Council approves variances for 131 Wildwood Avenue after debate over height rule

The Birchwood Village Council voted to approve six variances for a planned replacement residence at 131 Wildwood Avenue, clearing the way for a larger single‑family home on a legally non‑conforming lakeshore lot.

Ben, the city planner, summarized the request as a package of variances for an undersized lot (7,590 square feet, under the 15,000‑square‑foot minimum for riparian lots), reduced garage side‑yard and right‑of‑way setbacks, a reduced west‑side house setback of 8.5 feet, retaining walls within the 50‑foot ordinary high‑water setback, and a height variance tied to replacing an existing non‑conforming structure. He said the Planning Commission recommended approval for most items, noting the project "meets the findings for approval" and that applicants had submitted detailed plans and stormwater calculations.

Applicant Joe Gadt, who described the proposed house as a downsizing retirement home, told council he and his design team met with neighbors and incorporated comments. Len Pratt, who introduced the project, said Joe had produced a thorough application and that the design would be a "great addition to the neighborhood."

Council members approved the undersized‑lot variance with a condition that the two lots composing the property be merged prior to permit issuance, and they approved setback reductions for the garage and house with conditions limiting the reduced setbacks to the proposed garage footprint and ensuring a minimum total separation at one side of the lot. The retaining‑wall approval was made contingent on the issuance of a permit from the Rice Creek Watershed District; the applicant said he had applied for that permit.

The height variance prompted the lengthiest debate. Several council members questioned whether a variance was needed at all if the new structure will meet current height limits, and whether granting a variance tied to the prior non‑conforming structure could inadvertently allow greater height in the future. Councilmember Ryan pressed staff for a written legal explanation, asking for clarity on the ordinance and state statute definitions of "expansion" of a non‑conforming structure. Ben advised that the variance request was based on the fact that the previous structure was non‑conforming and that an expansion that increases that non‑conforming portion can trigger the need for a variance.

After extended discussion, council moved language that effectively required the new house to meet current zoning height limits (i.e., the variance was framed so the new construction could not exceed the zoning code maximum). Council also asked Ben and the city attorney (Allen) to provide a written explanation of the legal basis for when a height variance is required so future cases are handled consistently.

The vote to adopt findings of fact (drawn from the application) to support the variances passed by voice vote. No roll‑call tallies were recorded in the minutes; votes were taken by voice and recorded as "all in favor" or similar in the meeting record.

Council directed staff to include conditions discussed at the meeting in formal written approval documents and to return with any additional clarifications or required paperwork.

What happens next: The applicant must merge the lots (as conditioned), secure the Rice Creek permit for shoreline work, and move forward with building permits that will be checked for conformance with the height and other code limits. Council requested follow‑up written legal guidance from staff on the height/expansion interpretation.