Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2008 12-18 Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting Minutes RegularMINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE EDINA ZONING BOARD Thursday, December 18, 2008, 5:30 PM Edina City Hall Community Room 4801 50th Street West MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair Grabiel, Jim Nelson, Helen Winder and Julie Risser MEMBERS ABSENT: Arlene Forrest STAFF PRESENT: Kris Aaker and Jackie Hoogenakker I. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES: The minutes of the October 16, 2008, meeting were filed as submitted. II. NEW BUSINESS: B-08-62 Alyssa and Jon Hammar 5349 Kellogg Avenue, Edina Request: A .9 foot (10.8 inch) side yard setback variance And a 219 square foot lot coverage variance Presentation by Planner Planner Aaker informed the Board the subject property is located on the east side of Kellogg Ave. consisting of a one and one-half story home with a detached two car garage. The home has an attached drive-through portico extending over the driveway south of the house. The homeowners are hoping to add to the north side of the home on the main floor to expand their kitchen, add a pantry and a new dinette area with a fireplace. The existing north wall of the home is slightly nonconforming; located 4.1 feet from the north lot line. The minimum required side yard setback is 5 feet. The property also currently exceeds the maximum allowable lot coverage for the property. The maximum coverage allowed for the lot is 2,250 square feet. The existing home, car port and garage cover 2,292 square feet, approximately 42 square feet over the allowed maximum. The proposed additions would increase the lot coverage of the property to Zoning Board Minutes December 18, 2008 Page 2 of 6 2,511 square feet, or 261 square feet over the maximum allowed. It should be noted that removal of the 176 square foot car port would still require an 85 square foot lot coverage variance to accommodate the plan. Planner Aaker explained staff supports the continuation of the nonconforming north building wall at the slightly nonconforming setback provided. There appears to be no reasonable justification however, to allow over -building on the lot. and allow coverage beyond that provided by ordinance. Planner Aaker stated staff recommends denial of the lot coverage variance request based on the following findings. 1) There is no unique hardship relative to the property caused by: a. The existing structures on the property already exceed the maximum allowable lot coverage requirement prior to adding the proposed spaces. b. The home was designed and built slightly over the current requirements and has had the benefit of more coverage than currently allowed by code. c. The addition will breach the effort to reduce building mass and coverage in existing neighborhoods in. Edina. 2) The variance would not meet the intent of the ordinance since: a. The variance could negatively impact the neighborhood by allowing more building area and less green space at a time when less mass and building area has become more desirable by residents and neighbors. b. The variance runs counter to the intent of the ordinance to maintain adequate yard area, especially in the smaller lot neighborhoods. Continuing, Planner Aaker added if the Zoning Board stipulates findings for approval then approval should be based on the following conditions: 1) The addition shall be constructed as per the submitted plan dated June 26, 2008. 2) This variance will expire on November 6, 2009, unless the city has issued a building permit for the project covered by this variance or approved a time extension. Mr. and Mrs. Hammar were present to respond to questions from the Zoning Board. Zoning Board Discussion Member Risser asked Planner Aaker about the allowed percentage of impervious surface pointing out it impacts water run-off. Planner Aaker agreed, adding when Zoning Board Minutes December 18, 2008 Page 3 of 6 calculating lot coverage (all Edina lots) sidewalks and driveways are not included and a 150 square foot credit is given to an unenclosed deck or patio. Continuing, Planner Aaker acknowledged that Edina does have a number of small "city" lots and the perception of "over building" on those smaller lots, especially in this neighborhood, has occurred. Planner Aaker noted Code was recently changed to address the "massing" issue; however, a floor area ratio (FAR) formula wasn't adopted. Lot coverage requirements continue to remain the same, but all plans are carefully reviewed by City staff to ensure that run-off doesn't become an issue. Member Nelson said he is aware of the "massing" issue and knows the City has carefully studied it and implemented code changes. Member Nelson added he agrees with staff's suggestion that if the lot coverage variance is approved no building should be permitted above the car port. Continuing, Member Nelson said in his opinion if the roof line of the subject house is visually altered the home would appear more massive. Chair Grabiel asked for clarification on the lot coverage variance. Planner Aaker explained at this time the request is for a 219 square foot lot coverage variance, adding that presently the home, garage and carport are 42 square feet over on lot coverage, and if approved the overage on lot coverage would be 261 square feet. The 42 square feet already exists, and isn't included in the variance request. Chair Grabiel questioned if this occurs often. Planner Aaker acknowledged that presently there are a number of lots in Edina that are over on lot coverage; however, residents seeking lot coverage variances have been very few. Historically lot coverage variances have not been supported by the Board. Public Comment Scott and Nancy Libby, 5341 Kellogg, told Board Members the Hammars have been very considerate with sharing their building plans, adding they are the most impacted neighbors and fully support the one-story addition. Applicant Comments Alyssa Hammar addressed the Board and explained their kitchen is very small and doesn't serve the needs of their family. Ms. Hammar pointed out their request is only for a small one-story "bump out" of their home, adding their request is small when compared with the larger homes that have been constructed or added onto on their block. Continuing, Ms. Hammar said in her opinion the carport as it exists today adds greatly to the character and symmetry of the home and eliminating the carport to reduce lot coverage would cause undue hardship. Ms. Hammar stated that in her opinion their plan meets the spirit and intent of the Code, reiterating their proposed addition is small in comparison with what has occurred around them. Concluding, Ms. Hammar stated the proposal as presented makes common sense, adding they are only trying to add a small addition onto their existing home, they aren't building above the carport, which they could, reiterating this is a small one-story addition to a home. Zoning Board Minutes December 18, 2008 Page 4 of 6 Continuing Zoning Board Discussion Member Nelson asked Ms. Hammar if they looked at other design alternatives. Ms. Hammar responded they did, but there were no other options. Member Risser acknowledged that this is tough, adding she understands where Ms. Hammar is coming from. Ms. Risser acknowledged the proposed addition is small; however, if the Board moves in the direction of granting lot coverage variances there are ramifications. One being water run-off. Concluding, Member Risser pointed out the lot as it exists today is already over on lot coverage and if approved this will add to the existing non-conforminity. Member Nelson said he respects Member Risser's comments; however, common sense also plays a part in the decision process, adding he supports the project as presented. Member Winder told the Board she believes retaining the streetscape is also very important, and if the applicants were to build above the carport the streetscape would be changed. Member Winder stated she is wrestling with her decision, but agrees with Member Nelson that the plans presented are best. Member Risser asked Ms. Aaker if any neighbors expressed opposition to the plan. Ms. Aaker responded to date the City hasn't received any negative comments. Chair Grabiel pointed out the house/garage/carport are already over on lot coverage, and the proposed addition would further put the lot over on coverage, unless the car port is removed, adding he is having a hard time identifying a hardship. Chair Grabiel noted lot coverage variances are variances that Zoning Board's have been very hesitant in granting, especially since the City recently amended the Code to reduce massing. Member Nelson said in his opinion mandatory elimination of the carport isn't the best solution, and building over the car port isn't the right option either. Member Nelson stated he can support the variance as requested with the caveat that no building could occur over the carport. Member Risser asked Planner Aaker how frequently the Zoning Board has granted lot coverage variances. Planner Aaker responded Zoning Boards rarely approve lot coverage variances, adding lot coverage is something the City has always taken very seriously. Planner Aaker did note that Edina's Code is different from other city codes, adding some cities wouldn't include the carport as lot coverage. Chair Grabiel stated he agrees with staff's recommendations and can support the side yard setback variance, but not the lot coverage variance. A discussion ensued with all Board Members agreeing that the request is difficult and Zoning Board Minutes December 18, 2008 Page 5 of 6 recognizing that it is also difficult to design an addition when the lot is already over on lot coverage. Members did agree that removing the car port would change the streetscape, reiterating again the difficulty in reaching their decision. Board Action Member Nelson moved to recommend variance approval subject to the addition being constructed as per the submitted plan dated June 26, 2008, that no future building will occur over the carport area, and that the variance will expire on November 6, 2009, unless the city has issued a building permit for the project covered by this variance or approved a time extension. Member Winder seconded the motion. Ayes; Nelson, Winder. Nays, Risser, Grabiel. Motion failed. Member Risser told the Board she sees the logic in approving this variance request; however, she respects staffs position and can't support the request as submitted. Member Risser reiterated she wrestled with this request, but in the end she supports staff. Chair Grabiel told Mr. and Mrs. Hammar the motion failed and they could appeal the failed motion to the City Council. Ill. PUBLIC COMMENT: IV. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 7:05 PM Zoning Board Minutes December 18, 2008 Page 6 of 6