Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2006 03-16 Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting Minutes RegularAGENDA REGULAR MEETING OF THE EDINA ZONING BOARD THURSDAY, MARCH 16,2006,5:30 PM EDINA CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS 4801 WEST 50TH STREET MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair John Lonsbury, William Skallerud, James Nelson and Rodney Hardy MEMBERS ABSENT: Stephen Brown STAFF PRESENT: Kris Aaker and Jackie Hoogenakker I. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES: The minutes of the November 15, 2005, meeting were filed as submitted. II. ADJOURNMENT: Ms. Aaker informed the Board on February 17, 2006, the Zoning Board of Appeals heard and denied Thomas Spicola's 13.5 ft setback variance request to allow deck to within 75 ft of the shoreline of Lake Cornelia. The property owner is planning to tear down his existing home at 6712 Point Drive and rebuild on the site with a new two story home. All aspects of the proposed new home conform to the ordinance requirements with the exception of the required setback from Lake Cornelia for the deck. A 75 ft Lake setback is required for all structures including decks. There were four members present at the February 17, 2006 meeting. Two of the Board members voted in favor of granting the variance and two voted to deny the request. The variance was denied due to lack of a majority vote. Ms.Aaker explained the homeowner has re-applied to the Zoning Board of Appeals to allow a deck encroachment into the 75 ft setback required from Lake Cornelia. The home and deck have been redesigned so that deck encroachment has been reduced from a 13.5 to a 9.7 ft encroachment into the setback area. The deck will be unenclosed and uncovered and will be elevated to the first floor of the new home. There are similar encroachments around Lake Cornelia. The proponent, Mr. Spicola was present to respond to questions. Mr. Spicola addressed the board and informed them the constraints of the lot triggered the need to request a variance. Mr. Spicola said the lot is not very deep. Mr. Spicola submitted to Board Members letters of support from neighboring property owners. Mr. Nelson told the Board he was at the meeting that considered the variance for Mr. Spicola, adding he conveyed at that meeting that the deck could be redesigned to minimize its impact. Mr. Nelson said he believes Mr. Spicola has made a good effort in minimizing the variance and he can support this revised request as submitted. Mr. Nelson moved variance approval subject to the revised plans presented. Mr. Skallerud seconded the motion. All voted aye; motion carried. B-06-13 Christopher and Angela Larson 5008 Bruce Ave. Lot 21, Block 1, Brucewood Request: A 2.7 ft side yard setback variance Ms. Aaker informed the Board the subject property is located on the west side of Bruce Ave. consisting of a two story home with an attached two car garage. The homeowners are planning an addition to their home to include increased living space in the basement, first and second floors. The plan also widens the garage. All of the improvements conform to the ordinance requirements with the exception of the proposed rebuilding of an existing nonconforming porch on the south side of the home. The existing porch is located 8 ft to the side lot line. The minimum side yard setback is 10 ft. The porch also exceeds 15 ft in height due to the walk -out nature of the back side of the home. The setback increases slightly due to the side wall height of the porch. A variance of 2.7 ft is requested to rebuild the porch in the same location, on the same foundation and with the same dimensions as the existing porch. Ms. Aaker explained the homeowners suspect that the original owners of the house built the sunroom shortly after the home was complete including a separate furnace to heat the add-on space. Over the years the porch was not maintained; some of the single pane, non tempered glass windows have cracked, the furnace is now unsafe and water damage has occurred in some of the walls. It has been recommended by the contractor that all but the foundation be removed and that the porch be rebuilt over the existing foundation. Currently there is an excavated brick wall foundation beneath the porch that the owners would like to rebuild upon. The "new" porch would allow the use of double hung, insulated windows, widening of the entry into the dining room with double French 2 doors and conditioning it with heat and central air-conditioning as used throughout the house. Ms. Aaker concluded the request is to maintain the existing nonconforming setback by allowing the necessary rebuild of the porch. Staff supports the request subject to the plans presented. Mr. Larson addressed the Board and informed them the porch was constructed in the 1940's and is in need of replacement. Mr. Larson told the Board the most impacted neighbor at 5010 supports the request. Chair Lonsbury asked Mr. Larson if all exterior building materials will match. Mr. Larson responded in the affirmative. Mr. Skallerud moved variance approval subject to the plans presented and the use of like materials. Mr. Nelson seconded the motion. All voted aye; motion carried. B-06-14 George Sorenson 4024 Wood End Drive Request: A 264 sq ft addition over the maximum 1000 sq. ft. allowed for accessory structures Ms. Aaker told the Board the subject property is located on the dead-end of Wood End cul-de-sac consisting of a two story home, detached garage and a wood -working shed. The homeowner applied for a permit to allow an expansion of the wood -working shed, however, was not granted a permit because the addition to the existing shed exceeded the total combined allowed square footage for all out -buildings on a property. The Zoning Ordinance limits the total square feet of all out -buildings to 1000 sq ft per single dwelling unit site. The existing detached garage and wood shed have a combined square footage of 1438 sq ft. The out -buildings currently exceed the maximum allowed by 438 sq ft. Ms. Aaker explained the property owner would like to add on to an existing detached wood shop. The proposed addition would increase the floor area by 264 sq ft so a variance of 264 sq ft is requested from the 1000 sq ft maximum allowed. The total proposed out -building combined would be 1702 sq ft. Ms. Aaker concluded the property is unique in that it is quite large with minimal building coverage. It is evident that the property can absorb the small proposed addition. The Zoning Ordinance was crafted to control the total size of out -buildings on a single dwelling lot, however, not the total number of out 3 buildings. The ordinance does not limit the number of accessory structures so any number of structures may occupy one site. The ordinance also does not recognize that some larger properties can absorb additional out -building area without any perceivable impact. The ordinance does not address the type of use an out building may be occupied with, except for specifically not allowing for an additional dwelling unit on a lot. Staff can appreciate that the homeowner's hobbies are not something one would want to conduct in the house and that the addition would accommodate his needs without any negative impact to the site or surrounding neighbors. Staff supports the request subject to the plans submitted The proponents, Mr. and Mrs. Sorenson were present to respond to questions. Ms. Aaker told the Board neighbors have indicated their support for the project. Mr. Sorenson addressed the Board and with photo's showed Board Members the interior of his wood -working "shop". Mr. Sorenson told the Board his hobby is designing and making wood furniture and he would like to expand his workshop to include an area where he could also do stain glass. Mr. Lonsbury told Mr. Sorenson his workshop is beautiful and nicely maintained inside and out, adding he wants it known that the workshop can never be used as a "dwelling unit". Mr. Sorenson told the Board that is not his intent, adding his hobby is woodworking and he would now like to add working with glass as another interest. Ms. Aaker echoed Chair Lonsbury's comments that converting this workshop into a separate dwelling unit is strictly prohibited. Mr. Hardy moved variance approval subject to the plans presented and noting this structure is an accessory structure and cannot be used as a dwelling unit. Mr. Hardy added building materials are required to match the existing workshop. Mr. Nelson seconded the motion. All voted aye; motion carried. B-06-15 Gina and Steven Abbott 5533 Concord Ave. South 90ft of Lot 11 and 12, Block 2 Subd. Of Little Park Request: A 25.1 ft side street setback variance 4 The subject propertY is a corner lot located in the north east quadrant of Concord Ave. and west 56 h St. The property consists of a rambler with an attached one car garage. The homeowners are planning to add onto their home to include an addition into the rear yard and a new two car garage. The property must respect two front yard setbacks along both the Concord and west 56th St. frontages. The variance is requested from the side street along West 56th St. There is an adjacent home fronting West 56th St. that is 35 ft to the front lot line requiring that the subject property maintain a 35 ft side street setback from west 56t St. The existing and proposed side wall of the garage is and will continue to be located 9.8 ft to the side street lot line. A variance of 25.1 ft is requested to allow construction at the existing nonconforming setback. The homeowners are hoping to replace their existing one car garage with a two car garage in the same location as their single stall garage. The plan will remove a breeze -way to widen the garage at the existing nonconforming setback. The proposal also includes an addition to the back of the home for bedroom space in the basement a sitting/dining area on the main floor and a small deck. Much of the addition overlaps the side street setback. It is evident that any addition or improvement to the garage requires a variance. Any plan to tie living space into garage area also requires a side street setback variance. There is a clear hardship with regard to the required setback along west 56th St. Ms. Aaker concluded very little can be done to improve the property and nothing can be done to the garage without benefit of a variance. Staff supports the request as submitted and subject to the plans presented. The proponents Mr. and Mrs. Abbott were present to respond to questions. Mr. Nelson said if he understands correctly this request isn't creating another variance. Ms. Aaker responded that is correct. Mrs. Abbott told the Board their neighbors completely support their project. Mr. Skallerud moved variance approval subject to the plans presented and the use of matching materials. Mr. Hardy seconded the motion. All voted aye; motion carried. 111. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 6:15 PM 5 submitted by: Jackie Hoogenakker