Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1992 02-20 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Regular_,r ;MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE EDINA BOARD OF APPEALS AND ADJUSTMENTS HELD ON THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 20, 1992, 5:30 P.M. EDINA CITY HALL MANAGER'S CONFERENCE ROOM MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair, Helen McClelland; Don Patton, Mike Lewis, Geof Workinger and D. Byron STAFF PRESENT: Kris P. Aaker Jackie Hoogenakker I. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES: Mr. Lewis moved approval of the September 9, 1991, meeting minutes. Mr. Patton seconded the motion. All voted aye; motion carried. II. NEW BUSINESS: B-92-4 Gregory and Susan M. Keane 5105 West 56th Street Lot 14, Nyland Place Request: A five foot sideyard setback variance. Ms. Aaker informed the Board the applicants are hoping to add a master bedroom with bath, dining room and deck to the rear of their home. The master bedroom and bath are proposed to be located directly behind the existing two stall garage. The garage is setback from the east property boundary the minimum five feet as required by the ordinance. The addition would maintain the existing five foot setback by extending the garage's eastern building wall. The ordinance allows garage area to be within five feet of the sideyard lot line, however, living area must be setback ten feet. A five foot sideyard setback variance is therefore required. Ms. Aaker pointed out the property is one of many that back up Melody Lake. The visual impact of the addition will therefore affect more households than just the adjacent neighbors. The applicants have worked with two separate architects to develop an appropriate solution that they believe will be unobtrusive and the best location given the floor plan and the sloping lot. Ms. Aaker added the applicants had designed a conforming solution however, the alternate plan affects room sizes and locations and would create an awkward and disjointed appearance from the exterior. Ms. Aaker stated staff would agree that the plan desired would be more visually attractive to the neighbors overlooking the lake who will have views of the addition. The board should note that the neighbor located directly adjacent to the east prefers the solution submitted. Ms. Aaker concluded staff recommends approval of the variance request subject to the following conditions. 1. The variance is tied to the plan presented. 2. All materials used in the addition match the existing dwelling. The proponent, Mr. Keane and his builder Ed Noonen were present. Mr. Noonen explained that due to the pond extra sensitivity was implemented to assure that the addition would be unobtrusive to the neighboring properties. Mr. Keane explained that if the addition were to be constructed in conformance with our requirements the end result would have a negative impact on property owners around the pond. Continuing, Mr. Keane explained that the interior of the addition if constructed to conformance requirements would be long and very narrow creating an awkward master bedroom addition. Mr. Lewis moved approval subject to plans presented and the condition that materials are to match the existing dwelling. Mr. Workinger seconded the motion. All voted aye; motion carried. B-92-6 Anne Bildsten 5100 Juanita Avenue Lot 1, Block 4, Glenview Request: A 16, rearyard and a variance for an attached setback variance and a variance for living areas Addition 121 sidestreet setback garage, a 71 sidestreet 4.45, sideyard setback Ms. Aaker informed Board Members the subject property is a single family, story and one/half home located on the southwest corner of West 51st Street and Juanita Avenue. The house in question fronts Juanita and includes two single stall garages, one that faces Juanita Avenue and an additional single stall garage that loads from West 51st Street. The proponents are hoping to convert the south garage fronting Juanita into a sun porch to include the addition of an entry and laundry room in the front yard area and the addition of a bedroom on the second floor above the new porch. Ms. Aaker noted that staff acknowledges that the lot is a small corner lot and that the home is currently non -conforming. In addition it is also understood that the site offers virtually no opportunity for a conforming expansion however, along with acknowledging site limitations, the proposal must be reviewed in terms of ordinance intent. Continuing, Ms. Aaker explained the ordinance was devised to control through setbacks, the scale, proportion, and massing of a home. Ms. Aaker concluded that staff believes that the multiple variances needed for the addition are not in harmony with the intent of the variance process. Staff hesitates supporting a request of this magnitude, and therefore cannot recommend approval. The proponents, Mr. and Mrs. Bildsten were present. Their builder Mr. Noonen was present. Mr. Patton asked Ms. Aaker the setback from the sidestreet 5101 Arden Avenue maintains. Ms. Aaker said by her calculations the sidestreet setback of 5101 Arden Avenue is 9 feet. Mrs. McClelland expressed concern over the number of variances that are required to accommodate this proposal. She pointed out the Council and Commission share a concern on massing, this lot is small, and with the proposed additions to the existing house the result may be a house that will appear "too large" for the lot. Mrs. McClelland commented that she cannot find any hardship that would justify granting the magnitude of variances needed for expansion. Mrs. Bildsten told the Board they feel their design is very sensitive to the character of the house. She told the Board there have been a number of additions needing variances, and a number of additions that did not need variances constructed in this neighborhood. Continuing, Mrs. Bildsten noted some house additions and garage additions that did not require variances ended up being unpleasing aesthetically and she believes their plan will not create any negative visual impact. Mr. Patton suggested that redesign may be a solution. He questioned if construction of the family room in a north/south direction instead of the proposed east/west direction would reduce the number of variances needed. Mrs. McClelland agreed that redesign should be considered. She pointed out four variances have been requested, adding the magnitude of the rearyard setback causes her genuine concern. Mrs. McClelland suggested that the proponents further study the existing plans, and redesign to either eliminate the needed variances or reduce the variances. Mr. Lewis and Mr. Byron stated they agree that the proponents need to redesign the plan paying close attention to reducing the rearyard setback. Ms. Aaker asked the Board to note that any redesign should be calculated carefully because lot coverage is critical on this lot. She stated at present the proponents are close to "maxing" out the lot, and careful study is required so lot coverage does not become an issue. A discussion ensued regarding the magnitude of variances with the Board's focus on the rearyard setback. It was suggested to the proponents that they redesign the plan to reduce the size of the rearyard setback variance. Mr. Lewis moved to continue the meeting until March 19, 1992. Mr. Workinger seconded the motion. All voted aye; motion carried. III. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 6:20 p.m. ftws(�W,tlftf OW er