The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1997 09-16 Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting Minutes RegularMINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE EDINA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS HELD ON THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 16, 1993 5:30 P.M., MANGER'S CONFERENCE ROOM MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair, Helen McClelland, Geof Workinger, D. Patton MEMBERS ABSENT: Gordon Johnson, Mike Lewis STAFF PRESENT: Kris Aaker, Jackie Hoogenakker I. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES: Mr. Workinger moved approval of the March 18, 1993, meeting minutes. Mr. Patton seconded the motion. All voted aye; motion carried. II. NEW BUSINESS: B-93-38 John C. and Anne L. Nightingale 4611 Arden Avenue Edina, MN Lot 7, except the south 12.5 feet and the south 25 feet of Lot 6, Block 11, Country club District, Fairway Section Request: A 1.25 foot sideyard setback variance for building height Ms. Aaker informed the board the subject property is located on the east side of Arden Avenue between Bridge Street and Country Club Road, within the historic country club district. The property has been developed with a two story American Colonial revival style home built in 1938. The homeowners are planning a 16.5' X 30' two story addition to the rear of their home and a 4 foot addition to the width of the existing garage. The addition will include expansion of the existing kitchen, a new dinette and family room on the first floor and master bedroom on the second floor. The homeowners are proposing to continue the north building wall that provides a five foot sideyard setback. Ordinance allows a minimum five foot sideyard setback if building height remains less than 15 feet. Building height in excess of 15 feet requires the addition of six inches to the sideyard setback for each one foot the building height is in excess of 15 feet. The new addition is proposed to match the 17.5 foot building height of the existing structure. Ms. Aaker concluded staff acknowledges that the submitted plan is thoughtful in terms of proportion and scale and that careful consideration has been given to maintaining appropriate architectural detailing, however, it does appear that a conforming solution can be designed. The proponent, Mr. Nightingale was present. Interested neighbors were also present. Mr. Workinger commented his concern with the proposed addition is the long continuous run of the building wall. He questioned if it would be possible to set the wall in to create interest. Mr. Nightingale said his objective was to create an addition that does not look like an added on addition. Continuing, Mr. Nightingale pointed out if the building wall is set in, the gable would appear strange. One gable would face north and the other gable would face east. Mr. Nightingale said in his opinion this option would not be as aesthetically pleasing as what is proposed. Mrs. McClelland pointed out the present flat roof of the garage does not match the roof of the house, adding that maybe the needed extra space could be constructed above the garage. Mr. Patton commented that the garage may not have the structural integrity to support living space above it. Mr. Nightingale explained if the addition is built over the garage it will be difficult to maintain comfortable living temperatures. Mr. Nightingale also stated the addition as proposed creates a larger rear yard which is important because we have three young children. Mr. Nightingale noted the present roof line creates an ideal situation for addition placement as proposed. Mrs. McClelland commented that she noticed when she visited the site that some of the siding has become water stained. Mr. Patton questioned if the siding can be matched, and the existing siding either cleaned up or repainted or restained. Mr. Nightingale responded the materials for the addition will match the existing dwelling, and it is our plan to paint or restain the entire house. Mr. Patton stated he visited the site and does agree the plan as presented is functional, and continuing the gable makes sense. Mr. Patton added this is a good plan. Mr. Nightingale pointed out the neighbors in the area support the proposal as presented. Mrs. McClelland suggested breaking up the mass by adding sills to the windows or a decorative window on the long wall. Mr. Workinger agreed something should be done to break up the wall mass of the addition, adding it is possible to break up the horizontal mass of the siding by adding a vertical board. Mrs. McClelland agreed adding the false board will create eye interest. Mr. Nightingale stated their interest is to create functional living areas while making the addition look as if it is part of the existing dwelling, not an added part. Mr. Patton moved approval subject to conditions that materials used in the addition match the materials of the existing dwelling and that a vertical board is added to break up the mass of the north building wall. Mr. Workinger seconded the motion. All voted aye; motion carried. Mr. Fleischman, 4615 Arden Avenue told the board he has a concern with the placement of the new garage door. He added after the addition is completed their windows will view a garage door, which is something they would rather not have to view. Mr. Patton pointed out that is an separate issue, we cannot comment on placement of a garage door, or where a garage will be situated. Mr. Patton said in his opinion the garage has been placed in the best location. B-93-39 Frank Lederle 4507 Browndale Avenue Lot 4, Block 5, Country Club Browndale District Request: A 4.66 foot frontyard setback variance for a patio Ms. Aaker informed the board the subject property is located on the east side of Browndale Avenue within the historic country club district. The home is a two story "Pivotal" Italian Renaissance Revival style home with a mediterranean influence. Homes that are listed as "Pivotal" within the historical and architectural survey of the country club district are those homes which accurately represent a particular identified style. This home also has the distinction of being the first home that was constructed in the country club district as indicated in a September 1935 addition of the Country Club Crier, a local newspaper at the time. It is evident that the home is historically significant and as such the variance should be reviewed with that in mind. Ms. Aaker pointed out the homeowners are proposing the addition of a 9' X 12110" patio extension to the front entry steps. The Edina City ordinance allows unenclosed steps or stoops not exceeding 50 square feet in area and sidewalks and driveways to encroach into the frontyard setback area however not patios. The homeowners have indicated that they are proposing a 47.5 foot front yard setback, the average setback that should be maintained is 52.16 feet to the curb. Ms. Aaker concluded that given the aforementioned findings staff can support the request subject to the following conditions: * That the patio remain unenclosed and uncovered. * That the materials used: stucco, trim details, and specifically the wrought iron railing match the existing materials used on the existing home. The proponent, Mr. Lederle was present. Mr. Patton asked if a proposal such as this has to go before the Heritage Preservation Board. Ms. Aaker explained any drastic change to the facade of a home located in the country club district should be heard by the Heritage Preservation Board. Ms. Aaker pointed out staff cannot force a homeowner to appear before the board. In this instance the addition adds to the character of the home and does not change its character. Mr. Workinger questioned if Ms. Repya (staff liaison to the Heritage Preservation Board) reviewed the plans. Ms. Aaker said Ms. Repya reviewed the plans, and finds no problem with the proposal as Mr. Workinger moved approval subject to staff conditions. Mr. Patton seconded the motion. All voted aye; motion carried. III. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 6:00 p.m. #Q) ��N) 0 Jackie Hoog akker