Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2009 10-01 Edina Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting Minutes RegularMEETING MINUTES Zoning Board of Appeals Thursday, October 1, 2009, 5:30 PM Edina City Hall Council Chambers 4801 50th Street West MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair Mike Fischer, Kevin Staunton, Mary Vasaly, Scott Davidson and Bernadette Hornig STAFF PRESENT: Kris Aaker and Jackie Hoogenakker I. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES: August 6, 2009 11. NEW BUSINESS: B-09-20 David Swenson 6901 Limerick Lane, Edina Request: 1.3 foot side yard setback variance Planner Presentation Planner Aaker informed the Board the subject property is located on the south side of Limerick Lane consisting of a single story home with an attached two car garage. The applicant is planning an addition to the back of the home to include a new master bedroom and a great room. The home was built on a "pie" shaped lot with the side lot lines at an angle to the side walls of the home. The side lot lines become closer farther into the rear yard limiting opportunity behind the house. Planner Aaker explained that the minimum setback required from the side yard is 10 feet. The existing home is nonconforming with a side yard setback of 7.8 feet. The new additions were in -set from the side lot line to address any impact the addition would have on the neighboring property, however are still less than the required setback. The side yard setbacks of the addition are at a greater distance however, from the lot line than the existing back corner of the home. Planner Aaker concluded that staff recommends approval of the 1.3 foot side yard setback variance based on the following findings: 1) There is unique hardship to the property caused by: Zoning Board Minutes October 1, 2009 Page 2 of 5 a. The original home placement at an angle to the side lot line. b. The home is nonconforming and was built under different ordinance requirements, however, was conforming at the time c. The addition will encroach in areas that are farther from the lot line than the existing structure. 2) 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. Planner Aaker stated approval should also be based on the following conditions: 1) The addition shall be constructed as per the submitted plan dated August 23, 2009. 2) This variance will expire on October 1, 2010, unless the city has issued a building permit for the project covered by this variance or approved a time extension. Appearing for the Applicant David Swenson, property owner Board Discussion A discussion ensued with Board Members in agreement that the physical characteristics of the lot and the placement of the home created the need for the variance. Members also agreed that the plans as presented would not negatively impact sight lines. Board Action Member Vasaly moved variance approval based on staff findings and subject to staff conditions' pointing out a hardship exists due to the unique configuration of the lot, the non-conforminity of the lot and the location of the sanitary sewer line. Member Staunton seconded the motion. All voted aye; motion carried. Zoning Board Minutes October 1, 2009 Page 3 of 5 B-09-21 Scott Meisenheimer 5608 Dalrymple Road, Edina, MN Request: A 3.3 foot side yard setback variance Planner Presentation Planner Aaker told the Board the subject property is located on the west side of Dalrymple Road consisting of a rambler with an attached two car garage. The property owner is hoping to remove and replace the existing attached garage on the north side of the home and add to the existing living space in the south west corner of the home. The plan is to increase garage area and also expand a main level room into a master bedroom. All of the improvements conform to the ordinance requirements with the exception of the extension to the master bedroom. The existing living space is currently nonconforming regarding south side yard setback and is located 6.7 feet from the side lot line. The room extension will maintain the existing nonconforming side yard setback. The new area of encroachment will total approximately 40 square feet. All finish materials will match the exterior and the front fagade will not change from the street view with the exception of the conforming garage replacement. Planner Aaker noted that the home was built under different ordinances and conformed to the code at the time of construction. Over the years the ordinance was updated to require a minimum 10 foot side yard setback for living space. All of the original improvements conformed to the ordinances at the time. Changes to the ordinance have resulted in a legal nonconforming property. The homeowner has indicated that the new addition would simply extend the side wall twelve feet into the rear yard. Spacing between the subject home and the home to the south will remain the same and would have no perceivable impact. Concluding, Planner Aaker stated staff recommends approval of the requested 3.3 foot side yard setback variance based on the following findings: 1) There is a unique hardship to the property caused by: a. The location of the existing living space less than 10 feet to the side lot line. b. The addition would simply extend pre-existing conditions alleviating the hardship caused by a change in the ordinances. Zoning Board Minutes October 1, 2009 Page 4 of 5 c. The addition will allow a reasonable use given existing conditions. d. The addition would maintain the setback of an existing nonconforming side wall and would merely extend it by 12 feet. 2) The variance would meet the intent of the ordinance since: a. The addition would match the existing exterior and would be in -keeping with the look of the home and surrounding neighborhood. Spacing between the subject home and the home to the south would not be reduced. b. The improvements would follow the existing wall lines and architecture of the home and should have no impact on sight lines. c. The addition would be a reasonable use given the hardship imposed by the required setback and proximity of the existing side wall. Planner Aaker stated approval is also based on the following conditions: 1) The addition must be constructed as per the submitted plan. 2) The variance will expire on October 1, 2010, unless the city has Issued a building permit for the project covered by this variance or or approved a time extension. Appearing for the Applicant Scott Meisenheimer, applicant and property owner. Applicant Comments Mr. Meisenheimer told the Board he was unaware that portions of his house didn't conform to ordinance requirements. He added that the most impacted neighbor is in support of the addition as proposed and is happy the plans went out, not up. Board Discussion Board Members expressed agreement with the plans as presented. Board Action Member Staunton moved variance approval based on staff findings and subject to staff conditions. Member Vasaly seconded the motion. All voted aye; motion carried. Zoning Board Minutes October 1, 2009 Page 5 of 5 III. COMMUNITY COMMENT: No community comment. IV. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 6:15 PM Sub e