Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1996 12-05 Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting Minutes RegularMINUTES OF THE REGULARMEETING OF THE EDINA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS HELD ON THURSDAY, DECEMBER 5, 1996 5:30 P.M., MANAGER'S CONFERENCE ROOM MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair, Rose Mary Utne, Ann Swenson, Len Olson, Meg Mannix STAFF PRESENT: Kris Aaker and Jackie Hoogenakker I. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES: The minutes of the October 3, 1996, meeting were filed as submitted. B-96-67 John Chenoweth/Chenoweth Builders/Harold Sand 6529 and 6533 Josephine Avenue Lot 16 and Lots 13 &114, Block 15, Normandale 2nd Addition Request: Five foot lot depth variances for construction of two new homes. Ms. Aaker informed the Board the subject properties are located along the east side of Josephine Avenue just north of West 66th Street. The two parcels meet all of the minimum lot requirements with the exception of lot depth. The Ordinance requires a minimum lot depth of 120 feet. The properties have lot depths of 115 feet. Ms. Aaker concluded the lots had originally been 135 feet in depth and were reduced in area by action of Highway acquisition. The hardship of lot depth reduction was not self imposed and it would appear that granting the variance will have no negative impact on the neighborhood. Staff supports the request as submitted. The proponent, Mr. Chenoweth was present. Mrs. Swenson asked Ms. Aaker which lot requires a variance. Ms. Aaker said the southern lot requires a variance. Mrs. Sever, 6600 Normandale Boulevard asked Ms. Aaker if the square footage of the lot (s) meets neighborhood standards. Ms. Aaker explained the Ordinance requires a minimum lot size of 9,000 square feet. Ms. Aaker said the lot in question is 11,000 square feet. A discussion ensued with board members in agreement that the variance is reasonable. Mr. Olson moved variance approval. Ms. Mannix seconded the motion. All voted aye, motion carried. B-96-68 Donald and Mary Teigen 5509 Park Place Request: A four foot sideyard setback and lot coverage variance for a bathroom addition/southeast corner of the house Ms. Aaker told the Board the subject property is located on the east side of Park Place consisting of a rambler built in 1950. The homeowners have been undertaking an extensive remodel of their home including a number of additions. The project was started in October and included replacement of a single stall garage with a two car garage, the addition of a family room, deck and hot tub. In the end of November 1996, the contractor contacted the building department and stated that the homeowner was considering a master bedroom addition with bath to be located where the deck/hot tub was proposed. It was indicated by the building department that the proposed change would not meet the minimum setback requirement of 10 feet. The addition was proposed at a six foot setback. Ms. Aaker explained the homeowner received a building permit from the City for plans submitted and subsequently modified them to include application for setback variance. To be accommodating, given the pending winter weather, the building department allowed footings to be installed in anticipation of the variance hearing. Ms. Aaker stated while it would appear to some extend that the site conditions may be perceived as self imposed, all building activity was done according to the applicant in good faith under the belief that modifications would be permitted with the exception of requiring a sideyard setback variance. Staff appreciates the position that the homeowners are in and believes their situation is certainly unique and specific to the site. It may also be perceived that a hardship has been imposed on the property to some extent by City action. Ms. Aaker concluded the Zoning Board of Appeals has generally been very conservative when addressing lot coverage issues and staff has been supportive of not increasing coverage beyond the allowable limits. The proponents, Mr. and Mrs. Teigen were present. Interested neighbors were present. Mrs. Swenson asked for clarification on the variance needed. Ms. Aaker said the variance required is for a lot coverage variance, and four foot sideyard setback variance. Mrs. Faust asked Ms. Aaker if she has any design suggestions that would eliminate or reduce the lot coverage request. Ms. Aaker said she did not consider many alternatives, but pointed out reduction of the garage is an alternative. Mrs. Utne explained to the proponents Board History indicates lot coverage variances are rarely granted. Mrs. Mannix said in her opinion this project has special circumstances and is a difficult one. Mr. Olson stated the board has a history of denying lot coverage variances and he cannot support the variance for lot coverage, but can support the sideyard setback variance. Mrs. Utne commented if the lot coverage variance were denied what options do the proponents have. Ms. Aaker said they would have to redesign to comply, or appeal the decision of the Board to the Council. A discussion ensued with Board members in agreement that this is a difficult case because the proponents did act in good faith when they applied for a building permit and to some extent the City is responsible for their plight. Mr. Teigen agreed, he said a permit was pulled and acted on in good faith and if the variance is denied it would impose a severe hardship on them. Continuing, Mr. Teigen pointed out the house really will look better and more balanced if it is allowed to be constructed as presented. Mrs. Teigen addressed the board and explained the additions will upgrade the house by adding a master bathroom. She stated the present house only has one bathroom and we want to improve the house so it is more like a house of the 90's, not the 50's. Mrs. Teigen said in her opinion, the neighborhood will benefit from the improvement to their home. Mrs. Swenson said she can support the sideyard setback request, but can not support the request for lot coverage. Mrs. Swenson moved approval of a four foot sideyard setback variance. Ms. Bonnie Bale, 5508 Park Place stated in her opinion when the rules change the property that is harmed by the change should be able to use the grandfather clause and construct an addition that met with the rules when it was originally built. Ms. Aaker said many individuals feel that way, but the City has rules, which is the reason there is the availability of applying for a variance. Ms. Bale said she understands that, but still feels the proponents request should be grandfathered -in. Concluding, she said the addition will benefit the neighborhood. Mrs. Faust said she also wants to see the neighborhood improved, and stated she is sorry for the confusion created by the City, but she can not support the lot coverage request. Mr. Olson said the proposal does improve the house, and when completed it will be great, but there needs to be a redesign so lot coverage is not compromised. Mr. Teigen requested that the issue be tabled so they can look at ways of reducing the lot coverage. Mrs. Swenson withdrew her motion. Mrs. Utne told Mr. And Mrs. Teigen that the City will be very willing to work with them, and to feel free to contact staff for their input. Mrs. Faust said she would also be willing to hold a special meeting if time is important. She acknowledged this process has been very confusing for the property owners. Mr. Groetz, neighbor to the south stated he has a concern with drainage and wants to make sure his basement stays dry if this proposal is built. Mrs. Utne said drainage questions are reviewed at the time a permit is pulled, and we as a board can request that the Engineer review the plans. A discussion ensued with the Board in agreement to meet on Thursday, the 12`h at 5:30 p.m. for a special meeting. Mrs. Swenson moved to table the hearing until December 12, 1996. Mrs. Mannix seconded the motion. All voted aye; motion carried. III. ADJOURNMENT: