Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1995 02-02 Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting Minutes Regulars MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE EDINA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS HELD ON THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 2, 1995 5:30 P.M., MANAGERS CONFERENCE ROOM MEMBERS PRESENT: Acting Chair, Lee Johnson, Nan Faust, Len Olson, Ann Swenson STAFF PRESENT: Kris Aaker, Jackie Hoogenakker I. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES Minutes of the December 1, 1994 meeting were filed as presented. II. NEW BUSINESS: B-95-1 Michael and Susan Burnett 4514 Wooddale Avenue Lot 13, Block 7, Country Club District Request: A 7.7 foot sideyard setback variance Ms. Aaker informed the board the subject property is located on the west side of Wooddale Avenue between Sunnyside Road and West 46th Street. The home is an English -cottage style home built in 1935 and is listed as pivotal in the historical and architectural survey of the Country Club District. "Pivotal" buildings are buildings of historical and or architectural importance that define the significance of the district, and are those encouraged to maintain their original character from the street view. Ms. Aaker added the property owners are planning to remodel the existing attached two car garage into a family room, and to add a new detached two car garage in the southwest corner of the rearyard. None of the improvements would change the appearance from the streetscape with the exception of the new detached garage in the rearyard. Ms. Aaker pointed out the existing garage is 2.3-3.3 feet from the north side yard property boundary. The current minimum sideyard setback for a garage is five 1 feet. Setback for living area on lot widths greater than 75 feet is 10 feet. The lot in question has a width of 80 feet so a deeper 10 foot setback applies to all living area. Ms. Aaker said the homeowners have modified their desired plan so that the garage conversion will not decrease an already existing non -conforming setback. The homeowners had originally planned to add four feet onto the back end of the existing garage to provide a wider area for the family room and to add an area near the kitchen along the north building wall. The add-ons would have decreased the existing non- conforming setback farther so the homeowners had their architect redesign to not introduce added encroachment. The plan also included a trellis area which would have decreased sideyard setback allowed for an overhang to 2.08'. Ms. Aaker concluded the zoning ordinance allows the repair and maintenance of existing non -conforming structures, it does not however, allow the conversion of the garage to living area at an existing substandard setback without review by the zoning board of appeals. The house was constructed closer to the north property boundary than what is currently allowed. Ms. Aaker explained it should also be noted that the north building wall does not run parallel with the north lot line, which creates a closer setback as the north wall extends towards the rearyard. Although the board has not generally approved setbacks closer than three feet to the sideyard for new construction, this proposal is for a conversion of existing space with no change in building mass. The proponents, Mr. and Mrs. Burnett were present. Mrs. Swenson questioned if the proposed fireplace will encroach into the setback. Mr. Burnett stated the fireplace will not project into the sideyard setback, any indication of a fireplace is only from the roof. Mrs. Swenson commented if the fireplace will not project into the setback it will have to be constructed within the existing building wall, noting that wall will have to be rebuilt. Mrs. Swenson asked what material will be used for the exterior of the proposed freestanding garage. Mr. Burnett stated the freestanding garage will be constructed with like materials, stucco and shakes. Mrs. Faust asked Mr. Burnett if the proposed garage roof will have a high pitch. Mr. Burnett said the garage roof is not designed with a high pitched. Mr. Olson questioned if the large elm tree will be removed as a result of this proposal. Mrs. Burnett said the large elm tree will not be removed, but the flowering crab tree may have to go. Mr. Olson asked if the same driveway will be used to serve the new garage. Mr. Burnett said the same driveway will be used, but the turn around will be removed. Mr. Johnson asked Mr. Burnett how much of the existing garage will remain after all the renovations. Mr. Burnett said the north building wall should remain pretty intact, the west wall will have the addition of a bay window, and the south building 2 wall will be moved in about three feet. Mr. Johnson asked what type of roof is proposed over the addition. Mr. Burnett stated the roof will remain as is, flat. Mr. Johnson asked if the interior floor will remain at the same grade. Mr. Burnett stated it will be raised, and will be approximately one step below the grade of the kitchen. Mr. Olson asked Mr. and Mrs. Burnett their plans for windows along the north building wall. Mr. Burnett stated the windows planned for the north building wall are small and will be located along the top of the building wall. Mrs. Faust asked Mr. and Mrs. Burnett if they have received any comments or letters from their neighbors, especially the neighbor to the north. Mrs. Burnett submitted letters of support, one letter was from the neighbor to the north. Mr. Johnson noted in reviewing the building plans submitted it appears there will be considerable disruption to the building walls of the existing garage to create the family room. Mr. Johnson asked the proponents if they considered moving the garage wall over three or four feet. Mr. Burnett explained if they move the entire building wall over three feet it will come too close to the existing dining room windows. Mr. Johnson stated he has a problem approving anything, (especially living space) with a setback under three feet, adding he is not aware of any property in the city that has been granted a variance to allow living space less than three feet from a lot line. Continuing, Mr. Johnson reiterated, the walls of the existing garage will be considerably altered, if not removed, and in reviewing the proposal it appears the only thing that will be salvaged are the footings. Mr. Johnson concluded that in his opinion there is adequate space to move the building wall over three feet, and maintain a five foot setback. A 2.4" setback is too close! Mr. Burnett said he can understand the hesitation in approving a variance of this magnitude, adding he believes they do not have a choice. If the building wall is moved over, the dining room windows will be compromised, and the result will be a long thin family room. Mr. Burnett concluded it is not the configuration we wanted to achieve. Mrs. Burnett interjected another concern of hers is access to the rear of the home. She pointed out the rear entry access has always been undesirable, and the proposal as submitted addresses this unusual existing configuration. Mr. and Mrs. Burnett approached board members, discussed and reviewed with them the proposal. Mr. Johnson, after discussion at the table, stated he cannot support a setback for living space less than five feet from an interior property line. He pointed out adequate circulation around the addition is a necessity for maintenance and to avoid trespass. Mr. Johnson pointed out, in his opinion, because of the magnitude of the disruption to the building walls, (the possibility of their removal) this should be 3 considered new construction, and we can ask that new construction be brought into compliance. Mr. Johnson reiterated, he in good faith, cannot support a setback of less than five feet. Mrs. Faust explained to Mr. and Mrs. Burnett their lot is 80 feet in width, and city ordinance requires on lots 75 feet in width and larger that they maintain a 10 foot sideyard setback for living space. Mrs. Faust pointed out if this board were to consider approving living space at five feet, you would still require a five foot sideyard setback variance. Continuing, Mrs. Faust stated it has been her experience on this board that the board has approved variances under five feet only for garages, adding the boards comfort level for garages from a lot line is three feet, concluding, living space has always been a minimum of five feet. Mr. Burnett stated they have struggled with plans for an addition to this house for quite some time, and believe what is presented is best. Continuing, Mr. Burnett stated they do not want the family room appearing to be hanging off the dining room. Mrs. Burnett reiterated their struggle with the rearyard access. Commenting there never has been an adequate rear entrance into the house. Mrs. Swenson asked Ms. Aaker why the lot line is so strange for this property. Ms. Aaker commented the house was constructed a number of years ago, there may have been a field error, or they may have chosen to construct the house this way. Mrs. Swenson pointed out the corner of the existing garage at present is non- conforming. Ms. Aaker said that is correct, the corner of the existing garage is non- conforming. Mrs. Swenson stated, as she views the situation, she agrees, the building wall should be moved over to maintain the minimum five foot sideyard setback. Mr. Johnson interjected he feels the same, adding he cannot support anything under five feet. Mr. Burnett said he is not sure this can be redesigned to meet a five foot sideyard setback. Mrs. Faust reiterated, if the board approves a five foot sideyard setback, we are still granting you a considerable variance. Your lot is 80 feet in width, and the setback for living space on an 80 foot lot is ten feet, not five. Mrs. Swenson commented it appears after listening to the discussion this evening the feeling of the board is to suggest that you redesign to maintain a five foot sideyard setback. Mr. Burnett pointed out if we have to maintain a five foot setback the existing garage will have to be removed. Mr. Johnson said in his opinion there are two options. Option one would be to continue this to allow time for redesign, or option two, we can vote, and if denied, our decision can be heard by the city council in the form of an appeal. Mr. Burnett requested that the meeting be continued to allow time to reconsider and possibly redesign. Mrs. Swenson asked the minutes to reflect if this issue is re -heard by a different board they understand this board indicated support for maintaining a five foot sideyard setback for living space. 111. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 6:30 p.m. F44'Zi-�e �1.1/ �� t- - 1 5