Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1993 03-18 Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting Minutes RegularMINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE EDINA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS HELD ON THURSDAY, MARCH 18, 1993, AT 5:30 P.M., EDINA CITY HALL MANAGER'S CONFERENCE ROOM MEMBERS PRESENT: Acting Chair, Helen McClelland, Mike Lewis, Don Patton and Goof Workinger STAFF PRESENT: Kris Aaker, Joyce Repya, Jackie Hoogenakker I. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES: Mr. Workinger moved approval of the December 7, 1993, meeting minutes. Mr. Lewis seconded the motion. All voted aye; motion carried. II. NEW BUSINESS: B-93-4 Katherine F. and Roger S. Fullerton 4315 Grimes Avenue South The south 75 feet of the north 150 feet of lot 92, Morningside Request: A 3.4 foot sideyard setback variance Ms.•Aaker informed the board the subject property is located north of west 44th Street and east of Grimes Avenue. The lot is a relatively narrow and shallow substandard lot with a total lot area of approximately 7449.75 square feet. The cape cod styled home on the lot is a one and one half story rock front, frame dwelling. The homeowners are proposing to remove an existing porch and replace it with a two story addition at the existing 7.9 foot sideyard setback. Ms. Aaker pointed out Edina City Ordinance requires a minimum 10 foot sideyard setback for living area on lots 75 feet in width or greater. Lots less than 75 feet in width require a minimum five foot sideyard setback for living areas. In both cases, however, setback is increased six inches for each one foot of building height in excess of 15 feet. The subject lot is exactly 75 feet in width, therefore a 10 1 Y " foot living area setback requirement is imposed. The homeowners are proposing to add a second story to include a bedroom and bathroom. The added building height requires that an additional 1.3 feet of setback be provided which increases the required setback to 11.3 feet. If the lot had been less than 75 feet in width the sideyard requirement would be 5.3 feet, which would have allowed the addition without variance. Ms. Aaker concluded Staff acknowledges the proponents desire to maintain the architectural integrity of the home and finds the following conditions present in support of the variance request. 1. The shallow lot depth and relatively narrow lot width reduce the available options for a logical building expansion. 2. If the lot had been slightly less than 75 feet in width, the addition would not require a setback variance. 3. The addition will be preserving the existing sideyard setback. 4. Spacing between homes will remain at a comfortable distance. 5. The homeowner will be preserving the architectural integrity of the home. The proponent, Mr. Fullerton was present. Mrs. McClelland said she has a concern, not with the design, but with the materials that will be used for the addition. Mr. Workinger stated he is uncomfortable with the loss of the tree due to this proposal. Mr. Fullerton noted the tree is diseased and would have to be removed regardless. Mr. Patton commented he does not have a problem with the proposal as presented but questioned Ms. Aaker if with the addition lot coverage becomes an issue. Ms. Aaker responded that lot coverage is not a problem with the addition. Mr. Workinger pointed out in reviewing the plans the chimney appears to encroach into the setback. Ms. Aaker explained that the chimney can encroach into the setback. A chimney can encroach into a setback not more than three feet and no closer than three feet to a property line. Mr. Workinger stated he has no objection to the proposal as presented. Mr. Workinger moved variance approval subject to staff conditions. Mr. Lewis seconded the motion with the additional condition that materials are to match. All voted aye; motion carried. 2 B-93-5 Gary and Gretchen Holland 6312 Indian Hills Road Lot 90 Block 2, Indian Hills Request: A five foot sideyard setback variance to allow living space above the garage Ms. Aaker informed the Board the applicants are requesting a five foot setback variance from the required 10 foot sideyard setback variance to allow living area above a proposed garage expansion to the west of the home. The lot on which the contemporary styled home is located is slightly less than one acre and is one of many large lots within the Indian Hills subdivision. The new garage stall is proposed to be located at the minimum required five foot sideyard setback and therefore would be legal, however, the homeowner desires to add a studio space above the new garage stall, which requires a greater setback. Ms. Aaker stated the applicant's design complements the existing structure and can be appreciated for its balance and consistency in matching materials. In addition, it could be acknowledged that the original house placement and slope of the lot can be viewed as a hinderance or hardship when reviewing expansion options. Ms. Aaker pointed out it would appear however that the property could be put to reasonable use as allowed by the ordinance and that garage storage capacity could be increased without a variance. It would also appear that the ample lot area provides an opportunity for a conforming location of the studio. Ms. Aaker concluded that staff appreciates the applicant's dedication to preserving the design integrity of the home, however, cannot recommend approval of the studio addition. The proponent, Mrs. Holland was present. Mrs. McClelland noted the letters of support that were submitted regarding the variance request. Mrs. McClelland said she has one question to ask before discussion begins. She questioned Mr. Dunn on his assertation that the survey for the Holland property may not be correct. Mrs. Aaker presented to Mrs. McClelland a copy of the survey on file with the city. 3 4 In response Mr. Dunn stated in the past the Holland's had a surveyor measure the site for new landscaping. Mr. Dunn said in his opinion it seems odd that the Hollands used the survey in the city file that conveniently depicts a five foot setback for the proposed garage. Mrs. Holland said at that time the surveying company was used to find the irons, so the landscaping would be planted correctly. We did not have a survey drawn. Mrs. Holland explained the survey they have been working with is the survey on file with the city, and the proposed garage meets the required five foot setback. Continuing, Mrs. Holland said when Mr. Dunn mentioned that he thought the survey may be incorrect she called Ms. Aaker and questioned how she should proceed. Ms. Aaker responded that the survey on file with the city was completed by a licensed surveyor and at this point that is what staff uses, and that is what Mrs. Holland was directed to use. Mrs. McClelland questioned Mr. Dunn on when he had his survey completed. Mr. Dunn said his survey was completed in 1987. Ms. Aaker clarified for the board when someone brings in plans the city functions under the survey that is on file, and in our experience the surveys on file with the city are usually accurate. Continuing, Ms. Aaker said when there is a lot line dispute the building department carefully inspects the project as it proceeds. Ms. Aaker noted at this time the city does not require as -built surveys for residents seeking building permits, although there are a number of cities that require as -built surveys to issue building permits. Mrs. McClelland questioned when the Holland survey was completed. Ms. Aaker said the survey was completed in 1956. She added if it becomes an issue during the variance process we may have to ask for an as -built survey, but it is expensive, and it is something the city has not and does not require. As a rule the city has been careful requesting a new survey when one is on file. Mr. Patton asked Mrs. Holland if she accepts the staff recommendation that the garage can be constructed and staff's recommendation that the studio not be constructed. Mrs. McClelland interjected that in her opinion she views no hardship to support the request for a studio. She pointed out the house in 80 feet in length and the Holland house has already had three additions. Mrs. McClelland pointed out as you drive Indian Hills Road the Dunn and Holland house are the closest houses on the block. Mrs. McClelland stated in her opinion the proponents should be able to add the studio to some other portion of the house. She added she believes Mr. Dunn has some rights and according to Mr. Dunn he will be adding an addition easterly (toward the Holland house) which will decrease the spacing between the houses. Mrs. McClelland said in fairness the Holland home has already had three additions and she feels maybe a studio could be constructed on the 4 lower level where wood appears to be stored. Mrs. McClelland concluded that massing is a concern, setting a precedent is a concern, and reiterated the existing house is very large, the lot is huge, and as mentioned previously the house has already had three additions. Mrs. Holland responded that she feels the board has questions that must be resolved, and she would like to be able to work with the board towards an agreeable solution. Continuing, Mrs. Holland acknowledged the concern board members may have that a precedent could be set if the studio were allowed to be constructed five feet from the property line. Continuing, and in response to Mr. Patton's question, Mrs. Holland stated the third garage stall is very important to them, and can be legally constructed, but the studio is also as important. Mrs. Holland said in her opinion, and the opinion of her architect the addition of the studio has been placed in a logical location consistent with the architectural integrity of the house. She acknowledged that the "burden of proof" for hardship is on her. Mrs. Holland reiterated that the studio is very important to her family. Mrs. Holland noted that the board has commented on the project as it relates to the size of their lot. Mrs. Holland asserted they have investigated other locations for the studio with the architect on a number of occasions. Mrs. Holland acknowledged it can be difficult for the board to understand when you have a lot of this size that there is no location for the studio that works as well as the location we proposed. Mrs. Holland pointed out that they are not looking at enlarging an existing room, but on constructing a whole new room. She stated this is the reason it is so difficult to find the proper space for this addition. Mrs. Holland remarked the proposed addition of the studio makes sense with the interior layout of the house, and she reiterated it maintains the architectural balance of the exterior. Mrs. Holland told the board they considered expanding up, into the roof, but due to the air conditioning ducts in the roof they realized it is impossible to expand up. Mrs. Holland acknowledged that the board may find in impossible to understand that the studio has been placed in the best location. She added you view the house which is 80 feet across the front, appearing very large, on a large lot so your natural assumption is that there must be some place to locate the studio that conforms. Mrs. Holland said in should be noted that the entire house is a front tuck -under style home. Mrs. Holland described the lower level as consisting of one bedroom, one office, laundry room, and furnace room. The house has no basement. The upper level is where all the "living" area is, and while the house is large, in comparison with homes in Indian Hills it is not overly large. Continuing, Mrs. Holland pointed out the land slopes up, away from the street with two stories visible in the front. This topography limits development because there is only one story to feed from and that is the upper level. Mrs. Holland asked the board to note off the rear of the house there is a porch and a 5 green house extension, which makes it difficult to construct the studio toward the rear. Mrs. Holland explained in the rear of the house the bedrooms and the kitchen are located, which is not the most desirable location to construct a studio. Mrs. Holland said one place they also investigated locating the studio was placing the addition on the east end and attaching it to the family room area. The only problem is underneath the family room area is dead space, and you'd have to cut into the hill. Mrs. Holland concluded they entertained the idea of constructing a separate building for the studio but found that may be questionable. The detached studio would have heating and plumbing and could be viewed as a separate living area which is not allowed on a single family lot site. Mrs. McClelland observed that maybe the "dead space" under the family room could be converted into the studio. Mrs. Holland pointed out that area is only crawl space. Continuing, Mrs. Holland remarked that she does not understand why the original builder constructed their house so close to the property line. She pointed out the way the house is laid out there is no other place to locate the garage. Mrs. Holland referred to the letters received in support of the proposal and noted that the Indian Hills neighborhood is not very transient. The majority of the residents who moved into this neighborhood did so because they appreciated the trees, size of lots and the feeling of the rolling hills. Mrs. Holland commented that she was amazed at the support this proposal has been given throughout the neighborhood. She explained that everyone who was contacted regarding this proposal viewed the plans for our addition, and were also told the immediate neighbors, the Dunns opposed their expansion proposal. Mrs. Holland also said she informed neighbors that the Dunns are planning to construct a garage addition of their own. Mrs. Holland said in her opinion it is important to understand that all neighbors who responded by letter were aware that both houses are proposing additions. Mrs. Holland concluded by stating she cannot stand before this board and convey that once the additions go up the houses will not appear closer, but it should be noted that there will still be over 20 feet between them. Mrs. Holland said she found that residents of the area appear to be more concerned with the new construction occurring within the neighborhood placing houses the minimum distance apart. Mr. Patton questioned Ms. Aaker on how much distance would be between the houses when both additions are completed. Ms. Aaker said the distance between houses after the additions will be approximately 22 feet. Mrs. McClelland interjected that she also has an objection to the garage stall. Ms. Aaker pointed out the garage without the studio above it will be legal, including the overhang. Mrs. McClelland questioned with recodification didn't we 2 increase the distance between garages. Ms. Aaker said the distance between garages without living space above it remains at five feet. Mr. Dunn referred to his letter and commented that he has been transferred here from New York and picked this neighborhood because of the spacing between houses. Mr. Dunn said for a house to be constructed on one acre and be so close to the property line is suspect. He pointed out when you come up Indian Hills Road the addition to the Holland house will block the view of their house. He pointed out when you construct a house that close to the property line, it will appear that the Holland house owns some of our property. Mr. Dunn acknowledged that the garage and overhang may be legal but still feels it will be too close to the property line. Mrs. McClelland said it has been very helpful knowing that you are proposing an addition. Mrs. McClelland commented that while the board cannot comment on the future addition by the Dunns it should be considered. Mr. Lewis said his concern with the proposal is the "question" of the survey. He added it appears that Mr. Dunn does not feel comfortable with the existing survey, and the fact when the garage is completed it will be at minimum, five feet from the property line. Mr. Lewis concluded that it is important to him when making an educated decision that he feels comfortable with the facts. Mrs. McClelland said her concern is that in her opinion no hardship exists. Mr. Workinger questioned Ms. Aaker on what the frontyard setback for both properties is. Ms. Aaker said due to the curve in the road it is hard to compute, but she feels the houses are setback around 120 feet from the curb. Mr. Workinger said that Mr. Dunn's concern in preserving the site lines to his home and his assertation that they may be lost due to the Holland addition is something we should not comment on. The site lines to the Dunn home may be compromised by the Holland garage, but also by their own proposal. Mrs. Holland reported to the board the plans for this proposal were drawn up in February of last year, and at that time we did not realize we would need a variance. The reason the proposed garage stall juts out is to compliment the architectural facade of the house and keep it aesthetically pleasing. Mrs. Holland said it is extremely important to them to ensure that the addition is architecturally compatible with the existing house. Mrs. McClelland noted regardless of architectural compatibility her problem is with massing, and as she has indicated on many occasions massing is a concern. Mrs. McClelland said another concern is that within this area houses are not usually constructed so close together. 7 Mr. Patton questioned how deep the garage is. Mrs. Holland said she is unsure, adding we can fit our two cars in the garage. Mrs. Holland pointed out our house has 3,200 square feet of living area. Mr. Patton said if he reads the plans correctly the existing garage is about 32-36 feet deep, and suggested the possibility of a tandem solution to achieve the extra garage space. He explained this would give you four garage spaces, and allow the addition of the studio on the east side of the house in the crawl space area. Mr. Lewis said in his opinion it would be best to table this issue, allowing you time to speak with your architect and surveyor. Mr. Lewis said you could explain to your architect that board members have expressed a concern about the proposal, and have him/her look at the possibility of constructing a tandem garage and placing the studio addition under the family room in the existing crawl space. Mr. Lewis said he is also sensitive to the massing issue. This area contains very beautiful homes and the spacing in Indian Hills between the homes is large. Mrs. Holland pointed out that- legally we can construct the garage. The board acknowledged that fact but stated their problem is with the studio. Mrs. McClelland said as far as this proposal is concerned we may, as a board, have to say to you, that you cannot have a greenhouse, a swimming pool, a tennis court, etc. You may have to choose what is important to you to retain. Ms. Aaker pointed out that if Mrs. Holland takes these considerations to her architect she may not have to come back before a variance board. Mr. Lewis moved to table the meeting to an undetermined date. Mr. Patton seconded the motion. All voted aye; motion carried. B-93-6 Edina Realty, Inc. 4015 West 65th Street Lot 00, Block 02, Southdale Office Park Second Addition Zoning: POD -1, Planned Office District Request: Variance from the Sign Ordinance No. 460 to allow signage on a building elevation that does not have street frontage Ms. Repya informed the board the subject property is an office building located on the southeast corner of West 65th Street and 8 Valley View Road. The Edina Sign Ordinance allows buildings in the Planned Office District one building identification sign per street frontage. The first sign may be no larger than 50 square feet in area; each additional sign shall not exceed 36 square feet. Ms. Repya explained that last year new signage was permitted for the building. A 42.5 square foot illuminated wall sign was permitted for the north elevation (West 65th Street) and a 28 square foot illuminated wall sign was permitted for the west elevation (Valley View Road). Ms. Repya pointed out that prior to the sign permits being released, the City ordered the following changes on the site to bring the building into conformance with the sign ordinance: 1. The monument sign must be removed on the north elevation (West 65th Street) - only one building identification sign allowed per street frontage 2. The address numerals on the west elevation (Valley View Road) must be reduced to six square feet or removed - address numerals larger than six square feet are considered building identification signs. Ms. Repya said the proponent complied with these orders, however, the sign permitted for the west elevation (Valley View Road) was erected on the east elevation (no street frontage). The proponent requests a variance to allow the sign incorrectly installed on the east elevation to remain. Staff finds it difficult to identify a hardship situation in this case. As the proponent has pointed out, since 1979 the subject property has grown to be the largest real estate office in the United States; all without the benefit of signage on the east elevation of the building. Ms. Repya concluded if the Board chooses to approve the variance, Staff would recommend that the following conditions be imposed: 1. The wall sign on the west elevation be removed, and 2. The address numerals on the east elevation be removed. Mr. K. Johnson was present representing Edina Realty. Mr. Workinger asked Mr. Johnson why the sign was erected on the wrong side of the building. Mr. Johnson responded that he was not aware that a sign on the east side of the building was wrong. Mr. Johnson explained to the board the history of the growth of Edina Realty informing them Edina Realty at this location has a staff of 78 people and at times up to 150 people when sales people N use the office with clients and for staff meetings. Continuing, Mr. Johnson pointed out that because of the traffic flow on Valley View Road and the barriers it is almost impossible for anyone on Valley View Road to get to our building. France Avenue is the street we direct people to use to get to our building. Mr. Lewis agreed, he pointed out when one is traveling south on Valley View Road you cannot get to the Edina Realty Building without making a U-turn and backtracking. A discussion ensued between board members with them in agreement that the site in question is unique acknowledging that France Avenue is the main street one would use to get to this building. The board also noted that adequate identification for those traveling down France Avenue is important for safety reasons. Clients need to be able to see the building identification sign in time to make a turn. Mr. Lewis moved variance approval noting that the site in question does not have adequate access from Valley View Road and the visual orientation for this building is from France Avenue, safety is also a concern because of the location of the building, conditions of approval are that the signage on the west wall must be removed and the numerals must be removed off the east elevation. Mr. Workinger seconded the motion. All voted aye; motion carried. III. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 6:45 p.m. e ff-oo-genakT V-1 10