Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2008 03-20 Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting Minutes RegularMINUTE SUMMARY Zoning Board of Appeals Thursday, March 20, 2008, 5:30 PM Edina City Hall Council Chambers 4801 West 50th Street MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair John Lonsbury, Arlene Forrest, Helen Winder, and James Nelson MEMBERS ABSENT: Rod Hardy STAFF PRESENT: Kris Aaker and Jackie Hoogenakker I. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES: The minutes of the November 15, 2007, meeting were filed as submitted. II. NEW BUSINESS: B-08-3 Paul and Julie Donnay 6605 Mohawk Trail, Edina, MN Request: 37.7 foot front yard setback variance to construct new home Ms. Aaker informed the Board the subject property is a 57,669 sq ft, wooded, vacant lot located on the east side of Mohawk Trail. The lot had been subdivided in 1996 from property to the east, located at 6608 Dakota Trail., however, was never recorded with the County so the subdivision lapsed. New owners of the property revived the two lot subdivision and received final approval from the Council in August of 2003. As part of their approval, the City Council imposed a 40 foot Conservation Restriction along the front lot line and adjacent to Mohawk Trail. The Restriction prohibits building activity, grading, tree removal and other similar disturbing activities in the Conservation area without prior consent of the City Council. The purpose of the Conservation Restriction is to assure that the easement area shall at all times remain in its present condition. Allowed activity in the easement area includes a driveway to access the new home and utilitiy connections for both the new home and existing home at 6608 Dakota Trail. The approved final plat was recorded with the County and the vacant lot was eventually sold. Paul and Julie Donnay are the current owners of the vacant lot and have submitted a variance application for the Board's consideration for front yard setback. Ms. Aaker explained the applicant is requesting a 37.7 foot front yard setback variance to allow the construction of a two story +- 7,700 square foot home to be located 45.5 foot from the front lot line. The farthest south west corner of the home would be the closest building corner to the front lot line with all other portions of the home farther back and falling away from the street. The Zoning Ordinance requires that any new or relocated building, or any addition to an existing building, maintains the average front yard setback along the street or it must match the setbacks of the neighbors on either side. The neighbor to the north at 6601 Mohawk Trail is located 87.2 feet from Mohawk right-of-way and the neighbor to the south is located 79.2 feet from Mohawk Trail. The required front yard setback between the two properties is 83.2 feet. The property owners have submitted a plan that places the home 45.5 ft from the front lot line. The owners are requesting a front yard setback variance of 37.7 feet. Ms. Aaker pointed out the subject lot is larger than one half an acre in area and is wider than it is deep. The proposed home is well within the required side and rear yard setbacks and will cover less than 8% of the lot. The lot could carry a much larger home given the Zoning Ordinance setback and coverage standards. The property dips lower than street level along the frontage, levels off and then slopes up 42 feet, matching the elevation of the back yard of 6608 Dakota Trail, (the property behind). Approximately two thirds of the lot is affected by slopes increasing in elevation. The lot is also heavily wooded with mature trees throughout the lot. The trees within the conservation area are protected and cannot be removed unless diseased or to locate driveway access/utilities to the home. There are a number of Box elder and Cottonwood trees within the easement area that cannot be touched with the back portion of the lot wooded primarily with Oaks, Elms Birch and Maple trees. Trees outside of the easement area are not subjected to the same protections as those within the easement area. It would appear that placing the home farther back on the lot increases impact on slopes and would require the removal of tree varieties that staff generally wishes to protect. Ms. Aaker concluded staff recommends approval of the requested 37.7 foot front yard setback variance based on the following findings: There is unique hardship to the property caused by: a) the uneven and inconsistent streetscape along the east side of the block; b) the orientation, spacing and grade relationship of the two adjacent homes north and south of the subject property; c) the slopes along the back two thirds of the lot affecting how the property could be graded causing the potential for higher/more retaining walls and tree removal. • The variance would meet the intent of the ordinance since: a) the variance would be similar to existing conditions across the street; b) the variance would not disrupt the goal of maintaining a consistent front yard pattern; neither adjacent homes face Mohawk Trail; c) the variance would maintain the residential character of the property and the neighborhood and reduce impact on the natural slope and existing trees located on the property. Ms. Aaker stated approval should also be based on the following conditions: 1) The addition shall be constructed as per the submitted plan dated. 2) This variance will expire on March 20, 2009 unless the city has issued a building permit for the project covered by this variance or approved a time extension. 3) Disturbance in the Conservation Restriction area will be limited to allow for a 12 foot wide driveway. The proponents, Paul and Julie Donnay were present to respond to questions from the Board. Member Forrest asked Ms. Aaker if the neighboring properties are at a higher elevation. Ms. Aaker responded the terrain on the east side of Mohawk varies greatly with the subject site being at a lower elevation than adjacent neighbors, adding the elevations on the subject site alone vary from front to rear. Chair Lonsbury commented as he views the plans it appears to him the house could be set farther back on the lot. Mr. Donnay responded he is very willing to work with staff on any changes the Board would recommend in house placement; however, setting the house back farther on the lot would result in the loss of a number of large trees and the installation of large retaining walls. Chair Lonsbury opened the public hearing. Tory Jackson, 4540 Snelling Avenue, representing property owner Mr. Carter, 6609 Mohawk Trail (adjacent property owner to the south), addressed the Board and stated he has reviewed the plans for his client and at this time is taking no position on the requested variance. Mr. Don Halla, 6601 Mohawk Trail (adjacent property owner to the north) told the Board he has no problem with the proposal as submitted, adding he thinks the Donnays' have done a good job with house placement considering the terrain and existing vegetation. Concluding, Mr. Halla said the only thing he believes that could be changed would be driveway placement, reiterating he has no problem with the variance as presented. Chair Lonsbury asked if anyone else would like to speak to the matter, being no one, Chair Lonsbury asked for a vote to close the public testimony. Member Forrest moved to close the public hearing. Member Nelson seconded the motion. All voted aye; motion carried. Chair Lonsbury addressed the Board and stated he has a number of concerns with regard to this request. Chair Lonsbury said he is very concerned with the number of trees that will be removed and possibly negatively impacted because of driveway and house placement. Chair Lonsbury added this lot is also in an unusual situation, pointing out the streetscape to the west is rather uniform and the streetscape on the east is varied, inconsistent, with very large lots. Continuing, Chair Lonsbury stated in his opinion the character of the neighborhood will be altered by this development, adding in his opinion the house is designed too close to the street. Chair Lonsbury said he also believes retaining walls will play a significant part in the construction of any house on this lot, further impacting the neighborhood character. Concluding, Chair Lonsbury said a smaller building footprint slightly rotated and set back farther on the lot, in his opinion, would fit better. Chair Lonsbury commented Mr. Donnay has expressed willingness to work with staff on any redesign suggestions from the Board; however, this evening the Board must act on what is before us. Continuing, Chair Lonsbury stated he can't support the proposal as submitted, reiterating he believes there is room on the lot to reduce the variance. Chair Lonsbury referred to a number of letters received from neighbors and asked Mr. Donnay if he has read those letters. Mr. Donnay responded he has read some letters from neighbors, but not all. Ms. Aaker told the Board the lot is a legally platted lot and what staff is trying to achieve by supporting this variance request is minimal impact to the site, and positioning the house closer to the street (as depicted) reduces tree loss and terrain disruption. Concluding, Ms. Aaker reiterated staff is trying to hold the construction of the new house to minimal disturbance. Member Nelson commented that on the east side of Mohawk Trail what is consistent is the inconsistency; however, Member Nelson pointed out house placement on the east side is established and that "setback line" is farther back from the front property line than what is depicted. Member Winder stated she has a concern that constructing the new house so close to the conservation easement would disrupt the existing vegetation, maybe not initially, but in the future if the root systems were compromised. Chair Lonsbury asked Ms. Aaker the options the proponent would have if their variance request were denied this evening. Ms. Aaker responded the proponents could appeal the Boards decision to the City Council. Chair Lonsbury addressed the applicants and told them he believes if they were to ask that the Board vote on their request the Board would vote to deny. Continuing, Chair Lonsbury suggested that the proponents ask the Board to table their request to allow time for redesign. Chair Lonsbury added in his opinion he just doesn't see the hardship, pointing out the lot is very large with house redesign options available. 4 Mr. Donnay reiterated if the house is pushed farther back into the lot more disruption would occur to the terrain and large trees would be lost as a result. Mr. Donnay said the property owner immediately east and adjacent would also object, adding the trees at the rear of the property are significant. Chair Lonsbury told Mr. Donnay he isn't suggesting where to place the house, but he does believe with the size of the lot more could be done to minimize the disruption to the site and reduce the size of the variance. Member Nelson said he agrees with comments from Board Members, pointing out there's opposition to this proposal from residents to the west and rethinking house placement is a good idea. Mr. Donnay asked the Board to table his variance request. Member Nelson moved to table B-08-3, allowing the proponent time for further study. Member Forrest seconded the motion. All voted aye; motion carried. B-08-8 Pavlina and Vladimir Sverak 4416 Fondell Avenue, Edina, MN Request: 5 foot side yard setback variance request. Ms. Aaker told the Board the subject property is located on the north side of Fondell Drive consisting of a rambler with an attached two car garage. The applicants are proposing to convert a storage area in the back part of their existing garage into living space. The property owner is hoping to in -fill an 11 foot x 12 foot storage area in the north east corner of the garage with a new mud room without changing the exterior walls or roof line. Inside the home and just west of the storage area are a study, a small galley kitchen and dining area. The existing service door from the garage currently loads directly into the living room with no transition space. Access from the garage into the living room is awkward and undesirable. The homeowners would like to utilize unneeded garage storage area by converting the space into a mud room and eliminate the adjacent study to expand the small kitchen. The existing service door from the garage to living room would be removed with new access gained through the mudroom conversion. The traffic patterns would improve substantially with the proposed plan. Ms. Aaker explained the existing attached garage conforms to the minimum 5 foot side yard setback, however, would not conform to the 10 foot setback required for living space, (new mudroom). The existing garage side wall is located 5 feet to the side lot line which currently conforms to the ordinance requirements. A simple conversion of the space is not allowed without the benefit of a variance. The applicant is therefore requesting a 5 foot side yard setback variance to allow the conversion of garage area 5 into living space. The structure would remain intact and would be virtually the same as it exists today with the exception of two new windows that are proposed on the east side wall of the garage/mudroom area. There would be no perceivable difference between the existing garage storage area and the proposed mud room. Ms. Aaker concluded staff recommends approval of the requested 5 foot side yard setback variance based on the following findings: a. The existence of an unneeded storage area that cannot be put to any other reasonable use without the benefit of a side yard setback variance. b. There is no direct access from the garage to kitchen; instead the garage service door opens directly into the living room. c. The property would maintain compliance with the minimum two car garage requirement while allowing a seamless improvement with no change in building footprint. d. he variance would enhance the character of the home without changing existing setbacks. e. The variance would allow the improvements while maintaining the integrity of the existing structure and character of the neighborhood. f. The garage conversion would maintain existing setbacks and building walls. g. The variance would maintain compliance with the ordinance requiring a minimum two car garage. Ms. Aaker stated approval is also based on the following: • This variance will expire on March 20, 2009 unless the city has issued a building permit for the project covered by this variance or approved a time extension. The proponent, Ms. Sverak and building Mr. Curt Erickson were present. Board Members stated they agreed with staff findings. Member Forrest moved variance approval based on staff findings and subject to staff conditions. Member Winder seconded the motion. All voted aye; motion carried. B-08-9 Scott Hedberg 5808 Ewing Avenue, Edina Request: 1.3' side yard setback variance Ms. Aaker informed the Board the subject property is a one story home with an attached two car garage located on the west side of Ewing Ave. The applicant is proposing to construct a 72 square foot kitchen addition that extends the north side wall towards the rear yard. A survey of the property reveals that the home is nonconforming regarding the minimum required 7 foot setback from the north lot line. The addition is proposed to be 5.7 feet from the side lot line and would extend the kitchen 8 feet into the rear yard. The homeowner would like to extend the side wall at the same existing nonconforming side yard setback of 5.7 feet to keep interior spaces consistent. Ms. Aaker explained the applicant is requesting to build a modest addition to the back of his home that will open up the kitchen and add casual dining space. The addition is a small, 72 square foot, one-story addition. All exterior finish materials will be consistent with the existing exterior materials. Conformance with the required setback would create a "jog" in the floor plan that interrupts the flow of the planned interior spaces. Ms. Aaker concluded staff recommends approval of the requested 1.3 foot side yard setback variance for proximity based on the following findings: • The existence of the nonconforming north side wall. • The addition is minimal in scope and scale and would have no impact on surrounding properties. • The addition will match the existing conditions on site. • The variance would not reduce spacing between structures or existing setback. • The variance would not reduce spacing between structures or existing setback. • The variance would maintain the residential character of the property and the neighborhood. • The variance would be consistent with similar setbacks provided by other homes within the neighborhood. Ms. Aaker added approval should be based on the following conditions: • The addition shall be constructed as per the submitted plan dated March 3, 2008. • This variance will expire on March 20,2009, unless the city has issued a building permit for the project covered by this variance or approved a time extension. The proponent, Mr. Hedberg was present to respond to questions. After a brief discussion Member Nelson moved variance approval based on staff findings and subject to staff conditions. Member Winder seconded the motion. All voted aye; motion carried. B-08-10 Mary Ro�ers 4215 42" Street West Request: 2.5 foot driveway width variance Ms. Aaker informed the Board the subject property is located on the south side of West 42nd St, consisting of a one and one half story home with an attached single stall garage. The property is being marketed for sale. The homeowner has received negative input from potential buyers on the property regarding the lack of a two stall garage. The homeowner is pursuing a variance to allow a driveway installation along the west part of the property to access the rear yard for the purposes of constructing a two car garage. The homeowner would like to be able to market the property with the potential for a buyer to have the ability to construct a driveway and two car garage on site. Ms. Aaker explained the ordinance requires a minimum 12 foot wide driveway for all new or relocated driveways in the R-1 Zoning District. There are no setbacks required for driveways and they may be installed next to buildings A survey of the site indicates that the west wall of the subject home is located 11.1 feet from the west lot line. The property owner is proposing a 9 % foot driveway, allowing for some setback between the driveway and the westerly property line. The neighbor directly affected by the new driveway, to the west, has a 9 foot wide driveway adjacent to the east side of their home. There have been inquires regarding the ability to construct a conforming two car garage which could only be accomplished in the rear yard with the benefit of variance approval to allow a narrower driveway than allowed per code. The proposed driveway would be narrower than required however; it would be more typical of existing conditions within the neighborhood. It should be noted that most -driveways in the Morningside area are generally narrower than 12 feet. Ms. Aaker concluded staff recommends approval of the requested 2.5 foot driveway width variance based on the following findings: a. The existing single stall garage. b. The inability to provide a two car garage without access gained to the rear yard. c. There are limited design options given the location of the existing one car attached garage. d. The property would be brought into compliance with the minimum two car garage requirement. e. The improvements would be consistent with conditions within the neighborhood. f. The driveway width would maintain neighborhood character. Ms. Aaker stated approval is also based on the following conditions: 1) The addition must be constructed as per the submitted plan dated March 2008. 2) The variance will expire on March 20, 2009, unless the city has Issued a building permit for the project covered by this variance or approved a time extension. 3) The existing driveway must be removed and replaced with sod or other landscape materials. 4) The curb must be replaced after driveway removal according to specifications required by the city's Engineering Department. 5) The single stall garage door must be removed and replaced with consistent exterior building materials, windows, etc. as existing on the outside of the structure. The proponent, Ms. Rogers was present to respond to questions. Ms. Rogers told the Board she recently purchased a condominium and believes her request will help facilitate the sale of her home, adding she believes the ability to construct a two stall garage on this property while expanding living area into the existing garage is important to any future homeowner. Ms. Rogers acknowledged that the immediate neighbor to the west objects to the request. Chair Lonsbury asked Ms. Rogers what the space is directly behind the attached garage. Ms. Rogers responded the kitchen is directly behind the garage. T. Gruidi, 4217 West 42nd Street, told the Board the main concern they have is with safety, pointing out there are many homes in the Morningside area that have one stall garages, reiterating adding a driveway where there wasn't one is a safety concern. Chair Lonsbury stated he understands the variance is only for a driveway, but asked Ms. Aaker if plans for the 'hypothetical new garage" should be included in this discussion. Ms. Aaker responded there is no requirement that she is aware of that would tie this request to the style of a future garage. Continuing, Chair Lonsbury pointed out the City engineer has signed off on the proposed driveway plan, noting there is no objection there from staff. A brief discussion ensued with Zoning Members acknowledging that currently in the Country Club District staff is considering reducing the required driveway width size, pointing out that on small lots a 12 foot driveway may be excessive, and lots in the Morningside neighborhood are small. Member Nelson moved variance approval based on staff findings and subject to staff conditions. Member Winder seconded the motion. All voted aye; motion carried. 9 III. ADJOURNMENT AND ADDITIONAL PUBLIC COMMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 7:00 PM I - rsu� b� �it t e d b y t 10