Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1992 04-02 Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting Minutes RegularMINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE EDINA BOARD OF APPEALS AND ADJUSTMENTS HELD ON THURSDAY, APRIL 2, 1992, 5:30 P.M. EDINA CITY HALL MANAGER'S CONFERENCE ROOM MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman John Palmer, Rose Mary Utne, Len Olson, Lee Johnson, and Nan Faust STAFF PRESENT: Kris Aaker. Joyce Repya Jackie Hoogenakker *Note: Items were taken out of order. I. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES: Mrs. Faust moved approval of the February 6, 1992, meeting minutes. Mr. Johnson seconded the motion. All voted aye; motion carried. II. NEW BUSINESS: B-92-11 Ena and David Carroll 4607 Casco Avenue Edina, MN 55424 Lot 34, Block 9, Country Club Fairway Section Request: A 3.3 foot sideyard setback variance for building height. Ms. Aaker informed the Board the subject property is a grey two story colonial home with wood shake siding and white trim. The home is located on a narrow 50 foot wide lot on the east side of Casco. Ms. Aaker explained the homeowners are requesting a 3.3 foot sideyard setback variance to allow a small 9' X 6.71(60.3 sq. ft.) addition to the northeast corner of the home. The current setback provided on the north side is 4.811. The height of the proposed addition is approximately 21.8' including the grade change along the north building wall. The zoning ordinance requires a minimum 5 foot sideyard setback plus an additional six inches for every one foot average the building height of the new addition exceed 15 feet. All of this translates into a 3.3 foot sideyard setback variance requirement. Ms. Aaker concluded that staff supports the request for a 3.3 foot sideyard setback variance as presented based on the following findings: 1 1. The addition will maintain the existing non -conforming setback. 2. Similar requests have been approved by the board in the past. 3. The additional building mass will be "filling in" the northeast corner of the house and will not change the balance and scale of the home to a significant degree. 4. Neighbors impacted support the request. 5. Use of matching materials to the existing home. Mr. Johnson told board members he usually has a concern whenever a variance for height is required. He said in this instance he has no problem because the request is minimal and squares off the corner of the house. Resident, Mara Ingwalson of Arden Avenue told the board in her opinion any reconstruction should stay within the present guidelines. Mr. Palmer said he believes the City of Edina has been very careful on what is approved to ensure that standards are maintained. Mrs. Faust moved variance approval subject to staff conditions and noting that the addition is very unoffensive and squares off the corner of the house. Mr. Olson seconded the motion. All voted aye; motion carried. B-92-13 John and Jane Houlihan 7719 Marth Court Lot 2, Block 2, Evanson Addition Request: A 1.5 foot sideyard setback variance Ms. Aaker informed the board the subject property is a single family 1 and 3/4 story country french home built in 1988 and located on the east side of Marth Court. The proponents are hoping to add a new 6' X 9" wide, 17" deep, projecting Marvin bay window to the south side of their porch/family room. The board should note that the house was built at the minimum 10 foot south side yard setback for all living areas. The proposed projecting bay window however, would be located 8.5' from the south sideyard property boundary. A 1.5 foot variance therefor, is required for anything projecting into the required 10 foot setback. Ms. Aaker concluded the variance is very minimal and.would 2 accommodate the needs of the applicant. It also will have limited if any impact on adjacent properties. Staff supports the request as submitted. Mr. Houlihan addressed the board informing them the addition of a bay window would have little impact on neighboring property owners, and the variance request is minimal. Mrs. Faust questioned the kind of support the proposed bay window would have. Mr. Houlihan said the bay window would be cantilevered. Mr. Olson moved variance approval subject to matching materials. Mr. Johnson seconded the motion. All voted aye; motion carried. B-92-12 Mr. Ren Heroux 5508 Knoll Drive Lot 9, Block 100 Block 10, Parkwood Knolls Request: Variance from Ordinance No. 825, Section 1, of Paragraph F of Section 11 for square footage of accessory structure estimated a 440 square feet over the maximum allowable 1,000 square feet. Ms. Aaker told the board the subject site is the location of an existing single family rambler with an attached tuck -under thee stall garage. The variance request concerns a new 1440 square foot detached accessory garage that is currently under construction and is located northwest of the home. The garage has been built into a hill and offers lower level walk out storage underneath car storage bays. The garage conforms to all requirements of the zoning ordinance with respect to setback, lot coverage and height, however, Ordinance 825, Section 11, pertaining to all accessory buildings and structures in the R-1 district was amended in mid July of 1991 and included a provision that "the combined area occupied by all accessory buildings and structures, excluding attached garages shall not exceed 1000 square feet." Building plans illustrate that the garage footprint is approximately 1440 square feet in area and that the concept was approved by the building department with a permit issued in early October of 1991 to allow construction. Ms. Aaker pointed out the subject garage is approximately 440 square feet over the amended 1,000 square foot maximum now allowed. Ms. Aaker concluded staff recommends approval of the variance, however, would suggest that the applicant implement a landscape plan along the northwest property boundary to provide screening for 3 the neighbors and reduce run off and soil erosion that has already begun to occur. The proponents, Mr. and Mrs. Heroux were present. Their attorney, Mark Kelly was present. Interested neighbors were present. Mr. Palmer noted that the situation the board is in this evening is somewhat unusual since a variance is being requested after construction has occurred resulting from an error on the part of city staff. Mr. L. Johnson agreed with Mr. Palmer, and suggested after reviewing the plans that additional landscaping should be added to soften the impact of the structure. The additional landscaping should be added as a condition if approved. Mr. Kelly introduced himself, and explained to the board when his client decided to construct the garage he contracted with a builder who then came to the city to apply for a permit. He pointed out the City of Edina approved the permit, and construction on the garage commenced. Mr. Kelly said he believes the city received a complaint regarding the size of the garage as it was being constructed, and then issued a stop work order. Mr. Kelly concluded that Mr. Heroux was very surprised that work was officially stopped by the city because he had an official permit in hand for the garage. Mrs. Faust asked Mr. Heroux when the garage is finished the color he plans to paint it. Mr. Heroux said at this time he has not determined a color. Mr. L. Johnson asked Mr. Heroux how he plans to access the lower level of the garage. Mrs. Faust interjected, and questioned how many driveways are on the site at present. She added when she viewed the site she said there appeared to be at least four driveways. - Mr. Heroux said there is only one driveway on site. He added it may appear there is more due to construction. Mr. Heroux in response to Mr. Johnson's question stated the existing driveway would be extended to access the lower level of the garage. Mrs. Faust said she wants to ensure there remains only one driveway into the site. Mrs. Beverly Ekola, resident on South Knoll Drive told the board that Mr. and Mrs. Heroux have been excellent neighbors who have taken great care of their property. She stated she finds nothing offensive about the garage, and asked the board to support the Heroux's request for a variance. Mr. Johnson questioned Mr. Heroux on the reason the siding 4 does not extend on the lower level. Mr. Heroux explained the reason the garage is not completed is due to the stop work order that was issued by the city, as a result the work stopped. Mrs. Faust suggested that landscaping be implemented on site to soften the effect of the garage. Continuing, Mrs. Faust said she believes the Heroux's should submit a landscaping plan to staff for approval. This will soften the impact of the garage from the near neighbors, the Cooks. Mr. Heroux said the reason the Cook residence.can see the garage is because they removed a considerable amount of landscaping on their property. He said if they would not have removed this landscaping the impact of the garage would be lessened. Mr. Heroux asked the board what would be required on a landscaping plan. He added he enjoys gardening and has the desire to install the plantings himself. Mr. Palmer said Mr. Heroux could design a plan himself or hire a landscape architect. Mr. Palmer added you would then submit your plan for staff approval. Mr. Palmer said in his opinion the board is flexible, and if Mr. Heroux wants to install the vegetation himself that would be fine. A discussion ensued on the issues of landscaping and extending the building materials on the lower level. Mr. L. Johnson said he would be willing to move approval if Mr. Heroux is willing to side the concrete block on the exposed elevation and add additional landscaping. Mr. Johnson moved approval subject to staff conditions and the condition that the exposed lower level be sided with similar materials as the rest of the building, and that a landscaping plan be submitted and reviewed by staff. Mrs. Faust seconded the motion. All voted aye; motion carried. Chairman Palmer noted that it is required of almost all variances that materials match the existing structure. B-92-14: Bruce and Laura Zimmerman 4609 Bruce Avenue Lot 30, Block 10, Country Club Addition Request: A 2.25 foot sideyard setback variance, a 2 foot south sideyard setback variance and a .25 foot north sideyard setback variance for a deck. Ms. Aaker presented her staff report noting the subject property is a two story colonial home. The home is located on a narrow 50 foot wide lot on the east side of Bruce Avenue. Ms. Aaker reported the homeowners are proposing to convert the 5 existing side loading garage located in the rear yard into a dinette, half bath, mudroom with laundry facilities and a family room. Ms. Aaker added the applicants are also proposing to add a master suite with bathroom and a storage area above the converted garage. Continuing, Ms. Aaker said the proponents would like to add an 18 x 20 foot attached garage south of the existing garage and a 12 x 20 foot deck in back of the proposed new family room. Ms. Aaker concluded staff believes the proposed addition would be a logical extension of the home based "on the following findings: 1) The north setback of the home is currently non -conforming. 2) The garage structure to be converted is an existing structure producing less visual impact than the introduction of a completely new structure in the rear yard. 3) The second story master bedroom seems to be a logical extension of the existing floor plan. 4) The proposed new attached garage arrangement would allow the preservation of an oak tree. 5) The attached garage has been reduced in size from original plans in order to be more conforming to ordinance requirements. 6) The new south facing garage wall angles away from the south property boundary so only the southwest corner of the garage will be three feet from the south lot line. 7) Adjacent neighbors support the variance. 8) Similar variances have been approved in the past for properties along Bruce, Casco, and Arden in the Country Club district. The proponents Mr. and Mrs. Zimmerman were present. Interested neighbors were present. Chairman Palmer asked Ms. Repya to comment on the proposal as presented. Ms. Repya told the Board from an historical standpoint the Heritage Preservation Board (HPB) has a concern regarding the front loading garage. Continuing, Ms. Repya reported that the majority of homes within the Country Club District have side. loading garages, not visible from the front street. Ms. Repya stated maintaining the integrity of the streetscape of the Country Club is very important, and front loading garages are in the minority within this historical district. Ms. Repya said regarding other aspects of the proposal the HPB has no comment. Ms. Repya 6 reiterated the concern of the HPB would be with the proposed front loading garage. Mr. Zimmerman addressed the Board explaining that his growing family loves their home, their neighborhood, and desire to stay. Mr. Zimmerman said in their immediate neighborhood there are a number of front loading garages. He pointed out his proposed garage will be angled, and not directly facing the street.. Continuing, Mr. Zimmerman said the proposal as presented affords this property open space, and saves a very old Burl Oak tree they believe is around two hundred years old. Mr. Zimmerman indicated all materials will match the existing structure, and the proposed design maintains the character and symmetry of the home. Mr. Zimmerman concluded that it is his belief that the proposal has been done with sensitivity, and is best suited to the neighborhood on the whole. Mr. Johnson addressed the Board indicating he cannot support the request as presented. Mr. Johnson expressed concern over the resulting building mass. He pointed out there will be 52 feet of building wall, and in his opinion, sideyard setbacks are very important to maintain. Continuing, Mr. Johnson said he feels our requirements for sideyard setbacks are not adequate when addressing a two story home on such a small lot. Mr. Johnson suggested there may be other options available on redesigning the home, and pointed out a change in roof lines, possibly incorporating a hip roof could minimize the impact. Mr. Johnson said he understands their desire to save the large oak tree, and any redesign should try to achieve that result. Mrs. Faust asked Ms. Aaker the lot coverage on this proposal. Ms. Aaker said lot coverage is below the maximum allowed at 2,250 square feet. Continuing, Mrs. Faust said reduction in sunlight is a factor to contemplate when considering this proposal, and saving the large oak tree in also important. Mrs. Mara Ingwalson, 4612 Arden Avenue, explained to the Board she is not present this evening to specifically address this issue, but present to share her concerns regarding what is occurring within the Country Club District. Mrs. Ingwalson said considerable alteration, and additions are occurring that could change the character of the whole area. She commented that while she shares the concern the HPB has regarding streetscape, she pointed out what is really happening within the Country Club District is happening in the side and rear yards. She pointed out sunlight has been compromised, air currents are changing, and open space within rear yards have been diminished. She concluded, stating she needed to share her concerns with a "board", and hopes the board, when making decisions, consider these concerns. Chairman Palmer, Mr. Olson, and Mrs. Faust expressed concern 7 over the massiveness of the proposed additions indicating they are having trouble affirming a hardship. Mr. Zimmerman, in referring to comments from Mrs. Ingwalson stated he also has concerns in maintaining the character and symmetry of the Country Club District. He added he has a growing family, and the home at present does not meet the needs of a family in the 901s. He added he is very willing to look at redesign options, noting he understands the comments on building mass. He asked the Board if they have any ideas on redesign. He concluded that many homes within the area need updating, adding he hopes the Board understands how much they want to stay in their neighborhood. Mr. Johnson explained that setting in the side building wall would be an option that would reduce the impact of the proposed addition. He explained this would break up the building mass by creating shadow lines. Mrs. Zimmerman reported they have "toyed" with the idea of adding -on to their home for some time. She said maintaining the character and symmetry of the home, and saving the large Burl Oak tree was very important to them, which is the reason they hired an architect. She added the architect suggested that maintaining the side building wall would preserve the character of the house, which is frustrating since it appears the board cannot support his suggestion, and prefer an off -set addition. Mrs. Zimmerman asked the Board for suggestions on a redesign plan they could support. Mr. Zimmerman indicated they could follow the suggestion of Mr. Johnson and off -set the addition eliminating that variance, and redesign the deck so it does not require a variance. One variance would then be required. Chairman Palmer said that it is very hard for the Board to try to redesign a plan, and approve it without viewing it. ' He acknowledged their frustration in believing what is proposed best complements the character of the home, and neighborhood. He explained in his opinion there is no hardship to support this request, and he feels uncomfortable being asked for suggestions on redesign of the plan. He recommended that they consider softening the impact of the addition, and reducing the number of variances required. Chairman Palmer said he shares the concern of the HPB regarding front loading garages, but in this instance he believes since the proposed garage is angled, and not in direct view from& the front street, impact would be minimal. Continuing Chairman Palmer said the proposed garage is not the traditional 19501s, 60's, 70's front loading garage. He commented that that type of front loading garage may be what the HPB finds disagreeable. A discussion ensued with the Board indicating they could not support the proposal as presented.. The Board indicated the mass of the addition is "too much" •. The Board explained it is hard to say 8 exactly what is "too much", and suggested to Mrs. and Mrs. Zimmerman that they either redesign their plan, or present their plan to the City Council for a vote. Chairman Palmer told Mr. and Mrs. Zimmerman the City Council is where they can receive a final decision. He added the Council may support their proposal as presented, and if they do, you will be able to apply for a building permit, and construct your proposal as presented. If the Council were to deny your request your options for redesign would still remain. Mr. Zimmerman added in a way saving the large oak tree has become a hardship for them. He reiterated it is very important to them to save this tree, and maintain as much open space in the rear as possible. Mrs. Faust commented the tree could be considered a hardship for this lot, and in her opinion, saving the tree has merit. She remarked it would be sad if they were to loose the tree as a result of not receiving variances. She commented this situation is very difficult, over building of lots is a concern for board members, variances do offer some control for the City, and there have been offensive additions within this neighborhood that have not required variances. She said it may become an issue on what is more important, saving the tree, and approving variances, or loosing the tree, and complying with our requirements. Concluding, Mrs. Faust said the front loading garage is not as offensive to her because it does not have living spaces above it and is angled, not a direct front loading garage. Mr. Johnson said he is very sympathetic to their need to add more living space to their home, and their desire to save the large oak tree. He added he hopes the tree can be saved, and said any redesign should try to save the tree, He concluded they could position a fence around the drip line, and redesign around that. Mr. Johnson moved to deny the variance request. Mr. Olson seconded the motion. Ayes; Olson, Faust, Johnson, Palmer. Motion to deny carried. Chairman Palmer informed Mr. and Mrs. Zimmerman they can appeal this decision to the Council. They should do so within 10 days. III. ADJOURNMENT:" The meeting was adjourned at 7:00 p.m. G