Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1992 05-07 Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting Minutes RegularMINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE EDINA BOARD OF APPEALS AND ADJUSTMENTS MAY 71 19921 5:30 P.M. EDINA CITY HALL MANAGERIS CONFERENCE ROOM MEMBERS PRESENT: MEMBERS ABSENT: STAFF PRESENT: chair, D. Runyan, Ingwalson, R. Hale L. Olson Kris Aaker Jackie Hoogenakker Rose Mary Utne, C. I. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES: Mr. Ingwalson moved to approve the March 5, 1992, meeting minutes. Mr. Hale seconded the motion. All voted aye; motion carried. II. NEW BUSINESS: B-92-18 Jim and Nancy Schaffhausen 4503 Golf Terrace Lot 2, Block 2, Hansen and Parks 1st Addn. Request: A 150411 rear yard setback variance Ms. Aaker informed the Board the subject property is a two story brick home located along the south side of Golf Terrace. The home owners are proposing to expand their garage area. The home currently has a 21.8 X 19.25 foot existing garage attached to the rear of the home. The applicants are proposing to convert a portion of the existing garage into a single car garage and mudroom and add an additional 24' X 30" (720 sq. ft. ) of garage area. The remodel would provide for multiple car bays and increased storage space. Ms. Aaker concluded while staff agrees that detaching the garage would not completely eliminate the impact of a new garage it is difficult to support a 818" rear yard setback for a principle structure and an 85.5 foot east building wall with no clearly defined hardship demonstrated or support from neighboring property 1 owners. Based on lack of demonstrated hardship staff cannot recommend approval of the request. Mr. John Kosmas, architect was present to answer any questions from the board. Mr. Hale questioned Ms. Aaker if the proposal when completed exceeds lot coverage requirements. Ms. Aaker said with the proposed construction lot coverage would be below what is allowed. Mr. Hale asked the architect why the proponents are not considering eliminating the existing garage. Mr. Kosmas said living space is located above the garage. Mr. Hale noted that 30 feet is a large garage. Mr. Kosmas explained the proponents desire to have adequate garage space and also have ample storage space. Mrs. Utne noted that the proponents have presented two options, detached garage or attached garage, with the preferable option an attached garage. Mrs. Utne asked Mr. Kosmas why the proponents decided to construct a flat roof on the attached, garage and a pitched roof on the detached garage. Mr. Kosmas said architecturally a flat roof does not work on.an detached garage, but works if the garage is attached. Mrs. Utne said that while that may be true a pitched roof would make the garage look less like an add-on and blend better. Mr. Kosmas said one reason for a flat room is to retain the windows on the south elevation of the home. If a pitched roof were constructed the roof would block the windows. He also noted with this opinion a flat roof reduces the mass and creates more open space. Mr. Runyan questioned if the two options have been discussed with the neighbors. Mr. Kosmas said the proposals) has been discussed with neighbors and they prefer the attached garage option. Continuing, Mr. Kosmas explained that the attached garage does not take up as much rear yard space and the detached garage is not in keeping with the neighborhood character. Mr. Ingwalson observed that the detached proposal does not require variances. Mr. Kosmas responded that that is correct. Mr. Runyan inquired if the yards in this neighborhood are shallow. Mr. Kosmas said they are very shallow. Mr. Ingwalson questioned if the neighbor directly east indicated which option they support. Mr. Kosmas said they indicated they support the request for an attached garage. Continuing, Mr. Ingwalson said he has a concern if granted this will set a precedent that would affect the entire 'neighborhood, but if we do not approve the variance for the attached garage the alternative plan with the detached garage is objectionable to the neighbors. 2 Mrs. Utne stated that she feels aesthetically the freestanding garage looks better. She pointed out the roof lines would be matched and it can be constructed without any variances. The variance requested for the rearyard is very large. Mr. Hale said in his opinion they should construct a garage that does not require variances. He added he objects to the large building wall as a result of the proposal. He pointed out the building wall will run 85 feet. Mr. Hale noted massing is an issue, and there are other options to investigate. He pointed out they could limit the width of the proposed garage to a standard double car garage. Wanting a 30 foot wide garage is not a hardship. Chairman Runyan said in his opinion he does not like any option. He added any scenario will add bulk to the rearyard of this lot. Mr. Ingwalson said his concern is with precedent and with massing. What is proposed is very large and in his opinion the addition cannot be supported by the lot. Mrs. Utne moved denial. Mr. Hale seconded the motion. All voted aye; motion carried. Mr. Kosmas explained to the board that they could redesign the proposal and reduce it by four feet. He added the proponents are out of town and therefore he cannot amend this proposal unless he speaks with them. He asked if this issue could be tabled. Mrs. Utne withdrew her motion. Mrs. Utne moved that item B-92-18 be held over and reheard by this board until such time as the architect speaks with the proponents and an decision is made on how to proceed and when to proceed. Mr. Ingwalson seconded the motion. All voted aye; motion carried to table this item indefinitely. B-92-19 James and Bobbie Keegan 6414 Gleason Court Lot 4, Block 1, Gleason Court Request: Lot coverage variance for a 10 8 14 (140 sq. ft. porch addition) 3 Ms. Aaker told the Board the subject property is a double dwelling unit located at 6414 Gleason Court. The proponents have recently purchased the home and would like to add a 10 X 14, 140 sq. ft. porch addition to the rear of the home. The applicants have indicated that currently, the double dwelling covers 4253 sq. ft. of the lot which translates into 24.97% lot coverage. The ordinance states that maximum lot coverage for double dwelling unit lots must not exceed 25% of the lot area. The property owners have indicated that with the addition of their proposed porch, lot coverage of both units will increase to 25.8%. Ms. Aaker concluded it is evident that conditions present within the Gleason Court subdivision are consistent in terms of lot coverage and building design. It is also evident that requests of this nature have the potential to continue. The board may determine that special consideration is appropriate for certain modifications to the Gleason Court homes subject to certain conditions. Possible conditions could include limiting additions to a porch, deck or patio, only to be located in the rear yard and not to exceed an established square footage. The board may also find it appropriate to add conditions that any requests must be approved by the association and impacted neighbors. Mrs. Burgie, 6412 Gleason Court told board members she has no objection to the proposal as submitted. She pointed out she is the "attached neighbor" and to their rear are woods so the impact is minimal. Mr. Keegan reported to board members that he presented his proposal to residents on Artic Way and they had no objections. Mr. Runyan said he agrees with the recommendations outlined by staff adding he does not have a problem with their request but if approved this item could set precedent within the development. Ms. Aaker noted that a variance was granted within this development at 6510 Gleason Court. The variance was similar. Mrs. Utne asked would it be prudent in a situation such as this to ask that staff make recommendations on what would be considered too much. Ms. Aaker said that that would be possible but the system works well with the variance process. She said it would be hard for her to find a ratio that would enable a property owners to seek a variance or eliminate the possibility of seeking a variance. Mr. Hale said that even though the council approved a previous request he believes there is no hardship and granting a variance will open the door for one and all to apply for a variance. The whole site will be overcrowded. Continuing, Mr. Hale noted that Mr. Clark builds beautiful homes but usually seems to build to the max and with a majority of the dwellings already at the maximum lot coverage multiple variances will be required. 4 A discussion ensued with Ms. Aaker explaining that the council has approved a similar variance request within this development. She noted that this development in most instances is built at the maximum lot coverage which therefore makes it almost impossible for any redevelopment to occur without a variance. Chairman Runyan asked Ms. Aaker to research this development and determine how many other lots would require variances if they decided to add-on. Mr. Ingwalson also suggested that before any homeowner within this development comes before us we would like to see the homeowners association sign off on it. Mrs. Utne observed that with the economy as it is there is more pressure to remain in one's home and remodel. B-92-20 Mr. Richard Dekker 4917 Rolling Green Parkway Lot 5, Block 1, Carlson's Park Request: A 33.5 foot front yard setback variance to maintain the 50 foot frontyard setback of the existing home Ms. Aaker explained that the subject property is a single story brick home constructed in 1977 located in the northeast corner of Rolling Green Parkway and Interlachen Boulevard. The home is currently setback 50 feet from the front property boundary fronting Rolling Green Parkway. Ms. Aaker reported the applicants are proposing an extensive remodel of the home to include a number of additions to the existing structure. The components of the applicant's plan involving the variance request include the addition of two bedrooms above the existing garage, a site wall, enclosed stairway and entrance overhang. The additions as described will not protrude beyond the existing 50 foot frontyard setback established by the garage. Ms. Aaker pointed out the Edina Zoning Ordinance states that if a home is to be built or relocated where there is an established average setback and there are existing buildings on only one side of the building or relocated building, the front street setback of said new or relocated building shall maintain that of the nearest adjoining principal building. The board should note that the adjacent home to the north provides an 83.5 foot frontyard setback, therefore any remodeling on the G� subject home closer than 83.5 feet to the front yard requires a variance. Ms. Aaker concluded generally the board has been very cautious In reviewing front yard setback requests. However, due to the unique circumstances of the site and neighborhood, and variety of interesting and unique building styles throughout the Rolling Green neighborhood staff supports the request as submitted, and recommends that the board approve the request. The addition will not protrude beyond the home's existing front yard setback and the proposed design will be maintaining the integrity of the original structure Mr. Ingwalson asked clarification if the variance requested is. for just one corner. Ms. Aaker said.that is correct. Mrs. Utne moved approval of the request. Mr. Hale seconded the motion. All voted aye; motion carried. Mr. Hale noted that the lot area is very large and the addition is appropriate. B-92-21 Robert and Joan Schoening 4612 Edina Boulevard Lot 130 Block 11, Country Club District Request: A 6 foot rear yard setback variance for a pool installation Ms. Aaker explained the subject property consists of a two story home with attached garage. the homeowners desire to add an 18 X 26 foot pool and an 8 foot diameter hot tub with required decking in the rear yard area. The applicants architect has illustrated lot coverage (excluding the 150 square foot deck/patio credit, required pool decking, and a sidewalk area) at 24.297%. Slightly under the 25% lot coverage maximum allowed. Ms. Aaker concluded due to limited lot depth and angled rear lot line, and subsequent hardship created by both; staff could support the request subject to receipt of letters supporting the request from adjacent neighbors. The proponent, Mr. Schoening was present. Mr. Hale asked Mr. Schoening if he considered moving the pool slightly to the right. Mr. Schoening said that was considered, but it would not balance as it relates to the yard and existing the house to the pool. Mr. Runyan pointed out there is a six foot fence around the yard and any visual impact to neighbors would be non existent. Mr. Ingwalson asked Mr. Schoening if the neighbors were "OK" with the addition of a pool. Mr. Schoening stated the neighbors indicated they have no objection to the proposed pool. Continuing, Mr. Ingwalson noted that there is a concern within this district that overbuilding is occurring. He pointed out a pool retains open space does not block sunlight nor does it cause changes is air currents. Mr. Ingwalson concluded he can support the pool request. Mr. Ingwalson moved approval of the variance to construct a pool. Mrs. Utne seconded the motion. All voted aye; motion carried. III. ADJOUPNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 6:35 p.m. - rIP7, TH �o o g e n a k I *r 7