Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1995 09-21 Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting MinutesMINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE EDINA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS HELD ON THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 21, 1995 5:30 P.M., MANAGER'S CONFERENCE ROOM MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair, Gordon Johnson, Helen McClelland, Mike Lewis MEMBERS ABSENT: I. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES: The minutes of the regular meeting of July 20, 1995 were filed as submitted. U11010WAIM&II01=1 B-95-40 Thomas and Victoria Estrem 4204 Branson Street The East 48 feet of Lot 12, Riley's Subdivision of lots 3,4,5,7,30 and 31 Grimes Homestead Request: A 2.45 foot sideyard setback variance Ms. Aaker informed the board the subject property is located on the North side of Branson Street and consists of a two story home with a detached two car garage. The home owners are hoping to accomplish a two story addition to include a family room and mud room on the main level and a master bedroom with bath on the second floor. The homeowners submitted for building permit only to discover that to accomplish their addition, a variance would be required. A survey was done of the property to determine existing setback. The survey indicates that the home is non -conforming at 4.3 feet to the side lot line. Ms. Aaker explained the Edina Zoning Ordinance requires a minimum five foot sideyard setback for lots less than 75 feet in width. In addition, the setback must be increased six inches for each twelve inches the side wall building height exceeds 15 feet. The side wall building height is 18.5 feet requiring a setback of 6.75 feet. The home provides a 4.3 foot setback, therefore a 2.45 foot variance is needed. Ms. Aaker concluded based on the limited expansion options due to lot width, location of driveway, and house placement staff supports the request. The proponents, Mr. and Mrs. Estrem were present. Mr. Estrem submitted a petition of support from surrounding neighbors for the proposal. Ms. McClelland commented she does not have a problem with the plans, adding she feels the proposal will not negatively impact surrounding neighbors. Mr. Lewis moved variance approval subject to the plans presented and the use of like materials. Ms. McClelland seconded the motion. All voted aye; motion carried. Mr. Workinger questioned if the most impacted neighbors were on the list indicating support. Mr. Estrem indicated they are on the list. B-95-41 Marda Winnick 5425 Woodcrest Drive Lot 6, and the West 25 feet of Lot &, Block 1, Minnehaha Woods Zoning: R-1 Request: A 6.8 foot sideyard setback variance for building height Ms. Aaker informed the board the subject property is located North of Woodcrest Drive and South of west 54th Street. The property backs up to Minnehaha Creek and consists of a two story home with an attached two car garage. The home originally had a one car attached garage with a sideyard setback of 14.4 feet. In 1983 the addition of a second stall was attached to the garage to accomplish a two car garage. The addition resulted in a 6.4 foot sideyard setback. Ms. Aaker explained the property owner hopes to remove an existing porch above a portion of the existing garage and replace it with a master bedroom that includes a bath and porch. The required setback for the addition is 13.2 feet due to the height of the side building wall of 21.25 feet. Ms. Aaker pointed out the neighborhood in which the property is located is a mixture of housing styles and lot configurations. The home is located on a lot that backs up to Minnehaha Creek with the lot sloping quite dramatically from front to rear, which makes an addition to the rear of the home difficult. Ms. Aaker concluded given the steep slopes in the rearyard area and support of the neighbors, staff supports the request. The proponent, Ms. Winnick and Mr. Erickson, her architect were present to respond to questions. 2 Mr. Johnson questioned Ms. Aaker about the windows depicted on the plans, adding they appear to be similar to the existing windows. Ms. Aaker responded that is correct, the existing windows will be re -used and incorporated into the new addition. Ms. McClelland asked if the same slope is being implemented for the roof. Ms. Winnick explained the pitch of the roof will generally be the same, but will be slightly lower. Mr. Erickson explained to members of the board one reason for the addition being constructed in this location is due to the number of trees located in the rear yard. Continuing, Mr. Erickson said if the addition were constructed toward the rear of the lot, a large number of trees would be lost, and views would be cut off for neighbors. Ms. McClelland explained her concern is focused on the roof line, and the mass it presents, and questioned if anything can be done to soften the impact and mass of the roof. Mr. Johnson said in his opinion the design of the roof blends well with the existing roof. Mr. Workinger said in reviewing the proposal he observed concerns with the elevation contrast between adjoining homes. He pointed out the property next door (southeast side) to the addition will be compromised because of the height of the addition. Continuing, Mr. Workinger said in his opinion after the addition is constructed it will impose on the entire neighborhood, and tower over the adjacent home. Ms. Winnick interjected the neighbor to the southeast supports the proposal. Ms. Winnick explained the house was originally constructed across the width of the lot to maintain the character of the rearyard area. Ms. Winnick added the house is not large, and the porch that is being converted into living area already exists. Ms. Winnick pointed out in her opinion as you travel down the street there are homes that have been added to, and are as imposing, as was indicated, this house will be after the addition is completed. Continuing, Ms. Winnick said it is her desire to add an office, and create a functional bathroom that is constructed to meet her needs. Ms. Winnick concluded explaining another issue she considered when designing the addition was concern for her safety. She explained it is her desire to have her sleeping area on the 2nd floor for safety reasons. Mr. Johnson explained to Ms. Winnick if she is going to work out of her home, she needs to be aware of the home occupation section of the zoning ordinance. Ms. Winnick responded she is aware of the zoning ordinance and complies with the home occupation section. Mr. Lewis said he does not have a problem with the proposal. He stated he believes the roof line matches the existing house, the placement of the addition makes sense because it retains the character of the rearyard area, and does not negatively impact the neighborhood. Mr. Lewis moved variance approval subject to the plans presented, and the use of like 3 materials. Mr. Workinger said he is very concerned with the impact this propoerty will have on the adjoining property. He reiterated there is a grade change, and if the addition is approved it will create an imposing presence for the adjoining property. Continuing, Mr. Workinger said while he believes expansion opportunities should be allowed to residents, he cannot the support the request as proposed. Ms. McClelland stated she agrees with Mr. Workinger, adding she is very concerned with the mass of the addition, commenting in her opinion the board must be careful not to allow additions to get out of hand, and become invasive to our streetscape. Ms. McClelland added the architect should look into the possibility of redesign. Mr. Johnson pointed out as he views the plan the only adjustment that can be made would be to shorten the size of the room, which may or may not be a viable solution, and will not reduce the height of the addition, or change its presence from the streetscape. Ms. McClelland reiterated the roof pitch, and its presence from the street, in her opinion is extreme. She asked if the roof really needs to be that high. Mr. Erickson said the roof needs to meet building codes, noting the floor needs to be raised about 10 inches, and the ceiling needs to be at a minimum of 7'6". Mr. Erickson said the roof pitch was designed to match the existing roof line, and to meet code. Mr. Erickson concluded the roof really cannot be lowered. Mr. Workinger reiterated his concern is with the topography difference (on the side), and massing, pointing out the variance requested is large, and the board usually does not approve variances of this magnitude. Mr. Johnson explained to the proponent, it appears there are members of this board that do not favor the proposal as presented. Continuing, Mr. Johnson explained if this item is voted on this evening, and there is a two/two tie, the motion fails. Mr. Johnson asked if the proponent would care to table this item, or continue it, allowing the opportunity for redesign. Mr. Lumry, 4009 Lynn Avenue commented he has been listening to the discussion this evening, and concluded massing appears to be a concern, and suggested that landscaping be implemented to reduce the mass of the addition, and to add variation to the side lot line. Mr. Johnson called for the vote. Ayes, Lewis, Johnson, Nays; McClelland, Workinger. Motion to approve failed. Ms. Winnick asked if the request can be continued to the next meeting (in two weeks). Board members responded they do not have a problem with another board hearing the request. 4 B-95-42 Jim Aufderheide/Aufderworld/Jim and Eva May 5023 Nob Hill Drive Lot 1, Block 1, Oakridge of Edina Request: Variance to allow a roof mount satellite dish antenna Ms. Aaker explained the subject property is located on the west side of Nob Hill and consists of a single family home. The homeowners currently have a ground mounted satellite dish antenna in the rearyard area of their property. The homeowners are hoping to replace their dish antenna with a dish antenna to be attached to the interior sidewall of the garage to allow the antenna to extend above the roof of the garage. Ms. Aaker said it is evident that the dish antenna will be partially visible from the street and that surrounding properties may view the roof mount location. The homeowners own the lot to the north so there is land area and plantings between the dish location; and the neighbor's properties. There is also a significant grade difference between the higher street elevation and lower garage elevation. Ms. Aaker pointed out there have been a number of similar satellite dish variance requests approved by the Board including two garage roof mount antenna requests. The two approved were for property located at 5712 Newport Drive and 6624 Mohawk Trail. There was also a request for a garage mount location for property at 5712 Deville. The DeVille request was denied by the Zoning Board and appealed to City Council. City Council heard the request and tabled action at which time the homeowner withdrew the request. Ms. Aaker concluded it is staffs understanding that the city cannot unreasonably deny access to the reception and transmission of satellite signals, due to the preemptive nature of the FCC ruling. The definition of what is "unreasonable" is not clear. What is clear is that the Ordinance is meant to be fair in regulating the location and height of antennas while providing protection for surrounding properties. Mr. Aufderheide was present representing the property Owners, Mr. and Mrs. May. Mr. Lewis asked Mr. Aufderheide why the property Owners can't use the new smaller dish. Mr. Aufderheide said the smaller dishes are referred to as "cable is the sky", and many dish owners want to receive more channels. Mr. Johnson noted the current placement, and height of trees was indicated as a hardship in adequate signal reception, and questioned if the trees can be trimmed. Mr. Aufderheide noted E a number of the trees that block the signals are located on other properties. Mr. Johnson asked Mr. Aufderheide how long he thinks the proposed location will last before it becomes obsolete. Mr. Aufderheide said in his opinion this dish location should last forever. A resident residing on Danens Drive informed board members he does not object to the dish location on the garage, adding he does not want to see it placed on the roof of the house. Mr. Johnson asked Ms. Aaker if the city can verify if the proposed location is the best one on the site. Ms. Aaker said the city does not have staff with the expertise needed to know if a dish is located in the proper area to receive the desired signals, so the city relies on the integrity of the dish installer. Ms. McClelland said she is concerned with the visibility of this dish from the street, but understands the city cannot prevent a property owner from exercising their right to receive the signals thy desire. Mr. Lewis moved variance approval subject to the plans presented. Mr. Johnson seconded the motion. Ayes, McClelland, Lewis, Johnson. Nays, Workinger. Motion carried. 3-1. B-95-43 Kathy Petrucci 4013 Lynn Avenue Lot 18, Block 2, Minnekata Vista Request: A 21.06 foot frontyard setback variance Ms. Aaker informed the board the subject property is located on the East side of Lynn Avenue, just South of 40th Street. The property consists of a single family home with an attached one car garage located in the frontyard area. The homeowner is hoping to expand the width of the garage to accommodate the storage of two cars. The existing non -conforming frontyard setback of the garage will remain unchanged. Ms. Aaker pointed out the home was built in 1941, with the garage addition constructed in 1948. The proposed expansion of the garage will maintain the existing 14.65 foot frontyard setback, roof height and the flat roof deck. The addition is to be consistent with the existing conditions. Ms. Aaker concluded it should be noted that most of the homes along Lynn Avenue on the subject side of the street, and given that the property is currently non -conforming in terms of setback and the required number of garage stalls (one instead of two) and given that the frontyard 6 setback will remain unchanged, staff supports the request as submitted. The proponent, Ms. Petrucci was present to respond to questions. Mr. Workinger asked Ms. Petrucci if a garage can be constructed in the rear yard. Ms. Petrucci said there is room to construct a garage in the rearyard, but driveway width for a garage located in the rearyard would not meet present codes. Ms. Petrucci said she has studied a number of different options, and this one appears to work best with the site. Mr. Lumry, 4009 Lynn Avenue, said any impact is minimal, and it is important to residents in this neighborhood that vehicles are parked in the garage, out of view, and not on the street. Mr. Workinger moved variance approval subject to the plans presented and the use of like materials. Ms. McClelland seconded the motion. All voted aye; motion carried. B-95-44 Janet and Robert Claxton 5301 Windsor Avenue Lot 1, Block 7, Westchester Knolls Addition Request: A four foot frontyard setback variance Ms. Aaker informed board members the subject property is located on the south side of Windsor Avenue and just east of the Soo Line Railroad tracks. The home is a rambler built in 1957. The property owners submitted for building permit application to re -roof their home to include an addition of an overhang supported by posts which will extend into the frontyard setback area. Ms. Aaker concluded there have been similar variances granted by the Zoning Board in the past. Given the limited impact of the proposal staff supports the request. The proponent, Mr. Claxton was present. Ms. McClelland moved variance approval subject to the plans presented. Mr. Lewis seconded the motion. All voted aye, motion carried. II : 1 1 "uI I The meeting was adjourned at 6:35 p.m. 7