Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1998 07-09 Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting Minutes RegularMINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE EDINA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS JULY 9,1998,5:30 P.M., MANAGER'S CONFERENCE ROOM MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair, David Runyan, William Skallerud, Charles Ingwalson, and Don Patton MEMBERS ABSENT: Rose Mary Utne STAFF PRESENT: Kris Aaker and Jackie Hoogenakker I. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES: The minutes of the March 5, 1998, meeting were filed as submitted. II. NEW BUSINESS: B-98-29 Mark and. Susan Dixon 7102 Heatherton Trail Lot 2, Block 5, Stow's Edgemore Addition Request: A 2.166 foot frontyard setback variance Ms. Aaker informed the Board the subject property is located on the west side of Heatherton Trail consisting of a split entry home with a tuck under two car garage. The homeowners are hoping to dress up their front entry by adding an overhang with columns above the front stoop. The addition requires a frontyard setback variance of 2.166 to achieve the addition. Ms. Aaker stated the average frontyard setback along the block is 28'2". The homeowners are hoping to achieve a frontyard setback of 26 feet. A drawing provided by the builder indicates that at least one home fronting Heatherton Trail has a front yard setback of 23 feet, three feet closer to the street than the proposed project. Ms. Aaker concluded the proposal will not impact the existing average frontyard setback. The proposal will enhance the property and provide protection from the elements. Staff supports the request subject to the addition remaining unenclosed. The proponents, Mr. and Mrs. Dixon were present. Mr. Runyan stated in his opinion the request is minimal, noting the Board has granted similar variances in the past. Continuing, Mr. Runyan pointed out the house at 7104 Heatherton is closer to the street than the subject property, which minimizes visual impact. Mr. Skallerud moved variance approval subject to the plan submitted, and the condition that the entryway remain unenclosed. Mr. Patton seconded the motion. All voted aye; motion carried. B-98-30 Robert and Cynthia Joyce 4342 Oakdale Avenue South The southeasterly half of Lot 18, Grimes Homestead except the southwesterly 140 feet and the northeasterly 20 feet thereof Request: A 68 square foot lot coverage variance Ms. Aaker informed the Board the subject property is located on the west side of Oakdale Avenue consisting of a 1 '/z story home with a detached one car garage. The homeowners applied for a building permit to remove the existing 14 X 22 foot single car garage and replace it with a 22 X 28 foot two car garage. The new garage, existing house, and deck would exceed the lot coverage requirement by 68 square feet. The homeowners are requesting a variance to allow the excess lot coverage without having to remove a portion of the deck or home. Ms. Aaker pointed out the Ordinance requires a minimum two car garage per single dwelling unit. The homeowners are hoping to conform to the minimum two car 061 garage rule. The homeowners were unaware that the new garage would exceed the lot coverage requirements. The homeowner has the option of reducing the garage size. The proposed garage is 22 X 28. Although the Ordinance does not indicate what dimensions constitute a two car garage, a 20 X 20 garage would be roughly the minimum accepted. A 20 X 20 garage allows for the storage of two cars but not much more than that. The homeowners have indicated they wish to maintain the proposed garage size to allow for storage. Ms. Aaker asked the Board to note the homeowner also has the option of reducing the deck area. The Ordinance requires all but 150 square feet of deck area be included in the lot coverage requirements. The deck is roughly 233 square feet in area so that 83 square feet must be included in the lot coverage requirements. Ms. Aaker explained generally staff and the Zoning Board of Appeals is not supportive of lot coverage variances. In addition, it would appear that there are options available to the applicant such as reducing the existing deck area. The proponents, Mr. and Mrs. Joyce were present to respond to questions. Mr. Ingwalson asked the proponents if they ever experienced water run-off problems, and if so, do they realize adding more hard surface on a lot can increase the potential for more problems to occur, or can create a problem where non existed. Mr. Joyce said to date they have experienced minimal water run-off problems, and will have the plan reviewed as it relates to water run-off. Mr. Runyan asked the proponents where they presently store their "garage type" items. Mrs. Joyce said their neighbors have been very supportive, and have allowed them to store bikes, etc. in their garages. Mrs. Joyce said the lack of storage has caused them to have to store their deck furniture outdoors during the winter months. Mr. Skallerud stated he understands the need for families to try to obtain more storage area, but pointed out if the deck is reduced, or the addition made smaller, a variance would not be required. Mr. Skallerud added if he understands the calculations correctly only 68 square feet needs to be eliminated. Concluding, Mr. Skallerud reiterated while he understands the needs of the proponents he cannot support the request, and in his opinion the request does not meet the hardship rule. Mrs. Joyce commented it may be possible to cut back the deck, adding she never considered that as an option. Mr. Skallerud interjected explaining if the Board were to grant the request a precedent would be established, and Boards in the past have been very reluctant to increase massing on lots by granting lot coverage variances. Mr. Skallerud pointed out it also becomes more difficult to support a 3 variance request where there are solutions that can eliminate the need for the requested variance. Mr. Patton suggested re -locating the garage to the northwest corner. Mr. Joyce said the situation that exists on the property is a shared driveway, so re -locating the garage is difficult. Mr. Runyan stated he agrees with the comments from Mr. Skallerud. Lot coverage, and the increase in hard surface is difficult to support. Mrs. Joyce stated they really need the extra space. Mr. Ingwalson asked the proponents if storage is proposed for the upper level of the garage. Mr. Joyce responded in the affirmative. Mr. Patton echoed the opinions of Mr. Runyan and Skallerud that where there are other options to reduce the magnitude of the variance or eliminate it, those options should be pursued. Mr. Patton concluded that he cannot support the request as submitted. Mr. Runyan explained to the proponents, if he senses the position of Board Members, it is clear they cannot support the request as submitted, and asked the proponents to seriously consider reducing the deck or the size of the garage. Mr. Skallerud added the Board can either vote on the proposal as presented, and if denied there is the appeal process, or this request can be tabled to allow time for redesign. Mr. Runyan explained one concern of the Board as mentioned previously is precedent setting. He pointed out when other options are available to an applicant that would meet City Code the Board would ask the proponents to consider those options. The proponents requested that the Board table their item. Mr. Patton moved to table B-98-30. Mr. Skallerud seconded the motion. All voted aye; motion carried. 2 B-98-31 Mike and Patti Marinovich/Kevin Retterath 5516 Merritt Circle Lot 5, Block 3, Victorsen's Addition to Edina Highlands Request: A 2 foot 2 inch frontyard setback variance Ms. Aaker told Members of the board the subject property is located on the west side of Merritt Circle consisting of a multi level home with an attached three car garage. The home owners have planned an extensive remodel of the home to include a number of additions. The proposal includes a new second story and additions to both the front and back of the home. All portions of the project conform to the setback requirements with the exception of the frontyard setback at the north corner of the garage. Ms. Aaker pointed out the Ordinance requires that any additions to the front of a home maintain the average frontyard setback that occurs along that side of the block between intersections, or front additions must be no closer to the front lot line than the homes on either side. The site plan illustrates the setbacks of the homes on either side. The home to the north provides a setback of 25 feet and the home to the south provides a setback of 35 feet. The front lot line curves, with the subject lot located on the inside bend as the street curves. The house is not parallel to the front lot line so it does not curve as the front lot line does. The front north corner of the garage, that requires a variance, is located 32 feet to the front lot line which is farther than the closest corner of the house (which is 28 feet). The proposed setback will also be farther back than the north neighbor which.is 25 feet. Ms. Aaker concluded the variance if approved will not be as close to the front lot line as the closest home on the street or even as close as the front wall of the subject home. Staff supports the request as submitted. Mr. Marinovich was present to respond to questions. Mr. Runyan said it appears this is strictly a visual issue. Mr. Ingwalson stated he agrees with the observation of Mr. Runyan. Mr. Patton asked Mr. Marinovich who will do the architectural work. Mr. Marinovich stated he retained Kelvin Rederath. Continuing, Mr. Marinovich explained it is very important to him and his family to maintain the unusual character of the house, and Mr. Rederath was able to accomplish their request. 5 Board Members agreed any impact as a result of the addition would be minimal because of the location of the house. Members also indicated the proposed design blends well with the existing house. Mr. Ingwalson moved variance approval subject to the plans presented. Mr. Skallerud seconded the motion. All voted aye; motion carried. III. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 6:45 p.m. n