Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1996 11-21 Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting Minutes RegularMINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE EDINA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS HELD ON THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 21, 1996 5:30 P.M., MANAGER'S CONFERENCE ROOM MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair, Gordon Johnson, Helen McClelland, Don Patton, Geof Workinger MEMBERS ABSENT: Mike Lewis STAFF PRESENT: Kris Aaker, Jackie Hoogenakker I. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES The minutes of the September 16, 1996 meeting were filed as submitted II. OLD BUSINESS: B-96-61 Marinovich 6208 Halifax Avenue Request: A 5.32 foot variance for a front entry addition Ms. Aaker informed board Members the proponents are returning with a revised plan at the direction of a previous Zoning Board. Ms. Aaker concluded she supports the revision as presented subject to the use of matching materials The proponent, Mr. Marinovich was present to respond to questions. Mr. Workinger stated he can support the revised plan. The proponent appears to have addressed the concerns expressed by the previous Board. Mr. Marinovich interjected he also likes the new plan, and they are pleased they will be able to accomplish what they desire with the revised plan. Mr. Workinger moved approval of a 5.32 foot variance for a front entry addition subject to the revised plans as presented, and the use of matching materials. Mr. Patton seconded the motion. Ayes; Patton, Workinger, McClelland. Abstain. Johnson. Motion carried. II. NEW BUSINESS: B-96-64 Jim and Suzy Riesterer 6900 Mark Terrace Drive Request: A 6 foot sidestreet setback variance Ms. Aaker informed the Board the subject property is located on the southeast corner of Valley View Road and Mark Terrace Drive consisting of a rambler with a tuck under two car garage. The homeowners are proposing to add onto the rear of their home. The homeowners would like to add onto their garage in the lower level and to provide a master suite above the garage addition on the main floor. Ms. Aaker said the setback requirement for a garage opening facing a side street is 20 feet, however, it must be increased to a frontstreet setback if an adjacent home faces the side street. The proposed side street setback of the garage/master bedroom is 34 feet. The home adjacent located on 6905 Valley View Road has a frontyard setback of 40 feet. Technically all additions to the subject home must maintain a 40 foot setback from the Valley View Road property line. Ms. Aaker stated it should be noted that spacing between the subject home and the home to the west will be approximately 46 feet. The homeowners are proposing to finish the addition with matching materials to the existing structure. Ms. Aaker concluded given the sizeable distance between the subject property and the adjacent affected home and the hardship with regard to the required setback staff supports the request as submitted. The proponents, Mr. and Mrs. Riesterer were present. Ms. McClelland questioned if a number of trees will be lost as a result of the proposal. Mr. Riesterer said by their calculations only 1 tree will be lost. Mr. Patton said he can support the request because the house next door creates a hardship for the subject property being at 40 feet , and this dictates the setback for the subject home. Mr. Patton stated this property is subjected to two frontyard setbacks, which in his opinion creates a hardship. 2 Ms. McClelland moved variance approval subject to the plans presented, the use of matching materials, and based on the hardship of this property having to maintain two frontyard setbacks. Mr. Workinger seconded the motion. All voted aye; motion carried. B-96-65 Edward Noonan 4700 Merilane Lot 60 And Lot 6A Rolling Green Request: A six foot rearyard setback variance and a 12.5 foot frontyard setback variance Ms. Aaker explained to the Board the subject property is located in the southwest corner of Merilane and Mait Lane. The home is a one story rambler fronting Merilane. The property owners are proposing to add onto both ends of the home and reverse the garage from the south to the north side of the home. The home will remain a one story rambler although a higher pitched roof will be added. All aspects of the home additions and remodeling conform to Ordinance requirements with the exception of the addition to the south portion of the home. The south portion of the home encroaches into the required 50.5 foot frontyard setback area and 50 foot setback required for ponding areas. Ms. Aaker said it would appear that the lots are sizable in Rolling Green it is evident that a number of conditions affect the subject property including original house placement and the now required imposed setbacks. The homeowners are working with an existing structure and are not tearing down and rebuilding on the site which affords more design flexibility. Most of the building area to be added to the south end of the home conforms to Ordinance requirements with the exception of points extending into the curving lines of the front and pond setback. The additions on each end of the existing home were angled to more closely conform to the Ordinance. Ms. Aaker concluded staff is more comfortable with the proposed setbacks given that the home will remain a rambler and it would appear that spacing between homes will remain adequate. Staff supports the request as submitted. The proponent, Mr. Noonan was present to respond to questions. Mr. Noonan addressed the board pointing out this lot is very difficult to work with because it is required to maintain two frontyard setbacks, and is a very irregular sized lot. Drainage is also an issue that the City is currently trying to resolve, so this adds to the problem, leaving little room for flexibility. 3 Ms. McClelland commented on the rear elevation and the "bump our off the rear, questioning if that is at grade. Mr. Noonan responded the addition off the rear is elevated on posts. Ms. McClelland referred to the drainage issue, and asked Mr. Noonan if he believes a new drainage system will benefit his lot. Mr. Noonan said he has been working with the Engineering Department to secure an easement so the system can be overhauled, adding he believes it will be an improvement. Ms. Aaker interjected currently the City does not have an easement on the subject site, reiterating the proponent is working with the City to remedy this. Mr. Patton asked if an ordinary high water mark has been established for this site. Ms. Aaker explained an ordinary high water mark has not been established because the ponding area fluctuates so much. Ms. Aaker asked the board to note the variance is not related to the ordinary high mark or flood plain. A discussion ensued with Board Members in agreement that this property is penalized and has little flexibility for expansion, because it is required to maintain two frontyard setbacks, noting there is also little room to add off the rear because of the shape of the lot. Mr. Patton moved variance approval noting the hardship of maintaining two frontyard setbacks, subject to the plans presented, plan review regarding drainage by the Engineering Department, and the use of matching materials. Ms. McClelland seconded the motion. All voted aye; motion carried. B-96-66 Julie Champ 4709 Virginia Avenue Lot 2, Block 4, Virginia Avenue Addition Request: A 2 foot sideyard setback variance and a 4 foot rearyard setback variance Ms. Aaker informed the board the subject property is located south of Virginia Lane consisting of a contemporary style home with a flat roof and tuck under two car garage. The homeowners have indicated that they need to replace a leaking roof. As part of the roof replacement the homeowners were planning to add onto the southwest corner of the home for an expanded kitchen. The area of expansion will "fill in" the 4 back corner of the home. The existing home is currently non -conforming in terms of side and rearyard setback. Ms. Aaker concluded given the existing conditions regarding the site and given that the addition will only be a continuation of an existing non -conforming setback, staff recommends approval of the request. The proponent, Ms. Champ was present. Ms. McClelland asked if the roof of the addition will have a flat roof. Ms. Champ explained it is her goal to change the pitch of the roof so it will be'/ pitched. She added she hopes this change in roof pitch will help with drainage. Mr. Johnson asked if the addition is going to be located where the current deck is. Ms. Champ responded that is correct, the addition will be located where the deck is presently located. Mr. Workinger asked if matching materials will be used on the addition. Ms. Champ responded in the affirmative. Mr. Workinger moved variance approval subject to the plans presented, the use of existing materials. Mr. Patton seconded the motion. All voted aye. Motion carried. IV. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 6:30 p.m. i1�1.��► � ���� �� L 0i4 5