Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1995 06-01 Zoning Board of Appeals Meetingk EDINA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS HELD ON THURSDAY, JUNE 1, 1995 5:30 P.M., MANAGER'S CONFERENCE ROOM MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair, Rose Mary Utne, Ann Swenson, Len Olson, Lee Johnson, Nan Faust STAFF PRESENT: Kris Aaker, Jackie Hoogenakker I. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES: The minutes for the April 6, 1995 meeting were filed as submitted. II. OLD BUSINESS: B-95-10 Dale and Tracy Nelson 4374 Thielen Avenue Lot 5, Thielen's Brookside Request: A seven foot frontyard setback variance Ms. Aaker informed the board the subject property is located on the west side of Thielen Avenue, north of West 44th Street and south of the municipal boundary. The home is a 1 1/2 story brick structure built in 1937. The homeowners are hoping to create a terrace in front of their home, adjacent to the existing front stoop. Ms. Aaker concluded staff could support a front terrace consistent with similar variance approvals. Staff would recommend not exceeding a five foot variance. A five foot terrace would afford enough depth for seating without extending out more than two feet in front of the existing front stoop. The proponent, Mr. Nelson was present. Mr. Johnson asked Mr. Nelson if he knew the front setback for the house next door. Mr. Nelson said the frontyard setback for the neighboring house is 33 feet. Mrs. Faust said because the proposed terrace is remaining uncovered she has no problem with it. Mrs. Utne asked Mr. Nelson the height of the decorative fence around the terrace. Mr. Nelson said the fence height is three feet. Mr. Johnson asked Ms. Aaker how is determined five feet as a comfort level for front terraces. Ms. Aaker said she has found that established front terraces usually are five feet. Mrs. Swenson asked Mr. Nelson if five feet creates a problem. Mr. Nelson said he would like to sit on the terrace and watch the kids play in the front and five feet is a little tight especially when one tries to open the french doors onto the terrace. Mr. Johnson said in his opinion the terrace is really a deck and supports the staff recommendation. Mr. Nelson informed board members he went to all adjoining property owners and they expressed support for the proposal. Continuing, Mr. Nelson said visually the impact of a five foot terrace versus the seven feet cannot be determined from the front street. Mrs. Faust said at one time she lived in a similar home with a front deck, and agreed a five foot terrace is only decorative, you do need more room if you want to sit on the deck area and watch the children. Mrs. Faust moved variance approval subject to the plans presented and that the terrace remain unenclosed and uncovered. Mrs. Swenson seconded the motion. Aye; Swenson, Faust Utne, Nays; Johnson, Olson. Motion carried, 3-2. III. NEW BUSINESS: B-95-14 Richard Kloepper 5217 Tifton Drive Zoning: R-1 Request: A variance from Section 1046 of the City Code regarding the parking of a recreational vehicle Ms. Aaker informed the board, the subject property is located south of Tifton Drive and east of Ridgeview Drive. The property consists of a single family home with a tuck -under two car garage. Thee homeowner owns a recreational vehicle he would like to park in his driveway. The parking of the R.V. in the driveway requires a variance from Section 1046 of the Edina City Ordinance. Ms. Aaker concluded given that a vehicle has been parked on the premises in the summertime over the last seven years, and given that the conforming solution would not eliminate the impact of the vehicle on the street scape, and given that the vehicle could remain on the drivf;vvay continually as long as it is moved every seven days or less; staff can support the request subject to the following conditions: The variance is tied to that specific vehicle, lot and proponent. The proponent, Mr. Kloepper was present to respond to questions. Interested neighbors were present. Mrs. Utne asked Ms. Aaker if she has discussed the possibility of excavating the sideyard to store the R.V. with Mr. Kloepper. Ms. Aaker said Mr. Kloepper is aware of the ordinance, but has decided to seek the variance. Mr. Kloepper told board members during the winter months the vehicle is stored off site, but in the spring and summer the vehicle is used almost every weekend. Mr. Kloepper said he requested the variance so he could park the vehicle on the driveway without having to move it every seven days. Ms. Swenson asked Mr. Kloepper if he was aware, when he purchased the new R.V., compliance with the new ordinance would need to be met. Mr. Kloepper said he called the city and was informed if he owned a vehicle before 1992 it could be parked in the frontyard setback, on the driveway. Ms. Aaker interjected if he called shortly after the ordinance was adopted he may have been given the wrong information, or the person he spoke with may not have been aware that he was purchasing a new vehicle, which triggers compliance with current codes. Mrs. Swenson noted this issue was extensively covered in the Sun -Current and if one owned an R.V. they should have followed the coverage, and outcome. Mr. Olson said his problem is with the setting of a precedent. If we grant a variance to allow this R.V. to remain parked on the driveway, we may have to allow others to park on front driveways. Mr. Johnson said as he understands the ordinance it is very specific, the purchase of a new vehicle in this case, triggers compliance. Mr. Johnson said he is opposed to the granting of this variance. Mr. Kloepper should either move the vehicle to a conforming location, or move it every seven days. Concluding, Mr. Johnson said if Mr. Kloepper can comply with the ordinance, he should do so. Mrs. Swenson said she agrees with Mr. Johnsons comments, and cannot support the variance request. Mrs. Utne pointed out that while Mr. Kloepper can comply with the ordinance either by moving the vehicle every seven days, or excavating a parking pad in the sideyard, the construction of parking pad in the sideyard may negatively impact the neighbor. An unidentified neighbor told board members he has a problem with R.V.'s parked on site period, and asked Ms. Aaker to better explain the ordinance. Ms. Aaker stated any recreational vehicle must be owned or leased by the occupant of the premises where parked or stored, a vehicle shall not be parked or stored within five feet of an interior side lot line, within 25 feet of a rear lot line, or within the required front street setback of side street setback, a vehicle shall not be parked or stored closer to the buildable area for a principal building on an adjoining lot than to the principal building on the lot where parked or stored, a vehicle may also be parked on a temporary basis on a driveway within the required front street setback or side street setback if the vehicle is moved every seven days, and is not parked within 15 feet of the travelled portion of a street, not within five feet or a side or rear lot line. A resident commented he feels the seven day period is too long, and allows people to get around the ordinance. Mr. Olson moved to deny the variance request. Mrs. Swenson seconded the motion. All voted aye; motion to deny carried. B-95-15 Robert Kidd 4125 West 62nd Street Lot 1, Block 1, Kidd Addition Zoning: R-1 Request: A 1.75 foot sideyard setback variance Ms. Aaker told the board the subject property is located on the south side of West 62nd Street and consists of a 1 1/2 story home. The property owners have planned a substantial remodel of the home with several additions planned to the existing structure including a nevi{ attached garage, a room addition and a full second story addition. Ms. Aaker concluded given the existing non -conforming far westerly location of the house and easterly orientation of most of the expansion, staff believes the remodel is a logical alternative. Staff supports the request as submitted. The proponents, Mr. and Mrs. Kidd were present. Interested neighbors were also present. Mr. Olson said while he agrees with staffs conclusion, but in his opinion the garage is too deep. Mr. Johnson asked Mr. Kidd if he has any plans for the 36 foot building wall. Mr. Kidd responded he is planning to locate some windows along the building wall. Mr. Johnson said in his opinion windows will soften the mass of the garage, suggesting that the widows implemented are residential in flavor, and in keeping with the character of the house. Continuing, Mr. Johnson explained he does not want to see standard garage type windows used along this building wall. Mr. Kidd said he will add windows that match the residential character of the house. Mrs. Swenson asked Mr. Kidd what exterior materials will be used on the addition. Mr. Kidd said materials used will either be stucco or a lap siding and will be added throughout the addition and existing house. Mrs. Swenson asked Mr. Kidd why he was proposing a hip roof instead of the existing gable end roof. Mr. Kidd said the hip roof reduces the height, so a variance is not required for building height. Mr. Byron Armstrong, 4121 West 62nd Street, informed board members he has personal issues with Mr. Kidd, and continued by expanding on their nature. Mrs. Utne explained to Mr. Armstrong this hearing is to address the variance issue, not private issues between neighbors, and asked Mr. Armstrong if he has any comments regarding the variance request. Mr. Armstrong said he has no questions about the variance, commenting he is not sure where the common property line is. Mr. Johnson stated he can support the request if the addition is constructed with like building materials, and the mass of the 36 foot building wall is softened with windows that have the appearance of house windows. Mrs. Swenson moved variance approval subject to the use of consistent materials and the modification of the 36 foot building wall to include windows with the a residential appearance (windows similar to house windows). Mr. Olson seconded the motion. All voted aye; motion carried. B-95-16 Lynn A. Hagedorn 5808 Creek Valley Road Lot 11, Block 2, Creek Valley Addition Zoning: R-1 Request: A two foot sideyard setback variance and a 7 foot sideyard setback variance Ms. Aaker informed the board the subject property consists of a walkout rambler located on the north side of Creek Valley Road. The home has an attached two car garage that is directly adjacent to the existing family room behind the garage. The homeowners are hoping to add 7 feet onto the garage towards the east property boundary to be within three feet of the side lot line. The proposal also includes a nine foot addition to living space towards the east property boundary east of the family room for an office on the main le -jel and storage in the lower level walkout. The plan also includes extension of the existing deck to also be within three feet of the side lot line. Ms. Aaker concluded given the available buildable lot area staff cannot support a request to allow the office/storage area within three feet of the side lot line. Staff can, however, appreciate the logic in trying to incorporate a mudroom in the garage area but believes a conforming solution with a five foot setback provided could be accomplished. The proponent Ms. Hagedorn was present to respond to questions. Mrs. Swenson commented she can accept the garage portion of the request, but not the request for living space. Mr. Johnson said in viewing the plans he believes there are other options that can be pursued, adding he has a problem in supporting the variance for living space. Mrs. Faust pointed out the house does not appear to be centered on the lot, which can be considered a hardship. A discussion ensued with board members in agreement they could support the variance request for the garage, but could not support the variance for living space when there are other options available. Mrs. Swenson moved approval of a two foot sideyard setback variance noting the structure (including eaves) can be no closer than three feet to the side property boundary and that landscaping is to be implemented to soften the impact of the garage. Ayes; Swenson, Johnson, Utne, Faust. Nay, L. Johnson. Motion carried. III. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 6:30 p.m. ogenakker