Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1998 08-20 Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting Minutes Regular4 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE EDINA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS THURSDAY, AUGUST 20,.1998,5:30 P.M. MANAGER'S CONFERENCE ROOM MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair, Helen McClelland, Mike Lewis, David Byron, and Rodney Hardy MEMBERS ABSENT: Lorelei Bergman STAFF PRESENT: Kris Aaker, Jackie Hoogenakker I. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES: The minutes of the June 18, 1998, meeting were filed as submitted. 11. NEW BUSINESS: B-98-36 Kim and Ken Smith 4501 Gilford Drive Lot 1, Block 5, South Garden Estates Request: A 5.34 foot side street setback variance Ms. Aaker informed the Board the subject property is a corner lot located south of Gilford Drive and west of Kellogg Avenue consisting of an L-shaped rambler with an attached two car garage. The house fronts Gilford Drive with the garage loading from Kellogg Avenue. There is an inground pool located directly behind the house in the back yard area. The homeowners are hoping to add a one story addition to the east side of their home towards the side street (Kellogg Avenue). To accomplish a reasonable room size, the homeowners are requesting a 4.5 foot sidestreet setback variance. The variance would allow for a 16 foot wide addition instead of a narrow addition that would maintain required setback. Ms. Aaker pointed out the Edina City Ordinance requires a minimum setback of 15 feet to the sidestreet. The home is currently setback 25.66 feet to the sidestreet which would allow for a 10.66 foot addition. Ms. Aaker explained the addition is in keeping with the design of the existing home and will use matching materials. Expansion options are limited due to the location of the inground pool and attached garage facing Kellogg Avenue. The most affected adjacent property is located behind the subject property (4500 Hibiscus) facing south with their sidestreet also Kellogg Avenue. It should be noted, however, that there are homes across Kellogg Avenue facing the new addition. Ms. Aaker concluded it would appear the homeowners options for an addition are limited given the pool and garage location. The proponents Ken and Kim Smith were present. Mr. Lewis asked Ms. Aaker if the addition would create a lot coverage issue. Ms. Aaker said lot coverage is not an issue in this situation. She pointed out the lot is large, and the existing pool, and required four feet of decking, is not calculated in lot coverage computation. Mr. Byron pointed out the situation the proponents are in is very interesting. If they add-on toward their rear property line they need to maintain a 25 foot rearyard setback, and that would not be possible. A rearyard setback variance would be needed, putting the proponents in the same position they are in now, of requiring a variance. Continuing, Mr. Byron said he visited the subject property, and came to the conclusion that he cannot support the proposal as presented. Mr. Byron noted the existing pool is very large, and creates the present expansion problem. Mr. Byron stated in his opinion the variance is self-imposed (because of the pool), and he is not aware of granting similar variance requests in this area. Concluding Mr. Byron reported the property also has an RV parked on the driveway, and a van that advertises and supports a business, reiterating he cannot support the request as presented. Mr. Smith interjected they are in the process of selling the RV. He pointed out to the Board the RV in question does not exceed 20 feet in length. Continuing, Mr. Smith explained they have four children, three bedrooms, and more living space is needed. Mr. Lewis asked Mr. Smith if they could construct something smaller. Mrs. Smith said to achieve their goal, what they have presented, is what they need. She added they have a special needs child, and would like everything on one floor for their child. Ms. McClelland said she agrees with Mr. Byron that the pool is self imposed. Mr. Lewis pointed out when he viewed the site the immediate neighbor appears to have a similar size pool. 4 Mr. Hardy stated that technically he does not have a problem with the request as presented. He noted there may be other issues present, but he is not sure they should be addressed in this forum. He pointed out the pool already exists, and it would be difficult to order the proponents to remove the pool so a variance would not be required. Mr. Hardy said in his opinion the issues and special needs of this family should be considered. Mr. Hardy added he would like to make this addition happen for them. He stated in his opinion the design presented fits the existing house, and neighborhood, and would not negatively impact other homes in the area. Mr. Hardy acknowledged the addition projects into the sidestreet setback area, but that is the reason the variance is required. Ms. McClelland said if she reads this Board correctly there appears to be two members in favor of the proposal, and two members opposed. Ms. McClelland told Mr. and Mrs. Smith with four children, they may have outgrown their present home. She concluded she does not want to set a precedent, and cannot support the request as presented. Mr. Lewis interjected, and questioned what bearing the pool has on this proposal. He said variances have been granted in the past on properties with pools. Ms. McCellland said the pool may have no bearing on the issue, but the pool is self imposed, pointing out this is a very congested corner. Mr. Lewis stated in his opinion the pool could be considered a hardship. Mr. Lewis moved variance approval subject to the plans presented. Mr. Hardy seconded the motion. Ayes, Lewis, Hardy. Nays, McClelland, Byron. Motion for approval failed 2-2. Ms. McClelland explained to the proponents they can appeal the decision of the Board to the City Council Mr. Lewis asked Mr. Smith if he ever considered moving the garage. Mr. Smith said that was considered, but the cost was enormous. Mrs. Smith said they are trying to achieve adequate space for their family, and their special needs child, and remain in the same neighborhood. Mrs. Smith interjected they also need to work within a budget. Concluding, Mrs. Smith stated if she understands correctly even if they added out toward the rear they would still require a rearyard setback variance. Ms. Aaker acknowledged that is correct. Ms. McClelland agreed that even if they relocate the garage, as Mr. Byron indicated earlier, a variance would be required no matter what they attempt. Mrs. Smith said she does not understand why this failed on a 2/2 vote. She questioned why an odd number is not required for a variance hearing so this does not happen. Ms. McClelland explained the Board consists of five members on a rotating basis, and one member is absent this evening. Three members qualify as a quorum, and business can be conducted with three members. Ms. McClelland agreed an even number can be difficult, and reiterated they can appeal this decision to the City Council for their decision. 3 B-98-35 Allan Lou Burdick 6609 Sally Lane Lot 16, Block 2, Indian Hills -Arrowhead Addition Request: A 9 foot setback variance from a pond Ms. Aaker told the Board the subject property is located on the east side of Sally Lane consisting of a walkout rambler with attached two car garage. The homeowners are planning to remodel the interior of the home, add a second story masterbedroom addition and a one story solarium off of the back (northeast) corner of the home. All of the improvements conform to the ordinance standards with the exception of setback to pond edge from the new solarium. Ms. Aaker told the Edina Zoning Ordinance requires a minimum 50 foot setback from any naturally occurring lake, pond, or stream. The existing setback of the house is 55 feet. The homeowners are trying to accomplish a setback of 41 feet: It should be noted that the plan designer has identified at least two homes around the pond that currently provide closer setbacks to the pond than the proposed addition. The house directly south of the subject property provides a 39 foot setback to pond edge and a house across the pond (6612 Iroquois Trail) provides a 38 foot setback. Prior to 1992 the Zoning Ordinance required a 25 foot setback to a pond, however, the Department of Natural Resources has mandated the 50 foot setback. Ms. Aaker concluded the addition is a one story, all glass solarium that would have limited if any impact on the surrounding properties or pond. Staff supports the request as submitted. Ms. McClelland questioned if there is a marked grade change on this site. Ms. Aaker said the site is relatively flat. Mrs. Burdick interject that during the 1987 storm they retained some water damage. She said the pond has always fluctuated, but in 87 it crept nearly to their house. Mrs. Burdick reported after 1987 the Engineering Department studied the area and the drainage and changes were made to the pond. Since those changes they have not had any problems. Ms. McClelland noted the pond is not "full' at present, pointing out this year has been very wet. Ms. McClelland added if the pond is contained within its border at present, there should not be any future flooding problems. Ms. McClelland said she does not have a problem with the proposal as presented, pointing out other properties in the area have achieved similar variances, and the redesign of the pond and flood way areas have reduced the risk of flooding to property owners in the area. 0 Ms. McClelland moved variance approval subject to the plans presented and the use of matching materials. Mr. Byron seconded the motion. All voted aye; motion carried. B-98-37 Debra A Strege 5113 Oxford Avenue Lot 21, and the north 30 feet of Lot 20, Block 7, Brookside Heights Request: A 5 foot sideyard setback variance Ms. Aaker told the Board the subject property is located on the east side of Oxford Avenue consisting of a rambler with an attached garage. On September 2, 1997, the homeowner applied for a building permit to extend the existing two car garage, 20 feet into the rearyard. The original garage was accessed from Oxford Avenue by driveway from the street to the garage opening facing Oxford. The old and new garage is now accessed by driveway from an alley behind the property. The original garage door facing Oxford Avenue has now been replaced by a window. The old and new garage are located five feet to the side lot line. The permit in 1997 was to allow a four car, 20 X 43 foot garage. The homeowner is applying for a variance to convert the old garage area into a bedroom with bath. The conversion requires a five foot sideyard setback variance because living space requires a setback of 10 feet. Ms. Aaker explained the variance will not alter the building footprint. A window has replaced the old garage door facing Oxford Avenue, so by all outward appearances, the home could currently have living space in the old garage area. Surrounding neighbors have signed a petition indicating no objections. Ms. Aaker concluded the building is existing, however, requires a variance to allow living space less than 10 feet. While it would appear that there are other options for a bedroom addition, the proposed solution would be the most convenient. The proponent, Ms. Strege was present. Ms. McClelland asked Mr. Strege what the interior of the addition looks like. She noted the structure is "already up", limiting options. She questioned if four cars are able to park in the garage, or is there already a dividing wall present. Mr. Strege said four vehicles can be parked in the garage. Mr. Byron interjected, and asked Ms. Aaker why this addition did not previously require a variance. Mr. Byron stated it is obvious the addition is already constructed. Ms. Aaker said when the building permit was issued the information supplied to staff did not require a variance, because the applicant stated a garage was to be constructed. Continuing, Ms. Aaker said an attached garage without living space above or behind it can 5 be constructed 5 feet to a side property line. If living space is added above or behind, a 10 foot sideyard setback needs to be maintained. Mr. Lewis asked Ms. Strege her original intent. Ms. Strege said at the time she applied for a building permit her goal was to construct a four car garage. The four car garage was constructed, but after further consideration she decided she would like a master bedroom suite, which triggered the need for a variance. Mr. Hardy said in his opinion, while he may not object to the proposal, it is after the fact, and there really isn't a hardship. There is opportunity to construct a bedroom suite out the rear. Ms. Aaker said in this area what is constructed is not uncharacteristic to the neighborhood. After a brief discussion ensued regarding the addition, and the unusual circumstance that the addition is already constructed, Board members indicated support for the proposal. Mr. Lewis moved variance approval subject to the plans presented. Mr. Hardy seconded the motion. All voted aye; motion carried. B-98-38 Justin & Denise Cole 4503 Bruce Avenue Lot 30 Block 3, South 55 feet as measured along the east and west lines, Country Club Fairway Section Request: A 2.1 foot sideyard setback variance Ms. Aaker informed the Board the subject property is located on the east side of Bruce Avenue consisting of a two story stone and stucco home. The home owners are hoping to accomplish a box bay window that extends a second floor bedroom area to be within 2.9 feet of the north side lot line. The "box window' must be considered a room extension for the purposes of reviewing setback. The Zoning Ordinance allows bay windows that do not extend to the floor to be within three feet of a side lot line. The proposed extension increases floor area so therefore must be considered for setback. Ms. Aaker told the board the box -bay extension will add needed floor area to a small front bedroom. The extension will only occur on the second floor and will not add to the building foot print. The adjacent home to the north provides a nine foot setback to the lot line nearest the addition. Spacing between the floor extension and the adjacent neighboring building wall will be approximately 11,9 feet. The property cannot accommodate any additional percentage of lot area occupied building area, so no future additions can be expected. C:9 Ms. Aaker concluded the property owner cannot expect to achieve any future additions to the home. The proposed boxed bay window on the second floor allows for needed floor area in a small front bedroom. There appears to be limited if any options available to the applicant. The proponents Mr. and Mrs. Cole were present. Ms. McClelland said in her opinion the spacing between structures is more than adequate, and she can support the request as presented. Mr. Byron moved variance approval subject to the plans presented and the use of matching materials. Mr. Lewis seconded the motion. All voted aye; motion carried. III. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 7:00 p.m. 7 t - ,Jaclie Hoogenakker