Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2006 04-06 Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting Minutes RegularMINUTES REGULAR MEETING OF THE EDINA ZONING BOARD THURSDAY, APRIL 6,2006,5:30 PM EDINA CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS 4801 WEST 50TH STREET MEMBERS PRESENT: Acting Chair, Edward Schwartzbauer, Mike Fischer and Mary Vasaly MEMBERS ABSENT: Rose -Mary Utne and Kevin Staunton I. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES: The minutes of the February 2, 2006, meeting were filed as submitted. II. NEW BUSINESS: B-06-16 Jonathan Hoffman 5116 West 441h St. A 2 ft side yard setback variance For a garage addition Request: A side yard setback variance for a garage addition Ms. Aaker informed the Board the subject property is located on the north side of west 44th Street consisting of a 1 Y2 story home with a single car attached garage. The homeowner is planning to add onto the back of the home, add living space on the second floor and expand the width of the garage. All portions of the project conform to the Zoning Ordinance with the exception of side yard setback for the garage addition. The owner is requesting a variance to allow the garage to be 3 ft from the side lot line with a 9 inch overhang. The minimum side yard setback required for a garage is 5 ft. Ms. Aaker explained Edina's Zoning Ordinance requires a minimum 2 car garage per single dwelling unit. There is no ordinance defined minimum garage width; however, a building permit would not be issued for a garage less than 20 ft in width for a side-by-side, two car garage. The proposal provides a garage width of 20 ft with a 3+ ft side yard setback. The garage wall is not quite parallel to the side yard so setback to the side wall will range between 3 — 3.5 ft. The Zoning Board of Appeals has approved setback variances to accomplish the minimum two car garage standard. Typically variances have been held to maintain a minimum distance of 3 ft between a side wall 'and the side lot line. A three foot distance allows a minimum area to maintain property and avoid trespass. The proposal will maintain at least a 3 ft setback. Ms. Aaker concluded staff supports the goal to increase garage area to accommodated two cars in the Single Dwelling Unit Zoning District, when possible. The request is consistent with others reviewed by the Zoning Board in the past. Staff recommends approval subject to the plans submitted. The proponents, Mr. and Mrs. Hoffman were present to respond to questions. Mrs. Vasaly asked Ms. Aaker if the project maintains the existing setback. Ms. Aaker responded it does. She pointed out the lot line angles creating a 6 - inch difference. Mr. Fischer noted if he remembers correctly the goal of the City is to facilitate a two stall garage for every homeowner. Ms. Aaker said that is correct. City Code requires each single dwelling to have a two -stall garage. Mr. Fischer moved variance approval subject to the plans presented pointing out the non -conforming situation is not increasing. Mrs. Vasaly seconded the motion noting the neighbors support the request. All voted aye; motion carried. B-06-18 Camelot Construction/Robert J Miller 4622 Drexel Ave. So. Lot 12, Block 7, Country Club Request: Driveway width variance Ms. Aaker informed the Board the subject property is located on the west side of Drexel Ave. consisting of a two story home with a front loading, two car garage. The property owner is planning to remodel and add onto the house. The plan will include removing the existing driveway and curb cut, converting the existing garage into living space, adding to the back of the home on both the first and second floors and constructing a new detached garage in the rear yard. The new detached garage would be accessed by a new driveway installed along the south side of the property. All aspects of the project conform to the ordinance requirements with the exception of the proposed driveway width along the south wall of the home. The minimum width required for newly constructed driveway is 12 ft. The property owner is proposing a new driveway width of approximately 11 1/2 ft. Ms. Aaker explained the property is located in the historic Country Club District. All hew structures, including the proposed garage, require a Certificate of Appropriateness through the Heritage Preservation Board. The new garage structure will be reviewed by the Heritage Preservation Board if a detached garage in the rear yard is allowed access by approval of the proposed driveway. The change in curb -cut and driveway has been reviewed and deemed acceptable by both the City Engineer and the Staff liaison to the Heritage Preservation Board, (see attached memorandums). No Engineering or Heritage Preservation basis for denial was identified for the curb cut location or driveway change. Ms. Aaker explained the proposed driveway will be installed at the same grade as the adjacent driveway to the south. A retaining wall will be installed along the north side of the driveway on the subject property. A fire place chimney will be removed along the south wall of the home to accommodate the new driveway. The south -facing basement windows will have glass block installed with driveway asphalt to abut the windows. No window wells are proposed along the south wall of the home. The proposed driveway will not be a shared or common driveway with the existing driveway to the south located on the 4224 Drexel property. There are no cross easements proposed between properties. Ms. Aaker asked the Board to note there are many driveways in the Country Club District that are less than 12 ft in width. The adjacent property to the south has a driveway width of 8 ft for most of its length. Shared and abutting driveways and driveways widths less than 10 ft in the Country Club are not uncommon. Ms. Aaker concluded the proposed request is minimal and will preserve a substantial property right enjoyed by others in the Country Club District. Staff supports the request subject to the plans presented. The proponents, Mr. Miller and Mr. Hoffman were present to respond to questions. Interested neighbors were also present. Chair Schwartzbauer noted the packet contained a letter from a neighbor suggesting that the driveway continue to be located along the north property line (driveway is presently on the north). Chair Schwartzbauer asked if that was ever considered. Ms. Aaker responded if one looks at the spacing between structures on the north side of the house it would be very difficult to construct a driveway to access a detached garage in the rear of the subject property along that north property line. There just isn't enough room. Mrs. Vasaly said the proponent indicated the slope of the driveway presents a danger especially during winter months because of the potential for vehicles to "slip down" the driveway unto the sidewalk or street. Ms. Aaker acknowledged the driveway does slope, adding the City doesn't have a mechanism in place that addresses driveway slope. Mrs. Vasaly commented if she read the plan correctly the slope of the proposed driveway will be lessened as a result of this proposal. Ms. Aaker responded that is correct the new driveway will be constructed with a lesser slope. Mr. Fischer asked the applicant if the proposed driveway would be concrete or asphalt. Mr. Fischer also observed it appears the adjacent neighbor's driveway (to the south) is also constructed right up to the property line. Ms. Aaker confirmed that statement. With regard to asphalt driveways Ms. Aaker pointed out the majority of driveways in the Country Club area are concrete, not asphalt. Continuing, Ms. Aaker told the Board if approved they can stipulate the type of material used for the driveway. Mr. Fischer commented the variance is for six inches, adding as he viewed the Country Club neighborhood a driveway width of 12 feet appears larger than most. Ms. Aaker responded that is correct the majority of driveways in the District are between eight and ten feet. Mr. Hoffman addressed the Board and told them he parked his vehicle in the driveway this past winter and the vehicle slid down the driveway onto the sidewalk. Continuing, Mr. Hoffman said he was surprised at the interest and correspondence this proposal generated in the neighborhood especially with regard to the safety of children. Mr. Hoffman stated the safety of children, his and the neighboring children, are of the utmost importance to him. Mr. Delcinedes, 4624 Drexel Avenue (neighbor to the south) told the Board he doesn't support the variance request. Mr. Delcinedes said the reason the vehicle slid down the driveway was because the driveway wasn't shoveled. Continuing, Mr. Delcinedes informed the Board in the immediate area there are 22 children and the proposed driveway endangers them. He added in his opinion it is detrimental to his property to have a driveway to driveway situation with a grade change between. Mr. Delcinedes questioned Mr. Hoffman if he ever constructed a home in the Country Club District, adding when he heard the proposed driveway may be constructed with asphalt he cringed. Mrs. Vasaly said as she views the plans it appears the Delcinedes driveway is 8 feet in width. Mr. Delcinedes responded that is correct. Mrs. Delcinedes told the Board during the past winter months there were many times the driveway and sidewalk of the home at 4622 Drexel was not shoveled. Continuing, Mrs. Delcinedes said she is very fearful for the safety of her children, especially in light of the possibility of a shared driveway. Mrs. Delcinedes said the neighborhood is very friendly and neighbors spend a lot of time visiting especially in their front yard areas. Mrs. Delcinedes said the change in driveway location will not only negatively impact her family but will negatively impact other properties in the immediate area. Concluding, Mrs. Delcinedes said she has a fear one of her children could be injured exiting their car if the neighbors are exiting their new driveway at the same time. Ms. Herman, 4602 Drexel Avenue told the Board she has a shared driveway and would rather not have one. She stated a shared driveway is not desirable and the mass this will create will be unappealing. Ms. Shannon Neale, 4623 Drexel Avenue, acknowledged there are shared driveways in the area, but that doesn't mean they work well. Ms. Neale pointed out many side by side driveways have space between them like a strip of greenery. Continuing, Ms. Neale pointed out there is also a storm drain located at the end of the subject driveway which is proposed to change. She said she is worried that a change in the drain system could create the potential to flood. Mrs. Vasaly questioned the drain system that will be changed. Mr. Hoffman responded the City Engineer has reviewed their proposal and found no problem with it, and supports it. Continuing, Mr. Hoffman said with regard to asphalt vs. concrete it was never his intent to construct an asphalt driveway - it will be concrete. Continuing, Mr. Hoffman said when he purchased his home it needed a lot of work. He told the Board he met with City staff and was informed of the Code with regard to driveway width, and applied for a variance. Mr. Hoffman said he believes relocating the garage in the rear yard is more in keeping with the area, pointing out Ms. Repya with the Heritage Preservation Board indicated she has no problem with the proposed change. Concluding, Mr. Hoffman acknowledged he never constructed a home in the Country Club area of Edina, but does build a quality home. Mr. Fischer acknowledged the Code requires a driveway width of 12 feet, but pointed out the Code is City wide and in certain areas of smaller lots a 12 foot wide driveway doesn't make sense and in many cases a 12 foot driveway is detrimental to the "look" of the neighborhood. Continuing, Mr. Fischer said he believes this issue can be resolved, adding sometimes the best solution would be to grant a greater variance. Mr. Fischer stated in his opinion a driveway width in this location would be aesthetically more pleasing between 9 and 10 feet. Ms. Aaker said she understands Mr. Fischer's point of view. She said variances have been granted in the City's more "urban" areas for driveways under 12 feet in width, however, the Code now requires a 12 foot wide driveway. Mr. Fischer said the logic used to approach a variance should be to achieve the best end result, adding in all honestly he doesn't believe a 12 foot driveway is best for this lot and this neighborhood. Mr. Fischer said he is encouraged by the fact there would be a turn -around area in the rear yard enabling vehicles to enter the street front first, adding he believes the width of the proposed drive should be less and if approved the driveway should be constructed with concrete or pavers, not asphalt. Mrs. Vasaly stated she would have a hard time denying this request. She said she agrees the driveway would better serve the subject site and area if it were constructed under the required 12 feet and even at the requested 11'6" the driveway may appear too massive, adding the Board can't force the proponent to reduce the driveway width. Mr. Hoffman said he would have no problem reducing the width of the driveway. Ms. Aaker said if the driveway width is reduced Mr. Hoffman would have to re -apply for a variance because the plans presented this evening are what the Board must act on. Chair Schwartzbauer stated he can't support the variance as presented, adding in his opinion there is no hardship. He added he doesn't like the proposed location of the new driveway. Chair Schwartzbauer said the driveway should remain on the north side of the home where it has always been. Remaining in this location maintains the character of the streetscape. Mrs. Vasaly moved variance approval noting a hardship exists on this lot, pointing out there is no place on this lot to appropriately locate a driveway with a 12 foot width. Mr. Fischer seconded the motion. Chair Schwartzbauer stated he is opposed to the motion and cannot support the variance. He said in his opinion if this variance is granted it will alter the surrounding area, reiterating there is no hardship. Mr. Schwartzbauer added he also believes the safety factor is important to consider. Ayes, Vasaly. Nays, Schwartzbauer, Fischer. Motion failed. Mr. Fischer said his "No" vote is because he could support a driveway width variance for this property, but not this one. Mr. Fischer stated he could support a greater variance, adding in his opinion a driveway less wide is more in keeping with the character of the area and is aesthetically more pleasing. Continuing, Mr. Fischer stated on smaller lots it is not unrealistic for the Board to be asked to support the granting of a variance for lot width. While this request isn't for a lot width variance but for a driveway width variance it isn't unrealistic to think a 12 foot or 11'6" foot driveway is too wide for this neighborhood of smaller lots. Mrs. Vasaly also pointed out there is nothing in the Code prohibiting driveways from abutting each other, adding in this neighborhood there appears to be a number of driveways side by side. Mr. Fischer asked Ms. Aaker if the proponents can re -apply for a greater variance. Ms. Aaker responded in the affirmative. Continuing, Mr. Fischer told the proponents they can appeal the Board's decision to the City Council. Mr. Fischer reiterated he believes a hardship exists on these smaller lots and he would support a greater variance. He added a driveway width between 9 and 10 feet would make sense to him because it wouldn't be out of character with the neighborhood. B-04-19 Rink properties, LLC 7300 Bush Lake Road Request: Variance to allow spectator seating and a variance to allow a temporary fabric dome structure Ms. Aaker informed the Board the subject property is located west of Bush Lake Road and consists of the old Northwest Tennis Club facility located at 7300 Bush lake Road. The building was in the process of being remodeled to accommodate the Fellowship of Kings Church. The church has suspended construction activity on the site. Ms. Aaker explained the City Council approved a Final Development Plan submitted by Rink Properties, LLC on February 21, 2006, to allow the existing Tennis Club site and building to be remodeled, converted and added -on to for the use as two hockey rinks with the required support facilities. The facility would be home to the Minnesota Made Hockey program, a training and development program for youth hockey in Minnesota. The plan consists of expanding the structure footprint by 9, 989 sq ft to in -fill the south east corner of the building. A 4,142 sq ft addition was proposed on the second floor for unoccupied space along with a small addition to the west side for mechanical/refrigeration equipment. The hockey training facility is a permitted use in the PID Zoning District, although no spectator seating is allowed within the PID Zoning District. At the time of Final Development Plan approval, no spectator seating had been proposed. A Final Development Plan is reviewed by the Planning Commission and City Council if floor area of an existing building increases by 10% or more. The two rink proposal approved by both the Planning Commission and City Council also did not include the temporary dome for a seasonal third rink. A temporary structure is not part of the permanent building and does not increase permanent floor area so it must be reviewed by the Zoning Board of Appeals as a variance request. Ms. Aaker said at this time the proponents are requesting a variance to allow spectator seating not to exceed 500 people, (250 persons for each of the two rinks in the building). The plans for the existing building presented and approved by the Council will not change with the exception of spectator seating. Ms. Aaker noted the proponents are also requesting a variance to allow a third rink to be located in a temporary air supported fabric dome structure to be located in the south parking area. A "temporary" structure according to the building code may not exceed 6 months and it is anticipated that the dome will be erected in the fall and taken down in the spring to comply with building code. A temporary structure is technically not allowed in the PID Zoning District given that building materials are prescribed by code with no provision to allow fabric domes. The temporary dome will not provide spectator seating and will be used for practice and training. Ms. Aaker concluded staff supports the request subject to the plans presented. Mr. Dennis Batty was present representing Rink Properties. Mr. Schwartzbauer said he thinks this request is a bit unusual and asked Ms. Aaker if a variance would be required each time the dome was inflated. Ms. Aaker responded approval of this variance would allow the continued seasonal use of the dome without being reheard. Mr. Fischer told the Board he remembers this proposal very well and asked Mr. Batty what changed from the time the Commission heard this to now with regard to spectator seating. Continuing, Mr. Fischer stated he distinctly remembers the question of spectator seating being asked at the Commission level and at that time the response was there would be no spectator seating, reiterating, what changed? Mr. Batty responded at the time of Final Development Plan a decision was made to streamline this request as much as possible by not including spectator seating in the plan. Mr. Batty said it was felt the application would be "muddied" if that were added. Mr. Fischer stated at the Commission level he was very supportive of the request for converting this parcel to accommodate an ice sheet; however, at this time he has a problem because the Commission voted the request "up" on what was presented to them and now that has changed. What was presented to the Commission in the form of a Final Development Plan in no way resembles what is presented to the Board this evening. Concluding Mr. Fischer said if the proponent knew from the beginning he wanted these options it would have been better if the "whole package" was presented to the Commission and the Council. It should have all been done at once, not piecemeal. Mrs. Vasaly agreed. She said the impression this gives is unsettling. Mr. Fischer stated while he may not have a problem with this proposal and the land use - the process procedurally is difficult. Mr. Fischer reiterated he wishes this request would have been included in the Final Development Plan. Mr. Fischer asked if the adjoining neighbors were informed of this request. Ms. Aaker responded in the affirmative. Mrs. Vasaly asked Mr. Fischer if he believes this proposal would have changed the outcome of the Planning Commission meeting. Mr. Fischer responded he doesn't really know. He said his understanding was most Commissioners felt is was unusual that spectator seating wasn't included in the Final Development Plan, adding in his opinion most Commissioners felt spectator seating would be added sometime in the future, however, he is hesitant to speak for other Commissioners. Commissioner Fischer acknowledged he would have supported the Final Development Plan, (including the requests this evening) if everything would have been presented to the Commission at one time, adding he has a difficult time believing the proponent didn't realize spectator seating is an important aspect of ice arenas. Mrs. Vasaly reiterated she doesn't like this process - it is unsettling. Mr. Fischer said his concern is also how the Council will react to this. Ms. Aaker stated the City Council set up the Zoning Board to make these types of decisions independent of them. Continuing, Ms. Aaker explained if any changes to the footprint of the building(s) are requested that would trigger a Final Development Plan which would require a public hearing before both the Commission and Council. Ms. Aaker said the zoning variance file can be placed in the Final Development Plan file for the site. This would ensure if there is another expansion request for this site all minutes, including the minutes of this meeting would be passed on to both the Commission and Council. Mr. Fischer moved variance approval noting he doesn't believe a deliberate attempt was made by the proponent to hide the fact they would be requesting spectator seating, adding parking won't be an issue for this site, parking is adequate. Mrs. Vasaly seconded the motion. All voted aye; motion carried. Ill. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 6:30 PM.