The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2007 07-19 Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting Minutes RegularOw m •lam �• 1888 MINUTES Regular Meeting of the Edina Zoning Board Thursday, July 19, 2007, 5:30 PM Edina City Hall Council Chambers 4801 West 50th Street MEMBERS PRESENT: Bill Skallerud, Arlene Forrest and Rod Hardy MEMBERS ABSENT: John Lonsbury and James Nelson STAFF PRESENT: Kris Aaker and Jackie Hoogenakker I. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES: The minutes of the May 17, 2007, meeting were filed as submitted. II. NEW BUSINESS: B-07-26 TC Home Builders 5504 Halifax Avenue Request: A 1.42, (17 inch), side yard setback variance for two air conditioner units located in the side yard Ms. Aaker informed the board the subject property is new two story walk -out home with an attached two garage located on the west side of Halifax Lane that backs up to Minnehaha Creek. The home provides 7.5 ft side yard setbacks to the north and south lot line. The property owner/builder has located two air conditioner units along the south wall of the home and adjacent to the neighbor's garage. The homeowner/builder was unaware of the 5 ft setback requirement for air conditioner units. Air conditioner units are required to maintain same side yard setback as required for any accessory structure, which is a minimum of 5 ft to the side and rear lot line. Ms. Aaker explained the applicant is requesting a 17 inch or 1.42 ft variance to allow the air conditioner units to over -lap the side yard setback of 5 ft. The air conditioner units have.been temporarily installed along the south wall of the garage. Ms. Aaker concluded staff recommends approval based on the following findings: 1) There is unique hardship to the property caused by: • the existence of other nonconforming air conditioners within the area. • the inability to locate them in a less impacting location • the neighbors most affected prefer the proposed location. Approval is subject to the following conditions: 1) The air conditioner units are installed as per the submitted plan dated July 2007. 2) This variance will expire on July 19, 2008, unless the city has issued a building permit for the project covered by this variance or approved a time extension. The proponent, Mr. Giannakakis, was present to respond to questions from the Board. Mr. Giannakakis told the board the most impacted neighbor supports the proposed location and has indicated their support via letter. Mr. Giannakakis said if the conditioner(s) is placed in a conforming location the adjoining neighbor would be negatively impacted. Mr. Hardy moved variance approval subject to the plans presenting noting approval is subject to staff findings and conditions and was based on the letter from the neighbor approving the proposed placement of the conditioner(s). Mrs. Forrest seconded the motion. All voted aye; motion carried. B-07-27 U&B Architecture and Design/R.J. Weber 6825 Wooddale Avenue, Edina, MN Request: A 6 ft front yard setback variance for a deck Ms. Aaker told the board the subject property is a corner, pie -shaped lot consisting of a one and one half story home with an attached two car garage accessing from Wooddale Ave. Much of the lot area is along the street frontage and subjected to a front yard setback of approximately 32 ft. The property is constrained to a wedge shaped buildable area given the setback requirements. The lot size is rather large at 13,746 sq ft; however, much of the yard area is along the street frontage and may not be built upon. The owner is proposing an on grade deck addition to the north side of the home. All of the proposed improvements conform to the ordinance requirements with the exception of the North West corner of the proposed deck addition. The home owner is requesting to extend the proposed deck into the front yard setback area with a slight, triangular shaped overlap. The extension into the front yard is proposed to encroach the required setback by approximately 43 sq ft. Ms. Aaker explained the homeowner has stated that the addition is constrained by the shape of the corner lot and the desire to preserve a mature tree. The design is proposed to preserve an existing silver maple tree that is almost directly in-line with the door opening to the deck. The deck will surround the silver maple tree with footing design that will not disturb root structure. Ms. Aaker concluded 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 front lot line. b. The desire on the part of the applicant to preserve an existing mature tree. c. The irregular lot shape, original home placement and existing door opening limit design options. Approval is also subject to the conditions: 1) The addition must be constructed as per the submitted plan dated June 3, 2007. 2) The variance will expire on July 19, 2008, unless the city has Issued a building permit for the project covered by this variance or or approved a time extension. The proponent, Mr. Weber was present to respond to questions. Mr. Hardy asked Ms. Aaker if the present garage is non -conforming. Ms. Aaker responded in the affirmative. Mrs. Forrest commented if she reads the plan correctly moving the deck to a more conforming location would impact the neighbor more than the proposed location, adding retaining the tree is also very important, and this plan protects the tree as much as possible. Ms. Aaker stated she agrees with that comment. A discussion ensued regarding measures taken to preserve the tree. Board members were in agreement that saving the tree is important and measures should be implemented to preserve the tree. Mrs. Forrest moved variance approval subject to staff findings and conditions. Mr. Hardy seconded the motion. All voted aye; motion carried. B-07-28 Jay Belschner 6720 Samuel Road Request: 2 and 4 foot fence height variance for fence replacement Ms. Aaker informed the board the subject property is a corner lot located in the North West corner of Samuel Road and McCauley Trail, consisting of a multi-level home with a tuck -under two car garage. The applicant is proposing to construct an 8 ft fence along the westerly border of his property. The 8 ft fence would extend beyond the front wall of. the subject home and into the front yard area. The proposed 8 ft fence would replace a 4 ft tall decorative fence that had been in the same location. Ms. Aaker explained the applicant is requesting a 2 ft fence height variance to allow an 8 ft fence against the frontage road along Hwy 169 in the side and rear yard. A variance of 4 ft is needed for the section of fence that is proposed to extend beyond the front wall of the home into the front yard area. The Zoning Ordinance allows for a maximum fence height of 6 ft in the side and rear yard areas and a maximum height of 4 ft in the front yard area. The owner would like to screen Hwy 169 from his property. The homeowner has indicated that the expansion of 494 and the 169 interchange has caused traffic volumes to increase and to back-up on 169 during the morning and evening peak travel times. Noise has increased and become excessive as a result of roadway improvements. The homeowner has indicated that a fine black dust that appears to be from the traffic along Hwy 169 covers car windshields and the backyard swing set. The owner has stated that the subject home is the closest house to the highway in the neighborhood. No other homes on the block combat the same degree of noise and black dust. Ms. Aaker asked the board to note the homeowner has stated that the fence will be screened by trees that border the frontage road and will be barely visible from the Samuel Road or McCauley. Ms. Aaker concluded staff recommends approval based on the following findings: • There is unique hardship to the property caused by: a. The existence of Hwy 169 and the 494 interchange improvement. b. The inability to properly screen the hwy from the subject property. c. The fence would allow a buffer between conflicting land uses, (Hwy verses residential home). Approval is based on the following conditions: • The fence is installed as per the submitted plan dated July 2007. • This variance will expire on July 19, 2008, unless the city has issued a building permit for the project covered by this variance or approved a time extension; and • Clear view is checked prior to fence completion. The proponent, Mr. Belschner was present to respond to questions. Mr. Hardy moved variance approval based on staff findings and subject to staff conditions. Mrs. Forrest seconded the motion. All voted aye; motion carried. III. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 6:25 PM �_� !�► � ��_r��f �.�� Res t itted by