Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1992 08-06 Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting Minutes RegularMINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE EDINA BOARD OF APPEALS AND ADJUSTMENTS HELD ON THURSDAY, AUGUST 6, 1992, 5:30 P.M. EDINA CITY HALL MANAGERS CONFERENCE ROOM MEMBERS PRESENT: Acting Chair, Rose Mary Utne; Nan Faust, Lee Johnson, Len Olson MEMBERS ABSENT: John Palmer STAFF PRESENT: Kris Aaker, Jackie Hoogenakker I. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES: Mr. Olson moved approval of the June 4, 1992 meeting minutes. Mr. Johnson seconded the motion, requesting a change in the minutes on page 3 on streetscape. All voted aye; motion carried. II. NEW BUSINESS: B-92-32 Vicki Thompson #'7 Woodland Road Lot 7, Colonial Grove Addition Request: A 6.75 foot sideyard setback variance Ms. Aaker informed the board the applicants are proposing to expand their existing garage and add a master bedroom above. The garage setback of five feet is acceptable according to ordinance requirements, however, the 2nd story master bedroom should be setback 10 feet plus 1.75' due to building height in excess of 15 feet. The applicants would, however, like to keep the master bedroom wall flush with the 1st floor garage therefore, the proponents are requesting a 6.75 foot sideyard setback variance. Ms. Aaker concluded staff acknowledges that it would be a logical progression of the existing upstairs living area to extend the master bedroom above the garage, however, given the 100+ lot width, and sizeable rearyard building pad area, it is difficult to support a variance of the magnitude requested. The proponents Ms. Thompson and Mr. Hill were present to answer any questions. Impacted neighbors were present and Mr. Noel Miller, attorney representing Mrs. Linderholm and her daughter were present. Mrs. Faust informed the board she will abstain from the vote. Acting Chair, Mrs. Utne submitted two letters opposing the proposal and one letter supporting the proposal. Mr Hill explained to the board in reviewing options for expansion, expansion toward the rear of the house is not realistic and does not fit with in internal layout of the house and the proposal to construct a pool. Mr. Hill submitted photo's of the property and pointed out the concern of the neighbor to the north (#8 Woodland Road) indicating that sunlight will be lost as a result of their proposal is unfounded. Referring to the submitted pictures Mr. Hill pointed out that the grove of existing trees along the property line impact sunlight more then the proposed addition. Continuing, Mr. Hill said when considering expansion every aspect was looked into to reduce impact on neighboring properties. Mr. Hill concluded that in his opinion the proposed addition better corresponds with the colonial style house. Chair Utne asked Mr. Hill if he discussed alternatives with staff. Mr. Hill responded that he considered many different design options but felt the plan submitted best suits the house and when completed will have minimal impact on adjoining properties. Chair Utne asked Ms. Aaker if she found this block to be uniform. Ms. Aaker explained that when reviewing the neighborhood she noted the lot sizes and house styles are very mixed. Mr. Hill interjected that he believes the home when completed will best fit the neighborhood and is sensitive to the colonial style home. Chairwomen Utne stated in her opinion the height of the addition crates mass which is something the she personally is very sensitive to. Continuing, Chairwomen Utne explained that variances required from our height standards are carefully reviewed. The required increase in setback due to building height helps achieve the property space and balance between structures and when one has other options for construction they should be considered. Mr. Olson questioned if the proponents can construct the garage without a variance. Ms. Aaker responded that that is correct the proponents can construct the garage by just going through the regular process of obtaining a building permit. The addition living space requires a variance for building height exceeding 15 feet. Mr. Johnson said in his opinion there is no hardship to support the request. He stated he has a concern when an addition is added to a house and the end result is a feeling of overcrowding. Mr. Johnson said in his opinion visual perception is very important and he cannot support any request that compromises these standards. Mr. Hill pointed out there have been similar variances approved within the neighborhood which should set a precedent that should allow other property owners the same right to expand. Mr. Hill said the house at present does not meet the needs of a blended family. They love the neighborhood and desire to stay in the neighborhood and the house. Mr. Olson pointed out that the proposed pool takes up a lot of space within the rear yard and in his opinion expansion could go out the rear if the pool were not to be constructed. concluding Mr. Olson said wanting a pool should not force expansion where a variance is needed if a complying solution is available. B-92-33 Jack Robucar 5011 Arden Avenue Lot 61 Block 3, Brucewood Request: A 3 foot sideyard setback variance for building height Ms. Aaker informed the board the subject property is the site of a two story single family home with an attached 16' X 20' garage. At their October 3, 1991, Board of Appeals meeting, the members approved a 2.3 foot sideyard setback variance to allow the expansion of the existing garage to be located 3 feet from the side property boundary. The applicant is now returning to the board to request a variance for building height to construct a second story master bedroom above the garage. The applicant is proposing to set the second story addition in so that the sideyard setback for the master bedroom area is 5 feet. Ms. Aaker explained a five foot sideyard setback would be adequate if the building height did not exceed 15 feet. The applicant is proposing a building height of 21 feet which requires an additional 6" be added to the sideyard setback for each 1 foot above the. maximum allowable building height of 15 feet. The master bedroom as designed requires an 8 foot setback. The applicants are seeking a 3 foot variance to allow the second story addition to be 5 feet from the sideyard. Ms. Aaker concluded the applicant had originally submitted a plan to locate the 2nd story • living space above the garage at 3 feet from the property boundary. Staff encouraged a more conforming solution. Staff believes the design solution is in keeping with the neighborhood and allows for a master bedroom although more modest than originally proposed. Staff cites the narrow lot width, limited design options, and desire to preserve rearyard area as conditions occurring on the site that could support the proposed design option. The proponent, Mr. Klobucar was present. Mrs. Utne questioned Ms. Aaker on the difference between this proposal and the previous proposal. Ms. Aaker explained that Mrs. Utne noted that there has been flexibility by the proponents in working on a solution that does not require an extreme variance. The master suite addition was scaled by resulting in an less obtrusive addition. Mrs. Utne stated she can support the proposal as presented. Mr. Olson moved approval. Mrs. Faust seconded the motion. All voted aye; motion carried. B-92-34 Bill and Laura Lunger 5432 Kellogg Avenue Lot 9, Block 10, South Harriet Park Request: A 2 foot north sideyard setback variance and a 2 foot south sideyard setback variance for building height Ms. Aaker informed the board the subject property is the location of a two story home with attached 20 X 22 foot garage. The property owners are proposing to expand the existing garage on the north side of the garage by two feet and add a mudroom behind the expanded garage. The addition on the north side would provide a three foot sideyard setback. The ordinance requires a minimum 5 foot setback on lots less than 75 feet in width therefore a two foot setback variance is requested. The proponents are also planning to add a full two stories to the rear of the home to, include a 2nd story master bedroom addition 5 feet from the south side property boundary. The ordinance requires that the minimum sideyard setback of 5 feet be increased 6 inches for every one foot the building height exceeds 151. The building height of the new south building wall is 19 feet which requires a setback of 7 feet. The applicants are proposing to maintain the existing 5 foot south sideyard setback therefore a 2 foot sideyard variance for building height is requested. Ms. Aaker concluded that staff cannot recommend approval for the north sideyard setback variance that would allow living area within 3 feet of the property boundary (mudroom). Staff recognizes that the current garage is less than a desired width of a two stall garage, and would suggest that any variance only apply to the garage area. Regarding the south sideyard setback variance, staff believes that setting the second story in two feet would not necessarily reduce the impact of the proposed addition and could give it a rather disjointed appearance. Staff cites the narrow lot width and corresponding limited expansion options available to the homeowner as conditions that could support the submitted south side design option. Mrs. Faust questioned if they could trim back the garage and mudroom area. Ms. Aaker responded that they can trim back the or tuck in the mudroom area. She explained that while the extra width may be needed for the garage living space that close to the property line is not desired. Mrs. Faust asked Ms. Aaker if the city has a standards two car garage width. Ms. Aaker said the city has not recommended a certain two car garage size standard. She added usually two car garages are 22 X 24 feet. Mr. Olson questioned if the mudroom can be reduced. Ms. Aaker said that is one possibility. Mr. Johnson pointed out that this proposal is similar to the proposed denied on Bruce Avenue. Mr. Aaker stated that is correct a similar request was heard for property on Bruce Avenue that was denied. Mr. Johnson stated that the proposal as submitted depicts a house with an addition resulting in a very large building wall, it is extremely long. Mr. Johnson noted there appear to be no windows on the south side of the addition that could soften the appearance of the proposed addition. Mr. Lundgren explained that windows can be added to the south facade if that is the desire of the board. Mr. Johnson said he has a problem with this proposal as well as with the first proposal due to the relationship of building mass to building mass. Mr. Johnson said if the proponent were to step in the addition a bit to soften it's impact creating shadow lines the result would be more sensitive to the neighbors, and be more visually pleasing. Mr. Johnson stated he realizes there is a hardship because of the relatively small lot width but stated he would like to see something implemented that would soften the impact of the proposed addition(s). Mr. Lundgren sated it would be possible to step in the second story of the addition. Mrs. Faust stated she also has a concern regarding the north side of the addition. Mr. Olson moved approval for a sideyard setback variance for only the garage. Mr. Olson seconded the motion. All voted aye; motion carried. Mr. Lundgren stated he has a concern that the proposal will not look as good as the original proposal, but will work with his architect to redesign as requested. B-92-35 Mr. and Mrs. Chris Elliott 4107 West 48th Street Edina, MN zoning: R-1 Request: A 3 foot sideyard setback variance. Ms. Aaker informed the Board the subject property is currently a single story rambler. The applicants have submitted a dramatic redesign of the home to include a second story. The homeowners have submitted a plan that includes a bedroom above the garage that would match the existing east sidewall. The garage sidewall is located 7.5 feet from the side property boundary. Living area on lots 75' or greater require a setback of 10 feet plus 6" for each 1 foot the building height exceeds 15 feet, however, the proposed 2nd story would require a setback of '10.5 feet. The current setback is 7.5 feet therefore a 3 foot variance is requested. Ms. Aaker concluded staff acknowledges the integrity of the submitted design and believes the plan is both aesthetically pleasing and complimentary to the neighborhood. Staff cannot however identify unique conditions that would support the request. The proponents and their builder, Jim Kutze, were present. Mr. Johnson said that although he believes the request is reasonable, and noting there are a number of two story and cape cod homes within this neighborhood his concern, as mentioned during discussion on the previous item, has to do with building mass, how the sideyards of homes relate to this mass, and maintaining the integrity along the streetscape. Mr. Kutze pointed out to the board there are only two houses on that side of the street, and to the west of the subject site there is no house. Mr. Kutze stated any impact from the expansion would be minimal. Mr. Johnson explained what he is concerned about is the visual impact of those two houses after the expansion/addition is completed on the subject house. Expanding Mr. Johnson said massing that will be created as a result of this proposal causes concern. Spacing is very important which is why the city requires increased setbacks on houses exceeding 15 feet in height. Mr. Johnson pointed out presently there exists a rambler next to a two story home and the spacing is adequate. When the rambler is changed to a two story the spacing is not adequate. Concluding Mr. Johnson suggested tucking in the addition which in his opinion would create shadow lines which can add character to the house, will soften the impact of the addition, and comply with our ordinance standards. Ms. Stanley -Elliott pointed out the spacing between the houses even after the expansion/addition is completed will remain at 17 1/2 feet. Mr. Elliott pointed out to board members that all immediate neighbors impacted by this proposal support the request. Continuing, Mr. Elliott stated in his opinion the proposed expansion/ addition better suites the character and symmetry of the neighborhood then the existing rambler. Mr. Kutze stated that in his opinion Mr. Johnson's suggestion that the proposed 2nd story be tucked in does not meet the character of the traditional cape cod home they are trying to establish. Mr. Kutze added the key to a "well done" addition is that the change to the subject house results in a new structure that meets the standards of the neighborhood while maintaining the integrity of design. Mr. Kutze concluded that in his opinion an expansion/ addition constructed without a variance that complies with city code will not be as aesthetically pleasing as a home constructed with a variance. Mrs. Faust pointed out that with or without the variance the proposed home would be, in her opinion, aesthetically pleasing and if an addition can be constructed without a variance maybe it should be. Mr. Kutze commented that our concern is with keeping the architectural integrity of a traditional cape cod style home. Tucking or notching in the upstairs usually is not considered a traditional style. Mrs. Utne noted that she believes staff made a good point in their staff report acknowledging that the proposal is in keeping with the integrity of the design of a cape cod house, and is aesthetically and complimentary to the neighborhood. Mrs. Utne stated in light of this observation, in her opinion meeting city standards would result in the construction of an addition that will not be as aesthetically pleasing, nor as compatible with the neighborhood as the one presented this evening. Mrs. Utne concluded that she supports the request as presented. Mr. Olson concurred with Mrs. Utne's observation expanding that he believes maintaining the character and integrity of the neighborhood, and the traditional style of a home are also very important issues to consider, and noted his support of the proposal as presented. Mrs. Faust moved to deny the proposal as presented. Mr. Johnson seconded the motion. Ayes, Faust, Johnson. Nays, Utne, Olson. Motion failed. Mrs. Utne explained to the proponents the board is deadlocked on this issue,- and they have the option of either redesigning their plan to conform to city standards, submit an entirely different plan that may require a variance or appeal this decision to the city council. III. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 7:00 p.m. J 'e Hoogena r