Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1992 04-16 Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting Minutes RegularMINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE EDINA BOARD OF APPEALS AND ADJUSTMENTS HELD ON THURSDAY, APRIL 16, 19921 5:30 P.M. EDINA CITY HALL MANAGER'S CONFERENCE ROOM MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair, Gordon Johnson, Helen McClelland, Mike Lewis, and Don Patton , G. Workinger STAFF PRESENT: Kris Aaker Jackie Hoogenakker I. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES: Mr. Lewis moved to approval the minutes of March 19, 1992, clarifying on page two the driveway should be noted as front driveway. Mr. Patton seconded the motion. All voted aye; motion carried. II. OLD BUSINESS: RE: Continuance of variance request B-92-10, 5716 Bernard Place Ms. Aaker reminded the Board they continued this issue to allow the proponent time to revise their proposal and reduce the variance. The proponents Mr. and Mrs. Clynes and their attorney James Van Valkenburg. Mr. Van Valkenburg told the board he understands their concern regarding the lot coverage variance, and noted there appears to be a difference of opinion with lot coverage calculations. He observed staff has come up with one number, and the proponents have come up with another number. Regardless, Mr. Van Valkenburg explained the proponents have revised their original plan and removed the proposed stairwell, and the step, thus reducing the size of the building pad thereby reducing the lot coverage variance. Mr. Van Valkenburg pointed out that neighbors support the proposal, and in closing the variance requested is very minimal and will not negatively impact the neighborhood. Ms. Aaker explained the reason there are different lot coverage calculations is that staff only allowed a three foot sidewalk allowance for calculation purposes. Mrs. McClelland said 1 she feels three feet is a very reasonable width for a sidewalk. Mr. Workinger asked Mr. Clynes if the revised design meets with the neighbors approval. Mr. Clynes explained the neighbors do not object to the revised plan, and pointed out with the elimination of the stairwell the length of the addition has been reduced. Mr. Patton asked the proponents to explain their reasons for wanting to retain the patio, thus requiring a lot coverage variance. Mr. Clynes explained that the soil in their area is very impervious and the hardsurfaces help keep the water out of their basement. Mrs. McClelland said she is confused because lot coverage calculations keep changing. Mr. Van Valkenburg explained that when the original numbers were calculated by the proponent snow was on the ground which caused a miscalculation. Mr. Van Valkenburg said the conflict at present is an interpretation of how large a sidewalk is. Staff allotted 3 feet for sidewalk width, and the proponent a larger amount. A discussion ensued with the board recognizing that an attempt was made to reduce the setbacks originally requested. The elimination of the stairwell is very positive, and any impact will not be viewed from the street. Mr. Workinger said he is pleased with the revision but cannot support a lot coverage variance due to the possibility of setting a precedent adding there is no hardship present. Mr. Lewis moved to grant the sideyard setback variance subject to the plans as presented. Mr. Patton seconded the motion. Ayes; McClelland, Lewis, Patton, Workinger, Abstain, Johnson. Motion carried. Mr. Lewis moved to approve the 1.29% lot coverage variance noting there is no visual impact from the street. Ayes; Lewis, McClelland, Patton. Nay, Workinger. Abstain, Johnson. II. NEW BUSINESS: B-92-15 John W. Washburn 5708 Hawkes Terrace Lot 2, Block 1, Rohlridge 2nd Addition Request: A 5 ft sideyard setback variance for living area 2 Ms. Aaker informed the board the subject property consists of a split level single family home. The applicants are requesting a five foot sideyard setback variance to allow the extension of bedroom area above the garage. The new addition is proposed to maintain the existing five foot sideyard setback of the garage wall. The zoning ordinance requires a minimum 10 foot sideyard setback for living areas. Ms. Aaker asked the board to note that a similar variance for this property was granted in 1980 but never acted on. Ms. Aaker concluded staff adds that the addition would balance the front facade viewed from the street and recommends that approval be limited to the plans presented and the use of matching materials to the existing dwelling. Mr. Lewis asked Ms. Aaker if the 1980 variance request is the same as the requested presented this evening. Ms. Aaker responded that this request is the same as previously presented. Mr. Patton moved approval of the request as submitted subject to staff conditions. Mr. Workinger seconded the motion. All voted aye; motion carried. B-92-16 Mary S. and John C. Everett 5437 Kellogg Avenue South Lot 11, Block 9, South Harriet Park Request: A 4.5 foot side street setback variance for a new attached two stall garage Ms. Aaker explained the subject property is the location of a single family home situated on the corner of Kellogg Avenue and West 55th Street. The property owners are hoping to convert the existing garage fronting West 55th Street into a family room and add a new attached garage and entry in front of the new family room (old garage). Ms. Aaker concluded that given the limitations of the narrow corner lot and desire to preserve an existing maple tree staff believes the plan is a logical extension of the house and a practical solution for the applicant. Staff recommends approval of the request provided the materials match the existing dwelling, and the applicant work with the City Forester to preserve the maple tree. Mr. Patton pointed out that West 55th Street is not very busy 3 and there will be 32 feet from the street to the garage door, he added a corner lot can create a very difficult situation for anyone who may attempt to add to their home. Ms. Aaker agreed, she stated corner lot situations can be problematic. She added a number of corner lots have to maintain two frontyard setbacks which can severely limit any additional construction on the lot. She pointed out.the lot in question is also very narrow which is a hardship. Mr. Everett explained that retaining the maple tree is very important to them and they feel they have come up with a good solution in building design that retains the tree. Mrs. McClelland moved approval subject to staff conditions. noting there is a hardship because of the narrowness of the lot and locating a conforming driveway would completely eliminate the rear yard. Mr. Patton seconded the motion. All voted aye; motion carried. B-92-17 Richard E. Byrd Jr. 5133 Wooddale Avenue Lot 5, Country Club District Wooddale Section Request: A 16.71 setback variance from west 52nd Street for a new garage and a 4.4 foot rear yard setback variance to expand the existing family room Ms. Aaker informed board members the subject property is a single family home located on the corner of Wooddale Avenue and West 52nd Street. The house fronts West 52nd Street with both the front door and garage facing and loading from West 52nd Street. The applicants are hoping to add to their family room in the rear yard area and to add a third garage to the east of the existing two stall garage. . Ms. Aaker concluded that given the limited expansion potential provided by the imposed setbacks, staff believes the plan is a reasonable and a logical extension of the home. Staff could support an approval subject to the use of consistent materials on exterior exposed surfaces. Mr. Patton questioned if the lots to the north of the subject site required any variances. Mr. Aaker responded no. Mrs. McClelland asked Ms. Aaker the lot coverage for the subject property. Ms. Aaker indicated lot coverage at present is approximately 23.7%. 4 Mrs. McClelland noted that the property in general appears to have been chopped up. She pointed out the neighbor to the east appears extremely close and added the city does not require a three stall garage. Mr. Byrd addressed the board and informed them he spoke with all neighbors impacted and they have no problems with the proposal. He added the third stall is needed for storage and future vehicle parking. Chairman Johnson noted that there appears to be only two letters from neighbors supporting this proposal. He explained that usually the board would like to hear from all parties impacted by a variance request. Mr. Byrd said he will ask the neighbors who did not respond in writing to submit a letter for the file. Continuing, Mr. Byrd explained that they desire to add symmetry and create a cohesive facade. He pointed out at present the house appears to be constructed of many different types of woodwork, and contains many jogs and jogs. Mr. Byrd concluded that he believes their solution to this is sensitive to the house and neighborhood. Mr. Lewis pointed out that the present house does appear a bit disjointed and the proposal presented does address some of the concerns regarding the facade. He added in his opinion the proposal looks good. Mr. Patton asked Mr. Byrd to explain exactly what will be done to the house. Mr. Byrd said the old family room will be internally demolished and expanded, the house will be re -stuccoed, a new roof will be constructed, a third stall will be added to the garage, the kitchen will be renovated, and landscape plans will be implemented. Mrs. McClelland said that while she has no problem with the expansion of the family room she finds no hardship to support the construction of a third stall to the garage. A discussion ensued with board members discussing the impact of the third stall garage and if wanting a third stall for your garage is a necessity. The board expressed mixed feelings on this issue. Mrs. McClelland suggested that the request be held over to allow the proponent time to reconsider the necessity of a third stall for the garage. Mr. Lewis moved approval subject to staff conditions and noting the hardship present because of the shallowness of the lot, an additional condition is that stucco is to replace the cedar boards present on the house. Mr. Patton seconded the motion. Ayes; Patton, Lewis, Johnson. Nay; McClelland. Abstain, Workinger. Motion carried. G� IV. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 6:30 p.m. jJa ie Hoogenakker