HomeMy WebLinkAbout1992 11-19 Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting Minutes RegularMINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING
OF THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
HELD ON THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 19, 1992
5:30 P.M., EDINA CITY HALL MANAGER'S CONFERENCE ROOM
MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair, Gordon Johnson, Helen McClelland, Mike
Lewis and Don Patton
MEMBERS ABSENT: G. Workinger
STAFF PRESENT: Kris Aaker, Jackie Hoogenakker
I. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES:
Mr. Lewis moved approval of the October 15, 1992, meeting
minutes. Mrs. McClelland seconded the motion. All voted aye;
motion carried.
II. NEW BUSINESS:
B-92-48 Jim and Donna Block
4405 Country Club Road
Lot 2, Block 4, Normandale 2nd Addition
Request: An 8 inch frontyard setback variance for
overhang with supports
Ms. Aaker informed the board the subject property is a "pie"
shaped lot with a two story dwelling unit. The applicants are
planning an extensive remodel of and addition to their home. All
aspects of the remodel and expansion conform to minimum ordinance
requirements with the exception of the front entry.
Ms. Aaker pointed out the applicants are proposing to dress up
their home and provide shelter from ice build up by extending an
overhang over the front stoop to be flanked by columns for support.
They have indicated that water accumulates and freezes on the front
stoop, which is hazardous in the winter time.
Ms. Aaker noted there have been two such similar requests for
variances recently. In both cases the magnitude of the variances
were greater, and both requests were approved due to the limited
impact the proposals had along the street scape.
Ms. Aaker concluded that staff recommends that any approval be
subject to the condition that the front entry remain unenclosed.
The proponent, Mr. Block was present.
1
Mr. Patton asked for clarification on the referenced ice
buildup problem.
Mr. Block stated they have a problem with water dripping from
the gutter and onto the stoop, which when the temperature drops
results in ice buildup.
Mr. Lewis said this seems a reasonable solution to a
potentially dangerous situation.
Mr. Lewis moved variance approval subject to the condition
that the front entry remain unenclosed. Mr. Patton seconded the
motion. All voted aye; motion carried.
B-92-49 Barbara Zell
5116 West 59th Street
Lot 8, Block 1, Benton Park Edina
Request: A four foot frontyard setback variance for an
elevated deck
Ms. Aaker told the board the subject property consists of a
single family home with attached garage located on the north side
of West 59th Street. The homeowner is in the process of adding a
screened porch to the rear of the home to include decking around
the garage. The applicant would like to have the deck extend out
four feet from the existing front building wall to be in front of
the garage and elevated above the driveway.
Ms. Aaker concluded that staff could support the request due
to the limited impact the deck extension would have on the street
scape however, would recommend that the deck area remain unenclosed
and uncovered.
The proponent, Ms. Zell was present.
Chairman Johnson asked Ms. Zell if the reason for pushing out
the deck in front is to have it be more of a deck instead of a
walk -way. Ms. Zell said that is correct.
Mrs. McClelland stated if she recalls correctly the decks in
the previously granted variances were more ornamental in nature.
This deck appears to be similar to a deck one would find in the
rearyard.
Ms. Zell said she may have neglected to mention that the
rearyard of her property is very steep and terraced that prohibits
a large deck.
Mrs. McClelland said she has a concern that if this variance
is granted a precedent could be set. Chairman Johnson said he does
not share that concern. He pointed out the hardship for this
property owner is that the individual who constructed the house at
5120 built so far back that it threw off the averages. The subject
property cannot do anything without requiring a variance.
Mr. Lewis commented that he does not have a problem with this
proposal, pointing out the houses on this block do not line in a
row and since the deck is proposed to remain unenclosed and any
impact would be minimal.
Chairman Johnson questioned what type of railing would be used
on the deck. Ms. Zell stated that the decking would be vertical
slats. Mr. Patton questioned if the building code would review the
decking slats to ensure that the slats are constructed with the
proper spacing. Ms. Aaker said the building department will
inspect the deck and make sure the deck complies with all code
requirements.
Mrs. McClelland stated that she still cannot find a hardship
to support this request, pointing out this site already has the
smallest setback on the block.
Ms. Zell pointed out that the property owner of 5112 has a
similar deck.
A discussion ensued on the deck located at 5112 West 59th
Street. The building file was reviewed for 5112 West 59th Street
and indicated the homeowners received a permit for a remodel but
not a permit specifically for the deck portion of the project.
Mr. Lewis pointed out it is out of our jurisdiction to comment
on the deck on 5112 West 59th Street and stated, in his opinion,
our mission is to maintain the integrity and character of the
neighborhood and the spirit of the ordinance. The proposed decks'
impact will be minimal, and since the setbacks along this
streetscape are varied, any addition to the front of this property
would require a variance which is a hardship. Mr. Lewis also noted
that deck will be unenclosed and must remain that way.
Mr. Lewis moved variance approval subject to the plans
presented and that the deck remain uncovered and unenclosed. Mr.
Patton seconded the motion. Ayes; Lewis, Patton, Johnson. Nay,
McClelland. Motion for approval carried 3-1.
Mrs. McClelland stated she opposed the variance because there
is not hardship and noted that she has a concern that the board has
been granting an increasing amount of frontyard setbacks. Mrs.
McClelland said in her opinion, this deck is living space because
it is large enough to contain patio furniture. It is not
decorative, and it is not a walkway.
3
Mrs. McClelland asked staff to look into the deck located at
5112 West 59th Street.
B-92-50 Gary and Mary Hallman
5411 Zenith Avenue
Lots 27128.29, & 30, Block 2
Seely's lst Addition to Hawthorne Park
Request: variance from zoning ordinance 850.21
subdivision 12, B to allow improvement of the
home to exceed 50$ of market value and
variance to allow extension of decking over
existing overhang.
Ms. Aaker informed the board the subject property is located
just south of West 54th Street which terminates at Minnehaha Creek
and west of an unimproved alley. The parcel on which the home is
located consists of four lots, however, most of the lot area is
within the Minnehaha Creek watercourse and is recognized as
unbuildable land. Ms. Aaker said review of the site reveals that
virtually all aspects of the home and property are non -conforming
in terms of the city's current zoning ordinance standards for
buildable lot area, required street frontage and setback of the
structure. Ms. Aaker also pointed out the board should note that
the home is located within the flood zone.
Ms. Aaker explained that the property owners have been working
for the past 1 1/2 years with the Mn. Department of Natural
Resources, the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District and the City to
determine the extent to which the home can be remodeled.
Continuing, Ms. Aaker explained the homeowners are planning to
remodel the entire interior of the home to include an alteration to
the roof lines to increase 2nd floor living area. The City,
Watershed District, and DNR agreed that remodeling within the
confines of the existing building footprint would not alter the
non -conforming status of the structure. Any expansion of the foot
print, however, would be prohibited because it would cause an
additional obstruction in the floodplain. The board should note
that the homeowners will be adding bay windows in the south west
corner of the home corner however, they will not extend to the
floor and will be above the flood elevation and therefore will not
be subject to setback standards or considered an obstruction. The
new proposed deck to be extended above an existing over hang is
subject to the 50 foot zoning setback standards from Minnehaha
Creek, however, is not considered an obstruction as defined in the
flood plain ordinance due to the fact that it is elevated above the
4
flood zone. Mr. Aaker said the board should note that a 50 foot
required setback from Minnehaha Creek extends beyond the perimeter
of the property so no expansion can occur without a variance. The
applicants are requesting a variance from the creek setback
requirement to allow the elevated deck to replace an overhang.
Ms. Aaker reported the property is also subject to the
floodplain ordinance. The official FEMA maps and floodplain
profiles indicate that the property and home is in the flood zone.
From a practical perspective, the home has not flooded during a 100
year or 500 year flood event. as was experienced by the city in the
late 19701's and in 1987. In addition the home was built on a
concrete slab so basement elevations have not been a concern.
Historically city records indicate that flooding has not been a
problem for this property.
The Floodplain ordinance allows remodeling of non -conforming
structures in the flood zone but not to exceed 50% of the value of
the structure. The homeowners have estimated that the remodeling
will cost approximately $58,000. The home is valued at $68,00.
The purpose of the 50% value rule is to prevent the improvement of
non -conforming properties so that they can eventually be removed
from the flood zone. It is not intended in the city's mission
statement to discourage the upgrading of single family dwellings,
and from a practical standpoint the city does not view the home as
susceptible to flooding or subject to removal from the floodplain.
Ms. Aaker concluded that Staff recommends approval of the
request subject to plans presented given that the homeowner cannot
increase the building foot print, the remodel appears to be a
reasonable alternative to allow the upgrading of the structure.
The proponents Mr. and Mrs. Hallman were present.
Mr. Patton asked Ms. Aaker what the flood elevation is on this
site. Ms. Aaker responded that the flood elevation is between
853.5-854. Ms. Aaker pointed out as mentioned in the staff report
that the structure is on a slab, and to our knowledge the property
has never been flooded.
Mrs. McClelland stated if she remembers correctly, that this
property was once one estate, and questioned how this property was
developed without every house requiring a garage. Ms. Aaker said
she cannot respond to that question, and does not know why a garage
was not constructed on this site. Ms. Aaker clarified that other
zoning rules do not apply on this property, because it's non-
conforming status will not change, therefore a garage is not
required. She pointed out what we are here to consider is the
interior remodeling in excess of 50% the value of the structure.
Ms. Aaker noted the proponents would love to have a garage, but
cannot have one on this site.
5
Mrs. McClelland asked Ms. Aaker if the city has indicated any
desire to purchase this property. Ms. Aaker said to her knowledge
the city has not indicated a desire to purchase this property.
Mrs. Hallman told the board this has been an very interesting
property for them. She stated since living in the house it has
never flooded and her and her husband enjoy the quiet and almost
country living found in this part of Edina.
Mr. Johnson pointed out in reviewing the plans it appears the
city owes you a street, and questioned if the city maintains the
alley. Ms. Aaker said the alley is held by the city and both are
unimproved. Mrs. Hallman interjected that she believes this area
has its place in Edina, and she has worked with the city officials
regarding any development on this site and maintenance of the
street/alley.
Mr. Patton questioned if the alley can be vacated, thereby
allowing more land which could possibly provide enough space for
the proponents to construct a garage. Ms. Aaker stated this was
initiated but failed.
Mr. Gary Newberg, 5406 York Avenue explained to board members
that he believes the whole area was constructed for rental
purposes. He added he believes that two garages were constructed
to be shared between the four houses. Mr. Newberg noted one
concern he has is regarding the parking of the Hallman's vehicles.
Mr. Hallman responded that their parking will be contained on
their lot. He pointed out Lot 29 can be used for the parking of
their vehicles.
Mr. Tom Larson, 5400 York Avenue, told board members he has no
problem with the renovation to the existing house but wants some
assurance that parking will be contained on the Hallman property
and not on the alley easement.
Mr. Patton questioned if there is a problem with snow removal
in this neighborhood. Mr. Hallman explained that the city has
always plowed the street but the alley is a different matter. Mr.
Patton said the city should also plow the alley. Ms. Aaker said
there are private easements over the alley and any maintenance of
it is an engineering matter, and should be discussed between the
property owners within the neighborhood and Fran Hoffman, city
engineer.
Mr. Hallman explained to board members that he and his wife
spent over a year and a half researching this area and finding out
what they could and could not do. Mr. Hallman said when applying
for a building permit for the interior renovation of the house he
was not informed of the 50% rule.
L
Ms. Aaker explained the city ordinance was recodified in
August of 1992, and the Hallman's obtained a permit to do $34,500
work of remodeling. Continuing, Ms. Aaker stated the need for a
variance was triggered when the amount of the renovation exceeded
50% of the value of the house. Ms. Aaker also clarified that the
board may view this request as being tied to the parking concerns
expressed by neighbors, and the maintenance issue of the
street/alley but cannot condition variance approval on those
issues, parking and street and alley maintenance are not within
their jurisdiction. Ms. Aaker reiterated the variance is for
exceeding 50% of the value of the home and the deck. Ms. Aaker in
response to parking concerns pointed out that the proponents do
have a legal area to park their vehicles and if a neighbor has a
problem with the parking or feels the parking is illegal they can
call the police.
Mr. Patton said what he would like to try to do is upgrade
this area and create a better situation all around. Mr. Patton
said he would like the proponents to be able to construct a garage,
thereby getting their vehicles off the "lot".
A discussion ensued between board members, proponents, and
residents regarding the existing parking situation, snow removal
and the possibility of a the proponents constructing a garage.
Ms. Aaker clarified that the present situation is non-
conforming, and is a "grandfathered" situation. Ms. Aaker pointed
out the proponents cannot construct a garage or any other structure
because this area is in the floodplain. The only upgrading that
can be realized is to the interior of the house, which would not
change the footprint, and not obstruct the flow of the creek.
Mr. Lewis said that while he understands the concerns of the
neighbors regarding parking, and snow removal, our issue is if we
should allow the interior renovations to exceed 50% of the value of
the home. Mr. Lewis added he has no problem with upgrading the
interior of the structure, because in listening to the proponents
he believes they have a understanding of what they are getting
into, and they appear to love this area. Continuing, Mr. Lewis
suggested that all immediate residents of the neighborhood
including the proponents meet with Mr. Hoffman regarding snow
removal concerns and maintenance.
Mrs. McClelland said she does not want the city to allow
doubling the value of the house. She said if a variance is
granted, in a sense we are allowing the upgrading of an area that
maybe should not be allowed to exist due to its non -conforming
status.
Mr. Patton moved to approval of the variances subject to staff
conditions and that the deck remain uncovered and unclosed. Ayes;
Patton, Lewis, Johnson. Nays, McClelland.
7
Mrs. McClelland said she has a real concern that this area
does not have adequate ingress/egress and cannot support the
variance.
III. ADJOURNMENT:
The meeting was adjourned at 7:00 p.m.
8