Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1997 06-19 Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting Minutes RegularMINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE EDINA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS HELD ON THURSDAY, JUNE 19,1997,5:30 P.M. EDINA CITY HALL MANAGER'S CONFERENCE ROOM MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair, Helen McClelland, Lorelei Bergman, Rodney Hardy and David Byron MEMBERS ABSENT: Don Patton STAFF PRESENT: Kris Aaker and Jackie Hoogenakker I. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES: The minutes of the April 17, 1997, meeting were filed as submitted. II. NEW BUSINESS: B-97-25 Russell T. Lund 4814 Lakeview Drive Request: A 13.7 foot setback variance from Lake Harvey for a detached garage Ms. Aaker explained the subject property is located along the north side of Lakeview Drive backing up to Lake Harvey. The home is a walkout rambler with a tuck - under two car garage. The homeowner is in the process of remodeling the interior of the house and as part of the improvements the homeowner would like to construct a detached 24'X24' garage northeast of the existing home. The detached garage would be accessed by the existing driveway. The homeowner has indicated that the existing tuck -under garage does not have enough height to clearance to accommodate the owner's vehicle. In addition, the garage appears to be more spacious than it is, there is a stair case located down the center to access the upper floor kitchen area. The homeowner is hoping to accomplish a detached garage to allow for proper vehicle storage. Ms. Aaker said generally, detached garages may be accomplished in the rear yard area with a minimum three foot side and rear setback. The lot backs up to Lake Harvey which requires a setback of 50 feet. The lot is limited in terms of allowable garage location. The 50 foot setback requirement upland from the lake and the existing pool location limits any rear yard garage location. Prior to 1992, the setback requirement for Lakes, Ponds, and Streams had been 25 feet. The 1992 Ordinance amendment of a 50 foot setback was a mandated change required by the Department of Natural Resources. Ms. Aaker concluded it would appear that the site offers limited options available to locate a detached garage. Setback of the garage to the east sideyard property boundary will be more than adequate at 16 feet. Staff supports the request as submitted. A representative for Mr. Lund was present to respond to questions. Ms. McClelland asked Ms. Aaker if the proponent is abandoning the tuck under garage. Ms. Aaker explained the tuck under garage will remain a garage, but there is no way to increase the height of the garage door to accommodate the height of the proponents vehicle (Suburban). Ms. Aaker stated the existing garage door/header can not be replaced or converted to accommodate four-wheel drive, and larger type (Suburban) vehicles. Mr. Hardy questioned if the adjoining property owner to the east has expressed any views regarding the proposal. Ms. Aaker informed Mr. Hardy the neighbor to the east has expressed no objection to the proposal, but asked for maintenance of existing landscaping, and an increase in landscaping to be planted along the common areas to reduce the impact of the proposed garage. Ms. Aaker stated the proponent has agreed to the additional landscaping, and to my knowledge has assured Mr. Hedberg the existing, and new landscaping will continue to be maintained. Mrs. Bergman asked Ms. Aaker if the existing garage door is "normal" height. Ms. Aaker explained the present garage/garage door height may be considered "normal", but in this day and age we may have to reconsider "normal". Many consumers desire the larger "Suburban" four-wheel drive vehicles, or four-wheel drive "Jeeps", "Bronco's" etc. that are taller than standard cars, and many garage doors do not accommodate this additional height. Ms. Aaker noted in this instance because of the tuck under situation with living space above, and the center staircase, the height of the existing garage door can not be increased, in other instances a homeowner may be able to purchase and install a taller door to accommodate these vehicles. F Mr. John Hedberg, adjoining neighbor to the east stated as mentioned by staff, that he has no objection to the proposed new garage, but would like the existing landscaping maintained and increased. Mr. Hardy asked for clarification of the DNR regulations adopted by the City in 1992. Ms. Aaker explained in 1992 the City adopted DNR standards, and now require maintaining a setback of 50 from all waterbodies, and a 75 foot setback from Lakes Cornelia, Indianhead, Arrowhead and Mirror. Ms. Aaker explained the City can choose to be more restrictive, but can not be less restrictive, 50 being the minimum allowed by the DNR. Continuing, Ms. Aaker pointed out Edina has a unique problem (similar to problems other inner -ring suburbs face) in that many of our areas where houses have been constructed near waterbodies do not meet the mandated setback standards, with a number of houses only 25+ feet from waterbodies. Ms. Aaker said the opportunity to achieve a variance(s) from this setback standard helps property owners when they find they can not use their property to its full potential because of the mandated regulations. Ms. Aaker reiterated there are many properties in Edina that presently do not comply with the new standards, and if added on -to, or rebuilt, would require a variance. Mr. Byron asked the setback distance between the proposed garage, and the neighbors (to the east) property boundary. Ms. Aaker responded there is approximately 16 feet between the proposed garage and the east property line. Mr. Byron said in his opinion because the garage is a tuck -under, with living space above, there is limited overhead to achieve the desired entrance height. Continuing, Mr. Byron stated a hardship exists on this property because of the mandated DNR regulations from waterbodies, and in areas developed before the regulations changed, a recognized hardship exists. Mr. Byron moved variance approval subject to the plans presented, the use of matching materials, and that the property owner and the neighbor to the east agree on a suitable landscaping plan. Ayes; Bergman, Byron. Hardy. Nays; McClelland. Ms. McClelland said in her opinion desiring a larger vehicle is not a hardship, and in her opinion when possible, property owners should meet DNR regulations. Motion carried 3-1. 3 B-97-26 David E. Thomas/Virginia Leach Vacant Lot/Vernon Avenue Request: A 31 foot lot depth variance and a 4'4" frontyard setback variance Ms. Aaker informed the Board the subject property is a platted lot that was subdivided in 1971. The Ordinance requires a minimum lot depth of 120 feet, however, the lot only provides a depth of 89 feet. A 31 foot lot depth variance is therefore required for any development. House plans for the lot have been reviewed by the Zoning Board of Appeals on three previous occasions. Reviews were conducted in 1980, 1987, and 1994. All three reviews were for essentially the same building design. The current request is for a similar two story home plan, however, there has been some modification with regard to house elevation, siting and construction. The deck area on the back of the home has been reduced by half of its original size. The lowest floor elevation has been changed from 918.0 to 912.0. Ms. Aaker pointed out In previous applications, the house was parallel to the rear lot line, the house has now been put at an angle to the rear lot line and parallel to Vernon Avenue. The roof will have a 4/12 pitch to minimize height impact. Ms. Aaker said it should be noted that the frontyard setback variance has been reduced from a 28 foot variance to a 4 foot 4 inch variance. The reduction in variance does not reflect a design change. The change in required variance reflects the Zoning Board's interpretation (under direction by the City Attorney) of "Established Average Frontyard Setback." An appeal to the Zoning Board, unrelated to this request, established that a frontyard setback requirement of 30 feet must be Maintained if less than 25 percent of lineal frontage on the street between intersections is occupied by buildings having front setbacks of more or less than 30 feet. Only one home fronts Vernon Avenue between intersections and it has less than 25 percent of the total lineal frontage along the block. Instead of requiring that the proposed house match the 58 foot setback of the neighbor, the Zoning Board has determined by clarification of the Ordinance by the City Attorney that the lot has a frontyard setback requirement of 30 feet. Ms. Aaker stated the proposed home will maintain a 30 foot frontyard setback with the exception of a 4 foot 4 inch front entrance portico. Ms. Aaker reported in 1980 variances were approved by the Board of Appeals and were upheld with Findings by the Council. No home was built at that time so the variances lapsed. In 1987 identical variances were reviewed and denied by the Board of Appeals based on house design. The 1987 variance request was not appealed to City Council. In July 1994, the Zoning Board heard and denied identical variances 4 based on house design. The 1994 variances were appealed to City Council. City Council upheld the Zoning Board's decision of denial based on house design. Ms. Aaker concluded staff supported the 1980, 1987, and 1994 variance requests. Staff recommends approval of the requested variances. Variance approval will correct extraordinary circumstances with regard to lot configuration and setback. Any approval should be conditioned on the following: 1. Curb cut and access to be reviewed by Hennepin County. 2. Drainage and utility connection shall be reviewed by the City Engineer. 3. Review and permit obtained by the watershed district if deemed necessary. The proponents, Mr. David Thomas Sr. and Jr. were present. Mr. Dennis Trooien, attorney was present representing the proponents. Mr. Hardy questioned Ms. Aaker on the curb cut status of the subject site. Ms. Aaker reported Hennepin County has been advised of this proposal, and indicated a permit for a curb cut will be issued. Mr. Hardy asked if a turn -around drive is appropriate in this situation. Ms. Aaker said it is recommended that the property should be developed with a turn -around allowing vehicles to enter Vernon Avenue front first. Ms. Aaker said the proponents have indicated a hammer -head style turn around, which accomplishes the goal of vehicles entering onto Vernon Avenue front first. Mrs. Bergman asked Ms. Aaker if the house has been lowered so that it is no longer a walk -out. Continuing, Mrs. Bergman said it appears to her the proposed house is no longer a full walkout. Ms. Aaker explained the house plan is exactly the same as previously presented at past hearings, but because of a change in house placement the elevation is different. The proposed house is now placed parallel to Vernon Avenue and angled to align with the rear property line. The previous ground floor elevation was 918.0, and the proposed house will maintain an elevation of 912.0, which is'a six foot decrease in elevation. Mrs. Bergman questioned the distances from the property to the west, and north of the proposed new house. Ms. Aaker said the property located to the west is off -set and the terrain is extreme, so it is difficult to determine that distance. Ms. Aaker also pointed out the terrain to the west becomes a visual barrier between the existing house on Vernon, and the proposed house. Ms. Aaker said to the north the distances between structures at minimum are 50 feet, adding she believes the distance is probably more. Mr. Dennis Trooien addressed the Board informing them he represents the proponents, and agrees with staffs position on this issue. Continuing, Mr. Trooien briefly explained the history of the site began in 1971 when Margaret Willis, the property 61 owner, petitioned to subdivide her existing through lot which created the lot on Vernon Avenue (subject lot) and the lot on Dundee. Mrs. Willis was granted subdivision approval. Mr. Trooien said at that time staff, Commission, and Council were aware they were allowing the creation of a "substandard" lot. Mr. Trooien added when Mr. Thomas purchased this lot he believed it was regarded as buildable. In 1980 a variance was requested, and granted for a similar house that depicted a higher elevation than the one proposed. The house also had more decks across the rear. The house proposed in 1980 was positioned parallel to Dundee Road, and the house plans presented this evening position the house parallel to Vernon Avenue. The variance granted in 1980 lapsed because a house was not constructed in the allotted one year time period. Continuing, Mr. Trooien reported Mr. Thomas petitioned the Board for variance approval in 1987 and 1994 and was denied the right to develop his property by the Board. He appealed the 1994 Board decision to the City Council, and was denied by Council. Mr. Trooien explained when he was retained by Mr. Thomas to review the case he obtained copies of minutes from all meetings pertaining to this issue, and at all meetings it was acknowledged this lot is buildable. Mr. Trooien stated comments from Council members included the suggestion of tipping the house parallel to Vernon Avenue (which was accomplished), and reducing the height of the house. Mr. Trooien said the Board should note a height variance is not required, and the house meets all setback standards except for the newly requested frontyard setback for a front portico. Mr. Trooien reported when one views the proposed house from Vernon Avenue the house is set lower on the site by six feet. Mr. Trooien, in response to Mrs. Bergmans comment, said he is not sure at this time if there will be a door on the rear of the proposed house, but there will be above ground windows, or lookout windows. Mr. Trooien also added one deck has been eliminated (from the original proposal), and the other deck has been reduced in size. Mr. Trooien presented to the Board graphics of the original proposal, including decks, and the proposal submitted this evening. Ms. McClelland asked for clarification on elevations, and if the house is really six feet lower. Ms. Aaker clarified the proposed house is still depicted at 32 feet in height, it is exactly the same as previous plans, but the proponent has indicated the new structure will be constructed to fit into the hill (pushed down) by six feet. The visual magnitude of the house should change from this "pushing" into the hill, and realignment to Vernon Avenue. Mr. Byron said in reviewing previous minutes the Council expressed concern at the height of the rear walk -out elevation to the roof -top. Mr. Byron stated past meetings indicated the height at 32'. Ms. McClelland acknowledged there appears to be some discrepancies in rear elevation. Ms. Aaker reiterated the height is the same at 32 feet, but the scale is different on each plan, so if one uses one scale to figure the calculations the figures will not coincide. 0 In conclusion, Mr. Trooien reiterated his client believed when he purchased this lot it was buildable, but when developed may require some form of variance. Mr. Trooien pointed out the only other variance that is being requested this evening is for a 44" unenclosed front entry portico, which he stated he believes adds to the look of the house. Mr. Trooien respectfully requested that the Board grant the variances as presented. Ms. McClelland asked Mr. Trooien if he knows the elevation of the basement. Mr. Trooien said the previous plans depict a basement elevation of 918', and the current proposal is 912'. Mr. Trooien interjected the proponent is not suggesting the structure has changed in any way (except for the addition of the front portico) what has changed is the structure has been "dug" or "pushed" into the hill six feet. Mr. Trooien reiterated when you view this house compared with the past proposals from either Vernon Avenue or Dundee Road the house is six feet lower. Mr. Trooien stated in his opinion the Board is "getting off the track", height is not the issue, nor does the height of the proposed house require a variance. It meets all setbacks established by the City, except in the front. Mr. Trooien said they respectfully listened to expressed past concerns, addressed them, and believe the proposal this evening has eliminated those concerns. Concluding Mr. Trooien said in his opinion the only variance that really needs to be addressed this evening is the frontyard setback variance. The lot depth variance, was acknowledged at the time of subdivision. A discussion ensued between Board Members as they compared the height and elevations of past and present plans, and clarifying for themselves the calculations. Mr. Trooien reiterated the structure has been lowered by 6 feet, and visually there is a difference, as previously mentioned, from Vernon Avenue and Dundee Rood. The proposed house has been angled parallel with Vernon Avenue, not Dundee as in previous proposals, with a basement elevation of 912' versus the previous elevation of 918'. Mr. Byron asked Ms. Aaker if she agrees with the reduction in basement elevation. Mr. Aaker responded in the affirmative. The plan depicts a basement elevation of 912' and construction of the house will be held to 912'. Ms. Dorothy McIntyre, 5540 Dundee Road, adjacent house immediately north of the subject site stated she opposes the proposal as submitted, and the requested variances. Ms. McIntyre informed the Board she purchased her home in 1978 from Margaret Willis and has been present at every Commission, Variance and Council hearing, where she learned the lot was substandard. Ms. McIntyre said she also voiced her objection to development of this substandard lot. Ms. McIntyre submitted to Board Members copies of her notes, and a copy of what she indicated is a different house plan. Continuing, Ms. McIntyre stated the subject lot is encumbered with very steep 7 slopes, and the steepness of the slope is very apparent from Dundee Road. She added neighbors on Dundee Road feel very unfortunate this lot was ever allowed to be subdivided. Ms. McIntyre said Mr. Thomas should have known when he purchased the lot that it was substandard, and would require variances, but he took a gamble that a variance would be granted, and the lot could be developed. Ms. McClelland asked Ms. Aaker how the lot depth variance came about, questioning if the County may have acquired some of the property. Continuing, Ms. McClelland pointed out on one side of the subject site the lot does meet lot depth requirements, but narrows. Ms. Aaker said that is correct, and to determine the magnitude of the lot depth variance one averages the lot. In response to Ms. McClellands question regarding the County "taking" a portion of the subject site Ms. Aaker said to the best of her knowledge that is not the case. Concluding, Ms. Aaker said from the beginning this lot was approved with the knowledge it was substandard in lot depth. Mr. Trooien asked if he could view the handout submitted by Ms. McIntyre that depicted a different house plan. Upon review Mr. Trooien said to the best of his knowledge he has no idea where this plan originated. He stressed the house plan for this site has always been two story. He referred to the minutes from the 1980 Council meeting, and at that meeting the minutes reflect the discussion of a two story walk -out home, and that Ms. McIntyre stated her objection to living behind a two and one-half story walk out home. Mr. Hardy asked if the plan before them this evening is the same plan that was presented to the Council and approved in 1980. Mr. Trooien said that is correct, but keep in mind the house has been pushed down into the site six feet. Ms. Aaker interjected there are no plans in the file on what was approved in 1980. Ms. Aaker stated she has never seen the plan presented this evening by Ms. McIntyre. Ms. McClelland asked Mr. Trooien the distance of the proposed house from the rear lot line. Mr. Trooien said it is 25 feet. Ms. McClelland commented that the basement elevation of the proposed house is at 912 , with the McIntyre home at 910 feet, finishing at Dundee Road at 896 feet. Mr. Trooien interjected, and reiterated a variance for height is not required, adding in his opinion the only reason we are present this evening is to request the 4'4" frontyard setback variance. Mr. Trooien reiterated the lot was approved with the knowledge it was substandard in depth. Mr. Byron said in his opinion in listening to the discussion that the proposed house is too massive, as reflected in past minutes, and asked Mr. Trooien what is different with this proposal, from past proposals in Ms. McIntyre's viewpoint. Mr. Trooien responded the rearyard of the proposed house will be landscaped, bermed, (that would have occurred with past proposals), the house has been lowered by 6 feet, 51 and is now angled parallel to Vernon Avenue instead of Dundee Road. Continuing, Mr. Trooien stated in his opinion, Ms. McIntyre does not face, and is not subjected to any more serious conditions with respect to height, siting, or massing, than any other resident in the City of Edina. Mr. Trooien said it appears to him she has been favored. This house meets City height requirements, and always has. Mr. Byron responded he did not mean to personalize this to Ms. McIntyre, adding he is only asking what has been done in response to the concerns expressed by past Council Members. Mr. Trooien said he believes he has identified the changes to the house in response to concerns expressed by the Council. Ms. McClelland said massing has not been discussed enough this evening, adding the Board needs to take into account the topography of the site, massing of the structure, character and symmetry, and the impact the proposal will have on surrounding neighbors. Continuing, Ms. McClelland said the Council may have made a mistake in allowing this subdivision, (maybe believing there was more depth). Ms. McClelland added just because the City may have made a mistake in the past, that does not mean we have to compound that mistake by over massing the site. Continuing, Ms. McClelland said the proponent must have realized the lot was substandard, and should redesign a house that better fits the size and shape of the lot. Concluding, Ms. McClelland said in her opinion this is a case of overbuilding. She added she does not have a problem with the front entryway, her issue is with the rear elevation that is presented to the neighbors on Dundee Road. Mr. Hardy asked what the style of the house is on Dundee Road directly to the rear of the subject lot. Ms. McIntyre said her home is a split entry home with a addition added in 1996 off the rear. Mr. Hardy said in reviewing all the materials and joining in the discussion this evening he does not have a problem with what has been submitted. Mrs. Bergman asked if the hill will need to be excavated. Mr. Trooien said the rear will be dug out to accommodate rear window location. Mrs. Bergman pointed out this site has heavy vegetation and with landscaping and a berm added at the rear lot line, after construction the view from Dundee may be minimal. Mr. Hardy moved approval of a 31 foot lot depth variance and a 4'4" frontyard setback variance subject to staff conditions with the additional condition that staff reaffirm that the plan submitted in 1980 that was approved was for a two story home (virtually the same as submitted this evening) and a berm is to be constructed north of the property line with landscaping that will screen the subject house from the property to the north. This landscaping plan is to be reviewed by staff. Mrs. Bergman seconded the motion. Ayes; Hardy, Bergman. Nays; Byron, McClelland. Motion to approve denied. D Mr. Byron moved denial of the variances. Ms. McClelland seconded the motion. Ayes; Byron, McClelland. Nays; Hardy, Bergman. Motion carried. Mr. Byron expressed frustration with the process stating he believes the Council at their 1994 meeting made it very clear what they wanted to see constructed on this site. Mr. Byron said in his opinion the proponent did not respond to their suggestions. B-97-27 John and Kelly Wheaton 5109 Arden Avenue Lot 5, Block 4, Brucewood Request: A 1.25 foot sideyard setback variance Ms. Aaker informed the Board the subject property is located on the east side of Arden Avenue consisting of a 1 Y2 story home with an attached garage. The homeowners applied for a building permit to allow an extension of a dormer along the back side of the home. Upon review it was discovered that the north side setback is slightly non -conforming and that the increase in building height requires additional setback from the lot line. Ms. Aaker explained the proposed addition will not change the elevation of the roof peak. The homeowners have indicated the extension of the dormer will expand second floor space and allow the addition of a small bedroom. The dormer extension will even out the existing dormers and introduce consistent building lines. The homeowners are also hoping to solve an ice damming problem that occurs in the winter time. Extension of the dormer will eliminate a roof valley and hopefully cure a chronic problem. Ms. Aaker pointed out the addition will occur within the existing building foot print and will not reduce an existing non -conforming setback. The front facade of the home will remain the same with no change in roof line height. Impact of the addition would be minimal. The adjacent property most affected by the proposal is a full two story structure. The addition will have matching materials used on the structure. Ms. Aaker concluded the variance is to allow the continuation of a non- conforming setback. Staff believes the additional height introduced by the dormer will not negatively impact the adjacent neighbor. Staff supports the request as submitted. The proponents, Mr. and Mrs. Wheaton were present. After a brief discussion in which the Board agreed the variance request was reasonable, and would not negatively impact the neighborhood, Mr. Byron moved for 10 variance approval subject to the plans presented, and the use of matching materials. Mrs. Bergman seconded the motion. All voted aye; motion carried. B-97-28 Ronald and Mary Louise Lamberton 4108 Sunnyside Road The east 150 feet of west 51 feet of Lot 3 Block 15, Country Club Dist. Fairway Section Request: A 2 foot sideyard setback variance for location of an air conditioning unit Ms. Aaker told the Board the subject property is located on the north side of Sunnyside Road consisting of a two story brick home with an attached two car garage accessed by an alley. The home is French Provincial in design, was built in 1937 and is listed as "Pivotal" in terms of the Historical and Architectural Survey of the Country Club District conducted in 1980. Pivotal buildings are those homes of historical and architectural importance that define the significance of the district. Ms. Aaker stated the homeowners believe that the air conditioning unit is unsightly and does not conform with the spirit or intent of the Ordinance by being visible from the frontyard. They would like to place it in the west sideyard, that has a six foot fence adjacent to it with the neighbor's compressor located on the other side of the fence. The homeowners believe that the fence will serve to insulate/muffle the sound of the unit and they will be purchasing a new model Lennox (HS 19) which has a fully encased compressor. The proponent stated that the new model provides added sound proofing and makes for a quieter running unit. The most affected neighbor to the west supports the request. Ms. Aaker concluded the air conditioning unit is currently conforming regarding Ordinance requirements. The homeowners are requesting a variance to relocate the air conditioner unit from a conforming to a non -conforming location. Staff would agree that aesthetically, the proposed location would be an improvement to the streetscape, however, has concerns regarding shifting impact onto the neighboring property. The proponents, Mr. and Mrs. Lamberton were present. Mr. Hardy asked Ms. Aaker if she has received input from the most impacted neighbor. Mr. Lamberton addressed the Board, and submitted a letter from the most impacted neighbor which indicated their support. Continuing, Mr. Lamberton explained 11 the air conditioning unit they purchased to replace the existing unit is heralded to be the most efficient and quiet air conditioning unit on the market. Continuing, Mr. Lamberton said new landscaping will be planted in the area where the existing unit sat, and the fence should buffer the new unit from the adjoining property owner. Mr. Byron asked Ms. Lamberton the measurement of the new unit. Mr. Lamberton said the new unit is 3'X 2 Y2. Mr. Byron asked Mr. Lamberton if he could locate the unit in the rearyard. Mr. Lamberton explained because of room locations and plumbing restrictions the unit needs to be placed in the sideyard. Mrs. Bergman commented in viewing the plans that it appears the proposed unit will be located on the same side as the neighbors porch. Mr. Lamberton said that is correct, reiterating the adjoining neighbor supports the variance, noting the fence and plantings should muffle the majority of noise emitted from the unit when it is operating. Mr. Byron said his concern is in setting a precedent in the Country Club District. He pointed out the house placements in this area are very tight, and an air conditioning unit does create noise. Ms. McClelland stated in her opinion the house is "pivotal" in the Country Club District, and it does make sense to move a modern appliance out of view from the front street. She acknowledged the area has minimum setbacks, but pointed out the adjoining neighbor supports the request, and the new technology may reduce noise impact. Mr. Byron stated he can not support the request. Mrs. Bergman moved variance approval subject to the plans presented. Mr. Hardy seconded the motion. Ayes; Hardy, Bergman, McClelland, Nay; Byron. Motion carried. B-97-29 Alan and Carol Shapiro 5721 Camelback Drive Request: A three foot frontyard setback variance for a family room/study addition Ms. Aaker informed the Board the subject property is located on the east side of Camelback Drive, consisting of an "L" shaped home with a tuck under two car garage. The homeowners are proposing a family room/study in the front yard area. The addition will create a "U" shaped home. The existing setback of the home is 40 feet, 12 the addition will be 42 feet to the front property boundary. The required average frontyard setback is 45 feet. The home is currently non -conforming. Ms. Aaker concluded staff recommends approval of the variance given that it is a reduction in variance request than the one granted in 1986. The proponents, Mr. and Mrs. Shapiro were present. A brief discussion ensued with the Board in agreement that any impact is minimal. Mr. Hardy moved variance approval subject to the plans presented and the use of matching materials. Mrs. Bergman seconded the motion. All voted aye; motion carried. III. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 7:00 p.m. 13