Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1997 07-10 Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting Minutes Regular (2)MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE EDINA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS HELD ON THURSDAY, JULY 10, 1997 5:30 P.M., EDINA CITY HALL MANAGERS CONFERENCE ROOM MEMBERS PRESENT: D. Runyan, R. M. Utne, W. Skallerud, D. Patton, C. Ingwalson STAFF PRESENT: K. Aaker & J. Hoogenakker I. APROVAL OF THE MINUTES: Mr. Skallerud moved approval of the May 1, 1997, meeting minutes. Mr. Ingwalson seconded the motion. All voted aye; motion carried. 11. NEW BUSINESS: B-97-30 John and Jamie Bishop 4517 Oak Drive Lot 9, Block 5, Golf Terrace Heights, 2"d Addition Request: A 4 foot 5 inches frontyard setback variance for a front portico Ms. Aaker informed the Board the subject property is a corner lot located along the south side of Oak Drive just east of St. Johns Avenue. The home consists of a two story colonial. The homeowners are hoping to add a front entry overhang with posts over their front stoop. Currently the stoop has no protection from the elements. Ms. Aaker explained the Zoning Ordinance requires that any new structure area including overhanging eaves supported by posts or pillars must maintain the required frontyard setback. Ms. Aaker concluded that it would appear the request is minimal in scope and scale and would have limited impact on adjacent properties. Staff therefore supports the request as submitted. The proponents Mr. and Mrs. Bishop were present. Mr. Runyan stated when he visited the subject site it appeared to him the nearest neighbor on Oak Drive was closer to the street. Ms. Aaker said that observation is correct, but after the subject lot, the lots "bow out" toward the street , and narrow out again at the end, so the appearance is deceptive, with a frontyard setback variance required for the portico. Mr. Ingwalson said he agrees with that observation, adding visually there will be no impact if the portico remains unenclosed. Mr. Ingwalson said he can support the proposal as submitted. Mrs. Utne asked the proponents if they have started construction on the portico. Mr. Bishop said no construction has taken place on the portico. Continuing, Mr. Bishop said other improvements are occurring on the house that do not require variances. Mr. Bishop submitted to members of the board photos of the proposed portico, and submitted letters of support from immediate neighbors. Mr. Skallerud thanked Mr. Bishop for obtaining letters of support from neighbors, and speaking with them about the proposal, adding he does not have a problem with the proposal as submitted. Mr. Runyan stated in his opinion the addition of a front portico will add character to the house, and will be aesthetically pleasing. Mr. Bishop agreed. He said the addition of the portico not only creates a pleasing facade, it solves a safety issue due to ice build-up on the stairs. Mr. Ingwalson moved variance approval subject to the plans presented and that the portico remain unenclosed. Mrs. Utne seconded the motion. All voted aye; motion carried. B-97-31 Rob Little 5012 Arden Avenue Lot 21, Block 2, Brucewood Request: A three inch variance for a garage extension Ms. Aaker informed the board the subject property is located on the west side of Arden Avenue consisting of a 1 Y2 story home with attached garage. The homeowners submitted for building permit application for an addition along the back of the home to 2 include a garage extension and second floor living space addition. The proposed project conforms to all Zoning Ordinance requirements with the exception of north sideyard setback. A survey was done for the project and it was discovered that the north property line is 4.8 feet to the north lot line instead of the required five feet. Ms. Aaker concluded the variance is minimal in scope and scale and is due to circumstances not caused by the applicant. Staff supports the request as submitted. The proponent, Mr. Little was present. Mr. Runyan pointed out the existing house is legally non -conforming, and the homeowners are only extending an existing building wall, they found to be non- conforming after a survey was completed. Mr. Runyan stated he can support the request as submitted, it is minimal in scale, and impact if any will be minimal. Mr. Little addressed the board, and submitted a letter of support from the most impacted neighbor to the north. Mr. Skallerud noted the applicant did not check the correct boxes on his application form, and asked that the application be corrected to reflect the correct responses. Mr. Bishop said he will correct the application form, adding the questions are a bit tricky. Mr. Skallerud agreed, adding he can support the proposal as submitted. Mrs. Utne moved variance approval subject to the plans submitted and the use of matching materials. Mr. Skallerud seconded the motion. All voted aye; motion carried. B-97-33 Orlyn Arvid Kringstad 4425 North Avenue Lot 5, Auditor's Subdivision #253 Request: A 19 foot frontyard setback variance and a 6.9 foot rearyard setback variance Ms. Aaker told the Board the subject property is located on the east side of North Avenue consisting of a small two story home with a detached two car garage. The home was built in the early 1900's by farmer Herman Dirks. The home was the farm house for the Dirks property. The applicant believes that North Avenue was originally driveway access to the farm house from West 44th Street. Mr. Dirks built three additional homes on his property, one for each of his daughters. North Avenue was eventually dedicated as right-of-way and widened as a public street. Sometime over the years the area was subdivided to allow for home sites with access extended by the improvement of Moore, Laura Avenue and Cascade Lane. 3 Ms. Aaker explained the plans indicate that the homeowner will be renovating the home with much of the original floor plan staying in tact with the second floor bedrooms remaining virtually untouched. A first floor addition is planned for the back of the home to extend living space behind the home rather than to the side (north) of the home. This plan was chosen to preserve the traditional farm house look from the street. To enhance the farm house style of the home a veranda or covered front porch is proposed. The veranda will wrap around the front west facade of the home and will continue around a portion of the north elevation. Currently, the front face of the home is simple and unadorned. The homeowner was unaware until building permit application that variances would be needed for the project. The proponent's main objective has been to design the additions to maintain and respect the architecture of the original farm house. Ms. Aaker concluded the neighborhood in which the home is located is unique with a mixture of housing styles and orientations to the streets. Staff appreciates the efforts of the homeowner to preserve the old farm house while trying to expand it to accomplish a more livable home. Typically permits are now issued to tear down an older, smaller home to allow for construction of a new home. Staff believes the limitations of the sight support the variances. Mark Anderson a representative for the proponent was present to respond to questions. Mr. Ingwalson asked if anyone knows if the proponent has received any correspondence from neighbors in support , or not in support of the proposal. Ms. Aaker interjected, and submitted letters of support from immediate neighbors. Mrs. Utne said in observing the property, and reviewing the plans the proposed renovations appear very interesting. Mr. Anderson presented a model of the proposed house, and explained the history of the site. Mr. Patton stated if the proposal is approved he would like to see the frontyard gravel driveway eliminated, and replaced with grass. Mr. Patton questioned if the garage were attached would it only require a rearyard setback variance. Ms. Aaker responded that may be correct, but it is possible a sideyard setback may be required, and until that is requested, and a plan submitted, it is not known how many, if any, more variances would be required., Mr. Ingwalson said in viewing the site, and reviewing the plans, the plans presented are good, unique, and appear to be the best solution to achieve what is desired in an extremely varied neighborhood. Continuing, Mr. Ingwalson said he does 4 not have a problem with the frontyard area, and at first was concerned with the rearyard variance, but in viewing the site, the rearyard really appears to be a sideyard situation, concluding he does not have a problem with the proposal as submitted. Mr. Ingwalson moved variance approval subject to staff conditions, subject to the plans submitted, and that the frontyard driveway be removed and restored to grass. Mr. Patton seconded the motion. Mrs. Unte said that while she agrees the proposal has merit, and is very interesting. She pointed out there is only one window in the rear, adding she would be more comfortable if more windows were added. Mr. Anderson said there is no problem with the addition of one or more windows along the rear. Mrs. Utne said she is satisfied one or more windows will be added. Mr. Skallerud echoed other board members that the project is unique, adding he would be uncomfortable if in the future the garage were attached to the house. Mrs. Utne asked Mr. Skallerud if he would want the motion amended to add the condition that the garage not be attached to the house in the future. Mr. Skallerud stated as he understand the process that is not needed, because if the garage were to be attached in the future, a rearyard setback variance would be required. Mr. Skallerud said he is uncomfortable with the number of variances required to achieve the desired product, but would not add his comments regarding the garage as a condition of approval. Mr. Skallerud said he supports the proposal, it will be a beautiful renovation, but wanted his concerns noted regarding the garage. All voted aye; motion carried. III. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 6:15 p.m. I*N: !"M R). ���11. 1_rs1'l)'�. ..ie Hoogenakk 5