HomeMy WebLinkAbout1996 10-03 Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting Minutes RegularMINUTES OF THE REGULAR
MEETING OF THE EDINA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
HELD ON THURSDAY, OCTOBER 3, 1996
5:30 P.M., MANAGER'S CONFERENCE ROOM
MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair, Rose Mary Utne, Ann Swenson, Len Olson, Nan
Faust, Meg Mannix
STAFF PRESENT: Kris Aaker, Jackie H
I. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES:
The minutes of the August 1, 1996, meeting ire fi#eci as su
II. NEW BUSINESS:
Ms. Aaker poind aut currently the property does not have a garage which is
:d according tQhe Ordinance. The Zoning Ordinance requires a minimum two
age per singly dwelling unit. The home had a single stall attached garage which
tg
since-la.000h converted into a family room with storage shed facing the front of
proposed garage would be 20 feet in width by 22 feet in depth and
crude in front of adjacent homes.
Ms. Aaker reported the homeowners have indicated that the garage would have
a gable front and Wisconsin limestone to match the existing home. The homeowners
state that they have explored other options, such as installing a 12 foot wide driveway
along the west side of the home to access a rearyard detached garage, however, that
would create financial and other hardships. A 12 foot wide driveway would occupy the
distance between the west wall of the house and the neighbors privacy fence along the
side lot line. The driveway would not allow egress windows on the west side of the
building and could potentially magnify water problems with snow melt from the
driveway. In addition, they believe there would be no where to put snow on the west
side of the home for 34.35 feet. The homeowners would like to preserve thy'°wooded
view in their rearyard and believe the cost of a new driveway and: urb �ut'along with
the removal of the old driveway and installation of sod would ini`e:>e cost of the
pJ
ro'ect considerably.
ably .
Ms. Aaker concluded the Zo ing Board of ltpeals haiIways i;i ery
protective of fron and setback areas and has strivi1:.:.to matittain consistent;:::::::
streetscapes. Staff agrees with the approach the Breus taken on thesi>1aters. It
would appear that there are other options availab le''t3<#Ieepplicant that would be
conforming to the Ordinance.
The proponents, Mr. and Mrs.
Chair Utne asked Mr. and Mrs.
Crowley responded they purchased tt
Mrs. Mannix referred to
regarding additional options, a
purchased their property. Mr.
pe
`in the sbaff report Ms. Aaker made
Aakerto clarify those options.
Ms. Aaker explainers pie option:rlaile do the proponents would be to
construct:: i'i l tached d t tar ara a ir3 e`'rea and area. Ms. Aaker noted in the
9 g .:rY
el hbor ```'`` ```'`' re are':: "``'''`:` `````''`````"" "er Of ro 'erties with detached garages.
n g nc� fid..the �.;r ut�b p p 9 9
_.
Mrs. M t r c' ..ted the rt € of cost differences between the proposed plan
and the optiQn#cting a >estanding garage, and asked the proponents the
difference, -:: r. Crd ted costs are similar, but constructing the garage in the
ar is more e
ry xp
reauirerltlrs. Crowley interjected she really loves the house, and
the nighborhood, addrt:shtie believes the presented proposal is best. Continuing, Mr.
CrQ ',: said in his opt ion constructing the garage in the front of the house maintains
th.:: ntegrity of the ho se and neighborhood, informing the Board they have taken
etching into coni"I'deration in drafting these plans. If the garage is constructed in the
f'stheir plani>#o use Wisconsin Lime Stone which is utilized on the facade of the
Me:lrtQwley informed the Board if the garage is constructed in the rear they will
not+e:;3tie`to afford Wisconsin Lime Stone for the detached garage.
Mr. Olson commented in reviewing the option of constructing a freestanding
garage the driveway could be poured with asphalt instead of concrete which would be
2
cost saving. Mr. Crowley agreed, but pointed out the majority of single family homes in
the neighborhood have concrete driveways, and they want to match the existing
neighborhood standard.
Mrs. Swenson stated after careful consideration she cannot support the plan as
presented. Continuing, Mrs. Swenson said the City has always been very careful and
vigilant in preserving streetscapes. Mrs. Swenson said she may be swayeto support
a frontyard variance to allow the garage to be constructed in the ,f.tont if Matches the
setback of the structure next door, but added the BoardAs alwa ` i" tal with setting a
precedent.
ed
ent.
Mr. R. Rooney, 5109 Richmond Drive explaif'
if the Crowleys construct their garage in the rear visit
access it, the driveway will be constructed up to the!
pose a problem to his privacy fence. Mr. Rooney sC
before the board this evening is superior to constru
Mr. Rooney said a majority of residents in the imrr
ie
construction of a garage in the front. Continuing N
the Ordinance correctly a variance can be. grd i
instance there is a hardship, (no garage) An' d`C J.
property in Edina have a garage. Mr tboney, i'fol'
owners (without pulling a permit) con erted the exis
space in the early 60's, which cre€imd the crdition
was not caused b Y Mr. and Mr.iwle oncludi
y ...
face a hardship because theyi'eed a gereje, (everyone needs a garage) and in his
opinion singe the family.(
brage reaaeedy exists in the old garage, and from
the fronts.bWot:it looks<,l l e rage, n4 f ai t will be done in retaining this look.
Mr. Dick Strestak, 5400 Richmond Lane asked the Board to note the City also
ight-of-way,.; the distance of the proposed garage from the curb will be more.
re
>:::;:>le told Board members Ci Ordinances require driveways to be 12
feexrstithand they have exactly 12 feet. Mrs. Crowley pointed out that twelve feet
does not take into consideration two existing window wells along that building wall, and
the privacy fence. Mrs. Crowley said the privacy fence and window wells reduce the
width, and such a long driveway will create problems with snow removal. Concluding,
3
A discussion ensued with neighbors expressing their frustration at the process,
and their support for the variance. Neighbors acknowledged there are other homes in
the area with detached garages, but they are on the other side of the street, and a
number of them are twin homes. Neighbors stressed their support of the project.
Chair Utne reiterated she understands the frustration of the proponents, and
neighbors, and directed the proponents if they feel strongly to appeal this.::d vision to
the Council. Chair Utne explained when the Board considers an: ..plica ion they
carefully review the presented materials, and visit the site. Cha i€' 6a- id the
variance requested this evening is large, is located in a front;' i ' roved could
establish a precedent for this neighborhood that ma ' #e detrimera'''' ;:;::.:.
p 9 y . ...... .........................
III. NEXT MEETING DATE:
October 17, 1996
5