Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1993 06-03 Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting Minutes RegularMINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS HELD ON JUNE 3, 1993 5:30 P.M., EDINA CITY HALL MANAGER'S CONFERENCE ROOM MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair, Rose Mary Utne, Nan Faust, Lee Johnson, Len Olson STAFF PRESENT: Kris Aaker, Jackie Hoogenakker I. NEW BUSINESS: B-93-16 Travis Tanner 6624 Mohawk Trail Lot 7, Block 8 of Indian Hills Zoning: R-1, Single Dwelling Unit District Request: Variance to allow a roof mount satellite dish antenna in excess of 12 feet in height Ms. Aaker informed the Board the subject property is located on the north corner of Iroquois and Mohawk Trails. The home owners desire to install a 10 foot diameter satellite dish antenna on the roof of their garage. According to the antenna installer, trees surround the entire property and block satellite signals with the exception of the selected roof mount location. Ms. Aaker concluded staff supports approval of the variance request based on hardships present and difficulty with which the satellite dish antenna can be located to receive signals. Mrs. Faust stated in her opinion the city would be better served if it had another expert opinion instead of just the opinion of the antennae installer. She pointed out no one on this Board is educated in reception of antennae dish signals and appropriate locations. Mr. Johnson said he tends to agree with Mrs. Faust's comments and pointed out the plans presented do not address what signals are blocked, and what signals can be received if the antennae is erected in the appropriate location. Mr. Johnson also pointed out the renderings presented this evening are not exact. They do not indicate elevations and as previously mentioned are not to scale. Mr. Johnson said it is not easy to make an educated decision with what they have before them. Mrs. Utne asked Ms. Aaker if anyone on city staff is familiar with antenna signals. Ms. Aaker stated the city does not have anyone on staff that is educated in this area. She pointed out she understands that to receive adequate signals all antennae dishes must face south and not be blocked by trees or roof lines. Continuing, Ms. Aaker explained it is the city's hope that in the future we have an independent person available to review each lot. Mr. Johnson noted he still would like to study something more detailed. The sketch presented to us is not to scale and contains minimal detail. Mrs. Faust agreed, she stated she would like more information. Mr. Johnson moved to table B-93-16 until the proponent presents staff with an exact to scale drawing of the dish as it is viewed from all lot lines. This drawing is to depict elevations and roof lines. Information from an independent source is also recommended. Mrs. Faust seconded the motion. All voted aye; motion carried. B-93-17 James and Amy Voss 4529 Casco Lot 18, Block 4, Country Club Addition Request: A two foot sideyard setback variance Ms. Aaker informed the Board the subject property is located along the east side of Casco Avenue within the historic Country Club district. The homeowners are planning to extend the existing non -conforming single car garage to provide a two car tandem garage. Also included in the plan is a proposed screened porch to be attached on the end of the garage addition. All aspects of the proposal conform to the zoning code requirements with the exception of the north sideyard setback. The proponents are hoping to extend the existing nonconforming three foot sideyard setback of the existing garage. Ms. aaker explained the Edina Zoning Code requires two fully enclosed spaces per single dwelling unit. The homeowners proposal would upgrade the garage to comply with this requirement. Generally the Board has been sympathetic in appropriate circumstances when reviewing variances when an applicant is attempting to upgrade a single garage to a double if other opportunities for expansion are limited. The applicants have indicated that in addition to upgrading the garage, the second garage and porch will serve as bulwark against erosion of the adjacent lot. The adjacent lot is approximately three feet higher than the subject lot which is held back by a retaining wall. The homeowners have indicated that the retaining wall has failed in the past. Ms. Aaker added the proponents would like to add a 11' X 12' porch onto the new garage extension, three feet from the sideyard property boundary on lots less than 75 feet in width. Both living area and garage area must maintain a minimum five foot sideyard setback according to code requirements. The porch addition would conform to the minimum 25 foot rearyard setback requirement, however, not the five foot sideyard requirements. Generally, the Board of Appeals has resisted approving variances which would allow living area to be within three feet of a property boundary. Living areas have historically been viewed as "active" uses while accessory garages or sheds have been viewed as more "passive" in nature. As such the Board has generally tried to keep living areas at deeper setbacks than accessory garages. Ms. Aaker concluded staff is supportive of the homeowner's plan to upgrade the garage from a single stall to a two stall garage. However, it is difficult for staff to support the variance to allow the porch within three feet of the side lot line. While staff acknowledges that the three foot grade difference between the properties reduces the porch addition's impact, review of the plan and lot indicate that a five foot setback can be maintained for the porch addition. Staff therefore recommends approval of a three foot setback for only the garage portion of the request. The proponents, Mr. and Mrs. Voss were present. Mrs. Faust questioned the proponents if they considered moving the porch over to conform with out setbacks. Mr. Voss explained they only desire to have a one story screened porch, and want to maintain the existing building wall. Mrs. Faust asked Mr. Voss about the pitch of the proposed roof. Mr. Voss said the proposed porch addition's roof will slope away from the north property line. Continuing, Mr. Voss noted they want to maintain the same roof and building line as the existing structure. Mrs. Utne stated that in this instance she supports the recommendation presented by staff. Mr. Johnson added he also agrees with staff. Continuing, Mr. Johnson explained it is very important to him to break up building mass. He added in the Country Club district lots are close together and constructing an addition with a jog in the building wall breaks up the mass, is more aesthetically pleasing, and less bulky. Living space within three feet from an adjacent property line is too close. Mrs. Faust moved approval of the garage variance as proposed by staff and suggested that the proponents construct their porch to conform with our guidelines. Mr. Johnson seconded the motion. All voted aye; motion carried. B-93-18 Diane and Elizabeth Nordstrom 3617 West 55th Street Lot 5, Block 7, Woodbury Request: A six foot frontyard setback variance Ms. Aaker told the Board the subject property is located on the south side of West 55th Street between France and Beard Avenue. The house in question is an L-shaped rambler with a tuck under garage. The homeowners are proposing to add a new attached two car garage to be located in the front of the existing home at street level. Mr. Aaker explained that the current garage is a tuck under with a family room above. The driveway accessing the garage slopes downward severely to the garage opening. The homeowners have stated that flooding of the garage occurs in the spring and during the rainy seasons and that often times, water pours down the driveway and into the garage. Mr. Aaker said the homeowners have indicated that in winter months due to ice build up they are unable to utilize their driveway. The homeowners have also indicated that during the cold winter months, the family room is unable to maintain a comfortable living temperature. Ms. Aaker noted that in speaking to the engineering department they indicated that there is a storm water drainage culvert pipe which runs directly underneath the existing garage. It is unknown when the pipe was installed and the city does not have a record of receiving an easement for it. Ms. Aaker stated the engineering department has indicated that it is most practical to keep the pipe at it/s current location instead of relocating it to the easement area. Relocation would be difficulty due to grade changes and it would disrupt mature vegetation. Ms. Aaker explained that upon inspection of the culvert pipe the city engineer concluded that any addition or improvement to the home on or near the culvert pipe would require the following: 1. The homeowners provide a hold harmless agreement to the benefit of the city. 2. That the existing culvert pipe is protected by the homeowners during construction per engineering specifications. Ms. Aaker concluded that it has always been the policy of the board to grant the minimum variance possible to accomplish an addition. Moreover, the Board has also been protective of maintaining a uniform streetscape. While staff acknowledges that the existing conditions are difficult with regard to site drainage and garage access, it would appear that a garage equivalent in depth to the existing garage could be constructed without a variance. Staff cannot support the request as submitted. The proponents, Mr. and Mrs. Nordstrom and interested neighbors were present. Mrs. Faust asked Ms. Aaker what is the average depth of a two car garage. Ms. Aaker explained that a garage depth of 20 feet can accommodate most vehicles, and is a depth consistently used. Mr. Johnson agreed. He pointed out 20 feet for garage width may not be practical but for depth it should meet the needs of the proponents. Mr. Johnson questioned the proponents on the retaining wall and if they plan to reconstruct it after the proposed garage is constructed. Ms. Nordstrom explained that the retaining wall will have to be reconstructed noting the existing vegetation will remain untouched. Mr. Johnson stated he has a concern if the slope is altered drainage problems could occur elsewhere on the site or neighboring properties. Ms. Aaker responded that in speaking with the engineering department drainage would have to be contained on site. Mrs. Nordstrom pointed out that most of the water run-off runs into the existing driveway, not the culvert. A discussion ensued with board members in agreement that the proponents can achieve an adequate sized garage without requiring a variance. Mr. Johnson noted a garage -with a 20 foot depth is adequate adding if the proponents work with the engineering department and special care is implemented to ensure proper drainage a conforming garage expansion will work. Mrs. Nordstrom interjected they desire the additional depth so it can be used as a mudroom and to keep out the cold. Mr. Johnson suggested that the proponents increase the width of the garage not the depth. Mr. Johnson explained that the board is, and has always been, very careful in the granting of frontyard variances. He pointed out in this situation a conforming solution is possible, and there is no hardship. Mrs. Utne agreed, she reiterated the position indicated by the board that they support the recommendation by staff to construct a conforming garage. Ms. Trish Erickson, neighbor of the proponents asked the board if the Nordstroms could come back before them with a modified plan. Mrs. Utne explained that this item can be continued allowing the proponents time to redesign and return to them with a modified plan. This request can also be denied with the recommendation that the proponents consider the suggestion made by staff, or this request can denied this evening and the proponents can appeal our decision the City Council. Mr. Johnson reiterated when one infringes into the frontyard setback the neighborhood is impacted. Maintaining uniform streetscapes is very important, especially in neighborhoods were houses line up in uniformity. Mr. J. Deckas, neighbor told the board he agrees with their position. He pointed out if the board were to allow the variance as requested by the Nordstroms the garage would stick out six more feet into the frontyard setback. Mr. Deckas stated he believes a garage depth of 20 feet is adequate. Mrs. Faust asked Ms. Aaker if the proponents can build in the easement area. Ms. Aaker said the proponents would have to have the easement vacated. Mr. Johnson moved to deny the request for a six foot frontyard setback variance. Mrs. Faust seconded the motion. All voted aye; motion carried. Mrs. Nordstrom asked members of the board if they could look into a concern she has regarding the width of the culvert pipe. She stated he worries her child may become caught in the pipe. Ms. Aaker told Ms. Nordstrom she will speak with the engineering department about the culvert pipe. II. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 6:45 p.m. Jackie Hoogenakker