Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2009 09-17 Edina Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting Minutes RegularMEETING MINUTES Regular Meeting of the Edina Zoning Board of Appeals Thursday, September 17, 2009, 5:30 PM Edina Community Room 4801 50th Street West MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair Steve Brown, Helen Winder, Michael Birdman, Jeff Carpenter MEMBERS ABSENT: Fred Adiyia STAFF PRESENT: Kris Aaker and Jackie Hoogenakker APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES: The minutes of the March 19, 2009, zoning board meeting were filed as submitted. II. NEW BUSINESS: B-09-18 Thomas and Elizabeth Pfiefer 4334 Oakdale Avenue Request: A 1 foot rear yard and a 9'/z inch side yard setback variance Staff Presentation: Planner Aaker informed the Board the subject property is a one and one half story home with a detached two car garage located on the west side of Oakdale Ave. The homeowners are hoping to replace their existing two car, detached garage with a slightly deeper and wider two car garage in the same location as the existing garage. The homeowners are hoping to locate the replacement garage at the same nonconforming setbacks. The existing garage is 2 feet from the north lot line and 2.2 feet from the west lot line. The garage was built in 1946 and modified in 1955 under different ordinances when the property was part of the Village of Morningside which at the time allowed 2 foot side and rear yard setbacks for detached garages. A copy of the 1946 and 1955 building permits are attached indicating that the setback to the side and Minutes Edina Zoning Board Thursday, September 17, 2009 Page 2 of 6 rear lot lines were to be 2 feet and were approved and issued by the Village of Morningside. The garage is now nonconforming given Edina's setback requirements, however, may remain at the same nonconforming setbacks as long as the garage is not expanded or increased in volume or changed in configuration. Planner Aaker explained that the homeowner has indicated that the new garage would be 2 feet wider and 4 feet deeper than the existing garage. The existing garage is 20 feet wide by 24 feet deep. The new garage would be 22 feet wide by 26 feet deep. The new garage is proposed to maintain the existing nonconforming side and rear yard setbacks with the side and rear walls staying in the same location. The expanded portion would extend east and south and would not affect existing setbacks. Planner Aaker concluded that staff recommends approval of the requested 1 foot rear yard and a 9 Y2 inch side yard setback variance to allow a garage expansion with a 6 inch overhang based on the following findings: 1) There is a unique hardship to the property caused by: a. The existing location of the garage to the side and rear lot lines. b. The addition would comply with the minimum two car garage requirement and would improve a garage built 55 years ago at a legal nonconforming setback. c. The addition will allow proper spacing given the existing site conditions. 2) The variance would meet the intent of the ordinance since: a. The addition would match the existing nonconforming setbacks and provide the same spacing between properties as exists today. b. The improvements would follow the existing wall lines of the current garage and should have no impact on sight lines. c. The addition would be a reasonable use given the hardship imposed by the required setback given proximity of the existing side walls of the garage. Approval is also based on the following conditions: 1) The addition must be constructed as per the submitted plan. 2) The chief building inspector must review and approve measures required for fire protection. 3) The variance will expire on September 17, 2010, unless the city has Issued a building permit for the project covered by this variance or or approved a time extension. Minutes Edina Zoning Board Thursday, September 17, 2009 Page 3 of 6 Appearing for the Applicant: Elizabeth Pfiefer, Property Owner Comments and Questions from the Board: Chair Brown asked Planner Aaker if height was an issue. Planner Aaker responded that building height was not an issue, it meets code. A brief discussion ensued with board members in agreement that the addition would not negatively impact neighboring properties. Board Action: Member Birdman moved variance approval of B-09-18 based on staff findings and subject to staff conditions. Member Winder seconded the motion. All voted aye; motion carried. Chair Brown informed Ms. Pfiefer that there is a 10 -day appeal period and after the appeal period has expired a building permit may be applied for. B-09-19 Muzammil Hussain 6761 Brendan Court Request: A 9.4 foot and an 8.7 foot height variance Planner Presentation Planner Aaker told the board the subject property is a 29,856 square foot vacant lot located at the west end of Brendan Court cul-de-sac. The property owner is hoping to build a home on the lot with finished grades and floor heights that are similar to surrounding properties. All of the proposed improvements conform to the zoning ordinance requirements with the exception of the building height requirement. The new home as measured from the existing grade to the midpoint of the roof will be 38.7 feet and to the top of the ridge will be 44.4 feet. The ordinance allows a maximum height, as measured from existing grade to the midpoint of the roof, of 30 feet and to the ridge of 35 feet. The property is proposed to have approximately 11.5 — 12 feet of fill brought on the lot to bring the front yard with first floor elevations up to a level similar to neighboring properties. The amount of fill does not change how a building is measured. The over-all height of a structure is measured from the existing grade along the front Minutes Edina Zoning Board Thursday, September 17, 2009 Page 4 of 6 building wall to the mid -point and to the ridge of the roof. Over the last year or so, the ordinance has been amended from allowing overall building height to be measured from proposed grade along the front building wall to measuring height from the existing grade along the front wall. All of the other homes built within the subdivision were measured using proposed grade instead of existing grade. All of the lots within the subdivision were custom graded and were altered to allow front yard grade elevations between 880 — 890 feet. The existing grade of 870 on the subject lot would be brought up to 881.5 falling within the range of adjacent and near by properties. The home will be a two story walk -out and if measured using proposed grades would fall well within compliance of height restrictions of 30 feet to the mid -point and 35 feet to the top of the ridge. If measured from proposed grade the home would be approximately 27 feet to mid -point and less than 33 feet to the ridge of the roof. Planner Aaker explained that the zoning ordinance was recently amended for the specific purpose of preventing new homes from being built with the ground at higher elevations than those that are adjacent and those within the neighborhood. There has been a general perception that new homes built in Edina are ever larger, higher and taller than those that exist. The code was changed to modify new home construction to the extent that height must take into consideration what currently exists on site and what's around the site. In this particular instance, all of the surrounding lots have been custom graded and brought up to ground elevations much higher than the subject lot. The subject lot is the low spot on the cul-de-sac. Planner Aaker concluded staff recommends approval of the requested variances based on the following findings: 1) There is unique hardship to the property: a. A new home cannot be built on the property without practical consideration given to existing grades and the altered grades of surrounding properties. b. If the new home were to be measured from the proposed grade along the front building wall, it would be within the height requirements and would be more in -keeping with heights of surrounding homes. c. The variance is not self imposed. The existing grade challenges are a sever imposition on the ability to use the property in a reasonable fashion. 2) The variance would meet the intent of the ordinance since: a. The variance would be similar to existing conditions on adjacent properties and would not interrupt the pattern of development intended by the ordinance. Minutes Edina Zoning Board Thursday, September 17, 2009 Page 5 of 6 b. The variance would not disrupt the goal of maintaining consistent ground elevations and building heights. c. The variance would follow the character of the other properties already developed within the cul-de-sac and uphold the intent of the ordinance to protect existing neighborhoods. Appearing for the Applicant Muzammil Hussain, Property Owner Comments and Questions from the Board A discussion ensued with board members in agreement that the variance request makes sense especially in light of the existing site conditions. Member Birdman asked Planner Aaker if the height of the new house would be similar to the homes on either side. Planner Aaker responded in the affirmative, adding the intent of the ordinance change was to maintain neighborhood character and allowing the house to be constructed at a similar elevation makes sense, and maintains consistent building heights. Board Motion Member Winder moved variance approval of B-09-19 based on staff findings and subject to staff conditions. Member Birdman seconded the motion. All voted aye; motion carried. Chair Brown reminded the property owner of the 10 -day appeal process. III. COMMUNITY COMMENT: None. IV. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 6:05 PM