Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1997 10-16 Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting Minutes RegularMINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE EDINA ZONING BOARD THURSDAY, OCTOBER 16, 1997 5:30 P.M., MANAGER'S CONFERENCE ROOM MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair, Helen McClelland, Lorelei Bergman, Mike Lewis, Rodney Hardy MEMBERS ABSENT: David Byron STAFF PRESENT: Kris Aaker, Jackie Hoogenakker I. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES: The minutes of the August 21, 1997 meeting were filed as submitted. II. NEW BUSINESS: B-97-41 Scott and Leslie Losey 5105 West 49th Street Lot 2, Block 4, except highway right-of-way. Tingdale Brothers Brookside Request: A 14 foot frontyard setback variance and a 3 foot sideyard setback variance for a home expansion Ms. Aaker informed the Board the subject property is located south of 49th Street backing up to an exit ramp for highway 100. The home consists of a 554 square foot rambler with a single stall tuck under garage. The elevation of the main floor of the home and frontyard are considerably higher than the elevation of the street. The home owners are hoping to add onto their home both forward and to the east with a full basement underneath and add an additional tuck under garage stall. The site is very unique and restrictive. City staff had reviewed this request based on information provided by the applicant that the west garage wall provides a three foot sideyard setback. Actual setback as confirmed by the surveyor is two feet to the west lot line. Prior to confirmation of west sideyard setback City staff in the building and engineering departments raised concerns regarding drainage along the side walls of the proposed structure assuming a three foot west sideyard setback and a five foot east sideyard setback. Now with less west sideyard setback than originally assumed, concerns regarding drainage are compounded. Ms. Aaker pointed out generally, the Zoning Board of Appeals has not approved any building closer than three feet to a side lot line and staff has been supportive of this position. The Board has however, in situations deemed appropriate, approved variances to allow a continuation of existing non -conforming setbacks. Ms. Aaker concluded the homeowners are proposing a dramatic improvement to the home. The lot is both challenging and restrictive, and it would appear the proposal would have a positive affect on the property. Ms. Aaker stated clearly there are hardships present with regard to the structure and the lot, and staff admires the applicants ambition given site conditions. Ms. Aaker said staff does have concern regarding the potential impact on adjacent properties, with the minimal setbacks proposed. The homeowners have kept within the existing setbacks established by the garage and home, however, continuing a two foot sideyard setback is not recommended. Staff would suggest that any addition to the home be subject to review and approval of a drainage plan by the Engineering/Building departments. The proponents, Mr. and Mrs. Losey were present. Mr. Hardy questioned if the garage wall is the wall base for footings. Mr. Losey responded that is correct. Ms. McClelland questioned if that is the wall with the defect. Mr. Losey said that wall is stable. The wall by the stairs is the wall with structural problems. Mrs. Bergman stated she understands the need to enlarge the driveway, and dig out the retaining wall, but questioned what will happen to the wall facing the street. Mr. Losey said the entire front streetscape retaining wall will be removed, and re -constructed with a two stepped tiered terrace. Mrs. Bergman said when reviewing the plans she observed two rear doors drawn on the plans, and questioned the need for two rear doors. Mr. Losey said the proposed drawings are only preliminary, and at this time he believes there will only be one rear door. Ms. McClelland observed, and agreed this is a very difficult lot to work with, but stated she has a concern with drainage, with more roof area drainage may become an 2 issue. Continuing, she stated she does not have a problem with the frontyard setback variance, but feels that two feet is too close on the side. Regarding the two feet, Ms. McClelland stated her concern is also with fire safety. Ms. Aaker said regarding the drainage questions, the plans as part of the building permit process will be reviewed by the Engineering department, and if any changes are needed to address drainage they will be implemented before a building permit is issued. Mr. Lewis commented as he understands the process all drainage issues must be resolved to the satisfaction of the Engineering department or a permit will not be issued. Ms. Aaker responded that is correct. Mrs. Bergman asked the proponents if the neighbors to the west have indicated their feelings regarding the proposed expansion. Mr. Losey said the neighbors to the west support the plans. Mr. Hardy pointed out storm water run-off from the roof can be handled by positioning of the downspouts, and until the final plans are reviewed by the Engineering department we can only venture a guess if there will be drainage issues. Ms. McClelland said where there was once grass, there will be a roof, which could present some drainage issues. Mr. Hardy said his concern is with drainage of the site, and he wants it to be clear that the Engineering and Building departments take a close look at the drainage issue. Ms. McClelland said in her opinion this may be overbuilding. Mr. Hardy interjected, and asked Ms. Aaker if the proposal exceeds lot coverage requirements. Ms. Aaker said even with the proposed addition they still are under the lot coverage requirement. Mrs. Bergman suggested, if possible, to shift everything to the east. Mr. Hardy said the project could be jogged in, but steel beam is still needed. Mr. Losey said the cost would be extreme if the entire wall needs to be moved in one foot, and we cannot continue to use the existing setback. Ms. McClelland said the proposed work is very expensive, and asked the proponents if they ever considered razing the house. Mr. Losey said not at this time. Ms. McClelland acknowledged this is a very difficult lot, and a difficult situation. She acknowledged the non -conforming setback already exists, and noted it appears to 3 be difficult to redesign anything else. Ms. McClelland asked the proponents when they propose to start on the project. Mr. Losey said they plan to begin construction as soon as possible. Mr. Lewis moved approval subject to the plans presented, noting the hardship that exists on this lot. Final plans are to be submitted to the Building and Engineering department for their final review and approval. The proponents are also to work closely with staff of the Planning, Engineering and Building departments to ensure the project is accomplished according to plans. Ayes; Bergman, Hardy, Lewis. Nay, McClelland. Motion carried. B-97-53 KMJZ & KSGS/Nationwide Communications First Bank National Association 7001 France Avenue South Request: A 32 foot radio antenna tower mounted to the roof of the First Bank Southdale building Ms. Aaker informed the Board the subject property is located on the east side of France Avenue south of West 70th Street, consisting of the First Bank Southdale building. The applicant, KMJZ & KSGS-Nationwide Communications, is proposing a 50 foot antenna tower with guy wires to be attached to the roof structure of the First Bank Building. The Ordinance requires an antenna height of no greater than 18 feet for roof mount locations. Ms. Aaker stated the applicant has indicated that it is necessary to have a tower height greater than the allowable 18 feet above the roof in order to achieve a transmission signal from the new radio station location in the First Bank Southdale building to the three existing transmitter sites. The existing transmitter sides are located in Eden Prairie, Shoreview, and Sommerset (WI). According to the applicant, there are a number of high points topographically between Edina and the other sites that will interfere with the signal transmission either because of actual physical interruption or as a result of signal deflection. Ms. Aaker pointed out the City of Edina Section 815 of the Zoning Ordinance addressing antenna was recently studied by the Planning Commission and City Council and was amended to allow for ground mounted towers up to 125 feet in height in the PCD -3, POD -2 and PID zoning districts. In addition, roof mounted antenna may not exceed 18 feet in height. Part of the purpose of the Amendment was to limit tall towers to specific zoning districts and to encourage roof mount locations to minimize the 0 impact of these structures. Additional setback has been imposed with the Amendment from towers exceeding 30 feet in height from properties in the R-1 and PRD -1 zoning districts. The Ordinance requires a setback of 4 X's the height of the tower if a tower is 30-75 feet in height and 6 X's the height of the tower if the tower.is greater than 75 feet - 125 feet in height. Ms. Aaker concluded the Antenna Ordinance was amended in part to protect residential areas from the impact of commercial use antenna towers by attempting to contain taller antenna towers in select zoning districts. Another goal of the Ordinance was to encourage roof mount and penthouse antenna attachments to hopefully reduce the number of freestanding structures needed. Ms. Aaker said the location proposed would allow a 125 foot antenna tower. The variance instead would allow a 50 foot roof mount antenna with an overall height of 79 feet. The roof tower would be much smaller in base dimension than a freestanding tower. Staff is of the opinion that given the two choices, a roof mount tower with a maximum height of 50 feet above the roof would be less impacting and less obtrusive than a free-standing tower as suggested. Mr. Robert Raymond, was present representing the proponent. Mr. Hardy questioned the number of guy wires that are proposed to be located on the tower. Mr. Raymond said there will be two sets. One at 20 feet, and one at 40 feet. Mr. Hardy questioned if there are three wires per set. Mr. Raymond responded in the affirmative. Ms. McClelland questioned if the passerby will see is a total of six. Mr. Raymond stated that is correct. Mr. Lewis asked if there is a problem with the FAA regarding the height of the proposed tower on a building. Mr. Raymond said not at all. Ms. Aaker interjected the height is only 50 feet. Ms. McClelland asked what the total height of the tower is from grade. Ms. Aaker said the height from grade is 79 feet. Mr. Lewis asked if space or co -locating options will be sold to other interested parties. Mr. Raymond answered not at this time. Mrs. Bergman questioned the reason for not allowing co -locating. She noted she thought that is what the Council wanted, co -location where possible. Mr. Raymond said in this instance there is a new limit regarding radiation. Mr. Lewis asked the wattage. Mr. Raymond said the radio station will broadcast at 89,000 watts. Mr. Hardy questioned where the studio will be located. Mr. Raymond said the studio will be located in the bank building. Ms. McClelland observed if their request is "cutting it a little close", and they find they need to come back for more height, what will happen. Mr. Randall said he believes from what he has been told by representatives of the industry that the height requested should meet the needs of the station. Ms. Aaker interjected if it is found the height does not meet their broadcast limits they will have to return to the Board to request additional height. A discussion ensued with Board members in agreement the proposed tower will be less obtrusive on the roof versus a free-standing tower, and if it is left unpainted or painted a neutral color, and not painted red/white etc. as some radio transmission towers are. Mr. Lewis moved approval subject to the plans presented, recommending if it is not required by FAA rules, not to paint the proposed tower a bright color. The tower should blend with he surrounding materials. Approval is also subject to the tower being the exclusive use of the owner. No other users can be co -located on the tower. Mrs. Bergman seconded the motion. All voted aye; motion carried. III. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 6:05 p.m. A