Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2007 12-06 Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting Minutes Reglarr,§ O N �t 1888 MEMBERS PRESENT: MINUTE SUMMARY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS THURSDAY, DECEMBER 6, 2007, 5:30 PM EDINA CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS 4801 WEST 50TH STREET Rose -Mary Utne, Mike Fischer, Kevin Staunton, Mary Vasaly and Ed Schwartzbauer STAFF PRESENT: Kris Aaker and Jackie Hoogenakker I. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES: The minutes of the October 4, 2007, meeting were filed as submitted. II. NEW BUSINESS: B-07-49 Anthony and Elizabeth Burger 6629 West Shore Drive Request: 8.57' side yard setback variance and a 4' side yard setback variance for deck and a 9.6' rear yard setback variance for a porch Ms. Aaker informed the Board the subject property is a one story home with an attached tuck -under three car garage located on the east side of West Shore Drive. The property is large, odd shaped, deep lot that backs up to park property adjacent to Lake Cornelia. The park property is unimproved and does not have direct public access. All of the lots along the east side of Lake Cornelia and north of Laguna have public property along Lake Cornelia beyond their rear lot lines. Visually it looks as if the residential lots extend down to the lake; however, they all have public property adjacent and along Lake Cornelia. All of the homes along West shore drive are located closer to the street than the subject home. Review of the site survey reveals that the subject home was built at the far eastern end of the lot and with substandard setbacks. The north side yard setback is 5 ft from the side lot line and the rear, (east), setback is 20 ft. The required side yard setback is 10 ft plus more must be added given wall height and 25 ft for the rear yard setback. Visually it appears that there is plenty of lot area around the north and east sides of the home, however, the house is actually right up against park property. The owners are proposing a %2 story addition to their existing home, a porch addition to the lower level and deck rebuild on the main level. The additions will be part of a dramatic transformation of the home. The plan requires an 8.25 ft side yard setback variance to add a second story given the existing nonconforming, north side yard setback and given the added height. The second floor will not bring the north building wall any closer to the side yard than the existing side wall. The proposed porch and second story addition requires a variance from the 25 ft rear yard setback. The home is currently 20 ft from the rear lot line and is nonconforming. The second floor addition would maintain the existing nonconforming 20 ft rear yard setback. The proposed porch is an expansion of the building footprint with a 9.6 ft encroachment proposed into the rear yard setback. The new deck on the main level will replace an existing deck, however, would be closer to the side lot line than the existing deck. The new deck will allow a walkway connection to the open porch remodeled above the garage. The deck is proposed to be approximately 1 ft from the north side lot line. The Zoning Ordinance requires that all new additions maintain the current required setback. The subject home is already nonconforming with most improvements requiring a variance from the current code. The homeowners have indicated that the original house was built with setbacks allowed to be less than current standards and that the granting of variances would correct extraordinary conditions not created by the applicant. Ms. Aaker concluded staff recommends approval of the requested setback variances 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 required setbacks. b. The existing home was designed at an angle to the lot lines and with nonconforming setbacks which allows for impressive views, but has severely limited the expansion potential of the structure. c. The variances would allow for the original structure to remain with limited impact on existing setback. 2) The variance would meet the intent of the ordinance since: a. The encroachment would be adjacent to vacant property held by the City of Edina that would remain as a buffer around the lot. b. The improvements would follow the architecture of the home, would be similar to improvements down the block and should have no impact on sight lines. c. The addition would be a reasonable use given the hardship imposed by the required setbacks and inability to relocate the improvements. Approval is also based on the following conditions: 1) The addition must be constructed as per the submitted plan dated November 16, 2007. 2) The variance will expire on December 6, 2008, unless the city has Issued a building permit for the project covered by this variance or approved a time extension. 3) Subject to the restrictions as requested by John Keprios - Park and Recreation Director in a memorandum date November 21, 2007 and attached for reference. The proponent, Mr. and Mrs. Burger were present. Mr. Scott Durand, architect and Mr. Gordon Johnson attorney were also present. Member Fischer referred to the survey and questioned if any structures are located on city property. Ms. Aaker responded there is a play system and driveway that are partially located on city property. Ms. Aaker said this isn't really a problem, pointing out the driveway will be relocated. Member Staunton questioned how this house ever got to be located where it is. Ms. Aaker explained the original property was very large and the lots were developed then platted, which created non -conforming structure(s). Ms. Aaker stated this house is in a very unusual location based on the size of the lot. Member Utne told Board Members this is her neighborhood, adding the original owner of this house also developed and constructed the 6 other adjacent homes. Member Utne explained the original plat contained only two lots, adding the original "homestead" also contained a small golf course and Ball Park, the subject house was constructed and after construction the property was divided up. Mr. Durand, told the Board this property was very carefully reviewed during the design process, adding there is plenty of space on this lot, it's large, but because of the house placement any addition or changes to the house creates the necessity to seek variances. Continuing, Mr. Durand added he honestly doesn't know why the existing house was constructed in this location, maybe to take better advantage of views, reiterating no one really knows the reasoning behind the present house placement. Mr. Durand said he believes in this instance a hardship really exists, nothing can be done to this house without variances. Mr. Durand noted the house isn't that visible from West Shore Drive, and if the City wants the property owners to remove the existing sand box and swing -set they will. Mr. Johnson told the Board Mr. and Mrs. Burger agree to the conditions laid out 3 in the staff report. A brief discussion ensued with Board Members in agreement that this lot is very unique in Edina, acknowledging there is a clear hardship present due to the unusual placement of the house. Mrs. Vasaly moved variance approval based on staff findings and subject to staff conditions. Mr. Fischer seconded the motion. All voted aye; motion carried. B-07-50 Wade and Anne Tallman 6009 Ashcroft Avenue Request: Approve the 4.04 ft side yard variance request. Ms. Aaker told the Board the subject property is a one story, walk -out home with an attached two car garage located on the east side of Ashcroft Ave. The applicants are proposing to construct a 232 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 5.15 ft from the north side yard instead of the required 10 ft. The addition is proposed to be 7.21 ft from the north side lot line. The addition requires added setback due to height of the addition. The lower level and the first floor are exposed with the height of the addition from grade to the top of the first floor proposed to be 17.5 ft. The proposed height adds 1.25 ft to the minimum 10 ft side yard setback requirement. The ordinance requires that 6 inches of setback be added to the minimum 10 ft setback for each 12 inches wall height exceeds 15 ft. The required setback for the addition is 11.25 ft. The proposed setback is 7.21 ft. The homeowner would like to extend a nonconforming side wall into the rear yard. Ms. Aaker explained the homeowners have stated that their wish is to build a modest addition to the back of the house that will increase the bedroom space on the main and lower level. The homeowners had submitted a building permit for the addition to continue the north sidewall into the rear yard. It was indicated to them by city staff that the proposal would require a variance and it was asked if other alternatives had been considered. The homeowners adjusted the setback so that the side wall is two feet farther from the lot line than the existing side wall. The addition cannot be shifted farther south due to existing window placement. Ms. Aaker concluded staff recommends approval of the requested 4.04 ft side yard setback variance for proximity based on the following findings: 4 There is unique hardship to the property caused by: • The existence of the nonconforming northerly side wall. • The home was located closer to the northerly lot line with little opportunity for adjustment due to window placement. • The addition will improve the existing conditions on site. Approval should also be based on the following conditions: 1) The addition shall be constructed as per the submitted plan dated November 7, 2007. 2) This variance will expire on December 6, 2008, unless the city has issued a building permit for the project covered by this variance or approved a time extension. The proponents, Mr. and Mrs. Tallman were present. After a brief discussion Member Schwartzbauer moved variance approval based on staff findings and subject to staff conditions. Member Vasaly seconded the motion. All voted aye; motion carried. III. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 6:15 PM - k�= "Xwam itte by