Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2007 07-05 Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting Minutes RegulartNA. o et�pj rIAI y • j�'�RPOPA'S"_ • lase MINUTES Regular Meeting of the Edina Zoning Board Thursday, July 5, 2007, 5:30 PM Edina City Hall Council Chambers 4801 West 50th Street Edina, MN MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair Michael Schroeder, Rose -Mary Utne, Mary Vasaly, Nancy Scherer and Edward Schwartzbauer STAFF PRESENT: Kris Aaker and Jackie Hoogenakker I. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES: The minutes of the May 3, 2007, meeting were filed as submitted. II. NEW BUSINESS: B-07-23 Paul Yaggie 5712 Grace Terrace Request: .9' and a 4.2' side yard setback variance Brief Description: addition. Recommended Action: Introduction/Background A side street setback variance for a cantilevered 5701 Drew Ave. So. Matt Dubbe Approve the 2 ft side street setback variance request. The subject property is a corner lot and consists of a one and one half story home with an attached single stall car garage. The home fronts Drew Ave. with the side street along west 57th St. The property backs up to Chowen Park. The applicant is proposing to add main floor living space between the attached garage and the kitchen. Currently there is a narrow, breezeway like connection between the garage and kitchen area. The homeowner is hoping to add to the width of the connection to allow a 6.5 ft x 14 ft addition towards west 57th St. The 91 sq ft cantilevered addition would allow enough room for a dining table. The existing north side wall of the home and garage are nonconforming and located approximately 12 ft from the north side street lot line instead of the required 15 ft. The proposed addition would be 13 ft from the north side street lot line, farther from the lot line than the existing nonconforming sidewall of the home and garage. The applicant is requesting a setback variance to allow an expansion within the setback of the existing home. The addition will correct a north -facing compound valley roof condition that is subject to ice dams and leaking. Primary Issue • Is the requested variance justified? Yes. Per Section 850.04.Subd.1.F, of the zoning ordinance, a variance should not be granted unless it is found that the strict enforcement of the ordinance would cause undue hardship. As demonstrated below, staff believes the proposal meets the variance standards, when applying the three hardship tests: 1) Are there practical difficulties that prevent a reasonable use from complying with ordinance requirements? Yes. Reasonable use does not mean that the applicant must show the land cannot be put to any reasonable use without the variance. Rather, the applicant must show that there are practical difficulties in complying with the Code and that the proposed use is reasonable. "Practical difficulties" may include functional and aesthetic concerns. The practical difficulty in this instance is caused by the location of the home relative to the side street lot line. The home is already nonconforming with any improvement near the same setback as the B-07-25 Calvin Christian School 4015 Inglewood Avenue 10 -foot setback variance to build as addition Ms. Aaker presented the staff report noting staff recommends approval of the requested 10 -foot setback variance based on the following findings: Strict enforcement would cause undue hardship because of the odd shape o the lot, the existing location of the building on the lot and the west building d es not have ADA accessible bathrooms. Ms. Aaker also noted the variance is for a minor point intrusion into the required setback area. Ms. Aaker concluded approval is also subject to the following conditions: 1. Record resolution with the county before the city issues a building permit. 2. The city council may reasonable add or revise conditions to address any future unforeseen problems. 3. The property owners must enter into an agreement with the city for an upgrade and maintenance of the shared driveway with Weber Park and; 4. The variance will end one year from the date of approval, unless the city has issued a building permit for the project covered by this variance, or approved a time extension. Mr. Ed Kodet of Kodet Arch. Group and Mr. Steve Gruin of Calvin Christian School were present to respond to questions. Interested neighbors were also present. Mr. Ed Kodet introduced himself and Mr. Gruin to the Board and stood for questions. Chair Schroeder told the Board Calvin Christian School appeared before the Planning Commission on June 27, 2007 for a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) and received CUP approval at that meeting. Chair Schroeder asked the Board to also note the school will appear before the City Council with their request for a CUP sometime in July. Ms. Hoogenakker advised Chair Schroeder that the City Council will hear the request for CUP approval at their July 17th meeting. Mrs. Scherer told the Board she also sits on the Planning Commission and at their June meeting Commissioners expressed their belief that the proposed additions improved many aspects of the site, including safety. Mrs. Scherer stated she also believes the variance request is minimal and a hardship exists because of the curve of Inglewood Avenue, unusual lot configuration and existing building placement. Mrs. Vasaly acknowledged that the parking area abuts residential properties (across Inglewood); however, noted the additions and reconfiguration of the parking area is an improvement to the site and is safer. Mrs. Utne commented that in her opinion the proposed additions are nicely done. Mr. and Mrs. Judson, 4004 Inglewood Avenue, addressed the board and told board members they have no objections to the proposed additions or variance but do have concerns with traffic flow. Chair Schroeder advised Mr. and Mrs. Judson to attend the City Council meeting on July 17 and share their concerns. Mrs. Utne moved variance approval noting staff findings and subject to staff conditions. Mr. Schwartzbauer seconded the motion. Ayes; Scherer, Utne, Vasaly, Schwartzbauer and Schroeder. Motion carried. existing home requiring a variance. The property is a corner lot and is subjected to a typical 15 ft side street setback. Unfortunately maintaining the setback does not allow for a reasonable expansion between the garage and the house. The intent of the setback ordinance is to maintain adequate spacing from structure to the side street. The addition will actually be farther from the street than most of the home. The proposal minimizes the amount of encroachment to approximately 91 sq ft. Staff believes the request to be reasonable, as the encroachment into the setback area is minimal. 2) Are there circumstances that are unique to the property, not common to every similarly zoned property, and that are not self- created? Yes. The home was originally built at a nonconforming setback to today's standards. The required side street setback is a unique and specific hardship limiting expansion opportunity for the home. 3) Would the variance alter the essential character of the neighborhood? No. The variance would allow an expansion that would be consistent with the existing architecture of the home. The addition would look similar to what exists today. The addition would be slightly farther from the street than the side wall of the house and garage. Staff Recommendation Approve the requested side yard setback variance. Approval is based on the following findings: 1) There is a unique hardship to the property caused by: a. The location of the existing home relative to the side street lot line. b. The existing home is nonconforming regarding side street setback. c. The corner lot and original home placement limit design options. 2) The variance would meet the intent of the ordinance since: a. The encroachment is minimal in amount and scale. b. The improvements would follow the existing wall lines and architecture of the home and would have no impact on sight lines. c. The addition would be a minor point intrusion into the setback that would not be perceivable. Approval is based on the following conditions: 1) The addition must be constructed as per the submitted plan dated July, 2007. 2) The variance will expire on July 5, 2008, unless the city has Issued a building permit for the project covered by this variance or or approved a time extension. Surrounding Land Uses There are single family homes surrounding the property. Existing Site Features The subject property is an 8,643 sq ft, one and one half story, single family home. Planning Guide Plan designation: Single family residential Zoning: R-1 single dwelling unit district