Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2008 08-21 Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting Minutes Regular (2)MINUTE SUMMARY Meeting of the Edina Zoning Board of Appeals Thursday, August 21, 2008 Edina Communit� Room 4801 West 50 Street MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair Floyd Grabiel, Julie Risser and Helen Winder MEMBERS ABSENT: Rod Hardy and Jim Nelson STAFF PRESENT: Kris Aaker and Jackie Hoogenakker I. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES: Chair Grabiel moved to file the minutes of the June 19, 2008, Zoning Board meeting. 11. NEW BUSINESS: B-08-41 Rink Properties, LLC 7300 Bush Lake Road Request: Variance to allow spectator seating Planner Aaker informed the Board on August 15, 2006, the City Council approved a Final Development Plan and variance to build a rigid frame (temporary) structure as a third indoor ice sheet. Planner Aaker explained at this time the applicant is proposing to build a permanent structure in the same location. The structure would include indoor seating, which was not included in the original plan. Variances were granted to allow spectator seating in the first two rinks built on this site. Planner Aaker concluded staff recommends approval of the variance based on the following findings: a. The proposed use is reasonable, given the existing two rinks on the site contain spectator seating. The proposed new rink would have a similar capacity to the first two rinks. b. There would be adequate parking to support the new rink and seating. C. Existing roadways would support the project. Approval is also subject to: a. This variance will expire one year from the date of this approval, August 21, 2009. No one was present representing Rink Properties LLC/Minnesota Made. Member Risser asked Planner Aaker if she is aware of changes made to the circulation pattern and parking stall delineation as directed by the Commission at their last meeting. Planner Aaker responded to the best of her knowledge the proponent has addressed those issues, which will be heard by the Planning Commission at their August 27, 2008, meeting. Member Risser commented the Commission was concerned with safety, especially as it related to children being dropped off. Member Winder asked if the Boards focus this evening is limited to spectator seating. Planner Aaker responded in the affirmative. Chair Grabiel noted that the subject site is located at a dead end. Ms. Aaker responded that is correct. Member Winder moved variance approval based on staff findings and subject to the staff condition. Member Risser seconded the motion. All voted aye; motion carried. B-08-42 Ralph Lindell and Mona Selim 330955 th Street West Request: 3.65 foot side yard setback variance Planner Aaker told the Board the subject property is located on the south .side of West 55th St. consisting of a one and one half story home with an attached two car garage. There is an in ground swimming pool east of the home within the side yard. The applicant is proposing to replace the existing attached two car garage with a slightly wider two car garage to include a mudroom behind with living space above. All aspects of the plan conform to the zoning ordinance requirements with the exception of side yard setback for the proposed living 2 space above the garage. The garage would be relocated so the new mudroom would be 14 feet forward of the existing back wall of the garage. The owner wishes to move the garage forward and closer to the front wall of the home. Planner Aaker explained the minimum side yard setback required for living space 10 feet however, 6 inches of side yard setback must be added for each 12 inches the side wall height exceeds 15 feet. The proposed side wall of the garage will comply with the ordinance requirements with the exception of the second story dormer wall along the west side of the new garage. The garage is proposed to be located 5.6 feet from the west side lot line and the second floor will be farther from the side lot line at 8.1 feet. The height of the second floor dormer will be 18.5 feet requiring a side yard setback of 11.75 feet. A variance of 3.65 feet is requested given the proposed 8.1 foot setback of the second floor. The purpose of the setback requirement is to provide adequate spacing between structures. The homeowner recessed the second floor to minimize second floor impact on the adjacent property. The owner has stated that the purpose of the addition is to allow an aging parent to move into their home so that they can care take. The floor plan of the house, in ground pool and extensive landscaping east of the house does not allow for a logical extension to accomplish an additional bedroom. The home owner has stated that entire exterior of the home will be resided. Planner Aaker concluded staff recommends approval of the 3.65 foot side yard setback variance based on the following findings: 1) There is unique hardship to the property caused by: a. The existence of other homes and structures with similar setbacks. b. The home was built on the west side of the lot with improvements on the east side limiting design options. c. The addition will improve the existing conditions on site by allowing the wider two car garage while providing expansion of living space above. 2) 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. Approval should also be based on the following conditions: 1) The addition shall be constructed as per the submitted plan dated July 28, 2008. 2) This variance will expire on August 21, 2009, unless the city has 3 issued a building permit for the project covered by this variance or approved a time extension. The proponents, Mr. Lindell and Ms. Selim were present to respond to questions. Chair Grabiel asked Planner Aaker if the variance was limited to the dormer. Planner Aaker responded in the affirmative. Ms. Selim addressed the Board and explained their reason for the renovation to their home is to add additional space to accommodate an aging parent. Chair Grabiel commented that he toured the neighborhood and found a variety of house types and design styles, adding the proposal as presented shouldn't have a negative impact on the neighborhood. Chair Grabiel noted a letter from a neighbor who resides across the street was submitted in support of the project. Member Risser moved to recommend variance approval based on staff findings and subject to staff conditions. Member Winder seconded the motion. All voted aye; motion carried. B-08-43 Christopher Chase 4004 Monterey Avenue Request: 6 inch driveway width variance Planner Aaker told the Board the subject property is located on the west side of Monterey Ave., 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 south part of the property to access the rear yard for the - purposes of constructing a two car garage. The homeowner would like to market the property with the potential for a buyer to have the ability to construct a driveway and two car garage on site. The original survey of the property illustrates a 13 foot distance from the south wall of the home and the south lot line. The home was built closer to the south lot line than indicated on the original survey, requiring a modest variance to allow for driveway width. Planner Aaker explained the ordinance requires a minimum 12 foot wide driveway for all new or relocated driveways and a minimum two car garage per home 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 south wall of the subject home is located 11.8 feet from the west lot line. The property owner is proposing an 11.5 foot driveway. The neighbor directly affected 4 by the new driveway, to the west, has 4.5 feet between the shared lot line and 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. Most surrounding homes have detached garages located near south lot lines with driveways typically narrower than 12 feet located along the south lot line accessing the rear yard. Many of the surrounding properties have driveways less than 12 feet in width. Planner Aaker concluded staff recommends approval of the requested variance based on the following findings: 1) There is a unique hardship to the property caused by: 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. 2) The variance would meet the intent of the ordinance since: a. The property would be brought into compliance with the minimum two car garage requirement. b. The improvements would be consistent with conditions within the neighborhood. c. 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 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. Chase was present to respond to questions from the Board. 5 Member Risser asked Planner Aaker if the Board can grant a variance for a driveway width less than what is proposed. Planner Aaker responded the City is required to notify residents within 200 feet of the subject property of the variance. The public hearing notice indicated that the proponents were seeking a 6 -inch variance, approving anything more than 6 inches would require re -notification. Member Risser commented that in her opinion less concrete is better for the environment especially as it relates to ground cover and water run-off. Chair Grabiel asked if any trees would be impacted as a result of the new driveway, noting it appears that the neighbors Birch tree was planted very close to the common property line. Ms. Chase addressed the Board and explained in 2008 due to corporate budget restraints and takeovers she and her husband lost their jobs and found new jobs in a different state. Ms. Chase said since that time their house has been on the market. Continuing, Ms. Chase said the open houses and agent walk-throughs have indicated that more people would be interested in the home if it offered a two stall garage. Ms. Chase added they would have no problem proposing a less wide driveway if that were the will of the Board. Chair Grabiel asked Ms. Chase what their intent is at this time. Ms. Chase responded that their first objective was to receive variance approval that would allow a new homeowner the option to construct a detached two stall garage in the rear yard and convert the present attached single garage into living space. Ms. Chase added after further downturns in the market they believe they may have to undertake the project in order to sell their home. Mrs. Rita Eigen, 4006 Monterey, addressed the Board and explained she has a Birch tree is her front yard that was planted many years ago and is close to the property line. Mrs. Eigen stated she doesn't want to lose her tree, adding she believes if the applicants are allowed to construct a driveway that close of the property line her tree will be harmed. Concluding, Mrs. Eigen stated she strongly opposes anything done on the neighboring lot that would jeopardize her tree. Member Risser said her initial comment about having a less wide driveway appears to be the best solution to achieving the variance and reducing the concern expressed by Mrs. Eigen. Ms. Chase reiterated they would be more than willing to pour a less wide driveway. A discussion ensued with Board Members acknowledging the majority of driveways in the immediate area are less than 12 feet wide; however, the importance of the Birch tree to Mr. and Mrs. Eigen should also be considered. Board Members suggested that Mr. and Mrs. Chase revise their plans by C. reducing the width of the driveway or curving the drive so it minimizes impact to the neighbors Birch tree. Board Members also indicated to Ms. Chase that the best action at this time would be for her to request that the Board table her variance request to the next meeting of the Zoning Board. Ms. Chase stressed how very important it is for them to sell their house, adding maintaining two households is very hard emotionally and financially. Ms. Chase pointed out, as acknowledged by the Board, that the majority of the driveways in the neighborhood are less than 12 feet in width. Concluding, Ms. Chase stated it would also be very difficult to guarantee that nothing would ever happen to the Eigen's Birth tree, adding she would be willing to do everything within her power to ensure that all appropriate measures are implemented to minimize impact and disruption to their tree. Chair Grabiel told the Board maintaining the health of the Birch tree is very important. He also suggested that Mr. and Mrs. Chase contact a tree expert on how to best minimize disruption to the tree and its root system. Further discussion ensued with regard to tabling the variance request to a date specific. Ms. Chase asked that their application be tabled to the September 18, 2008, meeting of the Zoning Board. Member Risser moved to table B-0843 to the September 18, 2008, meeting of the Zoning Board to allow the applicants' time to redesign their driveway at a lesser width. Member Winder seconded the motion. All voted aye; motion carried. B-08-44 Jill Mironer 4382 Mackey Avenue Request: 5.32 foot side yard setback variance Planner Aaker informed the Board the subject property is a two story home with a detached two car garage located on the west side of Mackey Ave. The applicant is proposing to construct a 21 square foot in -fill addition on the second floor of their home. Currently there is a very small flat roofed portion, (northwest corner), of the home that is proposed for a bathroom expansion. The home owner would like to fill in the flat roof gap on the second floor. The addition is very minimal in scope and scale and will match the outer north wall in height, roof line and finish materials. Planner Aaker explained the applicant is requesting to build a modest addition to the back of his home for much needed bathroom space. The existing north side wall of the home is located 7.6 feet from the north lot line. The minimum side 7 yard setback required is 10 feet, plus 6 inches of setback must be added for each 12 inches the side wall height exceeds 15 feet. The side wall height is approximately 20.84 feet requiring a side yard setback of 12.92 feet. A variance of 5.32 feet is required to match the existing nonconforming north side wall of the home. There is a driveway between the proposed addition and the north lot line. The adjacent home has a porch located 12.1 feet from the common lot line. Spacing between the subject improvement and the home to the north will remain at 19 Y2 feet. Planner Aaker concluded staff recommends approval of the requested 5.32 foot side yard setback variance for proximity based on the following findings: There is unique hardship to the property caused by: a. The existence of the nonconforming north side wall. b. The addition is minimal in scope and scale and would have no impact on surrounding properties and will match the existing conditions on site. The variance would meet the intent of the ordinance since: a. The variance would not reduce spacing between structures or existing setback. b. The variance would maintain the residential character of the property and the neighborhood. c. The variance would be consistent with similar setbacks provided by other homes within the neighborhood. Approval should also be based on the following conditions: 1) The addition shall be constructed as per the submitted plan dated July 31, 2008. 2) This variance will expire on August 21, 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. Mironer were present to respond to questions from the Board. Mr. Mironer addressed the Board and explained their home has only one shower and with our children approaching their teen years the additional bathroom space is really needed. Mr. Mironer told the Board the immediate neighbors have expressed support for the project. Member Risser commented the Board received a very nice letter from the neighbor to the North. Member Risser moved variance approval based on staff findings and subject to staff conditions. Member Winder seconded the motion. All voted aye; motion carried. B-08-45 Laurie and David Fleming 4406 Grimes Avenue Request: 5 foot side yard setback variance Planner Aaker told the Board the subject property is a 1 and Y2 story home with a detached two car garage located on the west side of Grimes Ave. The applicant is proposing to construct a 352 square foot addition above an existing flat roofed family room located in the southwest corner of the home. A survey of the property reveals that the home is located a little over 6 feet from the south side lot line. The minimum side yard setback for lots with widths between 60 and 75 feet has recently been increased, prior to the ordinance amendment; the side yard setback minimum had been 5 feet. The ordinance now requires a 5 foot setback plus an additional 4 inches of side yard setback for each foot of lot width beyond 60 feet. The existing first floor is 2 feet short of the new side yard setback requirement. The change in zoning ordinance requirements caused the existing structure to be nonconforming regarding side yard setback. The addition is proposed to be a little over 21 feet in height increasing the required side yard setback due to building height to approximately 11 feet. A 5 foot side yard setback variance is requested for proximity and height. Planner Aaker explained the applicant is requesting to build a modest addition above the existing family room to accommodate an additional bathroom. Currently the home has three bedrooms on the second floor with one bathroom. All exterior finish materials will be consistent with the existing exterior materials. Conformance with the required setback would eliminate a reasonable bathroom addition. Planner Aaker concluded staff recommends approval of the requested 5 foot side yard setback variance for proximity and height based on the following findings: There is unique hardship to the property caused by: a. The narrowing of the lot towards the back property line causes limited and diminishing opportunities for an addition. b. The addition is minimal in scope and scale and would have no impact on surrounding properties. c. The addition will match the existing conditions on site. The variance would meet the intent of the ordinance since: �7 a. The variance would not reduce spacing between structures or existing setback. b. The variance would maintain the residential character of the property and the neighborhood. c. The variance would be consistent with similar setbacks provided by other homes in the neighborhood. Approval should also be based on the following conditions: 1) The addition shall be constructed as per the submitted plan dated July 31, 2008. 2) This variance will expire on August 21, 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. Fleming were present. Chair Grabiel acknowledged a letter of support from the most impacted neighbor to the South, adding the Planning Department also received numerous letters of support from near neighbors for this project. Member Risser moved variance approval based on staff findings and subject to staff conditions. Member Winder seconded the motion. All voted aye; motion carried. III. PUBLIC COMMENT: No public comment. IV. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 6:35 pm. MW ." -• • ' Me