Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2006 10-05 Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting Minutes Regular1NA, MINUTES �� Regular Meeting of the Edina Zoning Board e Thursday, October 5, 2006, 5:30 PM to Edina City Hall Council Chambers �y 4801 West 50th Street Edina, MN �roR�g MEMEBERS PRESENT: Chair, Rose -Mary Utne, Kevin Stauton, Mike Fischer and Edward Schwartzbauer MEMBERS ABSENT: Mary Vasaly STAFF PRESENT: Kris Aaker and Kris Kubicek I. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES: The minutes of the August 3, 2006, meeting were file as submitted II. NEW BUSINESS B-06-65 Chris and Gina Drazan 4612 Oak Drive Request: A 134 sq ft 1.1% lot coverage variance. Ms. Aaker informed the Board the subject property is located in the north east corner of Oak Drive and Concord Ave. The property consists of a single family home with an attached garage. The property has a detached two car garage in the rear yard that is accessed from Concord Ave. The homeowners are hoping to add on to the existing home to include a mudroom and family room behind the existing back wall. A small family room is proposed as well as a small master bedroom addition. None of the improvements will be visible from the front street and only slightly visible from the side street, (Concord Ave.). All of the improvements conform to the ordinance requirements with the exception of lot coverage. The property owners would like to exceed the maximum 25% coverage requirement by 134 sq ft or 1.1 %. Ms. Aaker explained the property owners have indicated that the additions allow for a slight increase in family living space with an increase in the home's overall value by including current conveniences of a first floor family room, mud room and master bath not typically found in a 1945 home. The property is a corner lot that appears much larger than it actually is. There is a large boulevard area along Concord Ave. that would appear to be part of the property, however is public right-of-way. When the home was purchased it was represented to the current homeowners that fence lines were property lines. The lot lines are actually quite close to the home with the property nonconforming regarding setback. Ms. Aaker stated that the homeowners took much care and consideration to draft a plan and propose additions that are consistent with the size and feel of the original home construction. The size of the additions is relatively modest and the roof lines were carefully planned. Ms. Aaker concluded that City staff and the Zoning Board of Appeals have not generally supported or approved lot coverage variances, given that they are difficult to justify. It is difficult to identify specific or unique hardships relative to the property that would support a variance. It would appear that there is opportunity to rearrange building mass on the property to allow for a conforming solution. Staff cannot support the request. The proponent, Ms. Drazan was present to respond to questions. Chair Utne asked Ms. Drazan if she has any thoughts or comments she would like to share with the Board regarding her project. Ms. Gina Drazan, 4612 Oak Drive addressed the Board and stated for the record, the attached garage is only 18 ft in width and functions only as a one car garage, adding the lot coverage request would help achieve a full two stall garage and provide additional storage space. Concluding, Ms. Drazan said she believes the proposal before the Board retains the character of the house. Chair Utne questioned if other plans were pursued that would comply with ordinances. Ms. Drazan responded they considered removing the detached garage and attaching a garage with living space behind the home, however, it was felt that design concept was inconsistent with the design and architecture of the present home. Mr. Staunton asked the applicant if she looked at the current attached garage for possible conversion to living space. Ms. Drazan responded the attached garage had been considered for family room space however, access is 4 steps down, with no basement and the roof and ceiling heights wouldn't flow properly. Ms. Drazan went on to state that O: she understands the concerns of the Board however, because of the large boulevard area and appearance of the lot seeming much larger than it is, it would seem to make sense to allow additional coverage. Concluding, Ms. Drazan went on to state that in her opinion the appearance of the lot, with all of the additional right of way space that a 1.1 % variance really could be easily absorbed by the property. Chair Utne asked that all members state their opinions on the request before them. Mr. Ed Schwartzbauer stated that in his opinion it is extremely hard to justify the requested variance and that there doesn't appear to be an identifiable hardship. Chair Utne stated that in her opinion the lot already looks "very full" adding Boards have consistently been "sticklers" about lot coverage. Chair Utne said she hoped that the homeowner would look at other options. Mr. Fischer said that he has similar thoughts as shared by other Board members. Mr. Fischer stated in the past Board members have heard a number of cases when a detached garage becomes a liability. Continuing, Mr. Fischer stated that he is unable to identify a hardship in support of the request. Concluding, Mr. Fischer stated that if the request were about setbacks, he would be looking at the property differently, because it is nonconforming. Mr. Staunton stated that he agrees with other Board members, adding that the property looked "crowded" to him as well, noting the lot drops -off behind the house. Concluding, Mr. Staunton said in his opinion there must be a way to accommodate an addition within Code requirements. Mr. Schwartzbauer moved to deny the variance request. Mr. Staunton seconded the motion. All voted aye; motion carried. III. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 6:30 PM Kris Aaker Submitted by 3