Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1998 03-05 Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting Minutes RegularMINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE EDINA ZONING BOARD THURSDAY, MARCH 5, 1998 5:30 P.M. MANAGER'S CONFERENCE ROOM MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair, David Runyan, Don Patton, William Skallerud MEMBERS ABSENT: Rose Mary Utne, Charles Ingwalson STAFF PRESENT: Kris Aaker, Jackie Hoogenakker I. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES: The minutes of the January 8, 1998, meeting were filed as submitted. II. NEW BUSINESS: B-98-7 Stephen and Susan Mascioli 4204 Alden Drive Lot 55, Morningside, together with an easement over the south 3'3" of the # 90' of the South 48' of the North 66' of the E 150' of Lot 54 Request: A 2.7 foot sideyard setback variance Ms. Aaker informed the Board the subject property is located on the west side of Alden Drive consisting of a 1 '/ story home with a detached one car garage. The homeowners are hoping to accomplish a shed dormer along the back side of their house to increase living space on the 2"d floor. The home currently has only two bedrooms. The homeowners are hoping to accomplish an additional bedroom and bath on the second level so that it will be a three bedroom two bath home. Setback of the home is 4.8 feet to the north sideyard. The minimum setback required is five feet plus six inches for each foot average building height exceeds 15 feet. The dormer increases the setback requirement by 2.5 feet. The lot width is narrow at 48 feet given the City's current minimum standard of 4W 75 feet. The subject property benefits from the spacing between the subject house and the home to the north. Spacing between the two structures is approximately 16 feet. There is a shared driveway benefiting both properties between the two homes secured by an easement. No reduction in spacing between homes is expected to occur. 1 AW Ms. Aaker concluded the variance is minimal in scope and scale and would appear to have little if any impact on adjacent properties. Staff supports the request as submitted. The proponents, Mr. and Mrs. Mascioli were present to respond to questions. Mr. Mascioli informed the Board he worked hard to come up with a solution that would increase the living area of the home and not impact the neighbors. Mr. Mascioli said because of the size of the lot and its limitation it was difficult, but we feel we have accomplished our goal. Mr. Mascioli presented letters of support from impacted neighbors. Mr. Skallerud thanked Mr. Mascioli for his input complimenting him on the task of improving his property on a lot with limitations due to the narrowness of the lot and the non -conforming setback of the existing structure. Mr. Skallerud stated in his opinion this request with the definition of hardship, concluding he can support the request as submitted. Mr. Patton asked Ms. Aaker what are the normal setbacks on a lot this size. Ms. Aaker said lots less than 75 feet in width are allowed a 5 foot setback. She pointed out the existing structure is legally non -conforming at 4.8 feet. Mr. Runyan questioned what the north neighbors have on their south wall. Mr. Mascioli said on that side the neighbors have a living room, chimney, and bedroom. Mr. Skallerud moved variance approval subject to the plans presented and the use of matching materials. Mr. Patton seconded the motion. All vote aye; motion carried. B-98-8 Peter McNerney 4725 Annaway Drive Lot 5, Block 1, Gunnar Johnson's Rearrangement, Rolling Green, Section 2 Request: A 3.5' frontyard setback variance for a room expansion over an existing garage 6 Ms. Aaker told the Board the subject property is located on the southside of Balder Lane consisting of a two story home with attached two car garage. The homeowners are hoping to add a new porch behind the garage that is located six feet to the side lot line. The proposal is a one story addition. The Zoning Ordinance requires a minimum 10 foot sideyard setback for living space. The homeowner is trying to accomplish a six foot setback as established by the garage setback. The homeowners submitted building permit application and were unaware there would be a setback issue. Ms. Aaker pointed out the porch addition would extend the side wall of the home 15.5 feet and would allow for a width of 22.5 feet. The homeowners have indicated the variance is necessary to maintain the architectural integrity of the home by aligning the added space to the existing garage and family room and to maximize usable space within the room. Ms. Aaker concluded the proposed building wall will be no closer to the sideyard than the existing garage wall. While it would appear that a conforming solution is possible, it would also appear that he addition would have little impact on adjacent properties. Mr. Stodola, architect for the proponents was present. Mr. Runyan asked Mr. Stodola if the porch is going to be a four -season or year around porch. Mr. Stodola stated it would, adding the proponents desire to maintain the integrity of the gable pitched roof, and obtain adequate square footage. Mr. Runyan asked what the square footage of the porch will be. Mr. Stodola said the porch measures 22 X 15. Mr. Skallerud opined in reviewing the plans it appears the porch could be tweaked over a bit reducing setback. Mr. Stodola stated that is correct, but the homeowners want the optimum footage. Continuing, Mr. Skallerud explained he drove through the neighborhood and noticed the housing styles, etc, and came to the conclusion the request is minimal is scope and scale, and in spite of not meeting the hardship test, continuing the existing building line meets the spirit and intent of the Ordinance. Mr. Stodola asked the Board to note the neighbors support the request as presented. Mr. Skallerud stated after driving through the neighborhood he has no problem in supporting the request. Mr. Patton questioned the roof lines, he said he does not understand them. 112 Mr. Stodola said the proponents want to keep the integrity of the pitch, but will elevate the dead spots in the valleys to prevent ice backup. Mr. Runyan pointed out in his opinion there would be a problem for the proponents if they would conform to the setback standards. Mr. Skallerud moved variance approval subject to the plans presented and the use of matching materials. Mr. Patton seconded the motion. All voted aye; motion carried. B-98-10 Bill & Meredith Davis 6616 Cornelia Drive Lot 4, Block 1, Southdale Ist Addn. Request: A 21.16 foot setback from Lake Cornelia for a garage expansion Ms. Aaker told the Board the subject property is located west of Cornelia Drive backing up to Lake Cornelia consisting of a rambler with attached two car garage. The homeowners are proposing a third garage stall that would conform to all of the Ordinance requirements with the exception of setback from Lake Cornelia. The Zoning Ordinance requires a minimum 75 foot setback from Lake Cornelia. The proposed garage stall would provide a 53.84 foot setback from the lake edge. Ms. Aaker explained the garage would be five feet from the side lot line which is the minimum setback required. Lot coverage is proposed to be 23% of lot area. Ms. Aaker pointed out it should be noted the homeowner was granted a variance from lake setback on February 5, 1998, for an addition to the back of the home. The proponents felt an addition behind the home would be more in keeping with the neighborhood than a second story addition. Ms. Aaker concluded the hardship remains unchanged regarding setback from the lake. Any addition requires a variance. Mr. Gary Aulik, representing the proponents was present. Mr. Runyan questioned Mr. Aulik if the property ever flooded. Mr. Aulik said flooding occurred in 1987, but since that time the City and Watershed constructed a new drainage system for the area, and the Davis family has not had any more water problems since that construction was completed. Mr. Runyan asked if the materials for the garage will match. 9 Mr. Aulik said the exterior materials of the garage and addition will match the siding that exists on the home at present. Mr. Skallerud questioned if the proposed garage could have been constructed without a variance in 1991. Ms. Aaker said that is correct, if the proponents constructed the addition, and garage in 1991 no variance would have been required. Mr. Skallerud told Mr. Aulik if this is approved your client should be made aware the property could still sustain water damage. Mr. Aulik said the proponent realizes flooding could occur. He pointed out Mr. Davis grew up in this house, and is now purchasing it from his parents. Mr. Skallerud moved variance approval subject to the plans presented, and the use of matching materials. Mr. Patton seconded the motion. All voted aye; motion carried. III. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 6:05 p.m. C.