Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1994 11-17 Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting Minutes RegularMINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE EDINA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS HELD ON THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 17, 1994, 5:30 P.M. EDINA CITY HALL MANAGERS CONFERENCE ROOM MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Gordon Johnson, Geof Workinger, Mike Lewis, Don Patton MEMBERS ABSENT: Helen McClelland STAFF PRESENT: Kris Aaker, Jackie Hoogenakker I. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES: Mr. Workinger moved approval of the September 22, 1994, meeting minutes. Mr. Patton seconded the motion. All vote aye; motion carried. II. NEW BUSINESS: B-94-54 Douglas Mangel 4432 Garrison Lane Purpose: A six foot frontyard setback variance Ms. Aaker informed the board the subject property is located on the north side of Garrison Lane just east of Wooddale Avenue. The property consists of a single dwelling unit and a detached one car garage. The property owner is hoping to remove the existing one car garage and replace it with a new 20' X 20' detached garage. The homeowner would like to line up the new garage with the front building wall of the house. Ms. Aaker concluded that while it would appear that the new garage would have little overall impact on the entire streetscape, it would sit -out in front of the home to the west and it does appear that there is an opportunity for a conforming 1 solution. The proponent, Mr. Mangel was present. Chairman Johnson asked Mr. Mangel if he plans on future expansion on this lot. Mr. Mangel explained because of the location of the pond the garage was planned as depicted so future expansion would be possible. Chairman Johnson noted the garage could be constructed in a conforming location, but if house expansion is planned that reduces where a new garage can be located. Mr. Workinger asked Ms. Aaker the present sideyard setback. Mr. Aaker stated the present sideyard setback is eight feet, and city ordinance requires a five foot setback. Mr. Workinger asked Mr. Mangel if he proposes to add living space above the garage. Mr. Mangel said he does not plan on constructing living space above the garage, he explained he plans to go out the rear. Mr. Workinger asked Mr. Mangel if he plans to use like materials. Mr. Mangel explained when the connection is made the entire house/garage will be sided with like materials. Mr. Patton asked Ms. Aaker what the setback is from the pond. Ms. Aaker said the setback from the pond is 50 feet, as stipulated by the DNR. Mr. Patton said he has a concern regarding the request and the potential for additional variances for future expansion, adding he would have a hard time in supporting them. Chairman Johnson said it would be difficult to obtain a variance from the 50 feet stipulated by the DNR and by city ordinance. Mr. Lewis moved approval subject to the plans presented, with the requirement that the garage tie into the existing house, and that like materials are used. Mr. Patton seconded the motion. All voted aye; motion carried. 2 B-94-55 David or Jane Melroe 7120 Westshore Drive Lot 6, Block 3, South Garden Estates 3rd Addition Request: A three foot frontyard setback variance Ms. Aaker explained the subject property is located on the west side of West Shore Drive and west of Dunham Drive. The homeowners are hoping to construct a new attached two car garage as highlighted on the enclosed survey. The homeowner will be converting a portion of the old garage into a new front entry and will be leaving the remaining portions of the garage area. The homeowners are hoping to place the new garage three feet in front of the existing garage. Ms. Aaker pointed out the subject property includes half of vacated Dunham Drive in which the new garage will overlap. The property owners are in the process of vacating a drainage and utility easement located along the old south lot line which is required to allow the garage addition. The property also has an underground watermain pipe located within the old Dunham Drive right-of-way. The water pipe also has an easement which is five feet along both sides of the pipe. Ms. Aaker said the new garage area has been shifted to be located slightly in front of the existing front building wall of the house so as to avoid the underground water pipe easement area. In addition the southwest corner of the garage has been clipped off to also avoid the watermain easement. The engineering department has indicated that the water main easement area cannot be vacated and must be avoided by all construction. Ms. Aaker concluded given the limitations caused by the existing easement area, staff can support the request as submitted. The proponent Mr. Melroe was present to respond to questions. Chairman Johnson clarified the only reason the water main is an issue is because at one time 'a street was planned. Ms. Aaker said that is correct, she explained if Dunham would have been constructed as planned the water main would be located in the middle of the street. Ms. Aaker pointed out Dunham has been vacated, the proposed garage will slightly overlap, but will avoid the pipe. eaves. Mr. Patton asked if the garage will have eaves. Mr. Aaker said there will be 3 Mr. Workinger told board members he wants the garage to be finished with like materials. Mr. Melroe stated like materials will be used. Mr. Workinger moved variance approval subject to the plans presented, (the garage is not positioned outside of the site plan), vacation of easement by Council, and the use of like materials. Mr. Lewis seconded the motion. All voted aye; motion carried. B-94-56 Jerry A. Nelson 4116 West 44th Street Lot 25, Riley's Subdivision of Lots 3,4,5,6,7,30 & 31 Grimes Homestead including that portion of vacated West 44th Street Adjoining Request: A 5.9 foot driveway width variance and a variance from the hard surface requirement for driveways Ms. Aaker informed the board the subject property is located on the north side of West 44th Street and consists of a 1 1/2 story bungalow on a 60 foot wide lot. The homeowner is requesting a 5.9 foot driveway width variance from the minimum 12 foot requirement to allow a 6.1 foot wide driveway to be installed along the west property boundary to access a detached garage in the rearyard. The property owner is also requesting relief from the hard surface requirement for new driveways. The proponent is hoping to install a "runner" type driveway, which would consist of two strips of concrete from curb cut area to the garage. Ms. Aaker pointed out that on September 6, 1994, a building permit application was reviewed and denied. by city staff to locate a garage in the rearyard area of the property. Denial was based on the lack of proper access to the garage. City staff notified the applicant that a variance from the 12 foot driveway width requirement would need to be accomplished and that it was staff's opinion that a 6.1 foot wide driveway (at it's narrowest point) would not allow access without the potential for trespass on the neighbor's property. It was indicated that an access easement agreement between the proponent and his neighbor would be needed to allow the desired driveway width, along with a variance approval. Ms. Aaker stated on September 27, 1994 city staff noticed that a garage was being constructed on the premises without benefit of a permit. On September 28, 1994, a Stop Work Order was posted on the garage by the building department until such time as proper access can be gained. Ms. Aaker said at this time the property owner is requesting a variance to allow 111 the driveway without benefit of a cross easement from the neighbor. The applicant has indicated that the impacted neighbors (41 18 West 44th Street) have been "totally informed and up to date" on the proponent's plans and intentions. While staff can appreciate a gentlemen's agreement between current neighbors, guaranteeing permanent access becomes a city liability issue if a variance is granted. Access easements are generally private agreements between property owners, however may be requested by the city if no other means of access appears to be reasonable. Staff is of the opinion that a 6.1 foot driveway width near the bay window and an 8.1 foot driveway width between the west wall and west property boundary would not provide adequate width for a driveway of the home. Ms. Aaker concluded while staff can appreciate the inconvenience of not having a garage, staff cannot support a variance that could potentially damage one or both properties in the future. The proponents, Mr. and Mrs. Nelson were present. Interested neighbors were present. Chairman Johnson asked Ms. Aaker if she knew the sideyard setback along the east property boundary, and if a driveway width variance would also be needed on the east. Ms. Aaker stated if a driveway were placed on the east side a variance would still be required, but it would be less than the present variance request. Ms. Aaker calculated a one or two foot variance would be required on the east side. Ms. Aaker concluded the east setback is around 11 feet. Mr. Nelson explained one reason we wanted to construct the driveway along the west property line was to preserve the steps. Mr. Nelson pointed out the subject house is depicted in the History and Architecture of Edina, Minnesota, and is rather old. Mr. Lewis asked Ms. Aaker if the addition of the garage created a variance situation for lot coverage. Ms. Aaker stated at this time a lot coverage variance is not required. Ms. Aaker explained the addition of the garage puts the property very close to the 25% allowed for lot coverage. Continuing, Ms. Aaker explained originally the Nelsons wished to construct a deck, but because of the lot coverage situation they scaled back their plans. Mr. Nelson interjected another reason for locating the garage on the west side is because there is an existing curb cut that can be used. Concluding, Mr. Nelson stated the "runner" style of driveway maintains green area, instead of a long asphalt drive, thereby reducing hardsurface that can be viewed as a lot coverage concern. A brief discussion ensued with board members commenting the existing curb cut may have been cut to service the old street car line which runs close to the subject site. 5 Chairman Johnson questioned Mr. Nelson if he approached his neighbor to the west to obtain a cross easement, and if he didn't, why didn't he. Mr. Gene German, 4120 West 44th Street (neighbor to the west) told the board he has no objection with the proposed driveway if the Nelsons use their own land to access their garage. He pointed out he only has a 50 foot wide lot, and if an easement technically "gives away" a strip of his property it reduces what can be accomplished on this property. Mr. German stated he has considered installing landscape timbers and plantings along the common property line. Mr. German commented he has not really spoke with Mr. Nelson about obtaining an easement, but Mr. Nelson did mention the possibility of purchasing his home. Continuing, Mr. German pointed out the driveway as proposed by the Nelsons is very long, around 92 feet, and snow removal is also an issue. Mr. Lewis commented the issue of snow removal is valid, and asked Mr. Nelson if he has thought of how snow will be removed. Mr. Nelson said snow will have to be moved either to the front or rear of the property. Mr. Nelson submitted photos of his full size car parked in the driveway near the bay bump out of the house (the closest point) and stated he believes there is adequate spacing to accommodate his vehicles, (without trespass) and for snow removal. Ms. Aaker explained a concern of staff is (as Mr. German mentioned earlier) if the adjacent property owner(s) places something along the common property boundary whereby creating a situation where the neighbor cannot access their garage, the city could be held responsible if a variance was approved. Ms. Aaker informed the board that presently there are two locations in the city where property owners cannot access their garage without damage because the adjoining neighbor has placed concrete poles. Mr. Patton questioned Mr. Nelson on his reason for building the garage after his building permit was denied. Mr. Nelson responded in speaking with staff he was told there are other situations in the city where driveways are shared, so he thought it was no "big deal" to construct the garage. Mr. Nelson reiterated with a curb cut already existing on the west the proposed placement of the driveway along the west property line made the most sense. Chairman Johnson stated the existing curb cut can be removed. Chairman Johnson concluded just because the curb cut exists it does not mean it is the only location for a driveway or garage. Mr. Workinger asked Mr. Nelson if there are any unusual rearyard configurations that forced you to construct the garage along the west property line instead of along the east property line. Mr. Nelson stated there are no unusual rearyard configuration that forced garage construction to the west. The existing curb cut was the driving force. Mr. Patton asked Mr. Nelson how far he proceeded with garage construction after the permit was denied. Mr. Nelson said the garage is almost complete. Mr. Workinger stated in his opinion in reviewing the site he believes the driveway should be placed along the easterly property line. Mr. Workinger pointed out the easterly setback is more generous, and because of the extra width the potential for trespass would diminish. Mrs. Nelson responded if the driveway were to be placed along the easterly property boundary much of the rearyard would become concrete to access the garage since it is located on the west. Chairman Johnson stated in his opinion this situation should be considered as if the garage was not partially constructed. Chairman Johnson said Mr. Nelson violated code by constructing a garage without a permit, and this evening we have a decision to make with choices, we can recommend that the garage be removed, we can deny the variance for driveway location on the west, we can approve the driveway location on the west with the condition that the city receive a recorded cross -easement agreement with the neighbor to the west, and that the city is held harmless, or we can recommend that the driveway be constructed along the easterly property line.. Chairman Johnson reiterated this issue should be considered without focusing on the partially completed garage. Mr. German asked board members if there is time to discuss the possibility of cross easements with Mr. Nelson. Chairman Johnson explained the board can table this issue until this board again meets to allow time for discussion between you and Mr. Nelson regarding cross -easement. Mr. Nelson stated he would like this issue settled as soon as possible. A discussion ensued with board members in agreement they are uncomfortable with the variance request as presented, and agreeing this item should be tabled to allow the proponent time to discuss the cross -easement issue with his neighbor to the west, or redesign the driveway location. Board members agreed to meet on December 15, 1994 to reconsider any variance request. Mr. Lewis moved to table B-94-56 until December 15, 1994, to allow the proponent time to speak with his neighbor to the west to obtain a cross easement or to redesign the driveway access. Mr. Patton seconded the motion. All voted aye; motion carried. III. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 7:30 p.m. i J a ela Hoogena It r 7