Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1997 07-10 Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting Minutes RegularMINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE EDINA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS HELD ON THURSDAY, AUGUST 7, 1997 5:30 P.M., MANAGER'S CONFERENCE ROOM MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair, Rose Mary Utne, Meg Mannix, Ann Swenson, John Lonsbury MEMBERS ABSENT: Don Patton STAFF PRESENT: Kris Aaker, Jackie Hoogenakker I. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES: The minutes of the June 5, 1997, meeting were filed as submitted. II. NEW BUSINESS: B-97-34 Guitar Center/Barry Soosman/Craig Freeman 3650 Hazelton Road Lot 4, Block 1, Yorktown Request: A 13 stall parking requirement variance Ms. Aaker informed the Board the subject property is located along the north side of Hazelton Road. The site formerly housed Egghead Discount Software and Kuppenhiemer clothing store. The proposed new tenant is Guitar Center, a national musical instrument chain store. The chain sells instruments and does not offer lessons. The Guitar Center requires a 10 by 30 foot receiving area addition. The addition will maintain the minimum required setback standards, however, any addition triggers the current parking standard. The site is non -conforming in terms of parking and was built prior to current City Ordinances. Ms. Aaker pointed out the building size requires a minimum parking stall count of 80. The site currently provides 57 parking spaces and is non -conforming regarding current Ordinance standards. The proposal will yield 62 spaces, increasing the current count by five stalls. Ms. Aaker explained the variance from the parking requirement is triggered by the proposed building expansion. The 300 square foot building expansion for a receiving area will not add to the retail floor area of the building. The existing parking conditions of 57 stalls is non -conforming and may remain non -conforming as long as the building is not altered in footprint or is not enlarged. Ms. Aaker concluded given the subject tenant could occupy the building without improving the parking if no alteration to the building were made, and given that the proposal increases the parking by 5 stalls, staff supports the request. Mr. Kline, representing the proponent was present to respond to questions. Mrs. Swenson said in reviewing the plan she does not have a problem with it, except for a concern regarding the possibility the mezzanine level could be used for retail. Ms. Aaker stated according to code the mezzanine level is to remain storage and/or office. Mrs. Swenson reiterated her concern is that the mezzanine area may become retail space if the City's inspection department is not aware it should remain office and/or storage. Mr. Kline introduced himself, and explained their goal for the site is to create more parking stalls and re -landscape the site, acknowledging the landscaping that exists is not in the best condition. Mr. Kline explained their store is aimed at a specific clientele, and does not generate heavy traffic flows. Continuing, Mr. Kline said if the Board is opposed to any office or retail space on the mezzanine level we will restrict its use to storage, or what the Board deems appropriate. A brief discussion ensued regarding the facts that the site is actually increasing the parking, and as mentioned by the proponent, traffic generated from a specialty store such as this, is minimal, and the landscaping is being upgraded. All are pluses. Mrs. Swenson moved variance approval subject to an upgraded landscaping plan, that is to be approved by City staff, the Building Official is to decide what can be allowed (office and/or storage) on the mezzanine level, and to what ratio, with the extra condition that is to be allowed on the mezzanine level. Mr. Lonsbury seconded the motion. All voted aye; motion carried. K B-97-35 Jeffrey W. Greer 4101 Morningside Road The east 50 feet of the west 100 feet of Lot 85, the east 50 feet of the west 100 feet of the north 50 feet of Lot 86 Morningside Request: a 2.6 foot sideyard setback variance for building height of a second story addition Ms. Aaker informed the Board the subject property is located on the southside of Morningside Road consisting of a 1 Y2 story home with a detached garage. The property owner is proposing to increase the height of the home to be a full two story home. The house is currently 4'9" from the side property boundary which is 3 inches short of the minimum five foot setback requirement. The projected increase in side wall building height requires an increase in setback of 2.35 feet in addition to the minimum 5 foot requirement. Ms. Aaker reported the home has no record of improvement with the exception of a bathroom remodel in 1991. The upper floor is listed as unfinished with one bedroom on the City assessing card. Ms. Aaker pointed out the lot is narrow at 50 feet in width with a 14'9" distance between the east property line and sidewall of the house to accommodate a driveway accessing a rearyard detached garage. Original house placement, driveway location, and narrow lot width limit expansion potential of the home. Ms. Aaker concluded the site provides limited expansion potential. The addition would have limited if any impact on the adjacent affected property given the spacing between structures. Staff supports the request as submitted. The proponent, Mr. Greer was present to respond to questions. Mrs. Swenson asked Mr. Greer if the plans, and design are his. Mr. Greer responded they are his plans, and design. Mrs. Utne told Mr. Greer he did an excellent job notifying neighbors regarding the proposal. 3 Mrs. Swenson asked Mr. Greer if he proposes to do the work himself. Mr. Greer said he is in the business, and will do a majority of the work himself, noting he will only do what he can do, certain things will need to be done by electricians, etc. Mrs. Swenson asked Mr. Greer how long he thinks it will take him to complete the project. Mr. Greer said he hopes to have the outside work accomplished in two to three months. The inside work will probably be completed in three months. Mrs. Mannix questioned if the existing lilac bushes are on the subject property. Mr. Greer said the lilac bushes are on his property. Mrs. Mannix questioned if windows will be placed on the building wall. Mr. Greer responded the lilac bushes should soften any impact, adding windows are a privacy issue on that side. Mr. Lonsbury pointed out if the lilac bushes stay healthy the building mass is reduced, but if they die as a result of construction, a window or windows should be added in the side wall. Mrs. Swenson agreed, adding she would like the addition of one window at minimum, to break up the mass. Mrs. Mannix pointed out a window may be required as a safety feature for egress. Mr. Tully, and Ms. Nancy and Suzanne McCalley, interested neighbors were present, and voiced their approval of the proposal. Mr. Lonsbury moved variance approval subject to the plans presented, the use of matching materials, and the addition of 1 to 2 windows on the west side of the addition. Mrs. Swenson seconded the motion. All voted aye; motion carried. B-97-36 Beemis and Betty Rolfs 6512 Gleason Court Lot 8, Block 1, Gleason Court Request: An 8 foot rearyard setback variance and a 252 square foot porch addition Ms. Aaker informed the Board the subject property is located on the north side of Gleason Court consisting of a two story double dwelling unit. The unit in question is the east side unit. The homeowners are hoping to replace a deck behind the home with a 4 three season porch on posts. The porch will be consistent in design to the existing home with the use of matching materials to the existing structure. The addition requires a lot coverage variance and a rearyard setback variance. Ms. Aaker pointed out the subject double bungalow was built in 1984 and was designed with a lot coverage of 24.7%. Maximum allowable lot coverage for both units on a single parcel is 25%. The home was also built with a rearyard setback of 41 feet. Minimum required rearyard setback is 35 feet in the R-2 zoning district, which would allow only a six foot extension into the rearyard. Ms. Aaker explained shortly after completion the parcel was subdivided to allow for a separate lot per unit. The subject unit has a lot area of 6,773 square feet as compared with the adjacent unit that has a lot area of 8,240 square feet. Lot coverage is reviewed in terms of the total lot area of 15,013 square feet. Ms. Aaker reported it should be noted that the Zoning Board of Appeals has acknowledged that Gleason Court homes are unique with many of the units built nearly at or beyond the allowable lot coverage requirements. The Board has approved a number of porch additions for other units. Ms. Aaker concluded the porch addition will be replacing an existing deck and is supported by both affected neighbors to the sides and will not affect the neighbor behind. The home has no expansion potential without variance. Staff supports the request as submitted subject to the use of consistent and matching materials. The proponents, Mr. and Mrs. Rolfs were present. The Board acknowledged this appears to be a reoccurring variance for this subdivision; Mrs. Swenson moved variance approval subject to the plans presented, and the use of matching materials. Mr. Lonsbury seconded the motion. All voted aye; motion carried. B-97-37 Nancy Brand 5008 Skyline Drive Request: A 1.83 foot sidestreet setback variance Ms. Aaker informed the Board the subject property is located in the northwest corner of Skyline Drive and Skyline Drive cul-de-sac west. The home is a rambler with 5 attached garage facing east with the sidestreet south of the home. The homeowners are proposing an addition to the back (west )of their house, and are also adding 4 feet 4 inches to the southside of their home. The purpose of the expansion is to enlarge the kitchen, and add a dining room. Expansion to the south requires a variance from the determined sidestreet setback. Ms. Aaker pointed out the property has two frontages, both require maintaining a frontyard setback. The adjacent home to the west fronts the cul-de-sac and subsequently determines the minimum setback from the south lot line. Ms. Aaker concluded a 4'4" extension would have little if any perceivable impact on ,the adjacent neighbor to the west due to the distance between them. The variance is minimal in scope and scale. Staff supports the request as submitted. Staff would suggest that any approval be tired to the plans presented. The proponent Ms. Brand was present. After a brief discussion Mrs. Swenson moved variance approval subject to the plans presented, and the use of matching materials. Mrs. Mannix seconded the motion. All voted aye; motion carried. Ill. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 6:10 p.m. �!- oo - NOW