Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1993 04-15 Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting Minutes RegularREGULAR MEETING OF THE EDINA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS HELD ON THURSDAY, APRIL 151 1993 EDINA CITY HALL MANAGERIS CONFERENCE ROOM MEMBERS PRESENT: Helen McClelland, Rose Mary Utne, David Byron, Geof Workinger and Mike Lewis STAFF PRESENT: Kris Aaker, Jackie Hoogenakker I. OLD BUSINESS: B-93-5 Mr. and Mrs. Gary and Gretchen Holland 6312 Indian Hills Road Lot 9, Block 11 Indian Hills Request: A five foot sideyard setback variance to allow living space above the garage Ms. Aaker summarized that Mr. and Mrs. Holland are proposing to construct a third stall to their existing garage with living space above the garage. Ms. Aaker acknowledged the design compliments the existing structure and can be appreciated for its balance and consistency in matching materials. In addition, it could be acknowledged that the original house placement and slope of the lot can be viewed as a hinderance or hardship when reviewing expansion options. It would appear however that the property could be put to reasonable use therefore staff cannot support the studio addition. The proponent, Mrs. Holland was present. Mr. James Van Valkenburg, attorney representing Mr. and Mrs. Holland was present. Interested neighbors were present. Mrs. McClelland questioned Mr. Dunn on who owns the retaining wall that is on the common lot line. Mr. Dunn responded that the retaining wall is on his property. Mr. Van Valkenburg introduced himself to the Board and explained the Holland's are requesting a 5 foot sideyard setback variance for living space above the proposed garage stall. Mr. Van Valkenburg pointed out the proposed third garage stall meets city code. Continuing, Mr. Van Valkenburg said the lot is just under an acre in size. The house was constructed close to the westerly property line. Mr. Van Valkenburg stated the Holland's are not the 1 original owners of the house. Mr. Van Valkenburg pointed out the house has changed since it was first constructed, a family room was constructed in 1970 and the Hollands added a green house and porch. Mr. Van Valkenburg referred to confusion expressed at the previous meeting regarding the validity of the survey, and submitted to the board a copy of the recent survey. Mr. Van Valkenburg said the new survey should put to rest any doubt regarding the property lines. He reiterated the proponents are seeking a five foot setback for living space. Mr. Van Valkenburg reported that the proponent's invited two different contractors to their home to access the site for different studio locations. Both contractors stated the proposed location best suits the site due to the internal layout of the existing home, and topography of the lot. Mr. Van Valkenburg stated adding the studio under the cantilevered portion of the family room is too risky because of the footings and difference in elevation. Constructing the studio off the rear of the family room is problematic due to the existence of a large fire place. Construction off the rear also poses internal layout problems because of the living areas across the rear of the home. Mr. Van Valkenburg noted it has been mentioned that the proponents house is "large enough" and pointed out the house is a two story home, front walk out, with the rear being one story, and in keeping with the size of the houses in the neighborhood. The proponents home measures 80 feet across the front, the Dunn home (to the west) measures 79 feet across.the front. Concluding, Mr. Van Valkenburg submitted photos of the property adding what the proponents have tried to accomplish is a design that is aesthetically pleasing to the neighborhood and maintains the character of the existing structure. Mr. Dunn, 6400 Indian Hills Road, pointed out that the plan presented this evening is the same plan that was reviewed. He added his concern is with the proposed structure's close proximity to his property line. Mr. Dunn stated he finds it hard to believe that an architect cannot find another location for the studio. Mr. Dunn said he moved into his house because he enjoys the spacing, and large lots within the Indian Hills neighborhood. Mr. Dunn pointed out within the Indian Hills neighborhood there exists private covenants that prohibit structures from being too close. Mr. Dunn concluded that he opposes the living space proposed above the garage. Mrs. Utne asked Ms. Aaker the reason for her objection to the proposal since the proponents will be able to legally construct the third garage stall. Ms. Aaker explained that due to the size of the lot she felt there was opportunity to add-on in a conforming location. She stated it will be difficult to accomplish, but not impossible. Ms. Aaker stated that Mrs. Utne is correct, the addition of a third garage stall is legal, no variance is required for the new stall. Mr. Lewis questioned Ms. Aaker on what the pitch of the garage E roof could be. Ms. Aaker stated the pitch of the roof, in this situation is a design challenge, adding the allowed height of the roof would depend on the type of roof design implemented and must meet our existing code requirements. Mrs. Utne stated she fully understands staff's position on the proposed living space but in her opinion this board should take into consideration special circumstances. Mrs. Utne said aesthetics are very important to her. She pointed out the garage can legally be constructed, and the addition of living space above the garage when it has been done with sensitivity does not negatively impact the existing dwelling, nor the neighborhood. Mr. Byron asked Mr. Van Valkenburg what the "studio" is. Mr. Van Valkenburg stated Mrs. Holland would enjoy a studio with adequate lighting for designing floral arrangements. Mr. Byron asked why Mrs. Holland couldn't use a spare bedroom for her floral arrangements. Mr. Van Valkenburg stated all the bedrooms are used. Mr. Workinger acknowledged (except for Mr. Dunn) that the proposal has been well received within the neighborhood, but he cannot support the variance request because Mr. Dunn objects. He also stated there is no hardship to support the request to add living area above the proposed third garage stall. Mr. Lewis stated he agrees with Mrs. Utne. He pointed out the garage can legally be constructed, and we have granted variances in the past for living area above the garage. Mr: Lewis acknowledged a third garage stall in this neighborhood is appropriate, and in his opinion the proposed living area above the garage has been designed with sensitivity, and is compatible with the existing house design. Mr. Lewis concluded the garage can be constructed, and the addition of living area above it may not make that much of a difference visually. Mrs. McClelland stated it is the duty of staff to investigate code, and in her opinion there is no hardship to support approval of this request. She pointed out a lot of this size should be able to accommodate a studio in a conforming location. Mrs. McClelland stated council has also been very concerned with massing, and she reiterated she cannot support the variance request. Mrs. McClelland concluded in her opinion if we allow this addition we are "gutting" the code. Mr. Byron stated spacial separation is very important to him noting we have been directed through our code to view garages one way and living space another, for whatever reason. He added he cannot find a hardship to support the proponents request. He said he recognizes that aesthetics are important but they are something this board cannot act on. Indian Hills is a very special community and we are responsible in maintaining it. He also added when he studied this proposal he concluded that it is cheaper to build the 3 studio above the garage, but pointed out our job is not economic, it is maintaining the code. He concluded he cannot support the proposal as presented. Mr. Byron moved to deny the variance request. Mr. Workinger seconded the motion. Mrs. Utne interjected she takes her position on the zoning board of appeals very seriously noting what we do at this level is very important. She added each and every area within this city is special and has value, and in her opinion the interpretation of the code is different things to different people. Mrs. Utne stated she has a strong belief in aesthetic value, and its importance, adding in her opinion constructing living area above the garage makes the most planning sense and the most sense aesthetically. Mrs. Utne pointed out that adding another room off the rear, side, or front just to make it conform to our requirements may not be best for the neighborhood. Mrs. Utne concluded variances are unique to the property, and the variance process is in place to help us achieve agreeable solutions when adhering to the "law" may not be best. Ayes; McClelland, Workinger, Byron. Nays, Utne, Lewis. Motion to deny request approved 3-2 vote. The proponent was informed she has the right to appeal this decision to the city council. II. NEW BUSINESS: B-93-8 Greg W. Wilson and Wayne W. Wilson 401 Washington Avenue Lot 26, Block 9, West Minneapolis Heights Request: A 12 foot sidestreet setback variance for a new detached two stall garage location Ms. Aaker informed the Board the subject property is located in the south east quadrant of Washington Avenue and Belmore Lane. The applicants are proposing to remove the existing non -conforming single stall garage and to replace it with a newer two car garage structure. The current garage is located four feet from the sidestreet property boundary and fronts Belmore Lane. The applicants are proposing to locate the new garage eight feet from the side street property boundary. The proposed 22' X 24' garage will be moved to the subject site from a property located in Hopkins. 4 Ms. Aaker concluded staff finds it difficult to support a 12 foot sidestreet setback variance to continue a potential parking nuisance. Staff could support a four foot variance to allow the garage to be 16 feet from the sidestreet property boundary. A space length of 16 feet in front of the new garage would be the equivalent of the minimum required length for a compact parking space as required in the design and construction standards of section 850.08 of the city code. A four foot variance could allow for a compact car to be parked in the driveway in conformance with the city's parking and nuisance requirements and would still allow for seven feet of open space to be provided between the back garage wall and the south property boundary. Any approval is suggested to be conditioned on compliance with section 415 of the city code which addresses the permitting process for the moving of buildings. The proponents were present to respond to questions. Mrs. Utne noted when she drove by the property she observed a utility truck parked in the drive adding if she read the code properly commercial vehicles cannot be parked in the driveway. Mr. Wilson explained the property has been rental and we have asked the renters too remove truck removed. Mrs. McClelland pointed out the property is exposed on three sides adding stating she can see why staff recommends a 4 foot variance which would allow the parking of a compact vehicle in compliance with our code. Mrs. McClelland also noted that as she viewed this area all properties are rather non -conforming and the original proposal allows more space for a yard. Mr. Wilson stated he spoke with a majority of the neighbors and they indicated they supported the proposal as presented. Mr. Byron pointed out that it would be possible to line up the new garage with the garage of the neighbor to the east. The garage to the east is a side, and a side entry would also work on the subject site. Mrs. Utne commented that she can understand the request of the proponent noting in her opinion the request as presented allows for more yard area, which is important. Mrs. Utne questioned Mr. Wilson on the materials/paint used on the facade of the garage that will be moved to the subject site pointing out it does not appear to match the facade of the dwelling. Mrs. Utne stated she would like to see the color of the home and garage match. Mrs. Utne questioned Ms. Aaker on how compliance with the ordinance regarding parking is monitored. Ms. Aaker stated illegal parking on the driveway is monitored on a complaint basis. Continuing, Ms. Aaker stated in situations involving a variance request staff has the capacity to inform property owners what is proposed does not comply with our code. 5 A discussion ensued with the board in agreement that the garage can be moved to the site and the proposal as presented would not have a negative impact on the neighborhood. The Board asked the proponent to note that parking of vehicles on the driveway is illegal according to our code. Mrs. Utne moved to grant a 12 foot sideyard setback variance subject to the condition that the new garage is to match the color of the existing dwelling. Mrs. Utne also noted the proponent is to be aware that parking in the driveway violates our code. Mr. Lewis seconded the motion. All voted aye; motion carried. B-93-9 Suzanne Rand and Paul Hammond 5109 Juanita Avenue Lot 18, Block 31 Glenview Addition Request: A 6.5 foot sideyard setback variance for conversion of an existing storage area over a garage into living area and a 2.5 foot sideyard setback variance for a family room addition Ms. Aaker informed the Board the subject property consists of a story and one half cape cod. The proponents are proposing a substantial remodel of the home to include the addition of a family room, mudroom, bathroom, bedroom, storage, stair case, and porch. As part of their plans the homeowners are also proposing to convert an existing storage area above the garage into living area. The lot coverage will increase from 1,619 square to 2,219 square feet leaving approximately 31 square feet available for additional coverage. Ms. Aaker concluded while it has not been policy to allow living space to be located closer than five feet to a side property boundary staff believes that conversion of the existing storage area above the garage would have little if any impact on the surrounding neighbors and therefore staff could support the 6.5 foot sideyard setback variance. Ms. Aaker said regarding the 2.5 foot sideyard setback staff acknowledges the limitations of the shallow lot, however cannot support the variance because there is potential present for a conforming solution. Staff would request that any variance approval should be limited to the plans submitted. The proponent, Mr. Hammond was present. Mr. Byron questioned what the sideyard setback would be after 6 the addition is constructed. Ms. Aaker said the setback would be 7 1/2 feet. Mr. Workinger noted that in his opinion this could become a massing issue if it is not developed with sensitivity. The lot are small, and the lot is shallow. Mr. Hammond noted the entire neighborhood is comprised of small shallow lots. He pointed out there has been no objection within the neighborhood to this proposal as presented. Mr. Hammond stated that aesthetics are very important to him and the plans reflect this importance. Mr. Byron questioned Mr. Hammond on what hardship would occur if the addition was designed according to our code. Mr. Hammond pointed out if the addition was shifted to comply with city code the addition would cover up the windows across the rear of the home. A discussion ensued with the board in agreement that the lots within this neighborhood are small and the design as presented is sensitive to the design of the home. The addition as proposed would not have a negative impact on the neighborhood. Mr. Lewis moved approval of the variance as submitted. Mrs. Utne seconded the motion. All voted aye; motion carried. B-93-10 Michael Wood 5430 Grove Street Lot 1, Block 1, Smaly Addition Request: A 1.71 sideyard setback variance for a garage addition. Ms. Aaker informed the board the subject property consists of a two story home with an attached two stall garage built in 1987. The homeowners are proposing to remodel and add onto the home to include a third garage stall, family room, porch, deck, and some additional floor area in the dining room. All aspects of the plan conform to ordinance requirements with one exception. The proposed third garage stall will be 3.3 feet from the side property boundary instead of the required five feet. Ms. Aaker explained regarding the garage variance, the applicant has indicated a need for a third garage stall. The VA neighborhood in which the subject property is located consists of homes with attached two and three car garages, many of which provide between 5-13 foot setbacks from the side property boundaries. The only home along the north side of the Grove Street block that has a setback of less than five feet for a garage is the property next door at 5500 Grove (to the west). The garage located at 5500 Grove Street is approximately 2.9 feet from the east sideyard lot line. The proposed garage would put the structures within 6.2 feet of the garage at 5500 Grove Street. Ms. Aaker concluded that staff has difficulty with the request and the resulting 6.2 foot spacing between structures. Staff acknowledges that storage for a third car would be difficult to accomplish in some other fashion, however, those homes along the block with three stall garages currently provide adequate setback. In addition those homes with two car garages along Grove could require a similar variance if a third stall were to be added. The proponent, Mr. Wood was present. Mr. Workinger questioned if the variance were to be granted would the garages actually be only six feet apart. Ms. Aaker said that is correct. If Mr. Wood receives the variance the new garage and the neighbors garage will be just over six feet apart. Mr. Wood submitted to the board letters of support for the variance from impacted neighbors. Continuing, Mr. Wood pointed out the majority of the new homes within the neighborhood have been constructed with three car garages. Mr. Wood explained at the time his home was constructed they did not have enough funds to construct a third stall. He added he was led to believe by the builder that in the future they could add a third stall. Continuing, Mr. Wood informed the board a PVC pipe was installed along his westerly property line. He stated he believes there is an easement running along that line. The pipe was installed as a service to the city due to the high elevation of the street and water runoff. Ms. Aaker interjected this is the first time she heard there is may be an easement along the property line. Ms. Aaker said nothing she has viewed identifies a drainage easement. Mr. Byron asked Mr. Wood if the neighbor on the west approves of the variance. Mr. Wood stated the neighbor on the west has no objection to this proposal. Mrs. Utne questioned Mr. Wood on his time schedule to begin construction if this were to be approved. Mrs. Utne noted variances must be acted on within one year after approval. Continuing, Mrs. Utne said she understands Mr. Wood's desired to add a third garage stall but finds it difficult to support the variance because the proposed garage will be so close to the 8 neighbors existing garage. Mrs. McClelland agreed with Mrs. Utne's comments on the garages being close. She stated, in her opinion, structures six feet apart are too close. Mr. Wood said he and his wife are looking forward constructing a third garage stall. Mr. Lewis said he has a problem making a decision this evening. He pointed out staff was not made aware that an easement may exist on this property. Continuing, Mr. Lewis asked Ms. Aaker if construction can occur so close to an easement. Ms. Aaker explained it depends on the type of easement recorded. Ms. Aaker stated usually utility easements are recorded with an 10 foot easement. Ms. Aaker agreed that it is important to determine if an easement exists on the property. Ms. Aaker excused herself to see if she could locate documentation that an easement exists. Ms. Aaker returned and informed board members she could not locate any documentation supporting Mr. Woods claim that there is an easement for drainage along his westerly property line. Mr. Byron observed the easement situation is peculiar. Mr. Byron said with or without an easement he is still uncomfortable by the spacial separation that would exist on this site if the proposed garage would be approved and constructed. A discussion ensued with board members in agreement that they feel uncomfortable making a decision without specific information regarding the alleged easement. The board directed staff to speak with Mr. Hoffman, City Engineer, and try to locate information regarding the easement Mrs. Utne asked Mr. Wood if he would like to have this issue heard before this board or as soon as possible. M r . W o o d questioned when the next board meeting would be held, and was informed the next meeting would be on May 6, 1993. Mr. Wood stated he would like this issue to be heard as soon as possible. Mr. Lewis moved to continue B-93-10 to the next zoning board meeting. Mr. Byron seconded the motion. All voted aye; motion carried. III. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 6:45 p.m. 9