Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1995 04-20 Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting Minutes RegularMINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE EDINA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS HELD ON THURSDAY, APRIL 20, 1995 5:30 P.M., COUNCIL CHAMBERS MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair, Helen McClelland, Lorelei Bergman, David Byron MEMBERS ABSENT: Don Patton and Mike Lewis STAFF PRESENT: Kris Aaker, Jackie Hoogenakker I. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES: The minutes of the February 16, 1995 were filed as submitted. II. NEW BUSINESS: B-95-7 Leonard and Dorothy Levin 5909 Chowen Avenue North 112 of west 1/2 of Lot 7, Auditor's Subdivision #312 Request: A 314 square foot lot coverage variance Ms. Aaker informed the board the subject property is located on the east side of Chowen Avenue south of West 59th Street. The home is a one story rambler with a detached garage built in 1952. The homeowners are proposing a 16 X 20 foot addition to the home to include a bedroom and bathroom. All aspects of the addition conform to ordinance requirements with the exception of the maximum allowable lot coverage requirement. The homeowners have owned their home since 1977. There have been a number of improvements to the property since construction in 1952. In 1974 a 16' X 18' family room was constructed off of the back of the home and in 1982 the current homeowners increased the family room by 8 feet with an 8' X 16' addition. Ms. Aaker explained the Edina Zoning Ordinance indicates that lots less than 9000 square feet in area cannot exceed 30% lot coverage or a maximum 2,250 1 square feet of building coverage (whichever is less). The existing house and improvements total 2,244 square feet of coverage. The addition will add another 320 square feet of coverage which is 314 square feet over the 2,250 square feet. Ms. Aaker pointed out the property owners have gained the support of the surrounding neighbors and have indicated that they plan on residing the entire house. The proposal will not alter the street scape. Ms. Aaker concluded it has generally been the policy of the Zoning Board of Appeals to preserve the maximum amount of yard area not encroached upon by buildings. The board has expressed the opinion that there is an absolute limit to the amount of building a parcel can tolerate. Ms. Aaker stated Staff agrees with the view of the Zoning Board. Ms. Aaker concluded due to the magnitude of the variance request staff cannot support the request. The proponent, Mr. Levin was present to respond to questions. Ms. McClelland noted the magnitude of the variance, and asked Ms. Aaker if she worked with the proponent to scale back the plan. Ms. Aaker said because of the time constraint notices had to be mailed immediately. Redesign was not discussed. Mr. Byron asked Mr. Levin if he would decipher the plans. He stated if he reads the proposed plans correctly, after the addition, the home is still a three bedroom home. Mr. Levin responded by informing board members it was a blow to him to discover a variance was required to accomplish the proposed addition. Continuing, Mr. Levin added in response to Mr. Byrons question, that he is trying to accomplish another full bathroom, and increase the size of one bedroom to accommodate an additional family member. Mr. Byron asked Mr. Levin how much rear yard will be lost as a result of this proposal. Mr. Levin said very little usable rear yard will be lost. He pointed out they will be only filling in the corner of the existing house. Ms. McClelland stated she is not encouraged to support the variance as presented. Continuing, Ms. McClelland pointed out the ordinance changed in 1984 to allow for additional building coverage on smaller lots, and the variance requested this evening is substantial. Mr. Byron agreed. He added he is very concerned with the magnitude of the lot coverage variance. He asked Mr. Levin if he knows the size of the existing bedroom he wants to expand. Mr. Levin said he believes the bedroom is roughly 14 X 15, reiterating his main goal is to accomplish an additional full bathroom. Mr. Byron asked Mr. Levin how many bathrooms the home has at present. Mr. 2 Levin responded the home has one full bathroom, and one half bathroom. Mrs. Bergman commented in reviewing the plans presented, she has a concern with the roof line of the addition. Mr. Levin stated the reason for the elevated roof line is to create enough height to accommodate skylights, and to support the addition structurally. Mrs. Bergman said in her opinion, the end result is a square house with an unattractive roof line. Mr. Levin interjected he has studied various layouts, and this layout achieves what is desired, and in his opinion, the best plan. Mr. Byron asked Mr. Levin if he ever considered adding another bedroom in the basement. Mr. Levin said he does not want any member of his family sleeping in the basement. Ms. McClelland pointed out in Edina there are many homes that have bedrooms in basement areas, and they are very nice. Ms. McClelland added if a basement is not a walk -out, egress windows can be added, creating an attractive living area. Continuing, Ms. McClelland said in her opinion there is no hardship to support this request. There are alternatives. She concluded the board has always been very strict in their enforcement of lot coverage. Mr. Levin stressed he has studied many different options, and believes the option presented this evening is the best. Mr. Byron asked Mr. Levin if it is possible to convert the mudroom into a bathroom. Mr. Levin responded that is a possibility. Continuing, Mr. Levin pointed out we are only filling in the corner of our house, and the most impacted neighbor to the north supports the proposal. Mr. Byron explained the house currently is near maximum lot coverage, and board members have suggested alternatives that reduce or eliminate the lot coverage variance, adding he also believes there are other options. Mr. Byron explained when the board reviews a request we look at a number of guidelines; if granting the variance corrects extraordinary circumstances, if you cannot accomplish a property right possessed by other properties in the vicinity, and granting the variance relieves an undue hardship which was not self-imposed or a mere inconvenience. Continuing, Mr. Byron pointed out the mudroom was added without the concern for an additional bathroom which created, in his opinion, a self-imposed hardship. Mr. Byron concluded in his opinion the request does not meet variance criteria, and he cannot support the request as submitted. Mrs. Bergman commented she cannot support the request because in her opinion, the addition does not meet the character and symmetry of the neighborhood, and is not aesthetically pleasing. Concluding, Mrs. Bergman stated she believes, as suggested, there can be internal redesign that eliminates the lot coverage variance. 3 Ms. McClelland observed if she reads board members correctly we are indicating we cannot support this request, and asked Mr. Levin if he would like more time to allow him to redesign. Ms. McClelland concluded by explaining the board can continue this hearing or vote on the proposal. Mr. Levin asked the board to indefinitely table the meeting allowing him the opportunity to redesign. Mr. Byron moved to table the request. Mrs. Bergman seconded the motion. All voted aye; motion carried. B-95-8 Harlan Limpert & Christine Keane 7737 Tanglewood Court Lot 1, Block 7, Tanglewood Court Zoning: R-2 Request: A three foot setback variance for a deck Ms. Aaker informed the board the subject property is located on the west side of the Tanglewood Court cul-de-sac. The property consists of a double dwelling unit built in 1981. The homeowners have a patio extending from the back of their home which comes to within two feet of the property boundary. Minimum required setback of a patio or deck is five feet. The homeowners believed when they purchased the property that the patio conformed to ordinance requirements and that landscaping and landscape timbers on the site were located on the property. Ms. Aaker explained the homeowners are hoping to replace the existing patio with a wooden deck. The deck will be roughly the same dimensions as the existing patio and will be approximately the same as the deck located on the opposite side of the double dwelling unit. Ms. Aaker concluded the proposal will be limited in scope and scale and will not be increasing an already non -conforming setback. Staff supports the request as submitted. A brief discussion ensued. Mrs. Bergman moved variance approval subject to the plans presented with the 2 condition that the new deck be constructed over the existing patio. Mr. Byron seconded the motion. All voted aye; motion carried. B-95-9 John C. Wells 4507 Bruce Avenue Lot 28, Block 3, Country Club District Fairway Section Request: A 2.92 sideyard setback variance for building height Ms. Aaker informed the board the subject property is located on the east side of Bruce Avenue. The home consists of a two story mediterranean style stucco structure with a tile roof. The homeowners are proposing to convert the existing attached garage behind the house into living space and to add a second story above the garage to increase bedroom area. They are also hoping to replace the attached garage with a detached two stall garage. Ms. Aaker concluded staff can support the request subject to the use of matching materials to the existing structure. The proponent, Mr. Wells was present. Mrs. Bergman commented the subject house will be similar to the house next door, and in her opinion, the additi.on will enhance the property when viewed by the neighbor to the north. Mr. Byron added he agrees. He commented the driveway separation is a plus, concluding he can support the request as submitted. Mr. Wells explained it is important to maintain as much rearyard as possible, which was a driving force in the way the addition was designed. Mrs. Bergman asked if the house will be re -stuccoed. Mr. Wells responded the house will be re -stuccoed and re -roofed. Mr. Byron moved variance approval subject to staff conditions. Mrs. Bergman seconded the motion. Motion carried. III. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 6:05 p.m. Hoogenakker 5