stated he supports this variance.
Chair Weber closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Beneke made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Divecha to approve
the resolution granting a variance to allow a 3.6-foot side yard at 7710 West 24th St.,
with conditions in the staff report.
The motion passed unanimously.
4.Other Business
There was no other business.
5.Communications
There were no communications.
6.Adjournment – 6:13 p.m.
______________________________________ ______________________________________
Gary Morrison, liaison Tom Weber, chair member
4
Board of zoning appeals: Regular meeting
Meeting date: July 5, 2023
Agenda item: 3a
3a Request for amendment to rear yard variance at 8901 Stanlen Road.
Location: 8901 Stanlen Road
Case Number: 23-06-VAR
Applicant: Barry Novak
Owner: Elizabeth and Barry Novak
Review Deadline: 60 days: August 6, 2023 120 days: October 5, 2023
Recommended
motions:
Chair to open the public hearing, take testimony and close the hearing.
Motion to rescind council resolution 6975 and approve variance to
allow a 7.7 foot rear yard for the proposed basement and first floor
addition to the house with conditions as recommended by staff.
Request: Applicant requests approval of an amendment to the existing rear yard variance to
allow a basement addition to be constructed under the first-floor addition previously approved
by variance in 1981.
Site information:
Zoning: R-1 single-family residence
Site Area: 8,756 square feet
5
Regular meeting of July 5, 2023 (Item No. 3a)
Title: Request for rear yard variance at 8901 Stanlen Rd
Summary of request: The request is for an amendment to the previously approved rear yard
variance.
1981 variance: A variance was granted by the city council in October of 1981 to allow an 8-foot
rear yard for the construction of a living space addition to the back of the house. The variance
was granted to then owner Saul R. Grouse noting that the shape of the lot restricted where the
house could be built. In 1981, the Board of Zoning Appeals (BOZA) was an advisory board and
made recommendations to the city council that acted on variance applications.
The current rear yard minimum is 25 feet. The required rear yard minimum in 1981 was 35 feet.
The purpose of the variance was to allow a 14-foot deep by 12-foot-wide addition off the back
of the house. As pictured, the addition was a one-story addition extending from the main floor.
It was built on posts with no living space below it.
Staff recommends the BOZA recommend the city council rescind the 1981 resolution
(Resolution 6975, attached). Staff will place the BOZA recommendation on the next available
city council consent agenda. Rescinding resolution 6975 requires council action because it is a
council resolution, not a BOZA resolution.
If the BOZA approves the requested variance, the attached BOZA resolution approving the new
variance will not require council action.
6
Regular meeting of July 5, 2023 (Item No. 3a)
Title: Request for rear yard variance at 8901 Stanlen Rd
1981 variance – error in measurement: The city granted a variance to allow an 8-foot rear yard,
however, as depicted in the 1981 survey presented to the BOZA and city council, the eight-foot
measurement was taken incorrectly. The measurement is supposed to be perpendicular to the
rear lot line to the corner of the proposed addition. The result is that the addition was
constructed as presented to the 1981 city council and BOZA, but the actual setback is 7.7 feet
as shown in the current survey.
It is the applicant’s intent to rebuild the existing addition, and proposed basement enclosure, to
the same dimensions as the existing addition. This would require a 7.7-foot rear yard instead of
the previously approved 8-foot rear yard. Therefore, the applicant requests a 7.7-foot rear yard,
instead of the previously approved 8-foot rear yard.
Present considerations: The subject property is improved with a single-family house that was
constructed in 1954. It is a one-story house with an attached garage.
The house has a walk-out basement, and the main floor addition was constructed on posts
elevating the addition approximately 8-feet from the ground. The post footings are failing,
causing damage to the addition. The applicant would like to rebuild the addition with an
enclosed basement and perimeter frost footings. The proposed addition would match the
existing 14-foot deep and 12-foot wide addition.
1981 survey Current survey
7.7
7
Regular meeting of July 5, 2023 (Item No. 3a)
Title: Request for rear yard variance at 8901 Stanlen Rd
Variance analysis: Requested is an amendment to an existing variance to Section 36-163(f)(5)
which requires a 25-foot rear yard instead of the requested 7.7 feet.
The applicant proposes the following:
1.Rebuild an addition constructed in 1981 with a variance to the rear yard.
2.Amend the existing variance to allow a basement addition underneath the existing
addition previously approved with the variance.
3.Amend the existing variance to reduce the approved variance from 8 feet to 7.7 feet
due to an error in the survey presented to the city council and BOZA in 1981. This would
allow the addition to be rebuilt to the same size as approved in 1981.
Findings: As required by city code, the board of zoning appeals (BOZA) considers the following
findings prior to ruling on a variance. City staff provided an analysis of each point below. The
applicant submitted a letter explaining the need for the variance. The letter is attached to this
staff report.
1.The effect of the proposed variance upon the health, safety, and welfare of the
community. The proposed amendment to the existing variance does not impact the health,
safety, and welfare of the community. The existing structure that is proposed to be rebuilt
does not have a history of complaints or nuisances.
The proposed addition is below the existing addition, so it does not add additional height to
the existing structure, and therefore, should not generate complaints or become a
nuisance.
2.Whether or not the request is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the
zoning ordinance. While the city council and BOZA in 1981 granted the variance for the
existing addition, it may be said that the city today may not agree that the variance granted
in 1981 is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the zoning ordinance. Today
it may be said that a small lot or irregular shaped lot indicates that the lot can
accommodate a smaller, potentially more affordable house than other lots. This
amendment to the variance, however, is in keeping with the 1981 city council and BOZA
decision and should be granted so the existing structure can be maintained and improved
with a basement instead of constructed on posts. The basement addition will make the
addition more energy efficient and give it a more stable foundation than the existing room
elevated on posts.
3.Whether or not the request is consistent with the comprehensive plan. The
comprehensive plan encourages a variety of housing styles, sizes, and affordability. The
variance is needed to repair the existing structure at the existing 7.7 foot rear yard instead
of 8 feet which was approved in 1981 in error. The actual rear yard dimension shown on the
survey for the size of the requested addition presented to the 1981 city council and BOZA
should have read 7.7 feet instead of 8 feet.
8
Regular meeting of July 5, 2023 (Item No. 3a)
Title: Request for rear yard variance at 8901 Stanlen Rd
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 required in the zoning ordinance,
including but not limited to setbacks and height limitations. Single-family houses are
permitted in the R-1 single-family residence district.
b.The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property and not
created by the landowner. The foundations for the posts supporting the addition
approved in 1981 are deteriorating and need to be replaced. Additionally, the survey
error is not the fault of the homeowner, as they purchased the home in 1993.
c.The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. The
variance will allow the addition to be re-built to the same dimensions as the existing
addition, except for the basement addition. The basement addition will be the same size
as the existing addition above it and will not increase the height of the structure.
Therefore, it will not impact adjacent properties.
d.Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties. Economic
considerations are not considered as part of this application.
e.Practical difficulties include inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy
systems. Not applicable.
5.Whether or not there are circumstances unique to the shape, topography, water
conditions, or other physical conditions of the property. The variance is needed to rebuild
the 1981 addition.
6.Whether or not the granting of the variance is necessary for the preservation and
enjoyment of a substantial property right. The variance is needed to rebuild the 1981
addition.
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. Granting the requested variance will not impact the supply of light and air to
the adjacent property. The addition would not add congestion to the street and would not
increase any risk to public safety.
8.Whether or not the granting of the variance will merely serve as a convenience or is it
necessary to alleviate a practical difficulty. The variance is necessary to rebuild the existing
addition. The basement addition will result in a more lasting and energy efficient
improvement.
Recommendation: Staff recommends BOZA rescind attached council resolution 6975, and grant
a variance to allow a 7.7 foot rear yard for the construction of a 14 foot by 12 foot main floor
with basement addition off the back of the house with the following conditions:
1.The variance is approved to construct the 14 foot deep by 12 foot wide addition off the
back of the house as illustrated by exhibit A1-survey, exhibit A2-floor plans, which are
adopted into this Resolution and made a part of this approval.
9
Regular meeting of July 5, 2023 (Item No. 3a)
Title: Request for rear yard variance at 8901 Stanlen Rd
2.The addition is a main floor and basement addition only. A second story may not be
constructed above the addition.
3.Construction of the addition must begin within two years of the approval of the variance.
The variance is considered abandoned and cancelled if construction does not begin within
two years of approval of the variance.
4.The variance is considered abandoned and cancelled if the addition is removed.
Supporting documents: Draft Resolution; Resolution 6975; letter from applicant; exhibits; and
letter from neighbor.
Prepared by: Gary Morrison, zoning administrator
Reviewed by: Sean Walther, planning manager / deputy community development director
10
Regular meeting of July 5, 2023 (Item No. 3a)
Title: Request for rear yard variance at 8901 Stanlen Rd
DRAFT BOZA Resolution No. _____
Resolution rescinding city council resolution 6975 and approving a variance to
allow a 7.7 foot rear yard instead of the required 25 feet for an addition to the
back of the house at 8901 Stanlen Road
Whereas, on June 7, 2023, the owner, Barry Novak, submitted a complete application
for a variance from the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance Section 36-163(f)(5) to allow a
7.7 foot rear yard instead of the required 25 feet.
Whereas, On October 5, 1981 the city council, upon recommendation by the Board of
Zoning Appeals, approved a variance to allow an 8 foot rear yard instead of the required 35
feet.
Whereas, city council granted the BOZA authority over variances.
Whereas, the property is located at 8901 Stanlen Road and described below as follows,
to wit:
Lot 14, Block 2, Cedar Knoll Manor, according to the recorded plat thereof on file
and record in the office of the Registrar of Titles in and for said County of
Hennepin, State of Minnesota.
Whereas, the property is zoned R-1 single-family residence.
Whereas, the Board of Zoning Appeals held a public hearing and reviewed the
application for variance Case No. 23-06-VAR on July 5, 2023.
Whereas, 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.The variance will not have an adverse effect on the health, safety, and welfare of the
community. The existing structure to be rebuilt does not have a history of
complaints or nuisances.
b.The proposed variance has minimal/no impact on the community. This variance is in
keeping with the 1981 variance and will allow the addition constructed as a result of
the 1981 variance to be rebuilt.
c.The Comprehensive Plan designates the land use of this site as RL- low density
residential. Single-family homes are consistent with this designation.
d.The applicant has established a practical difficulty in complying with the Zoning
Ordinance with the following:
11
Regular meeting of July 5, 2023 (Item No. 3a)
Title: Request for rear yard variance at 8901 Stanlen Rd
1.Single-family homes are permitted in the R-1 single-family residence zoning
district.
2.A variance was approved in 1981 for the existing addition. The variance
incorrectly stated an 8 foot rear yard, but a 7.7 foot rear yard is required for
the size of addition presented to the city.
3.The essential character of the site and the surrounding area would not be
altered if this variance were granted.
4.Economic considerations are not considered as part of this application.
f.The variance is needed for the preservation of a substantial property right. The
variance is needed to replace the existing addition.
g.Granting the variance would not impact the supply of light and air to the adjacent
property. The addition would not add congestion to the street and would not
increase any risk to public safety.
i.The contents of the Board of Zoning Appeals Case File 23-06-VAR are hereby entered
into and made part of the public hearing record and the record of decision for this
case.
Now therefore be it resolved by the Board of Zoning Appeals of St. Louis Park, Minnesota,
that the city council resolution 6975 is hereby rescinded, and the requested variance to
construct a one-story with basement addition off the back of the house is hereby approved
with the following conditions:
1.The variance is approved to construct the 14 foot deep by 12 foot wide addition off the
back of the house as illustrated by exhibit A1-survey, and exhibit A2-floor plans, which are
adopted into this Resolution and made a part of this approval.
2.The addition is a main floor and basement addition only. A second story may not be
constructed above the addition.
3.Construction of the addition must begin within two years of the approval of the variance.
The variance is considered abandoned and cancelled if construction does not begin within
two years of approval of the variance.
4.The variance is considered abandoned and cancelled if the addition is removed.
Adopted by the Board of Zoning Appeals: July 5, 2023
Effective date: July 16, 2023
______________________________
Tom Weber, Chair
ATTEST:
_______________________________________
Gary Morrison, Zoning Administrator
12
f
i
RESOLUTION NO. 6975
A RESOLUTION GRANTING VARIANCE IN REAR YARD SETBACK FROM
SECTION 14-128(5) OF THE ORDINANCE CODE RELATING TO ZONING
TO PERMIT A REAR YARD SETBACK OF EIGHT FEET INSTEAD OF THE
REQUIRED 35 FEET IN THE R-1, SINGLE FAMILY DISTRICT AT
8901 STANLEN ROAD
BE IT RESOLVED BY,the City Council of St. Louis Park, Minnesota:
Findings
1. Saul R. Grouse has applied for a variance from Section 14-128(5) of
the Ordinance Code relating to zoning to permit a rear yard of eight feet
instead of the required 35 feet for a single family house located in the
R-1, Single Family Residence District, at the following location, to -wit:
Lot 14, Block 2, Cedar Knoll Manor Addition according
to the map or plat thereof
2. The Board of Zoning Appeals has reviewed the application for a
variance (Case No. 81 -84 -VAR) and has recommended to the City Council that
the application be granted.
3. The Council has considered the effect of the proposed variance upon
the health, safety and welfare of the community, existing and anticipated
traffic conditions, light and air, danger of fire, risk to the public safety,
the effect on values of property in the surrounding area and the effect of
the proposed variance upon the Comprehensive Plan.
4. Because of conditions on the subject property and on the surrounding
property, it is possible to use the subject property in such a way that the
proposed variance will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to
adjacent property, unreasonably increase the congestion in the public streets,
increase the danger of fire, endanger the public safety, unreasonably diminish
or impair health, safety, comfort, morals, or in any other respect be contrary
to the intent of the Zoning Ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan.
5. The special conditions applying to the structure or land in question
a•re peculiar to such property or immediately adjoining property and do not
apply generally to other land or structures in the district in which such
land is located.
6. The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and
enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant. It will not merely
serve as a convenience to the applicant but is necessary to alleviate demonstrable
hardship or difficulty. 13
Conclusion
The application for a variance for the purpose designated is granted, based
upon the findings set forth above.
Adopted by the City Council October 5, 1981
Mayor
ATTEST:
ty ler
CirjhV142""1,
Reviewed for administration:f Approved as to form and legality:
121A4:4A.
ty Manager `
r
City Attorney
2
14
SL332535 Explanation of Request for Variance Dated May 5, 2023
Property Owners of: 8901 Stanlen Road, Saint Louis Park, MN 55426
Barry J Novak ____________________________________________
barrynovak@gmail.com
Mobile: 612-308-7961
Elizabeth S. Novak ________________________________________
Beth9560@me.com
Mobile: 952-270-1807
One variance is requested for the property listed above.
Background: A dining room addition on the rear of the home was constructed by
a previous homeowner in 1981. The addition is on the main level of a walk-out
design rambler. We were informed by the City of St. Louis Park that a variance was
granted to allow the building of the addition at that time. Over the 42 years since
the addition was constructed, the five 6x6” wooden posts used to support the
addition (underpinning) have begun to decay and settle. In order to preserve the
structure and prevent failure, it is proposed that concrete footings, concrete block
foundation wall and wooden-framed support walls be installed (of the same
footprint as the dining room addition directly above). The result would be a
basement-level enclosed space dimensioned 14’4” x 12’ directly beneath the 1981
dining room addition.
Variance Request Explanation:
1. The effect of the proposed variance upon the health, safety and welfare of
the community: The proposed structure will be constructed entirely on the
landowner’s property and using conventional building materials. It is not
expected that either the building process or the finished structure will have
any effect on the health, safety and welfare of the community.
2. The request is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the
zoning ordinance: The neighborhood is located in a residential area zoned
R-1 Residential. The proposed structure will have the appearance of a
walk-out basement with approximately two courses of concrete blocks
above the current grade level and will be finished above the block wall with
15
wooden siding products and will be painted to match the current home’s
siding.
3. The request is consistent with the comprehensive plan: The neighborhood
is located in a residential area zoned R-1 Residential. The proposed
structure will have the appearance of a walk-out basement with
approximately two courses of concrete blocks above the current grade level
and will be finished above the block wall with wooden siding products and
will be painted to match the current home’s siding.
4. The applicant establishes that there are practical difficulties in complying
with the zoning ordinance. This means that:
a. The proposed use is permitted in the zoning area in which the land is
located. A variance can be requested for dimensional items: The
neighborhood is located in a residential area zoned R-1 Residential.
The proposed structure will have the appearance of a walk-out
basement with approximately two courses of concrete blocks above
the current grade level and will be finished above the block wall with
wooden siding products and will be painted to match the current
home’s siding.
b. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the
property and not created by the landowner: The dining room
addition was built by a previous owner in 1981 after the granting of a
variance and a building permit for its construction. Both the design
and materials used to construct the supports beneath the addition
did not adequately address the effect of water exposure over time
and have resulted in wood rot and settling of the supporting posts.
Current homeowners purchased the home in January, 1994.
c. The variance, if granted will not alter the essential character of the
locality: The outward appearance of the proposed construction will
be that of a typical walk-out basement in the method and materials
proposed.
d. Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties:
Homeowners are not claiming that economic considerations
constitute sole practical difficulties. However, we must invest our
funds to stabilize existing failing underpinning/support structure
beneath the addition.
e. Practical difficulties include inadequate access to direct sunlight for
solar energy systems: Homeowners are not claiming any inadequate
16
access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems. Further, the
construction process and the final structure will have no impact on
potential solar energy systems for this or any neighboring properties.
5. There are circumstances unique to the shape, topography, water conditions
or other physical conditions of the property: The shape, topography and
other physical conditions of the property are by definition, unique,
however they alone do not constitute an argument for granting the
variance. The nature of the variance request is to request the ability to
“rescue/support” a potentially failing structure that was built 42 years ago.
6. The granting of the variance is necessary for the preservation and
enjoyment of a substantial property right: Current homeowners purchased
the property 13 years after the dining room addition was constructed in
1981. The supporting structure beneath was not well-designed or
constructed. It is potentially failing. We desire the ability to properly
correct the current situation and to ensure the integrity of the structure for
the foreseeable future.
7. The granting of the variance will not impair light and air to the surrounding
properties, unreasonably increase congestion, increase the danger of fire or
endanger public safety: The side of the home to which the addition in
question is attached is facing south-southwest. As a result, the proposed
“basement” structure beneath will have no bearing on the surrounding
properties beyond that of the current structure from a light and air
standpoint. Given that the proposed structure is directly beneath the 1981
addition (in the back yard of the property) and fully within the property
lines, it should have no impact on congestion in the neighborhood. The
proposed structure will be constructed of conventional materials (concrete,
wood, fiberglass, vinyl clad windows). As a result, its construction and
building process would not be expected to increase the danger of fire or
endanger public safety in any way.
8. The granting of the variance will not merely serve as a convenience but is
necessary to alleviate a practical difficulty: The overwhelming driving force
for the variance request is to alleviate a practical difficulty – the settling and
potential failure of the wooden support system beneath the 1981 dining
room addition. We desire to install concrete footings, concrete block
foundation wall and wood-framed walls directly beneath the dining room
footprint in order to stabilize and ensure the integrity of the structure for
years into the future.
17
Ex Block Wall
Ex Basement
Ex entry door
14'
8901 Stanlen Road
Project Floor Plan
Barry Novak
Homeowner/Builder
612-308-7961
Page 1 of 1 Drawn May 8, 2023
Revision B
12'
New opening
3'2"
WINDOW SCHEDULE
All Andersen 400 Series Low-E Casement
1: 24 x 24 non-operable (2)
2: 19W x 32H RH Hinge (2)
3: 19W x 32H LH Hinge (2)
Window 1
Window 2
Window 3
18
Stanlen Road8901 Stanlen RdS57°56'52
"W
72
.64N80°21'17"W 54.90N02°50'13"E 103.73
138.52Δ=55°29'40"R=143.02CB=S56°06'51"EC=133.17DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY SURVEYEDLot 14, Block 2 of Cedar Knoll Manor, St. Louis Park, MinnesotaSurvey Notes1. Bearings are based on the Hennepin County Coordinate System.2. Client Name: Barry Novak3. Site Address: 8901 Stanlen Road Saint Louis Park, MN 554264. This survey is based on the legal description as provided by the Client5. This Surveyor has not abstracted the land shown hereon for easements, rightsof way or restrictions of record which may affect the title or use of the land6. Do not reconstruct property lines from building tiesFOUND IRON MONUMENTLinetype & Symbol Legend MINNESOTA LAND SURVEYOR CERTIFICATIONI hereby certify that this survey, plan or report was prepared byme or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly LicensedLand Surveyor under the laws of the State of Minnesota.Dated this 6th day of June, 2023.___________________________________________________Kelly D Ness Minnesota License No. 45847SET IRON MONUMENTCertificate ofSurvey19
20
-----Original Message-----
From:Faith Riverstone <faithriverstone@yahoo.com>
Sent:Thursday,June 22,2023 4:36 PM
To:Gary Morrison <GMorrison@stlouisparkmn.gov>
Cc:Faith Riverstone <faithriverstone@yahoo.com>
Subject:SLP Zoning Appeal for 8901 Stanlen Road,Hearing 07 /05/23 at 6pm Comment
CAUTION:This email originated from outside of the organization.Do not click links or open attachments unless you
recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Dear Mr.Gary Morrison,and to Whom It May Concern;
My name is Faith Riverstone,and I own the home at 9001 Stanlen Road,Mr.Barry Novak, at 8901 Stanlen Road is my
neighbor.I will not be a to attend the Hearing on July 5,2023,however,my Comments are as follows:
Mr.Novak already has an existing structure in that location,as such building underneath that structure would pose no
additional inconvenience to the neighbors (beyond the actual temporary construction noise).No further privacy is
invaded that was not previously invaded.
Furthermore,the Novaks have been good neighbors and are upstanding citizens.As such,I support Mr.Novak's
application for variance,and would respectfully ask the City of St.Louis Park to kindly grant the variance.
Thank you,
Faith Riverstone
9001 Stanlen Road
St.Louis Park,MN 55426
952-412-6657
21
22
Planning commission
May 3, 2023
6:00 p.m.
If you need special accommodations or have questions about the meeting, please call Sean Walther or the administration
department at 952.924.2525.
Planning commission
Members present: Mia Divecha, Michael Salzer, Katie Merten, Tom Weber, Jan Youngquist
Members absent: Jim Beneke, Matt Eckholm
Staff present: Gary Morrison, Sean Walther
1. Call to order – roll call
2. Approval of minutes – April 12, 2023, and April 19, 2023
Commissioner Salzer made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Youngquist to approve
the minutes of April 12, 2023, and April 19, 2023, as presented. The motion passed
unanimously.
3. Hearings
3a. AC Hotel by Marriott planned unit development amendment - 5075 Wayzata Blvd
Applicant: Christopher Flagg, on behalf of TPI Hospitality
Case No: 23-02-PUD
Mr. Walther presented the report. The applicant requests the parking requirement to be
reduced from 189 to 129 stalls. Mr. Walther stated parking demand will be met with this
reduced number of stalls based on the experience of operating for five years and the
data provided by the hotel manager and applicant.
Commissioner Divecha asked why this is being done now. Mr. Walther stated because
there is a new owner of the 10 West End office building where the off-site parking is
hosted and a disagreement between the hotel owner operator and the new parking
ramp owner about the 60 unreserved parking spaces. This is an opportunity to right-size
the parking requirement and resolve this issue.
Commissioner Youngquist asked if the 189 parking spaces is what the zoning code
requires. Mr. Walther stated yes, and city staff were reluctant to require fewer stalls five
years ago, because it was unclear what impact the restaurant would have on parking
demand. The restaurant has had much impact, and staff now support the change. He
added the reduction in parking will still satisfy the City of Golden Valley’s parking
formulas, which require fewer stalls than St. Louis Park’s code.
Chair Weber opened the public hearing.
Mr. Flagg stated he is available for questions.
23
Unofficial minutes
Planning commission
May 3, 2023
Commissioner Divecha asked what the benefit is of releasing these parking spots.
Mr. Flagg stated there was a recent transaction at the neighboring office building and
new management. He noted there was a disagreement in interpretation of how the 60
stalls are managed and charged, and in speaking with the new owners, this approach
would resolve the matter for all parties.
Commissioner Salzer asked about the methodology of exhibit 3. Mr. Flagg stated that is
correct and that staff counts during the time period showed that the off-site 10 West
End parking stalls – both the 50 reserved spaces and the 60 unreserved spaces – are
rarely used. He noted there are many hotel guests that arrive by ride share or buses to
the hotel and parking demand is less than 1 per room.
Commissioner Salzer asked if there is any on-street parking. Mr. Walther stated no there
is none available in that area, and the surrounding residential properties tightly manage
their parking.
Commissioner Merten asked if events are held at the hotel. Mr. Flagg stated there is a
conference room that can hold 10-12 people, so they only host small group meetings.
Chair Weber closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Youngquist stated she appreciated staff’s clarifications and the data
provided by the applicant and she will support this PUD.
Commissioner Youngquist made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Salzer, to
approve the PUD as presented and subject to the conditions in the staff report. The
motion passed unanimously.
3b. Corsa Floodplain conditional use permit
Applicant: Eric Ryan, on behalf of OPUS Development Company
Case No: 23-04-CUP
Mr. Morrison presented the report.
Commissioner Salzer asked about the units of measurement shown on the screen. Mr.
Morrison explained the elevations are presents are elevation (feet) above sea level. The
difference between the official FEMA mapped elevation and the modeled elevation is
0.7 feet.
Commissioner Salzer asked how the Atlas 14 rainfall data applies here. Mr. Morrison
stated it will not have an impact on the CUP, because the first floor elevation is still two
feet above the 1% chance flood elevation in the modeling.
24
Unofficial minutes
Planning commission
May 3, 2023
Commissioner Merten asked for explanation on the 15 feet of fill. Mr. Morrison clarified
that the code would allow the fill in the flood plain to extend 15 feet horizontally from
the building so the first floor elevation and the area 15 feet around the building are both
2 feet above the flood plain elevation.
Commissioner Divecha asked why staff recommends the 15-foot amendment not be
completed. Mr. Morrison stated the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources has
amended their model ordinance to retract the 15-foot requirement to minimize the fill
in the flood plan. In this instance, it also minimizes impacts to the public sidewalk and
street and the impacts to the building accessibility from the public sidewalk. Mr.
Walther added the development provides compensatory flood storage for the fill that
was placed in the flood plain to maintain storage volumes.
Chair Weber asked if this requires the least amount of fill with the CUP. Mr. Morrison
stated yes.
Commissioner Merten asked if water would come from Bass Lake Preserve. Mr.
Morrison said yes and stated Bass Lake Preserve collects water from a very large storm
water drainage area starting from around Cedar Lake Road and that continues towards
Minneapolis. He added the mapping provides an estimation of where flooding might go,
noting it eventually drains to Bde Maka Ska and the Mississippi River.
Commissioner Youngquist asked about the PUD that was approved in 2021 for this area.
She asked if it is correct to say this is a technicality and that is why the commission is
now reviewing a CUP. Mr. Morrison stated that is correct, adding this has been reviewed
by city staff, the watershed district and the DNR. He stated under the city code a CUP is
required.
Commissioner Merten asked if this will take away any requirements for residents to
have flood insurance. Mr. Morrison stated that is the goal of the applicant following the
CUP process for them to request a change for their property from FEMA so that flood
insurance is not required. The property owner or the residents would still have the
choice to obtain flood insurance and at lower rates than if they were in the flood plain.
Commissioner Salzer asked if the construction impact will be at the parking area. Mr.
Morrison stated yes, the elevation at the parking ramp is 880 feet, which is lower than
the residential area.
Chair Weber opened the public hearing.
There were no comments from the public.
Chair Weber closed the public hearing.
25
Unofficial minutes
Planning commission
May 3, 2023
Commissioner Youngquist made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Merten, to
approve the CUP as presented and subject to the conditions in the staff report. The
motion passed unanimously.
3c. Risor Floodplain conditional use permit
Applicant: Chesley Janso, on behalf of Roers Companies
Case No: 23-04-CUP
Mr. Morrison presented the report. He noted this application is identical to the last one.
Commissioner Divecha asked about the floor area and if all habitable areas conform to
the 2 feet above. Mr. Morrison confirmed that is correct.
Chair Weber opened the public hearing.
There were no comments from the public.
Chair Weber closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Mertens made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Youngquist, to
approve the CUP as presented and subject to the conditions in the staff report. The
motion passed unanimously.
4. Other Business - none
5. Communications
5a. Update on TOD station area planning – Mr. Walther pointed out the written report
in the staff packet. He noted the community advisory group met last week and a survey
will be sent out to the community next week, and an open house will be held on May 23
at City Hall council chambers from 4-7 p.m.
Commissioner Divecha asked how many serve on the advisory committee. Mr. Walther
stated currently it is 9 members, and stated this can grow to 16 members and he is
hoping through community engagement the city will make new connections and add to
the diversity of the community advisory group membership.
Commissioner Divecha asked if commissioners can attend the open house and if there is
risk that a quorum might be present, and how it could be managed. Mr. Walther stated
that is possible, and if commissioners are interested in attending, they should send an
email to Mr. Walther. Staff would publicly post the meeting as a commission meeting
three days in advance if a quorum is likely to occur.
The next meeting is a study session on May 17th.
26
Unofficial minutes
Planning commission
May 3, 2023
Chair Weber noted he and Commissioner Divecha attended a meeting last week for city
boards and commissions chairs and vice chairs to meet with an outside consulting firm.
He noted a survey went out to all commissioners for their feedback as well and asked
the planning commission to please watch for it.
6. Adjournment – 6:35 p.m.
______________________________________ ______________________________________
Sean Walther, liaison Tom Weber, chair member
27
28
Planning commission
May 17, 2023
6:00 p.m.
If you need special accommodations or have questions about the meeting, please call Sean Walther or the administration
department at 952.924.2525.
Planning commission
Study session
Members present: Mia Divecha, Matt Eckholm, Katie Merten, Michael Salzer, Tom Weber
Members absent: Jim Beneke, Jan Youngquist
Staff present: Gary Morrison, Sean Walther
Consulting planners present: Rita Trapp, Jeff Miller
1.Discussion of zoning code update, phase 1
Mr. Miller and Ms. Trapp presented the report and led the discussion regarding residential
districts and standards.
Commissioner Divecha asked if the intention of the zoning district purpose statements is to
help guide the process. Mr. Walther stated purpose statements are most often referenced
with a rezoning or when working to see if a site is suitable for the district. It is also a
touchstone that guides the regulations specific to the district.
Commissioner Weber asked about density and the possibility of more of that in the future
and how to communicate that there will be more housing options. He asked about the
phrases low, mid and high-rise, and how to communicate these definitions to the public in
the most appropriate way.
Commissioner Eckholm agreed and suggested using creative descriptive language vs.
traditional city zoning terms.
Commissioner Merten asked about the distinction between group home or rooming house.
Mr. Walther stated they are similar, but they are generally distinguished by whom they
serve, the types of services provided to residents, and which agency licenses them and the
type of license required. Some group homes are not licensed by the State or Health and
Human Services and are regulated differently in the zoning code than State licensed
facilities, including separation requirements from other group homes.
Mr. Walther stated rooming houses also can serve larger groups of individuals living in the
same home.
29
Unofficial minutes
Planning commission study session
May 17, 2023
Commissioner Divecha asked about group daycares and why they are excluded from low
density residential areas. Mr. Walther noted the city zoning allows for family daycares, and
group daycares as accessory uses within another institutional building such as a school or
church, but not as a principal use.
Commissioner Weber stated the goal is to bring more people into the city, so it would be
preferable for the districts to be structured to focus on what is wanted and allowed vs. what
is not wanted and excluded.
Commissioner Divecha noted fire stations and religious institutions are allowed in Zone 1,
but not Zone 2, which seems inconsistent, especially when looking into the future on
zoning. And if these types of uses and buildings are allowed, why not allow group daycares,
too.
Commissioner Eckholm agreed and stated even though there would be higher traffic, it
does not make sense to not allow institutions within other zones.
Mr. Miller added that increasing different uses within residential and commercial areas can
be revisited in future phases.
Ms. Trapp reviewed the city maps and noted residential blocks with and without alleys
could be treated differently when determining building types allowed or dimensional
standards.
Mr. Walther noted that there are areas where alleys were platted but never built or were
removed.
Ms. Trapp noted lot sizes as well as other site and building standards. She noted these are
complex and they will come back to the commission with more details in the future.
Commissioner Divecha asked about courtyard cottages lot size. Mr. Miller noted these lots
can be different formats and noted various examples such as the historic Milwaukee
neighborhood in Minneapolis.
The commissioners discussed the management of impervious surfaces related to water run-
off and environmental concerns. Commissioners noted that standards are intended to
provide space for trees and gardens, address climate action concerns, provide for
walkability, and to ensure the entire city is not built out.
Commissioner Weber asked if one of the goals should be affordability. If affordability is
important than does that mean fewer standards should be established or that opportunities
to increase the number of living units in a structure explored.
Commissioner Eckholm asked if pervious surfaces for patios and pavers needs to be part of
the standards, adding he would like to see more alternatives to asphalt and concrete.
30
Unofficial minutes
Planning commission study session
May 17, 2023
Ms. Trapp stated that it can be explored but noted that over time, if the alternatives are not
maintained well, then they become impervious surfaces. For example, pervious pavers and
pavement need to be vacuumed to remove smaller material that clogs the system.
Commissioner Weber stated it will be important for developers to know about and
understand the city’s requirements for trees, shrubbery, and impervious surfaces.
Mr. Miller stated housing affordability and climate action will be two criteria for selecting
the measures that are best for the zoning plans.
Mr. Miller noted the direction from the commission at this time is for the consultant and
staff to proceed with developing 3 new zoning districts and recommended zoning map
changes. This information will be put together for the planning commission to review, as
well as working on community engagement over the next month or so.
Commissioner Divecha asked about discussing parking requirements in residential areas.
Mr. Walther stated this will be discussed in phase 3 of the broader process. He added
housing is the most important piece, and that’s where this will start.
Mr. Walther stated the council recently received one written report regarding the planning
commission’s progress on the zoning code update, and there is a joint discussion planned
for later this summer. This would likely occur on a Monday to coincide with the city
council’s meeting schedule.
Adjournment – 8:00 p.m.
______________________________________ ______________________________________
Sean Walther, liaison Tom Weber, chair member
31
32
Planning commission
June 21, 2023
5:30 p.m.
If you need special accommodations or have questions about the meeting, please call Sean Walther or the administration
department at 952.924.2525.
Planning commission
Study session
Members present: Mia Divecha, Matt Eckholm, Jim Beneke, Michael Salzer, Tom Weber,
Jan Youngquist
Members absent: Katie Merten
Staff present: Sean Walther
Others present: Paz Sela, Amy Gonyea, Leah, Dean Dovolis and Sheldon Berg of DJR
Architecture, and Ward 1 Council Member Margaret Rog
The meeting started at 5:35 p.m.
1.Tour of Parkway Residences
The commission toured the common areas of the Parkway Place and Parkway 25 buildings
and viewed an apartment in Parkway 25. The commission also walked around the
neighborhood to view the exteriors of the new Parkway Flats and Parkway Commons
buildings, two other apartment buildings that were rehabbed and preserved as affordable,
and the site of the future 11-story apartment building called Parkway One (previously called
Parkway Plaza).
2.Adjournment – 6:40 p.m.
______________________________________ ______________________________________
Sean Walther, liaison Tom Weber, chair member
33
34
Planning commission: Regular meeting
Meeting date: July 5, 2023
Agenda item: 3a
3a Zoning ordinance amendment - floodplain
Case Number: 23-07-ZA
Applicant: City of St. Louis Park – community development department
Recommended
motions:
Chair to open the public hearing, take testimony and close the hearing.
Motion to recommend approval of the zoning ordinance amendment
as recommended by staff.
Summary of request: The proposed ordinance amends existing regulations to clarify that all
service utilities, including mechanical and heating equipment must be elevated to the
regulatory flood protection elevation, which is defined as two feet above the flood elevation.
The proposed ordinance amends the following two sections of the floodplain ordinance:
Section 1: Floodway district - Chapter 36-296(d)(4). This amendment replaces the word
“heating” with the word “mechanical”. Mechanical is a broader term that includes air
conditioning and other HVAC equipment. This amendment also removes the option to place
the equipment below the regulatory flood protection elevation if it is floodproofed.
Section 2. Flood fringe district - Chapter 36-297(b). This amendment accomplishes the same
intent as Section 1 above. It clarifies the existing language by adding “electrical and
mechanical equipment” and clarifies that the term “elevated” means at or above the
regulatory flood protection elevation. This section also removes the option to place the
equipment below the regulatory flood protection elevation if it is floodproofed.
Background: This clarification is requested by the agency reviewing the city’s participation in
the National Flood Insurance Program Community Rating System (CRS). This program is a
voluntary program for cities. Successful participation in this program results in lower flood
insurance premiums for property owners. St. Louis Park was accepted into this program in May
of 2019.
Continued participation in the CRS program requires annual submittal of specific
documentation and an audit every five years. The city completed its first audit in June. They
found the city complies and is in good standing. They also requested the city update our
floodplain ordinance to newly established CRS language requiring service utilities to be elevated
to a minimum of two feet above the flood elevation.
The proposed ordinance meets the CRS floodplain ordinance requirement. The language
clarifies existing language and does not add additional regulations to property owners.
Next Steps: Pending a recommendation from the planning commission, the ordinance is
scheduled for a first reading at the council on July 17, 2023.
Attachments: Proposed ordinance
Prepared by: Gary Morrison, zoning administrator
Reviewed by: Sean Walther, planning manager/deputy community development director 35
Regular meeting of July 5, 2023 (Item No. 3a)
Title: Zoning ordinance amendment - floodplain
Proposed ordinance
Ordinance No. ___-23
Ordinance regarding amendment to the floodplain district
The City of St. Louis Park does ordain:
Whereas, the city, began participating in the FEMA National Flood Insurance Program
Community Rating System (CRS) on May 1, 2019, and
Whereas, the city desires to continue participating in the CRS program because it results
in lower flood insurance premiums for St. Louis Park property owners, and
Whereas, continued participation in the CRS program requires clarification to the city’s
floodplain ordinance.
Whereas, the planning commission conducted a public hearing on this ordinance on July
5, 2023 and recommended the city council adopt this ordinance, and
Whereas, the City Council has considered the advice and recommendation of the planning
commission (case no. 23-07-ZA), and
Now, therefore be it resolved that the following amendments shall be made to Chapter
36 of the City Code pertaining to zoning:
Section 1. Floodway district – service utilities. Chapter 36-296(d)(4) of the St. Louis Park
City Code is hereby amended to add the following underlined text and delete the following
struck-out text:
d.Service utilities, such as electrical and mechanical heating equipment and ductwork, within these
structures must be elevated to or above the regulatory flood protection elevation or properly
floodproofed;
Section 2. Flood fringe district. Chapter 36-297(b) of the St. Louis Park City Code is hereby
amended to delete the struck-out language and to add the following underlined text:
(6)All service utilities, including electrical and mechanical equipment and ductwork, must be
elevated to or above the regulatory flood protection elevationor water-tight to prevent
infiltration of floodwaters.
Section 3. This ordinance shall take effect 15 days after publication.
36
Regular meeting of July 5, 2023 (Item No. 3a)
Title: Zoning ordinance amendment - floodplain
Reviewed for administration: Adopted by the City Council _____, 2023
Kim Keller, city manager Jake Spano, mayor
Attest: Approved as to form and execution:
Melissa Kennedy, city clerk Soren Mattick, city attorney
First reading July 17, 2023
Second reading August 7, 2023
Date of publication August 17, 2023
Date ordinance takes effect September 1, 2023
37