Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1998 04-16 Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting Minutes RegularMINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE EDINA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS THURSDAY, APRIL 16,1998,5:30 P.M. EDINA CITY HALL MANAGER'S CONFERENCE ROOM MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair, Helen McClelland, Mike Lewis, David Byron, Lorelei Bergman, Rodney Hardy STAFF PRESENT: Kris Aaker, Jackie Hoogenakker I. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES: The minutes of the February 5, 1998, meeting minutes were filed as submitted. II. NEW BUSINESS: B-98-14 John and Kathryn Perlinger 4100 Grimes Avenue South Lot 1, Block 3, Morningside Oaks Request: A 4.12 foot north sideyard setback variance for a 2"d story addition with attic space Ms. Aaker told the Board the subject property is located on the west side of Grimes Avenue consisting of a rambler with a detached two car garage. The homeowners are planning a 1 1/ story addition to the home to include attaching the existing garage. The proponents have indicated they hope to achieve a traditional colonial style home with a gable roof on the north end. The proposed home would be 2 '/ stories upon completion. All aspects of the plan conform to Ordinance requirements with the exception of north sideyard setback. Ms. Aaker pointed out the existing home is located 6.88 feet from the side property line. The minimum required sideyard setback is five feet to a side lot line plus six inches for each one foot average building height exceeds 15 feet. The building wall height as proposed to the mid point of the gable is 27 feet, which requires a setback of 11 feet. It should be noted there is a 50 foot wide unimproved right-of-way north of the subject property. The Ordinance requires additional spacing from side lot lines by way of increased setback for structures in excess of 15 feet. The purpose behind this Ordinance is to provide additional distance between structures the taller they are built to maintain sufficient spacing. It would appear that the spacing between the subject home and house to the north would be more than adequate given the width of the unimproved right-of-way. Ms. Aaker concluded while it would appear the unimproved right-of-way between the subject property and the property to the north provides more than enough distance between structures, staff does have concern relative to neighborhood context. Review of the surrounding neighborhood reveals there are no other 2'/2 story homes. The neighborhood consists of ramblers, 1 '/2 story and a few two story homes. Staff is concerned that the scale of the home may not be in keeping with it's surroundings. The proponent, Mr. Perlinger was present. Ms. McClelland commented in reference to the right-of-way, is the City sure a street will not go through? Ms. Aaker said because there is no vacant land to serve a street system it is very unlikely a street would be needed. Ms. McClelland asked if the street is wide enough by City standards. Ms. Aaker said the right-of-way is wide enough to accommodate a City street. Mr. Byron noted the proximity of the park, and asked Ms. Aaker if staff is treating this situation as a sideyard setback. Ms. Aaker said that is correct. Mr. Perlinger submitted signatures from neighbors in support of the proposal. Continuing, Mr. Perlinger said the extra'/2 story does not add height to the structure, adding if the'/2 story is a concern it can be eliminated. Mr. Perlinger told the Board his goal is to have the house reflect the look of the traditional American Colonial. Mr. Lewis commented in viewing the plans it appears the garage is a single car garage, and questioned the reality of being able to park four cars in the garage. Ms. Aaker explained that Mr. Lewis is correct in a sense. She said when you view the plans there is only a one stall door on the garage. This single stall garage door opens to a tandem situation that also "feeds" into a two stall garage. Mr. Byron said his focus is on the north elevation and asked Ms. Aaker what the height is from grade. Ms. Aaker said the height from grade is 30+ feet, with the chimney at 37 feet. Continuing, Mr. Byron pointed out there is a two story south of the subject site. Ms. McClelland said in viewing the plans, in her opinion, the massing is extreme, and out of scale for the neighborhood. Continuing, Ms. McClelland said the Board is not in the design business, but believes something can be done to reduce the mass. soShe pointed out the proposed additions create a house that is too tall, and too large for the area. Ms. McClelland concluded that she believes this is overbuilding, and can not support the request as presented. K Mr. Byron reiterated there is a two story home to the south, but agreed the north elevation is extreme. Mr. Lewis interjected in his opinion the proposal is out of character for the neighborhood, and is too large. Mr. Lewis said he also struggles with hardship. Mr. Lewis suggested scaling the project down. Mrs. Bergman said she agrees with many of the comments made this evening, but has a concern with the front facade, and location of the front door. She pointed out the front of the house is very flat, which creates the look of massiveness, and most doors in "colonial style" type homes are located in the middle of the front facade. Mrs. Bergman concluded that she believes a redesign is needed. Ms. McClelland asked Mr. Perlinger if he is sure he will be happy with the proposed tandem situation. She pointed out many people are not very happy with their tandem garages. Mr. Perlinger said the family needs more storage, and more garage. Ms. Bergman asked Mr. Perlinger if he ever considered razing the existing house. Mr. Perlinger said he did not. Mr. Byron explained to Mr. Perlinger by the comments made this evening the vote would be to deny the proposal, and asked Mr. Perlinger if he would like this issue tabled. Ms. McClelland said the issue can be continued or it can be voted on with the option of appealing our decision to the City Council. Mr. Perlinger said he would like to ask for a continuance. Ms. McClelland pointed out the unused street situation, and told Mr. Perlinger if the street does go through the proposed addition would appear very large, but if the street is vacated, it is a different story, no variance would be required. Mr. Perlinger asked the Board if the height is the real issue for them. Mr. Lewis said he is not in the design business, but in his opinion it is more then just the height. Mr. Perlinger pointed out this neighborhood is in transition, and many neighbors have expressed a desire to rebuilt their ramblers into two story homes. Mr. Perlinger stated in his opinion the proposed house with the additions is really not that large. Mr. Byron asked Ms. Aaker if lot coverage is an issue. Ms. Aaker said when the additions are completed lot coverage will almost be at maximum. Mr. Byron asked Mr. Perlinger why he did not consider expanding out the rear. Mr. Perlinger said if we expand to the rear a very large tree will be lost. 3 Mr. Byron moved to continue B-98-14. Mr. Lewis seconded the motion. All voted aye; motion carried. B-98-15 Jim Jaeckels 5101 Juanita Avenue Lot 20, Block 3, Glenview Addition Request: A 12 foot rearyard setback variance for a garage (setback from the east lot line), and a 3.5 foot sidestreet setback variance for a garage opening facing the side street. Ms. Aaker informed the board The subject property is a corner lot located southeast of Juanita Avenue and West 51St Street consisting of a 1 '/ story cape code style home with a one car attached garage. The homeowners are hoping to remodel their existing garage to accommodate a new entry and mudroom and add on an attached two car garage with a family/guest room above. The attached garage as proposed would encroach into the east rearyard setback of 25 feet by 12 feet. The garage addition also requires 3.5 foot a variance from the minimum sidestreet setback of 20 feet to the north property line. Ms. Aaker explained the homeowner had originally hoped to accomplish a family room, entry and two car garage on the main level, however, both the setback and lot coverage requirements for the subject lot were a challenge. During the design process it became clear the lot coverage requirements would not allow all of the proposed expansion on the main level. A family room/guest is proposed on top of the new garage to conserve on coverage. The new garage is in a location that is a logical extension of the home, however, encroaches in the rear and sidestreet setback area. It should be noted the existing one car garage opening is non -conforming and is located 14.5 feet to the sidestreet lot line. The new garage will be located two feet back from the front wall of the existing garage to be 16.5 feet to the north lot line.. The homeowners were aware that a rearyard setback variance would be required, however, believed they could at least match the front wall of the existing garage. A detached garage was not considered and would not be viable because it would eliminate the family/guest room above the garage. The homeowner has pointed out that the south lot line could function as the "rear' lot line for all practical purposes and would provide more than the 25 foot setback required. If the north wall were regarded as the "front" of the home, the addition could be considered consistent with a sideyard setback requirement of 5 feet and rearyard setback requirement of 25 feet. El Ms. Aaker concluded the lot in question is 105 feet in depth which is shallow compared with the Ordinance requirement of 120 feet, in addition, it a corner lot subjected to both a frontyard and sidestreet setback requirement. The homeowner has a difficult lot to work with in terms of setback and has had the original plans re -worked to conform to the lot coverage requirements. Given the constraints on the lot staff is supportive of the request subject to the plans presented. The proponent, Mr. Jaeckels was present to respond to questions. His architect was also present. Mr. Jaeckels explained when he decided to add-on he did not realize how difficult it would be because of the lot size and lot depth. He said his desire is for a two car garage and more living space. He told the board his house is very small, and he believes the architect did a good job designing an addition that is aesthetically pleasing. Mr. Byron asked Mr. Jaeckels if exterior building materials will match the existing structure. Mr. Jaeckels responded in the affirmative. Mr. Dick Stone, 5028 Juanita Avenue, told the board he lives across the street from the subject property, adding he has lived there for 33 years. Mr. Stone said if this addition is approved his view will be obstructed. He explained now he can see clear space with trees, and when the garage is constructed he will see a garage. Mr. Robert Griffith, 5033 Indianola, said he has a concern with the setback for the double garage. Ms. Aaker interjected the proposed garage is subjected to a frontyard and sidestreet setback, adding because the garage is already non- conforming, it is difficult for any addition on this lot without a variance. Mr. Dan Berdsdorf, 5040 Juanita Avenue, told the board he is very pleased with the proposed expansion plans. He added the design is very good, and it fits well with the character of the area. He pointed out many of the lots in this area are very difficult because of there lack depth. He concluded stating it is good to see people "keeping up" their property and increasing their property value. Mr. Byron said he is very sensitive to all the comments heard this evening, but believes the addition fits well with the existing house. He pointed out the ordinance now requires two car garages, and the board tries to help residents achieve this ordinance requirement. Ms. McClelland said in her opinion the design fits the character of the house and she can support the request. She agreed with staff that a corner lot is difficult and creates a hardship for the proponent. 5 Mrs. Bergman agreed, in her opinion the non -conforming situation on this lot is already present, and the additions will not negatively impact the neighborhood. Mr. Byron moved variance approval subject to the plans presented and the use of matching materials. Mr. Hardy seconded the motion. All voted aye; motion carried. B-98-16 Tom and Carolyn Rozman 5127 Skyline Drive Request: A 261/2" frontyard setback variance for an extension to a bay window, a 10" frontyard setback variance for a 2nd story cantilever addition and a 5' frontyard setback variance for a deck addition Ms. Aaker informed the Board the subject property is located on the southside of Skyline Drive at the end of the Skyline Drive cul-de-sac. The home consists of a multi- level home with a tuck under three car garage. The homeowners are proposing a second story addition to the home, an expanded bay window to the front and a new deck along the west building wall. Ms. Aaker explained plans were submitted for building permit application and during review it was discovered the subject home is the closest home along the block to the front property line, therefore, any additions to the home affecting frontyard setback require variance review Ms. Aaker pointed out when designed it was assumed that expanding an existing bay window would be allowed, however, an addition to a non -conforming structure must meet the average setback occurring along the block. The existing bay window does not meet the frontyard setback requirement. The proposed curved bay window will replace a boxed bay window. Replacing the bay window with a larger bay triggers the setback requirement. Ms. Aaker said the design also includes a 2nd story addition with 10 inch cantilevered areas above the main floor that extend out closer to the street. The designer believed the cantilevered areas would be acceptable because they would not extend farther than the existing overhang. Again, extension of floor area must meet the setback requirement. The plan indicates a deck off of the west side of the home. The west side of the home is adjacent to park property and the rounded edge of the cul-de-sac. The deck addition to the west side of the home gets closer to Skyline Drive because of the reduction in setback caused by the cul-de-sac. D Ms. Aaker concluded it was assumed the project would conform to the Ordinance setback requirements. The adjustments to the front of the home appeared to be so minor that they were believed to conform, however, after close review portions of the addition do overlap into the setback. The property is located at the end of a cul- de-sac adjacent to City park property. The variances are minimal and will have little if any impact on surrounding properties. Staff supports the request as submitted. The proponent, Mr. Rozman was present to respond to questions. Mr. Lewis asked the property owner when the house was constructed. Mr. Rozman said the house was built in 1950. A brief discussion ensued with board members in agreement that a hardship is present due to the position of the house on the lot and the cul de sac. Mr. Lewis moved variance approval subject to the plans presented and the use of matching materials. Mrs. Bergman seconded the motion. All voted aye; motion carried. III. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 6:20 p.m. 7