HomeMy WebLinkAbout2008 -6-19 Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting Minutes RegularMINUTE SUMMARY
Edina Zoning Board of Appeals
Thursday, June 19, 2008, 5:30 PM
Edina City Hall Council Chambers
4801 50th Street West
Members Present:
Chair Floyd Grabiel, Julie Risser, James Nelson and Helen Winder
Members Absent:
Rod Hardy
Staff Present:
Kris Aaker and Jackie Hoogenakker
I. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES:
The minutes of the April 17, 2008, meeting were filed as submitted.
11. NEW BUSINESS:
B-08-29 David and Suzy Meitz
330855 th Street West
Request: 2.8 foot side yard setback variance
Planner Aaker informed the Board the subject property is a two story home with an
attached garage located on the north side of west 55th St.. The applicant is proposing to
construct a 110 square foot mudroom addition with a new bathroom above to be
located behind the existing garage. A survey of the property reveals that the home is
located 5.3 feet from the side lot line. The house is also at an angle to the lot lines. An
addition to the back of the garage angles closer to the side lot line due to the off -set
location of the side wall to the side lot line. The minimum side yard setback for lots with
widths between 60 and 75 feet has recently been increased, prior to the ordinance
amendment; the side yard setback minimum had been 5 feet. The ordinance now
requires a 5 foot setback plus an additional 4 inches of side yard setback for each foot
of lot width beyond 60 feet. The proposed project is 2.8 feet short of the new side yard
setback requirement. The addition is proposed to be 5.11 feet from the side lot line and
would extend a mudroom 10 feet into the rear yard. The homeowner would like to
extend the side wall at a 1 foot 4 inch off -set from the existing side wall to keep the
exterior wall at least a minimum of 5 feet from the side lot line.
Planner Aaker concluded staff recommends approval of the requested 2.8 foot side
yard setback variance for proximity based on the following findings:
z) There is unique hardship to the property caused by:
a. The existence of the angled north side wall.
b. The addition is minimal in scope and scale and would have no impact on
surrounding properties.
c. The addition will match the existing conditions on site.
2) The variance would meet the intent of the ordinance since:
a. The variance would not reduce spacing between structures or existing
setback.
b. The variance would maintain the residential character of the property and
the neighborhood.
c. The variance would be consistent with similar setbacks provided by other
homes within the neighborhood.
Approval should also be based on the following conditions:
1) The addition shall be constructed as per the submitted plan dated May 29,
2008.
2) This variance will expire on June 19, 2009, 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. Meitz were present.
Member Nelson asked the proponents if any change is proposed for the existing deck.
Mr. Meitz responded the deck will stay the same.
Member Nelson moved variance approval based on staff findings and subject to
staff conditions. Member Winder seconded the motion. All voted aye; motion
carried.
B-08-30 Ronald and Suzanne Wenaas
5617 Sherwood Avenue
Request: 8.4" side yard setback variance and a 2 foot
front yard setback variance
Planner Aaker told the Board the subject property is a corner lot consisting of a two
story home with an attached two car garage. The applicant is hoping to add-on to the
home to include an addition of a bay window to the front fagade and an expansion of
the garage.
Planner Aaker explained the goal of the project is to maintain the scale of the structure
relative to the neighborhood and reduce mass. Improvements were focused within the
existing building wall lines to minimize disturbance. The applicant is requesting a
variance that would place the interior north sidewall of the home at existing setback.
The bay window had been an ordinance exception to front yard setback requirements
for many years, however, due to recent amendments is now included in front yard
setback. The proposed bay window is a minimal encroachment of 2 feet into the
required front yard setback.
Planner Aaker concluded staff recommends approval of the 8.4 inch side yard and 2
foot front yard 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 interior side yard.
b. No variances were required when the home was constructed.
c. The corner lot arrangement, original home placement and proximity to the
Community Center and Middle School limit desirable design options.
2) The variance would meet the intent of the ordinance since:
a. The proposed encroachments will match the existing encroachments and
be minimal in scope and scale.
b. The improvements would follow the existing wall lines and architecture of
the home and should have no impact on sight lines.
c. The additions would be a reasonable use given the hardship imposed by
the required setbacks.
Approval is also based on the following conditions:
1) The addition must be constructed as per the submitted plan dated May 21,
2008.
2) The variance will expire on June 19, 2009, unless the city has
Issued a building permit for the project covered by this variance or
or approved a time extension.
The proponents Mr. and Mrs. Wenaas were present to respond to questions.
Mrs. Wenaas addressed the Board and explained their desire is to change the look of
their house so it appears to front Sherwood Avenue. Continuing, Mrs. Wenaas
explained the extra room in the bay window area is to accommodate her MS,
concluding their neighbors support the proposal.
Chair Grabiel noted that he recently read an article that stated in the future it will be
very common for homeowners to make minor modifications to their homes as the
population ages.
Member Risser pointed out it is also a bonus for the City to get the boat out of view.
Member Risser moved variance approval based on staff findings and subject to
staff conditions. Member Winder seconded the motion. All voted aye; motion
carried.
B-08-31 Gary and Susan Wahman
4715 Meadow Road
Request: 9 foot rear yard setback variance
Planner Aaker informed the Board the subject property is a one and one half story
home with an attached tandem garage. The property fronts Meadow Road and is a
"through -lot" backing up to France Ave. The homeowners are planning to remove the
tandem garage and replace it with a detached two car garage in the rear yard. The
owners are also proposing a two story addition to the back of the home. All of the
proposed improvements comply with the zoning ordinance requirements with the
exception of the detached garage setback from France Ave. The zoning ordinance
states that for a through lot, the required setback for all buildings and structures from
the street upon which a single dwelling unit building does not front shall be not less than
25 feet. The property owner is proposing a setback from the rear lot Ione of 16 feet. A 9
foot rear yard setback variance is requested.
Planner Aaker explained the proposed request before the Board will allow the applicant
to utilize the rear yard in a similar fashion as other residential lots that are not through -
lots. The proposal will actually provide a much deeper setback of the garage from the
rear lot line, (16 feet), than allowed for typical residential lots, (3 feet). The garage will
be built into the slope of a hill so only about 12 feet of the structure will be above grade
along the France Ave. side.
Planner Aaker concluded staff recommends approval of the requested 9 foot rear yard
setback variance based on the following findings:
There is unique hardship to the property caused by:
a. The location of the lot backing up to France Ave. The required setback is
a hardship hindering the ability to add an accessory structure in the rear
yard. The required through lot setback will not be compromised given that
there are other structures within the required setback along Meadow
4
Road.
b. The proposed additions will be consistent with conditions along the block.
c. The addition is a minimal encroachment, however, allow for a
tremendous improvement to the property.
The variance would meet the intent of the ordinance since:
d. The variance would be similar to existing conditions and would not
interrupt the rear yard patterned establish along France Ave.
e. The variance would not disrupt the goal of maintaining a consistent
setback pattern.
f. The variance would maintain the residential character of the property and
the neighborhood
Approval should also be based on the following conditions:
1) The addition shall be constructed as per the submitted plan dated June 4, 2008.
2) This variance will expire on June 19, 2009 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. Wahman were present to respond to questions.
Mr. Wahman addressed the Board and explained the existing tandem garage is very
tight and the slope of the lot and the desire to save the large oak trees created a design
challenge. Continuing, Mr. Wahman stated their desire is to have a garage that works
for vehicles and adds additional storage for lawnmowers, bikes, etc. Mr. Wahman
acknowledged he was surprised when they learned setbacks are different for through
lots, concluding he believes their plan is in keeping with the character of the
neighborhood.
Member Nelson said as he reviewed the plan it made sense to him and will be an
improvement to the property.
Mr. Dave Savageau, 4713 Meadow Road, told the Board he is concerned with the new
driveway running along side his house. Mr. Aaker stated the existing driveway will just
be extended into the rear, acknowledging it will be a change from what exists.
Member Nelson moved variance approval based on staff findings and subject to
staff conditions. Mrs. Winder seconded the motion. All voted aye; motion
carried.
Chair Grabiel suggested and the proponents work with their neighbor and if possible
soften the impact of the proposed garage and driveway.
B-08-32 Gregory Dalbec
setbacks would allow.
Planner Aaker concluded staff recommends approval of the 2.9 foot side yard setback
variance and 11 foot setback variance for proximity to Birchcrest Lake base on the
following findings:
There is unique hardship to the property caused by:
a. The existence of other homes and structures closer to the lake than the
proposed deck.
b. The home was built prior to current side yard and lake setbacks.
c. The addition will improve the existing conditions on site by allowing
maintaining an existing nonconforming side yard setback and allowing a
minimal encroachment into the lake setback.
The variances would meet the intent of the ordinance since:
a. The variances would be similar to existing surrounding conditions.
b. The variances would maintain the residential character of the property
and the neighborhood
c. The variances would not interfere with sight lines.
Approval should also be based on the following conditions:
• The addition shall be constructed as per the submitted plan dated May 6,
2008.
• This variance will expire on June 19, 2009, unless the city has issued a
building permit for the project covered by this variance or approved a time
extension.
Ms. Henderson was present for respond to questions.
Member Risser asked if the property owner is required to receive variance approval
from not only the City but DNR requirements. Planner Aaker responded in a sense that
is a correct statement. Expanding on her comment Planner Aaker told the Board the
DNR mandated that the City adopt their requirements, pointing out a majority of
properties in Edina don't meet the new DNR requirements; therefore the variance
process is triggered. The DNR does afford cities the right to govern their own water
bodies to a certain extent.
Member Risser commented that in her opinion if encroachments continue there will be
the potential for an environmental tipping point. Planner Aaker explained if a proposed
project "rises to a certain level" review and permitting is required from the Watershed
District, adding in this instance the encroachment doesn't rise to that level.
Member Risser stressed managing water run-off and maintaining shorelines is
important. Planner Aaker responded that she agrees with that statement, adding not
only will this proposal be reviewed by the Planning and Building Departments the
Engineering Department will review it for run-off, pointing out the City does have some
control.
Ms. Henderson told the Board she already met with a DNR representative, adding that
they do and will continue to preserve a three foot area up from the shoreline.
Concluding, Ms. Henderson said in reality her proposal only concerns three posts.
Member Nelson asked Ms. Henderson if her objective is to make better use of the
existing house. Ms. Henderson responded in the affirmative.
Member Risser stated she has a hard time with the argument that there already are so
many buildings that encroach into the setback, so let's keep allowing it. Member Risser
reiterated it is very important to mange water run-off effectively and safely. Ms.
Henderson explained water run-off is already directed, nothing will change, adding
there may be the potential for her to also develop a rain garden. Concluding, Ms.
Henderson stated she doesn't believe what she is proposing would make that much of
a difference in the existing drainage patterns.
Member Nelson moved variance approval based on staff findings and subject to
staff conditions. Member Winder seconded the motion. Ayes, Winder, Nelson,
Grabiel. Nay, Risser. Motion carried 3-1.
III. NEXT MEETING DATE:
July 10, 2008
IV. ADJOURNMENT:
The meeting was adjourned at 6:50 pm