Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2007 10-04 Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting Minutes RegularMINUTES Regular Meeting of the Edina Zoning Board Thursday, October 4, 2007, 5:30 PM Edina City Hall Council Chambers 4801 West 50th Street MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair Rose -Mary Utne, Mary Vasaly, Ed Schwartzbauer and Kevin Staunton MEMBERS ABSENT: Michael Fischer STAFF PRESENT: Kris Aaker and Jackie Hoogenakker I. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES: The minutes of the August 2, 2007, meeting were approved as submitted. 11. NEW BUSINESS: B-07-41 Howard Bolter and Susan Soranno 6990 Tupa Drive, Edina, MN Request: 3 ft setback variance request. Ms. Aaker informed the Board the subject property consists of a multi level home with an attached two car garage located at the end of Tupa Drive cul-de-sac. The applicants are proposing to construct an 18 ft x 40 ft in ground swimming pool with a spa in the back yard area of their property. Ms. Aaker explained the applicants are requesting a variance to allow the waters edge of an in ground pool to be located 11 ft from the rear lot line. The ordinance requires a 14 ft setback from the pool's edge and a 10 ft setback to the edge of the required, (4 ft), of decking. Ms. Aaker noted the homeowners have stated that the proposed pool/spa locates a small portion of the pool into the required setback area. The homeowners indicated that the variance would alleviate possible safety concerns because it allows the pool/spa to be moved farther away from the house. Moving the pool would avoid potential danger according to the applicant by keeping it greater than 5 ft away from the back wall of the home. Other pool locations are out of the question given the amount of dirt removal and retaining walls needed. The pool would back up to a heavily wooded Ms. Aaker concluded staff is concerned about the lack of unique hardship that would support approval of a variance. The pool addition can be accomplished within the setback requirements. Pools can be custom designed and can fit within the parameters of the ordinance. Mr. Aaker stated staff recommends denial of the 3 foot variance requested based on the following findings: there is no unique hardship to the property; the pool may be redesigned to comply and the back yard is generous in area and could support a pool in a conforming location. The proponents, Mr. Bolter and Ms. Soranno were present to respond to questions. Chair Utne stated as she reviewed the plans she came to the conclusion that the pool could be shifted to the north reducing or eliminating the variance. Ms. Aaker responded that is correct, the pool can be shifted and/or redesigned to comply with Code. Mr. Bolter addressed the Board and explained his lot is subjected to very unique characteristics with practical difficulties with the main difficulty the steep topography. Mr. Bolter pointed out much of the lot is unusable because of the terrain. Mr. Bolter told the Board they did take a look at angling the pool, but repositioning the pool would result in having to take down too many large trees and upsetting the existing vegetation. Concluding, Mr. Bolter reiterated the characteristics of his lot make redesign of the pool very difficult. Mr. Staunton acknowledged the steep topography of the lot and asked what would happen to the retaining wall if the pool were repositioned. Mr. Bolter responded it would depend on where the pool were repositioned; adding a retaining wall would be required regardless of pool placement. Mrs. Vasaly asked Ms. Aaker if there is a "standard" pool size in the Code. Ms. Aaker responded to the best of her knowledge there isn't a "standard" pool size in the Code, adding pool size is very individual and pools come in many different shapes and sizes. Mr. Bolter told the Board their desire is to use their pool to swim laps, which requires a more traditional rectangular pool 18'X 40'. Mr. Schwartzbauer told the Board in his opinion the hardship in this situation is the shape of the lot, the topography of the lot and house placement. Mr. Schwartzbauer said an 18' X 40' pool isn't unusual, concluding in this instance he doesn't agree with the position of staff. Mrs. Utne said she understands the lot is difficult but believes more could be done to design a pool that conforms to Code. Mrs. Vasaly said she is leaning to deny the request; however, pool placement conforming or nonconforming doesn't really impact anyone. Mr. Staunton told the Board his first thought when he reviewed the plans was that the pool could be moved and/or redesigned; adding he is also persuaded by the topography that redesigning the pool would be a challenge. Mr. Staunton said he agrees with Mrs. Vasaly's comment that the pool if constructed in a conforming or nonconforming location would have little if any impact on the surrounding properties. Mr. Staunton stated he is torn, he added the pool could be redesigned, but what would redesign do to the trees and vegetation. Mr. Schwartzbauer moved variance approval subject to the plans presented. Mr. Staunton seconded the motion. Mr. Staunton said at this time with weighing the impact he can support the variance request as presented. Mrs. Vasaly said at this time she is 50/50, but would feel more comfortable if the pool were redesigned to comply with Code. Mr. Schwartzbauer said in his opinion what the Board needs to remember is even if this is "just a pool" the property owners have as much right to achieve their pool as they would have if it were an addition. Mr. Schwartzbauer stated the pool does not negatively impact surrounding properties nor does it harm the public, concluding he stated he supports the request as submitted. Chair Utne said Mr. Schwartzbauer has made some good points and acknowledged the pool could be redesigned; however the topography does present a challenge and hardship. Chair Utne called for the vote. Ayes; Schwartzbauer, Staunton, Utne. Nay, Vasaly. Motion carried. B-07.42 Pat RileyNalerie Francou 5513 Halifax Lane, Edina, MN Request: An 8 inch side yard setback variance Ms. Aaker informed the Board the subject property is a multi-level home with an attached two car tuck -under garage. The applicant is proposing to construct a 460 ft addition to the back of the home. The addition will extend the existing nonconforming north building wall into the rear yard. A survey of the property reveals that the home is nonconforming regarding the minimum side yard setback requirement. The home is located 6 ft from the side yard instead of the required 6 ft 8 inches. The homeowners would like to maintain the same nonconforming side yard setback of the house for the addition. The homeowners are also proposing an expanded garage area that would conform to the minimum 5 ft required setback. Ms. Aaker explained the applicant is requesting an 8 inch side yard setback variance to allow the side wall to continue to be 8 inches inside the required 6 ft 8 inch setback. Ms. Aaker concluded staff recommends approval of the requested 8 inch side yard setback variance for proximity based on the following findings: 1) There is unique hardship to the property caused by: a. The existence of the nonconforming northerly side wall. b. The addition will match the existing conditions on site. 2) The variance would meet the intent of the ordinance since: a. The variance would be similar to existing conditions. - b. The variance would maintain the residential character of the property and the neighborhood. Ms. Aaker stated approval should also be based on the following conditions: 1) The addition shall be constructed as per the submitted plan dated July 2007. 2) This variance will expire on October 4, 2008, unless the city has issued a building permit for the project covered by this variance or approved a time extension. The proponents were present to respond to questions. Mr. Schwartzbauer moved variance approval subject to the plans presented, the use of matching materials, based on staff findings and subject to staff conditions. Mrs. Vasaly seconded the motion. All voted aye; motion carried B-07-43 Mary Beth Hamann 5308 West 62nd Street Request: 4 ft side yard variance request. Ms. Aaker informed the Board the subject property is a one story home with an attached two car garage located on the north side of West 62"d St. The applicant is proposing to construct a 267 sq ft addition to the back of the home. A survey of the property reveals that the home is nonconforming regarding the minimum 10 ft side yard setback requirement. The home is located 6.7 ft from the side yard instead of the required 10 ft. The side wall of the home is not parallel with the side lot line so the farther the side wall is extended into the rear yard, the closer it becomes to the side yard. The addition is proposed to be 6 ft from the side lot line. The homeowner would like to extend the same nonconforming side wall into the rear yard. Ms. Aaker explained the applicant is requesting a 4 ft side yard setback variance to allow the continuation of the side wall into the rear yard by 9.3 ft. The homeowner has stated that her wish is to build a modest addition to the back of the house that will open up the kitchen, add casual dining space, increase the bedroom space and make the main bathroom handicapped accessible so that her life-long, live-in adult handicapped daughter will be able to navigate around the house more easily. Ms. Aaker concluded staff recommends approval of the requested 4 ft side yard setback variance for proximity. Approval should be based on the following conditions: • The addition shall be constructed as per the submitted plan dated September 13, 2007. _ • This variance will expire on October 4, 2008, unless the city has issued a building permit for the project covered by this variance or approved a time extension. The proponent, Ms. Hamann was present to respond to questions from the Board. Ms. Hamann told the Board her addition is modest in scope and scale and is needed to accommodate her handicapped daughter. Mrs. Vasaly moved variance approval subject to the plans presented the use of like materials, based on staff findings and subject to staff conditions. Mr. Staunton seconded the motion. All voted aye; motion carried. B_07-44 Ronald and Kristine Erickson 5123 Lake Ridge Road, Edina, MN Request: a 2 foot fence height variance for a 6 foot fence in the front yard setback area Ms. HaKer inrormea the Board the subject property is located at the end of Lake Point Drive. The road widens at the end, but is not a full cul-de-sac. The home located on the property is a two story home with an attached garage. The driveway accessing the property from Lake Point Drive appears sometimes to people driving through the neighborhood as an extension of the street. The applicant is proposing to construct a 6 ft fence along the north, south and westerly border of the property for the purposes of defining the property by protective barrier. The proposed 6 ft fence would be gated at the driveway and would provide a visual separation from the street. Ms. Aaker explained rhe applicant is requesting a 2 ft fence height variance to allow an extension` of an existing 6 ft fence to enclose the perimeter of the property. The Zoning Ordinance allows 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 surround the lot with a 6 ft, open picket steel fence. Ms. Aaker concluded staff recommends approval of the requested 2ft fence height variance. Approval is based on the following findings: • There is unique hardship to the property caused by: a. The existence of the dead-end street connecting with the proponent's driveway. - b. The inability to properly secure the subject property after numerous confused drivers. c. The fence would allow a buffer between the end of the street and the subject property • The variance would meet the intent of the ordinance since: a. The variance would be similar to other 6 ft fence installations that pre date the current code. b. The variance would protect and maintain the residential character of the property and the neighborhood. Ms. Aaker said Approval is also based on the following conditions: • The fence is installed as per the submitted plan dated September, 2007. • This variance will expire on October 4, 2008, unless the city has issued a building permit for the project covered by this variance or approved a time extension. Mr. Mark Lumry was present representing Mr. and Mrs. Erickson. 6 Mr. Staunton asked if the requested increase in fence height is due to security. Mr. Lumry responded yes, adding the Erickson's suffered a break-in to their home and it is believed (the way the lot/house is placed at the end of the street) that an increase in fence height would deter trespass. Mrs. Utne said she usually doesn't support high fences but in this instance she agrees the increase in fence height is a good idea. Mrs. Vasaly said she also agrees the increase in fence height is a good idea, adding the placement of the house and lot in relationship to the block reduce any negative impact from the fence. Mrs. Vasaly also pointed out the property owners have the support of their most impacted neighbor. Mr. Staunton moved variance approval subject to the plans presented based on staff findings and subject to staff conditions. Mrs. Vasaly seconded the motion. All voted aye; motion carried. III. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 6:50 PM