HomeMy WebLinkAbout2007 09-06 Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting Minutes Regular�-4I
N
\Y
CORPs '
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING
EDINA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 6, 2007, 5:30 PM
EDINA CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS
4801 WEST 50'" STREET
MEMBERS PRESENT:
Chair Michael Schroeder, Rose -Mary Utne and Ed Schwartzbauer
MEMBERS ABSENT:
Mary Vasaly and Nancy Scherer.
STAFF PRESENT:
Kris Aaker and Jackie Hoogenakker
1. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES:. ,
The minutes of the July 5, 2007, meeting were filed as submitted.
11. OLD BUSINESS:
i
B-07-31 Will and Michelle Murray
5549 Warden Avenue ;
Request: 6.4' front yard setback variance
Ms. Aaker informed the board that on August 3, 2007, the Zoning Board of
Appeals heard and tabled the request of Will and Michelle Murray for a 10.9 ft front
yard setback, variance from Johnson Drive for a 12 ft wide addition to their garage to
include an office addition to the south. The property is a corner lot that is subjected to
two front yard setbacks along Warden and Johnson. The Zoning Board expressed
concerns regarding the variance given its size as compared with other homes in the
vicinity. There are no other three car garages within the immediate neighborhood. The
Board was concerned about the impact of the addition along Johnson Drive. The Board
expressed that there is hardship given that the home was built closer to the side street
and at an angle to all lot lines. The Board acknowledged that the two front yard
setbacks make an addition difficult. The board tabled the request and suggested that
the home owner look at options that would minimize the variance and reduce the
impact along Johnson Drive.
Ms. Aaker explained the home owners have reduced their request for variance
from 10.9 ft to 6.4 ft. The corner of the garage storage area will over -lap the setback at
only the front corner. The storage area added to the garage will be 8 ft in width and will
no longer have a third garage door. The office area proposed behind the garage will
comply with the setback.
Ms. Aaker concluded staff supports the revised plan as presented.
The proponents, Mr. and Mrs. Murray were present to respond to questions.
Mr. Murray addressed board members and told they took to heart the
suggestions from the zoning board and reduced their proposal accordingly. Mr. Murray
said he believes the revisions meet the intent of board members.
Mr. Schwartzbauer moved variance approval based on staff findings and
subject to staff conditions. Mrs. Utne seconded the motion. All voted aye; motion
carried.
III. NEW BUSINESS:
B-07-37 Michael Kimmel
5005 Windsor Avenue
Request: A 2 ft fence height variance for a fence replacement
Ms. AAker informed. -the board the subject property is a corner lot located in the
South West corner of WJ_O%*W, Ave. and Normandale Road. Normandale Road
functions as a frontage,trr 100, with the highway located east of the property.
The home is a rambler Ai"i ditached two car garage. The applicant is proposing to
construct an 8 ft fence akyng the easterly and westerly border of his property. The
proposed 8 ft fence wod replace a chain link fence on the east and west lot lines. The
south lot line will mainW the existing chain link fence.
Ms. Aaker expl l the applicant is requesting a 2 ft fence height variance to
allow an 8 f#,, nce aga t the frontage road along Hwy 100 and the pedestrian bridge
next to the ponent's fide street and along the westerly lot line. The Zoning
Ordir�,i 'flows for a maximum fence height of 6 ft in the side and rear yard areas
and,*, axirnum height of 4 ft in the front yard area. The owner would like to screen
Hwy 100 and an elevated pedestrian bridge from his property. The homeowner has
indicated that the removal of several tall buckthorn bushes along the east lot line has
prompted a need for screening. Noise and the visibility of the bridge and highway have
become excessively intrusive. The owner has stated that the neighbor to the west has
expressed concern regarding the removal of the buckthorn, exposing her property to
the same noise and traffic. The neighbor to the west also has an elevated deck that is a
challenge to screen from the highway. To address the neighbor's concerns, the
applicant has proposed to build an 8 ft tall section of fence along the proponent's
westerly lot line.
Ms. Aaker concluded staff recommends approval of the request based on the
following findings:
1) There is unique hardship to the property caused by:
a. The existence of Hwy 100, the frontage road and the pedestrian bridge.
b. The inability to properly screen the hwy from the subject property.
c. The fence would allow a buffer between conflicting land uses, (Hwy
verses residential home).
2) The variance would meet the intent of the ordinance since:
a. The variance would be similar to other 8 ft fence installations that pre
date the 6 ft maximum height ordinance change that occurred
approximately 2 Y2 years ago.
b. The variance would protect and maintain the residential character of the
property and the neighborhood.
and approval should be based on the following conditions:
1) The fence is installed as per the submitted plan dated August, 2007.
2) This variance will expire on September 6, 2008, unless the city has issued a
building permit for the project covered by this variance or approved a time
extension.
The proponent Mr. Kimmell was present to respond to questions.
Mr. Kimmel submitted letters of support from adjoinisip property owners.
Board members expressed their agreement that the proposed request is
reasonable and would not negatively impact surrounding properties.
Mrs. Utne moved variance approval based on staff findings and subject to
staff conditions. Mr. Schwartzbauer seconded the motion.>,All voted aye; motion
carried.
B-07-38 Dee Dee Drays Hill
5633 Woodcrest Drive
Request: a 3 foot and a 1.1 foot side yard setback
variance and a 3.4 foot basement height
variance
Ms. Aaker informed the board the subject property is a walk -out rambler with an
attached two car garage that backs up to Minehaha Creek. The homeowner filed a
building permit application with the city in early May for additions to the home including
an expansion of the garage behind the home, some small extensions to the front of the
house and a new second floor above the existing first floor. A total transformation in
how the home will look is planned, although, very little footprint expansion is proposed
with the exception of a garage expansion behind the existing garage. The initial set of
plans reviewed conformed to all of the zoning setback, height and coverage
requirements.
Ms. Aaker explained the survey included with the permit application did not
initially have the 100 year flood elevation indicated. Upon review of the amended
survey, it was discovered that the existing basement elevation of the home is below the
100 year flood elevation and therefore subject to the FEMA flood plain rules. The
basement floor is at an elevation of 858.7 and the 100 year flood elevation is 862. The
owner and contractor were informed that the structure is considered a nonconforming
obstruction in the floodplain and may not be added to or improved by more than 50% of
the value of the existing structure. It is apparent that the FEMA floodplain ordinances
are intended to limit improvements to property in the flood zone, given that those
properties are vulnerable to periodic flooding. City records indicate that the subject
home has experianced periodic flooding since the time of construction.
Ms. Aaker asked the board to note that since May the property owner has been
trying to resolve the issues relating to the flood plain ordinance and has moved forward
with the only feasable option short of abandoning the project or a complete tear-
down/re-build. The proposed plan lifts the walk -out basement by 4 ft 4 inches to provide
a new basement elevation that will be one foot above the flood zone and therefore
conforming to the flood plain ordinance. The 50% improvement limit imposed by the
FEMA ordinances, (based on the structure value), would no longer apply so
improvements as proposed could be accomplished. Unfortunately, raising the
basement elevation impacts the zoning ordinance as it relates to altered basement
elevations and side yard shack.
Ms. Aaker pointed out the zoning ordinance was recently amended requiring that
any new basements on developed property be raised no higher than 1 ft above the
former, or existing basement elevation. The intent of the ordinance is to limit, at least to
some degree, the over-all change that occurs with rebuilt homes by caping the
opportunity to raise basements far and above those that exist today. The "starting point"
has been limited to 1 ft above an existing basement elevation. The new rule
encourages builders to dig foundations lower, if higher ceilings in basements are
desired. The Planning Commision and City Council commented durring ordinance
amelment that in cases where there are water table of flood plain issues limiting lower
founttions, that variances from the rule should be considered. The FEMA flood plain
rules spesifically limits expansion opportunity for property below the flood zone. It is the
goal of the FEMA rules to remove properties that are obstructions. The homeowner is
proposing to comply with the FEMA regulations but cannot with out benefit of variances
granted from the zoning ordinance.
Raising the basement also has the affect of inceasing the side wall heights of the
design, forcing it out of height conformance for side yard setback. The original plan was
design to fit within the setback requirements, however, lifting the basement up by 4 ft - 4
inches impacts the over-all side wall height. The plan does not bring the side walls any
closer to the side lot lines than existing side walls. The basic building footprint remains
the same. The north elevation requires a 1.1 ft side yard setback variance due to
height. The lot is pie shaped and the side walls are at an angle to the side lot lines with
the front corners of the home closer to the side lot lines. The front corner of the north
side of home overlaps the required setback due to height, while the back corner
conforms to the requirement. The south wall requires a 3 ft setback variance due to
height. It should be noted that only the middle portion of the side wall, (gable above the
garage), requires the height variance. The applicant is trying to maintain the basic
4
building footprint, preserve existing setbacks while conforming with the FEMA flood
plain requirements. If it were possible to build the plan without raising the basement, no
side yard setback variances would be required.
Ms. Aaker concluded that staff recommends approval of the side yard and
basement elevation variance based on the following findings:
1) Strict enforcement would cause undue hardship because of the following
circumstances that are unique to this property:
a. The basement is well below the flood zone.
b. The existing location of the building on the lot.
C. The plan will retain the basic building footprint.
2) The variance would be consistent with the spirit and intent of this ordinance for
the following reasons:
a. It will allow conformance with the FEMA flood plain ordinance
b. It would allow a continuation and improvement of the home given the
floodplain.
Approval is also subject to the following conditions:
1. This variance will end one year from the date of approval, unless the city has
issued a building permit for the project covered by this variance, or approved a
time extension.
2. Watershed District permit approval.
The proponent Ms. Drays Hill and her builder Mr. John Koch were present to
respond to questions from the board. Interested neighbors were also present.
Mrs. Utne told Ms. Aaker she understands the requirement about raising the
grade so the proposed house is above the flood elevation and asked if the house as
proposed meets the City's height requirement. Mrs. Utne pointed out in the past the
City has been very careful when it comes to building height. Ms. Aaker responded that
the proposed house meets Code at 28 feet, adding the house could actually be taller
than presented. Ms. Aaker noted building height is measured from grade.
Mrs. Utne asked what the square footage of the new house would be. Mr. Koch
responded the new house would be around 6,000 square feet.
Mr. Curtin, 5629 Woodcrest Drive commented that in the past the basement area
of the subject home did "take on" water, especially during heavy rains, adding raising
the grade does make sense.
Mr. Schwartzbauer asked Ms. Aaker if raising the house out of the flood plain
created the need for variances. Ms. Aaker responded yes and no. She said the
subject property is caught between "rules". FEMA requires that the house be
constructed above the flood elevation and City Code recently changed with regard to
"fill" and raising the elevation of lots.
Chair Schroeder said he is aware that in this neighborhood there are homes that
were constructed without basements, questioning if that was ever considered.
Continuing, Chair Schroeder said his concern is with building height and the extra effort
the City has put into amending the Code to address building height. Chair Schroeder
said he fully understands removing the proposed house from the flood plain; however,
height is an issue regardless of flood plain or not.
Mrs. Utne said she is also concerned with the mass of the proposed house.
Ms. Drays Hill addressed the board and told them designing this home was a
huge challenge for her. She added it was never her intent to build something not
allowed. Ms. Hill agreed there are homes in the immediate area without basements and
there are ramblers in the area, but there are also two story homes similar to the house
she is proposing. Continuing, Ms. Hill said when she purchased her home it was never
disclosed to her that the house flooded, adding now she has to correct that "issue". Ms.
Hill said if she understands correctly if FEMA didn't require the "raising" of the grade to
prevent future flooding a variance wouldn't be needed. She pointed out she could
construct the house at the existing grade and not require a variance.
Mrs. Utne commented that she didn't believe Ms. Hill would want to construct a
house that would flood. Ms. Hill agreed with that comment, but asked what else she
could do if she isn't granted variances.
Mrs. Utne asked Ms. Hill if her proposal has received approval from the
watershed district. Mr. Koch responded to date the watershed district hasn't approved
Ms. Hills plan.
Mr. Schwartzbauer said he is uncomfortable with this proposal, adding it really
isn't the boards business to redesign plans; however, in this instance, in his opinion, the
roof line appears too high and it could be lowered to reduce the magnitude of the
variances while at the same time reducing mass.
Ms. Hill responded if the roof line is altered she wouldn't be able to have a two-
story home.
Ms. Brooke Crane, 5636 Woodcrest Drive, told the board she believes the
proposed house is just too massive, especially at this section of the road where it
curves. Ms. Crane also said she is disappointed in the way the property has been
maintained over the past few months. Continuing, Ms. Crane said if the house is
permitted to be constructed as proposed the new house would completely overshadow
all the other homes on the block. Mr. Crane stated the proposed house is just too tall
and if build as depicted would negatively impact neighborhood privacy. Concluding,
Ms. Crane said she really hates to "get off on the wrong foot" with a new neighbor,
adding she really believes the house could be redesigned to better fit the lot and the
neighborhood while at the same time "lifting" it out of the flood plain to avoid flooding.
Mr. Freeman, 5637 Woodcrest Drive, told the board he believes the proposed
house is well designed; however, as presented the house would tower over all the other
homes along the block. Mr. Freeman told the board the majority of houses in the area
were built in the 1960's and 1970's by Bloomberg, adding to raise the grade (which is
needed due to continued basement flooding) and construct a full two story house would
create the image of a giant house on a hill. Concluding, Mr. Freeman said to him it
boils down to height. Mr. Freeman acknowledged the previous owners had to contend
with sandbagging and continued flooding of their rear yard and basement area,
reiterating, he understands raising the grade, but believes the proposed house is just
too tall and would be out of character with houses in the neighborhood.
Mrs. Utne asked Mr. Freeman if he ever had any water problems in his home.
Mr. Freeman said his problem isn't with the creek it's with run-off. Mr. Freeman added
it is common knowledge that homes in this area flood, including the subject site, which
on numerous occasions needed to be sandbagged to minimize flooding in their home.
Mr. Rogers, 5641 Woodcrest Drive told the board the neighborhood has been
very frustrated with the flooding that has occurred over the years in their area,
(including the subject site) adding in this instance while it is a good idea to construct the
house at a higher elevation (to avoid flooding) the height of the house should be toned
down — it's just too tall. Mr. Rogers said it also may be difficult to gain approval from the
watershed district, concluding he had difficulty working with the watershed district.
Ms. Eickhorn-Hicks, 5708 Woodland Lane, addressed the board and told them
she resides across the creek from the subject site, adding her house doesn't flood, and
she wants to keep it that way. Ms. Hicks said she has a concern that if the grade is
changed to prevent flooding from occurring on the opposite side of the creek her
property could be negatively impacted. Concluding, Ms. Hicks said her concern is with
creek flow. Ms. Eickhorn-Hicks acknowledged that she is very aware flooding occurs
on the subject site; adding she doesn't wish flooding on anyone but reiterated she
doesn't want a change in elevation to change the flow of the creek.
Mrs. Utne told the board in her opinion this is a very difficult project, adding she
believes the proponent has the right to construct a house on this lot, and eliminate the
potential for flooding, but with that said, Mrs. Utne stated she can't support the request
as submitted. In her opinion the house could be redesigned to better match the
neighborhood. It is just too tall, especially with the change in grade. Mrs. Utne
suggested to Ms. Hill that she table her request to allow time to redesign the plan to
reduce the height of the house. Mrs. Utne acknowledged Ms. Hills point about
constructing the house without raising the grade, but reiterated she doesn't think she
(Ms. Hill) would want to do that.
Mr. Schwartzbauer said he doesn't want to prevent the property owner from
raising the grade, but the proposed house doesn't have to be a full two-story home. Mr.
Schwartzbauer stated he doesn't like the design of the house, there are too many
peaks and grooves in it, and it is too tall. Mr. Schwartzbauer told the board he can't
support the request as presented.
Ms. Hill told the board she would like some direction. She said if she
understands the FEMA ordinance correctly it would be possible to construct the home
incrementally avoiding the 50% rule. A discussion ensued regarding Ms Hills point of
the 50% rule and the height of the proposed house and measures that could be taken
to reduce the massing while removing the house from the flood plain. Board members
stressed their concern centers on height of the proposed house after it is raised out of
the flood plain. Board members acknowledged they don't believe it would be of benefit
to Ms. Hill to incrementally construct her house because a variance could still be
required with regard to fill.
Chair Schroeder said at this time he would like to entertain a motion.
Mr. Schwartzbauer moved to deny B-07-38. Mrs. Utne seconded the motion.
Mrs. Utne asked Ms. Hill if she was interested in tabling her request before the
motion is called. Chair Schroeder interjected that he doesn't want anyone to assume if
tabled that the proponent can "shop around" for a new board. Ms. Aaker said that is
correct proponents can't "shop" boards. They are rotated via schedule into the next
board.
Ms. Hill asked the board to table her request.
Mr. Schwartzbauer withdrew his motion. Mrs. Utne withdrew her second.
Mr. Schwartzbauer moved to table B-07-38. Mrs. Utne seconded the
motion. All voted aye; motion carried.
B-07-39 Tim Harris
6100 Chowen Avenue
Request: 4' side yard setback variance
Ms. Aaker informed the board the subject property is a corner lot consisting of a
one story home with an attached one car garage fronting Chowen Ave. So. and with a
detached two car garage fronting West 61 st St. The property has had two access points
for each garage, however, the driveway for the single stall garage fronting Chowen has
been removed. The applicant is proposing to convert the attached single stall garage
into a den. The over -head garage door will be removed and replaced with a window.
The service door on the back wall will also be removed and replace with a window. The
siding will be patched to match and the entire house and will be repainted after the
exterior work is complete.
Ms. Aaker explained the zoning ordinance allows a 5 ft side yard setback for
attached garages. Living space is required to maintain a 10 ft setback. The existing one
car garage is located 6 ft from the side lot line. To comply with the ordinance requires
that 4 ft of the existing structure be removed or a variance is granted to allow the use
conversion. The homeowner was surprised that a variance would be required for the
den conversion.
Ms. Aaker concluded staff recommends approval of requested side yard setback
variance based on the following findings:
1) There is a unique hardship to the property caused by:
a. The location of the existing single stall garage relative to the side lot line.
b. There is no benefit to the property if the garage were to be reduced in
size.
c. There are limited design options.
2) The variance would meet the intent of the ordinance since:
a. The encroachment is an existing condition and is minimal in amount and
scale.
b. The improvements maintain the existing wall lines and architecture of the
home and would have no impact on sight lines.
c. The additions would be consistent with the neighborhood character.
Approval is also based on the following conditions:
1) The addition must be constructed as per the submitted plan dated August
2007.
2) The variance will expire on September 6, 2008, unless the city has
Issued a building permit for the project covered by this variance or
or approved a time extension.
The proponent, Mr. Harris was present.
Mr. Schwartzbauer moved variance approval based on staff findings and subject
to staff conditions. Mrs. Utne seconded the motion. All voted aye; motion carried.
IV. ADJOURNMENT:
The meeting adjourned at 6:55 pm
NX
Somitted byT",
9