Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1999-10-07 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Regular4 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE EDINA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS THURSDAY, OCTOBER 7,1999,5:30 P.M. EDINA CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS 4801 WEST 50T" STREET MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair Rose Mary Utne, Don Patton, John Lonsbury, Meg Mannix MEMBERS ABSENT: Ann Swenson STAFF PRESENT: Joyce Repya, Jackie Hoogenakker I. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES: The minutes of the October 7, 1999, meeting were filed as submitted. II. NEW BUSINESS: B-99-65 Eileen Supple & John Byom 7332 West Shore Drive Lot 17, Block 7, South Garden Estates 4th Addn. Request: A 5 foot sideyard setback variance Ms. Repya informed the Board the subject property is located on the west side of West Shore Drive north of Hibiscus Avenue. The home is a split level with a double tuck under garage. The homeowner is proposing to add a screened porch and deck of the south side of the home. Ms. Repya explained currently the home maintains a 14 -foot sideyard setback to the south property line. The proposed enclosed porch will project 9 feet into that setback; a 10 -foot setback is required for living space, which necessitates a 5 -foot sideyard variance. The southerly abutting property at 4704 Hibiscus Avenue is setback 93 feet from the shared property line. The proponent has indicated that these homeowners, Charlie and Nancy Putman have expressed support for the project. Ms. Repya pointed out the proponent has identified several hardship associated with their variance request: • Currently the house has no southern exposure • Access to the backyard is currently limited to a service door off the garage • The proposed location abuts the living spaces of the house as opposed to the sleeping areas on the north end, and IL • The proposed location will preserve neighbor's site lines, their own backyard and major trees on their lot. Ms. Repya concluded staff finds that the proponent has identified the hardships relating to their request, and the abutting property to the south appreciates a generous 93 foot setback from the subject property line; thus approval of the 5 foot sideyard setback is recommended subject to the plans presented and the condition that the building materials match the existing house. The proponents, Ms. Supple and Mr. Byom were present to respond to questions. Board Members were in agreement that a hardship exists on the property, and granting the variance would not negatively impact on the neighborhood. Mr. Lonsbury moved variance approval subject to the plans submitted and the use of matching building materials. Mr. Patton seconded the motion. All voted aye; motion carried. B-99-66 Robert and Carol Bennett 5217 Minnehaha Boulevard Lot 38, Block 2, South Harriet Park 2nd Addition Request: A 1.58 foot sideyard setback variance and an 18 foot frontyard setback variance Ms. Repya informed the Board the subject property is located on the east side of Minnehaha Boulevard consisting of a two story colonial home with an attached double garage. The homeowner is proposing an addition to the garage and kitchen for which no variance is required. However, a second story master bedroom addition on the east side of the home and a front stoop on the west side of the home require variances because they are affecting areas of the home that are currently non -conforming from setback requirements. Ms. Repya explained the second story master bedroom addition proposed for the east side of the home will be constructed 12 feet over an existing one story family room. The family room will then be extended another 8 feet with a deck to the master bedroom above. The proposed master bedroom addition will continue the building height of 18.16 feet, which is 3.16 feet higher than the 5 -foot setback, provided. Using the formula by adding six inches to the setback for each foot over 15 in building height, the variance required is 1.58 feet. Ms. Repya said addressing the front yard setback variance, staff did not find surveys for the adjacent properties. However, using the approximate locations of the adjacent homes on the site sketch, it was determined that an average front yard setback of 63 feet would be required. The subject property currently only maintains a 50 foot front yard setback. The proposed front stoop supported with columns will project 5 feet into the front setback necessitating an 18 -foot frontyard setback variance. Ms. Repya pointed out a front yard setback variance to allow a front entry overhang with columns is not an uncommon request; such front entrys provide shelter from the elements and add minimally to the building mass. A typical condition imposed upon the variances has been that the overhang must remain unenclosed. Ms. Repya concluded staff would recommend approval of the variance requests subject to the following conditions: subject to the plans presented the exterior building materials shall match the existing structure the front stoop shall remain unenclosed. The proponent, Mr. Bennett was present to respond to questions. Mrs. Utne asked Mr. Bennett if he understands that a condition of approval is that the proposed overhang will have to remain unenclosed. Mr. Bennett responded that he does not have a problem with that condition. Mr. Patton moved variance approval subject to the plans presented, the overhang is to remain unenclosed, and materials are to match. Mrs. Mannix seconded the motion. All voted aye; motion carried. B-99-67 Terry and Jennifer Puckett 5609 Oaklawn Avenue Request: To allow a play structure to be located in the frontyard Ms. Repya informed the Board the property owners recently moved a play structure from the rear yard to the front yard. This was done to accommodate a new swimming pool in the rear yard. Play structures are only allowed in the side or rear yard, and must maintain a 5 foot setback from the property line. The property owners have applied for a variance to allow the structure to continue in the front yard. Ms. Repya explained the owners have supplied letters from medical personnel indicating the need to keep the structure for the medical benefit of the owner's child. The owner's have indicated in their letter to the Board their willingness to remove the structure when their child no longer needs it. Staff does not know how long a period this represents. Ms. Repya concluded staff recommends approval of the variance on temporary a basis. Staff recommends that the variance be conditioned upon a letter from the therapist indicating how long the structure is needed, and a letter from the parents indicating their willingness to remove the structure when it is no longer of therapeutic value to the child. The proponents, Mr. and Mrs. Puckett were present to respond to questions. Mr. Puckett addressed the Board and informed them he has a special needs son who requires exercise to improve his large motor skills. He explained to the Board when the play structure was constructed they did not know it could not be placed in the front yard setback area. Mr. Puckett said the existing location is the only area where the play structure would fit. Mrs. Utne asked Mr. Puckett how long his son will need the play structure. Mr. Puckett responded his son will need the play structure well into his teenage years, adding the structure will be used at minimum for at least ten years. Mr. Patton asked Mr. Puckett if the play structure can be relocated to the rear yard. Mr. Puckett said the play structure cannot be located in the rear yard because there is a swimming pool in the rear yard. Mr. Lonsbury acknowledged this is a new situation for the Board. He explained the City does not allow structures of any kind to be located in the front yard setback area. He added he understands the need for the structure because of the special needs of the son, but questioned how the structure can be allowed by a variance because variances run with the land. Continuing, Mr. Lonsbury said he would consider granting a variance if a condition of approval is that the structure is allowed to remain in the front yard area for a stipulated time limit (5 years). Mr. Puckett said his son needs to have the ability to use the play structure through his teenage years, and a five-year limit is not adequate. Mr. Lonsbury suggested if approved the play structure should be tied to the present homeowners, and if they sell their home the play structure is to be removed. Mrs. Utne interjected agreeing that is a good point. Mr. Patton asked if the variance is granted would it be monitored at the staff level. Ms. Repya responded that can be an option. Mr. Lonsbury told the Commission in his opinion it may be difficult to monitor this situation on all levels. This is something that could fall through the cracks if it is not monitored adequately. Mr. Lonsbury said he would feel more comfortable in approving the variance if it had a definite time length attached, and if approval is tied to the homeowners, Mr. and Mrs. Puckett. Mr. Lonsbury pointed out there really is no hardship to support the request. A swimming pool in the rear yard is self-imposed. Ms. Mannix asked Mr. Lonsbury if his discomfort is with an "opened ended" motion. Mr. Lonsbury responded that is correct, he said many things can change during the years, adding he also has a safety concern, a play structure can be an attractive nuisance for young children, adding he worries about traffic with the front yard location. Mr. Lonsbury moved variance approval subject to the play structure being tied to the present homeowners and if the home is sold the structure must be removed, and subject to the condition that the variance terminates in five years. Mrs. Mannix said she would second the motion if the motion was changed to read that approval of the play structure is temporary. This would allow the structure to be able to be used as long as the son requires it. Mr. Lonsbury withdrew his motion. Mrs. Mannix moved variance approval subject to the play structure being deemed temporary, and tied to the present homeowners. If the home is sold the structure must be removed. Mr. Patton seconded the motion. Ayes, Patton, Mannix, Utne. Nays, Lonsbury. Motion carried. B-99-68 Dean S. Newins 4520 Brookside Avenue Request: An 8.7 foot frontyard setback variance Ms. Repya informed the Board the subject property is developed with a relatively smaller story and a half house and a detached garage located to the rear of the house. The owner is proposing a major renovation of the house, which includes an addition to the rear of the house, and a porch, which would wrap around the house and connect to the garage. All of the proposed additions and improvements comply with ordinance requirements, except that portion of the porch in front of the house. The required front setback is 46.1 feet and the porch would maintain a setback of 37.4 feet. Thus, a 8.7 -foot front setback variance is requested. Ms. Repya pointed out the existing condition along Brookside is somewhat unique. The boulevard along the west side of the street is unusually large. Where a normal boulevard is 10 to 15 feet, the boulevard in front of this property is 50 feet deep. As a result front setbacks are quite large along this street when measuring from the street. Ms. Repya concluded staff recommends approval of the variance. Due to the unique character of the street with its large boulevard, the impact of the variance will be minimal. Removing the front portion of the porch would greatly compromise the design. Approval should be conditioned on the plans presented. The proponent, Mr. Newness was present. Mrs. Utne commented on the existing structure in the rear yard and questioned Mr. Newins if that structure will be removed. Mr. Newins responded it will be removed. Mr. Lonsbury pointed out the plans indicate the porch is an open structure and asked Mr. Newins if he intends it to remain open. Mr. Newins said it is his plan for the porch to remain open. Mr. Lonsbury moved variance approval subject to the plans presented, the use of matching materials, and that the proposed porch remain unenclosed. Mr. Patton seconded the motion. All voted aye; motion carried. III. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 6:10 P.M. ...- n a k ke—r