Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1995 07-20 Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting Minutes RegularMINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS HELD ON THURSDAY, JULY 20, 1995 5:30 P.M., MANAGER'S CONFERENCE ROOM MEMBERS PRESENT: G. Johnson, R. Hale, D. Patton MEMBERS ABSENT: McClelland, Workinger, Lewis STAFF PRESENT: Kris Aaker, Jackie Hoogenakker I. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES: The minutes of the May 18, 1995 meeting were filed as submitted. II. NEW BUSINESS: B-95-23 Robert Seeger 5515 Grove Street Lot 3, Block 2, Warden Acres Austin Replat Zoning: R-1 Request: A 1.1 foot sidestreet setback variance to convert a deck into porch area Ms. Aaker informed the board the subject property is located in the southeast corner of Grove Street and Oak Lane. The home faces Grove Street with the sidewall of the house and the garage opening fronting Oak Lane. Currently there is a deck located on the west side of the home within the sidestreet area of Oak Lane. The homeowners are hoping to convert the deck into a screen porch. In order to accomplish the porch within the ordinance requirements the porch would require a reduction in depth of 1.1 feet because the existing deck protrudes into the front yard setback standard of 30 feet provided by the neighboring property to the south which fronts Oak Lane. Ms. Aaker concluded given the limited impact the proposal will have on neighboring properties, and given the home owners are not changing an already existing setback, staff supports the request. The proponent, Mr. Seeger was present. Mr. Seeger submitted to the chair letters of support from impacted neighbors. 1 Mr. Rick Bale, 5805 Oak Lane was present and told board member he supports the proposal. Mr. Hale said in viewing the proposal there appears to be little impact on adjoining properties. Mr. Hale moved variance approval subject to the plans presented. Mr. Patton seconded the motion. All voted aye; motion carried. B-95-24 Richard and Lisa Bale 5805 Oak Lane Lot 1, Block 1, Warden Acres Austin 2nd Replat embraced within Lot 37, Warden Acres Zoning: R-1 Request: A 1.5 foot rearyard setback variance for a deck addition Ms. Aaker informed the board the subject property is located on the east side of Oak Lane and just south of Grove Street. The property owners are hoping to accomplish a 12 foot by 6 foot deck in the back yard area of the home. Currently there is a doorway roughly three feet above grade along the back side of the home that would access the deck. Ms. Aaker concluded given the house location and limited buildable lot area, staff supports the request. Chairman Johnson said in viewing the proposal it appears the City created the setback issue. Mr. Hale asked Ms. Aaker if the City is planning to complete the street. Ms. Aaker responded she is not sure. Mr. Hale questioned who owns Outlot A that is depicted on the site plan. Mr. Bale said Mr. Curtis Austin owns Outlot A. Mr. Hale said he has a concern with future development on Outlot A because of its size. Chairman Johnson pointed out if the area is to be redeveloped the people living on Benton Avenue will have to unite, and push for subdivision. Chairman Johnson said the City has been aware of the potential for redevelopment in this area because of the large lot depths, but reiterated property owners need to unite to subdivide. Mr. Patton asked Ms. Aaker what easement is depicted on the site plan. Ms. Aaker said the easement is for a storm sewer. Mr. Seeger, 5515 Grove Street told board members he supports the proposal. Mr. Hale asked Mr. Bale if he has made any attempt to purchase property from Outlot A. Mr. Bale said he has not approached the property owner. Mr. Patton pointed out outlots are usually an area that cannot be built on for one reason or another, and usually it is for drainage. Mr. Bale said he is not sure what the situation is regarding this outlot. Ms. Aaker interjected it is correct that outlots cannot be built on unless a replatting occurs, and many times because of easement situations they cannot be built on at all. Mr. Hale said while he does not have a problem with the request he is uncomfortable with it because of potential development on Outlot A. Mr. Hale reiterated that Mr. Bale should try to purchase property from Outlot A. Mr. Bale said the reason for the addition of the deck is because when the house was constructed the placement of the existing door was unusual, the door floats in the air. Mr. Patton said he does not have a problem with the proposal. He acknowledged there is a possibility of future redevelopment in the area, but that is not known for sure, and the proposal before us this evening has minimal impact. Mr. Patton moved variance approval subject to the plans presented. Mr. Hale seconded the motion. Ayes; Johnson, Patton. Nay, Hale. Motion carried. B-95-25 Steve and Kathy Johnson 5904 Tamarac Lane Lot 2, Block 1, Gleason 2nd Addition Zoning: R-1 Request: A 2.5 foot rearyard setback variance Ms. Aaker explained the subject property is located on the west side of Tamarac Lane, just north of Aspen Road. The homeowners are hoping to add a three season porch onto the side (northwest area) of their home. The only opportunity for expansion of the home is in the area proposed due to it's original placement. Ms. Aaker concluded given the placement of the house on the lot and evidence of hardship regarding limited buildable lot area, staff supports the request as submitted. The proponents, Mr. and Mrs. Johnson were present. Chairman Johnson asked if staff has received any comments from neighbors. Mr. Johnson said he spoke with the most impacted neighbors, and they indicated they have no problems with the request. Ms. Aaker replied to date staff has not received any negative comments from neighbors. Chairman Johnson asked Mr. Johnson if it would be a problem to ask the neighbors if they would write a letter for the file. Mr. Johnson said he would speak with the neighbors, and submit the required letters. Mr. Patton moved variance approval subject to the plans presented, and that letters be submitted to the planning department from the property owners to the rear and the property owner to the immediate north. Mr. Hale seconded the motion. All voted aye, motion carried. B-95-27 Vance O. Bushay 6737 Indian Way West Lot 3, Block 1, Indian Hills West Zoning: R-1 Request: A 21 foot setback variance from the ordinary high water mark of a pond for a pool Ms. Aaker informed the board the subject property is located on the end (east side) of Indian Way West cul de -sac. The homeowners are hoping to accomplish an inground swimming pool in their rearyard area that backs up to a pond. The pool will provide a 25 foot setback from the pond to the edge of the pond to the required decking around the pool and a 29 foot setback to the pools edge. In August of 1992, the zoning ordinance was amended to require a 50 foot setback for all structures from the edges of ponds, lakes or streams instead of a 25 foot setback that had been the requirement prior to the 1992 amendment. Ms. Aaker concluded the proposed inground pool will be consistent with the pool located on the property to the north. In addition, it would appear that the proposal would have limited impact on surrounding properties and the adjacent pond. The proponent, Mrs. Bushay was present. Chairman Johnson asked Ms. Aaker if the DNR mandates a 50 foot setback can the City override it. Ms. Aaker said we can implement our variance process to amend their mandate. Ms. Aaker pointed out Edina has a number of existing homes along waterbodies that do not meet the current standard setback of 50 feet. These properties are legally non -conforming, and a variance is the only alternative they have if they desire to add on to their homes. Mr. Patton said he has a problem with the mandate, and the restrictions it places on property owners. He said he does not have a problem supporting this proposal. Mr. Hale moved variance approval. Mr. Patton seconded the motion. All voted aye; motion carried. B-95-26 The Philip Stephen Company/Phil Dommer/Leo Evans Vernon Avenue Property Zoning: R-1 Request: A 13 foot frontyard setback variance to construct a new home. Ms. Aaker informed the board The subject property is an undeveloped 9 + acre parcel located south of Vernon Avenue and east of Olinger Road. The property includes a portion of Hawkes Lake. The property is zoned R-1, which allows for single dwelling unit development. Currently the property consists of one (large) parcel that would allow for the construction for one single dwelling unit, until such time as the remainder of the parcel is subdivided. Ms. Aaker explained the developer is proposing to build a home in the northeast corner of the site, fronting Vernon and backing up to Hawkes La Ke. The parcel area in question is illustrated on the attached site plans. The proposed plan illustrates conforming setbacks from all lot lines with the exception of the frontyard setback standard. Ms. Aaker concluded Staff believes that the proposed development concept allows for the utilization of an otherwise undevelopable portion of a lot. Regarding the frontyard setback issue, staff believes that the proposed plan would not negatively impact the front streetscape along the subject's side of Vernon Avenue. It would appear also that a house in the proposed location would not affect or impact the remaining portion of the site that in all likelihood will be developed for residential purposes in the future. Mr. Phil Dommer, was present representing the proponent, Mr. Leo Evans. Chairman Johnson asked Mr. Dommer what Mr. Evans plans are for the rest of the property. Mr. Dommer said Mr. Evans has indicated he may sell the property, develop the property himself, or not do anything with it. Chairman. Johnson said he has a problem breaking off a small piece of such a large tract of land. Chairman Johnson said this proposal is reminiscent of the Dalquist property. Mr. Dommer pointed out in this instance this parcel is physically separated from the rest of the parcel. He pointed out the lake separates the subject area from the rest of the property. Mr. Dommer also pointed out this parcel abuts an improved road. Continuing, Mr. Dommer explained as he reviewed the Ordinance he believes a variance is not required. He explained he interpreted the Ordinance to read when the entire frontage between intersections is less than 25% developed the frontyard setback is 30 feet. Mr. Dommer said his calculations found development at 12.7%. Therefore a frontyard setback variance is not required. Mr. Hale asked Mr. Dommer where the driveway is to be located. Mr. Dommer said the proposed driveway will be located along the eastern property boundary. Mr. Hale told Mr. Dommer Vernon Avenue is a very busy street, and will be difficult to access without a turn -around. Mr. Dommer said the site will have a turn- around so vehicles will enter Vernon Avenue without having to back out. Continuing, Mr. Dommer pointed out another hardship on this site is the impact of the right-of-way jog. He explained that technically setbacks have to be from the right-of-way and the jog severely cuts into the property. Chairman Johnson noted if you use the original property line, and not the right of -way line, you wouldn't need a variance. Continuing, Mr. Dommer said placing the proposed house at a 30 foot setbacks allows preservation of trees and protection of the slope. Mr. Dommer pointed out this site has many unique features, the topography, the lake, and the large right-of-way jog. Mr. Hale explained he is very familiar with the property, and has a problem with the development of it, in a piece meal fashion. Mr. Hale said he is also concerned with the 50 foot setback from Hawkes Lake. He said in his opinion the majority of the homes around Hawkes Lake are setback more than 50 feet. Concluding, Mr. Hale said if the subdivision process were set in motion the house would have to be setback 100 feet from Hakes Lake, not 50 feet. Mr. Dommer said he understands when the property is subdivided the 100 foot setback from the lake is required, but at this time the issue we are addressing in the frontyard setback from Vernon Avenue. The setback from the lake is 50 feet, which is maintained with the proposed plan. Mr. McGrath, 5721 Vernon Avenue, told Board members he would like to see this property developed at one time, not piece -meal. Mr. McGrath said in his opinion, this portion of the property is hard to develop because of the steep terrain. He added the house will need to be constructed in the hill, and the rear exposure will be significant. Continuing, Mr. McGrath said if he remembers correctly, Mr. Evans indicated this parcel would remain undeveloped, and dedicated as park or open space area. Property Owner, 5717 Vernon Avenue, told Board members in his opinion the proposed home would create a traffic hazard if it were to become a model home for the rest of the development. He added there already is too much traffic on Vernon Avenue. Mr. Dommer clarified the proposed house will not be used as a model home for the property. Mr. Dommer said the home will be used either for Mr. Evan's personal use when he desires, or as rental property. Mr. K. Kohler, 5909 Merold said he is very concerned with future development of the area, pointing out a significant feature of this site is the lake. Ms. Mary Manning, 5611 Wycliffe said that while she does not object to the proposal this evening, she wants some assurance when the rest of the site is redeveloped the neighborhood gets a chance to be heard. Mr. Hale said in his opinion there is a weakness in our procedural process. The construction of one home on a site this large is not appropriate, especially when one knows that in the future this area will be developed. Mr. Hale said this situation reminds him of the situation along Schaefer Road, the Dalquist property. Ms. Aaker said it is difficult to tell someone they cannot build a house on their property, adding it would be very hard to mandate that lots over a certain size cannot be developed with one house. Mr. Dommer said he understands the concern regarding future development of the property, adding he does not know when Mr. Evans will develop the rest of the site. Mr. Dommer reiterated, the proposal this evening is for a frontyard setback variance to construct a single family home. Chairman Johnson acknowledged Mr. Dommers position regarding the difference in Ordinance interpretation, and asked Mr. Dommer if he would like the City Attorney, Mr. Gilligan to comment. Chairman Johnson added if Mr. Gilligan agrees with your interpretation, a variance is not required, and a building permit can be obtained without further hearings. Mr. Dommer said it would be helpful if Mr. Gilligan clarified the City's position regarding frontyard setback. Mr. D. Wagner, 5709 Olinger Road, told Board members he is very interested in the development of the Evans property. He added he does not have a issue with what is proposed this evening, but wants to be informed when future development occurs. Mr. Tom Cain, 5900 Merold, informed Board members he is concerned with the future development of the site, and wants to be informed when the process begins. Ms. Aaker explained when Mr. Evans submits a application to subdivide his property informational signs are posted on all street frontages surrounding the property. Notice is also mailed to all single family property owners informing them when the planning commission will meet to hear the request. Mrs. Alice McGrath stressed in her opinion the topography of the subject property is too steep, and anything that is constructed on this site will appear too tall from the rear. Mr. Hale moved to deny the request, and recommend that any future consideration of this property be referred to the Planning Commission. There was no second to Mr. Hale's motion. A discussion ensued regarding what the appropriate motion is for this request. Chairman Johnson suggested that the item be tabled until staff receives an ordinance interpretation from the City Attorney. Mr. Patton moved to table B-95-2 until staff receives an ordinance interpretation from the city attorney. Mr. Hale seconded the motion. Chairman Johnson added if Mr. Gilligan agrees with the interpretation by city staff, that Mr. Hale be asked to sit on the board. All voted aye; motion carried. Chairman Johnson told members of the audience if the City Attorney's interpretation supports the interpretation of Mr. Dommer, Mr. Dommer will not need a variance, and can proceed to obtain a building permit without further board action. III. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 6:45 p.m. ie Hoogenakker