Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1992 11-19 Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting Minutes RegularMINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS HELD ON THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 19, 1992 5:30 P.M., EDINA CITY HALL MANAGER'S CONFERENCE ROOM MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair, Gordon Johnson, Helen McClelland, Mike Lewis and Don Patton MEMBERS ABSENT: G. Workinger STAFF PRESENT: Kris Aaker, Jackie Hoogenakker I. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES: Mr. Lewis moved approval of the October 15, 1992, meeting minutes. Mrs. McClelland seconded the motion. All voted aye; motion carried. II. NEW BUSINESS: B-92-48 Jim and Donna Block 4405 Country Club Road Lot 2, Block 4, Normandale 2nd Addition Request: An 8 inch frontyard setback variance for overhang with supports Ms. Aaker informed the board the subject property is a "pie" shaped lot with a two story dwelling unit. The applicants are planning an extensive remodel of and addition to their home. All aspects of the remodel and expansion conform to minimum ordinance requirements with the exception of the front entry. Ms. Aaker pointed out the applicants are proposing to dress up their home and provide shelter from ice build up by extending an overhang over the front stoop to be flanked by columns for support. They have indicated that water accumulates and freezes on the front stoop, which is hazardous in the winter time. Ms. Aaker noted there have been two such similar requests for variances recently. In both cases the magnitude of the variances were greater, and both requests were approved due to the limited impact the proposals had along the street scape. Ms. Aaker concluded that staff recommends that any approval be subject to the condition that the front entry remain unenclosed. The proponent, Mr. Block was present. 1 Mr. Patton asked for clarification on the referenced ice buildup problem. Mr. Block stated they have a problem with water dripping from the gutter and onto the stoop, which when the temperature drops results in ice buildup. Mr. Lewis said this seems a reasonable solution to a potentially dangerous situation. Mr. Lewis moved variance approval subject to the condition that the front entry remain unenclosed. Mr. Patton seconded the motion. All voted aye; motion carried. B-92-49 Barbara Zell 5116 West 59th Street Lot 8, Block 1, Benton Park Edina Request: A four foot frontyard setback variance for an elevated deck Ms. Aaker told the board the subject property consists of a single family home with attached garage located on the north side of West 59th Street. The homeowner is in the process of adding a screened porch to the rear of the home to include decking around the garage. The applicant would like to have the deck extend out four feet from the existing front building wall to be in front of the garage and elevated above the driveway. Ms. Aaker concluded that staff could support the request due to the limited impact the deck extension would have on the street scape however, would recommend that the deck area remain unenclosed and uncovered. The proponent, Ms. Zell was present. Chairman Johnson asked Ms. Zell if the reason for pushing out the deck in front is to have it be more of a deck instead of a walk -way. Ms. Zell said that is correct. Mrs. McClelland stated if she recalls correctly the decks in the previously granted variances were more ornamental in nature. This deck appears to be similar to a deck one would find in the rearyard. Ms. Zell said she may have neglected to mention that the rearyard of her property is very steep and terraced that prohibits a large deck. Mrs. McClelland said she has a concern that if this variance is granted a precedent could be set. Chairman Johnson said he does not share that concern. He pointed out the hardship for this property owner is that the individual who constructed the house at 5120 built so far back that it threw off the averages. The subject property cannot do anything without requiring a variance. Mr. Lewis commented that he does not have a problem with this proposal, pointing out the houses on this block do not line in a row and since the deck is proposed to remain unenclosed and any impact would be minimal. Chairman Johnson questioned what type of railing would be used on the deck. Ms. Zell stated that the decking would be vertical slats. Mr. Patton questioned if the building code would review the decking slats to ensure that the slats are constructed with the proper spacing. Ms. Aaker said the building department will inspect the deck and make sure the deck complies with all code requirements. Mrs. McClelland stated that she still cannot find a hardship to support this request, pointing out this site already has the smallest setback on the block. Ms. Zell pointed out that the property owner of 5112 has a similar deck. A discussion ensued on the deck located at 5112 West 59th Street. The building file was reviewed for 5112 West 59th Street and indicated the homeowners received a permit for a remodel but not a permit specifically for the deck portion of the project. Mr. Lewis pointed out it is out of our jurisdiction to comment on the deck on 5112 West 59th Street and stated, in his opinion, our mission is to maintain the integrity and character of the neighborhood and the spirit of the ordinance. The proposed decks' impact will be minimal, and since the setbacks along this streetscape are varied, any addition to the front of this property would require a variance which is a hardship. Mr. Lewis also noted that deck will be unenclosed and must remain that way. Mr. Lewis moved variance approval subject to the plans presented and that the deck remain uncovered and unenclosed. Mr. Patton seconded the motion. Ayes; Lewis, Patton, Johnson. Nay, McClelland. Motion for approval carried 3-1. Mrs. McClelland stated she opposed the variance because there is not hardship and noted that she has a concern that the board has been granting an increasing amount of frontyard setbacks. Mrs. McClelland said in her opinion, this deck is living space because it is large enough to contain patio furniture. It is not decorative, and it is not a walkway. 3 Mrs. McClelland asked staff to look into the deck located at 5112 West 59th Street. B-92-50 Gary and Mary Hallman 5411 Zenith Avenue Lots 27128.29, & 30, Block 2 Seely's lst Addition to Hawthorne Park Request: variance from zoning ordinance 850.21 subdivision 12, B to allow improvement of the home to exceed 50$ of market value and variance to allow extension of decking over existing overhang. Ms. Aaker informed the board the subject property is located just south of West 54th Street which terminates at Minnehaha Creek and west of an unimproved alley. The parcel on which the home is located consists of four lots, however, most of the lot area is within the Minnehaha Creek watercourse and is recognized as unbuildable land. Ms. Aaker said review of the site reveals that virtually all aspects of the home and property are non -conforming in terms of the city's current zoning ordinance standards for buildable lot area, required street frontage and setback of the structure. Ms. Aaker also pointed out the board should note that the home is located within the flood zone. Ms. Aaker explained that the property owners have been working for the past 1 1/2 years with the Mn. Department of Natural Resources, the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District and the City to determine the extent to which the home can be remodeled. Continuing, Ms. Aaker explained the homeowners are planning to remodel the entire interior of the home to include an alteration to the roof lines to increase 2nd floor living area. The City, Watershed District, and DNR agreed that remodeling within the confines of the existing building footprint would not alter the non -conforming status of the structure. Any expansion of the foot print, however, would be prohibited because it would cause an additional obstruction in the floodplain. The board should note that the homeowners will be adding bay windows in the south west corner of the home corner however, they will not extend to the floor and will be above the flood elevation and therefore will not be subject to setback standards or considered an obstruction. The new proposed deck to be extended above an existing over hang is subject to the 50 foot zoning setback standards from Minnehaha Creek, however, is not considered an obstruction as defined in the flood plain ordinance due to the fact that it is elevated above the 4 flood zone. Mr. Aaker said the board should note that a 50 foot required setback from Minnehaha Creek extends beyond the perimeter of the property so no expansion can occur without a variance. The applicants are requesting a variance from the creek setback requirement to allow the elevated deck to replace an overhang. Ms. Aaker reported the property is also subject to the floodplain ordinance. The official FEMA maps and floodplain profiles indicate that the property and home is in the flood zone. From a practical perspective, the home has not flooded during a 100 year or 500 year flood event. as was experienced by the city in the late 19701's and in 1987. In addition the home was built on a concrete slab so basement elevations have not been a concern. Historically city records indicate that flooding has not been a problem for this property. The Floodplain ordinance allows remodeling of non -conforming structures in the flood zone but not to exceed 50% of the value of the structure. The homeowners have estimated that the remodeling will cost approximately $58,000. The home is valued at $68,00. The purpose of the 50% value rule is to prevent the improvement of non -conforming properties so that they can eventually be removed from the flood zone. It is not intended in the city's mission statement to discourage the upgrading of single family dwellings, and from a practical standpoint the city does not view the home as susceptible to flooding or subject to removal from the floodplain. Ms. Aaker concluded that Staff recommends approval of the request subject to plans presented given that the homeowner cannot increase the building foot print, the remodel appears to be a reasonable alternative to allow the upgrading of the structure. The proponents Mr. and Mrs. Hallman were present. Mr. Patton asked Ms. Aaker what the flood elevation is on this site. Ms. Aaker responded that the flood elevation is between 853.5-854. Ms. Aaker pointed out as mentioned in the staff report that the structure is on a slab, and to our knowledge the property has never been flooded. Mrs. McClelland stated if she remembers correctly, that this property was once one estate, and questioned how this property was developed without every house requiring a garage. Ms. Aaker said she cannot respond to that question, and does not know why a garage was not constructed on this site. Ms. Aaker clarified that other zoning rules do not apply on this property, because it's non- conforming status will not change, therefore a garage is not required. She pointed out what we are here to consider is the interior remodeling in excess of 50% the value of the structure. Ms. Aaker noted the proponents would love to have a garage, but cannot have one on this site. 5 Mrs. McClelland asked Ms. Aaker if the city has indicated any desire to purchase this property. Ms. Aaker said to her knowledge the city has not indicated a desire to purchase this property. Mrs. Hallman told the board this has been an very interesting property for them. She stated since living in the house it has never flooded and her and her husband enjoy the quiet and almost country living found in this part of Edina. Mr. Johnson pointed out in reviewing the plans it appears the city owes you a street, and questioned if the city maintains the alley. Ms. Aaker said the alley is held by the city and both are unimproved. Mrs. Hallman interjected that she believes this area has its place in Edina, and she has worked with the city officials regarding any development on this site and maintenance of the street/alley. Mr. Patton questioned if the alley can be vacated, thereby allowing more land which could possibly provide enough space for the proponents to construct a garage. Ms. Aaker stated this was initiated but failed. Mr. Gary Newberg, 5406 York Avenue explained to board members that he believes the whole area was constructed for rental purposes. He added he believes that two garages were constructed to be shared between the four houses. Mr. Newberg noted one concern he has is regarding the parking of the Hallman's vehicles. Mr. Hallman responded that their parking will be contained on their lot. He pointed out Lot 29 can be used for the parking of their vehicles. Mr. Tom Larson, 5400 York Avenue, told board members he has no problem with the renovation to the existing house but wants some assurance that parking will be contained on the Hallman property and not on the alley easement. Mr. Patton questioned if there is a problem with snow removal in this neighborhood. Mr. Hallman explained that the city has always plowed the street but the alley is a different matter. Mr. Patton said the city should also plow the alley. Ms. Aaker said there are private easements over the alley and any maintenance of it is an engineering matter, and should be discussed between the property owners within the neighborhood and Fran Hoffman, city engineer. Mr. Hallman explained to board members that he and his wife spent over a year and a half researching this area and finding out what they could and could not do. Mr. Hallman said when applying for a building permit for the interior renovation of the house he was not informed of the 50% rule. L Ms. Aaker explained the city ordinance was recodified in August of 1992, and the Hallman's obtained a permit to do $34,500 work of remodeling. Continuing, Ms. Aaker stated the need for a variance was triggered when the amount of the renovation exceeded 50% of the value of the house. Ms. Aaker also clarified that the board may view this request as being tied to the parking concerns expressed by neighbors, and the maintenance issue of the street/alley but cannot condition variance approval on those issues, parking and street and alley maintenance are not within their jurisdiction. Ms. Aaker reiterated the variance is for exceeding 50% of the value of the home and the deck. Ms. Aaker in response to parking concerns pointed out that the proponents do have a legal area to park their vehicles and if a neighbor has a problem with the parking or feels the parking is illegal they can call the police. Mr. Patton said what he would like to try to do is upgrade this area and create a better situation all around. Mr. Patton said he would like the proponents to be able to construct a garage, thereby getting their vehicles off the "lot". A discussion ensued between board members, proponents, and residents regarding the existing parking situation, snow removal and the possibility of a the proponents constructing a garage. Ms. Aaker clarified that the present situation is non- conforming, and is a "grandfathered" situation. Ms. Aaker pointed out the proponents cannot construct a garage or any other structure because this area is in the floodplain. The only upgrading that can be realized is to the interior of the house, which would not change the footprint, and not obstruct the flow of the creek. Mr. Lewis said that while he understands the concerns of the neighbors regarding parking, and snow removal, our issue is if we should allow the interior renovations to exceed 50% of the value of the home. Mr. Lewis added he has no problem with upgrading the interior of the structure, because in listening to the proponents he believes they have a understanding of what they are getting into, and they appear to love this area. Continuing, Mr. Lewis suggested that all immediate residents of the neighborhood including the proponents meet with Mr. Hoffman regarding snow removal concerns and maintenance. Mrs. McClelland said she does not want the city to allow doubling the value of the house. She said if a variance is granted, in a sense we are allowing the upgrading of an area that maybe should not be allowed to exist due to its non -conforming status. Mr. Patton moved to approval of the variances subject to staff conditions and that the deck remain uncovered and unclosed. Ayes; Patton, Lewis, Johnson. Nays, McClelland. 7 Mrs. McClelland said she has a real concern that this area does not have adequate ingress/egress and cannot support the variance. III. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 7:00 p.m. 8