Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1997 09-17 Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting Minutes RegularMINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE EDINA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 17,1998,5:30 P.M. EDINA CITY HALL MANAGER'S CONFERENCE ROOM MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair Gordon Johnson, Helen McClelland, Mike Lewis and Geof Workinger Rodney Hardy STAFF PRESENT: Kris Aaker and Jackie Hoogenakker I. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES: The minutes of the July 16, 1998, meeting were filed as submitted. II. NEW BUSINESS: B-98-43 Mark and Deborah Nesbit 6411 McCauley Circle Lot 3, Block 1, McCauley Heights Request: A 3 foot sideyard setback variance Ms. Aaker informed Board members the subject property is located on the south side of McCauley Circle consisting of a rambler with an attached garage. The homeowners are hoping to add 36 inches to their existing porch and upgrade it to a four season room. The porch will be equal to the width of the deck. The existing porch is located ten feet to the west side property boundary. The variance will reduce the setback to seven feet. The existing width of the porch is 8 feet. The homeowners would like to increase the porch width to be approximately 11 feet. Ms. Aaker explained the homeowners have indicated the purpose of the request is to allow them the ability to enjoy the beautiful scenery throughout the year rather than for a few months of year. the homeowners also indicated that it will provide safer access to the gardens and backyard. The adjacent most impacted neighbor is supportive of the request. Spacing between the homes is more than adequate. Ms. Aaker concluded the request is minimal in scale and will have no impact on the adjacent home. Staff supports the request as submitted. The proponent, Mrs. Nesbit was present to respond to questions. Ms. McClelland said that while she agrees the request is minimal she has a concern that in the future Mr. McCauley (adjacent property owner to the west) may subdivide his property, and if the Board were to approve this request a precedent would be set regarding sideyard setback. Mrs. Nesbit explained to the Board in her opinion they are improving their living situation. Continuing, Mrs. Nesbit said presently she and her husband will be spending more and more of their time in their home, and the proposed addition will allow us to enjoy nature out our window. Mr. Lewis said he finds no problem in supporting this proposal. The addition is minimal in scope and scale as noted by staff. Mr. Lewis moved variance approval subject to the plan presented, and the use of matching materials. Mr. Workinger seconded the motion. Mr. Workinger interjected, and questioned Mrs. Nesbit if she believes there is any other way to expand that would not require a variance. Mrs. Nesbit responded there may be, but pointed out the proposed addition is only moving 36" to match the line of the existing deck. She concluded in her opinion their request seems reasonable, and the location proposed is the only location that affords us what we need. Chairman Johnson said members of the Zoning Board look at hardship. and if an hardship exists on the site. Chairman Johnson said if there are alternative ways to achieve more living area without requiring a variance, they should be considered. Chairman Johnson concluded the Board would prefer that a homeowner, when possible, design an addition that does not require a variance. Ms. McClelland stated she believes the addition can be redesigned to meet Ordinance standards, and she cannot support the variance as submitted. She reiterated the potential of subdivision of the McCauley site, noting she does not want to see a sideyard setback precedent established in this area. Mrs. Nesbit pointed out to Board Members her home cannot be seen from the McCauley home during most of the year. She stated she believes there is at minimum 40 feet between the homes. She added she is only requesting in her opinion a small variance, that "fills in" an area. Mr. Lewis asked Ms. Aaker the distance between the subject home, and McCauley home. Ms. Aaker stated Mrs. Nesbit is correct, the distance between her home and the McCauley home is over 50 feet. Chairman Johnson asked Mrs. Nesbit if she would consider tabling this issue to allow time to look into the possibility of redesigning so a variance is not required. 2 Mrs. Nesbit explained her husband had a stroke which is the reason the variance is being requested. She added and acknowledged that while it is not a "hardship" that she and her husband would like to be able to visually enjoy their rearyard area, and the existing nature, it would mean a lot to her husband to have this room addition because he is not as active as he once was due to his illness. Continuing, Mrs. Nesbit pointed out the proposed addition is located in an area that would provide them with the most enjoyment. Concluding, Mrs. Nesbit said with all due respect, the architect has drawn a design that meets our desire to visually enjoy our property. She stated there is not another location that would afford them this vista, and if this request is not granted, they will not build. Mr. Lewis said, and reiterated, he does not have a problem with this request. He pointed out as staff indicated the request is minimal, with the most impacted property over 50 feet away. Mr. Lewis acknowledged the McCauley property is large, and it is possible in the future it may be subdivided, but at this forum we cannot assume, and act on what we believe may happen in the future. Mr. Lewis stated in his opinion this lot in itself is a hardship. Mr. Hardy agreed, he pointed out the lot in question is very irregular in shape, with a large utility easement located over it. In his opinion a hardship exists. Mr. Lewis moved variance approval subject to the plans presented, the use of matching materials noting a hardship does exist due to the irregular shape of the lot, and the 75 foot utility easement that runs through it. Mr. Hardy seconded the motion. Mr. Workinger asked to also note in the motion that the nearest structure is over 50 feet from the subject home. Mr. Lewis stated so noted. Ayes, Lewis, Hardy, Workinger, Johnson. Nay, McClelland. B-98-44 Brian and Angelina Lawton. #5 Circle East Lot 2, Block 3, Hilidale Request: A 13 foot frontyard setback variance Ms. Aaker informed the Board the subject property is located on the west side of Circle East consisting of a single dwelling unit with an in -ground swimming pool. The homeowners are proposing to demolish the existing home and pool and replace it with a larger home with an in -ground pool. Ms. Aaker pointed out the Zoning Ordinance requires that any new home or addition to an existing home maintain the average frontyard setback occurring along the same side of the block between intersections. In this particular instance the average frontyard setback for the four homes that address on Circle East is 83 feet. The architect for the project contends that #2 Circle West should be included in the average. Number 2 Circle West is the home located on the south end of Circle East and has not been included in the average at the direction of City staff. The southern most home faces Circle East 3 (south) with the front door and the garage doors facing Circle East. The architect contends that the orientation of #2 Circle West with it's "frontyard" facing Circle East is consistent with the intent of the Ordinance and that the residence should be included when calculating the block average resulting in a 74.9 foot required frontyard setback. The home as proposed would be 4.9 feet in front of the 74.9 foot requested average. Ms. Aaker explained the existing home is located 86.4 feet to the front lot line. The new home as proposed with a 70 foot setback would be 16.4 feet forward of the existing home. The home to the north provides a setback of 64.9 feet where as the home to the south provides a setback of 97 feet. The setback as proposed will not be the closest setback to the street. Ms. Aaker reported the applicant indicates that the position and size of the new residence leaves a confined rearyard. The rearyard is affected by a change in topography, and the new homeowner would like to accommodate an in -ground pool behind the house. Ms. Aaker concluded Circle East is comprised of a variety of frontyard setbacks from 64.9 feet to feet. While the proposed house will not be the closest on the block, it would appear there are some options available to the homeowner for the house and pool location. Distance between the proposed home and the homes to the north and south are greater than 65 feet, (67.5 feet to #3 Circle East and approximately 118 feet to #7 Circle East), so impact of a reduced frontyard setback may not directly affect adjacent properties. Mr. Lawton, proponent was present to respond to questions. Mr. Jeffrey Tritch, of L. Cramer Company was also present representing the Mr. and Mrs. Lawton, proponents. Interested neighbors were also present. Mr. Workinger asked Ms. Aaker to clarify for him the slope of the subject lot. He said if he understood the plan correctly the lot appears to slope up from the street toward the rear property line, with the house immediately to the south at a higher elevation. Ms. Aaker responded that is a correct observation. Mr. Workinger stated the Board is generally very careful when reviewing a plan that requests a frontyard setback variance. Continuing, Mr. Workinger asked Ms. Aaker why the existing home is included in the frontyard calculations if it is going to be razed. Ms. Aaker responded the language of the Code, as it exists today, requires inclusion of the existing house. If the house had been razed it would be considered a vacant lot, and would not be taken into account in calculating the average frontyard setback. Mr. Johnson said he feels the Ordinance regarding frontyard setback should be revisited. He pointed out as Edina ages, renovations to houses, and the razing of existing houses is going to occur more and more. Ms. Aaker did agree that many of the established older neighborhoods with large lots have, and presently are, undergoing changes. She pointed out Rolling Green, and the subject area are experiencing these patterns. She added many areas that have also seen change are the Country Club and Ell South Harriet Park. She stated these lots are small in comparison, but have also faced restrictions when renovated, especially with regard to sideyard setback With graphics Ms. Aaker pointed out three setback lines. She pointed out the black line indicates the frontyard setback as determined by staff at 83 feet (this setback does not include #2 Circle West). The brown line indicates the frontyard setback including #2 Circle West, 74.9 feet (this is the line established by the architect who interpreted the Ordinance to include #2 Circle West because the front door of #2 Circle West faces Circle East). The green line indicates the setback desired by Mr. and Mrs. Lawton (70 feet). Mr. Hardy interjected in his opinion the subject property does not relate to the homes across the street. Continuing, Mr. Hardy asked Ms. Aaker if staff has topo information, or cross section maps that indicate the elevations with respect to the subject lot. With graphics Ms. Aaker pointed out the change in elevation from front to rear of the subject site. Mr. Hardy pointed out if approved, the proposed structure in relation to the house to the south, will be garage to garage. Mr. Hardy noted this affords more spacing between the living areas. Mr. Hardy observed the sideyard setbacks (including the proposed house) between #3, #5, and #7 are substantial. Mr. Brian Lawton addressed the Board, and informed them the topography from the street to the -rear property line increases, offering limited rearyard space. He pointed out the lot is not parallel to the road, and the house directly south is at a higher elevation. Continuing, Mr. Lawton explained when the surveyor calculated frontyard setback, #2 Circle West was included. The reason for its inclusion is that while the house has a Circle West address, the home fronts Circle East. Mr. Lawton said he understands the difficulty in establishing frontyard setback in this area because of the winding streets, and the intersecting of different streets. In conclusion, Mr. Lawton stated the surveyor included five lots in the frontyard setback calculation, with all homes fronting Circle East. Mr. Lawton acknowledged he and his wife have been very busy with family issues, but he has spoken to some of the neighbors, and believes there are neighbors in the area that support their variance request. Ms. McClelland suggested that the pool could be moved farther south. She acknowledged the pool will require fencing, but maybe shifting it farther south would allow more frontyard flexibility. Mr. Lawton interjected the proposed placement of the pool as depicted affords the most privacy. Mr. Tritch, presented to Board members photo's of the existing house, its rearyard elevation, and the house at #2 Circle West. Mr. Nick Karos, #15 Circle West, stated he supports the plan the Lawton's have presented. He added he believes the proposed house will be an enhancement to the neighborhood. Mr. Karos said his wish for this hearing is that it does not turn into a forum k of neighbor vs. neighbor. He explained when he purchased his home at #15 circle West his renovations required a variance. He stated the process was very difficult, ending with an appeal to the City Council. In conclusion, Mr. Karos pointed out if you drive-by #2 Circle West there is no doubt that the house faces Circle East. He said in this area with the winding streets it is sometimes difficult to relate the house to the correct street name. Mr. Rob Davidson, #6 Circle East, stated he opposes any variance(s). He said in his opinion the Circle West/East neighborhood is very unique, and he wants the character of the neighborhood preserved. Ms. Chris McCambridge, #3 Circle East, stated she does not understand how the frontyard setbacks were calculated. She pointed out to staff this area has many intersections, adding she feels more homes could be included when calculating frontyard setback. Ms. McCambridge explained to the Board they razed their existing house at #3 Circle East, and constructed a new house, but worked within the setback guidelines established by City Code. Ms. McCambridge said she believes the Lawtons should do the same. Mr. Kent Bank, #7 Circle East said he feels the Lawtons should observe the established frontyard setback. Mr. Mike Lastavich, #8 Cooper Avenue, told members of the Board he does not have a problem with the proposal, as long as the house that is constructed adds to the neighborhood. Mr. Tony Navara, #17 Circle West, told the Board in his opinion one needs balance in a neighborhood, and if this variance is allowed the integrity of the neighborhood will be compromised. Mr. Navara pointed out the proposed house is very large, in scope and scale, reiterating he does not want the integrity of the neighborhood jeopardized. Mr. Navara referred to the petition delivered to the Board, pointing out a majority of the signatures are from residents on Circle East stating they oppose the variance. Ms. McClelland acknowledged the proposed house is larger than the existing house, but pointed out the spacing between structures will remain substantial. Ms. McClelland asked Ms. Aaker the distance between the existing home, and the homes to the north and south. Ms. Aaker said the distance between structures in both instances is in excess of 65 plus feet. Continuing, Ms. Aaker said the proposed house is setback farther from the sideyards than required. The proposed house could actually be constructed five and 10 feet from the side lot lines respectively. Ms. McClelland moved variance approval subject to excluding #5 Circle West (subject lot) in the frontyard setback calculations, to include #2 Circle West in the frontyard setback calculations. The proposed new house can be no closer than the line that is established by these lots. Mr. Workinger seconded the motion. Mr. Johnson opened the floor for discussion. 1.1 A lengthy discussion ensued with Board members discussing how the frontyard setback should be determined, using which properties. The Board struggled with the position of staff. They pointed out #2 Circle West faces Circle East, and indicated even if at one time the house may have faced Circle West, it does not face it now, and the Board cannot consider a setback that no longer exists. After further discussion, the Board indicated they could support the proponents maintaining the 74.9 foot frontyard setback line which is established by including #2 Circle West in the calculation. The Board stated they can not support the request of the proponents to construct the proposed home at a 70 foot frontyard setback. Thereby granting the proponents a 4.9 foot frontyard setback variance. Ms. McClelland withdrew her motion, noting the frontyard setback if approved as presented is undetermined. Mr. Workinger withdrew his second. Mr. Lawton stated he is willing to work with his architect to revise the house and rearyard plans to reflect the Board decision that the frontyard setback is established at 74.9 feet. Mr. Davidson interjected that staff did not include #2 Circle West, questioning why the Board does not agree with staff. Mr. Johnson explained to Mr. Davidson the Board appears to feel when one drives Circle East, #2 Circle West faces Circle East regardless of its Circle West address, and should be included in calculating the average frontyard setback of Circle East. Mr. Johnson stated Mr. Lawton has indicated his willingness to redesign the house, landscaping, and pool plans etc. to comply with the 74.9 foot setback established by the Board. Ms. McClelland moved to determine that 74.9 is the established frontyard setback line for Circle East. Mr. Hardy seconded the motion. All voted aye; motion carried. Mr. Navara interjected that in his opinion the Board should listen to the neighbors, and the ones most impacted have indicated they do not support the variance request submitted by the Lawtons. Mr. Johnson said the Board has made a determination establishing a frontyard setback line for Circle East. The proponents must respect that line, and Mr. Lawton indicated the setback line established by the Board will be maintained. B-98-45 Todd and Allyson Aldrich 4518 Browndale Avenue Lot 18, Block 2, Brucewood Request: A 14 foot frontyard setback variance 7 Ms. Aaker informed the Board the subject property is located on the southside of Browndale Avenue and south of Browndale Park. The home is the last home along Browndale adjacent to the creek. The home owners are requesting a frontyard setback variance to allow them to "fill-in" a portion of the front of their home to accommodate an expanded kitchen and side door and to add a portico to their side and front doors. Ms. Aaker explained the expanded kitchen and sidedoor area is a gap that will be "filled in" to be even with the existing front wall of the home. The two extensions beyond the existing front face of the home are the two front portico entrances. The Ordinance requires that any addition to the home must maintain the average frontyard setback along the block or match the setback of the neighboring property. In this situation only the home to the east determines the subject properties frontyard setback. The home to the east is setback farther than the subject home so any improvement to the front including "filling-in" the gaps between front building walls requires a variance. The two front portico additions are a roof with columns over a stoop . Ms. Aaker concluded', any additions to the front of the home, even if minor, must be reviewed by the Zoning Board. Staff believes the additions are minimal in scope and scale and will not compromise the, purpose or intent of the Ordinance and will not impact the adjacent property owner. The proponents, Mr. and Mrs. Aldrich were present. Mr. Aldrich told members of the Board the immediate neighbors have indicated their support for the project. Ms. McClelland said she does not have a problem with the proposal as presented, as long as the porch it remains unenclosed. Mr. Hardy moved approval subject to the plans presented, conditioned on the addition remaining unenclosed. Mr. Hardy said the variance is granted noting the limitations of the lot due to its proximity to the creek, noting the Board has reviewed and approved similar variances in the area. Mr. Workinger seconded the motion. All voted aye, motion carried. III. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 7:00 p.m. Aid. ►_�► . .���s - •og- - ` CA