Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1995 06-15 Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting Minutes RegularMINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE EDINA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS HELD ON THURSDAY, JUNE 15, 1995 5:30 P.M, MANAGER'S CONFERENCE ROOM MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair, Helen McClelland, Don Patton, Mike Lewis, David Byron MEMBERS ABSENT: Lorelei Bergman STAFF PRESENT: Kris Aaker, Jackie Hoogenakker APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES: The minutes of the April 20,1 1995, meeting were filed without corrections. II. NEW BUSINESS: B-95-12 Richard and Cathleen Jaeger 5621 Woodcrest Drive Request: A two foot sideyard setback variance and a 25 foot setback variance from Minnehaha Creek and a .65% - 72 sq. ft. lot coverage variance Ms. Aaker informed the board the subject property is located on the east side of Woodcrest Drive, just south of West 56th Street. The home was built in 1969 and is a two story contemporary style structure backing up to Minnehaha Creek. Ms. Aaker explained the homeowners would like to accomplish a gazebo along side of their existing back deck. The existing deck is approximately 25 feet to the edge of the creek and ten feet to the south side property boundary. As indicated, the homeowners would like to construct the gazebo to match the existing deck setback which is 25 feet from the creek. The proposed gazebo will also encroach into the sideyard. Currently, the existing side wall of the home and deck are ten feet to the sideyard. The gazebo is proposed to be 8 feet in width which will create a 3 foot sideyard setback. The Edina Zoning Ordinance requires a minimum 50 foot setback from Minnehaha Creek and a minimum five foot setback from the sideyard for a gazebo. Prior to the 1992 ordinance amendment, setback from the creek was 25 feet. Ms. Aaker said the proposal also requires a lot coverage variance of .65% or 72 sq. ft. The board should note that the home is existing non -conforming in terms of lot coverage. When the home was built in 1969 it was constructed at 31.092% lot coverage including the back deck. There have been no additions to the home since construction. There is no evidence that a variance from the 25% maximum allowable coverage had ever been granted. Ms. Aaker explained staff cannot explain why some of the this home or why other homes in the neighborhood were constructed over the maximum allowable lot coverage. The lot coverage variance only addresses the gazebo area; current existing lot coverage conditions are simply existing non- conforming. Ms. Aaker pointed out according to the ordinance standard, there is no opportunity for expansion of the house with the exception of an addition within the established footprint, however, the required 50 foot setback from the creek occurs well within the building footprint. Ms. Aaker stated site inspection reveals that the land area appears larger than it's actual dimensions due to the amount of land area behind the lot and presence of the creek. It would appear the addition would have limited impact on neighboring properties with the exception of the adjacent neighboring property to the south. The property owner to the south supports the request. Ms. Aaker concluded generally the zoning board of appeals has not been supportive of lot coverage requests. Staff sympathizes with the applicants predicament in that there appears to be little if any alternatives available to the applicant. The proponents, Mr. and Mrs. Jaeger were present. Ms. McClelland explained to the proponents the city is very careful considering, and rarely grants lot coverage variances, noting the encroachment toward the creek is also a concern. Continuing, Ms. McClelland asked Ms. Aaker to clarify the setback. Ms. Aaker explained if the proposed gazebo were to become permanent (attached to the house) it would require a 10 sideyard foot variance, but since the gazebo is not permanent, it requires a setback of five feet from the side property line. Ms. McClelland suggested that the proponents construct the gazebo more into the sideyard, away from the creek. Mr. Jaeger pointed out if the gazebo is constructed entirely in the sideyard it would almost touch the house, or need to be attached to the house. Ms. Aaker reiterated, if the gazebo were constructed attached to the principal structure it would require a 10 foot sideyard setback. Continuing, Mr. Jaeger said he understands the concerns expressed regarding movement toward the creek, but in his opinion the proposed placement of the gazebo is best, and is in keeping with the character of the house. Mr. Jaeger pointed out because of the recent requirement to increase setbacks from the creek, and other waterbodies, they have no opportunity for expansion without a variance. Mr. Patton asked Ms. Aaker if the proposal requires a permit from the Watershed District. Ms. Aaker said no approval is required for the gazebo. Mr. Patton said he has a concern regarding the change in setback status from creeks and waterbodies. He pointed out Edina is a developed suburb with many home along the creeks and waterways that as a result of the amended ordinance now find themselves non -conforming, and would require variances for any additional construction. Continuing, Mr. Patton questioned how residents were made aware of this change to the ordinance. Ms. Aaker explained in 1992 the ordinance was re -codified, and the ordinance was published in the Edina Sun Current. Ms. Aaker agreed at that time many properties within the city became legally non -conforming which would trigger a variance hearing if any improvements were proposed closer than 50 feet to waterbodies. Ms. Aaker noted for Indian Head, Arrow Head, Mirror Lakes and Lake Cornelia the amended ordinance now requires a 75 foot setback. Ms. McClelland pointed out because of the amended ordinance concerning waterbodies many situations are grandfathered in. Ms. McClelland said her major concern is the lot coverage of this property. Noting, it is already at 31 %. Ms. Aaker interjected during the past year staff has observed that many homes within this neighborhood were constructed at maximum lot coverage, or over. Ms. Aaker said staff does not know the reason for this, but it creates problems when someone desires to add to their home. Mr. Patton asked Ms. Aaker how the gazebo placement impacts other homes within the area. Ms. Aaker said the neighbor most impacted is to the south, and they have indicated support for the proposal. Mr. Lewis moved variance approval subject to the plans presented, noting because the house is at maximum lot coverage there is a hardship if any development were to occur, and noting the grandfather (setback from waterbodies) situation which was created in 1992 when the new ordinance was adopted. Mr. Patton seconded the motion. All voted aye; motion carried. B-95-17 Mark and Ellen Smith 4632 Tower Street Lot 12, Block 3, Subdivision of Littel Park Request: A 3.75 foot sideyard setback variance due to building height Ms. Aaker explained the subject property is located on the north side of Tower between St. Johns Avenue and Concord Avenue. The house consists of a one and one half story cape cod. The home has an attached, flat roofed tandem garage that is at a lower elevation than the first floor of the home. The homeowners are hoping to accomplish a second story addition above the tandem garage. The homeowners have also planned an addition of a shed dormer across the back of the second floor to increase living space. The shed dormer addition conforms to the ordinance. Ms. Aaker concluded staff believes the proposed addition is an improvement on the existing flat roofed garage. Staff does have concern regarding the impact of the height of the east building wall however, the staggered location and spacing of the garage and neighboring house mitigate to some degree the east building wall impact. Staff can support the request subject to the use of matching materials. The proponents, Mr. and Mrs. Smith were present. Mr. Patton questioned the staggered aspect of the proposal, inquiring on the distance between structures after the addition is completed. Ms. Aaker said she believes the distance between the addition and the adjoining neighbor is 15 + feet. Mr. Patton asked what type of building materials are proposed to be used. Mr. Smith explained if the variance is granted, new windows will be incorporated into the addition and garage, and the entire house will be re -sided, and re -roofed. Mr. Smith commented the existing flat roof has been a problem for them in the past. Ms. McClelland stated as she reviewed the plans she viewed a problem with the mass, noting the long appearance of the sidewall of the proposed addition. Ms. McClelland commented in her opinion, the lot may be too small to support the mass of the existing house with the proposed addition. Mr. Smith pointed out as mentioned earlier by Mr. Patton the staggered aspect of the house is due to the grade change. He pointed out in his opinion this change in elevation helps break up the mass. Ms. McClelland said in her opinion the proposal is large. Mr. Lewis asked Ms. Aaker if the garage were at grade level would a variance still be needed. Ms. Aaker said a variance would still be required. Mr. Lewis asked Ms. Aaker if lot coverage is a problem. Ms. Aaker said lot coverage is not a problem. Mr. Lewis said in his opinion the house will look better with the addition. Mr. Byron agreed, he pointed out much of what is being proposed is a given, because the garage is existing. Mr. Patton moved variance approval subject to the plans presented with the understanding the roof and siding will be replaced, and be consistent. Mr. Byron seconded the motion. All voted aye; motion carried. B-95-19 Lars P. Johnson/Custom Cottages Chris Meyer/Gary Nichols 4602 Edina Boulevard Lot 18, Block 11, Country Club District Request: A three foot frontyard setback variance for a front terrace Ms. Aaker informed the board the subject property is located on the west side of Edina Boulevard within the historic Country Club district. The home was constructed in 1931 and is an English Cottage style home with Norman influence as listed in the historical and architectural survey of the district that was completed in 1980. Ms. Aaker explained the property owners are hoping to extend their front stoop to create a front terrace along the front side of the home. The terrace area is proposed to protrude into the established frontyard setback area by three feet. Ms. Aaker concluded staff could support the request given that it is consistent with other similar variance approvals and given that it blends well with the character of the structure. The proponent, Mr. Nichols was present. Mr. Patton asked Ms. Aaker if the proposal is required to go before the HPB. Ms. Aaker said if the terrace were to be enclosed we would probably ask for review by the HPB. Mr. Byron noted during the past year the city has approved terraces in the frontyard that must remain unenclosed and uncovered. Mr. Byron said the proponent should be made aware that this terrace cannot, at any time, be enclosed unless a variance is granted for the enclosure. Mr. Lewis moved approval of the variance subject to the plans presented and the condition that the terrace is to remain uncovered and unenclosed. Mr. Patton seconded the motion. All voted aye; motion carried. III. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 6:10 p.m. 5.:.Hoogenakke