Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1994 03-17 Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting Minutes RegularMINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS HELD ON THURSDAY, MARCH 17, 1994 5:30 P.M., MANAGERS CONFERENCE ROOM MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair, Gordon Johnson, Don Patton, Helen McClelland, Geof Workinger STAFF PRESENT: Kris Aaker, Jackie Hoogenakker II. NEW BUSINESS: B-94-5 Space Center, Inc./Symmes, Manni & Mikee Assoc. 7317 Cahill Road PID #081162114002, District 211, Unplatted 0811621 Request: A variance from parking requirements location, drive aisle width variance and pavement setback variances Ms. Aaker informed the board the subject property is located in the northern quadrant of the intersection of Dewey Hill and Cahill Roads and consists of a 280,000 square foot warehouse/office building known as the "Space Center" site. The property was developed in 1968 and has had few improvements made to the site since construction as indicated in both building department and assessing file records. Ms. Aaker added the applicants are in the process of negotiating a lease with a tenant that is to occupy the entire 260,000 square foot warehouse and loading dock areas. The 20,000 square foot office spaces are to remain with the existing office use occupancies. As part of attracting new tenants the property owners are attempting to improve the existing parking areas and provide additional parking stalls to allow for increased parking ability. Currently there are a total of 114 parking spaces on site which is short of existing zoning ordinance standards and seems to be short for attracting new tenants in todays market according to the leasing agent. Ms. Aaker concluded staff supports the request given the limited options available for parking expansion. The proponents, Mr. Wallahan and Dan Williams were present. Mr. Workinger asked Ms. Aaker to explain a spiked switch. Ms. Aaker said a spiked switch prevents railroad cars from moving. Mrs. McClelland asked the proponents how many tenants are in the building. Mrs. Williams explained there is an office area above the dock that office 10-15 small businesses. Mr. Johnson asked Ms. Aaker how many variances are required. Ms. Aaker stated four variances are required. A brief discussion ensued. Mrs. McClelland moved approval subject to staff conditions, noting the limited parking options of the site. Mr. Patton seconded the motion. All voted aye; motion carried. B-94-8 Tim Murphy/Grandview Tire & Auto Lots 6,7,8,9, & 10, Block 4, Grandview Heights Edition Request: A 4 foot fence height variance to erect a 12 foot fence for screening purposes Ms. Aaker informed the board the subject property is located north of Vernon Avenue and west of Interlachen Boulevard. The property consists of an auto repair and service center that was redeveloped in 1993. Grandview Tire and Auto was redeveloped to include auto repair and service bays, a service center and an accessory car wash. The redevelopment included the relocation of the building and the modification of parking areas. Ms. Aaker explained as part of the redevelopment plan, Grandview Tire and Auto installed an 8 foot fence along the back (west) property line to serve as a visual and acoustical screen between the subject property and the residential properties to the west. The proponent has indicated that the new fence section will replace a portion of the existing eight foot fence and will run from the very north west corner of the property 100 feet south, and 30 feet east, as illustrated on the attached plan. The purpose of the fencing is to reduce noise from the car wash blower and automotive service bays and to allow the use of existing lighting that is attached to the building perimeter. Ms. Aaker pointed out the proposed fence will have both sides finished and will be constructed of cedar which is the same material used in the existing fence. Air space between the two finished sides will be filled with styrofoam building insulation for added sound insulation. Ms. Aaker concluded given the limited opportunity to provide a buffer between the automotive repair service use and the residential properties to the west and northwest, staff supports the request as submitted. Mr. Murphy, the proponent was present. Mr. Mary Hurias, 5025 Hankerson asked Mr. Murphy if he has any idea how thick the insulation should be between the fences to ensure property sound insulation. He pointed out the noise of the car wash is very loud. Mr. Murphy explained the fence is being constructed by noise experts and the spacing between fences is a full six inches of styrofoam. Continuing, Mr. Murphy said the current fence is only for visual aesthetics, and the proposed 12 foot fence will also reduce the noise from the station. Mrs. McClelland commented it appears Mr. Murphy is trying to work with the neighbors, adding we can't guarantee the adjoining property owners they won't hear noise after the fence is constructed. Ms. Star Anderson, 5041 Hankerson told Mr. Murphy she would have no objections and would actually prefer it if he would extend the fencing past her property line. Mr. Murphy stated he would not have a problem running the fence along Ms. Anderson rear property line, and stopping at the end. Chairman Johnson noted if the fence is run along the entire length of 5041 Hankerson Avenue it will be past the last bay. Mr. Murphy commented if we construct the fence to run 150 feet, the new fence will be blocked from Vernon Avenue by the building. Mrs. McClelland asked Mr. Murphy if the entire fence will be 12 feet. Mr. Murphy explained the fence will drop off to six feet in some areas. Mr. Lewis asked Mr. Murphy if he has thought about landscaping. Mr. Murphy explained he will landscape on the neighbors side of the fence. Mr. Lewis asked Mr. Murphy if he believes high winds could be a problem for the fence. Mr. Murphy said he did not consider wind problems, commenting the fence construction company did not indicated to him wind may be a problem. Mr. Patton asked Mr. Murphy if he has implemented any safety measures. Mr. Murphy said the fence will be non -climbable. Chairman Johnson said he is reasonably satisfied with Mr. Murphy's attempt to buffer the sound from the neighbors especially since there is a problem with the car wash. Chairman Johnson asked Mr. Murphy about the reason the car wash problem cannot be resolved. Mr. Murphy explained when the car wash constructed he did explain to the car wash representatives his concern regarding noise. The representatives assured him the noise would not be that bad. Mr. Murphy said if the fence does not resolve the problem the car wash company will fix it. Mr. Lewis moved approval of the fence with the additional condition that the fence be constructed to the south property line of 5041 Hankerson Avenue. The exact location is to be worked out between the proponent and staff. Mr. Workinger seconded the motion. Ayes; McClelland, Lewis, Patton. Abstain. Johnson. Motion carried. B-94-9 Jeffrey and Anne Nevin 5114 Arden Avenue Lot 2, Block 1, Brucewood and part of Lot 5, Block 1, Brucewood angling northerly of a line drawn westerly from the north westerly corner of Lot 1, in said Block 1, parallel with northerly line of said Lot 5 Request: A 5.2 foot sideyard setback variance to replace and expand an existing porch Ms. Aaker explained the subject property is located on the west side of Arden Avenue, just south of Bruce Place. The property consists of a two story single dwelling home that is in the midst of remodeling. In October of 1993, the homeowners were granted a north sideyard standard setback variance and a frontyard setback variance to allow modifications to their home. Ms. Aaker concluded given the limited options available for expansion and given the site constraints staff supports the request subject to the use of matching materials. The proponent, Mr. Nevin was present. Mr. Workinger asked Mr. Nevin what is the closest point of the neighbor. Mr. Nevin said it is the neighbors garage. Mr. Lewis moved variance approval subject to matching materials. Mr. Patton seconded the motion. All voted aye; motion carried. B-94-11 Nancy and John Bush 4418 Curve Avenue Lot 40, Auditors Subdivision Request: A .75 foot sideyard setback variance for building height Ms. Aaker informed the board the subject property is located in the northwest quadrant of Sunnyside Road and Curve Avenue and consists of a two story single dwelling home building in 1922. The homeowners are proposing to add a second story addition to the rear of their home where first floor area already exists. The addition consists of a master bedroom with bath, office, and a storage area. Ms. Aaker concluded given the limitations of expansion potential with regard to the corner lot setback standards and west (rear) loading garage staff supports the request, subject to the use of consistent materials. The proponents, Mr and Mrs. Bush were present. Mr. Workinger moved approval subject to the use of matching materials. Mr. Lewis seconded the motion. All voted aye; motion carried. B-94-10 Thomas R. Martinson 4536 Oxford Avenue South Lot 4, Replat, Emma Abbott Park, Hennepin County Request: A 27.9 foot frontyard setback variance Ms. Aaker informed the board the subject property is located on the west side of Oxford Avenue, north of Hollywood Road and south of Division Street. The property consists of a one and one half story home built in 1931 . The lots along the west side of Oxford Avenue are all quite wide and deep with 100 feet of frontage per lot and depth of nearly 330 feet. Most of the other homes along the block were built in the early to mid 1950's and consist of a mixture of housing types and styles. Mr. Aaker explained the homeowner is proposing a 340 square foot addition including a bedroom, bathroom, and hallway connection to an existing porch. The property owner is trying to accomplish a single level, first floor addition to accommodate the proponents mother-in-law. Ms. Aaker pointed out the addition conforms to all zoning ordinance standards with the exception of frontyard setback. In an established neighborhood all additions to a house must maintain the average frontyard setback along the block between intersections. In the subject property's case the average frontyard setback is 59.54 feet. The subject home is currently non -conforming in terms of frontyard setback and is at 41 feet. The proposal is to reduce the frontyard setback by 9.5 feet to provide a 31.5 foot frontyard setback standard. Ms. Aaker concluded staff could support an addition no closer to the front lot line than the existing structure subject to the use of matching materials. The proponent Mr. Martinson was present. Mr. Martinson explained when his home was constructed the houses were built purposely not to line up, with very deep frontyard setbacks. He added every house is set-off from each other. Continuing, Mr. Martinson stated when he designed the addition it was designed with the knowledge that his mother-in-law would be living in this area and it because important to him that she would have privacy and he would have privacy. Another consideration that was very important is that the addition maintain the character and symmetry of the neighborhood. Mr. Martinson pointed out there is limited space to go south, only 21 feet or so. Mr. Martinson said in his opinion he did not create the hardship, since he house was constructed first in the neighborhood , and he believes he has a hardship because of the way his house sits on the lot and any other location would be more expensive. Mrs. McClelland said in her opinion there is no hardship, she pointed out the an ample addition could be constructed in the rear. Mrs. McClelland also pointed out by granting such a large frontyard setback variance we would be setting a precedent for this neighborhood, and as you have already pointed out the homes are off -set and have deep frontyard setbacks. This character should be maintained and will not be maintained if you project into that setback. Mr. Martinson stated in his opinion he does have a hardship and his request should be considered individually. He said the board should only consider his lot and no one in the neighborhood is in his situation. He reiterated that his house was the first house constructed in the neighborhood. Mr. Martinson stressed in his opinion the frontyard setback line is a hardship. Mr. Lewis said he can understand Mr. Martinsons position that least in his opinion the frontyard setback line is not a hardship. Mrs. McClelland pointed out that Mr. Martinson has a very ample lot and there are many Edina residents who do not have such a large lot. She said she believes an addition can be accomplished in a conforming location. Mr. Patton agreed with Mrs. McClelland position, adding he is not convinced that other conforming locations have not been considered. Mr. Workinger commented he cannot support the request as presented. He said in his opinion a conforming location can be found and if this is granted everyone within this neighborhood should be allowed the same consideration. Mr. Workinger said if he reads the board correctly, there are two choices, either have us vote on the proposal as presented or redesign it. Mr. Martinson asked for clarification adding as he understands the position of the board that the board when reviewing this proposal has taken into consideration the entire neighborhood. Mr. Workinger said he is reviewing the plan presented and the plan presented is for 4536 Oxford Avenue. Chairman Johnson asked Mr. Martinson if he is firm on his position that the addition presented is the only one that will work. Mr. Martinson said any other location will not blend in with the interior of the house. Mrs. McClelland moved denial of the plans presented.