Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1992 03-19 Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting Minutes RegularMINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE EDINA BOARD OF APPEALS AND ADJUSTMENTS HELD ON THURSDAY, MARCH 19, 1992, 5:30 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Gordon Johnson, Don Patton, Mike Lewis, Geof Workinger and Helen McClelland STAFF PRESENT: Kris Aaker Jackie Hoogenakker I. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES: Mr. Workinger moved approval of the January 16, and February 20, 1992 meeting minutes. Mr. Patton seconded the motion. All voted aye; motion carried. II. OLD BUSINESS: B-92-6 Anne Bildsten 5100 Juanita Avenue Lot 1, Block 4, Glenview Addition Request: A 16, rearyard and a 121 sidestreet setback variance for an attached garage, a 7• sidestreet setback variance, and a 4.45, sideyard setback variance for living areas. Ms. Aaker reminded the board on February 20, 1992, the Board of Appeals met to review a request to remodel a home located at 5100 Juanita Avenue. The request submitted was for a 16 foot rearyard, a 12 foot sidestreet setback variance, a 7 foot sidestreet setback variance, and a 4.45 foot sideyard setback variance. Ms. Aaker noted at the hearing, the Board tabled action on the request to provide the applicant an opportunity to modify the plan illustrating an increased rearyard setback. Ms. Aaker concluded that the proponents have modified the plans illustrating a 14 foot 1 rearyard setback, and the rearyard variance request is reduced to an 11 foot rearyard setback variance. The proponents Mr. and Mrs. Bildsten were present. Mr. Bildsten told the Board they have been in the house since 1983, and want to stay in the neighborhood. Continuing, Mr. Bildsten said the previous plans were studied, and it is our belief that the revisions reflect the recommendations made by the Board. Mr. Bildsten indicated surrounding neighbors support the request as presented this evening. Mrs. McClelland pointed out the majority of homes within the neighborhood are story and one half. She expressed concern that the revision to this house would make it appear two story. Continuing, Mrs. McClelland said in her opinion the rearyard setback is still extreme, but noted that the lot size is substandard, and any addition would probably require a variance. Concluding, Mrs. McClelland expressed concern that the house when completed could create a large mass that may be inappropriate for the neighborhood. Mr. Bildsten pointed out that the additions to the house are "broken" so the structure will be softened. Mr. Lewis told Mr. and Mrs. Bildsten he believes they complied with the request of the Board to reduce the rearyard setback. Continuing, he said, in his opinion if we grant the variance we are taking a non -conforming garage and creating one garage. He concluded it makes sense to have one double garage instead of the existing two single garages fronting on two different streets. Mrs. McClelland told the proponents with the proposed additions the lot would be "maxed out" and no further development could occur. Chairman Johnson noted, in his opinion, the proposal maintains the character and symmetry of the neighborhood, and he supports the proposal as submitted. He concluded that he agrees with Mr. Lewis that the proposed two car garage is preferred to what exists today. Mrs. McClelland moved for variance approval of B-92-6, subject to revised plans as submitted on March 19, 1992, subject to maintaining a 14 foot setback, subject to the condition that the driveway must be removed, and subject to the condition that materials must match the existing dwelling. It is also to be noted that on this lot exists a unique situation of two single garages fronting on two streets, and with the final observation that a hardship exists due to the substandard size of the lot. Mr. Lewis seconded the motion. All voted aye; motion carried. N III. NEW BUSINESS: B-92-10 William and Lois Clynes 5716 Bernard Place Lot 5, Block 2, Melody Knolls 3rd Addn. Request: A 5 foot sideyard setback variance and a 2.8% lot coverage variance Ms. Aaker informed the Board the subject property is a single family one story rambler constructed in 1953. The proponents are hoping to add a 532 sq. ft. master bedroom and bath with a full basement to the back of their home which would require a five foot sideyard setback variance to allow the extension of the existing north building wall, and a 2.8% (319 sq. ft.) lot coverage variance. Ms. regarding prohibits proposed Aaker asked the Board the proposed stairwell, a second dwelling in stairwell causes staff sour to a note that she has a concern She pointed out the ordinance single family home, and the e concern. Ms. Aaker told the Board in addition to the home, the property has a 550 square foot deck and a 495 square foot patio which occupy approximately 8% of the total allowable lot coverage amount. Building department records indicate that the deck was constructed in 1974 and the applicant has stated that the patio is a more recent addition. It is the applicant's desire to leave both the patio and deck intact. Ms. Aaker concluded Staff could support a five foot sideyard setback variance subject to confirmation that the neighbor to the north does not object to the increased length of the north building wall. Staff cannot recommend approval of a lot coverage variance however, and would suggest that any setback variance approval be subject to a corresponding reduction in patio/deck area not to exceed 25% of lot area. The proponents Mr. and Mrs. Clyne and their son, David Clyne were present to respond to questions from the Board. Interested neighbors were present. Mr. Lewis asked Ms. Aaker if in the recodification process 3 staff considered increasing lot coverage from 25 to 30%. Ms. Aaker explained that as far as lot coverage is concerned the maximum coverage for lots larger than 9,000 square feet will remain at 25%. The lot in question must maintain lot coverage at 25% or seek a variance. Chairman Johnson questioned if the neighbors on both sides of the proposal have been contacted. Mr. G. Weber, 5712 Bernard Place, neighbor to the north, told board members he supports the proposal. He concluded he has considered constructing a similar addition, and feels the Clyne addition is not detrimental to the neighborhood, or his property. Mr. Nauman, 5708 Bernard Place stated he supports the request, and believes the addition would not have a negative effect on his property. Mr. Clynes told the Board the neighbor directly across the street, Mr. Miller, expressed to him he has no objection to the proposal. Mr. Patton asked Mr. and Mrs. Clynes the reason for the proposed stairwell off the master bedroom addition. `Mr. Clynes stated that their proposal includes a basement under the master bedroom addition, and they wanted to have clear passage from that part of the basement in case of a fire. Mr. Clynes concluded that he believes the fire department would support the addition of a second stairwell. Mrs. McClelland expressed concern over the massiveness of the proposed addition and the stairwell. She pointed out the proposed stairwell takes up space that could be incorporated into living space. Continuing, Mrs. McClelland stated the addition of a stairway does not make good planning sense, especially since a variance from our lot coverage requirement is needed. She also pointed out the stairwell may create an illegal situation that she feels very uncomfortable with it. Mrs. McClelland pointed out it looks like a mother-in-law apartment. Mr. Clynes replied it is not his intent to create a separate dwelling. Mrs. McClelland said while that may be his intention, future owners may decide to convert the basement into a separate dwelling. Mr. Workinger expressed the same concern regarding massiveness. Mrs. McClelland stated she finds no hardship to support a lot coverage variance, and told the proponents in her opinion, they have options that can eliminate the lot coverage variance. Continuing, Mrs. McClelland suggested they either remove the stairwell, reduce the deck, or remove the patio. Chairman Johnson agreed, he stated that the deck/patio situation may have to be 4 redesigned or the stairwell deleted to eliminate the need for a lot coverage variance. Chairman Johnson concluded that in his opinion the proponents should meet the 25% lot coverage requirement. Mr. Lewis asked the proponents if the proposed stairwell is an integral part of their plan, and if it is, they may have to eliminate the concrete slab or reduce the dimension of the deck. Mr. Clynes stated they wanted the stairwell because it will be a safe exit out of the basement. Mr. Patton and Mr. Lewis agreed stated they have no problem with the request for the 5 foot sideyard setback variance but cannot support the request for a lot coverage variance. A discussion ensued with board members in agreement that the proponents should redesign their plans to eliminate the lot coverage variance, and come before them at a later date. The board explained to the proponents they have different options to pursue to achieve ordinance compliance. The board stated they will not dictate redesign options, but cautioned any redesign should eliminate the requested lot coverage variance. Mr. David Clynes asked the Board if they would approve at this hearing the 5 foot sideyard setback variance. Mr. Lewis responded that the Board would prefer to vote after reviewing the revised plans. Chairman Johnson said is appears the Board could support the 5 foot sideyard setback variance, but cannot support the lot coverage variance. Continuing, Chairman Johnson suggested that the proponents modify their plans to conform to lot coverage standards and submit for approval a revised plan. Mr. Lewis moved to continue B-92-10 to the April 16, 1992, meeting. Mr. Workinger seconded the motion. All voted aye; motion carried. IV. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 6:20 p.m. TOR mptlisra z - - - 61