Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1997 05-15 Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting Minutes RegularMINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETINGOF THE EDINA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS HELD ON MAY 15,1997,5:30 P.M. EDINA CITY HALL MANAGER'S CONFERENCE ROOM MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair, Gordon Johnson, Helen McClelland, Mike Lewis, Rodney Hardy, Geof Workinger STAFF PRESENT: Kris Aaker, Jackie Hoogenakker I. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES: Ms. McClelland moved approval of the March 20, 1997 meeting minutes. Mr. Lewis seconded the motion. All voted aye; motion carried. II. NEW BUSINESS: B-97-17 Stephen and Linda Smithson 6800 Galway Drive Lot 1, Block 4, LaBuena Vista Addition Request: A 5 foot frontyard setback variance for a proposed new front entry Ms. Aaker informed the Board the subject property is a corner lot located in the southwest quadrant of West 68th Street and Galway Drive. The home is a front walkout with an attached three car garage. The homeowners are proposing to add an enclosed front entry to the front of their home. Ms. Aaker explained the proposed front entry will include both the 1St and 2"d floor. As mentioned previously, the home is a front walkout so living room, dining, kitchen and bedrooms are upstairs on the second level. The home owners have indicated the existing staircase up to the main (2"d) level provides a head room clearance for only those less than 5' 10" tall. The front entry would allow for a new open stair case that would provide adequate headroom. The homeowners have also mentioned that the current front entry concrete walkway does not allow the storm door to open more than 12 inches during winter months. A lack of adequate frost footings causes the concrete walkway to heave two inches in the winter. Ms. Aaker concluded the home is a front walkout that requires traveling a flight of stairs to access the main level. The current stairs are substandard and the front door cannot be opened in the winter. The options are limited for improving the situation without a variance. The variance would have little if any impact on adjacent properties. Staff supports the request. The proponents, Mr. and Mrs. Smithson were present. Ms. McClelland stated in reviewing the proposal she does not have a problem approving a variance. She said it appears the house was constructed with this problem, and is not the fault of the present homeowner. Mr. Smithson introduced pictures of the house depicting the condition that exists during winter months making it impossible for them to use their front entryway. He pointed out when entertaining guests have to enter through the garage. Mr. Lewis moved approval of a 5 foot frontyard setback variance subject to the plans presented, and the use of matching materials. Mr. Workinger seconded the motion. All voted aye; motion carried. B-97-18 Ken and Nancy Kaufmann #4 Merilane Request: A 62.8 foot frontyard setback variance for a garage and mudroom addition Ms. Aaker informed the Board the subject property is located on the south side of Merilane cul-de-sac consisting of a one story brick and frame walkout. The home is located 55 feet from Merilane. The homeowners are proposing to add a second story to the home, and add a new mudroom and garage onto the east side of the home. Ms. Aaker pointed out none of the improvements will reduce the frontyard setback however, the required frontyard setback is 142 feet. Ms. Aaker pointed out the frontyard setback requirement is determined by the setback of the homes on the same side of Merilane as the subject property. All of the homes are setback farther from Merilane than the subject home. there is no clear sense of streetscape or setback uniformity. Ms. Aaker asked the Board to note the area consists of dense vegetation and steep slopes which eliminate reference points for uniform setback. Ms. Aaker concluded staff believe the setback requirement is a hardship imposed upon the property as it falls behind the existing dwelling virtually eliminating all possible additions to the home. Staff supports the request as submitted. 2 The proponents, Ken and Nancy Kaufmann were present. Chairman Johnson said he is a bit confused at the names on the application. Ms. Aaker explained the Kaufmanns are not the property owners of record. They have a purchase agreement on the property contingent on obtaining the requested variance. Ms. McClelland said she does not know the height of the adjoining homes, and questioned Ms. Aaker on their height. Ms. Aaker explained both homes are two story. Ms. Aaker pointed out because of the topography, and dense vegetation the houses are not visible from the subject site. Mr. Workinger questioned if any adjustments are going to be made to the driveway. Mr. Kaufmann said there will be a slight elevation change. Mr. Workinger said his only concern regarding this proposal is with building height. Mrs. Kaufmann interjected the adjoining houses are large, and do have considerable height, and cannot be seen. Mr. Hardy asked Ms. Aaker the distance between houses. Ms. Aaker said the distance between the adjoining houses is more than 100 feet, reiterating one cannot see the neighboring houses from the subject site. Mr. Hardy said in visiting the site it appears this property is in its own "environment", and any impact to adjoining homes is minimal. Mrs. Kaufmann said the reason they desire to construct up, is to preserve the dense vegetation, and large trees that exist on the lot. Continuing, Mrs. Kaufmann said the intent is to add a two story addition over the main structure, with the garage and mudroom off the original pad. Ms. McClelland moved to grant variance approval noting the setback from the pond is a problem if one would desire to construct out the rear, subject to restricting the 2"d story addition to the plans presented on site, noting a hardship exists because of the placement of neighboring homes, and the variance is granted only to Mr. and Mrs. Kaufmann, who at this time, have an option to purchase the property if this variance is approved. Mr. Workinger seconded the motion. All voted aye. Motion carried. 3 B-97-19 Jeffrey and Anne Sather 5407 Abbott Place Request: A two foot sideyard setback variance for a garage addition Ms. Aaker informed the board the subject property is located on the east side of Abbott Place backing up to Minnehaha Creek. The home consists for a 1 '/Z story home with an attached one stall garage. The homeowners are proposing a dramatic remodeling to include a number of additions to the home. The property received a variance in October from north sideyard setback due to building height to accomplish improvements to the home. The south side (garage side) of the home had additions proposed, however, within the setback requirements. The previous plan indicates a 14'X 4" X 30'3" garage which is less than a comfortable tandem garage. The homeowners are now returning to the Zoning Board of Appeals to widen their garage to be within the minimum five foot sideyard setback. At the closest point the new garage would be three feet to the side lot line. The plans that received variance approval have not been acted upon, however, may receive a permit until expiration on October 14, 1997. Review of the subject two foot variance will not negate the previous variance nor will it extend it to May 1998. The variance will allow a garage width (outside dimension) of 16'4" which is still not considered a two stall garage. The Ordinance requires a minimum two car garage per single dwelling unit. The side lot line does not run parallel to the side wall of the garage. The front corner would provide a setback of three feet, and the back corner would provide a setback of six feet. The lot is narrow at 58 feet in width, however, is 135.5 feet deep and with enough lot area to accommodate the additions and proposed garage increase. A letter dated October 14, 1996, was received from the neighbor directly adjacent to the garage expansion concerning the previous variance. The neighbor expressed concern with the garage expansion within the allowable limits. The homeowner in fact requested a reduction in the garage width although it did not require a variance. Staff has (as of May 7, 1997), not received comment regarding this most recent proposal that will reduce garage setback. Ms. Aaker concluded staff appreciates that increasing the garage area will move the project closer to conforming to a minimum two car garage requirement. 4 The garage still won't however be large enough to be considered a two car garage. Staff believes that the remodeling and additions to the home are aggressive given the width of the lot and proximity of the neighboring homes and that reducing setback farther may negatively impact adjacent property. The proponent, Mr. Sather was present to respond to questions. Chairman Johnson asked the proponent the reason there is no response from the neighboring property owners at 5409 Abbott Place, since they expressed interest in the last project, and concern about the garage if constructed, would require a variance. Mr. Sather said in his opinion if they did not respond, they must support the proposal. Ms. McClelland stated in her opinion the proposed garage is still too tight to support two cars even with the additional two feet. Mr. Sather said he believes their vehicles will fit, acknowledging it will be tight. Ms. McClelland asked the depth of the garage. Ms. Aaker said the depth of the garage is 31 feet. Ms. McClelland noted even if the present vehicles would fit in the proposed garage, future homeowners may desire larger vehicles, which may not fit. Ms. McClelland stated she has concerns regarding this proposal. She said in her opinion the previous expansion granted a variance, and those not requiring a variance are very aggressive, added along with this request, massing becomes a relevant issue. Mr. Sather agreed the expansion(s) may appear large, adding they took that into consideration, which is the reason they brought the roof down to lessen the impact. Chairman Johnson said in some areas of Edina because of the size of the lots it is difficult for property owners to achieve what they desire without obtaining a variance, continuing, Chairman Johnson asked Mr. Sather what the living space is at 5409 that adjoins their proposed garage addition. Mr. Sather responded the neighbors kitchen is located on the side where their garage addition is proposed. Chairman Johnson asked, out of curiosity, if one were to drive by the home and the garage addition was granted, how often would cars be on the driveway, and not in the garage. Mr. Sather said in all honesty because of the activities of the household during warmer months one would find cars on the driveway 50% of the time. Mr. Hardy pointed out the impact on the neighboring house has not really changed because the property line is at an angle, and there is a standing approved variance on the north, with additions on the garage side that did not 5 require a variance. Continuing, Mr. Hardy asked if the most impacted neighbors were present at the first variance hearing, and if they were, was the issue clear to them. Ms. Aaker responded the neighbors were present at the first hearing, and understood the proposal, and expressed some concern as mentioned in the staff report, about a possible garage addition in the future that may require a variance. She said as cited earlier by Mr. Sather there has been no input from those neighbors this time around, either for, or against, the proposal. Mr. Workinger said in reviewing the plans, and visiting the site that he believes he has problems with supporting the request. He pointed out the elevation, in his opinion is imposing, and in this instance this has become a case of overbuilding. Mr. Workinger pointed out in this area the setbacks are minimal, and while he sympathizes with residents trying to modernize their home this proposal, on this lot is too much! He acknowledged part of the variance has already been approved which created a majority of the mass, and pondered if they only wanted the garage addition, and the additional two feet , and the rest was not going to be constructed he probably could support it, he added it can't be separated, one approved variance exists, but he does have hesitation in supporting the request, especially since the creation of the garage (if approved) still is substandard. Mr. Workinger said he understands Mr. Hardy's point that a majority of the building mass has already been approved, with some not requiring variances, and the lot line angles, adding this is a struggle for him. Chairman Johnson reflected on the past variance wondering if that could be revisited to reduce some of the mass to more accommodate the proposed wider garage. Mr. Workinger said his concern is with the most impacted property owner if they are not present, and to date have expressed no opinion either way. Ms. McClelland pointed out that the garage will also create a long building wall. Mr. Hardy asked the proponent if something could be redesigned on the 2nd floor to reduce the mass. Mr. Sather responded if that were to be done, the whole design plan would need to be reworked. Mr. Sather added he believes the past proposal, and the proposal before you this evening is superior, and was done with much thought Chairman Johnson said in viewing the plans the sideyard massing is caused by trying to achieve a staggered two car garage. He said he does not believe the depth can be eliminated. Mr. Sather addressed the Board and explained to them they have considered this for a long time, and plan to landscape along the property line of 0 5409, construct a small wall, add flowering plantings, and bushes, and a trellis to soften the impact on that adjoining neighbor. Mr. Sather said they are willing to do whatever the Board desires to soften the mass, lessen the impact on the neighbor, and achieve what they desire. Chairman Johnson suggested adding "residential style" windows along the building wall which would break up the mass. Mr. Sather said he was planning on doing that. A discussion ensued with Board Members expressing concern over the project but acknowledging since a variance has already been approved, what is before them this evening does not necessarily create an issue, if as Mr. Sather has reported he plans to landscape, etc. the property, thereby reducing impact. The Board said this has been a difficult issue for them, especially in light of the existing variance. Mr. Lewis moved variance approval subject to the use of matching materials, subject to the plans presented at the meeting of May 15, 1997, (elevation and plans depicted on page 2 of the project presented by Mr. Sather), subject to landscaping with the addition of a trellis, and a sketch of the landscaping, trellis, and plantings to be approved by planning staff, with sensitivity to the adjoining property owner, and it is to be noted that the prior variance is not extended by the granting of this 2 foot sideyard setback variance for construction of a garage. Ms. McClelland seconded the motion. All voted aye; motion carried. Mr. Workinger asked Mr. Sather when his plans for construction would be executed. Mr. Sather said he plans construction to begin in one month. III. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 6:40 p.m. ie Hoogena r 7