Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2008 05-15 Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting Minutes RegularOtte ,888 MINUTE SUMMARY Edina Zoning Board of Appeals Thursday, May 15, 2008, 5:30 PM Edina City Hall Community Room 4801 50th Street West MEMBERS PRESENT: Rod Hardy, Arlene Forrest, Helen Winder and Mike Fischer MEMBERS ABSENT: Jim Nelson and John Lonsbury STAFF PRESENT: Kris Aaker, Joyce Repya, Jackie Hoogenakker I. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES: The minutes of the March 20, 2008, meeting were filed as submitted. II. NEW BUSINESS: B-08-25 Via 6740 France Avenue, Edina Request: Allow six additional identification signs on valences Ms. Repya told the Board the subject property located on the east side of Southdale Office Center campus, abutting France. Avenue consists of a 1 -story building occupied by Via restaurant. The property is zoned POD -2, Planned Office District -2 where a restaurant is only allowed as an accessory use not an allowed principle use in the POD zoning district. Ms. Repya explained the proponent has indicated that due to the location of the building within the Southdale Office Center campus, the traffic on France Avenue can not distinguish the restaurant as a separate use. The lack of visibility and identity for the restaurant has created a hardship for business. It is hoped that the addition of text on the valance of the awnings identifying the business and offerings on the menu will improve VIA's identity and visibility as a restaurant for potential clientele. The signage as proposed would be allowed if the property were zoned planned commercial district, which as mentioned was the zoning when the restaurant was first built. Ms. Repya concluded Staff recommends approval of allowing building identification signage on the valance of the awnings to provided better identity and visibility for a non- conforming restaurant use in the Planned Office District based on the following findings: 1) There is a unique hardship to the property caused by: a. A 1984 rezoning of the property from Planned Commercial District to Planned Office District, which caused the restaurant to be a non- conforming use. b. The unique circumstances of the properties non -conforming zoning status was not self imposed. 2) The variance would meet the intent of the ordinance since: a. The proposed additional signage would be allowed for a restaurant in a Planned Commercial District. b. The signage would be a reasonable given the hardship imposed by the City's rezoning of the property rendering the restaurant a non -conforming use in the Planned Office District. Approval is also based on the following condition: 1) The variance will expire on May 15, 2009, unless the city has Issued a sign permit for the project covered by this variance or approved a time extension. Acting Chair Fischer asked Ms. Repya if the awnings will be lighted. Ms. Repya responded they will not be lighted but the wall sign is. Ms. Repya pointed out the general area is rather well lit because of its close proximity to a parking lot and France Avenue. Mr. Hardy arrived. A discussion ensued with Members acknowledging impact would be minimal. Member Hardy moved variance approval based on staff findings and subject to staff condition. Member Forrest seconded the motion. Member Winder expressed some concern over the language that would be used on the awnings, adding she doesn't want to see anything offensive placed on the awnings. Member Hardy said he believes the role of the Board in this instance is to focus on the request, adding he believes this is a creative way to handle their exposure due to their unique situation and sign constraints. Acting Chair Fischer commented the addition of food items to the awnings may help identify Via as a restaurant. Acting Chair Fischer asked Ms. Repya if menu items have been used before in signage. Ms. Repya responded that presently she is reviewing a signage package for McCormick and Schmidt and they use the word seafood in their signage. All voted aye; motion carried. B-08-23 Chuck Lucas 7711 Tanglewood Court Request: Fence height variance Ms. Aaker informed the Board the subject property is located on the south side of Tanglewood Court consisting of a double dwelling unit that backs up to West 78th St. The property currently has a 6 foot tall, solid wall fence located along the back property line that is adjacent to West 78th St. The existing fence is in poor condition and needs replacement. Ms. Aaker explained the homeowner would like to replace the existing dilapidated 6 foot tall fence at the back of his property along West 78th St. and replace it with an 8 foot fence to match the two neighbors to the west. The two neighbors to the west had installed an 8 foot tall fence a number of years ago prior to the ordinance change that limits fence height to 6 feet. Ms. Aaker concluded staff recommends approval of the 2 foot fence height variance based on the following findings: 1) There is unique hardship to the property caused by: a. The existence of other homes with fences at 8 feet in height. b. The ordinance was changed reducing fence height. c. The addition will improve the existing conditions on site by allowing a similar fence to the neighbors. 2) The variance would meet the intent of the ordinance since: a. The variance would be similar to existing surrounding conditions. b. The variance would maintain the residential character of the property and the neighborhood. Approval should also be based on the following conditions: 1) The addition shall be constructed as per the submitted plan dated April 23, 2008. 2) This variance will expire on May 15, 2009, unless the city has issued a building permit for the project covered by this variance or approved a time extension. The proponent, Mr. Lucas was present to respond to questions. Acting Chair Fischer commented that as he views this request he believes the busy street could also be considered a hardship. Continuing, Acting Chair Fischer recalled when the Code was changed reducing fence height from 8 feet to 6 feet Commissioners acknowledged that in certain situations (abutting a busy street, different zoning district) it would be reasonable to permit fences in excess of 6 feet through the variance process. Mr. Lucas explained a reconstruction project on 494 raised the grade of the highway in certain areas and since reconstruction our property seems to be nosier. Mr. Lucas added he also believes matching the fence is more esthetically pleasing. Member Winder moved variance approval based on staff findings, and subject to staff conditions noting the proximity to the busy street. Member Forrest seconded the motion. All voted aye; motion carried. Acting Chair Fischer excused himself. B-08-24 Greg T. Oothoudt 4121 50th Street West Request: 208 square foot porch area variance Ms. Aaker told the Board the subject property is a zoned PRD -4 Planned residence District Four and consists of a multi -dwelling unit building. The property has had multiple owners over the last few years. The building was originally built as an apartment building and then was converted to a condominium building with partial completion of improvements, only to be proposed for demolition to allow for a luxury 6 unit condominium project. The housing market has shifted with the building remaining vacant for a lengthy time and in a deteriorating condition. The current owner of the building would like to return the property to useful condition. Part of the improvements to the existing structure includes an enlarged portico near the front entrance. Currently there is an enclosed portico that extends 5 feet 10 inches beyond the front building wall. The owner would like to expand the depth of, portico to 8 feet 8 inches and with a wider presence, (39 feet), along the front. The purpose of the portico is to im9rove the aesthetics of the building and project a classic front facade to West 50 St. Ms. Aaker explained a survey of the property reveals that the front of the building is located 28 feet from the lot line adjacent to West 50th St. The existing front porch is located approximately 22.2 feet from West 50th St. Right of Way. The porch extension would be approximately 2.83 feet closer to West 50th Street than the existing porch. The minimum setback required from West 50th St. is 30 feet. The existing building was built prior to the current setback requirements and is legally nonconforming with a 28 foot setback from the front lot line. Ms. Aaker concluded staff recommends approval of the requested 208 square foot porch area variance beyond the 80 square feet allowed in the front yard area based on the following findings: There is unique hardship to the property caused by: a. The existence of the legal nonconforming front yard setback. b. The addition will allow for improvement of existing conditions on sit without negatively impacting the intent of the zoning ordinance. c. Adequate spacing would be maintained from the street. The setbacks are meant to insure comfortable distances between structures and the street. The variance would sustain proper setback while allowing for a reasonable improvement. d. The variance would enhance the residential character of the property and the neighborhood. Approval should also be based on the following conditions: • The addition shall be constructed as per the submitted plan dated April 18, 2008. • This variance will expire on May 15, 2009, unless the city has issued a building permit for the project covered by this variance or approved a time extension. The proponent, Mr. Oothoudt was present to respond to questions from the Board. Chair Hardy asked for clarification on what the variance is for. Ms. Aaker responded the variance is only for the porch area. Mr. Oothoudt explained his intent with this proposal is to balance the buildings facade, adding in his opinion this addition enhances the buildings curb appeal. Mr. Oothoudt said the entire building will also be remodeled. Continuing, Mr. Oothoudt told the Board the previous two owners went bankrupt, adding if the existing building isn't updated and "enhanced", no one would want to live in it. Member Forrest commented that she agrees the existing building needs renovation; however, in her opinion the "updated" appearance of the facade creates a more commercial feel to the building. Member Forrest pointed out this is a residential neighborhood, acknowledging its proximity to commercial, but reiterating in her opinion the new look of the building is too imposing, concluding to her it looks more like a bank. Chair Hardy acknowledged there will be differing opinions with regard to design and asked Mr. Oothoudt if lighting is proposed in the overhang. Mr. Oothoudt said his intent is to have a chandelier in the overhang, adding additional lighting above that hasn't really been discussed. Chair Hardy commented that the proposed changes to the front of building add a southern flair. Mr. Oothoudt agreed. Member Winder said in her opinion the proposed renovation to the facade will enhance the building. Member Forrest reiterated that she isn't opposed to the building being renovated, she just feels this design creates a more commercial look, adding she wants it clear that this neighborhood is residential as well as commercial. Member Forrest also asked the proponent when he reviews lighting to remember the residential nature of his building. Chair Hardy asked Ms. Aaker if City Code addresses lighting in residential areas. Ms. Aaker responded in the affirmative, adding the proposed lighting can't create spillage onto neighboring properties. Member Winder moved variance approval based on staff findings and subject to staff conditions, with special attention given to the exterior lighting of the building. Chair Hardy seconded the motion. All voted aye; motion carried. B-08-26 Nancy Schoenwetter 4520 Dunham Drive Request: 12.8 foot and a 3.8 foot front yard setback variance 100 square foot porch area variance Ms. Aaker informed the Board the subject property is a one story home with an attached two car garage located on a corner lot. The home currently faces Dunham Drive with the garage loading from West Shore Drive. The property is subjected to two front yard setbacks along both West Shore Drive and Dunham Drive. The setback required along both street frontages are based on the front yard setback of the homes adjacent to the north and to the east located at 7117 West Shore Drive, (37.3 feet) and 4516 Dunham Drive, (36.8 feet). The front yard setbacks when applied to the subject property bisect the home along West Shore Drive and overlap the home by a little less than 4 feet along Dunham Drive, (see attached survey). The required front yard setbacks cause nearly any improvement to the home to require a variance. The existing setbacks for the subject home are 25.5 feet from West Shore and 35.4 feet from Dunham Drive. Ms. Aaker explained the proposal is to move the existing home off-site to a lot outside of Edina. The foundation is solid so the plan is to re -build on the existing foundation with a two story home that will have an attached three car garage. Two variances are required to simply rebuild over the foundation in the existing location of the building. The two front yard setbacks applied to the property prohibit re -building on the foundation without the benefit of a variance. There is also a variance requested for a porch along the west side of the home facing West Shore Drive. The zoning ordinance allows a porch to over -lap the front yard setback as long as it is no larger than 80 square feet and no closer to the front lot line than 20 feet. The original porch was proposed to be much deeper and therefore more functional, however, it was redesigned as a narrow 4 foot deep porch to minimize encroachment and maintain the 20 foot setback from West Shore Drive. The porch is meant to tie the building together and offer an inviting look from the street. Ms. Aaker concluded staff recommends approval based on the following findings: The required setbacks as applied given the configuration and corner location of the lot. The required setbacks bisect the home and is a hardship hindering the ability to accomplish almost any modification to the existing building footprint. The front yard setbacks will not be compromised given the location proposed for the porch addition and proposed second floor. The proposed additions will be consistent with the dimensions of the existing home and will not drastically alter the footprint Approval should be based on the following conditions: • The addition shall be constructed as per the submitted plan dated April 28, 2008. • This variance will expire on May 15, 2009 unless the city has issued a building permit for the project covered by this variance or approved a time extension. The proponents, Mrs. Schoenwetter and Mr. Schoenwetter were present to respond to questions. Mr. Eric Dobbe representing JMS was also present. Interested neighbors were present. Mr. Dobbe explained to the Board the present house will be moved off the site and a new house will be constructed in its place. Mr. Dobbe said the new house is carefully designed, adding the proposed porch area that requires a variance is an important design element of the home. Member Forrest questioned how landscaping will be impacted as a result of the removal of the old house and construction of the new. Mr. Schoenwetter told the Board everything possible will be done to minimize impact on the site and surrounding properties, adding the landscaping will be maintained and enhanced. Member Forrest asked if the proposed new house is being built for sale. Mrs. Schoenwetter responded the new home is being constructed for them. Mr. Russell, 7117 West Shore Drive, told the Board he and his wife have grave concerns with the proposal, adding their concern is with window placement on the north 7 building wall. Mr. Russell explained his daughter's bedrooms face the new house and plans for the new house indicate windows that will face their daughters bedrooms, reiterating this is really a safety concern for them. Mr. Schoenwetter responded everything possible will be done to minimize impact of those windows; however, the house needs windows on the north fagade. Mr. Schoenwetter said he is flexible with the type of windows that could be placed in the north elevation of the house and would be willing to work with Mr. and Mrs. Russell to find the appropriate windows. Chair Hardy stated the Board looks at every aspect of building plans, adding it is difficult for the Board to form an opinion if there is the potential for change, as suggested with window placement. Chair Hardy asked the proponents if they would like to table their request to work with the immediate neighbors on window placement, size, etc. Mr. Schoenwetter stated at this time he would like to work with the neighbors and not have their request tabled. Continuing, Mr. Schoenwetter explained they would like to move into their new home as close as possible to the beginning of school. Member Forrest said if she understands Code correctly the north building wall of the proposed new home meets Code, noting window placement and size may be an issue best settled between neighbors. Member Winder said in her review of this request she acknowledged the fact that the lot is oddly configured, making house placement difficult, and pointing out the lot is considered a corner lot which adds to design complications. Member Winder stated she agrees with Member Forrest that the window issue should be settled between neighbors. A discussion ensued regarding Code and window placement with Board Members indicating they are comfortable confining their action to what has been submitted, acknowledging and understanding the concerns expressed by Mr. and Mrs. Russell; however, leaving window size and placement up to both parties. Member Forrest moved variance approval based on staff findings and subject to staff conditions. Approval is based strictly on what was presented this evening. Member Winder seconded the motion. All voted aye; motion carried. III. ADDITIONAL PUBLIC COMMENT: None IV. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 7:00 PM