HomeMy WebLinkAbout2023/04/12 - ADMIN - Agenda Packets - Board of Zoning Appeals - Regular Board of zoning appeals and planning commission meeting
April 12, 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., in accordance with the most recent COVID-19
guidelines. Some members of the board of zoning appeals and planning commission may
participate by electronic device or telephone rather than by being personally present at the
meeting.
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 – October 12, 2022
3. Hearing
3a. Variance for 7710 West 24th Street
Applicant: Josh Fitzpatrick
Case No.: 23-01-VAR
4. Other Business
5. Communications
6. Adjournment
PLANNING COMMISSION
1. Call to order – roll call
2. Approval of minutes – February 15, 2023, and March 1, 2023
3. Hearing
3a. Conditional use permit for Family Orthodontics, 5804 Excelsior Boulevard
Applicant: Foundation Architects (Bob Schaffer)
Case No.: 23-02-CUP
Board of zoning appeals and planning commission meeting
April 12, 2023
4. Other Business
5. Communications
5a. Comprehensive plan implementation update – housing activity report
6. Adjournment
Future scheduled meeting/event dates:
April 19, 2023 – planning commission study session
May 3, 2023 – planning commission regular meeting
May 17, 2023 – planning commission regular meeting
June 7, 2023 – planning commission regular meeting
Board of zoning appeals
October 12, 2022
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, Jessica Kraft, Michael Salzer,
Tom Weber, Jan Youngquist (arrived 6:10 p.m.)
Members absent: None
Staff present: Laura Chamberlain, Gary Morrison, Sean Walther
1. Call to order – roll call
2. Approval of minutes of July 6, 2022 – the minutes were approved unanimously as
presented (Commissioner Youngquist absent).
3. Hearings
3a. Requester for side yard variance at 2830 Inglewood Ave. S.
Applicant: Nick Stastny
Case No: 22-25-VAR
Mr. Morrison presented the report. He noted two letters were entered into the record-
one from a physician and one from a physical therapist. He stated they were presented
by the applicant at the time of application to explain the need for the side yard variance.
Mr. Morrison stated staff recommends approval with conditions noted in the staff
report.
Chair Beneke asked if the applicant is grandfathered in with the wall. Mr. Morrison
stated the minimum set back is six feet. The existing three-foot, 10-inch side yard is
legal, but the wall is more than 40 feet long. Mr. Morrison stated the variance will make
the existing and proposed setback, as proposed and approved, legal and remove any
question of legal non-conformity. He added the additional setback required by the
length of the wall will use the existing setback as the starting point, not the six-foot
setback required by code.
Commissioner Weber asked if this property is so unique that a variance for mobility will
be a very rare occurrence, or if code will need to be reviewed further. Mr. Morrison
stated he has seen two other requests for variances in the past 20 years, noting it does
not come up often, and with a variance, the approval can be customized to both meet
their needs and minimize the impact on adjacent properties.
Chair Beneke opened the public hearing.
3
October 12, 2022
Wendy Runge, 2808 Inglewood Ave. S., stated she lives a few houses away from the
applicant. She stated it was built as an event center for the community, noting the
Orthodox Jewish community has three synagogues within this building. She stated there
is no gathering place, so this was made into an event center. She stated when the home
was purchased it was to be used as an event center for family and friends. This helped
their family to be close and gave the opportunity to host events from the synagogue.
Ms. Runge added the applicant wants to give back to the community, and allow for her
physical limitations, so she can be part of the events hosted there. She asked for the
BOZA to approve this and empower the applicant’s family to give back to the
community.
Harriet Fogarty, 2237 Fairmount Ave. S, St. Paul, and grew up at 2824 Huntington Ave.
and still owns the home, in St. Louis Park. She stated she was a registered nurse, and she
is very sympathetic of people who need care. She stated the previous residents were
not good neighbors, and she is not in favor of the variance and the codes are fair for all.
She stated the property lines on both sides have been destroyed. She stated she did not
know this was happening and was not notified of this issue by the city, and this public
hearing was the first she heard of it. She stated she will put up a fence to prevent
anyone from gaining entrance to her property.
Farrel Braunstein has lived on Joppa Ave., noting she is no longer able to walk to her
synagogue. She stated there is plenty of room to walk between the houses noting she
just wants to be able to get into the house in the winter. She said they will not build
onto the house, and only want to put an elevator and a ramp in the house.
Commissioner Weber asked if the applicant owns another home in the area and for
clarification on this home. Ms. Einstein stated yes, they own another home on
Huntington Ave and this home as well.
Commissioner Salzer asked if there is enough room for Ms. Einstein to get into the
vehicle. She stated there is enough room for her to slide out and added she just wants
to live in St. Louis Park and close to her house of worship.
Chair Beneke closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Youngquist asked for clarification on Ms. Fogarty’s earlier comments.
Ms. Fogarty stated she opposes the variance as there is not enough room between the
house and property line. She owns the home next door and is in the process of selling it,
but she wants to preserve what the buyer sees including the privacy.
Commissioner Kraft stated this seems like a reasonable request being able to stay in a
home and the distance will not be any different between the homes. She stated it
seems like a very modest addition to make a big impact in the family’s life, so she would
be in favor of granting the variance.
4
October 12, 2022
Commissioner Salzer added he is also in favor and was only concerned about the width
of the area between the garage and house, noting there will be some work.
Commissioner Divecha stated she has sympathy for the issue as she has had spinal
surgery herself. She stated she is also the owner of a house with a one car garage and
cannot imagine navigating that with mobility issues. She is supportive and agrees with
the staff recommendation to keep the addition at one story to reduce the impact on the
adjoining properties.
Commission Weber made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Eckholm to approve the
variance as recommended by staff. The motion passed unanimously.
4. Other Business - none
5. Communications - none
6. Adjournment – 6:34 p.m.
______________________________________ ______________________________________
Gary Morrison, liaison Jim Beneke, chair member
5
6
Board of zoning appeals: Regular meeting
Meeting date: April 12, 2023
Agenda item: 3a
3a Request for side yard variance at 7710 West 24th Street.
Location: 7710 West 24th Street
Case Number: 23-01-VAR
Applicant: Josh Fitzpatrick
Owner: Josh and Ann Fitzpatrick
Review Deadline: 60 days: May 12, 2023 120 days: July 11, 2023
Recommended
motions:
Chair to open the public hearing, take testimony and close the hearing.
Motion to recommend approval of the requested variance to allow a
3.6-foot side yard for an extension to the front of the existing garage.
Request: Applicant requests approval of a variance to allow a garage extension to be
constructed with a 3.6-foot side yard instead of the required 5-foot side yard.
Summary of request: The applicant requests a variance from section 36-163(f)(8) which
requires a minimum side yard of 5 feet in the R-1 district. The existing house and attached
garage is 9.1 feet from the east side lot line. The applicant proposes to extend the garage 5.5
feet to the east, reducing the east side yard to 3.6 feet. This request requires approval of a
variance to allow a 3.6 foot side yard instead of the required 5-foot side yard.
The variance request is
precipitated by the homeowner’s
desire to park two vehicles inside
the garage. The existing garage is
only wide enough for one car, and
the driveway is single lane, so the
owner’s second vehicle is parked
on the street. When considering
variances, the city must consider
the impact on adjacent
properties, reasonableness of the
request and if there are other
alternatives that meet code.
Site information:
Site Area: 0.21 acres
Zoning: R-1 single-family
residence
7
Regular meeting of April 12, 2023 (Item No. 3a)
Title: Request for side yard variance at 7710 W 24th St.
Present considerations: The subject property is improved with a single-family house that was
constructed in 1962. It is a two-story house with an attached garage. The interior dimensions of
the existing, attached garage are roughly 18 feet wide by 21 feet deep. The garage includes a
15-foot wide garage door. A garage with
these dimensions is not large enough for
two vehicles to fit inside. At roughly 15
feet wide, the driveway serving the
attached garage is considered a single lane.
The applicant proposes to expand the
garage by 5.5 feet to the east to be able to
park two vehicles in the garage. The
existing garage door would be replaced
with a 16-foot wide door. The proposed
one story addition would have interior
dimensions of 23’10” wide and 21 feet
deep. This represents an increase in 122.5
square feet of floor area from 378 square
feet to 500.5 square feet.
Today, the southeast corner of the existing
garage is 9.1 feet from the east property
line which meets the minimum side yard of
5 feet. Because of the angle of the lot line,
this corner is closer to the lot line than the
northeast corner. The northeast corner is
located 12.5 feet from the property line.
The property owner proposes to extend
the garage to the east an additional 5.5 feet. This would establish a side yard of 3 feet 7.25
inches, or 3.6 feet, at the southeast corner of the garage and 7 feet at the northeast corner. The
side yard variance is requested for the southeast corner of the proposed garage.
Location of
proposed
addition
8
Regular meeting of April 12, 2023 (Item No. 3a)
Title: Request for side yard variance at 7710 W 24th St.
Variance analysis
The applicant proposes to construct a garage extension with a 3.6-foot side yard instead of the
required 5-foot side yard. The side yard is required per Section 36-163(f)(8) as described below.
The applicant requests a variance from section 36-163(f)(8) which states:
Side yard widths may be reduced if the side wall of a building is not parallel by more
than ten degrees with the side lot line. The minimum side yard shall be met by the
average depth of the side yard. No side yard shall be less than five feet deep.
The applicant states the existing garage does not fit two cars. Section 36-162 of the city code
determines that the purpose of the performance standards listed in this section is to create
residential developments which are “desirable in order to preserve neighborhood character,
public health and safety, property values, and allow all residents a reasonable use and
enjoyment of property.”
The city has determined that the ability to park two cars in a garage is a reasonable use of the
property. This allows a family with two working/commuting adults to stay in their St. Louis Park
home. Historically, the city has used the variance process to allow two-car garages on single-
family lots. In previous variance applications, a 3-foot side yard was the minimum allowable to
provide access around the house to the backyard. The current request for 3.6-foot side yard is
consistent with this previous city finding.
The applicant explored the option of locating a detached garage in the rear of the yard.
However, there is not sufficient space on either side of the house to allow a driveway to reach
the rear of the property. Therefore, a detached garage is not practical for this lot and the
applicant seeks to expand the attached garage instead.
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 variance has minimal/no impact on the community. If built, the
garage addition will not look nor function substantially different than any other house in the
neighborhood.
2. Whether or not the request is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the
zoning ordinance. Section 36-162 of the city code creates performance standards for
residential developments to “preserve neighborhood character, public health and safety,
property values, and allow all residents a reasonable use and enjoyment of property.” The
city generally has considered the ability to park two cars in a garage as a reasonable use of
property.
3. Whether or not the request is consistent with the comprehensive plan.
9
Regular meeting of April 12, 2023 (Item No. 3a)
Title: Request for side yard variance at 7710 W 24th St.
The comprehensive plan identifies the land use of this site as RL – low density residential,
which allows single-family houses. The existing residential use is consistent with the
comprehensive plan. If approved, the variance would have no impact on the use of the
property nor the neighborhood.
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, and no change in use is proposed.
The variance is for a reduced side yard, which is a dimensional item.
b. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property and not
created by the landowner. The request is based on the angled shape of the lot, the
location of the existing house which prevents the adding a detached garage behind the
house due to inadequate space for a driveway, and the size of the existing garage.
c. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. If approved,
the variance would not change the low density residential character of the
neighborhood. The property will continue to be used as a single-family home. While the
width of the garage door would increase from 15 feet to 16 feet, there would be no
change to the character of the house.
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 request is based on
the angled shape of the lot, the location of the existing house which prevents adding a
detached garage behind the house due to inadequate space for a driveway, and the size of
the existing garage. The existing garage is not large enough to fit two vehicles indoors.
6. Whether or not the granting of the variance is necessary for the preservation and
enjoyment of a substantial property right. The variance accommodates the intended use of
the garage as a two-car garage.
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 variance and allowing the construction of the garage addition as
proposed 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.
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 eliminate the
practical difficulty caused by the existing garage which is too small to park two cars.
10
Regular meeting of April 12, 2023 (Item No. 3a)
Title: Request for side yard variance at 7710 W 24th St.
Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the attached resolution granting a variance
to allow a 3.6-foot side yard for an extension to the front of the garage with the following
conditions:
1. The variance is approved to construct the garage extension as illustrated in the exhibits,
which are adopted into this Resolution and made a part of this approval. Exhibit A1 – survey
and site plan, exhibit A2 – demolition plans, exhibit A3 – floor plans, exhibit A6 – elevations.
2. The garage extension is limited to one-story. A second story cannot be constructed over the
portion of the garage extending in front of the second story currently constructed over the
garage.
3. Construction of the garage extension 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 garage extension is removed.
Supporting documents: Draft Resolution; letter from applicant; exhibits.
Prepared by: Beth Richmond, HKGi
Reviewed by: Jacquelyn Kramer, associate planner
Sean Walther, planning manager / deputy CD director
11
Regular meeting of April 12, 2023 (Item No. 3a)
Title: Request for side yard variance at 7710 W 24th St.
DRAFT BOZA Resolution No. _____
Resolution approving a variance to allow a 3.6-foot side yard instead of the
required five feet for an extension of the attached garage at 7710 West 24th
Street
Whereas, on March 13, 2023, the owner, Josh Fitzpatrick, applied for a variance from
the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance Section 36-163(f)(8) to allow a 3.6-foot side yard
instead of the required five feet.
Whereas, the property is located at 7710 West 24th Street and described below as
follows, to wit:
Lot 017, Block 004, Westwood Hills First Addition, Hennepin County, 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. 23-01-VAR on April 12, 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 proposed variance has minimal/no impact on the community. If
built, the garage addition will not look nor function substantially different than any
other house in the neighborhood.
b. The requested variance is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the
Zoning Ordinance. Section 36-162 of the City Code creates performance standards
for residential developments in order to “preserve neighborhood character, public
health and safety, property values, and allow all residents a reasonable use and
enjoyment of property.” The ability to park two cars in a garage has been
established by the city as a reasonable use of property.
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:
1. Single-family homes are permitted in the R-1 single-family residence zoning
district.
2. The request is based on the angled shape of the lot, the location of the
existing house, and the size of the existing garage. The angled lot lines make
12
Regular meeting of April 12, 2023 (Item No. 3a)
Title: Request for side yard variance at 7710 W 24th St.
it difficult to widen the garage to meet needs. The existing garage only fits
one vehicle, and there is no room around either side of the home to provide
a driveway to reach a detached garage in the rear of the home.
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 maintain the intended use of the garage as a two-car garage.
g. Granting the variance and allowing the construction of the garage addition as
proposed 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.
h. The variance is necessary to eliminate the practical difficulty caused by the existing
garage which is too small to park two cars.
i. The contents of the Board of Zoning Appeals Case File 23-01-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 requested variance to construct a one-story extension to the side of the existing
attached garage at 7710 West 24th Street is hereby approved with the following conditions:
1. The variance is approved to construct the garage extension as illustrated in the exhibits,
which are adopted into this Resolution and made a part of this approval. Exhibit A1 – survey
and site plan, exhibit A2 – demolition plans, exhibit A3 – floor plans, exhibit A6 – elevations.
2. The garage extension is limited to one-story. A second story cannot be constructed over the
portion of the garage extending in front of the second story currently constructed over the
garage.
3. Construction of the garage extension 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 garage extension is removed.
Adopted by the Board of Zoning Appeals: April 12, 2023
Effective date: April 24, 2023
______________________________
James Beneke, Chair
ATTEST:
_______________________________________
Gary Morrison, Zoning Administrator
13
Applicant & Current Fee Owner: Josh & Ann Fitzpatrick
Address: 7710 West 24th Street, St. Louis Park, MN 55426
Legal Descrip8on: Lot 17, Block 4 Westwood Hills First AddiHon, Hennepin County, MN
City Website statement: Variance to widen tuck under garage by 5.5 feet (5’6”). ExisHng garage doesn’t
allow for two cars to be parked. With variance, the distance between garage east wall and east
neighbor’s house would be between 11.2 feet and 12.9 feet. The SE garage corner would be 3.6 feet
from property line.
Zoning District: R1
Property type: Single family residenHal
Number of Variances Requested: 1
Project Proposal Seeking Variance:
We are seeking a variance from SLP city code to widen our tuck under garage to the east by 5.5 feet. The
current garage does not allow for two cars to be parked in it because it is too narrow. This would allow
my wife and I to park both cars in the garage. With variance approval, the distance between my garage’s
east wall and my east neighbor’s house would be 11.2 feet at its closest and 12.9 feet at its farthest to
my garage. My garage’s east wall will vary with how close it is to the east property boundary from 7 feet
at my garage’s NE corner to 3.6 feet at my garage’s SE (front facing) corner. This is because the shape of
my property boundary is diagonal and creates a disadvantage for us where we cannot maintain the
conHnuous 6-7 foot distance from the property boundary (see cerHficated survey and property map).
Names and address labels of all property owners within 350 feet:
See a^ached neighbor map and neighbor mailing labels.
Variance Applica8on Ques8ons and Answers (in bold):
The ordinance requires that the condiHons below must be saHsfied in order for the variance to be
granted. On a separate page, explain in detail how your case conforms to each of these requirements.
Please be specific when addressing these items; the board must establish findings which support the
applicaHon as it relates to each of the following:
1. The effect of the proposed variance upon the health, safety and welfare of the community. This
variance will aid the safety of the community by me not having to park on the street. Our driveway is
only one car wide and if I park in the driveway then my wife cannot back out of the garage. One less
car on the street will help during snow plow emergency opera8ons as well as moving bus traffic since
our road is narrow. Moreover, less cars parked on the road (like mine) will be one less viewing
obstacle by drivers for children playing in the neighborhood.
2. The request is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the zoning ordinance. Yes, cars will
s8ll be able to get around to my backyard as well as the neighbors back yard. The west side of my
house has a nine foot width and a brand new Chevy Silverado has a width of 6.7 feet so if we need to
get a truck back there for dumping or construc8on purposes we s8ll can.
1
14
3. The request is consistent with the comprehensive plan. The comprehensive plan talks about the
following: 1) increasing neighborhood walkability, 2) Improving traffic calming measures to create
safer and more livable neighborhood streets, and 3) building social capital. As I said above, my intent
is to have both cars in our garage and then not park on the street. This will create a safer street
especially for kids. We have 26 kids six and under within a block of us. We love the “social capital” of
our neighborhood. Kids absolutely love all the neighboring kids to play with. We have lost two sets of
families in the past eight months because they could not expand their house on their property like
they wanted to. We do not want to be another sta8s8c to add to this problem. If St. Louis Park wants
to see the City thrive and grow, they have to lessen the impact on homeowners who want to stay and
add value to this community. It is an awesome community and providing variances like this would help
ensure we are retaining and a_rac8ng great families and individuals.
4. The applicant establishes that there are pracHcal difficulHes in complying with the zoning
ordinance. This means that:
a. The proposed use is permi^ed in the zoning district in which the land is located. A
variance can be requested for dimensional items. Yes.
b. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property and not
created by the landowner. Yes. We cannot get two cars in our garage.
c. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essenHal character of the locality. Yes. It will s8ll look like
suburbia.
d. Economic consideraHons alone do not consHtute pracHcal difficulHes. No economic considera8ons.
e. PracHcal difficulHes include inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems. Our project
does not impact direct sunlight for solar energy systems.
5. There are circumstances unique to the shape, topography, water condiHons or other physical
condiHons of the property. Yes, correct. Our house faces straight forward on an angled lot (see
property map). The back NE corner of the house will always be farther from the property line then the
front SE corner of the house.
6. The granHng of the variance is necessary for the preservaHon and enjoyment of a substanHal property
right. Yes. We just want to be able to park both our cars in the tuck under garage. My wife dislikes
walking out in the snow and ice to get into the car. So do our kids. I’m not a fan either. I know others
maybe more disadvantaged and have to deal with this, but we would both like to be able to park in
the garage. The garage is listed as a two car garage, but it is a decep8ve 1960s 1.5 car garage.
7. The granHng of the variance will not impair light and air to the surrounding properHes, unreasonably
increase congesHon, increase the danger of fire, or endanger public safety. Yes, correct. It will decrease
conges8on and will not be two stories tall. It will be a bump out of a tuck under garage and can be
built with steel studs and brick to decrease any fire hazard.
8. The granHng of the variance will not merely serve as a convenience but is necessary to alleviate a
pracHcal difficulty. We cannot fit both of our cars in our garage. The intent of this project is to bump
out the tuck under garage east wall so we can get both cars in. Moreover, I cannot park in our
driveway because it blocks my wife from backing out.
2
15
16
UPUPUPUPDESCRIPTIONFLOOR AREANATURAL GRADE AT FOUNDATIONMAX HEIGHT (FT)ALLOWED___35' - 0"PROPOSEDSETBACKSFRONT YARDSIDE YARD ZONINGPROPOSEDPARCEL ID:0811721230048LOT AREA:0.21 ACRESSTREET FRONTAGE:24TH ST WESTLOT DEPTH ___7710 24th St W, St Louis Park, MN 55426_____' - __"__' - __"ADDRESS:FIRST FLOORELEVATIONMAX HEIGHT(ELEVATION)___CODE #NOTES:___KEY BUILDING HEIGHT ELEVATIONS:ZONING INFORMATIONR1 -SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCESHORELAND MANAGEMENT DISTRICTN/AOTHER:--___ZONING:ST LOUIS PARKMUNICIPALITY:LOT DEPTH HARDCOVER (%)______HARDCOVER (SF)______ACCESSORYBUILDINGSN/A___________' - __"- Max building height __' - __"- Peak height of highest roof__' - __"- Main level subfloor__' - __"- Highest grade at foundation__' - __"- Natural grade at front of home__' - __"- Lower level slab elevation__' - __"UPDATED __-__-_______ _________BACK YARDBUILDING COVER (%)____________BUILDING COVER (SF)________________________1. THE INTENT OF THE DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATION IS TO PROVIDE FOR A WATERTIGHT & WEATHERTIGHT BUILDING. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL REVIEW ALL DETAILS RELATING TO THIS INTENT AND BY BIDDING OR ENTERING INTO THIS CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT WARRANTS FOR ONE FULL YEAR THE ADEQUACY OF THESE DETAILS. SHOULD THE CONTRACTOR TAKE EXCEPTION TO THESE DETAILS, THEY SHALL NOTIFY THE ARCHITECT PRIOR TO BIDDING. ANY DEVIATION FROM THIS GENERAL INTENT SHOULD BE BROUGHT TO THE ARCHITECT FOR CLARIFICATION PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION.2. THE INTENT OF THE DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS IS TO PROVIDE FOR A PLUMB, LEVEL AND SQUARE STRUCTURE UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. ANY DEVIATION FROM THIS GENERAL INTENT SHOULD BE BROUGHT TO THE ATTENTION OF THE ARCHITECT FOR CLARIFICATION PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION. 3. THE BUILDING SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED IN FULL COMPLIANCE WITH ALL APPLICABLE CODES, ORDINANCES AND REGULATIONS AS WELL AS THE DRAWING AND SPECIFICATIONS. ANY CODE DEFICIENCIES IN THE DRAWINGS RECOGNIZED BY THE CONTRACTOR SHOULD BE BROUGHT TO THE ATTENTION OF THE ARCHITECT FOR CLARIFICATION PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION. 4.THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE ACCURATE PLACEMENT OF THE BUILDING ON THE SITE AND VERIFY ALL DIMENSIONS AND EXISTING CONDITIONS. DISCREPANCIES BETWEEN DRAWINGS AND ACTUAL SITE CONDITIONS SHALL BE BROUGHT TO THE ATTENTION OF THE ARCHITECT BEFORE BIDDING THE PROJECT OR THE COMMENCEMENT OF WORK. THE OWNER SHALL NOT BE RESPONSIBLE FOR CHANGES TO THE WORK DUE TO THE FAILURE OF THE CONTRACTOR TO FAMILIARIZE HIMSELF WITH EXISTING CONDITIONS.5. DO NOT SCALE DRAWINGS: ALL DIMENSIONS SHALL HAVE PREFERENCE OVER SCALE AND BE FIELD VERIFIED AND COORDINATED WITH WORK OF ALL TRADES. IF NO DIMENSIONS ARE GIVEN OR DISCREPANCIES FOUND, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL NOTIFY THE ARCHITECT FOR CLARIFICATION BEFORE BIDDING OR COMMENCING THE WORK.6.DETAILS ARE INTENDED TO SHOW METHOD AND MANNER OF ACCOMPLISHING WORK. MINOR MODIFICATIONS MAY BE REQUIRED TO SUIT JOB DIMENSIONS OR CONDITIONS, ALL INCLUDED AS PART OF THE WORK.7. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE ALL PERMITS AND INSPECTIONS NECESSARY FOR THE PROPER EXECUTION OF THE WORK IN ACCORDANCE WITH APPLICABLE CODES AND GOVERNING REGULATIONS. 8.THE CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY THE SIZES AND LOCATIONS OF ALL MECHANICAL AND ELECTRICAL EQUIPMENT PADS AND BASES, AS WELL AS POWER, WATER AND DRAIN REQUIREMENTS FOR SUCH EQUIPMENT WITH EQUIPMENT MFG. DEVIATION OF THE AFOREMENTIONED REQUIREMENTS SHOULD BE BROUGHT TO THE ATTENTION OF THE ARCHITECT FOR CLARIFICATION PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION.9. ALL WALL WIDTHS ARE SHOWN AND DIMENSIONED WITH NOMINAL DIMENSIONS. GRIDS AND DIMENSIONS FOR FRAMED WALL ARE SHOWN TO FACE OF STUDS AND OR FACE OF FOUNDATION.GENERAL NOTESSIDE YARD __' - __"__' - __"__' - __"__' - __"__' - __"PROJECT REVISION SCHEDULENO.DATEDISCRIPTION-1__-__-____ONLY USE CURRENT DRAWING SET FOR CONSTRUCTIONTAG #--2__-__-____- WALL EXPANSION5' - 6" PROPOSED GARAGE24th ST WESTPROPERTY LINEP R O PER T Y L I N E
P R O P E R T Y L IN E
PROPERTY LINEPROPOSED ADDITIONPROPOSED GARAGE ADDITION PER VARIANCE REQUIREMENTS7' - 0"9' - 1 1/4"3' - 7 1/4"CAR 1CAR 2N EW G A R A G E A D D ITIO N TO FR O N T P R O P E R TY LIN E
35' - 6 3/4" D IST AN C E FR O M C O R N E R O FI HEREBY CERTIFIY THAT THIS PLAN, SPECIFICATION, OR REPORT WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DULY LICENSED ARCHITECT UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTASIGNATURE:TYPED OR PRINT NAME: STEVEN J MOONEYDATE: LICENSE NUMBER:22907LOONPROJECT3608 15th Ave S Minneapolis MN 55407 612-827-8988 sjm@LoonArchitects.comDateThese documents were prepared by the Architect and are instruments of service for use solely with respect to this project. The Architect shall retain all common law, statutory and other reserved rights, including the copyright. The owner shall not reuse or permit the reuse of the Architects's documents except by mutual agreement in writing. ArchitectsFOR REVIEW ONLY -NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONNOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONC:\Users\Vu\SynologyDrive\2022 Projects\Fitzpatrick - Ann and Joshua - Home Renovation\1_Revit\Fitzpatrick - Ann & Joshua Home Addition & Renovation - REV 2 - HIP ROOF.rvt03-20-2023JOSHUA FITZPATRICK & ANNHARRISA1VARIANCE SETHOME ADDITION & RENOVATION7710 24TH ST W, ST LOUIS PARK,MN 5542603-20-2023SHEET INDEXA1 TITLE SHEET & SITE PLANA2 DEMOLITION PLANSA3 NEW FLOOR PLANSA4 ROOF PLANA6 EXTERIOR ELEVATIONSA6.01 EXTERIOR PERSPECTIVES1/8" = 1'-0"A11ARCHITECTURAL SITE PLANN17
WDWHUPUPUPUPUPUPUPUPUPUPUP1ECBA2' - 1 3/4"FSUNROOM ABOVETO BE REMOVEDENTIRELYSTAIR, RAILINGS, & POSTS TO BE REMOVEDRE-LOCATED EXISTINGA/C TO NEW LOCATIONEXISTING WINDOW& CMU WALL TO BE REMOVEDEXISTING ELECTRICAL PANELEXISTING CMU WALLTO BE REMOVEDEXISTING 15' GARAGE DOOR TO BE REMOVED AND REPLACED WITH NEW 16' GARAGE DOOREXISTING WALL & DOORTO BE REMOVEDEXISTING POWDER ROOMTO BE REMOVED ENTIRELYRELOCATED WASHER/DRYER & SINK TO NEWLAUNDRY LOCATION2F IE LD V ER IF Y22' - 11 "F IE LD V ER IF Y21' - 0 "FIELD VERIFY18' - 0"FIELD VERIFY19' - 9"16EDCBASUNROOM TO BE REMOVEDENTIRELYEXISTING WALL & WINDOWTO BE REMOVEDENTIRELYEXISTING SINK & CORNER CABINETTO BE REMOVEDENTIRELYNO WORK THIS AREAEXISTING WOOD STEPTO BE REMOVEDVERIFY EXIST.4' - 0"VERIFY EXIST.15' - 0"V E RI F Y E X IS T .9 ' - 1 3 /4 "V E RI F Y E X IS T .1 ' - 3 "I HEREBY CERTIFIY THAT THIS PLAN, SPECIFICATION, OR REPORT WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DULY LICENSED ARCHITECT UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF WISCONSINSIGNATURE:TYPED OR PRINT NAME: STEVEN J MOONEYDATE: LICENSE NUMBER:10387-005LOONPROJECT3608 15th Ave S Minneapolis MN 55407 612-827-8988 sjm@LoonArchitects.comDateThese documents were prepared by the Architect and are instruments of service for use solely with respect to this project. The Architect shall retain all common law, statutory and other reserved rights, including the copyright. The owner shall not reuse or permit the reuse of the Architects's documents except by mutual agreement in writing. ArchitectsFOR REVIEW ONLY -NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONNOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONC:\Users\Vu\SynologyDrive\2022 Projects\Fitzpatrick - Ann and Joshua - Home Renovation\1_Revit\Fitzpatrick - Ann & Joshua Home Addition & Renovation - REV 2 - HIP ROOF.rvt03-20-2023JOSHUA FITZPATRICK & ANNHARRISA2VARIANCE SETHOME ADDITION & RENOVATION7710 24TH ST W, ST LOUIS PARK,MN 5542603-20-20231/4" = 1'-0"A21LOWER LEVEL DEMOLITION PLAN1/4" = 1'-0"A22MAIN LEVEL DEMOLITION PLAN18
UPUPUPUPWHWDUPUPUPUP31EEDBA7BENCHFA61A62A63FFALIGN NEW GARAGE DOOR WITH EXISTING GARAGEDOOR OPENING ON THIS SIDE19' - 6"A64B OO K S H E L V E S FOLDINGCOUNTEROPTIONAL COAT CLOSETHONDA PILOTN1 5 ' - 4 "NO WORK THIS AREA2 ' - 0 "OFFICELAUNDRYPOWDERCORRIDORMECH.2F IE L D V E RI F Y22' - 1 1 "1A72A73A74A7W001W002W003W004EXISTING A/C UNITTO BE RELOCATED TO NEW LOCATIONEGRESS5A7HOOK6A73' - 10"11' - 10"3' - 10"1 3 ' - 2 "2 ' - 2 "1 3 ' - 2 "2 ' - 2 "5' - 10"4' - 10"8' - 10"8 ' - 4 "7 ' - 0 "2x62x6 PLUMBINGWALL2x4 FURRINGWALL7 5 /8 "4 "4' - 8"1 1 5 /8 "ALIGNALIGN8" CMUWALL5' - 6"SUBARU FORESTERPROPOSED INTERIOR NEW GARAGE DIMENSION23' - 10"PROPOSED EXTERIOR NEW GARAGE DIMENSION25' - 3"4' - 10 3/8"7 5/8"F IE L D V E RI F Y21' - 0 "NEW GARAGE ADDITION WALLTO BE FLUSH WITH EXISTING WALL314EDBA71 5 ' - 4 "19' - 6"OPTIONALJACK& JILL DOORTVA61A62A63FA64B O O K S H E L V E S N1 3 ' - 1 1 "NO WORK THIS AREAMASTERBEDROOMHIS CLOSETHERCLOSETBATH21A72A73A74A7W101W102W103W104W1055A76A73' - 10"11' - 10"3' - 10"3 ' - 8 "9 ' - 0 "1 0 ' - 2 "1 5 ' - 2 "1 1 ' - 4 "3 ' - 1 1 1 /4 "5' - 0"4' - 10"5' - 0"4' - 8"2 ' - 7 "2 ' - 0 "3" / 12"3 " / 1 2 "3 " / 1 2 "NEW GUTTER & DOWNSPOUTI HEREBY CERTIFIY THAT THIS PLAN, SPECIFICATION, OR REPORT WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DULY LICENSED ARCHITECT UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF WISCONSINSIGNATURE:TYPED OR PRINT NAME: STEVEN J MOONEYDATE: LICENSE NUMBER:10387-005LOONPROJECT3608 15th Ave S Minneapolis MN 55407 612-827-8988 sjm@LoonArchitects.comDateThese documents were prepared by the Architect and are instruments of service for use solely with respect to this project. The Architect shall retain all common law, statutory and other reserved rights, including the copyright. The owner shall not reuse or permit the reuse of the Architects's documents except by mutual agreement in writing. ArchitectsFOR REVIEW ONLY -NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONNOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONC:\Users\Vu\SynologyDrive\2022 Projects\Fitzpatrick - Ann and Joshua - Home Renovation\1_Revit\Fitzpatrick - Ann & Joshua Home Addition & Renovation - REV 2 - HIP ROOF.rvt03-20-2023JOSHUA FITZPATRICK & ANNHARRISA3VARIANCE SETHOME ADDITION & RENOVATION7710 24TH ST W, ST LOUIS PARK,MN 5542603-20-20231/4" = 1'-0"A31LOWER FLOOR PLAN1/4" = 1'-0"A32MAIN FLOOR PLANWINDOW SCHEDULENO Type LevelRoughHeightHeightRoughWidthWidth NOTESW001 UAWN3624T.O. SLAB1' - 11 5/8" 1' - 11 1/8" 3' - 1"3' - 0"W002 UCA4040T.O. SLAB3' - 3 5/8" 3' - 3 1/8" 3' - 5"3' - 4"W003 UCA4040T.O. SLAB3' - 3 5/8" 3' - 3 1/8" 3' - 5"3' - 4"W004 UAWN3624T.O. SLAB1' - 11 5/8" 1' - 11 1/8" 3' - 1"3' - 0"W101 UCA3048MAIN LEVEL S.F. 3' - 11 5/8" 3' - 11 1/8" 2' - 7"2' - 6"W102 UCA4048MAIN LEVEL S.F. 3' - 11 5/8" 3' - 11 1/8" 3' - 5"3' - 4"W103 UCA4048MAIN LEVEL S.F. 3' - 11 5/8" 3' - 11 1/8" 3' - 5"3' - 4"W104 UCA4048MAIN LEVEL S.F. 3' - 11 5/8" 3' - 11 1/8" 3' - 5"3' - 4"W105 UCA1648MAIN LEVEL S.F. 3' - 11 5/8" 3' - 11 1/8" 1' - 5"1' - 4"Grand total: 919
MAIN LEVEL S.F.0' -0"T.O. M.L FRMG8' -1 1/8"EDCBF4" / 12"4" / 12"T.O. FOOTING-14' -0 1/8"W103W102W002W003PROPERTY LINE7' - 0"3' SET BACKT.O. L.L FRMG-0' -10 3/4"3' - 0"PROPOSED GARAGE EXTENSIONMAIN LEVEL S.F.0' -0"T.O. SLAB-9' -0 1/8"T.O. M.L FRMG8' -1 1/8"7T.O. FOOTING-14' -0 1/8"W101W001EXISTING HOME-NO WORK THIS AREA4" / 12"T.O. L.L FRMG-0' -10 3/4"MAIN LEVEL S.F.0' -0"T.O. SLAB-9' -0 1/8"T.O. M.L FRMG8' -1 1/8"31472RELOCATED EXISTINGA/C UNIT TO NEW LOCATION4" / 12"W004W104W105OVERHANG2' - 0"T.O. L.L FRMG-0' -10 3/4"PROPOSED GARAGE EXTENSION - FIELD VERIFY EXACT DIMENSION23' - 0"NEW GUTTER &DOWNSPOUT3" / 12"MAIN LEVEL S.F.0' -0"T.O. SLAB-9' -0 1/8"T.O. M.L FRMG8' -1 1/8"EDCBFNEW 16' OVERHEAD SECTIONAL DOORALIGN NEW GARAGE DOOR WITH EXISTING GARAGE DOOR OPENING ON THIS SIDEPROPERTY LINE5' - 6"3' - 7 1/4"EXISTING GARAGE WALLPROPOSED GARAGE EXPANSION3' MIN. SET BACK10' - 7"I HEREBY CERTIFIY THAT THIS PLAN, SPECIFICATION, OR REPORT WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DULY LICENSED ARCHITECT UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF WISCONSINSIGNATURE:TYPED OR PRINT NAME: STEVEN J MOONEYDATE: LICENSE NUMBER:10387-005LOONPROJECT3608 15th Ave S Minneapolis MN 55407 612-827-8988 sjm@LoonArchitects.comDateThese documents were prepared by the Architect and are instruments of service for use solely with respect to this project. The Architect shall retain all common law, statutory and other reserved rights, including the copyright. The owner shall not reuse or permit the reuse of the Architects's documents except by mutual agreement in writing. ArchitectsFOR REVIEW ONLY -NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONNOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONC:\Users\Vu\SynologyDrive\2022 Projects\Fitzpatrick - Ann and Joshua - Home Renovation\1_Revit\Fitzpatrick - Ann & Joshua Home Addition & Renovation - REV 2 - HIP ROOF.rvt03-20-2023JOSHUA FITZPATRICK & ANNHARRISA6VARIANCE SETHOME ADDITION & RENOVATION7710 24TH ST W, ST LOUIS PARK,MN 5542603-20-20231/4" = 1'-0"A61REAR ELEVATION1/4" = 1'-0"A62SIDE ELEVATION1/4" = 1'-0"A63SIDE ELEVATION1/4" = 1'-0"A64FRONT ELEVATION20
Planning commission
February 15, 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: Matt Eckholm, Katie Merten, Tom Weber, Jan Youngquist
Members absent: Jim Beneke, Mia Divecha, Michael Salzer
Staff present: Gary Morrison, Sean Walther
Guests:
1. Call to order – roll call
2. Approval of minutes – Jan. 18, 2023
Commissioner Youngquist made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Eckholm to
approve the minutes as presented. The motion passed unanimously.
3. Hearings
3a. Miscellaneous code amendments to zoning ordinance
Applicant: City of St. Louis Park
Case No: 22-29-ZA
Mr. Morrison presented the report.
Commissioner Youngquist asked about the duplex driveway width and if this applies to a
duplex and an ADU. Mr. Morrison stated it applies only to a duplex, and not to an ADU.
Chair Weber opened the public hearing. There were no public comments. Chair Weber
closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Eckholm made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Youngquist to
approve the miscellaneous code amendments to the zoning ordinance. The motion
passed unanimously.
4. Other Business
5. Communications
5a. Update on TOD station area planning
Mr. Walther gave an update. He noted a project is getting underway to update the city’s
three station area plans for the areas around the light rail METRO Green Line Extension
21
Unofficial minutes
Planning commission
Feb. 15, 2023
Page 2
as well as creating a plan for the Excelsior Boulevard corridor west of Highway 100. He
noted staff is recruiting for a steering committee which will provide input on the scope,
community engagement process, and the plans. This will be a full year process with
several opportunities for the community to engage with the city.
Commissioner Youngquist asked if there will be any touchpoints with the planning
commission and how the commission will be involved. Mr. Walther stated yes and
added that city staff will update and get feedback from the commission throughout the
process. He stated it is also likely this final plan and any comprehensive plan
amendments or zoning code changes to implement the plan would come to the
commission first for recommendations and potential adoption by the city council.
Chair Weber asked if the station area plans with Excelsior Blvd will be considered one
plan. Mr. Walther stated each of the four areas will likely have its own character and
goals within the context of the city’s strategic priorities and comprehensive plan, but the
structure of the document will have similar components, such as how it is organized and
the metrics and themes that will be reviewed and determined and later tracked to
measure progress.
5b. Introduction of Commissioner Merten
Commissioner Merten introduced herself and Chair Weber welcomed her to the
planning commission.
6. Adjournment – 6:22 p.m.
______________________________________ ______________________________________
Sean Walther, liaison Tom Weber, chair member
22
Planning commission
March 1, 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: Jim Beneke, Mia Divecha, Matt Eckholm, Katie Merten, Michael Salzer,
Tom Weber, Jan Youngquist
Members absent: none
Staff present: Sean Walther, Gary Morrison
Consultants present: Rita Trapp, Jeff Miller
1. Residential districts zoning code update
The discussion involved housing types, including single-family, duplex, 3 and 4 plex’s,
townhomes, cluster housing, mid and high-rise, live/work units, rowhouses, courtyard
cottages and detached units. They also discussed entrance types and lot sizes.
Commissioner Beneke asked where condominiums fit in. Mr. Walther stated this is
generally related to how the ownership of a property is divided versus a housing type.
Commissioner Weber asked if some of these housing types are already present in St.
Louis Park. Mr. Walther stated a spectrum of examples of each of these housing types
are already present in the city, and were developed under different rules than the city
has today. Most of them fall under the broad definition of multifamily or cluster housing
in the zoning code and are not well distinguished in the code.
Commissioner Weber stated if the city zoning code would allow rowhouses, would the
city have to know ahead of time if all rowhouses need to sit on one big lot, or multiple
lots. Ms. Trapp stated no, this would just need to be included in the code language with
minimum lot size included, so both scenarios are accommodated. She added typically
for rowhouses the minimum lot size for a unit is 22 feet wide, and noted right now the
code does not include this, and if added it would help the code be clearer about how
they are allowed.
Commissioner Beneke asked if a builder could combine lots for building. Ms. Trapp
stated lots can be assembled and combined into a larger lot.
Mr. Morrison stated lots can be combined and re-subdivided to result in smaller lots
also. Two adjacent properties that are not large enough to split on their own might be
large enough to subdivide into three lots if they are first combined or developed jointly.
23
Unofficial minutes
Planning commission
March 1, 2023
2
Commissioner Weber asked if the council has indicated whether it wants the planning
commission to help reshape the zoning code to prevent developers from combining lots
to build a mega structure, or to be developed in more unique ways.
Mr. Walther stated the council did several workshops last fall related to managing
change in low density residential neighborhoods. He stated, in general, the city council
is interested in more housing, more affordable housing, a greater variety of housing
types, and they want to be able to provide for multi-generational households and meet
different housing needs for a variety of household types. He added the council wasn’t as
clear or achieve consensus about what constitutes appropriate scale, but they have
wrestled multiple times with the question of how to prevent houses that are too large
and when and if that is a problem.
Commissioner Weber stated then the commission should not feel restricted because
staff is bringing the ideas to the commission for consideration that council is generally
interested in exploring. Mr. Walther agreed and noted these policy changes were
supported in the adopted 2040 comprehensive plan. He added there will also need to
be public engagement on these issues and the details of how the changes are made will
be important to the outcomes.
Commissioner Eckholm added a major cost of housing is also the cost of the land itself.
He noted if only certain types of homes can be certain lots, that will bring challenges. He
added dividing up the land the city has will allow more people to have access to it.
Commissioner Weber asked if regulations are included in the zoning code today, related
to shadows cast by buildings. Mr. Walther stated yes, it is. However, they only apply to
development of new multifamily and commercial buildings.
Commissioner Weber asked about when residents are concerned about issues in their
neighborhoods with housing, for example in a college area, if those concerns usually are
about the home ownership type or residents that live in these homes. Ms. Trapp stated
it’s usually concerns about both, noting that oftentimes it’s about having more renters
in a neighborhood, and transitions from single-family to rental, and scale of building as
well.
Commissioner Divecha noted sometimes people use zoning to regulate things like
pollution or noise. Zoning, however, may not always be the best tool to do that. The city
has other more effective ordinances and tools to regulate these things.
Commissioner Divecha asked about parking, and its impacts, and noted several articles
she’s read where some cities are removing all parking requirements within a city. She
asked if parking will be discussed. Ms. Trapp stated yes this will be discussed within the
zoning code.
24
Unofficial minutes
Planning commission
March 1, 2023
3
Commissioner Beneke stated he hopes the main goal of this be creating affordable
ownership opportunities.
Commissioner Eckholm stated he would like to see smaller lots and row houses result
from the code changes. A big part of the cost of housing it the price of the land. He
added it is all a matter of what will be allowed where though.
Commissioner Merten commented that all housing types have the potential to become
rentals, especially distressed properties that can be fixed up and flipped or rented.
Commissioner Eckholm stated that is part of the risk of trying to lock the community in
amber to remain as it is for all time. It will invite disinvestment and may attract
institutional buyers to buy up multiple properties.
Commissioner Merten stated that may be a concern that adding these other housing
types will result in developers building these for rental instead of for sale.
Commissioner Weber responded a concern is not about allowing courtyard cottage
developments, for example, but that the site design of the developments does not
result in the preserved and shared green space and walking paths the city envisions. He
added he is supportive of allowing high-rise apartments, but he understands they don’t
belong in all neighborhoods. He asked how we can produce the ideal, instead of
resulting in too large of parking lots or an attractive building design, and that they meet
the standards. He included the example Commissioner Youngquist mentioned of a very
garage forward design with a very wide driveway shown in an earlier example photo.
Ms. Trapp mentioned that the minimum standards may help prevent the design the
community does not want, and perhaps lead to the designs the community favors.
Mr. Walther commented that zoning is a limited and relatively blunt instrument and
tool. It does not result in good design. It provides the constraints within which people
design. Those designs can meet the rules and still look great or terrible.
Commissioner Weber asked what’s to keep the commission from agreeing to all types of
housing for the city. Mr. Miller shared an example from Grand Marais where they have a
severe housing shortage and they changed from having two housing districts, single
family and multifamily, to only one residential district. In that district the types of
housing you can build are determined by the lot size. The site design standards change
based on the size of the lot.
Commissioner Divecha asked about the live work units. Mr. Walther stated these have a
commercial front. He noted home-based business are allowed across all the city
districts, but generally they don’t have a commercial storefront.
Commissioner Eckholm commented on a specific picture of a duplex that was shown,
and he noted that he does not like the look of it because it tries to disguise it as by
25
Unofficial minutes
Planning commission
March 1, 2023
4
making it look like one large house. It is too much massing from the street. Mr. Morrison
noted its worth looking at the two years of experience Minneapolis has with their new
ordinances to allow duplexes throughout single-family districts. It’s an opportunity for
us to learn from their experiences. Articles are starting to appear summarizing their
experiences and offering suggestions.
Commissioner Eckholm added the triplex idea didn’t take off in Minneapolis like
everyone thought overnight. He stated it will be a slow and gradual process until it takes
hold and feels like natural development in the community.
Commissioner Weber noted the origins of zoning was not only to exclude uses, but also
to exclude certain people. He stated the city has the opportunity now to rethink and
change zoning rules to create the most benefit for an area, not necessarily the biggest,
but the most benefit. The zoning should provide the most opportunity for that to occur,
so the zoning does not undersell the promise of a neighborhood. He added he likes this
as a guiding principle to help make St. Louis Park a great city. This is a way to exorcise
the history of zoning as an exclusion tool, and instead we are trying to rethink it to be
inclusive and provide the most benefit. He also stated the city already has many of these
types of houses as noted in the report blended in our neighborhoods, so no one should
be overly concerned about expanding those types of housing within their neighborhood.
The commission also discussed housing types and where they would be allowed.
Commissioner Youngquist asked about what was meant by multi-modal corridors and if
that meant having bike lanes. Mr. Walther stated this will include all forms of modality
present within the corridors, but yes, on the map they seem to coincide with the city’s
community bikeway and sidewalk planned networks.
Commissioner Eckholm noted a high-rise near the light rail makes sense, but not within
a neighborhood.
Mr. Walther referenced the land use and zoning maps, but asked the commission to
consider if these maps should remain the same, and if adjustments need to be made to
the zoning code for the future.
Commissioner Youngquist noted housing types in the light rail station areas, and
explained there are expectations from the Met Council on density of walking distance
with the light rail station, so single family homes there would not be appropriate.
Mr. Walther agreed in part. He added there is an average minimum of 50 units per acre
in this area, but existing single family and smaller lot single family can still be part of the
mix provided the average density of new development in the vicinity of the stations
meet those minimum standards.
26
Unofficial minutes
Planning commission
March 1, 2023
5
Commissioner Eckholm stated the mid-rise building would be preferred close to the light
rail corridor. He added on Excelsior there are areas where mid-rise housing might be
appropriate and other areas where it may not be.
Commissioner Eckholm also noted the intersection of Minnetonka and Louisiana needs
more businesses to walk to vs. drive to. The parking lot is an opportunity to add to those
amenities.
Commissioner Divecha asked about limits to development in certain areas, and also
where should the city be more aggressive about forcing minimum density.
Commissioner Weber added that Texa-Tonka is also a nice experiment right now, with
some great stuff happening there, noting it could be a nice example for other areas in
the city.
Commissioner Youngquist noted at Louisiana and Cedar Lake Road the area seems ripe
for redevelopment at some point, and she struggles talking only about residential
without the context of where commercial and mixed-use areas will be located.
Mr. Walther stated the planning commission will meet again in April with another study
session regarding this ongoing topic of zoning code updates. Mr. Morrison encouraged
the commissioners to get familiar with the comprehensive plan and zoning codes of the
city.
2. Adjournment – 8:00 p.m.
______________________________________ ______________________________________
Sean Walther, liaison Tom Weber, chair member
27
28
Planning commission: Regular meeting
Meeting date: April 12, 2023
Agenda item: 3a
3a Family Orthodontics CUP
Location: 5804 Excelsior Boulevard
Case Number: 23-02-CUP
Applicant: Foundation Architects (Bob Schaffer)
Owner: Lelich Properties, LLC
Review Deadline: 60 days: May 12, 2023 120 days: July 11, 2023
Recommended
motions:
Motion to recommend approval of the conditional use permit to allow
building and site improvements resulting in 83% impervious surface
coverage at 5804 Excelsior Boulevard, subject to the conditions
recommended by staff.
Summary of request: Bob Schaffer, on behalf of Foundation Architects, applied for a
conditional use permit (CUP) for building expansion and site improvements of the Family
Orthodontics building at 5804 Excelsior Boulevard. The project will add a 1,000-square-foot
addition onto the south side of the building and will include interior building renovations and
upgraded site landscaping.
The property is in the C-1 neighborhood commercial zoning district. In this district, dental
offices with an intensity classification over class 4 require a CUP. Due to the proposed
impervious surface coverage of the lot, the use has an intensity classification of 6 and thus a
CUP is required for the building expansion.
Site information:
29
Regular meeting of April 12, 2023 (Item No. 3a)
Title: Family Orthodontics CUP
Site area (acres): 0.34 acres
Current use: Surrounding land uses:
Dental office North: single family residential
East: commercial
South: commercial
West: commercial
Current 2040 land use guidance Current zoning
COM - commercial C-1 neighborhood commercial
Proposed 2040 land use guidance Proposed zoning
COM - commercial C-1 neighborhood commercial
Background: The existing Family Orthodontics building was constructed in 1969. A building
addition is proposed along the south side of the building to increase the number of treatment
chairs by two and expand the business’s ability to serve the surrounding community.
Present considerations: Medical/dental offices in the C-1 district are not allowed to exceed
intensity classification 4 without obtaining a CUP (see Table 36-115C for intensity class
measures). With an impervious surface coverage of 79%, the existing building is considered an
intensity classification 5. As this is an existing condition that predated the requirement, there is
no CUP on file for this property.
Foundation Architects proposes a 985-square-foot addition onto the south end of the Family
Orthodontics building. The addition would increase the impervious surface coverage of the site
from 79% to 83% and increases the site’s intensity classification from class 5 to class 6.
Therefore, a CUP is required.
Zoning analysis: A table summarizing the zoning requirements for this project is below. Further
details on some of the requirements are provided after the table.
Factor Required Proposed Met?
Use dental office no change yes
Height 3 stories/35 feet 20 feet yes
Building Materials Minimum 60% class 1;
Maximum 10% class 3
Majority of new elevations are
stucco and glass which are
class 1 materials
yes
Off-Street Parking 1 space/200 square feet
floor area = 15 spaces
22 (no change) yes
Bicycle Parking 4 4 (2 existing) yes
EVSE Parking None required – no change to parking lot
Setbacks – Front /
Rear
5 feet 20 feet 5 feet 64.7 feet yes
30
Regular meeting of April 12, 2023 (Item No. 3a)
Title: Family Orthodontics CUP
Setbacks – Side /
Side
5 feet 5 feet W:
21.9
feet
E: 5 feet
Floor Area Ratio 1.2 0.21 yes
Landscaping
10 trees 60 shrubs 10 significant canopy
trees, 60 shrubs
yes
Tree Replacement
Calculation
No replacement required (12 inches of significant trees to
be removed; 149 inches on site; 5 inches to be planted)
yes
Front setback. The building addition is proposed to be located on the south side of the building
adjacent to Excelsior Boulevard. The existing building is 20.5 feet from the south property line.
The proposed addition is 15 feet deep, which still meets the minimum 5 feet front yard in the C-
1 district.
Off-street parking. The zoning ordinance requires 1 parking space for every 200 square feet of
dental office floor area. With the proposed building addition, the building area is 3,098 square
feet. This means that 15.5 parking spaces would be required. Additionally, the project site is
within a quarter mile of regular bus service and therefore qualifies for a 10% reduction in the
minimum parking requirement, per Section 26-361(e)(1)c. 22 parking spaces exist on the site
today, therefore, no additional parking spaces are necessary.
Building materials. In the C-1 district, buildings are required to be constructed with a minimum
of 60% Class 1 and maximum of 10% Class 3 building materials. The plans submitted show that
the majority of the new facades will be made up of stucco and glass which are Class 1 materials.
Landscaping. The applicant proposes to remove one significant tree on the site. Two new
overstory trees will be planted on the east side of the site to maintain the required landscaping
counts. The applicant proposes planting 60 shrubs around the east, west and south sides of the
proposed addition which meets zoning code requirements.
Conditional use permit: Staff finds the application meets the following general requirements
for conditional use permits listed in city code section 36-33(b):
1. Consistency with plans. The use of this property as a dental office is consistent with and
supportive of principles, goals, objectives, land use designations, redevelopment plans,
neighborhood objectives, and implementation strategies of the comprehensive plan.
The property is guided commercial which allows dental offices.
2. Nuisance. It is not detrimental to the health, safety, morals, and general welfare of the
community. It will not have undue adverse impacts on the use and enjoyment of
properties, existing and anticipated traffic conditions, parking facilities on adjacent
streets, and values of properties in close proximity to the conditional use. There are no
adverse impacts anticipated due to this project.
31
Regular meeting of April 12, 2023 (Item No. 3a)
Title: Family Orthodontics CUP
3. Compliance with code. It is consistent with the regulations, intent and purpose of city
code and the zoning district in which the conditional use is located. The proposed plan
meets the conditions required for a dental office.
4. Consistency with service capacity. It will not have undue adverse impacts on
governmental facilities, services or improvements which are either existing or proposed.
Services will not be negatively impacted by the proposed dental office.
5. Site design. It is consistent with code requirements for parking, circulation, landscaping,
and stormwater treatment and retention. The site design meets the requirements for a
dental office.
6. Consistency with utilities. It is consistent with the city’s stormwater, sanitary sewer, and
water plans. On-site stormwater management improvements will be made as part of
the site improvements. The utilities have capacity for the use. The proposed design is
consistent with all city plans.
Staff find the application meets the following general requirements for conditional use
permits listed in city code section 36-193(d)(2) exceeding classification 4:
1. Access shall be to a roadway identified in the comprehensive plan as a collector or
arterial or shall be otherwise located so that access can be provided without
generating significant traffic on local residential streets. The site has access onto
Yosemite Avenue South which immediately empties onto Excelsior Boulevard.
Excelsior Boulevard is designated as an arterial street in the comprehensive plan. No
significant traffic is anticipated to travel north through the existing residential
neighborhood.
2. Buildings shall be located a minimum of 25 feet from any parcel that is zoned
residential and used or subdivided for residential or has an occupied institutional
building including but not limited to a school, religious institution or community
center. Residential uses exist to the north of the subject site. The dental office
building is 64.7 feet from the northern property boundary which exceeds the 25 feet
minimum requirement.
3. The use is in conformance with the comprehensive plan including any provisions of
the redevelopment chapter and the plan by neighborhood policies for the
neighborhood in which it is located and conditions of approval may be added as a
means of satisfying this requirement. The dental office use is consistent with and
supportive of principles, goals, objectives, land use designations, redevelopment
plans, neighborhood objectives and implementation strategies of the
comprehensive plan.
4. The cumulative gross floor area used for retail, large item retail, and service uses
shall not exceed 10,000 square feet. The total building size including the proposed
addition is 3,098 square feet.
Next steps: After receiving the planning commission’s recommendation, the city council will
consider the CUP request. If the city council approves the CUP, staff and the applicant will
prepare and execute any required agreements and the applicant will apply for building permits
with the intention of starting construction in spring 2023.
32
Regular meeting of April 12, 2023 (Item No. 3a)
Title: Family Orthodontics CUP
Public outreach: Public hearing notices were mailed to property owners within 350 feet of the
site and a sign announcing the public hearing was posted on the property. Staff have received
one public comment on the project; please see the attached letter.
Staff recommendation: Motion to recommend approval of the conditional use permit to
allowing building and site improvements resulting in 83% impervious surface coverage at 5804
Excelsior Boulevard, subject to the conditions recommended by staff.
Supporting documents: resident comment; project plans
Prepared by: Beth Richmond, HKGi
Reviewed by: Jacquelyn Kramer, associate planner
Sean Walther, planning manager / deputy CD director
33
Regular meeting of April 12, 2023 (Item No. 3a)
Title: Family Orthodontics CUP
Resident comment
Claudia Johnston-Madison, 3931 Joppa Avenue South:
“Glad to see they are staying in the neighborhood. This is definitely an improvement for their
business and a refresher for what is there now. Hope this gets approval.”
34