HomeMy WebLinkAbout1994 08-04 Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting Minutes RegularREGULAR MEETING OF THE
EDINA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
HELD ON THURSDAY, AUGUST 4, 1994
5:30 P.M., EDINA CITY HALL MANGERS CONFERENCE ROM
MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair, Rose Mary Utne, Nan Faust, Len Olson, Lee Johnson
MEMBERS ABSENT: Ann Swenson
STAFF PRESENT: Kris Aaker, Jackie Hoogenakker
I. NEW BUSINESS:
B-94-35 Derek Harcourt Gorman & Gladys Gorman
7313 Gleason Road
Shey's Parkview 3rd Addition
Lot 9, Block 2
Request: A 2.2 foot frontyard setback variance for a front entry
Ms. Aaker informed the board the subject property consists of a two story brick
front home located on the east side of Gleason Road between Schey Drive and Dewey
Hill Road. The homeowners have proposed a new front entry overhang to include
posts and planters. The purpose of the front entry overhang is to "dress up" the front
facade and to afford some protection from the elements. Currently there is no
overhang extending above the front stoop.
Ms. Aaker concluded staff supports the request as submitted.
The proponents Mr. and Mrs. Gorman were present.
Mr. Johnson questioned if the overhang will remain unenclosed. Ms. Aaker
responded the plans indicate an unenclosed overhang.
Mr. Olson moved approval of the variance subject to matching materials and the
condition the overhang is to remain unenclosed. Mr. Johnson seconded the motion.
All voted aye; motion carried.
B-94-36 Alan Bohannon
5928 Grimes Avenue South
Lot 12, Block 3, Borans Edina Manor
Request: A 2.5 foot sideyard setback variance and a 2 foot variance
for a garage with overhang
Ms. Aaker told the Board the subject property is located on the west side of
Grimes Avenue between West 58th Street and 60th Street. The home consists of a
one story rambler with attached breezeway and single stall garage built in 1956. The
homeowners are proposing to add ten feet to the existing 12 foot wide garage to
accommodate the storage of two cars. The addition as proposed would put the south
sidewall of the garage 2.5 feet from the side property boundary.
Ms. Aaker said staff could support a two foot variance to allow a garage wall
three feet to the side lot line.
The proponent, Mr. Bohannon was present.
Mr. Johnson stated he can support the variance request if the setback remains
at three feet. Mr. Johnson asked Mr. Bohannon if this is a problem.
Mr. Bohannon responded if approved he will construct a two stall garage and
maintain a three foot sideyard setback. He added the additional "inches" would have
been nice, but he can live with a two foot variance instead of 2.5 feet.
Mr. Johnson moved variance approval for a 2 foot sideyard setback. Mr. Olson
seconded the motion. All voted aye; motion carried.
B-94-37 Norm and Connie Bjornnes
7000 Weston Circle
Lot 1, Block 1, Clark's 2nd Addition
Request: A 12 foot frontyard setback variance
Ms. Aaker stated the subject property consists of a vacant lot located south of
West 70th Street and just west of Weston Circle and is part of Clark's 2nd Addition.
The property owners have designed a house to be 30 feet from the front property
boundary. The proposed home is a two story brick and stucco home that has been
designed to suit the corner lot.
Ms. Aaker explained Weston Circle cul-de-sac was subdivided in 1990 and
consists of 13 lots, 12 fronting Weston Circle and 1 fronting West 70th Street. The
minimum frontyard setback in a new subdivision is 30 feet, however when 25% of the
homes along a block are more or less than 30 feet from the front street the average
frontyard setback along that side of the block must be respected as the minimum
frontyard setback.
Ms. Aaker concluded given the unique circumstances with regard to the
property and subdivision with regard to siting the home, staff supports the request.
The proponent, Mr. Bjornnes was present.
Mr. Johnson stated he agrees with staff's observation that in this circumstance
the rearyard arrangement between.the homes is very important. Mr. Johnson said in
his opinion the request is reasonable.
Mrs. Faust pointed out Mr. Clark appears to develop lots at the maximum,
noting he has developed many areas in Edina and should be familiar with our setback
requirements. Mrs. Faust questioned how this lot got into this situation.
Ms. Aaker explained the subject house is one of the last to be constructed in
this development, and because the earlier constructed houses were setback farther
from the street (because of the curve, and conservation restrictions) this house has
to maintain the average setback. Ms. Aaker said many developers have made a
mistake in interpreting Ordinance #810. This ordinance states the minimum frontyard
setback for new development is 30 feet, but if more than 25% of the lots are
constructed the average of the block determines the setback.
Mr. Johnson moved approval of the variance subject to staff conditions. Mr.
Olson seconded the motion. All voted aye; motion carried.
B-94-38 William and Lori Skallerud
5324 Oaklawn Avenue
Lot 5, Block 5, South Harriet Park
Zoning: R-1
Request: A 2.5 foot sideyard setback variance
Ms. Aaker informed the subject property is located on the west side of Oaklawn
Avenue south of West 53rd Street and north of West 54th Street. The home consists
of a one and one half story cape cod style home, with a one stall attached garage.
The homeowners are proposing to convert the existing one car garage into a formal
dining room with dinette area behind. The plan also includes a new two car garage
to be attached behind and south of the home 2.5 feet from the side lot line instead of
the minimum 5 feet. A family room with a porch is proposed that does conform to
ordinance requirements.
Ms. Aaker explained the homeowners have gone through a number of revisions
to their remodeling/addition plans. Other submissions and proposals had required
greater variances or multiple variances. Originally the applicants had hoped to attach
a garage two feet from the property boundary with living space above however, the
proposal would have required three variances.
Ms. Aaker stated the applicants have scaled back their plans and are hoping to
provide a two car garage which would be consistent with city ordinances requiring a
minimum two car garage, while trying to preserve rearyard area and mature trees.
There will be no living area above the garage as originally discussed. The plan will
conform to the lot coverage requirements. Ms. Aaker said staff has received many
positive calls in support of the plans from neighboring property owners.
Ms. Aaker concluded given the scope of the variance and desire on the part of
the applicants to conform to the two car garage standard, staff has supported similar
variance requests, however no closer than three feet to the side lot line.
The proponents, Mr. and Mrs. Skallerud were present
Mr. Johnson commented in reviewing the plans he observed the proposal as
presented eliminates a large oak tree. Mr. Skallerud responded that is correct, a large
oak will be removed as a result of the addition.
Mr. Johnson pointed out if the garage addition is moved back two or three feet
into the rearyard, and the garage width is also reduced by six inches, no variances
would be required.
Mr. Skallerud responded the architect who drafted the plans indicated the
corner of the garage created a problem. Mr. Skallerud said the architect believes the
plans presented diminish potential problems in entering or exiting the proposed garage.
Mr. Johnson contended in his opinion there are a number of design options for
this site that can be implemented to reduce and/or eliminate the variances. Mr.
Johnson noted the large oak tree in the rearyard is being removed which allows more
flexibility in design. Mr. Johnson pointed out there is also the option of constructing
a freestanding two stall garage in the rearyard. Mr. Johnson acknowledged much of
the rearyard will be lost if a detached garage is constructed, but no variances will be
required. Continuing, Mr. Johnson stated in his opinion three feet is a real number
and there are reasons for it. He pointed out hallways, and doors are usually three
feet, and trespass is less likely to occur if there is three feet. Concluding, Mr.
Johnson said there are many similar situations in this neighborhood, and in other areas
of Edina, so care much be used in making these decisions.
Mr. Skallerud reiterated the architect believes the proposal as presented follows
the lines of the house and creates a more pleasing feel.
Mr. Johnson pointed out in this neighborhood there are many detached garages
adding an attached garage can be achieved with a reduced variance if the garage is
moved in and back.
Mrs. Utne observed the presented plans are aesthetically pleasing. Mr.
Skallerud agreed, he informed the board the architect has considered everything
adding he has looked at many different design schemes over the years and believes
this one is superior.
Mr. Johnson stated he in unconvinced that the garage cannot be redesigned to
reduce the variance. Mr. Johnson added his comfort level is three feet, and that is
with careful review.
Mr. Olson asked Mr. Skallerud why he appears to be so adverse to Mr.
Johnson's suggestions. Mr. Skallerud explained he has owned the home for a number
of years, and for a number of years has been working with architects on the right
design plan. Mr. Skallerud pointed out an earlier design plan placed the garage at
three feet. That plan was rejected for the plan presented this evening. Mr. Skallerud
concluded by reiterating he feels this plan is the most aesthetically pleasing.
Mrs. Utne asked Ms. Aaker if she believes there are other design options. Ms.
Aaker responded, as Mr. Johnson has mentioned, there are other design alternatives.
Mrs. Faust said in her opinion the garage is too large, and suggested scaling
back the garage. She also added she agrees with Mr. Johnson's comments that there
are other design options that can be entertained. Continuing, Mrs. Faust said another
concern of hers is the potential for setting a precedent. She pointed out there are a
number of lots within the immediate neighborhood that are in the same situation and
as a board we have to guard against over building, especially when there are other
alternatives.
Mr. Skallerud responded he does not believe there should be a concern
regarding the possible setting of a precedent. He added as he understands city
ordinance each situation is individual, and board actions reflect this individually.
A discussion ensued between Mr. Skallerud and board members with board
members expressing their opinions that 1)there are other design options that can be
implemented, 2)the setting of a precedent is a concern, and 3)approving a variance
closer than three feet from a property line is not good planning. Board members
concluded they cannot support the variance request as presented.
Mrs. Utne told Mr. Skallerud in listening to the discussion this evening it
appears the board is not ready to approve a variance of this magnitude. Mrs. Utne
asked Mr. Skallerud if he would consider tabling his proposal. This would allow more
time to discuss design options with his architect. Mrs. Utne pointed out another
option would be to have the board vote this evening, and if denied, the option of
appealing the board's decision to the city council can be exercised.
Mr. Johnson moved to table the meeting. Mr. Olson seconded the motion. All
voted aye; motion carried.
II. ADJOURNMENT:
The meeting was adjourned at 7:05 p.m.
t �
Jac ie Hoogenak er