Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1994 10-06 Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting Minutes RegularMINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE EDINA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS HELD ON THURSDAY, OCTOBER 6, 1994, 5:30 P.M. EDINA CITY HALL MANAGER'S CONFERENCE ROOM MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair, Rose Mary Utne, Ann Swenson, Len Olson, Lee Johnson, Nan Faust STAFF PRESENT: Kris Aaker, Jackie Hoogenakker 1. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES: The minutes of the August 4, 1994, meeting minutes were filed. II. OLD BUSINESS: B-94-33 Continuation: William Skallerud 5324 Oaklawn Avenue A two foot sideyard setback variance Ms. Aaker asked the board to note the revised plans submitted by Mr. Skallerud. Mrs. Faust moved to move agenda item B-94-33 from the table. Mr. Olson seconded the motion. All voted aye; motion carried. Mr. and Mrs. Skallerud were present to respond to questions. Mrs. Faust asked Mr. Skallerud the roof type of the new garage. Mr. Skallerud explained the roof will be flat. Mr. Skallerud stated the roof will be enclosed with a decorative railing. Mrs. Faust asked Mr. Skallerud if he has considered placing windows on the side of the addition to break up the mass. She pointed out if windows are not placed in the addition neighbors will be looking at a long building wall without any relief. Mr. Skallerud stated the most impacted neighbors, the Vaurio's did not express concern regarding the mass. He added he can speak with his architect, and with the Vaurio's to come to an agreement regarding windows and type. Mr. David Madsen, told board members he incorporated the railing over the 1 garage to soften the roof line, and the suggestion by Mrs. Faust regarding windows is not a problem. Mr. Madsen agreed the addition of windows will break up the mass. Mrs. Swenson suggested that two windows be placed in the addition. She stated in her opinion the length of the side wall lends itself better to two windows, either placed in the middle, or apart with proportionate spacing. Mr. Madsen stated he will design window placement to create balance. Mrs. Swenson asked Mr. Madsen what materials will be used for the exterior of the addition. Mr. Skallerud said lap siding will be used to match the existing materials. Mr. Olson moved variance approval subject to the revised plans presented, the addition of a window, and materials are to match existing structure. Mrs. Faust suggested that two windows be placed in the addition. She pointed out the addition creates a long building wall, and in her opinion two openings will be more aesthetically pleasing. Mr. Madsen interjected the house in scale is very petite, and one window may suffice. Mr. Johnson stated in his opinion balance is important, and that can be achieved by spacing the windows. He added the length of the building lends itself for two openings. Mrs. Utne clarified board members are in agreement that two windows are needed for this addition. Mr. Olson amended his motion to read as a condition of the variance two windows will be placed in the addition. Mrs. Swenson seconded the motion. All voted aye; motion carried. Mr. Skallerud asked if instead of two windows the openings could be one window and one service door. Mr. Johnson suggested leaving that up to the architect, reiterating a condition of the variance is for two openings, spaced appropriately. B-94-45 Peter Hall 4223 Grimes Avenue North 50 feet of Lot 72, Morningside Addition Request: A 2.5 foot sideyard setback variance Ms. Aaker informed the board the subject property is located on the east side of Grimes Avenue south of West 42nd Street and north of Morningside Road. The property consists of a one story rambler built in 1913 according to residential property assessing records with a detached two car garage on a 50 X 199 foot lot. 2 Ms. Aaker stated the home has experienced few improvements since it's construction. In 1979 a 22 X 24 detached garage was constructed and in 1982 an addition to the front of the home was accomplished. The proponent, Mr. Peter Hall was present, interested neighbors were present. Mrs. Swenson asked Ms. Aaker if the existing bathroom meets current city codes. Ms. Aaker responded the present bathroom does not meet code. Mrs. Swenson asked Ms. Aaker the age of the home, she noted the staff report indicated the year built as 1913, and questioned if that date is correct Ms. Aaker answered the assessing card lists the date built as 1913, but it is hard to know if that is correct. The assessing card also noted the house was built as a cabin. Mr. Peter Hall introduced himself and told board members he purchased the property seven years ago, and would like to improve the bathroom situation that exists. He acknowledged he could expand to the south, but in his opinion it does not make sense to go south to gain a larger bathroom because of the internal layout of the house. Mrs. Swenson asked Mr. Hall if approval is received for the proposed bathroom addition will the same siding be used. Mr. Hall responded like siding will be used in the addition. Mrs. Swenson asked if the roof will have a gable end. Mr. Hall said the roof will have a gable end. Mrs. Swenson suggested that the bathroom addition be constructed with a window to break up the building wall. Mr. Hall said he plans to install a window in the addition. Mr. Joseph Chisler, 4219 Grimes, (also representing his mother who resides at 4221 Grimes Avenue) told board members he believes the proposed bathroom addition will be detrimental to the value of his mothers property. Continuing, Mr. Chisler stated the home in question is only 16 1/2 feet wide and 67 feet deep, and resembles a "railroad car". He added in his opinion the structure is too long, and represents a solid building wall. Mr. Chisler expressed another concern is the potential for tree loss as a result of the addition. Mr. Chisler informed board members there is a possibility that in the future 4221 Grimes Avenue may also want to expand. Concluding, Mr. Chisler stated he does not see a hardship to support the granting this variance. Dr. Deborah Mangham, 4219 Grimes Avenue told board members the rearyards of 4219 and 4221 Grimes are areas where our family spends much time, and the integrity of these rearyards should be maintained. Ms. Mangham stated in her opinion the proposal negatively impacts the property at 4221 Grimes Avenue. Continuing, Ms. Mangham stated the proponent should expand to the south reducing impact to the adjacent property 4221 Grimes. Ms. Mangham explained her opposition to this proposal was conducted in a private matter, because in her opinion the property most 3 negatively impacted by the proposal is 4221 Grimes Avenue, and to a lesser degree 4219 Grimes Avenue. Ms. Mangham concluded by informing board members in speaking with the proponent, the proponent remarked if the bathroom cannot be remodeled, the house may have to be razed. Mr. Hall stated he did remark in passing if renovations cannot be accomplished to his property the house may have to be razed. Mr. Hall added he does not want to raze his house. He stated he wants to live in his house, and is only asking for a variance to expand an existing bathroom. Mrs. Swenson stated the board has dealt with non -conforming houses before and non -conformity is something the board can consider as a hardship. Ms. Aaker agreed the non -conformity issue is a consideration. Mrs. Faust informed board members she visited the property, and walked the site, adding after listening to the discussion thus far she believes the board would not be acting in a responsible manner if we begin to tell resident(s) their home(s) needs to be razed because a number of years ago it was built in a non -conforming location. Continuing, Mrs. Faust stated in her opinion the request is minimal, and should have little or no impact on the property located at 4221 Grimes Avenue. She also commented that what we as a board should consider is the existing conditions, not what could happen to other properties in the area in future years. If the property at 4221 does expand in the future, Mrs. Faust reiterated there should be little impact because the location of the house at 4221 Grimes is in front of the subject house. Mr. Johnson informed board members he can support staff's decision to recommend approval for the bathroom addition. He pointed out the new roof line will improve the aesthetics of the house, and the bathroom addition is minimal. Mr. Johnson acknowledged the house is narrow and deep, and asked Mr. Hall to clarify his reasons for not relocating the bathroom as suggested by the Chislers. Mr. Hall explained the location of the existing bathroom is on a barring wall with plumbing. All plumbing is located on this inside wall, and while it is not impossible to expand south as mentioned earlier the internal design does not lend itself well to expansion in the other direction. A discussion ensued with board members in agreement any impact from the bathroom addition is minimal, and impact to the property located at 4221 Grimes is minimal because the subject house is located behind the house at 4221 Grimes Avenue. Mrs. Swenson moved approval of a 1.5 foot sideyard setback variance subject to staff conditions and the additional condition the bathroom addition is to have a window and the roof is to be constructed with a gable end. Mrs. Faust seconded the Cl motion. All voted aye; motion carried. B-94-47 CellularOne/EI Rancho Del Rey Part of Lot 2, Block 1, Data 100 2nd Addition Request: A 35 foot height variance for a cellular telephone monopole antenna tower Ms. Aaker explained CellularOne has applied for a variance to construct a 100 foot cellular antenna tower with equipment building on property near the northwest quadrant of highways 62 and 169. The variance had been scheduled to be heard by the Zoning Board of Appeals at it's September 22, 1994, meeting. The postponement was to allow for comments from affected property owners and the City of Minnetonka. The subject portion of the property is vacant and is part of the Data 100 development. The majority of the parcel is located in the City of Minnetonka and consists of several buildings and parking areas. The tower and equipment building would be in Edina on an undeveloped portion of the site. The parcel is west of 169 freeway which has no access from the City of Edina. In 1976, the Data 100 Second Addition subdivision was submitted and was approved for development of the Opus II project which covers approximately 1 1/2 square miles. The parcel area within the Minnetonka city limits had a zoning designation of 1-1 at the time of platting. Review of the subdivision file reveals that the original R-1 single dwelling zoning designation of the Edina portion of the parcel has remained unchanged. Ms. Aaker pointed out the Edina antenna ordinance allows for an antenna height not to exceed 65 feet in height on property zoned R-1 or 75 feet in districts other than R -1/R-2 districts and conditional uses allowed in the R-1 district. For all intents and purposes the property functions as an office/business use, and not as a single dwelling unit use. The variance however must be from the height restrictions imposed on the R-1 zoning district. The applicants are proposing a 100 foot monopole antenna tower which requires a 35 foot height variance. The applicants are proposing to locate the tower 100 feet from the east property boundary and roughly 51 feet from the existing service drive on the site. The tower could be lowered if the applicant were to locate the monopole farther to the north and west. The topography of the site increases in height fairly rapidly which would allow for a lower workable antenna height if it were to be located farther up the hill. A location farther up the hill to compensate for a height reduction would however require the removal of significant trees and would force the tower closer to the Minnetonka municipal boundary. Ms. Aaker concluded the Edina antenna ordinance allows for the location of antennas in all zoning districts. The purpose and intent of the provisions of the ordinance is to allow orderly development of antennas. The proposal does not directly impact any property located in Edina. Impact on surrounding property in the City of Minnetonka is minimized in the location proposed given existing topography and vegetation. Staff supports the request as submitted. Mr. Ted Olson was present representing CellularOne. Also present was Peter Beck attorney for CellularOne. Mr. Robert Manner was present representing the City of Minnetonka. Mrs. Swenson asked Ms. Aaker if the site in large enough for any other type of development. Ms. Aaker responded as far as the City of Edina is concerned this site will not be developed. Mr. Johnson asked Ms. Aaker if the subject site was zoned the same as Data 100 would a variance still be required. Ms. Aaker responded a variance for height would still be needed. Mrs. Faust questioned if CellularOne could place more than one monopole on the site. Ms. Aaker explained city ordinance stipulates in an R-1 zoning district (which this site is zoned) only one is allowed per lot. Mr. Ted Olson, told board members the likelihood of needing another monopole on this site is nonexistent. He explained the need is based on a grid system and after the monopole is constructed the area will be adequately served. Continuing, Mr. Olson said U.S. West has a monopole approximately 1/4 of a mile away, located on City of Edina Fire Department property. Mrs. Swenson asked Mr Olson if the monopole will have more "arms". Mr. Olson explained the monopole (including "arms") was designed specifically for this site. Mr. Olson added he does not believe additional "arms" will be needed. Mr. Len Olson asked Mr. Olson if there are other towers along 169. Mr. Olson said there is another tower located at 169 and 494. Mrs. Faust asked if there are any electromagnetic fields linked to towers. Mr. Olson responded no. Mrs. Swenson asked Mr. Olson if the tower would affect car radios or radios at home. Mr. Olson said CellularOne is on a FCC select band and does not affect other transmissions. Mr. Ed Noonan, stated he has experienced "dropped calls" as he has driven 169 and asked Mr. Olson why they did not consider the Marriott. Mr. Noonan also questioned if the pole would require red lights on top. D In response to Mr. Noonans questions Mr. Beck responded the Marriott is situated on high ground, and if a monopole was placed on it, it would interfere with other cells. Mr. Beck added the proposed monopole would not require lighting at the top because it is not the highest point in the vicinity. Continuing, Mr. Beck informed board members if they feel uncomfortable in granting a variance for this location CellularOne can place the pole in a conforming location farther up the hill, that does not require a variance. Mr. Beck concluded in speaking with city staff it was felt that locating the monopole in the proposed location would eliminate the need to clear trees. Mr. Robert Manner, City of Minnetonka asked board members if they would delay their decision until Minnetonka has had time to explore the option of shared use of antenna towers. Mrs. Utne asked Mr. Manner how much time the City of Minnetonka requires for this study. Mr. Manner responded Minnetonka would probably like to study this issue for a few months. Mr. Olson interjected CellularOne has contacted the City of Minnetonka but to date have been unable to discuss this issue at length. Mrs. Faust asked Mr. Manner what their objection is to this tower. Mr. Manner replied the City of Minnetonka has recently received so many requests to locate towers along its highway system city staff would like time to further study the issue. Mrs. Faust asked Mr. Manner where monopoles are usually located in Minnetonka. Mr. Manner said to date Minnetonka has been successful in locating the monopoles on tops of city watertowers, and public buildings. This eliminates construction of freestanding towers. Mr. Olson explained CellularOne aims to be sensitive to surrounding properties when making a decision to locate a tower. Continuing, Mr. Olson pointed out the subject site contains light standards, and the tower blends in with the existing light standards. Mr. Olson stated the proposed location does require a variance because it has been placed at the foot of the hill to avoid tree loss. Mr. Olson concluded if the tower were placed up the hill, in a conforming location, tree loss would occur, but the monopole would be conforming. Mrs. Utne said in her opinion the city should cooperate with Minnetonka and postpone this meeting for a brief time, not three months as suggested. Board members agreed, but felt this issue should be acted on this evening. The board recognized the fact that CellularOne can construct a legal monopole on the site without a variance farther up the hill. Mr. Beck interjected time is an important factor for CellularOne. 7 Mr. Johnson said in his opinion the monopole should be located in the conforming location. He added he is not convinced that placing the monopole at the bottom of the hill is the best location. Mr. Johnson pointed out when there is a conforming location available that location should be implemented. He concluded that he does not have a problem with the request and can support it, but pointed out the conforming location has merit. Mrs. Swenson asked Mr. Olson if the tower is located in a conforming location up the hill will it be above the trees. Mr. Olson said some trees will be cleared but the tower when constructed at 65 feet will be high enough to clear the tree tops. Mr. Olson asked if the utility building will be noticeable. Mr. Beck responded the utility building will not be noticeable, and will be screened. A discussion ensued with board members in agreement that placement of the monopole in the proposed location reduces impact on the surrounding vegetation. The board acknowledged the monopole can be located in a conforming location, and recognized that the City of Minnetonka has an issue with the construction of monopoles within their borders. Board members noted their decision is to act on this request this evening, noting the appeal process. Mrs. Faust moved to recommend variance approval subject to the conditions if any additional "arms" are added to the pole, a hearing will be required, and subject to the condition that the support building be screened from property lines. The board suggested that CellularOne make every effort to communicate and cooperate with the City of Minnetonka. Mrs. Swenson seconded the motion. All vote aye; motion carried. B-94-48 Stephen R. Yanda 6008 Leslee Lane Lot 11, Block 1, Les Andersons Highwood 2nd Addition Request: A three foot frontyard setback variance Ms. Aaker informed the board the subject property is located on the north side of Leslee Lane south of Saxon Road and east of Blake Road. The property consists of a rambler built in 1959. The homeowners are proposing an extensive remodel to the home. All aspects of the home remodel conform to ordinance requirements with one exception. The homeowners are proposing a front overhang with posts which will encroach into the required frontyard setback area. 0 The Edina Zoning Ordinance requires that any addition to the front of the home must maintain the average frontyard setback along the block between intersections. Ms. Aaker concluded staff supports the request as submitted. Mr. Yanda was present to respond to questions. Board members were in agreement that the variance request is minimal, and this type of variance request has been granted in similar situations with the condition that the entry remain unenclosed. Mr. Johnson moved variance approval subject to the condition that the overhang remains unenclosed. Mr. Olson seconded the motion. All voted aye; motion carried. B-94-49 Mona C. Deutsch 5049 Hankerson Avenue Lot 12, and the H 1/2 Lot 13, Block 1, Brookside Heights Request: A five foot variance for living area and a .6 foot variance for building height in excess of 15 feet Ms. Aaker informed the board the subject property is located on the east side of Hankerson Avenue and to the north of the Norwest Bank parking lot. The home consists of a one story rambler with a single stall garage built in 1954. The homeowner is hoping to expand the garage to allow for the storage of two cars and to add a family room behind the garage. All aspects of the expansion conform to ordinance requirements with the exception of setback for living area (family room) and height of the side garage wall slightly in excess of 15 feet. Ms. Aaker concluded given the subject property's proximity to a commercial zoning districts and the applicant's desire to maintain residential rearyard area and the limited impact the request will have on adjacent properties, staff supports the request. Ms. Deutsch was present to respond to questions. Her builder, Mr. Olson was also present. Mrs. Swenson commented there are a number of large trees on this lot and questioned how many trees will be removed as a result of the proposal. Mr. Olson stated he calculates one large pine will need to be removed. Mr. Johnson noted this situation is unique, adding he does not have a problem with the proposal as presented. Mr. Olson moved variance approval subject to the plans submitted. Mrs. Swenson seconded the motion. All voted aye; motion carried. B-94-50 William and Mary Wells 4606 Moorland Avenue Lot 25, Block 12 Country Club District, Browndale Request: A 2.67 foot sideyard setback variance for a one story addition Ms. Aaker informed the board the subject property is located on the west side of Moorland Avenue, south of Bridge Road and north of Country Club Road. The home is a two story American Colonial Revival style home with English Georgian Revival influence, built in 1927. The home is listed as "Pivotal" in the historical and architectural survey of the Country Club District. Pivotal buildings are buildings of historical and or architectural importance that define the significance of the district. Ms. Aaker explained the property owners are planning on remodeling and adding onto their home. The property owners hope to accomplish a six foot addition to the back of their home to expand the existing kitchen, and to add a second story above the existing family room. All aspects of the remodel/addition conform to ordinance requirements with the exception of the north sideyard setback of the kitchen addition. The homeowners would like to extend the existing non -conforming north building wall by six feet. The required setback is 10 feet and the proposed setback is 7.58 feet, therefore a 2.67 foot sideyard variance is required. Ms. Aaker concluded given the limited scope of the addition staff supports the request. The proponents Mr. and Mrs. Wells were present. Mr. Johnson questioned if the large tree will be removed as a result of the addition. Mr. Wells stated the large tree will stay. Mrs. Swenson moved approval of the variance subject to the use of matching materials. Mr. Olson seconded the motion. All voted aye; motion carried. B-94-51 Lisa Yates/Sawhorse Builders 10 6563 Gleason Court Lot 14, Block 1, Gleason Court Request: A 6 foot rearyard setback variance Ms. Aaker informed the board the subject property is located along the southside of Gleason Court and north of Crosstown Highway. The subject property is a double dwelling unit located within the Gleason Court subdivision platted in 1981. The applicants are requesting an exception to the minimum 35 foot rearyard setback requirement in R-2 zoning districts to allow for a four season porch to replace an existing deck. The existing back wall of the home is at the very minimum 35 foot rearyard setback. The homeowner would like to expand the porch out to encroach six feet into the rearyard setback area. Ms. Aaker concluded given the limited ability for expansion and the minimal impact the addition will have, staff supports the request. The proponent, Ms. Yates was present. Mrs. Faust moved variance approval subject to the use of matching materials. Mr. Olson seconded the motion. All voted aye; motion carried. IV. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 7:30 p.m. oogenakker 4wr 11