Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1995 12-07 Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting Minutes RegularMINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE EDINA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS HELD ON THURSDAY, DECEMBER 7, 1995 5:30 P.M. MANAGERS CONFERENCE ROOM MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair, Rose Mary Utne, Len Olson, Ann Swenson, Nan Faust STAFF PRESENT: Kris Aaker and Jackie Hoogenakker I. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES: The minutes of the October 5, 1995 meeting were filed as submitted. II. NEW BUSINESS: B-95-55 Dovolis Johnson and Ruggieri/Nick and Atheana Karos 15 Circle West Lot 5, Block 2, Hilldale Zoning: R-1 Request: A six foot frontyard setback variance Ms. Aaker informed Board Members the subject property is located on the west side of Circle West and is the location of a proposed two story home. The house plan includes an enclosed front entrance area that would encroach six feet into the established frontyard setback . Ms. Aaker pointed out in the past the Zoning Board of Appeals has granted variances for front entrances throughout the City. Ms. Aaker concluded that given the curvature of the street, spacing between the homes and minimal nature of the variance request, staff supports the request as submitted. Mr. Scott England, Dovolis Johnson and Ruggieri, was present representing the proponents Mr. and Mrs. Karos. 1 Mrs. Swenson asked Ms. Aaker if she knows the square footage of the proposed structure. Ms. Aaker said she is not sure, but believes it is around 6,500-7,000 square feet including all floors, basement, and garage area. Roughly 2,000 square feet per floor. Mrs. Swenson asked if the proposed entrance is enclosed. Ms. Aaker explained the entrance is not enclosed. The overhang is supported by pillars. Mrs. Swenson commented in her opinion the size of the pillars are rather large. Mr. Olson asked if the house can be pushed back into the lot by six feet. Ms. Aaker said that is a possibility, but the property owners have indicated they want to preserve the integrity of the rearyard, existing landscaping and trees. Mrs. Faust asked Ms. Aaker if the house is built to the minimum sideyard setbacks. Ms. Aaker responded no, the proposed house has not been designed at minimum setbacks. She explained the sideyard setback of the attached garage is 11 feet, and it can be as close as five feet. The sideyard setback for living space averages 20 feet, and it can be as close as 10 feet depending upon building height. Concluding, Ms. Aaker said the rearyard setback can be as close as 25 feet and the proposed house has a substantial rearyard setback. Mr. Scott England explained the reason a frontyard setback variance is required is because the homeowners hope to maintain and restore the terraced gardens located in the rearyard, and to accomplish this the house needs to be positioned as indicated. Mr. England pointed out the existing house was constructed in the 1940's, and beautiful terraced gardens were designed and planted at that time. The gardens were featured in the magazine Better Homes and Gardens, reiterating the homeowners hope to be able to keep them in their original form and location. Concluding Mr. England pointed out the property slopes away, toward the rear, and adequate room is also needed to accommodate a riding lawnmower to service the rearyard. Mrs. Swenson asked Mr. England the height of the proposed home. Mr. England explained the house meets the current zoning requirements, and is under 30 feet in height. Interested neighbors asked Mr. England if is knows the height of the existing house. Mr. England said the height of the existing house is about 23 feet, the new house is around 29' in height. Ms. Aaker interjected the height of the proposed house meets current standards. Mrs. Swenson asked Mr. England the size of the columns. Mr. England responded the columns are 3'4" wide and 2' deep. Mr. Bank, #7 Circle East said he has a concern with property owners razing existing homes, and constructing homes that may be uncharacteristic for the neighborhood. He 2 added he wants any impact to the neighborhood minimized, and is concerned that the neighborhood may be becoming another "Rolling Green". Mrs. Utne said the variance this evening only addresses the proposed front entryway, and Mr. Bank is speaking about aesthetics, which is something difficult to dictate. Mrs. Swenson pointed out the entryway is very large, and while in the past we have granted a number of similar variance requests for decorative front stoops, this request is on a much larger scale. Mr. England pointed out that the lot is question is large. Mrs. Peggy Kelly, #22 Circle West, asked for clarification of the variance. Mrs. Utne explained the variance is only for the front entry stoop, and as indicated the stoop projects six feet into the frontyard setback. Mrs. Utne pointed out the house can be constructed as indicated without the stoop, it can be moved back six feet, keep the stoop and not require a variance, or the Board can grant the variance. Mrs. Faust said in her opinion the lot is very large, and the house can be moved back six feet eliminating the need for a variance. She added she realizes the house meets all other setback requirements, but moving it back six feet may create some relief for the neighborhood. Mrs. Faust moved to deny the variance request. Mr. Olson seconded the motion. Ayes, Faust, Olson, Swenson, Utne. Mrs. Utne explained she is voting with her Board, but believes moving the house back six feet will not make any difference in impact because of the curvature of the street, and the irregular setbacks along Circle West. Motion to deny carried 4-0. Mrs. Utne told Mr. England he can appeal this Board decision to the City Council. Mr. England said he believes the property owners will appeal. He explained it is very important to them to maintain and renovate the rearyard garden/terrace area as it exists today. Moving the house back an additional six feet will compromise the integrity of the gardens and the existing fountain. B-95-56 Jerry and Jean Whalen 6604 Pawnee Road Lot 2, Block 1, Indian Hills Arrowhead Addition Zoning: R-1 Request: A .5 foot sideyard setback variance and a 1.38 foot sideyard 3 setback variance due to building height Ms. Aaker informed the Board the subject property is located on the north side of Pawnee Road and consists of a walkout rambler. The homeowners are proposing an addition to their home to include an extension to the northeast corner of the house on posts. The purpose of the addition/remodeling is to provide for additional area for a master bedroom suite. Ms. Aaker explained the proponents are hoping to maintain the existing east side setback of 10 feet. The home is a walkout so building height needs to be taken into consideration when reviewing an addition to the home. The Zoning Ordinance requires a minimum 10 foot sideyard setback, however, the setback must increase six inches for each 12 inches the sidewall building height exceeds 15 feet. Grade change must be taken into consideration and averaged. The Ordinance also indicates that only new construction to the home is reviewed in terms of height and setback. Any additions are viewed independently from the existing structure so building height is averaged only along that side of the building wall that is new construction. If the addition had been incorporated into the original design, the average height of the east building wall would include the entire east wall elevation which would, upon averaging height from front to rear, not exceed 15 feet in building height and would allow the proposal to be 10 feet to the side lot line. It would appear that if the master bedroom had been incorporated into the original plan, it would have conformed to the Zoning Ordinance standards. Ms. Aaker concluded given that the master bedroom could have been accomplished Men the house was originally built and given that the wall angles away from the side lot line staff supports the request. Mr. Ed Noonen, representing the proponents was present. An interested neighbor was present. Mr. Lang (immediate neighbor) told the Board he would like them to continue this hearing to a later date to allow him more time to review the proposal. Mr. Lang said he may have objections to the proposal, but is not sure because he cannot visualize the addition. Mr. Olson asked Mr. Noonen if the addition can be accomplished without a variance. Mr. Noonen said it is possible to accomplish the addition by either changing the grade or cutting a jog into the building wall. Mrs. Faust pointed out a jog in the building wall may actually create a more pleasing 4 addition. Mr. Noonen explained the proponents will be very disappointed if this plan cannot be accomplished, continuing he told Board Members several plans were studied, and this plan was felt to be the most sensitive to the neighborhood. Mr. Noonen pointed out the variance is minimal, and the grade along the building wall can be raised to eliminate the variance. Mr. Lang asked if rasing the grade would eliminate the variance, and allow the plan to be constructed as presented. Ms. Aaker said the grade can be raised to eliminate the variance, and the addition constructed as presented. Mrs. Utne asked Mr. Noonen if he raises the grade, thereby eliminating the need for a variance, if he would take the time to meet with Mr. Lang on the property, and review the plans with him. Mr. Noonen said he would contact Mr. Lang and go over the proposal with him. Mr. Noonen withdrew the request for a .5 foot and a 1.38 foot sideyard setback variance. B-95-57 JMS Homes 6516 Stauder Circle Lot 5, Block 5, Parkwood Knolls 5th Addition Request: A 35 foot frontyard setback variance Ms. Aaker informed the Board the property is located on the north side of Stauder Circle and consists of a vacant developable lot. The property owner is proposing a home location that would not maintain the established average frontyard setback standard along the block. The subject lot is part of a 1994 lot division consisting of five lots. The 1994 lot division re -arranged lot lines of existing lot to allow for the construction of four homes. Presently there are two new homes located east of the subject lot. Ms. Aaker concluded that staff believes that the proposed setback is consistent with the neighborhood in general, and would not adversely impact the two new homes to the east. Subjecting the property to a 65 foot frontyard setback would put an undue burden on the property. Mr. Mike Sharrot was present to represent the proponents, Mr. and Mrs. Erickson. 5 Mr. Sharrot explained one reason for the variance is to save the grove of mature Oak trees that exist along the rear of the lot. Mrs. Faust said in her opinion, the request is logical, and at Planning Commission meeting, it was noted that this lot would probably require a frontyard setback variance. Mrs. Swenson moved variance approval. Mr. Olson seconded the motion. All voted aye; motion carried. III. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 6:15 p.m. r 4t1S �e� !nMail0A-"0J- ...- _�- =VW -0 6