Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1996 01-18 Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting Minutes RegularJr MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE EDINA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS HELD ON THURSDAY, JANUARY 18, 1996 5:30 P.M., MANAGER'S CONFERENCE ROOM MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair, Gordon Johnson, Don Patton, Geof Workinger MEMBERS ABSENT: Helen McClelland, Mike Lewis STAFF PRESENT: Kris Aaker, Jackie Hoogenakker I. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES: Mr. Workinger moved approval of the November 16, 1995, meeting minutes. Mr. Patton seconded the motion. All voted aye; motion carried. II. NEW BUSINESS: B-96-2 Dale Kelash 5104 Gorgas Avenue South 66th Feet of East 165 Feet of West 300 Feet of Lot 56, Aud. Subd.172 Request: A 164 square foot lot coverage variance to accommodate existing garage area Ms. Aaker explained the subject property is located along the west side of Gorgas Avenue just north of West 52nd Street. The property consists of a rambler with an attached one car garage built in 1950 and a detached two car garage located in the rearyard built in 1994. Just prior to October of 1994, the homeowner had inquired at City Hall about the Zoning regulations regarding the addition of a two car garage on his property. Staff indicated that maximum lot coverage of 2,250 square feet would be allowed per Ordinance. Shortly after the homeowner's inquiry, a building inspector noticed that a 22' X 28' concrete slab had been poured in the rearyard area of the subject site. The homeowner was notified that a concrete slab is included in lot coverage calculations and that the property violated the lot coverage Ordinance. Ms. Aaker explained on October 21, 1994, the property owner applied for a building/demolition permit to construct a 22'X 28' garage in the rearyard of the property and to remove a 12'X 14' section of the attached one car garage. The partial demolition of the existing one car garage was required to conform to lot coverage requirements. On November 15, 1995, the property owner was notified, by the building official that the permit obtained for construction and demolition of garage area had expired. It was evident upon inspection by the building department that the new garage had been completed without any alteration to the single stall garage. Ms. Aaker concluded it has generally not been the policy of the Zoning Board to be supportive of lot coverage variances. Staff cannot identify a hardship on the property that would support a variance and therefore cannot recommend approval. The proponent, Mr. Kelash was present to respond to questions. Mr. Kelash addressed the Board and explained in his opinion in order to obtain a two car garage, this was the only solution. Continuing, Mr. Kelash pointed out the width of the lot, and existing house placement forced the rearyard placement of the new garage. Mr. Kelash said a major consideration was maintaining the character of the existing house. He pointed out demolishing a portion of the existing attached garage, and rebuilding the garage wall not only is a major expense, but is not aesthetically pleasing. Chairman Johnson asked Mr. Kelash what he believes is his hardship. Mr. Kelash commented their desire was to achieve a two stall garage, and the only way they felt it could be accomplished was constructing a freestanding two stall garage in the rearyard. Concluding Mr. Kelash said he believes his hardship is the width of the lot, and the existing minimal sideyard setback. Mr. Johnson pointed out it is not uncommon to find tandem garages in Edina on lots this size, and a tandem garage is a viable solution in achieving a two stall garage. Mr. Kelash agreed with Mr. Johnsons observation that a tandem garage can be accomplished, but it is not the result they desired. Mrs. Kelash interjected that they have a teenage daughter who will be getting her license in the near future, which creates the potential for the addition of another car to the family, so the two car garage is needed, and a driveway large enough to accommodate increased parking demand. Mr. Johnson asked Mr. Kelash if the cement slab was poured without a permit. Mr. Kelash responded he checked with the City and was informed a permit is not required for a driveway. Mr. Johnson agreed a permit is not required for a driveway, but a permit is required for a slab poured to support a garage. Ms. Aaker interjected explaining Mr. Kelash approached the City regarding construction of a freestanding garage, and was informed if he constructed the garage as indicated, his property would not comply with City lot coverage requirements and he would need to apply for a variance or modify his plans to eliminate the excess coverage. Shortly thereafter, Mr. Greg Bomsta, a City building official, was made aware the slab had been poured without Mr. Kelash obtaining the required permit. Mr. Bomsta informed Mr. Kelash a permit is required for construction of a garage slab, and before further construction can commence permits must be applied for and issued. Mr. Workinger asked Mr. Kelash what alterations have been made to the existing attached garage structure. Mr. Kelash explained a hole was cut in the rear of the attached garage to accommodate drive through access to the freestanding garage. Mr. Workinger asked Mr. Kelash in his opinion, what needs to be completed. Mr. Kelash said the new garage needs hardware, paint and electricity. If the attached existing garage is allowed to remain intact, the rear of the garage needs to be finished. Mr. Workinger questioned the time frame for completion of the renovations. Mr. Kelash said he wants the structure(s) completed by Spring. Mr. Coleman, 5113 Gorgas Avenue told the Board he feels what was promised to take place should occur, and in this instance Mr. Kelash pulled a permit to construct a new garage, and demolish a portion of the existing garage, and that is what should be done. Mr. Workinger asked Mr. Coleman in his opinion, if the existing garage were ordered to be removed, how would it look to you from an aesthetic standpoint. Mr. Coleman said he would not have a problem with removal of the existing garage, and reiterated a demolition permit has been applied for, and the conditions of the permit should be honored. Mr. Costellano, 5108 Gorgas Avenue said he would rather have had a single stall garage constructed in the rear, instead of the large two car garage. Continuing, Mr. Costellano said the permitting process in this case didn't appear to work, promises were made, and not kept, with the end result impacting the entire neighborhood. Mr. Patton said he is trying to be logical in his decision making, and understands and supports the rights of property owners to improve their property, but in this instance has a problem. He acknowledged the house will probably look better with the attached garage intact, but the circumstances getting to this point are not ideal. I&. Kelash reiterated their goal was to achieve a two stall garage, but because of the required sideyard setbacks it was .impossible to expand the existing attached garage to achieve the desired two stall garage. Mr. Kelash stressed the only way they could accomplish a two car garage was to construct it in the rearyard, and drive through the existing garage. Mr. Patton asked if variances are required for the new freestanding garage. Ms. Aaker explained the freestanding garage meets rear and sideyard setback requirements, and reiterated as a result of construction of the new garage the property is over on lot coverage. Ms. Aaker stated typically how the lot coverage is reduced to comply with ordinance standards is left up to the property owner, however, in this instance the property owners indicated they would remove a portion of the existing attached garage to comply with requirements. Ms. Aaker concluded removal of a portion of the existing garage was never accomplished as part of the permit. The property owner has now applied for a variance to allow him to keep the attached garage intact. Mr. Workinger remarked he likes the appearance of the house from the street, but does not want to speculate on the options presented by the property owner. Mr. Workinger concluded he feels comfortable denying the variance request. Mr. Workinger moved to deny the lot coverage variance request. Mr. Patton seconded the motion. Ayes, Patton, Workinger, Johnson. Motion to deny carried 3-0. Chairman Johnson informed Mr. Kelash of his right to appeal this decision to the City Council within 10 days B-96-3 Richard Dahl 4305 Cornelia Circle Lot 4, Block 1, Southdale 4th Addition Zoning: R-1 Request: A 0.08 foot setback variance from Lake Cornelia Ms. Aaker informed the Board the subject property is located south of West 66th Street on Cornelia Circle. The site consists of a walkout rambler backing up to Lake Cornelia. The proponent is hoping to extend a deck into the rearyard area off of the first floor. The deck would overlap into the minimum 75 foot setback from Lake Cornelia by 0.08 feet. Ms. Aaker concluded perceptually the addition will not appear to be closer to Lake Cornelia than other structures along the shoreline. Given the minimal nature of the variance, the limited ability to add onto the back of the structure and given that the decks is unenclosed staff supports the request as submitted. The proponent, Mr. Dahl was present. After a brief discussion Mr. Workinger moved variance approval. Mr. Patton seconded the motion. All voted aye; motion carried. III. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 6:15 p.m. APA' ME * --- k WE Ms 1 ,- L