Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1997 06-05 Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting Minutes RegularMINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE EDINA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS HELD ON THURSDAY, JUNE 5,1997,5:30 P.M. EDINA CITY HALL MANAGER'S CONFERENCE ROOM MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair Rose Mary Utne, Ann Swenson, Meg Mannix, John Lonsbury and Don Patton The minutes of the April 3, 1997, meet were filed as submitted. 11. NEW BUSINESS: B-97-20 Phyllis M. Paul 4416 Curve Avenue Lot 39, Auditor's Subdivision No. 161, Hennepin County Request: A 1.5 foot north sideyard setback variance and a .5 foot west sideyard setback variance to replace an existing non -conforming garage Ms. Aaker informed the Board the subject property is located on the west side of Curve Avenue consisting of a 1 Y2 story home with a detached 20X22 foot garage. The existing detached garage is located 1.5 feet from the north property boundary and 2.5 feet to the west property boundary. The minimum side and rearyard setback requirement for a detached garage is three feet. The homeowner is hoping to replace the garage in the same location. Ms. Aaker pointed out if the homeowner were repairing the structure, no variance would be required. The homeowner is requesting the same location with the same size garage. Ms. Aaker concluded staff believes the homeowner should be able to replace the garage and continue the right to enjoy use of the structure in the same non -conforming location. The proponent Ms. Paul was present. Mrs. Swenson asked Ms. Aaker if staff has received any response from nearby neighbors. Ms. Aaker said she received a call from an unidentified neighbor. The neighbor asked questions about the retaining wall, but made no other comments. Ms. Paul told members of the board the existing retaining wall will be completely replaced. Mrs. Swenson asked Ms. Paul the type of siding that will be used on the proposed garage. Ms. Paul responded the garage will be sided to match the house. Mrs. Swenson moved variance approval subject to the plans presented, and the use of matching materials. Mrs. Mannix seconded the motion. All voted aye; motion carried. B-97-21 Ray S. Clarke 6609 Cahill Road Lot 4, Block 1, Brookview Heights 41' Addition Request: A 9.5 foot setback variance from creek edge and a 5 foot rearyard setback variance Ms., Aaker informed the board the subject property is located on the east side of Cahill Road, north of West 68th Street and consists of a walkout rambler with attached two car garage. The home backs up to Nine Mile Creek. The home owner is proposing to remove the deck located behind the house and replace it with a family room addition. The family room will provide a setback of 20 feet to the rear lot line and a setback of 40.5 feet to the edge of Nine Mile creek. The minimum rearyard setback requirement is 25 feet and 50 feet to the edge of the creek. Ms. Aaker concluded given site conditions and limited impact, staff is supportive of the request. The proponent, Mr. Clarke was present to respond to questions. Mrs. Swenson asked if there are any concerns regarding the stability of the retaining wall if the creek were to meander. Ms. Aaker explained the retaining wall is re -enforced, and the proponent indicated during the storm of 1987 the creek water rose only as far as the steps P" with no notable damage to the retaining wall. Mrs. Swenson noted the terrain is very steep. Ms. Aaker agreed, reiterating the wall has remained stable. Ms. Mannix asked if the proponents experienced any difficulties with the DNR. Ms. Aaker said the DNR indicated they have no problem with the retaining wall. Mr. Patton noted the existing survey does not identify the need for a variance, and questioned how this mistake was identified. Ms. Aaker explained she asked the proponent for a new survey because when she visited the site the survey appeared not to indicate what was constructed. Ms. Aaker explained many of our surveys are "proposed", not "as built", which is the reason she visits the site during plan review. Mr. Clarke interjected they were very surprised with the results of the new survey. Mrs. Mannix said as presented she does not have a problem with the proposal, noting the proponents acted in good faith believing the survey on file was correct. Mrs. Mannix moved variance approval subject to the plans presented, and the use of matching materials. Mr. Lonsbury seconded the motion. All voted aye; motion carried. B-97-22 Herb Karow 6000 Zenith Avenue South Lot 1, Block 3, Town Realty's Edina Terrace Request: A 10' sidestreet setback variance for a garage addition Ms. Aaker informed the Board the subject property is a corner lot located in the southwest comer of West 60th Street and Zenith Avenue South consisting of a rambler with an attached two car garage. The homeowner would like to add onto their garage. The north building wall would be extended west to allow for an additional 26 feet of depth. The existing north wall is located five feet to the side street property line. The Zoning Ordinance requires a minimum setback of 15 feet. 3 The homeowner had approached the City to accomplish a detached garage in the rearyard area with access from West 60th Street. The City of Edina's Engineering Department reviewed the plans for a detached garage and indicated they would not grant a curb cut permit to access West 60th Street. The homeowner was instead encouraged to seek a variance to expand their existing garage. Ms. Aaker concluded there are limited options available to the applicant. A detached garage cannot be accomplished without access from West 60' Street, however, the engineering department will not approve access. Adding to the existing non -conforming garage cannot be accomplished without a variance. Staff believes the site demonstrates hardship and therefore supports the request. The proponent, Mr. Karow was present to respond to questions. Mrs. Utne asked if the garage is tandem loading. Ms. Aaker said the garage is a tandem garage. Mrs. Utne asked if the shrubs/bushes on the side of the house/garage will remain. Ms. Aaker said according to the plans the vegetation remains. Mrs. Utne explained usually when the board is presented with such a long building wall we ask for landscaping and/or the inclusion of windows to break up the mass. Mrs. Utne pointed out the existing vegetation looks tired, and may need to be replaced. Mr. Karow interjected if the existing vegetation needs to be replaced it will be replaced. Mrs. Swenson pointed out in her opinion the proposed room looks more like a hobby room. Ms. Aaker agreed, but pointed out the addition is not accessed from the house. Ms. Aaker added if the addition were to have access to/from the house the setback would remain the same. Mrs. Swenson asked Ms. Aaker if the board can tag on an no access condition to the variance. Ms. Aaker said if the board would feel more comfortable with adding that as a condition of approval, it would be proper, reiterating the setback remains the same. Mrs. Swenson asked if roof materials for the proposed addition will match the house. Mr. Karow stated the shingles will match what exists on the house. Mr. Lonsbury asked Mr. Karow if he will be adding more windows. Mr. Karow pointed out there are already windows in the existing garage. Mrs. Swenson said she would prefer if windows are added to the addition that they 4 give the appearance of residential windows. Mr. Karow added upon reflection he may add some additional windows. Mr. Patton asked Mr. Karow if he feels the proposed sliding door may pose a security issue. Mr. Karow responded the house has a security system, and the addition will be added to the system. Mrs. Swenson moved variance approval subject to the plans presented, that the siding and roofing materials match the existing house, and that the existing plantings be maintained, and added to if needed. Mr. Lonsbury seconded the motion. All voted aye; motion carried. B-97-23 Raymond and Patrice Holton 5604 Woodcrest Drive Lot 2, Block 1, Colonial Grove 6' Addition Request: A frontyard setback variance to allow a swing set in the front yard area Ms. Aaker informed the Board the subject property is located on the west side of Woodcrest Drive just north of Park Place. The home fronts Woodcrest with the garage loading from Park Place. The lot is wide, however, shallow in depth with limited rearyard area. The homeowners are requesting a variance to allow a play structure/swing set in the frontyard. The Ordinance indicates that all accessory structures must respect the frontyard setback standard. Ms. Aaker explained review of the neighborhood indicates that most of the usable yard area for play structure location for the subject lot is in the front and sidestreet area. It would appear that the most affected properties would be across the street along Woodcrest Drive and Park Place. Homes directly adjacent will have a side view of the structure. Ms. Aaker concluded play structures/swing sets seem to be getting more elaborate and larger in scale and while the Ordinance does not specifically address them, staff believes they may be considered an accessory structure. Customarily staff has discouraged any accessory structure in the frontyard or side street area. It would appear, however, that the site is limited for structure location and a case for hardship maybe argued. Staff would suggest that any approval by the board be a temporary variance, tied to the proposed structure and that removal of the structure would void the variance. 5 The proponent, Mrs. Holton was present. Mrs. Utne said in her travels throughout the City she has noticed play areas have become more elaborate compared with the metal swing -sets of old, and acknowledged this is a hard call, pointing out the rearyard area is very limited, and it is not unreasonable for parents of small children to want play areas on their property for their children. Mr. Lonsbury asked if the proposed play area could be located near the existing rearyard patio. Ms. Aaker said there is not enough room in the area between the patio and property line to accommodate the play structure. Mrs. Swenson asked Ms. Aaker if the play area can be located on a lot line. Ms. Aaker explained an accessory structure must maintain a 5 foot setback from rear and side property lines. Mr. Patton stated he has a problem with the proposed pay area location because of its proximity to the street, and in his opinion this location could compromise the safety of the children. Mr. Patton asked if the play area could be moved closer to the garage, farther from the street. Mrs. Holton said when they viewed their survey, and yard area, their first though was to construct the play structure near the garage, but the driveway became a problem because of the required swing clearance. It appeared if the children were to swing very high they would be over the driveway, which would pose a danger to them if they fell. Mrs. Utne stated while she would like the children to be able to have a play area, she cannot support the proposed location, adding the board has always been very protective of encroachments into frontyard setback areas. Mrs. Swenson agreed with Mrs. Utne's comments, adding even though the variance for the structure would be temporary in nature, the structure will probably be in use for 12 years. Mrs. Holton interjected the proposed play structure is one of the smallest structures this company makes. Mr. Patton questioned the area behind the garage, adding he would be willing to grant a rear or side setback variance versus allowing the structure to be located in the front. N Mrs. Holton said they also looked at that location, but the children would swing into the garage, possibly hit the large tree in that area, and trespass onto neighboring property while playing. Mrs. Swenson asked Ms. Aaker if the board were to recommend denial could the proponents appeal the decision to the Council. Ms. Aaker responded they have the right to appeal to the Council. Mrs. Mannix said she has children, and believes there are even smaller play systems available on the market. Mrs. Utne said in her opinion if there are smaller systems on the market the proponents may want this item tabled allowing them time to look further into the play structure market, and maybe find a structure that could be accommodated in the rear yard. Mr. Patton moved to table B-97-23 allowing the proponent time to study the play structure market, and maybe find a system that meets their needs, and meets the City's requirements. Mr. Lonsbury seconded the motion. All vote aye; motion carried. B-97-24 Mark and Mary Swenson 5501 Dever Drive Lot 2, Block 2, Shady Pines Addition Request: A 3.25 foot frontyard setback variance Ms. Aaker told the board the subject property is located on the east side of Dever Drive and consists of a one story walkout rambler. The homeowners are proposing to add four feet onto their dining room in the frontyard area. The average frontyard setback along the block would allow a .75 foot frontyard addition. Ms. Aaker explained the property owner submitted building permit application under the assumption that because the addition would not extend out beyond the front wall of the garage they were OK. The subject home is one of the closer homes to the front lot line along the block. Unfortunately a permit could not be issued for the project, and a variance must now be processed. The extension is a hipped former with windows. The homeowner wants to make the exterior more architecturally attractive. tl Ms. Aaker concluded given the hardship of a shallow lot and original house placement and given that the addition will not extend beyond the existing garage, staff supports the request. The proponents, Mr. and Mrs. Swenson were present. A discussion ensued with the board in agreement any impact will be minimal due to the fact that the proposed addition does not come closer to the street than the existing attached garage. Mrs. Swenson moved variance approval subject to the plans presented, and the use of matching materials. Mr. Lonsbury seconded the motion. All voted aye; motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 7:00 p.m. wxl RRO, I'll NEqN - .A E-3