Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1992 05-21 Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting Minutes RegularREGULAR MEETING OF THE EDINA BOARD OF APPEALS AND ADJUSTMENTS HELD ON THURSDAY, MAY 21, 1992 5:30 P.M., EDINA CITY HALL MANAGER'S CONFERENCE ROOM MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair Gordon Johnson, Don Patton, Mike Lewis, Geof Workinger, Helen McClelland STAFF PRESENT: Kris Aaker, Jackie Hoogenakker I. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES: Mr. Lewis moved approval of the April 16, 1992, meeting minutes. Mr. Patton seconded the motion. All voted aye; motion carried. II. NEW BUSINESS: B-92-22 Mr. Don V. and Mrs. Elizabeth Sweder 5115 Wooddale Glen Lot 10, Country Club District Wooddale Section Request: A 1 foot sideyard setback variance to expand the existing 14 X 20 -foot garage to a 20 B 20 foot garage. Ms. Aaker informed the Board the home owners are hoping to add to their existing attached 14 X 20 foot single stall garage by six feet to produce a 20 X 20 foot two stall garage. The existing one car garage is located the minimum five feet from the side property boundary. The proponent has an agreement with his next door neighbor to purchase five feet of property and proceed through the lot division process to allow for garage expansion. The. Board should note that even with a land purchase and lot division, the plan as submitted still requires a one foot variance to allow a four foot sideyard setback. 1 Ms. Aaker concluded staff supports the request as submitted. It is recommended however, that the variance be subject to approval of a lot division to provide a minimum four foot sideyard setback. The proponent, Mr. Sweder was present to answer questions from the board. Mr. Sweder explained that he has carefully studied this situation and "tossed around" a number of solutions, one being constructing a tandem garage that would not require a variance. Continuing, Mr. Sweder said the major reason the tandem garage was not desirable is because if it were to be constructed a very large tree would be lost. He stated it is his desire to retain the tree and the solution presented this evening will allow him to achieve the desired garage without disruption of the rearyard. Mr. Patton asked Ms. Aaker what the distance is between the subject house and the house next door. Ms. Aaker said there is 30 feet between the two houses. She pointed out this neighbor has enough land to sell to the proponent which allowed him the option of applying for this variance and the possibility of achieving the desired garage. Mr. Lewis noted there is a grade difference between the two properties and questioned if the proposed driveway would have to be build up. Mr. Sweder answered that that is correct. He stated he believes the proposed driveway would require a two foot extension for at least 12 feet of the driveway. Chairman Johnson pointed out that this is actually a two step process and any approval would be contingent on the Planning Commission approving the lot division. Mr. Workinger asked the proponent what materials will be used on the garage. Mr. Sweder stated the materials he is planning to use are wood shakes to match the existing house. A discussion ensued centering around the grade difference and the need for a lot division to make this request possible. Ms. Aaker clarified for the board that the requested piece of land from the neighbor is relatively small. It is not the whole length of property. Mr. Workinger moved approval of the 1 foot sideyard setback variance subject to approval of the lot division and subject to the condition that matching materials must be used. Mr. Lewis seconded the motion. All voted aye; motion carried. 2 B-92-23 Mina Adamovich, Robert and Denise Balderson, June Garrison and Karen Miller 4360 France Avenue South Units 3,4,7, and 8, Lot 79, Morningside Request: A 20 foot rearyard setback variance and a .56% (84 sq. ft.) lot coverage variance. Ms. Aaker told the board the subject property is an eight unit condominium building located on the south west corner of Morningside Road and France Avenue. The site had originally been the location of a Texaco service station, however in 1981 the property was rezoned and targeted for higher density residential development. Due to a very minimal lot size, numerous variances were required to complete the project. Ms. Aaker pointed out expansion of any kind would require a variance due to the number of variances originally required for development of the eight unit building on the substandard Texaco lot. Ms. Aaker concluded given the small size of the lot and subsequent limited expansion potential of the units, a hardship has been created that is not self imposed. It would appear that the proposed porches would have little impact from the Morningside Road streetscape. The project when complete would continue to visually blend with the neighborhood, and would not negatively impact the adjacent property owners to a significant degree. Staff supports the request subject to limiting the variance to the plans submitted. Mrs. Adamovich and other residents of the building were present. Mrs. McClelland asked Ms. Aaker what is the current setback. Ms. Aaker said the setback at present is 17 feet. Mrs. McClelland questioned if at present the porches are not enclosed but their request is to enclose them. Ms. Aaker stated that is current. Mrs. McClelland inquired after they are enclosed do we include it as lot coverage. Ms. Aaker said that is correct, which is the reason for the requested lot coverage variance. Mr. Lewis pointed out this site already has numerous hardships because of the original development of the site, and believes the request would not have a negative impact on surrounding property 3 owners. Mrs. McClelland said that while that is true; two wrongs do not make a right. She added she supports the request but noted this site was developed in a sense "over the max" and nothing further can be done to it. Mrs. McClelland stated that she wants the property owners the site is at max. Mr. Workinger said if this were a single family home the sideyard setbacks would be set according to the height of the structure. He asked what are the setbacks for other PRD developments. Ms. Aaker said the setbacks for PRD developments for sideyards are usually 20 to 35 feet. Rearyards are 25 to 35 feet. Mr. Lewis moved approval of the request as presented noting the hardship on this- site for any further. development and the uniqueness of the lot and subject to the condition that the materials are to match the existing structures. Mr. Patton seconded the motion. All voted aye; motion carried. B-92-24 Request: Mr. Donna C. Hoffman 6516 Parnell Avenue Lot 3, Block 18, Normandale A three foot front yard setback variance Ms. Aaker informed the board the subject property is a stucco split level home that has a shallow, elevated "walkway" deck area along the front building wall. The proponent is hoping to add a small extension to the northeast corner of the existing deck. Ms. Aaker explained the block on which the home is located consists of a variety of housing types and styles of homes. In addition, the topography along Parnell Avenue varies from lot to lot. Inspection reveals that some of the homes have been built into slopes while others have been located on elevations above street level. The variety of structure types and building settings gives each property an individual appeal. Because the homes are not visually uniform along the street scape and due to areas of heavy vegetation along the block, the deck extension will not have a detrimental effect on the front yard areas of the surrounding properties. Ms. Aaker added staff believes that the request for variance is minimal and would have no perceivable impact on neighboring properties. Ms. Aaker concluded staff could support the request as 4 submitted subject to the following conditions: 1. The variance is limited to the plans presented. 2. The deck area remains uncovered and unenclosed. The proponent, Ms. Hoffman was present. Chairman Johnson asked Ms. Hoffman if she feels there is a hardship. Ms. Hoffman explained one reason for the request is to add architectural interest to the home. Continuing, Ms. Hoffman explained that because of the hill in the rearyard this is the only direction that the addition can go. Mr. Patton asked in reviewing this proposal if there is a possibility of the tree being impacted. Ms. Hoffman said she spoke with a Forester and he indicated the tree would not suffer from the addition: Mrs. McClelland moved approval subject to staff conditions and noting the uniqueness of the lot, and elevation of the house and that the addition will not be enclosed. Mrs. McClelland also suggested that the rail be matched with what is existing. Mr. Lewis seconded the motion. All voted aye; motion carried. B-92-25 Mr. Thomas A Bowler 5708 Dale Avenue Lot 19, Block 3, Melody Knolls 6th -Addition Request: A 2 foot front yard setback variance for a bay window extension to the floor. Ms. Aaker informed the board the subject property is a single family rambler located along the west side of Dale Avenue. The property owner would like to install a 24" cantilevered bay window that would extend to the floor. Applicants are proposing a 33 foot front yard setback on a block where the average front yard setback is approximately 35 feet. . Ms. Aaker concluded staff could support board approval of the request based on the limited impact of the proposal. Staff would condition approval to limiting the variance to the plan submitted. Mr. Ken Lantau was present to answer questions. Mr.„ Lewis moved approval subject to plans presented. Mr. Patton seconded the motion. All voted aye; motion carried. 5 B-92-26 Mr. Michael and Ms. Pamela Mills 6617 McCauley Trail Lot 8, Block 1, Indian Hill West Request: A 1.5 foot sideyard setback variance and a 6.75 foot rear yard setback variance Ms. Aaker informed the board the property owners are hoping to add a second story to the east side of the home and to "fill in" the southeast corner with a new addition. The homeowners are adding a more formal entry and are proposing more details to the south facade of the house to relate it to the homes that are fronting Apache Road. Ms. Aaker pointed out the subject property was originally constructed with the front yard facing McCauley Trail. A subsequent subdivision to the east has created two street frontages for the subject property and has resulted in a difficult setback situation. The ordinance states that a front lot line is the boundary of a lot having frontage on a street. Given the home's location on the lot and how the lot relates to the cul-de-sac, the subject home must respect the front yard setbacks of homes along Apache Road. It has been determined that the subject property should reflect the setbacks occurring on Apache Road with the north property boundary defined as the rear lot line and the east property boundary defined as a side lot line for setback purposes. Ms. Aaker concluded staff believes that house placement on the lot is a hardship limiting design options and expansion potential. The addition would have limited impact on neighboring properties and would enhance the Apache Road streetscape. Staff is supportive of the request. The proponent, Mr. Mills was present. Chairman Johnson asked Ms. Aaker if staff has received any feedback pro or con from the neighbors. Mr. Mills responded that he has spoken with a majority of the neighbors and they have indicated they support the request. Ms. Aaker said staff has received no objections regarding the proposal. Mr- Patton noted that the south elevation shows a door coming off of Apache Road. Mr. Mills stated that is correct adding they may want to have access off Apache. r. Mr. Patton asked Ms. Aaker if the driveway were to be constructed to come off Apache Road would there be a drainage problem. Ms. Aaker said the engineering department would have to approve any curb cuts and they would carefully study any drainage issues. Mrs. McClelland noted when Michael Halley developed the connecting subdivision the cul de sac took a "bite" out of this property which created a need for two front yard setbacks. She said she understand their desire to front on Apache. Mrs. McClelland said she can support the proposal but would like to request comments from the neighbors on how they feel regarding the addition. Mr. Lewis said the addition would not impact the properties on Pawnee. He stated the profile of this house from Pawnee is unassuming. Mrs. McClelland moved approval based on the hardship of the cul de sac and that the rearyard setback is already established, and subject to the condition that all material match, and that letters are received from neighbors located at 6732, 37, 31, Apache Road and 6741 Indian Way West. Mr. Lewis seconded the motion. All voted aye; motion carried. III. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 6:15 p.m. rorA7 r r %L -i %--z,,rw:e- ffoogena-kZer L " 6 7