Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1998 11-19 Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting MinutesO MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE EDINA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 19, 1998 5:30 P.M., MANAGER'S CONFERENCE ROOM MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair Gordon Johnson, Mike Lewis, and Helen McClelland MEMBERS ABSENT: Rodney Hardy and Geof Workinger STAFF PRESENT: Kris Aaker and Jackie Hoogenakker I. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES: The minutes of the September 17, 1998, meeting were filed as submitted. II. NEW BUSINESS: B-98-56 Roger Anderson 4524 Arden Avenue Lot 12, Block 3, Country Club District Request: A 4'4" frontyard setback variance for a front porch addition Ms. Aaker informed the Board the subject property is located on the west side of Arden Avenue consisting of a two story home built in 1966. The home is listed on the Country Club district survey as an American Colonial revival style home. The homeowners are adding a room addition to the rear of the home that maintains all of the Zoning Ordinance requirements. The plans also include the addition of a front entry porch. The entry porch however, extends into the established setback along the block by 4'4". The homeowners were not aware that a front entry porch would require a variance. Ms. Aaker explained the homeowners have been in the process of upgrading the front "view" of their home by repainting the exterior, adding new soffits and replacing two boulevard trees. In conjunction with the other improvements, the homeowners were hoping to improve the appearance of the front facade by adding a front entry porch. The. front of the home is rather flat in appearance and they had hoped to enhance the architecture. The Zoning Board of Appeals has reviewed requests for front entry variances, usually for columns with an overhang over a stoop. The subject property's door is located off center and the design of the porch extends to the side wall of the home to add interest to the front face of the home. Ms. Aaker concluded staff believes the front entry porch is an enhancement and adds needed interest to the front facade. Staff would suggest that any approval be conditioned that it remains unenclosed. The proponent, Mr. Anderson was present to respond to questions. Ms. McClelland stated in her opinion the proposed porch will add eye interest to the front of the home, adding she can support the variance request as submitted. Ms. McClelland noted the Board has reviewed and approved a number of similar requests at past meetings. Ms. McClelland moved,variance approval subject to the plans presented, and subject to the porch remaining unenclosed. Mr. Lewis seconded the motion. All voted aye; motion carried. B-98-57 Dean and Leslie Kreofsky 4532 Casco Avenue South Lot 17, Block 5, Country Club District Fairway Request: A 3.9 foot sidestreet setback variance for a 2nd story room expansion Ms. Aaker informed the Board the subject property is located on the west side of Casco Avenue just north of Bridge Street. The home fronts Casco Avenue with a tuck under attached garage that loads from Bridge Street. The home is a 2'/z story colonial style home that is currently under construction to add a 10.2 X 12 foot addition for a dinette and back entry that will be located on the back north corner of the home. The small one story addition required a variance because the home is -only located 3.5 feet to the north side lot line instead of five feet as required. While reviewing the extent of work that is needed in the home and corresponding cost the homeowners have decided to add a bedroom above the main floor porch that sits atop their tuck under garage. Ms. Aaker explained the homeowners were hoping that since the room addition above the porch does not affect the building footprint and since the height would not affect sidestreet setback that there would not be a variance issue. The minimum sidestreet setback for living space is 15 feet. The home currently provides a sidestreet setback of 11.1 feet. A variance is required to continue the non -conforming setback. Ms. Aaker pointed out the lot is narrow at 50 feet in width, in addition, the home is currently non -conforming in terms of both north sideyard and south sidestreet setback. The design will compliment the existing architecture of the home and will not add to the footprint. Ms. Aaker concluded staff supports the request as submitted. The proponents, Mr. and Mrs. Kreofsky were present to respond to questions. Chairman Johnson asked Ms. Aaker if the structure as it exists today meets lot coverage requirements. Ms. Aaker responded lot coverage is fine, adding there is little, if any, space available for additional expansion. Ms. McClelland commented she has a concern regarding the mass, but can support the request because of the restraints created by the non -conformity of the structure, and it's proximity to the sidestreet. Mr. Lewis said in his opinion the proposed 2"d story addition makes sense. He added he agrees with Ms. McClelland's observation regarding the location of the subject property, noting any impact is on the sidestreet. He concluded if this were an interior lot line situation he could not support the variance request as it is presented. Mrs. Kreofsky told the Board she submitted the building plans to all impacted neighbors, and they indicated their support. Continuing, Mrs. Kreofsky said some neighbors interjected they felt this proposal was superior to viewing the flat roof of the previous addition. Ms. McClelland moved variance approval subject to the plans as presented, subject to the use of matching materials, subject to the proponents being aware no future development can occur on this site, and noting the proposed addition is occurring on the street side. Ms. McClelland also suggested that the proponents obtain a letter from the impacted property owners on both sides. (noting one is across the sidestreet). Mr. Lewis seconded the motion. All voted aye; motion carried. B-98-58 Andrew and Julie Turnbull 5437 Halifax Lane West 165 feet of east 362.56 feet of N 109.96 feet of the south 164.97 feet of the NE'/4 NE'/4 NE'/4 Section 9, 28, 24. Request: A 5 foot rearyard setback variance for a room addition 3 Ms. Aaker informed the Board the subject property is located on the east side of Halifax Avenue consisting of a one and one half story home with a detached two car garage. The homeowners submitted building permit application to add a two story addition with a master bedroom addition on the main level of the home and a home office with bathroom on the second floor. The addition will be on the north side of the existing home and will be off centered along the north wall. The addition will be 8.5 feet forward of the back wall of the home. Ms. Aaker explained the home provides a much deeper frontyard setback than the other homes along the block. Subsequently, the home is also therefore closer to the rear lot line. The existing home is non -conforming in terms of rearyard setback. The home is located approximately 11.5 feet to the rear lot line. Ms. Aaker asked the Board to note the homeowners applied for a building permit unaware that the rearyard setback requirement would affect the addition especially since the addition is 8.5 feet in front of the back wall of the house. The addition is in keeping with the existing architecture of the home and will use consistent materials Ms. Aaker concluded the homeowners are unable, to accomplish a logical extension of the home because of its existing non -conforming rearyard setback. Staff supports the request as submitted. The proponents, Mr. and Mrs. Turnbull were presented to respond to questions. Ms. McClelland asked Ms. Aaker if she knows the average frontyard setback on the block. Ms. Aaker said she does not. She explained the 5400 block of Halifax Lane is very inconsistent in frontyard setback with the subject property the farthest from the street. Mr. Turnbull told members of the Board it is his desire to bring the house into the 21St century. Continuing, Mr. Turnbull explained their existing house was the first house constructed in the area adding it virtually has no rearyard because of the way the area was subdivided and the areas topography. Ms. McClelland agreed a hardship certainly exists on this site, and asked Mr. Turnbull why he did not propose constructing the addition forward. Mr. Turnbull explained the topography of the lot does not lend itself well to a frontal addition. He said the terrain of the frontyard is very steep. A discussion ensued with Board Members in agreement that the subject site suffers from a hardship, and is already non -conforming with regard to rearyard setback. Mr. Lewis moved variance approval subject to the plans presented noting the hardship that exists on the site because of the extreme topography, noting the house was one of the first houses constructed in the area and the subdivision of this area created difficult lots. Ms. McClelland seconded the motion. All voted aye; motion carried. El B-98-59 Susan and Gerald Jirsa 4629 Lexington Street Lot 8, Block 2, Subdivision Request: A 150 square foot lot coverage variance Ms. Aaker told the Board the subject property is located on the south side of Lexington Avenue consisting of a one story home with an attached one car garage. The homeowners are planning to add onto the back of their home. The addition includes an expanded kitchen, family room addition, hallway, and a bedroom/bathroom extension. The homeowners were aware of the lot coverage requirements when they planned their additions, however, were unaware that a shed would be included in the lot coverage. calculations. The homeowners have recently installed a shed that covers 120 square feet of the lot. The Zoning Ordinance indicates that building coverage is defined by the percentage of lot area occupied by principal and accessory buildings and structures. Ms. Aaker said the homeowner's shed did not require a building permit. Sheds of 120 square feet or less do not require a building permit. Structures not requiring a building permit are, however, subjected to the same setback, building height, and lot coverage requirements required for buildings needing a permit. The homeowners designed their addition assuming the shed would not be included in the lot coverage requirements. The shed has been necessary for storage of items that won't fit in the single garage. Generally, the Zoning Board of Appeals and City Staff has not been supportive of lot coverage variance requests, even given the relative small area of the lot. It would appear that even the removal of the shed would still put the project roughly 30 square feet over the requirement. Ms. Aaker stated staff is not supportive of lot coverage variances, however, can appreciate the homeowners belief that a shed would not be included. Ms. Aaker concluded staff would recommend that if any variance is granted that it be limited to the square footage of the shed and under the condition that in the future when the shed is removed that replacement will be prohibited. The proponent, Mr. Jirsa was present to respond to questions from the Board. Ms. McClelland pointed out the subject lot is very small, and expressed concern that the homeowners are at maximum lot coverage with only a one stall garage. Ms. McClelland added the City needs to be careful that our lots do not become over -build. Mr. Jirsa said they were completely surprised the shed was included in lot coverage calculations. Continuing, Mr. Jirsa explained because of the one stall garage the shed is needed for storage. 5 Chairman Johnson asked Mr. Jirsa the number of cars the family has. Mr. Jirsa responded they are a two car family. Ms. McClelland said the proposal in minimal in size, but expressed concern over the site having only one garage stall when the Ordinance requires at minimum two stalls. Mr. Jirsa said they also have a concern about the garage size, but they love the neighborhood and their block. Mrs. Jirsa interjected the family room area needs to be redone because of problems with the ceiling, and drainage issues. Ms. McClelland stated this is a difficult situation, adding she appreciates the proponents dilemma. Ms. McClelland asked Ms. Aaker if the majority of homes in the area have a one car garage. Ms. Aaker responded there is a mix of one and two car garages in the area. She added there are also a number of garages in this neighborhood that are tandem. Chairman Johnson commented that small lots are common on the east side of Highway 100. Ms. Aaker agreed. Ms. McClelland moved variance approval for 150 square feet, noting in the future any construction permit will need to be reviewed by staff, and possibly heard by the variance board for review and approval. Ms. McClelland said any future expansion should include the construction of an additional garage stall. Approval is also subject to staff conditions, and the use of matching materials. Mr. Lewis seconded the motion. All voted aye; motion carried. III. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 6:15 p.m. 0 160i \h. 0 • � R43-W� 10