HomeMy WebLinkAbout2008 04-17 Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting Minutes Regularo e tA
\
eas
,888
MINUTE SUMMARY
Regular Meeting of the Edina Zoning Board of Appeals
Thursday, April 17, 2008, 5:30 PM
Edina City Hall Council Chambers
4801 West 50th Street
MEMBERS PRESENT:
Chair Floyd Grabiel, Julie Risser, Helen Winder, Jim Nelson and Rod Hardy
STAFF PRESENT:
Kris Aaker and Jackie Hoogenakker
I. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES:
The minutes of the December 20, 2007, meeting were filed as submitted.
II. OLD BUSINESS:
B-08-03 Paul and Julie Donnay
6605 Mohawk Trail, Edina
Request: Front yard setback variance
Ms. Aaker informed the Board this is a return item to the Zoning Board of
Appeals and was an item tabled from the March 20, 2008, meeting of 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.
Ms. Aaker explained the Zoning Board of Appeals heard and tabled the
applicant's variance request at their March 20, 2008, meeting to allow the applicant the
opportunity to reposition the home farther from the south lot line as requested by the
owner to the south and farther from the front lot line as desired by the Zoning Board.
The Board wanted a resubmission of plans demonstrating a new location of the home.
The Board also wanted additional information on how the new home would/could affect
the trees and slopes on the back portion of the lot, specifically if the home were to be
located farther back on the lot and in conformance with the required front yard setback.
The applicant has submitted site plans and a cross section illustrating the impact of
locating the home farther back on the lot.
Ms. Aaker concluded staff recommends approval of the requested 25.65 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.
Approval should be based on the following conditions:
1) The addition shall be constructed as per the submitted plan dated April 2,
2008.
2) This variance will expire on April 17, 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.
Mr. and Mrs. Donnay, property owners and Dave Nash, builder were present to
respond to questions from the Board.
Member Winder asked for clarification on tree removal in the conservation
easement area. Ms. Aaker explained no healthy trees or vegetation of any kind can be
removed from the conservation area, adding it's a restricted area.
Mr. Donnay addressed the Board and explained he worked closely with the
immediate neighbors in locating the best placement for the new house, adding to
comply with Code the proposed house would have to be forced farther back on the lot
and into the hill. Continuing, Mr. Donnay said the adjacent neighbor to the rear
indicated their objection to that because more trees and vegetation would be lost,
drainage would become an issue and extensive retaining walls would need to be
constructed.
Ms. Houston, 6609 Mohawk Trail, neighbor to the south told the Board she has
worked with the Donnay's on house placement and agrees the proposed house
placement is best.
Mrs. Pat Gilligan, Mohawk Trail, told the Board that while she isn't opposed to
the construction of a house on this lot she believes it should meet Code.
Ms. Wallin, 6612 Mohawk Trail, said her concern is with proportionality, adding
she doesn't want to see a large house loom over the other houses in the area.
Member Nelson acknowledged that for all sides concerned this issue is
challenging; however, at least on the east side of Mohawk Trail the proposed house
placement isn't out of character with the neighborhood. Member Nelson said he was
happy to see that the proponents have worked with their immediate neighbors to find a
solution. Concluding, Member Nelson said in this situation the topography really guides
house placement, adding he agrees with staff that pushing the house farther back on
the lot would only result in the loss of more vegetation, steep retaining walls, and the
potential for drainage issues.
Chair Grabiel told the Board as he drove around the neighborhood he agrees
that at least on the east side of Mohawk Trail that there visually isn't an established
front yard setback, adding setbacks appear to be all over the place. Concluding, Chair
Grabiel stated he supports the request as submitted, it makes sense, less disruption is
done to the site, pointing out this lot is a very large lot that can handle a large house.
Member Nelson moved variance approval based on staff findings and
subject to staff conditions. Member Winder seconded the motion. Ayes; Hardy,
Winder, Nelson, Grabiel. Nay, Risser.
Member Hardy noted it is very evident that the property owners have worked with
their neighbors and the revision presented this evening clearly indicates that.
III. NEW BUSINESS:
B-08-15 David and JoAnne Alkire
5400 Park Place
Request: 18 foot front yard setback variance
Ms. Aaker informed the Board the subject property is a one and one half story
home with an attached two car garage located on a corner lot. Park Place runs along
the north side of the property with the westerly side street adjacent to Brookview Ave.
The home addresses from Park Place although the "front" of the home faces Brookview
Ave. the homeowners had submitted a building permit application to increase living
space on the second floor. The plan would add a dormer on the room above the garage
and add a bedroom above a first floor den. All of the proposed improvements are within
the existing building foot print. The finish materials will match the existing materials on
the home.
Ms. Aaker explained the proposed addition before the Board is a modification to
the second floor living space that does not alter the building footprint. The additions are
probably the least intrusive additions to the home that could be accomplished however,.
not without the benefit of a variance.
Ms. Aaker concluded staff recommends approval of the requested 18 foot front
yard/side street setback variance based on the following findings:
• The size, configuration and corner location of the lot. The required
setback bisects the home and is a hardship hindering the ability to add on
to the home.
• The front yard setback will not be compromised given the rather small
additions proposed to the second floor.
• The proposed additions will be consistent with the dimensions and look
of the existing home and will not alter the footprint.
• The additions are minimal in scale, however, allow for a tremendous
improvement to the interior spaces of the property.
• The variance would be similar to existing conditions and would not
interrupt the front yard patterned establish along the Brookview.
• The variance would not disrupt the goal of maintaining a consistent front
setback pattern.
• The variance would maintain the residential character of the property and
the neighborhood
Approval should also be based on the following conditions:
3) The addition shall be constructed as per the submitted plan dated April 2,
2008.
4) This variance will expire on April 17, 2009 unless the city has issued a
building permit for the project covered by this variance or approved a time
extension.
The proponents, Mr. and Mrs. Alkire were present to respond to questions from
the Board.
Member Risser asked Ms. Aaker if the City has received any negative feedback
on the proposed project. Ms. Aaker responded to date no objections have been raised.
Member Hardy said in his opinion the shape of the lot is a hardship, pointing out
anything that is done on this lot would require a variance.
Member Hardy moved variance approval based on staff findings and
subject to staff conditions. Member Winder seconded the motion. All voted aye;
motion carried.
B-08-16 Joshua and Kimberly DeWolf
7001 Wooddale Avenue, Edina
Request: 2 foot fence height variance
Ms. Aaker told the Board the subject property is an 11,860 square foot corner lot.
The applicants have indicated they recently purchased the home with plans of building
a solid wall 6 foot fence in the rear yard. The owners had no idea that they could not by
code install a solid wall fence taller than 4 feet along West 70th Street.
Ms. Aaker concludes staff recommends denial based on the following findings:
• The streetscape along the south side of 70th Street would be intruded upon and
may be compromised given the extension of a solid wall 6 -foot fence within the
front yard area.
• A fence can be erected within the parameters of the ordinance requirements.
• If approved the variance would interrupt the front yard patterned established
along the street.
• The variance would disrupt the goal of maintaining a consistent front setback
pattern.
The proponents, Mr. and Mrs. DeWolf were present to respond to questions from
the Board.
Member Risser asked Ms. Aaker if safety could be an issue because of the
fences potential to block views. Ms. Aaker said the placement of the proposed fence
would not violate clear view.
Mr. DeWolf addressed the Board and told them he appreciates their time, adding
his goal is to protect his wife and daughter. Mr. DeWolf pointed out West 70th Street is
a very busy street, adding a 6 -foot fence is needed to visually block his rear/side yard.
Mr. DeWolf stated he feels very strongly about this.
Chair Grabiel told Mr. DeWolf he believes a 4 -foot fence could be a solid fence,
affording privacy. Mr. DeWof reiterated he is worried about safety, adding he has a
wife and young daughter and he wants them to be able to enjoy their backyard without
vehicles traveling up and down West 70th Street looking in at them.
Member Risser explained she still has some concern that a fence 6 feet in height
on a corner lot may poise a safety issue. She added her concern is not only with
vehicle traffic but the possibility of not easily seeing a child on a bike.
Member Hardy acknowledged that West 70th Street is a very busy street and
does have a significant impact on this property; however a fence of 4 feet should be
able to reduce and/or minimize impact.
A discussion ensued with Board Members acknowledging the impact of West
70th Street; however, they indicated a fence could be constructed to Code to minimize
its impact.
Mrs. DeWolf said she understands their opinion, but pointed out where a 6 -foot
fence is permitted it's in a location where safety isn't the issue. Mrs. DeWolf said she
would rather have a 4 -foot fence abutting her neighbor with the 6 -foot fence along 70th
Street - instead of the opposite.
Member Hardy moved to deny the request for a 6 -foot fence in the front
yard setback area. Member Winder seconded the motion. All voted aye; motion
carried.
Chair Grabiel advised Mr. and Mrs. DeWolf that they can appeal the Board's
decision to the City Council.
B-08-17 Mr. and Mrs. Robert Perry
4608 Merilane
Request: 2 foot floor elevation variance
Ms. Aaker informed the Board the subject property is a 34,195 square foot lot
located on the north side of Merilane that backs up to Meadowbrook Golf Course. The
property consists of a one story walk -out home with an attached garage. The
homeowners are planning to remove the existing home and replace it with a two story
walk -out that would be significantly larger than the existing home. All of the proposed
improvements conform to the zoning ordinance requirements with the exception of the
new first floor elevation of the home. The new home is proposed to have a first floor
elevation 3 feet higher than the existing home on the site. The zoning ordinance allows
for a rebuilt home to have a new first floor no higher than 1 foot above the existing
home's first floor. The owners are requesting a variance to allow a higher first floor than
6
currently provided by ordinance.
Ms. Aaker concluded the zoning ordinance was recently amended for the
specific purpose of preventing new homes from being built up and out of the ground
and at higher elevations than those that are existing in the neighborhood. There has
been a general perception that new homes built in Edina are ever larger, higher and
taller than those that exist. The perception has been that the proposed new homes do
not fit in with the fabric and feel of the neighborhood. The code was changed to modify
new home construction to the extent that height and first floor elevation must take into
consideration what currently exists on site.
Ms. Aaker concluded staff recommends denial based on the following findings:
• A new home can be built on the property that conforms to all aspect of the
zoning ordinance.
• The proposed home is larger, taller and has a first floor height in excess
of recently adopted ordinance.
• The variance is self imposed.
• The variance would not be similar to existing conditions and would interrupt the
pattern of development intended by the ordinance.
• The variance would disrupt the goal of maintaining consistent first floor
elevations.
• The variance would not follow character of the property.or intent of the ordinance
to protect existing neighborhoods.
Mr. Perry property owner and Mr. Steve Sweeters, builder was present to
respond to questions from the Board.
Member Nelson said as he reviewed this plan it appeared to him that the ground
conditions (elevations) created the need for a variance, adding the lot is large, and very
screened and secluded. Ms. Aaker agreed the lot is large, and very well screened,
adding the recent change in Code was more to address the smaller lots and flat lots
where the grade is changed to accommodate a walkout. Mr. Nelson pointed out the
previous home was a walkout. Ms. Aaker acknowledged that fact.
Member Nelson asked Ms. Aaker if she believes the proposed house is out of
character for the neighborhood. Ms. Aaker responded in her opinion the proposed
house isn't out of character.
With the aid of graphics Mr. Sweeter walked the Board through the process of
house placement and the reasoning behind the grade change.
A lengthy discussion ensued with Board Members noting there appears to be a
depression in this lot; it isn't a flat lot, pointing out raising the grade is needed to
develop the site so it drains properly, etc. Continuing, Board Members acknowledged
the recent Code change, adding they are very sensitive to the Code change, agreeing
the change in Code is good; however, in this instance the recent change in Code
created a hardship for this lot. Board Members pointed out the uniqueness of the
subject site, the size of the lot, the existing vegetation and that virtually there is no
impact to surrounding properties as reasons they can support the request as presented.
Member Nelson moved variance approval based on: the existing and
proposed home are walk -outs pointing out the same basement elevation is
proposed in order to keep drainage on the property, positive minimal grading will
occur as a result of the variance and the proposed first floor elevation will be in-
keeping with the surrounding properties. The new home will continue to conform
to the over-all building height requirement and will not compromise the intent of
the first floor elevation requirement, and in the opinion of the Board the variance
allows for the reasonable use of the property by maintaining existing grade and
drainage conditions. Approval is also subject to the following conditions: This
variance will expire one year from the date of approval, April 17, 2009 and
approval is subject to the materials submitted on April 17, 2008. Mr. Hardy
seconded the motion. All voted aye; motion carried.
IV. ADJOURNMENT:
The meeting adjourned at 7:35 pm