Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2024/12/04 - ADMIN - Agenda Packets - Board of Zoning Appeals - Regular Board of zoning appeals and  Planning commission study session  December 4, 2024   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 952.924.2505.  Board of zoning appeals and planning commission study session  The St. Louis Park board of zoning appeals meeting and planning commission study session are  in person at St. Louis Park City Hall, 5005 Minnetonka Blvd. Members of the public can attend  the meeting in person. Visit bit.ly/slppcagendas to view the agenda and reports.  You can provide comment on board of zoning appeals agenda items in person at the 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. Public comments will not be  accepted during the planning commission study session.  Board of zoning appeals agenda  1.Call to order – roll call 2.Approval of minutes – August 21, 2024 3.Hearing 3a.  Application for variance at 3900 Natchez Ave. S.  Appellants: Danny and Aubrey van der Steeg  Case No: 24‐20‐VAR  4.Other business 5.Communications 6.Adjournment Planning commission study session agenda  1.Zoning code update Future scheduled meeting/event dates:   December 18, 2024 – planning commission study session  January 8, 2025 – planning commission meeting*  January 15, 2025– planning commission meeting   February 5, 2025 – planning commission meeting  *Meeting held on January 8 since January 1 is New Year’s Day 1 2 Board of zoning appeals August 21, 2024 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. UNOFFICIAL MINUTES Board of zoning appeals Members present: Jim Beneke, Mia Divecha, Matt Eckholm, Sylvie Hyman, Jan Youngquist Members absent: Tom Weber, Katie Merten Staff present: Gary Morrison Guests: Residents of St. Louis Park 1.Call to order – roll call 2.Approval of minutes – June 26, 2024 – The meeting minutes were approved unanimously as presented. 3.Hearings 3a. Application for appeal of zoning determination – 3320 Huntington Ave. S. Applicant: Fred and Julia Ramos Case No: 24-16-AP Mr. Morrison presented the report. Chair Divecha opened the public hearing. Fred Ramos, 3320 Huntington Ave., the applicant, thanked the BOZA and city staff for their time on this. He stated this application is no reflection on his neighbors but noted they do have a fundamental difference on the sports court. He stated the city has expertise on this but noted several issues with the city related to timing of appeal and delay of enforcement until the appeal is heard by his neighbors. He added these items need to be taken into account. Mr. Ramos stated there is no definition in the city code of the term “sport court”, and it is his position it should have a common sense, practical meaning. He noted there is only 5 feet of setback and stated a sport court needs a buffer. He noted where the code is not clear and there is no consensus, which is a problem, so they are asking the BOZA to look at the definition of a sports court. Mr. Ramos stated they provided several pictures of sport courts, and noted it appears most designers recommend 3-10 feet of space around the sidelines, keeping safety in mind for clearance. 3 Unofficial minutes BOZA Aug. 21, 2024 Page 2 Mr. Ramos stated when constructing a sports court, there is additional clearance that is needed for basketball, so the 5-foot setback should be 3-10 feet past the basketball hoop. He added we should feel safe in our homes. He stated the activity generated by the sport court puts their cars and house at risk of damage, and themselves or guests at risk of being hit by a ball. He noted several photos he took in his neighborhood where basketball hoops are not on driveways but are on the street curb. The spot chosen to build this sport court is causing him concern. Julie Ramos, 3320 Huntington Ave., noted the photos and how close the area is to their house. She also noted the driveways and that there is only 10 feet on their side of the property line and there is a door to their house where the basketballs would be thrown. She stated she has been unable to work, been woken up, is afraid to leave her house, and she feels very unsafe in this situation, where basketballs are constantly being thrown in her direction. She stated the neighbor’s lot is twice as wide and there are other locations on their property that are more suitable for a sport court. She stated there are no sports courts in their neighborhood because lots are too small and in no cases are there basketball hoops between houses because lots are too close together. She stated this is a dangerous precedent with putting the sports court between two driveways. She added other hoops in the neighborhood are barely used and this one is used multiple times per day and every day, so it belongs in a neutral location. Philip Hodge, 3336 Huntington Ave., stated some of the other basketball hoops are not placed in safe places in driveways. He stated this is a safer place to put a hoop, within a sports court. He added there is an exaggeration of the number of times the basketball hoop is used during the day at the house. He added the neighbors were also willing to put up a net which would solve the ball falling over if that is the primary safety concern. Elisabeth White, 4118 Randall Ave., stated they moved to this neighborhood in 2007 and this neighborhood stands out because it is a true neighborhood. She stated when they have issues, they find solutions and she hoped this would be solved in a nice way but she is disturbed by this. She added the neighbor Ross is shy but has been helpful and is showing goodwill. She stated the suggestion of putting up a net is goodwill. She thanked BOZA for helping with a solution to this. Douglas White, 4118 Randall Ave., stated he has lived in his home for 17 years. He stated anyone calling Ross menacing is not true, and he is actually shy. He stated it is fine his children play sports and it is better than using drugs. He stated it is best if the neighbors could work this out, and the idea of moving the court to the other side of the driveway would mean building a whole new court. He stated putting up a net would be helpful and would make this work so no balls would go into the neighbor’s yard. He stated not liking the sound of a basketball is not something the city can enforce, and he feels the neighbors should come to a peaceful solution on this. Chair Divecha closed the public hearing. 4 Unofficial minutes BOZA Aug. 21, 2024 Page 3 Commissioner Hyman stated the intention of BOZA is to determine the decisions the city makes are within the code and it is not within their purview to decide things like whether bouncing a ball is a nuisance. She stated this is a reasonable thing for residents to do and the location of the sports court is within the code and is legal. She added the BOZA is not interested in getting into the details of exact regulation and placement of basketball hoops beyond what the code requires, and added the city has important things to do and this is not a priority. She stated there are challenges living within a community and with other people, and there are things that will not be enjoyable for all parties, and if this was at a level of real nuisance, then she would consider it, but children shooting hoops is not that big of a problem. Commissioner Youngquist stated the zoning issue before BOZA is the 5-foot setback. She stated in listening to the applicants and the resolution drafted they are requesting above and beyond what is required in the code, and if we arbitrarily changed requirements for everyone, then it would set the city up for a lawsuit. She added she has also lived next to neighbors who allowed children to hit hockey pucks, and they talked to their neighbors about a solution. She stated this is not a zoning issue but is a neighborhood mediation issue and she will vote to uphold staff’s determination. Commissioner Beneke stated he somewhat sympathizes as he has a neighbor also with a hoop in the driveway and the sound can be somewhat jarring. He stated, however, it will be noisy no matter where is might be located. He added the zoning requirements do not allow for getting too deep into this issue. Commissioner Eckholm stated while BOZA can get involved, he does not think it should and this is beyond reasonable discussion. It was moved by Commissioner Eckholm, seconded by Commissioner Hyman to approve the resolution and uphold staff’s recommendation at 3330 Huntington Ave. S. The motion passed unanimously. 4.Other Business – none. 5.Communications •Mr. Morrison stated staff is asking for assistance from commissioners to help recruit residents for Vision 4.0 process. He stated the deadline is Labor Day. •The next upcoming meeting is a planning commission meeting on September 4. •Chair Divecha stated she and Mr. Walther worked on details related to meeting procedures and rules, and if there are any questions, please contact Mr. Walther. Chair Divecha asked when the Planning Commission will be presenting to the city council. Mr. Morrison stated that will be sometime in October. 5 Unofficial minutes BOZA Aug. 21, 2024 Page 4 6.Adjournment – 6:46 p.m. ______________________________________ ______________________________________ Gary Morrison, liaison Mia Divecha, chair member 6 Board of zoning appeals: Regular meeting  Meeting date: December 4, 2024  Agenda item: 3a  3a Request for variance to yard requirements at 3900 Natchez Ave S.  Location: 3900 Natchez Ave S   Case Number: 24‐20‐VAR  Applicant: Danny and Aubrey van der Steeg  Owner:  Danny and Aubrey van der Steeg  Review Deadline:  60 days: December 24, 2024 120 days: February 22, 2025  Recommended  motions:  Chair to open the public hearing, take testimony and close the hearing.   Motion to adopt resolution denying variance to section 36‐164(f)(4)  for construction of a detached garage within the required restricted  area at 3900 Natchez Ave S as recommended by staff.  Request: Applicant requests approval of a variance to section 36‐164(f)(4) which requires a  restricted area on a corner lot when the rear yard of the corner lot is adjacent to the neighbor’s  front yard.    Site information:   Zoning:   R‐2 single‐family residence district  Site area: 6,068 square feet  7 Regular meeting of December 4, 2024 (Item No. 3a)     Title: Request for variance from yard requirements at 3900 Natchez Ave S  The subject property is improved with a single‐family house that was constructed in 1940. It is a  one and a half‐story house with a detached one‐car garage.     Summary of request: The applicant intends to remove the one‐car garage and construct a  detached two‐car garage. A variance is requested to construct the detached garage within a  portion of the property that prohibits the construction of any building. The detached garage is  proposed to be 24 feet wide by 24 feet deep by 14 feet, 11 inches tall.     Code requirement: City code section 36‐164(f)(4) is the section of code that establishes and  defines the size of the restricted area. It reads as follows:    If a corner lot has a rear lot line which is common with the side lot line of another lot, no  building shall occupy that portion of the rear yard of the corner lot which abuts the front  yard of the other lot for a distance equal to the depth of the front yard of that other lot  or 25 feet, whichever is less, measured from the common property line of the two lots  extending toward the front lot line of the corner lot on a line perpendicular to the  common lot line of the two lots. See the following diagram.               8 Regular meeting of December 4, 2024 (Item No. 3a)      Title: Request for variance from yard requirements at 3900 Natchez Ave S  Present considerations: Applying the above code requirement to the subject property results in  a restricted area as depicted by the dashed red line in the illustration below. The restricted area  is 25.86 feet by 25.86 feet, which matches the front yard of the property to the south also  shown on the illustration.         The applicant proposes to construct a detached garage that is 24 feet wide by 24 feet deep by  14 feet, 11 inches tall. It would have one‐foot eaves on all sides. It is proposed to meet the  yards typically required for detached garages which is two feet from side and rear lot lines to  the eave. The subject property’s rear yard, however, is adjacent to the neighbor’s front yard,  therefore, the garage is required to be at least 25.86 feet from the rear lot line and 25.86 from  the side yard abutting the street (side yard along Natchez Ave S).     Variance analysis: The applicant proposes the following:  1. Remove the existing one‐car garage and construct a two‐car garage within the restricted  area.   2. The new garage is proposed to be two feet from the rear lot line (measured to the eave)  instead of the required 25.86 feet. 9 Regular meeting of December 4, 2024 (Item No. 3a)     Title: Request for variance from yard requirements at 3900 Natchez Ave S  3. The new garage is proposed to be approximately seven feet from the side lot line  abutting the street (measured to the wall) instead of the required 25.86 feet.     Findings: As required by city code, the board of zoning appeals (BOZA) considers the following  criteria 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 location of the garage encroaches on the line‐of‐sight this code  provision is intended to preserve, which is the line‐of‐sight needed to maintain sight lines  along the front yards of the properties that make up the block, and the sight lines from the  neighbor’s property to the street.     Staff finds this criterion has not been met.     2. Whether or not the request is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the  zoning ordinance. As noted above, the intent of the ordinance is to prevent a building from  being constructed within the restricted area so that sight lines to the street from the  neighboring property can be preserved. The proposal is contrary to the general purpose and  intent of the code.     Staff finds this criterion has not been met.     3. Whether or not the request is consistent with the comprehensive plan.  The requested  variance is not needed to be consistent with the comprehensive plan. Complying with code  will not reduce the outdoor space on the lot. Approving the variance, however, will result in  a large building encroaching on the front yard views currently enjoyed by the adjacent  property.     Staff finds this criterion has not been met.     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 and  detached garages are permitted in the R‐2 single‐family residence district. A detached  garage can be constructed on the property without a variance by constructing it closer  to the house in the vicinity of the existing one‐car garage.     Staff finds this criterion has not been met.    b. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property and not  created by the landowner. While the lot is irregularly shaped, there is sufficient room on  the lot to construct a two‐car garage without a variance; therefore, the shape of the lot  is not a practical difficulty keeping them from complying with the zoning ordinance.   10 Regular meeting of December 4, 2024 (Item No. 3a)     Title: Request for variance from yard requirements at 3900 Natchez Ave S    Additionally, building a detached garage in a location that meets code will result in the  garage being located 25 feet from the rear lot line. The code requires this larger setback  from the rear lot line for most properties in this situation. Therefore, it is not unique to  this property.     Staff finds this criterion has not been met.    c. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality.  The  proposed location of the garage will alter the essential character of the area by blocking  visibility from the street to the neighbor’s house. This encroachment into the line of  sight to and from the street is not typical of the neighborhood character.    Staff finds this criterion has not been met.    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. As noted above, while the lot is  slightly irregularly shaped, and a house with a detached garage can be constructed without  the need for a variance. There are no wetlands, topography or other physical conditions  that restrict reasonable use of the property, including the construction of a detached  garage.     Staff finds this criterion has not been met.     6. Whether or not the granting of the variance is necessary for the preservation and  enjoyment of a substantial property right. A detached garage can be constructed without a  variance, and there is sufficient space elsewhere on the property for an outdoor play area;  therefore, staff finds the variance is not needed to preserve a substantial property right.    7. Whether or not the granting of the variance will impair light and air to the surrounding  properties, unreasonably increase congestion, increase the danger of fire, or endanger  public safety. The proposed location of the detached garage would encroach on the  openness of the front yard of the neighboring property, which is in conflict with one of the  purposes of the restricted area.      Staff finds this criterion has not been met.    8. Whether or not the granting of the variance will merely serve as a convenience or is it  necessary to alleviate a practical difficulty. As noted above, the detached garage can be  constructed without a variance, and there is sufficient space elsewhere on the property to  be enjoyed as open space.  The requested variance is not needed to alleviate a practical  11 Regular meeting of December 4, 2024 (Item No. 3a)     Title: Request for variance from yard requirements at 3900 Natchez Ave S  difficulty but is requested to satisfy a desire of the applicant to have the play area closer to  the house.       Staff finds this criterion has not been met.    Recommendation: Staff recommends BOZA adopt the attached resolution denying a variance  to section 36‐164(f)(4) for construction of a detached garage within the required restricted area  at 3900 Natchez Ave S as recommended by staff.    Supporting documents:  Draft Resolution; letter from applicant; exhibits; and letter from  neighbor across the street.     Prepared by:  Gary Morrison, zoning administrator    Reviewed by:  Sean Walther, planning manager / deputy CD director       12 Regular meeting of December 4, 2024 (Item No. 3a)     Title: Request for variance from yard requirements at 3900 Natchez Ave S  DRAFT BOZA Resolution No. _____    Resolution denying variance to construct a detached garage within the required  restricted area at 3900 Natchez Ave S      Whereas, on October 25, 2024, the owner, Danny van der Steeg, submitted a complete  application for a variance from the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance Section 36‐163(f)(4)  to allow a detached garage to be constructed within the restricted area, which is required when  the backyard is adjacent to the neighbor’s front yard.     Whereas, the detached garage is proposed to be located two feet from lot line to the  eave from the rear lot line instead of the required 25.86 feet, and approximately seven feet to  the wall from the side lot line abutting the street instead of the required 25.86 feet.     Whereas, the property is located at 3900 Natchez Ave S and described below as follows,  to wit:    Lot 1, Block 8, Minikahda Vista, St. Louis Park, Minn., Hennepin County,  Minnesota     Whereas, the property is zoned R‐2 single‐family residence.    Whereas, the Board of Zoning Appeals held a public hearing and reviewed the  application for variance Case No. 24‐20‐VAR on December 4, 2024.    Whereas, based on the testimony, evidence presented, and files and records, the Board  of Zoning Appeals has determined that the requested variance does not meet the requirements  of Section 36‐34(a)(2) of the zoning ordinance necessary to be met for the Board of Zoning  Appeals to grant variances, and makes the following findings:    a. The variance will have an adverse effect on the health, safety, and welfare of the  community. The location of the proposed detached garage would impede line of  sight from the street to the neighboring property.     b. The location of the proposed detached garage is not in harmony with the general  purpose and intent of the zoning ordinance. Section 36‐164(f)(4) requires all  buildings to be located outside of the restricted area created and defined by this  section of code so that line of sight visibility to/from the neighbor’s house and the  street can be preserved    c. A practical difficulty does not exist necessitating the requested variance for the  following reasons:    13 Regular meeting of December 4, 2024 (Item No. 3a)     Title: Request for variance from yard requirements at 3900 Natchez Ave S  A detached garage currently exists on the property that meets the restricted area  requirements of the zoning ordinance, and a new, larger garage could be  constructed without a variance.     Despite the shape of the lot, there is sufficient room on the lot to construct a two‐ car garage without a variance, and therefore, the shape of the lot is not a practical  difficulty keeping them from complying with the zoning ordinance.    Applying the code results in an open area between the garage and the neighbor’s  property line. This open area is not unique to the subject property. It is intentional,  typical and a direct result of applying the code requirement.     d. The variance is not needed for the preservation of a substantial property right. A  two‐car garage can be constructed on the property without a variance.    e. The contents of the Board of Zoning Appeals Case File 24‐20‐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 section 36‐164(f)(4) is hereby denied.      Adopted by the Board of Zoning Appeals: December 4, 2024  Effective date: December 16, 2024              ______________________________          Mia Divecha, Chair  ATTEST:      _______________________________________  Gary Morrison, Zoning Administrator  14 Variance Request for New Construction Garage at 3900 Natchez Avenue S, Saint Louis Park, Minnesota No. of variances requested: (1) To: The Board of Zoning Appeals, City of Saint Louis Park Dear Board Members, I am writing to formally request a single variance for the construction of a new garage on the property located at 3900 Natchez Avenue S, Saint Louis Park, Minnesota. The proposed construction partially overlaps with a no-build zone as defined by the city’s zoning ordinance. Below is a detailed explanation of how the proposed variance complies with the necessary criteria for granting such a request, as outlined by the city’s zoning ordinance. 1. The effect of the proposed variance upon the health, safety, and welfare of the community: The proposed garage offers significant improvements to both child safety and the overall welfare of the neighborhood. By positioning the garage in the far southwest corner, the area between the house and proposed garage will serve as the primary yard and a designated play space, allowing a clear line of sight from the home to the yard. This design provides the opportunity to create an enclosed, secure environment where children can play safely under parental supervision, away from busy streets and intersections. This improvement minimizes the risk of children inadvertently wandering near traffic on Natchez or Vallacher. The property’s location at the intersection of Natchez and Vallacher means a fully fenced in front-yard would inhibit visibility for traffic, reduce road safety and not offer a clear line of sight for child safety from the home’s main living spaces (living room & kitchen). The garage’s design and increased parking space will also reduce traffic-related hazards by decreasing the need for street parking. The residents will no longer have to park additional vehicles on the street (within permit parking zones), reducing congestion and improving the safety of pedestrians and drivers on an active school route and near stops. This is particularly beneficial for a neighborhood with many families and young children, ensuring that sightlines are clear for both drivers and pedestrians, thus preventing accidents. These improvements directly contribute to the community’s overall safety and align with the city’s commitment to health and welfare. 15 2. The request is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the zoning ordinance: The garage placement aligns with the zoning ordinance’s intent to maintain the safety and character of the neighborhood. The location along the south and west property lines ensures that the neighboring property to the south retains full visibility, enhancing both neighbor and traffic safety. Additionally, the existing dense foliage and greenery along the entirety of the south property line will remain in place, ensuring privacy while maintaining aesthetic appeal. An added benefit is that the property line on the South is angled away from the neighbor’s driveway, further enhancing the line of sight. The proposed garage integrates seamlessly into the neighborhood, preserving its charm and enhancing homeowner satisfaction and long-term retention. By creating a more functional, secure yard space for children, the project encourages families to remain in the neighborhood as the property meets the needs of growing families, which contributes to the community's stability and continuity. These safety and livability improvements align with the 2040 Comprehensive Plan’s goals for preserving neighborhood character and improving resident well-being. 3. The request is consistent with the comprehensive plan: The St. Louis Park 2040 Comprehensive Plan emphasizes the importance of creating safe, livable neighborhoods that cater to families and community well-being. The proposed garage construction will contribute to this vision by enhancing both child safety and neighborhood security, ensuring that residents can enjoy their homes while protecting their families. The expanded garage from a single-car to a 2.5-car space reduces the need for on-street parking, further minimizing traffic congestion and improving safety for pedestrians, drivers, and cyclists, especially in a neighborhood with many children. This project contributes to the comprehensive plan’s vision of creating safer, more functional spaces for residents while enhancing the property’s usability. Additionally, the improved yard space for children to play safely supports the plan’s focus on creating healthy and active neighborhoods by encouraging outdoor activity and fostering stronger family ties within the community. 16 4. Practical difficulties in complying with the zoning ordinance: a. Permitted use in the zoning district: The proposed garage is consistent with the residential zoning of the property. The variance relates only to the garage’s location partially within a no-build zone, which is a dimensional request, not a use variance. b. Unique circumstances of the property: The property’s unique configuration presents significant challenges in complying with the zoning ordinance. The irregular shape of the lot along, with the front and back yard situated to the left and right of the primary home, and with its location near a busy intersection, creates difficulties in safe use of outdoor space along vehicle and pedestrian traffic. These factors, coupled with the existing garage’s limitations, make it difficult to provide adequate yard space for children without infringing on the no-build zone. The proposed garage location provides a solution to these challenges by enhancing both child safety and neighborhood security, without compromising the zoning ordinance’s broader intent. c. No alteration of essential character: The proposed garage will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. It will be designed to match the architectural style of the house, while maintaining and enhancing the charm and safety of the surrounding area. By reducing on-street parking and creating a more secure play area for children, the garage enhances both safety and livability for all residents, aligning with the neighborhood’s existing character. d. Economic considerations alone are not the basis for this request: While the garage’s construction has economic benefits such as increased utility and value, the variance request is primarily driven by safety and usability concerns. The primary goal is to enhance child safety, public traffic safety, and the overall functionality of the property rather than to address financial considerations. e. Solar access: The proposed garage will not obstruct access to sunlight for any current or future solar energy systems on this or adjacent properties. The placement has been carefully considered to avoid any negative impacts on solar energy potential. 17 5. Unique circumstances of the property (shape, topography, or other conditions): The property’s unique configuration, including its irregular shape, non-traditional front and back yard placement and proximity to a busy intersection, creates a practical difficulty in adhering to the no-build zone restrictions. The proposed garage provides a safe and functional solution by creating a secure space for children to play without visual obstructions from the home and improving neighborhood traffic flow. These circumstances are uncommon among surrounding lots, necessitating the requested variance. 6. Granting the variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right: Granting the variance is necessary to ensure the homeowners enjoy the same safety and utility as neighboring properties. Expanding the garage from a single-car to a 2.5-car space will reduce the need for off-street parking, thereby improving traffic safety and reducing congestion on Natchez Avenue. Additionally, this improvement ensures that the property remains functional for families as they grow by creating a safe yard space for children, contributing to the neighborhood’s family-friendly atmosphere and economic stability. 7. The granting of the variance will not impair light and air to surrounding properties, increase congestion, or endanger public safety: The garage’s placement will not impair access to light or air for adjacent properties. It has been designed with sufficient setbacks to minimize impact on neighbors and will provide more light and air for the property on the West as it groups the garages more closely together. Moreover, by reducing the need for street parking, the project will improve traffic flow on a school bus route and enhance safety for pedestrians and cyclists. The garage will comply with all fire and safety codes, ensuring public safety throughout the construction process and beyond. 8. The granting of the variance will not merely serve as a convenience but is necessary to alleviate a practical difficulty: This variance is essential to address the practical difficulties posed by the property’s unique configuration and proximity to a busy intersection. Without the variance, it would be impossible to construct a garage that meets the property’s and resident’s needs while also ensuring child safety and neighborhood security. The new garage location will improve both traffic safety and the overall enjoyment of the home, while maintaining the neighborhood’s charm and character, in alignment with the 2040 Comprehensive Plan. 18 In conclusion, I respectfully request that the Board of Zoning Appeals approve this variance for the construction of a garage with overlap into a no-build zone. This variance is critical to improving child safety, neighborhood security, and property functionality, while preserving the neighborhoods’ charm and appeal, in alignment with the long-term goals of the St. Louis Park 2040 Comprehensive Plan. Thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely, Danny and Aubrey van der Steeg 3900 Natchez Avenue S Saint Louis Park, Minnesota 19 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct representation of a survey of theboundaries of:Lot 1, Block 8, Minikahda Vista, St. Louis Park,Hennepin County, Minnesota.And of the locations of all buildings thereon and all visible encroachments fromor on said land. As surveyed by me this 8th day of August, 2024._______________________________________Willis L. Gilliard, R.L.S., Minn. Reg. No. 9587Revised Oct. 15, 2024; Oct. 22, 2024NWillis L. GilliardCivil Engineer and Land SurveyorPO Box 17Saint Michael, Minnesota 55376612-382-07950 10 20Scale in feet22.99CERTIFICATE OF SURVEYSurvey for:Danny Van Der SteegLot Summary:House porch, and steps: 1113.31 s.f.Driveway: 439.52 s.f.Garage: 243.41 s.f.Patio: 384.84 s.f.Walks: 47.90 s.f.Gross area of lot: 6068.12 s.f.hard cover: 36.73%NATCHEZ AVENUE SOUTHLot Address:3900 Natchez Avenue So.St. Louis Park, MN 55416 VALLACHER AVENUE135.9035.6039001 1 2 Sty. frame47051 1 2 Sty. frameporchgaragefencefenceSITE PLANlow brickwallwood ret. wallI.M.F.I.M.F.patio173.91R = 628.6543.41R = 25.003.411.426.436.430.8011.989.635.002.00PP 30"2.00Garage FloorEl. = 909.40906.6906.6905.8910.1910.5909.7907.6907.9907.0906.5906.1905.8905.5905.5905.4905.3905.3905.2904.9904.9905.1905.5905.5905.7905.7906.0906.5907.3908.9908.9908.9909.6909.6910.2910.5910.4910.1909.7909.1908.7908.8908.6908.2908.4913.3907.4921.5907.6908.6908.1907.8908.2908.7909.6910.2911.0910.6908.0908.5906.8907.0912.69 1 2 . 3912.3912.5912.59 1 2. 5 912.5912.3912.3912.3912.2911.9911.2911.2911.0910.9910.8910.8909.0908.2Garage11.98 4.5225.86906.6 906.6905.8910.1 910.5909.790 8.9 907.6907.9907.0906.5906.1905.8905.5905.5905.4905.3905.3905.2 904.9904.9 905.1 905.5905.5905.7905.7906.0906.5907.390 9.0 908.9908.9908.9909.6909.6 910.2910.5 910.4910.1 909.7909.2909.1908.7908.8908.6908.2908.4913.3907.4 921.5907.6908.6908.1907.8908.2908.7909.6910.2911.0910.6908.0908.5906.8907.0912.69 1 2 . 3 912.2912.3912.5912.59 1 2. 5 912.0912.5912.3912.3912.3912.2911.9911.2911.2911.0910.9910.8910.8909.0 908.28.24 fence912.213.316.57 18.0034.0817.2432.4439.16eaveseaves2.0020 2' - 8" 1 5' - 0 3/4" 8' - 0" 5A25A28' - 5" max. 15' - 0"0 5 10 20 40 feet 12"6.5"12"3"N/S Section12"12" 12"Designed By Drawn ByDate pbroussard@architron.com2210 DOSWELL AVENUESAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA 55108ARCHITRON JOBNUMBERChecked By Approved By RevisionsA2Elevations- 24103900 NatchezAvenue S.- 24oct24--St. Louis Park, MNNo. Date By Description21 From:Stephanie Sislo To:Gary Morrison Subject:van der Steeg variance on Natchez Ave Date:Sunday, November 24, 2024 9:28:14 AM 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. I am in favor of the garage variance at 3900 Natchez Avenue South, as long it stays within architectural character of the neighborhood. I have not idea what they have planned to build but I am not in favor of a crazy, modern looking building being front and center of the neighborhood. Thanks, Stephanie Sislo 3951 Natchez Ave S 22  Planning commission: Study session  Meeting date: December 4, 2024  Agenda item: 1  1 Discussion of Zoning Code Update   Recommended Action: No action is requested at this time. Staff will review selected provisions  from the draft code, discuss the zoning of four parcels, and review procedures for the public  hearing.  Background: Staff reviewed the regulations regarding accessory dwelling units, group daycares,  and non‐statutory group homes. Staff will present our findings to the planning commission for  consideration and discussion. Time permitting, staff will present an update to the planning  commission regarding a recent city council discussion and zoning of four city‐owned parcels.  Accessory dwelling units (ADU). The ordinance authorizing ADUs was adopted in 2020. The ADU  regulations are included in the proposed zoning code update, and staff would like to review the  regulations with the planning commission and suggest some amendments to the ordinance that  could resolve some hurdles encountered by people who desire to construct an ADU. These  amendments could be incorporated into the overall zoning code update.  Group daycares.  Staff reviewed the standards for group daycares and compared them to the  standards proposed to be applied to schools and places of worship in the proposed ordinance.  The review identified inconsistencies applied to each of the uses and staff propose to change  the standards to treat these three uses similarly. For example, the setbacks applied to buildings  and outdoor play areas should be the same for each of the uses since they are mitigating similar  impacts.   Non‐statutory group homes. Non‐statutory group homes are currently permitted with  conditions within all residential zoning districts. The conditions applied to them, however, vary  from district to district. In order to recommend standards for the new neighborhood districts,  staff reviewed the current conditions and will recommend amendments for the use in each of  the neighborhood districts.   Attachments: Proposed code language for ADUs, group daycares, and non‐statutory group  homes.  Prepared by:  Gary Morrison, zoning administrator  Reviewed by:  Sean Walther, planning manager  23 Study session of December 4, 2024 (Item No. 1)  Title: Discussion of Zoning Code Update    Accessory Dwelling Units  Below are the existing regulations for accessory dwelling units. Please review the regulations  and prepare for a discussion on whether or not some of the regulations should be amended.  Highlighted in yellow is some language staff would like to review with the planning commission.  Accessory dwelling units. Accessory dwelling units complying with all the following conditions:  (1) Accessory dwelling units shall only be permitted on single‐family dwelling lots.   (2)There shall be no more than one (1) accessory dwelling unit permitted per lot. (3)Occupancy of the single‐family lot, including both the principal dwelling unit and the accessory dwelling unit, shall be limited to no more than one family and up to two persons who are boarders/roomers or reside in one of the dwelling units. (4)The initial construction of an accessory dwelling unit shall only occur on a property that is occupied by the property owner as their primary residence. (5)The accessory dwelling unit shall not be sold independently of the principal residential dwelling and may not be a separate tax parcel. (6)Accessory dwelling units that are attached to the principal dwelling unit shall be no more than 40% of the gross floor area of the single‐family dwelling. (7)Accessory dwelling units that are detached from the principal residential structure shall comply with the regulations for accessory structures in Division 4 Residential District Regulations, and must comply with the following additional requirements: a.Detached accessory dwelling units shall be located a minimum of 15 feet from any rear lot line unless the rear lot line is adjacent to an alley, in which case it may be located five (5) feet from the rear lot line. b.Detached accessory dwelling units located less than six feet from the principal dwelling are subject to the same side yard as required for the principal dwelling. Detached accessory dwelling units located six feet or more from the principal dwelling shall be located a minimum of five feet from any side property line. c.Detached accessory dwelling units shall have a floor area greater than 200 square feet. d.Balconies, stoops, and decks (establish maximum size for exterior stoops?) above the ground floor shall not face an interior side yard or a rear yard not abutting an alley. Rooftop decks for an accessory dwelling unit shall not be allowed. 24 Study session of December 4, 2024 (Item No. 1)  Title: Discussion of Zoning Code Update    Accessory buildings:  Location: Rear and side yards  Two feet from any lot line  Eaves: 16 inches from lot line abutting alley  Wall: two feet from lot line abutting alley  Through lots subject to front and side yard requirements of the principal building  if located within 60 feet of the rear lot line.  Not located in drainage/utility easement.  Size:  Max size (GFAR) smaller of 800 square feet or 25% of backyard.  R3, R4: Max size (GFAR) 800 square feet. Additional cumulative buildings 1,200  square feet with CUP  Height:  15 feet, up to 24 feet with conditions.  Lower than highest roofline of structure  Design: All detached garages and other accessory buildings shall be compatible in design  and materials to the principal building on the parcel.  No plumbing for kitchen or bathroom facilities (including but not limited to  toilets and showers) is allowed in any detached garage or other accessory  building. Hose bibs and utility sinks are allowed.   Floor drains in garages and other accessory buildings must be connected to  sanitary sewer as approved by the city.   Windows, doors, and similar openings may be located in the second story of an  accessory building if the wall or dormer in which it is located faces a lot line that  abuts a public right‐of‐way or is at least 15 feet from any property that is zoned  residential and used or subdivided for residential use.   Accessory buildings used for dwelling purposes shall also comply with the  regulations set forth in Section 36‐162(e) regarding accessory dwelling units.  25 Study session of December 4, 2024 (Item No. 1)  Title: Discussion of Zoning Code Update    Group Daycares  Below are the proposed standards for group daycares located in the neighborhood (N) districts.  Also included in the text below are standards proposed for similar uses such as school and  places of worship. Please review the regulations and prepare for a discussion on the standards  for each of these uses. Specifically, staff believes similar standards should be consistent  between the different uses.  Proposed standards:  Group day care/nursery school.   (1)The principal buildings shall be located a minimum of 30 feet from any parcel zoned N and used for a dwelling. (2)Outdoor recreational and play areas shall be located at least 25 feet from any parcel zoned N and used for a dwelling. (3)The on‐site outdoor activity area shall be enclosed by a fence. (4)As allowed for by state licensing, city parks may be utilized to meet up to 50 percent of the required outdoor activity areas with the following conditions: a.The park must have age‐appropriate play equipment. b.There is a clearly defined and maintained sidewalk or improved trail connecting the facility to the park. (5)An off‐street passenger loading area shall be provided to maintain vehicular and pedestrian safety. Group day care/nursery school in a religious institution, community center, or educational  (academic) institution.  (1)The on‐site outdoor activity area shall be enclosed with a fence. (2)The outside play area shall be located a minimum of 200 feet from any roadway defined on the comprehensive plan as a principal arterial. Group day care/nursery school.   (1)At least 12% of the lot area shall be developed as designed outdoor recreation area. (2)The on‐site outdoor activity areas shall be located in the rear yard and enclosed by a fence. (3)Outdoor recreational and play areas shall be located at least 25 feet from any lot zoned N and either used for residential use or has an occupied institutional building, including but not limited to educational (academic) facilities, religious institutions, and community centers. (4)City parks may be utilized to meet up to 50 percent of the required outdoor activity areas with the following conditions: 26 Study session of December 4, 2024 (Item No. 1)  Title: Discussion of Zoning Code Update    a.The park must have age‐appropriate play equipment. b.There is a clearly defined and maintained sidewalk or improved trail connecting the facility to the park. (5)In the N‐1 and N‐2 districts, the group day care/nursery school must be licensed and serve 16 or fewer children. Educational (academic) facilities with more than 20 students.    1.Educational buildings shall be located a minimum of 30 feet from any parcel that is zoned N and either used for residential use or has an occupied institutional building, including but not limited to educational (academic) facilities, religious institutions, and community centers. 2.An off‐street passenger loading area shall be provided in order to maintain vehicular and pedestrian safety. 3.Outdoor recreational and play areas shall be located at least 25 feet from any parcel that is zoned N or either used for residential use or has an occupied institutional building, including but not limited to educational (academic) facilities, religious institutions, and community centers. 4.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. Religious institutions.    1.All buildings shall be located a minimum of 30 feet from any parcel that is zoned N and either used for residential use or has an occupied institutional building, including but not limited to educational (academic) facilities, religious institutions, and community centers. 2.An off‐street passenger loading area shall be provided in order to maintain vehicular and pedestrian safety. 3.Outdoor recreational and play areas shall be located at least 25 feet from any lot zoned N and either used for residential use or has an occupied institutional building, including but not limited to educational (academic) facilities, religious institutions, and community centers. 4.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. 27 Study session of December 4, 2024 (Item No. 1)  Title: Discussion of Zoning Code Update    Non‐Statutory Group Homes  The table below compares the conditions applied to non‐statutory group homes in the current  code. The table also shows how these conditions could be converted to the neighborhood  districts in the proposed ordinance (yellow columns). Please review the table and prepare for a  discussion on the standards that should be applied to the neighborhood districts.   R1 R2 R3 R4 RC N1/N2 N3/N4  Group Homes – Non‐Statutory  At least 800 square feet of lot area shall be  provided for each person, including  resident staff, housed on the site.  X X X X X X X  The maximum occupancy of an individual  dwelling unit shall not exceed six persons.   X 9 X 30 50 6 N3‐30  N4‐50  The maximum occupancy of a facility shall  not exceed 18 people in the N‐1 district, 30  people in the N‐2 district, and 50 people in  the N‐3 district  N/A N/A  A minimum of 300 square feet of gross  building area shall be provided for each  resident.   X X X  At least 12% of the lot area shall be  developed as designed outdoor recreation  area.   X X X X X X X  No more than two people shall occupy one  bedroom.   X X X  X  The dwelling unit shall provide one  bathroom for each three persons.  4 4 4  X  The use shall not be located within 1,500  feet of any other group home or state‐ licensed residential facility.  X 2,000 X X X 1,500 1,500  The use shall be located within 300 feet of a  commercial or mixed‐use district.   X The building structure shall not be modified  or converted for the specific purpose of  accommodating the group home use  except to comply with Americans with  Disabilities Act requirements or other  normal maintenance and repair.  X  X  Any group home accommodating 20 or  more persons shall provide an outdoor  recreation area. Such recreation area shall  be located a minimum of 25 feet of any  parcel in an R district.   X X X  19+?    State‐licensed residential facility   The facility shall serve no more than 16  persons.  6 6 6 16 16 6 16  28