Loading...
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