HomeMy WebLinkAbout2008 07-10 Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting Minutes RegularA, MINUTE SUMMARY
, Edina Zoning Board of Appeals
O e Thursday, July 10, 2008, 5:30 PM
to Edina City Hall Council Chambers
v0 4801 West 50th Street
��RPOPA� v-
1888
MEMBERS PRESENT:
Michael Schroeder, Nancy Scherer, Scott Davidson, Mary Vasaly and Bernadette
Hornig
STAFF PRESENT:
Kris Aaker and Jackie Hoogenakker
I. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES:
The minutes of the May 1, 2008, meeting were filed as submitted.
II. NEW BUSINESS:
B-08-35 Seth Hannula and Katy Lawton
4307 Oaklawn Avenue
Request: 5 foot driveway width variance
Planner Aaker told the Board the subject property is located on the east side of
Oakdale Ave., consisting of a one and one half story home with an attached single stall
garage. The homeowners are pursuing a variance to allow a driveway installation along
the south 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 have the ability to construct a
driveway and two car garage on-site. The plan would be to convert the existing garage
into living space, remove the garage door to be replaced with matching exterior finish
materials and remove the existing driveway to be replaced with landscaping.
Ms. Aaker explained the ordinance requires a minimum two car garage per single
dwelling unit and 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 so they may be
installed next to buildings and/or lot lines.
Planner Aaker concluded staff recommends approval of the requested driveway width
variance based on the following findings:
a. The existing single stall garage with no opportunity for improvement.
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.
Approval is also based on the following conditions:
1) The addition must be constructed as per the submitted plan dated July 2008.
2) The variance will expire on July 10, 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, Mr. Hannula was present to respond to questions.
Chair Schroeder noted for the record that the City has received several letters of
support from neighbors. Chair Schroeder commented that he observed a large tree in
the vicinity of the proposed driveway and asked Mr. Hannula if precautions will be taken
to minimize impact to the tree root system. Mr. Hannula said he spoke with a "tree
expert" and was informed with careful grading the tree should be fine.
A discussion ensued with Board Members acknowledging that constructing the
driveway at minimum width to accommodate vehicles while maintaining additional
greenspace is a plus. Some concern was expressed for future homeowners with larger
vehicles. Mr. Hannula told the Board the driveway was constructed at the minimum to
allow for additional greenspace to accommodate water runoff. Planner Aaker
commented that Edina is taking a "greener' approach and this acknowledges the City's
awareness.
Member Davidson moved variance approval based on staff findings and subject
2
W
to staff conditions. Member Scherer seconded the motion. Member Vasaly
commented that it should also be noted that approving the driveway width
variance actually brings the site into compliance with the Code requirement of
two stall garages. All voted aye; motion carried.
B-08-36 Tom and Kristi Butterfield
5300 Forslin Drive
Request: 27.5 foot setback from Birthcrest Lake
82 sq ft porch area variance
Planner Aaker informed the Board the subject property is located south of Birchcrest
Lake and north of Forslin Drive consisting of a one story walk -out home with an
attached two car garage. The applicant is proposing to construct a second story
addition to the existing home and add a new front porch. The addition to the existing
porch expands the existing small porch to 162 square feet. The porch will maintain the
existing front yard setback of 30.5 feet provided by the current porch. A maximum 80
square foot porch may overlap the setback. The owners are requesting a variance to
allow a larger porch to span the front of the house.
The minimum setback required from a naturally occurring water body is 50 feet. A
survey of the property reveals that the home is located 22.5 feet to the edge of
Birchcrest Lake. The home is currently nonconforming regarding lake setback. The lake
edge wraps the side and back of the home with the existing home nonconforming to the
current 50 foot setback requirement.
The homeowners have stated their wish is to build a 2nd floor addition over the existing
building footprint and an addition to the existing front porch. The existing home has very
limited, if any, opportunity for expansion of the footprint. The only viable option for the
homeowner is to build a second floor. Only a portion of the home will have second floor
living space above. The only change in footprint is a small three foot cantilever of the
main floor for a kitchen table. The "bump -out" would replace existing deck area.
Planner Aaker concluded staff recommends approval the 27.5 foot setback variance for
proximity to Birchcrest Lake and the 82 square foot porch area variance based on the
following findings:
a. The existence of only one home adjacent to the west that would not be
impacted by the porch proposal or second floor addition.
b. The home was built prior to current lake setback requirements.
c. The additions will improve the existing conditions on site by allowing
maintaining an existing nonconforming lake setback and allowing a
minimal encroachment into the front yard area.
The variances would meet the intent of the ordinance since:
a.The variances would be similar to existing surrounding conditions.
b. The variances would maintain the residential character of the property
and the neighborhood.
c. The variances would not interfere with sight lines.
Planner Aaker stated approval should also be based on the following conditions:
1) The addition shall be constructed as per the submitted plan dated June 24,
2008.
2) This variance will expire on July 10, 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. Butterfield were present.
Member Vasaly moved variance approval based on staff findings and subject to
staff conditions. Member Scherer seconded the motion. All voted aye; motion
carried.
B-08-37 Patricia and George Maas
5020 Oak Bend
Request: 49.3 foot front yard setback variance
Planner Aaker explained to the Board the subject property is a 36,863 sq ft, vacant lot
located on the west side of Oak Bend Lane. The lot is part of the Mirror Oaks plat that
had been subdivided in 1995 from one very large parcel into 11 sizable lots. The
applicants purchased 4 lots within the subdivision, three along the east side and one,
(the subject), on the west side of Oak Bend Lane. The lots owned by the proponents on
the east side were developed with a home straddling 2 of the lots and providing a 30
foot front yard setback from Oak Bend Lane. A third lot on the east side owned by the
applicants is vacant and is just north of their home. The applicants also own the subject
lot at 5020 Oak Bend Lane just across the street from their home. A neighbor is located
in between at 5017 Oak Bend, who bought two lots and built one home on them very
deep into the lots. The west side of Oak Bend Lane is fully developed with the
exception of the subject vacant lot.
Planner Aaker pointed out the zoning ordinance requires that the average front yard
setback along the block be maintained for any new or relocated home built on a vacant
lot. For the subject lot, the average front yard setback includes the three homes to the
north and the home to the south, which establishes a minimum setback of 79.3 feet.
The applicant is hoping to utilize a 61.4 foot setback from Oak Bend right-of-way to
match the front yard setback of the three homes to the north then narrowing down to a
30 foot front yard setback along the cul-de-sac. The request eliminates using the 123.8
foot front yard setback of the home to the south, (5017 Oak Bend), from the setback
equation.
Planner Aaker the owners are not presenting any building plans at this time because
they hope to first clarify the building parameters/opportunities of the lot through the
variance process before going forward with any design plans.
Planner Aaker concluded staff recommends approval of the requested 49.3 foot front
yard setback variance based on the following findings:
• The required average front yard setback is inconsistent with the
streetscape along the west side of the block.
• The lack of any reasonable relationship between the subject lot and
the adjacent home to the south.
• The drainage easement along the back one third of the lot affecting
how the property can be developed.
• The setback required from the cul-de-sac portion of the street.
The variance would meet the intent of the ordinance since:
a. The variance would be similar to existing conditions to the north
and along the west side of street.
b. The variance would promote the goal of maintaining a consistent
front yard pattern.
c. The variance would maintain and enhance the residential
character of the property and the neighborhood.
Planner Aaker stated approval should also be based on the following conditions:
3) The home location on site shall be constructed as per the site plans dated
June 19, 2008.
4) This variance will expire on July 10, 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. Maas were present.
Member Scherer asked Planner Aaker if the property to the south is excluded from the
calculation would a variance still be required. Planner Aaker responded in the
affirmative, noting the cul de sac layout also contributes to the need for a variance.
Member Vasaly asked for clarification on the pond and if the proponents could build up
to it. Planner Aaker responded in the affirmative pointing out the pond is manmade;
5
however, it is important in handling run-off, adding the City would like the applicant to
build as close to the street as possible minimizing impact to pond and natural drainage
patterns.
Member Davidson noted that the proponents have represented to the Board two
different "zones" or areas for building and asked the square footage of each zone. A
representative for the proponents responded that the zones are 8,600 and 6,400
square feet respectively.
Member Hornig asked Planner Aaker if it is common for applicants to provide zones vs.
building pads. Planner Aaker responded "zones" isn't common practice; however, she's
comfortable with it.
Member Vasaly asked the proponents if they have specific house plans. Mr. Maas
responded that at this time they have no house plans. Their goal was to achieve
building parameters. Continuing, Member Vasaly said in her experience she hasn't
been in the position of approving a variance without knowing what would be
constructed, adding she is uncomfortable granting this variance.
Member Davidson stated he agrees with the comments from Member Vasaly, adding
without knowing what type, size, etc. of house the proponents are building it is difficult
to render an opinion.
Member Vasaly commented that her issue could be with the language found in the
Code.
Member Scherer moved variance approval based on staff findings and subject to
staff conditions. Member Vasaly seconded the motion. Ayes; Hornig, Vasaly,
Scherer, Schroeder. Nay, Davidson Motion carried.
III. PUBLIC COMMENT:
No additional public comment.
IV. ADJOURNMENT:
The meeting adjourned at 7:10 PM
�►_rt ��• ��.��,�,� .�rl►_per..
6