Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2008 03-06 Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting Minutes RegularMINUTE SUMMARY Zoning Board Meeting March 6, 2008 5:30 PM, Edina City Hall Council Chambers 4801 West 50th Street MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair Michael Schroeder, Mary Vasaly, Nancy Scherer and Bernadette Hornig STAFF PRESENT: Kris Aaker and Jackie Hoogenakker I. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES: The minutes of the January 3, 2008, meeting were filed as submitted. II. NEW BUSINESS: B-08-5 Doug Johnson 4612 Concord Terrace Request: 1.3' side yard setback variance Ms. Aaker told the Board the subject property is a one story home with an attached one car garage located on the north side of Concord Terrace. The property owner is hoping to remove the existing one car garage with a family room behind and replace it with a two car garage, mudroom, an expanded kitchen and living room. The proposal also proposes a second floor centered above the first floor. All improvements conform to Zoning Ordinance requirements with the exception of the garage side wall setback. Ms. Aaker asked the Board to note the sidewall of the garage is not parallel to the side lot line so the back corner is closer to the side lot line than the front corner. Ms. Aaker concluded staff recommends approval of the variance as proposed pointing out the requested variance is minor and would allow improvements to the garage bringing it into conformance with Code. The proponent, Mr. Doug Johnson was present to respond to questions from the Board. Member Scherer asked Ms. Aaker if a 20.6 foot wide garage is considered a standard size two stall garage. Ms. Aaker responded the City doesn't have a "standard size" for a two stall garage; however, 20 feet in width is usually the smallest two stall garage seen by the City. Member Scherer questioned if notices were mailed. Ms. Aaker responded City Code requires that property owners within 200 feet receive mailed notice of a variance hearing. That requirement has been in place for years and was followed. Member Vasaly suggested that the applicant look at other options to achieve a two stall garage; tandem is one solution or reducing the size of the proposed garage to 20 feet instead of the proposed 20.6 feet would be another. Ms. Erickson, 4613 Concord Terrace told the board she is against "McMansions" and doesn't want to see any constructed on her block, adding the construction of more expensive houses on her block will only increase taxes. Ms. Aaker reminded the Board the proposed variance is only to increase the garage width; the other proposed alterations to the home meet Code. A discussion ensued with Board Members discussing if the neighbor to the west should be verbally contacted. Ms. Aaker reiterated notice was mailed to all property owners within 200 feet as per Code requirement, adding staff encourages applicants to "reach out" to immediate neighbors; however, that is not a Code requirement. Discussion continued with Board Members acknowledging the variance in reality is only inches; however, an informal poll of the Board would indicate support for denial. Board Members suggested that the proponent take another look at the plans and redesign to reduce the size of the garage to meet Code. Member Scherer asked Ms. Aaker if this request is denied can the applicant appeal the Board's decision. Ms. Aaker said the applicant can appeal the Boards decision to City Council; however, if the variance would be denied at the Council level the applicant could not return to the Board for one year. Ms. Aaker suggested that the applicant may want this tabled, allowing time for further thought and/or redesign. Mr. Johnson addressed the Board and informed them he is amenable to reducing the size of the garage. Mr. Johnson stated his intent with this design was to create a good project, with minimal impact to the neighborhood that meets not only the needs of the future property owner but meets Code. Mr. Johnson said on this lot it is very difficult to achieve a two stall garage, pointing out the garage doesn't sit parallel on the lot and having that extra six inches of garage space was great. Concluding, Mr. Johnson said if the Board feels strongly about those six inches he has no problem reducing the size of the garage. 2 Member Scherer suggested that Mr. Johnson also speak with the neighbor to the west. Member Scherer further asked Mr. Johnson if he would like the variance request tabled to another meeting. Mr. Johnson responded he would like to withdraw his request for a 1.3 foot side yard setback variance and have the Board table his request to another meeting of the Board. A discussion ensued with Board Members in agreement that tabling is the best option at this time. Member Scherer moved to table B-08-4 to the regularly scheduled meeting of the Zoning Board - April 10, 2008. Member Vasaly seconded the motion. All voted aye; motion carried. B-08-6 Derrick and Liska Johnson 6300 Ashcroft Lane Request: 7.3 ft variance Ms. Aaker informed the Board the subject property is a corner lot consisting of a one story rambler with an attached two car garage. The applicant has received a building permit for additions to the front and back of their rambler. The plans include a new master bathroom and new entry overhang to the front of the home with a new kitchen, mudroom and powder room behind the home and adjacent to the attached garage. The owners are proposing a third garage stall to be located west of the existing attached garage. All of the aspects of the plan conform to the ordinance requirements with the exception of the third garage stall. The proposed garage would overlap the required 25 ft rear yard setback, (to the west), by 7.3 ft. The side wall of the proposed garage would be located 17.7 ft from the rear lot line. Upon discovering they needed a variance, the homeowners redesigned their plan so that they could accomplish a detached, single stall garage, in the same approximate location as the attached solution. The detached garage was proposed to be located 11.7 ft from the rear lot line. The detached garage would be 6 ft closer to the rear, (westerly), lot line than the attached solution. Ms. Aaker explained the applicant is requesting a variance that would place the attached sidewall of the garage farther from the rear lot line than the conforming detached solution. The attached garage expansion is preferred by the adjacent and most impacted neighbor to the west. The existing floor plan of the rambler dictates where expansions may occur. The garage loads from the side street with the only opportunity to expand in width towards the west. The homeowners have stated that they would like to maintain the rambler nature of the home and blend with the establish character of the neighborhood. 3 Ms. Aaker concluded staff recommends approval of the 7.3 foot variance based on the following findings: • The location of the existing garage relative to the rear lot line allows for a conforming solution that would be closer to the rear lot line and provide less spacing to the lot line than the solution requiring a variance. • The conforming detached garage is more imposing and negatively impacts surrounding property. • The lot arrangement and original home and garage placement limit design options. • The encroachment will be less impacting than a conforming solution. • The improvements would follow the existing wall lines and architecture of the home and should have no impact on sight lines. • The addition would be a reasonable use given the hardship imposed by the required setbacks. Approval is also based on the following conditions: 1) The addition must be constructed as per the submitted plan dated February 20, 2008. 2) The variance will expire on March 6, 2009, unless the city has Issued a building permit for the project covered by this variance or or approved a time extension. The proponents, Mr. and Mrs. Johnson were present to respond to questions from the Board. Mr. Johnson addressed the Board and explained adjoining neighbors support the variance request and prefer the proposal over a conforming location. Mr. Johnson asked the Board for their support. Member Vasaly moved variance approval based on staff findings and subject to staff conditions noting the proposal as submitted satisfies the concerns of the neighbors. Member Scherer seconded the motion. All voted aye; motion carried. Member Scherer suggested that the proponents also minimize the impact of the driveway. 4 B-08-7 Jill and Todd Wilke 5504 Park Place Request: 2.9 foot side yard setback variance Ms. Aaker informed the Board the subject property is a rambler with an attached one car, tuck -under garage. The applicants are proposing to remove the existing tuck -under garage with living space above on the main level and replace it with a new driveway to access a side loading, attached garage behind the home. The current driveway will be in -filled with a new driveway installed at front yard grade level. In addition to the garage, a one story sun room is proposed for the first floor. The homeowners are also planning to add a full second floor above all portions of the main floor with the exception of the area above the sun room. All aspects of the plan conform to the Zoning ordinance requirements with the exception of the north side yard setback in regards to proximity and height. The minimum side yard setback required for the lot is 5 ft. The side wall of the home is nonconforming and is located 4.6 ft from the north lot line. The Zoning Ordinance also requires an additional 6 inches of side yard setback for each 12 inches the side wall height exceeds 15 ft. The side wall height is measured from average grade to the edge of the roof shingles and will be approximately 20 ft, requiring a minimum side yard setback of 7.5 ft. Ms. Aaker pointed out a survey of the property reveals that the home is nonconforming regarding the minimum side yard setback requirement on the north side. The homeowners would like to maintain the same nonconforming north side yard setback for the second floor addition. The homeowners are limited in their design options given that a two car garage is required per the Zoning Ordinance and given that there isn't enough room beside the home to provide an attached two car garage to the south/in-line with the rest of the home. The owners have stated that the second floor will add badly needed living space, (all of their bedrooms), while preserving more yard area and impacting drainage patterns less than a larger one story addition would. It should be noted that the spacing between the second story addition and the living space of the home next door, (to the north), will remain at 23.5 ft. The home to the north sits up at a higher elevation and is quite a distance away as compared with spacing between most of the homes on the block. Impact on the most affected neighbor would be minimal. Ms. Aaker concludes staff recommends approval of the requested 2.9 ft side yard setback variance for proximity and height based on the following findings: 5 • The existence of the nonconforming northerly side wall and an impractical nonconforming garage. • The addition will allow for improvement of existing conditions on site. • Adequate spacing would be maintained between properties. The setbacks are meant to insure comfortable distances betweens structures. The variance would sustain proper setback. • The variance would maintain the residential character of the property and the neighborhood. Ms. Aaker stated approval is also based on the following conditions: 1) The addition shall be constructed as per the submitted plan dated January 3, 2008. 2) Satisfaction of all 6 conditions as recommended by the City Engineer in his February 29, 2008 memorandum as attached for reference. 3) This variance will expire on March 6, 2009, unless the city has issued a building permit for the project covered by this variance or approved a time extension. The proponents Mr. and Mrs. Wilke were present. Chair Schroeder asked Ms. Aaker if Code requires a setback for driveways. Ms. Aaker responded driveways can be "build" right up to the property line; there is no setback. Mr. Wilke told the Board he has worked closely with staff and the City Engineer to ensure neighbors are not negatively impacted. Mr. Wilke pointed out his lot is very limited due to the non-conforminity of the house and drainage issues. Ms. Peterson, 5512 Park Place, told the Board this area has a huge drainage problem and asked the Board to ensure that the proposed addition doesn't negatively impact area drainage. Ms. Elizabeth Johnson McGerry, also asked the Board to ensure that great attention is paid to drainage. Member Vasaly stated in her opinion the proponents have designed a creative solution, adding she shares the concern of neighbors with regard to drainage; however, trusts that the City's Engineers will pay close attention to this issue. Member Scherer concurred. Chair Schroeder said another point that's important with regard to drainage is downspout direction. Chair Schroder told the proponents to make sure their downspouts are directed to drain properly, toward Park Place. D Member Vasaly moved variance approval based on staff findings and subject to staff conditions to include review by the City's Engineering Department. Member Scherer seconded the motion. All voted aye; motion carried. III. ADOURMENT AND ADDITIONAL PUBLIC COMMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 6:55 PM 7