Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2009 08-20 Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting Minutes Regular'..6 o e tA cn ,88a MINUTES Regular Meeting of the Edina Zoning Board of Appeals Thursday, August 20, 2009, 5:30 PM Communit Room 4801 West 50 Street MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair Floyd Grabiel, Arlene Forrest, Michael Birdman and Helen Winder MEMBERS ABSENT: Fred Adiyia STAFF PRESENT: Kris Aaker I. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES: June 18, 2009 II. NEW BUSINESS: B-09-13 Laura and Mark Masuda 6112 Fox Meadow Lane, Edina, MN Request: 33.2 foot front yard setback variance rianner Presentation Planner Aaker informed the Board the subject property is located on the north side of Fox Meadow Lane and consists of a two story home with an attached, side loading, three car garage. The home was built in 1976 and is currently lacking in space and storage. The homeowners would like to add bedroom/garage area and remodel existing spaces in order to stay in their home. Since moving into the home in 2000 they have become heavily invested in Edina and their neighborhood. The property is a corner lot in the northeast intersection of Fox Meadow Lane and Blake Road. The home is a multi-level home with four small tiered levels making design options challenging to add on to the existing floor plan. The lot is large at 17,115 square feet, however, the required setbacks severely limits expansion potential. Because of the corner location, two front yard setbacks are required. In addition to setback challenges there are two elevation changes prohibiting an addition within the allowed buildable area. The existing floor plan also does not lend itself to expansion in the area where an addition could conform. Planner Aaker explained that the owners have reviewed their options and have come to the conclusion that the addition desired is not possible without the benefit of a variance. An addition in a conforming location would be more intrusive to the neighbors than in the proposed location where there would be no directly affected neighbors. The addition would be 49 feet from the sidewalk adjacent to Blake Road with a raised berm in between buffering the addition from Blake Road. It should be noted that there are other homes closer to Blake road that are not part of the formula to determine front yard setback for the property. There are a few homes set much deeper from Blake Road that affect the average front yard setback along the block. Planner Aaker concluded staff recommends approval of the 33.2 foot front yard setback variance request based on the following findings: 1) There is unique hardship to the property caused by: a. The location of the existing home relative to the required setbacks. b. The topography of the lot limits expansion opportunities. c. The buildable area of the property allowed by current ordinance prohibits a logical expansion of the existing multi-level floor plan. 2) The variance would meet the intent of the ordinance since: a. The addition would maintain the same distance from the home north of the subject property. b. The addition would be a reasonable expansion given required setbacks. c. The addition would have no impact along Blake Road or Fox Meadow Lane. d. The addition would appear seamless and would not be discernable from the current home. Approval should also be based on the following conditions: 1) The addition must be constructed as per the submitted plan dated August 4, 2009. 2) The variance will expire on August 20, 2010, unless the city has issued a building permit for the project covered by this variance or approved time extension. Appearing for the Applicant Mark Musuda, property owner Applicant Presentation M r. Musuda explained the reason for the expansion to their home was to remain in their neighborhood and accommodate the needs of their growing family. Mr. Musuda said his lot and the requirement of maintaining two front yard setbacks posed a real challenge in creating the right design that wouldn't require a variance. Mr. Musuda pointed out that due to the interior layout of the home, grade elevation, corner lot situation and front yard setback requirements this goal became impossible. Mr. Musuda asked the Board to approve his request. Comments and Questions from the Commission Member Birdman commented that this property is faced with a unique set of circumstances, adding he believes without the benefit of a variance the property owners wouldn't be able to reasonably use their properly. Member Forrest acknowledged the difficulty with a corner lot, adding she was happy to see that hard surface elements are being removed. Chair Grabiel said he understands the frustration in trying to design an expansion meeting setbacks; however, he does have a concern that if approved the house will sit closer to the street than the adjoining property owner. Chair Grabiel added he can't support the request as submitted. Members Birdman and Forrest commented they understand Chair Grabiels position; however believe that the proposal as presented has merit, adding in their opinions the subject property has a hardship because of the setbacks established by the other houses. Member Winder added in her opinion the issues present are very specific and unique to this property and with the removal of impervious surface she can support the request as submitted. Board Action Member Birdman moved variance approval based on staff findings and subject to staff conditions. Member Forrest seconded the motion. Ayes; Birdman, Forrest, Winder. Nay, Grabiel. Motion to approve B-09-13 approved 3-1. B-09-15 Jennifer O'Brien 4512 Balfanz Request: 3.67 foot side yard setback variance Planner Presentation Planner Aaker told the Board the subject property is located on the north side of Balfanz Road consisting of a rambler with a tuck -under one car garage. The property owners are hoping to excavate behind the garage adding space to allow for the storage of two cars. The plan is to also expand the main level above the garage and add an addition west of the home. All of the improvements conform to the ordinance requirements with the exception of the living space above the garage extension. The garage is allowed a 5 foot side yard setback, however, living space is supposed to be no closer to the side yard than 10 feet. The existing living space is currently nonconforming regarding side yard setback and is located 6.8 feet from the side lot line. The room extension will reduce the side yard setback to approximately 6 feet 4 inches. The new area of encroachment will total 29 square feet. All finish materials will match the exterior and the front fagade will not change with the exception of the conforming addition to the west of the home. Planner Aaker explained that the home was built under different ordinances and at the time of construction, a two car garage was not required. Over the years the ordinance was updated to require a minimum two car garage per single dwelling unit. The subject home has a tuck -under one car garage with living space above. All of the original improvements conformed to the ordinances at the time. Changes to the ordinance have resulted in a nonconforming property. Planner Aaker concluded that staff recommends approval of the requested 3.67 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 garage with living space above at an angle to the side lot line. b. The addition would comply with the minimum two car garage requirement. c. The addition will allow required interior garage space with a minimal, 29 square foot encroachment of living space into the setback area. d. The addition would maintain an existing nonconforming side wall and would reduce the setback insignificantly by only mere inches. 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 east 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 of the garage. 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 August 20, 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 Jennnifer O'Brien, property owner Applicant Presentation Ms. O'Brien told the Board she has lived in the house for five years, loves the neighborhood and hopes the Board can support her request. Comments and Questions from the Board Member Forrest told the applicant she appreciated how thorough the narrative and the plans were, adding she feels it's a good plan. Chair Grabiel agreed, adding in his opinion the City should encourage (when the opportunity presents itself) two stall garages. Board Action Member Forrest moved variance approval of B-09-15 based on staff findings and subject to staff conditions. Member Winder seconded the motion. All voted aye; motion carried. III. COMMUNITY COMMENT: None III. NEXT MEETING DATE: September 3, 2009 IV. ADJOURNMENT: Member Winder moved adjournment at 6:10 PM. Member Birdman seconded the motion. All voted aye; motion carried. Submitted by