Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1995 03-16 Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting Minutes RegularMINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS HELD ON THURSDAY, MARCH 16, 1995 5:30 P.M., MANAGER'S CONFERENCE ROOM MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair, Gordon Johnson, Helen McClelland, Mike Lewis & Geof Workinger MEMBERS ABSENT: Don Patton STAFF PRESENT: Kris Aaker, Jackie Hoogenakker I. NEW BUSINESS: B-95-3 Dan Luther 72 Woodland Circle Colonial Grove 3rd Addition Request: A 5.9 foot frontyard setback variance and lot coverage variance Ms. Aaker informed the Board the subject property is located on the west side of Woodland Circle next to Minnehaha Creek. The homeowner is proposing to add a new front stoop with an overhang supported by posts that would encroach into the frontyard setback area. Ms. Aaker concluded there have been a number of similar additions approved in the past, however, none that have required a lot coverage variance. It is evident that a portion of the existing lot coverage consists of deck area that could be reduced to accommodate allowable lot coverage area for the new front entry. Staff supports the request for frontyard setback variance but cannot support the request for lot coverage variance. The proponent, Mr. Luther was present, an interested neighbor was present. Ms. McClelland asked Ms. Aaker if the survey is correct. Ms. Aaker said the survey is correct. Mr. Workinger questioned if currently there are decorative posts on the house. 1 A Mr. Luther said there are posts on the house (front and rear), which is the reason we felt the overhang would match the house better with posts. Mr. Workinger acknowledged the design of the overhang compliments the house, adding he is uncomfortable with the frontyard variance because of the curve in the street, and the impact to the property owner to the north. Mr. Luther informed board members the property owners to the north have viewed the plans and have indicated they do not object to the front entry addition. Continuing, Mr. Luther explained their goal is to tie the rear and front of the house together, and to add additional storage space. Continuing, Mr. Luther said he believes what they have proposed is aesthetically pleasing, and maintains the character and symmetry of the neighborhood. Mr. Luther concluded by explaining as he understands the city ordinance he can add the overhang, and have it supported by decorative brackets without a variance, but prefers to have it supported by posts so it matches the other posts already present. Ms. Aaker said Mr. Luther is correct in stating he can construct the overhang without the posts without requiring a variance. The variance requirement was generated when the posts were added. Mr. Workinger asked Mr. Luther if he has received any response from the neighbor to the immediate south. Mr. Luther responded the house directly south is vacant, but he believes the owner will be there over the weekend. Chairman Johnson asked Mr. Luther how long he has owned his house. Mr. Luther said he has owned his house for 14 years. Continuing, Mr. Luther said the reason they are proposing the changes to the house is so they can stay. He added he loves the neighborhood, enjoys his neighbors, and does not want to move. Chairman Johnson pointed out in reviewing the survey there appears to be a large utility easement running through the middle of the yard. This utility easement could be considered a hardship. Continuing, Chairman Johnson asked Mr. Luther if the utility easement played a role in the location of the pool. Mr. Luther explained when the pool was first designed it was designed to fit in the north corner of the lot running along the depth of the lot. When the utility easement was identified the pool had to be located off the utility easement, and run the width of the lot. A variance was received to construct walkways to access the pool with the understanding if access was needed to the utility easement any disturbance to the walkways would be at my expense. Mr. Lewis asked Ms. Aaker for clarification on the request. Ms. Aaker explained the proponent is requesting a frontyard setback variance for the addition of an overhang supported with posts. Everything else is existing. Continuing, Ms. Aaker said presently the lot is over on lot coverage which is the reason a lot coverage variance is also required. As a result of this proposal an additional 34 square feet of 2 4 area is added to the lot coverage. Mr. Lewis asked if the original survey was wrong. He pointed out additions have been added over the years, and lot coverage was not an issue. Ms. Aaker explained all additions did receive building permits. Ms. Aaker said this is a unique situation because it has evolved over the past 10 years, and ordinance interpretation at that time may not have included the walkways going to the pool as lot coverage. Concluding, Ms. Aaker explained sidewalks are not added as lot coverage, but decking is. She added she cannot explain what occurred in the past. Ms. McClelland stated in her opinion any hardship is self imposed. She pointed out the lot is already maxed. She asked the board to note that the pool, and the required four feet of decking, was not included in the lot coverage calculations. She noted if you were to add the pool and the required decking in those computations the lot would be at 50%. Continuing, Ms. McClelland stated she also has a concern with the setting of a precedent. She acknowledged over the past year there have been a number of variances granted for frontyard setbacks to add a covered stoop, but no approval has been granted also requiring a lot coverage variance. Ms. McClelland stated she cannot support the request because of the lot coverage variance. She pointed out the lot is good size, but it is too crowded. She acknowledged the frontyard remains uncluttered, and the proposed front entry is aesthetically pleasing, but she cannot support the request. Chairman Johnson asked if anyone else would like to speak on this issue. Mrs. Margaret Reimann, 73 Woodland Circle, told board members she was interested in the proposal, and how it would look, adding she can support the request now that she understands what is proposed. Continuing, she explained she had a concern the request would be to change the house into a two story house. Chairman Johnson reiterated the overhang can be added without a variance if it is supported with decorative brackets, not columns. He asked Mrs. Reimann if she is has an opinion on the columns. Mrs. Reimann responded she has no objection to the columns, adding they suit the character of the house. Mr. Lewis stated in his opinion, if he understands the process, the columns generated the request for the variances. Continuing, Mr. Lewis pointed out in the past we have granted similar variances for front yard entry ways, adding he understands the concern with lot coverage, but in this instance it may be better to grant the variance for the supporting posts because the character of the existing house is maintained. Concluding, Mr. Lewis stated we look at each request individually. Mr. Workinger commented a variance can be good, as well as bad, and variances can improve some situations. Continuing, Mr. Workinger stated his concern is with the immediate neighbors (north and south) and how the entry way impacts their site lines. Mr. Luther interjected in his discussion with the immediate neighbors they have indicated they do not have a problem with the entry way. Chairman 3 Johnson asked Mr. Luther if he could request from the north and south neighbors a letter indicating their position on the proposal. Mr. Luther stated he would ask for letters from those neighbors, reiterating the neighbor to the north has indicated support and the neighbor to the immediate south will be available this weekend to obtain a letter. Ms. McClelland agreed the front entryway is aesthetically pleasing, but pointed out in her opinion the lot is overbuilt. Ms. McClelland reiterated the request is beautiful, but we do not know what the next homeowner may want to do on this site, or what anyone else in the neighborhood may request. Ms. McClelland concluded the board has always been very protective of lot coverage. Mr. Lewis commented it is also possible a future owner of the property may want to fill in the pool and remove the decking, which would reduce the lot coverage. Mr. Lewis moved to grant the frontyard setback and lot coverage variance, noting the large utility easement in the rear as a hardship, pointing out in the past the board has approved requests for supported overhangs, and commenting the board does not advocate additional lot coverage, but in this instance 34 square feet of additional lot coverage to protect a front stoop makes sense, and better maintains the character of the existing house. Approval is also conditioned on the use of matching materials, and subject to letters from the neighbors to the immediate south and north. Mr. Workinger seconded the motion. Ayes; Lewis, Workinger, Johnson. Nays, McClelland. Motion carried. II. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 6:30 p.m. J Qie Hoogenakker Il