Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1996 02-15 Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting Minutes RegularMINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE EDINA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS HELD ON THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 15, 1996 5:30 P.M., MANAGER'S CONFERENCE ROOM MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair, Helen McClelland, David Byron, Mike Lewis, Lorelei Bergman MEMBERS ABSENT: Don Patton STAFF PRESENT: Kris Aaker, Jackie Hoogenakker I. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES: Minutes of the December 21, 1995, meeting were filed as submitted. II. NEW BUSINESS: B-96-6 Joy Pearsons and Felix Veliath 5116 Skyline Drive Lot 12 Request: A 12 foot frontyard setback variance Ms. Aaker informed the Board the subject property is located west of Skyline Drive and consists of a one story rambler with an attached two car garage. The property owners are hoping to add a 10 X 20 foot addition to the east of the garage to align with an existing front building wall. The addition is to accommodate a new kitchen, mudroom connection between garage and kitchen and a service entrance from the driveway to the new mudroom. Ms. Aaker concluded that given that the addition will not extend beyond the front wall of the existing house staff can support their request as submitted. The proponent, Ms. Pearson was present to respond to questions. Ms. McClelland pointed out if the street continued in a straight line instead of curving into the subject site a variance would probably not be required. Ms. Aaker agreed, she added the curvature of the street in this instance may create the need for a variance. Mr. Lewis moved approval subject to the use of matching materials noting a hardship was created because of the curve in the street and the steep topography to the rear of the site. Ms. Bergman seconded the motion. All voted aye; motion carried. B-96-7 Nancy and Chris Doan 5809 South Drive Lot 1, Block 7, Mirror Lakes in Edina Request: A 10.44 foot frontyard setback variance Ms. Aaker informed the Board the subject property is a corner lot located in the south east quadrant of the intersection of Dundee Road and South Drive. The home consists of an L-shaped rambler with an attached two car garage. The property owners are proposing to add onto their master bedroom in the frontyard area. Ms. Aaker explained the Zoning Ordinance requires that all additions to the front of a home must maintain the average frontyard setback that is occurring along that side of the block between intersections. The average frontyard setback along the block is 45.44 feet, the homeowners are hoping to add 11'4" onto the front of their home. The property owners had hoped to add 16 feet onto the master bedroom, however, the architect in charge of the project believes that a 12 foot addition would accommodate the homeowners's needs, upon further review the architect suggested a 11'4" addition to maintain a minimum 35 foot frontyard setback. Ms. Aaker concluded the city has been very protective of frontyard setbacks and has been very cautious in approving them. Staff as always agreed with this approach, however, believes the addition would have limited impact on the block. The proponents, Mr. and Mrs. Doan were present. Mr. Jay Anderson, architect for the proponents was also present to respond to questions. Mr. Lewis asked Ms. Aaker if a variance was required for the garage addition. Ms. Aaker said a variance was not required. 2 Mr. Lewis questioned if the property is close to the maximum allowed for lot coverage. Ms. Aaker said with the proposed addition lot coverage is just under the allowed 25%. Continuing, Ms. Aaker pointed out the lot is very wide and sideyard spacing is adequate. Ms. McClelland said she has a real problem with this proposal. She pointed out the Board is very protective of frontyard setbacks, noting the houses across the street all have very deep uniform frontyard setbacks. Mr. Lewis asked the reason the addition cannot be constructed out the rear. Mr. Anderson explained because of the internal layout of the house the orientation of the addition need to stay to the front of the house. Continuing, Mr. Anderson said he believes the design is sensitive to the existing character of the house, and pointed out all neighbors within 200 feet have expressed their support. Mr. Anderson asked the Board to note the house immediately next door has an encroachment into the frontyard setback area. Ms. McClelland said this issue does not only affect this block, it is the entire neighborhood. Ms. McClelland pointed out a great deal of remodeling is occurring within the City, reiterating maintaining the character of the Citys streetscape is very important. Mr. Doan explained to Board Members he believes they have a real hardship because the house was constructed without a basement. He added additional storage is needed in the house, and as mentioned previously, the addition needs to be oriented to the front. Mr. Byron stated he also has concerns. He asked Mr. Anderson if the exterior window treatments will remain. Mr. Anderson responded that visually the appearance of the house from the street remains unchanged. Mr. Byron asked if the roof line will change. Mr. Anderson said the appearance of the roof will not change, it will just be extended. Mrs. Bergman asked Mr. Anderson what is actually changing in the interior. Mr. Doan responded what we are really trying to add is additional closet area, and also the desire for a larger master bedroom. Ms. McClelland said that while she understands the desire for additional storage space, it does not constitute a hardship. Mr. Doan reiterated there is no basement, and the house was originally constructed with the roof at a very low pitch making it impossible to expand up. Mr. Lewis said he struggles with this request because he cannot find a hardship. He added he is very concerned with the setting of a precedent. The variance requested is large and out of character for the neighborhood, especially across the street. 3 Mr. Doan explained to Board Members he has worked very hard with the architect to design an addition that compliments the character of the house, with virtually no visual change from the street. Mrs. Bergman asked Mr. Doan if the plans continue the glass block. Mr. Doan said that has not been decided but if the Board feels strongly that the glass blocks should be extended they will be extended. Mr. Anderson reiterated any impact from the street will be minimal, and will not be noticed. Mr. Anderson pointed out the property next door has an overhang that protrudes into the frontyard setback area. Ms. McClelland addressed the proponents explaining it appears a majority of Board Members are struggling with the magnitude of the frontyard setback variance requested. Ms. McClelland asked the proponents if they would be willing to redesign their plans to reduce the setback Mr. Anderson asked the Board if they would be comfortable in approving a frontyard setback variance of around 8 feet if the addition is redesigned to match the frontyard setback of the adjoining house. Ms. McClelland said without viewing revised plans she is not willing to commit. Mr. Byron said he would be willing to take a good look at an 8 foot variance if the addition is redesigned to match the setback of the adjoining house, but concluded he cannot make a decision without viewing the plans. Mrs. Bergman moved to recommend the variance be continued allow the proponents time to redesign the addition. Mr. Lewis seconded the motion. All voted aye; motion carried. B-96-8 Paul O. Sanderson 5117 Schaefer Road Lot 24, Auditor's Subdivision No. 325 Zoning: R-1 Request: A variance from Ordinance 850.07, Subd. 20, B.I. regarding alterations to a non -conforming structure 4 Ms. Aaker informed the Board the subject property is located on the east side of Schaefer Road, south of Interlachen Boulevard. The property consists of a two story home and an accessory stable barn. The variance request is to allow the rehabilitation and remodeling of the existing non -conforming stable that is presently in a state of disrepair. Ms. Aaker pointed out the stable building pre -dates our current Ordinance standards, and is non -conforming in terms of size, height and use. The Ordinance allows for repairs, maintenance and remodeling of non -conforming buildings, however, alterations cannot involve more than 50 percent or more of the gross floor area without obtaining a variance, and the proposed alterations are more than 50 percent. Ms. Aaker also noted the property owners are hoping to repair and restore the exterior facade that is similar in design and materials to the home located on the property. Ms. Aaker remarked the original purpose of the building is no longer an allowed use in the City. The building had been constructed for, and had been used as a horse stable, and horses can no longer be kept within the City limits. Ms. Aaker said in her opinion it would be unreasonable to expect that the building be refurbished as a stable when the use is no longer an allowed or appropriate use for the setting. Ms. Aaker concluded by reiterating staff is of the opinion it is unreasonable to expect the homeowner to repair the building to maintain it as a stable. All of the physical conditions with regard to the building are existing and pre -date the Ordinance. There has been no request to increase the size or scale of the building. The changes to the building occur in the interior and involve the use of the building. Staff supports the refurbishing of the structure and believes it is a reasonable use of the structure given its' existing size and floor area and given the overall lot area of the parcel. Any approval of the project should include the following condition: *The recording of a deed restriction with Hennepin County prohibiting the use of the building as a separate dwelling unit The proponents were present along with their architect, Mr. Porth to respond to questions. Mr. Lewis asked Ms. Aaker if she has been inside the stable. Ms. Aaker said she visited the stable, and found there have been no recent improvements made to the structure, possibly since it was constructed. Ms Aaker added that she believes the structure may be sound, but is in need of immediate securing. Continuing, Ms. Aaker reiterated the stable needs to be secured, and major refurbishing done to the interior to make it livable. Mr. Lewis remarked at present the stable can be considered an attractive nuisance. 5 Ms. Aaker said that is correct. Ms. McClelland asked if the stable has plumbing. Mr. Sanderson said the stable is plumbed and served by a private well. He added it is our intent to tie the stable into the plumbing for the house. Ms. McClelland noted as she visited the site the stable appears to be very close to the property line. Ms. Aaker said that is correct, it is very close. The City does not have a survey on record depicting the location of the stable. Mr. Lewis said he is convinced the stable has historic value, and questioned Ms. Aaker if she is aware of any other similar accessory buildings on large lots that have plumbing. Ms. Aaker said she has no idea if there are other properties in Edina that have out buildings with plumbing similar in nature to the stable/carriage house. Mr. Byron said he understands the significance in preserving the stable, but has a concern that in the future the property could be subdivided, and the stable used as a separate dwelling unit. Ms. McClelland interjected that possibility has also crossed her mind, adding if the Board agrees to approve the variance, as a condition of approval we could require hooking the stable plumbing to the house, and recommending no separate plumbing. She concluded this should prevent the stable becoming a separate dwelling unit. Mr. Roy Jensen, 5124 Blake Road told Board Members he has lived in the neighborhood for many years, and pointed out the area near the stable is very low and swampy, and in the past water has almost reached the doors of the stable. Mr. Jensen said he has no objection to the proposal, and realizes the Board has to make a decision to either allow restoration of the stable, or because of its deteriorating condition, have it razed. Mr. Jensen remarked that he wanted the new property owners to be aware of the potential water problems near the stable. Mr. Porth agreed the building does appear near the low area, acknowledging it may be a good idea to speak with representatives from the DNR regarding the potential for flooding. Ms. McClelland asked Ms. Aaker if she feels that the DNR may have solutions to the standing water problem that Mr. Jensen said occurs. Ms. Aaker said in her opinion contacting the DNR would be up to the property owners, and may be a good idea if it is felt changes need to occur in the low area to prevent flooding of the existing stable. 6 Mr. Byron reiterated that while he does not have a problem with this proposal, he is unclear on the Boards options. Continuing, Mr. Byron said as he understands the Ordinance the variance only relates to the alteration of the gross floor area or exterior wall area of the building, not the use of the building Mr. Byron said the potential for subdivision of this property, because of the creation of a separate dwelling is a concern. Mr. Byron pointed out the Ordinance specifically states one dwelling unit per lot, and while this is an e)dsting non -conforming structure the renovations technically create a separate unit. Mr. Byron questioned if the Boards decision may not be in our jurisdiction. Concluding Mr. Byron said in his opinion this item should be continued, with staff gathering information on the Boards authority, watershed input, etc. Mrs. Bergman said she does not have a problem with renovation of the stable, and agreed that continuing the request is best. Mr. Lewis moved to continue item B-96-8 requesting that staff request a memo from Mr. Gilligan, City Attorney regarding the Boards authority in this matter, addressing the drainage issue, and recommending that staff study properties in the City to see if any have similar out buildings. Mrs. Bergman seconded the motion. All vote aye; motion carried. III. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 6:35 p.m. 7