Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2007 02-15 Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting Minutes RegulariNA, MINUTES 4,9�11� Regular Meeting of the Edina Zoning Board of Appeals Thursday, February 15, 2007, 5:30 PM v�y Edina City Hall Council Chambers H 4801 West 50th Street, Edina, MN MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair Bill Skallerud, Floyd Grabiel and Rod Hardy MEMBERS ABSENT: Jim Nelson STAFF PRESENT: Cary Teague, Kris Aaker and Jackie Hoogenakker I. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES: The minutes of the December 21, 2006, meeting were filed as submitted. II. OLD BUSINESS: B-07-4 Mr. & Mrs. Jamison 5725 Drew Avenue, Edina, MN Request: 4' side yard setback variance Ms. Aaker informed the Board on January 18, 2007 the Zoning Board heard and tabled the homeowners request for a 4 foot north side yard setback variance regarding height for property located at 5725 Drew Avenue. Mr. Aaker explained the builder has indicated that they have considered options to the original plan, however, have deemed them unacceptable because lowering the outside wall to comply with the height requirement would not work architecturally and if other changes were implemented different variances would still be required. Ms. Aaker concluded the homeowners believe that the spacing between the second floor addition and the neighboring home is more generous than what you typically see near by and within the neighborhood. The property owner is requesting that the Board approve the 4 foot side yard setback variance. The proponents Mr. and Mrs. Jamison were present to respond to questions. Mr. Skallerud asked Ms. Aaker if staff believes the variance is self- imposed. Ms. Aaker responded in the affirmative. Mr. Jamison told the Board they considered many different redesign options and the plans presented this evening best address their needs with what they have to work with. Continuing, Mr. Jamison said immediate neighbors have indicated their support for the project. Mr. Jamison noted they are only "popping up" the top of their house; it isn't a tear down and rebuild which have been occurring all over the City. Concluding Mr. Jamison stated they are working with what they have. Mrs. Jamison said she understands the issues and believes the intent of the ordinance is to maintain adequate spacing between homes, adding she believes this proposal does just that. Mrs. Jamison stressed what they have proposed is a remodel of an existing home, it isn't a demolition. Chair Skallerud asked the proponents to articulate what they believe the hardship is. Mrs. Jamison said when they purchased their home a number of years ago there only was the two of them, now they have a family and need more living space. Mrs. Jamison explained presently the house as it exists today only has one bathroom. Mrs. Jamison stated they love their neighborhood, love the area and want to remain in their home. Mrs. Jamison added she understands the position of the board, but pointed out they are only trying to upgrade their home and it would be an economic hardship for them if they had to abandon the remodeling project. A discussion ensued with Board Members discussing the possibility of a different roof pitch and other redesign options. After further discussion the Board agreed the plan presented may be best, noting the spacing between homes as a result of this proposal remains the same and is not compromised. Board Members also recommended that the proponents obtain in writing a letter from the most impacted neighbor indicating their support. Mr. Hardy moved variance approval for B-07-4, with the condition that a letter from the neighbor to the south indicating their support is presented to city staff. Mr. Grabiel seconded the motion. All voted aye; motion carried. III. NEW BUSINESS: 2 B-07-05 Lance and Sara Elliott 5616 Dalrymple Road Lot 10, Block 2, Golf Terrace Heights Request: An 8.3 ft and a 3.5 ft side street and a 2.5 ft side yard setback variance Ms. Aaker informed the Board the subject property is located in the northwest corner of Dalrymple Road and South View Lane consisting of a rambler with an attached two car garage. The property owners purchased the home with the intent of renovating it and adding a second story. The homeowners have decided to relocate to Edina and had looked at many homes, however, chose the location across the street from schools and the Community Center. The homeowners understand that some may view the location as a negative given the traffic, etc. from the school/center activities; however, they felt the proximity was a plus for a family with five children. The existing home is nonconforming regarding north side yard setback and south side street setback. The initial plan was to remodel the home, however, after a thorough analysis it was decided that the home should be moved to a new site and a new home rebuilt on the existing foundation. Ms. Aaker explained two variances are required to continue the existing nonconforming setbacks of the foundation. The north side yard setback is 7.5 ft away from the north lot line instead of the required 10 ft. The south side street setback is 6.7 ft instead of the required 15 ft. To rebuild over the existing foundation an 8.3 ft side street and a 2.5 ft side yard setback variance are required. The property owner is also requesting an additional variance from the, south side street to allow second floor living space and a garage expansion to encroach 3.5 ft into the required 15 ft side street setback. A 3.5 ft side street setback variance is requested to allow an 11.5 ft side street setback. Ms. Aaker pointed out it should be noted that a variance was granted by the City of Edina to widen the garage on the property. Originally the home had a one car attached garage along the south side of the home. In 1982, the Zoning Board of Appeals approved a variance to widen the garage by 10 ft to allow the property to comply with the minimum two car garage requirement. The variance was approved given the open space within the neighborhood, variety of side street setbacks along south View Lane and given that the Edina School District property is across the street. Ms. Aaker concluded historically the existing structure has enjoyed nonconforming setbacks that are similar to conditions throughout the neighborhood. The re -use of the foundation requires variances which appear to 3 be a reasonable use of the property with no added impact on surrounding properties. The side street setback variance for the garage addition and the second floor living space is minimal, allows for a reasonable addition and will be farther from the side street than the existing garage. Given the existing nonconforming setbacks and the support of a previous Zoning Board for improvement closer to the side street, staff supports the request subject to the plans presented. The proponents, Mr. and Mrs. Elliott were present. Mr. Hardy moved variance approval subject to the plans presented and the use of like materials. Mr. Grabiel seconded the motion. All voted aye; motion carried. B-07-2 DJR Architects/Tom Miller 3101 — 3201 691h Street West Request: Setback Variances Mr. Teague informed the Board the applicant is proposing to tear down the existing two office buildings on these sites and build an elevated 49,000 square foot retail store along York Avenue, with parking underneath and build an 85 -unit 4 -story senior apartment building located along the east side of the site, adjacent to single family homes in Richfield. Mr. Teague explained the proposal requires setback variances from 35 to 20 feet from York Avenue and 69 h Street West. Mr. Teague concluded staff recommends approval of the variances subject to the plans presented, subject to a proof of having recorded this resolution with the country before the city issues a building permit, and that this variance will end within one year of its approval, unless the city has issued a building permit for the project covered by this variance or approved a time extension. Mr. Dean Dovolis architect and Mr. Tom Miller, property owner were present. Mr. Dovolis addressed the Board informing them the revised plans continue to be pedestrian friendly and told the Board he would be happy to answer their questions. Mr. Skallerud said in his opinion this project is excellent, adding he believes the requested variances actually improve the project especially as the project relates to the streetscape of both York and Xerxes Avenues. Mr. 4 Skallerud said he is not persuaded that the sizes of the lots poise a hardship; however, the proposed use of the property is reasonable and granting the variances meets the spirit and intent of the Code. Concluding, Mr. Skallerud reiterated what is important is that the requested variances if approved create a better project with less impact on the neighbors, especially the single family residents in Richfield. Mr. Grabiel stated he fully supports the project; adding he is disappointed the original project isn't being constructed. Mr. Grabiel stressed that at least in his opinion the greater Southdale area needs to be revitalized, and one way to do that is to create neighborhoods. Concluding, Mr. Grabiel said this is a good project, he supports the variances; however the City needs to take a long term view of this area to ensure that it doesn't stagnate. Mr. Grabiel pointed out if you go to into Southdale many of the stores are vacant; adding something more needs to be done. Mr. Dennis Berg, representing Key Cadillac questioned if there would be any changes in access to the site off West 69th Street. Mr. Dovolis shared with Mr. Berg that Key Cadillac would not be impacted by the proposal, adding only one change to the medium is proposed. Mr. Grabiel moved variance approval subject to the plans presented and subject to staff conditions. Mr. Hardy seconded the motion. All voted aye; motion carried. Z-07-6 City of Edina 6250 Tracy Avenue, Edina, MN Multiple Variances Mr. Teague presented his staff report and explained the City is seeking multiple variances to construct a new fire rescue station. Mr. Teague concluded the Planning Commission considered the request at their January 31, 2007, meeting and unanimously recommended approval of the requested variances, adding staff supports the request as submitted. The proposal meets the required standards for variance approval. Chief Scherer and Mr. Gary Hay, architect from Hay Dobbs were present to respond to questions. Mr. Hardy asked Mr. Teague if the existing fire building is non -conforming. Mr. Teague responded in the affirmative. Mr. Hardy asked Mr. Teague what the subject site is zoned. Mr. Teague responded the subject site is zoned R-1, 61 Single Dwelling Unit District. Mr. Teague explained the land use as a fire station is permitted in the R-1 district as a conditional use. Mr. Hardy asked Mr. Teague to clarify for him conditional use. Mr. Teague said in the residential zoning district(s) certain land uses are permitted as conditional uses to include schools, parks, golf courses, churches, and other public facilities that serve the greater good of the community. Continuing, Mr. Teague explained that all conditional uses require a 50 foot setback from all property lines. Mr. Teague noted in this instance maintaining the 50 foot setback requirement imposes a hardship on the site, adding the lot just isn't large enough to accommodate that setback requirement. Chief Scherer addressed the Board and informed the Board a neighborhood meeting was held informing residents of the proposed plan to renovate and rebuild the Edina Fire Station. Chief Scherer told the Board neighbors have expressed their support. Mr. Grabiel explained he is a member of the Planning Commission and said another important point to remember in the redevelopment of the site is that a rebuild is necessary to accommodate female fire and rescue personnel and to achieve larger bays to accommodate new emergency vehicles. Chief Scherer said that is correct, adding in the old building new fire and rescue vehicles would have to be special ordered to accommodate the existing bays, the rebuild of the fire station won't require special order vehicles. Mr. Grabiel moved variance approval subject to the plans presented noting the importance of retaining this location to house a fire and rescue facility and noting that the small lot size and required setbacks for conditional uses if adhered to would severely compromise what could be constructed on the site. Notice should also be given to the fact that the subject site is abutted by a City park and a church. Mr. Hardy seconded the motion. All voted aye; motion carried. Chair Skallerud said he fully supports the request as submitted; however, the size of the site at least in his opinion isn't a hardship, adding there are other reasons to support the request including the greater public good, location of the site, topography of the site and that the site is surrounded by park property, wetlands and a church. Chair Skallerud said another important fact to him, as previously mentioned, is that the site has been used as a fire station for many years and the City is only maintaining what already exists. Chair Skallerud concluded this is a great project and a new fire and rescue station is important to the public welfare, adding he fully supports the request as submitted. C IV. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 6:30 PM mitted by