Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1994 07-21 Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting Minutes RegularMINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE EDINA ZONING BOARD HELD ON THURSDAY, JULY 21, 1994, 5:30 P.M., MANAGER'S CONFERENCE ROOM MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair, Gordon Johnson, Helen McClelland, Don Patton, Geof Workinger MEMBERS ABSENT: Mike Lewis STAFF PRESENT: Kris Aaker, Jackie Hoogenakker I. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES Mr. Patton moved approval of the May 19, 1994, meeting minutes. Ms. McClelland seconded the motion. All voted aye; motion carried. II. OLD BUSINESS: B-94-26 Variance extension for construction of new garage for 5405 Kellogg Ms. Aaker explained approximately one year ago the proponents requested and received variance approval to construct a new garage. At this time they are requesting an extension of that variance. Ms. Aaker stated staff recommends approval of the variance request. Mr. Patton moved approval of the extension. Ms. McClelland seconded the motion. All voted aye; motion carried. 1 111. NEW BUSINESS: B-94-31 Mr. Robert Burt 3300 West 55th Street Lot 1, and the East 6 ft. of Lot 2, Block 3 White Investment Company's Hidden Valley Request: A 6.4 foot sidestreet setback variance, a 5 foot frontyard setback variance and a 2.75 foot sideyard setback variance Ms. Aaker informed the board the subject property is North of West 55th Street and East of Zenith Avenue. The home backs up to Minnehaha Creek and consists of a contemporary walkout. 1-i 1975 similar variances were granted for an addition to the back of the home. The homeowners are now proposing a second story master bedroom above the front portion of the house. The proposed addition will stay within the existing building footprint with the exception of cantilevered deck and closet portions projecting from the front of the house. Ms. Aaker concluded staff can support the sideyard and sidestreet setback variance. Staff struggles with the frontyard setback variance due to the magnitude of encroachment. The proponents Mr. and Mrs. Burt were present. Mr. Burt explained to board members the house is north facing so the addition was designed to capture the winter sun. With graphics Mr. Burt po;r,- nd out the configuration of the street and the non-conforminity of the house. Ck uinq, . Burt indicated he has spoken with a majority of the neighbors on the list provideu oy the city, but had a problem speaking with four. Mrs. Wald, 3301 West 55th Street stated she feels the house has too many points, and expressed concern that the proposed addition will make the house appear too large at two stories. Mr. Burt pointed out the majority of the homes on the block are two story. Mrs. Wald reiterated in her opinion the house already has too many points and jogs. 2 r Chairman Johnson pointed out to Mrs. Wald the style of the house is not traditional, and asked Mrs. Wald what her objection is. Mrs. Wald responded she believes the house needs to be painted. Mr. Burt interjected if they receive approval for the changes the entire house will be painted. Mr. Schmidt, 5525 Zenith Avenue and Mr. Smith, 3304 West 55th Street stated they support the proposal as presented. They indicated this neighborhood needs to be upgraded to be competitive with the rest of Edina. Mrs. Burt added they only want to upgrade the existing house, which in her opinion, benefits the neighborhood. Mr. Patton asked Mr. Burt if he has considered flipping the bedroom closet. Mr. Burt stated that is not possible because of the bathroom location. Mr. Patton noted the front deck does break up the mass of the house. Ms. McClelland stated the design of the addition does blend in with the non- conforminity of the house, adding she agrees the front deck does help soften the mass, but Ms. McClelland said in her opinion the house appears to large for the neighborhood, especially because its character does not fit. Mr. Burt stated the house is a modern design, but because of the dense vegetation it blends. Continuing, Mr. Burt said in his opinion diversity of houses is rather nice in todays environment. He concluded that being different is not necessarily bad. In response Ms. McClelland stated in her opinion the lot is too narrow to accommodate an addition of this magnitude. She added care must be taken in not overbuilding existing neighborhoods. She concluded that massing is an issue, and the character of neighborhoods should be preserved. Mr. Workinger commented the house is very screened with vegetation, but with the addition the house will be large for the neighborhood. Mrs. Burt interjected the house does need updating. Chairman Johnson questioned how the frontyard setback was determined. He pointed out there appears to be a split in the block because of the "S" shape. Ms. Aaker acknowledged the layout of the block but explained the entire block needs to be calculated between intersections. Chairman Johnson stated the board needs to be careful in stressing the limits of neighborhoods. Mr. Burt agreed pointing out the spacing between homes will remain adequate. 3 It Ms. McClelland reiterated she has a problem with the mass of the house. Mr. Workin9 er stated he has a concern that the front decks could later be converted into living area without a variance.- Ms. Aaker said any conversion to living area would require a permit, and may also require additional variance approval. Mr. Lewis moved approval subject to the plan presented, the variances are to be a Mr. Patton seconded the motion. Ayes; Patton, Lewis, Johnson. Nays; McClelland, Workinger. Motion carried 3-2. B-94-32 Karl and.Patricia Schmidt #9 Bridge Lane Lot 17, White Oaks, Edina, M N Request: A 1.5 foot sideyard setback variance for sidewall building height Ms. Aaker informed the board the subject property is located on the south side of Bridge Lane where the road terminates east of Arden Avenue. The home consists of a two story brick colonial with attached two stall garage. The property owners are proposing an addition to the home to include a two story addition to the back of the house and an extension of the garage. The two story addition has been setback 14.2' from the west property boundary with a garage extension that will maintain the existing 5.2 foot setback from the sideyard. Part of the plan includes a new garage roof height that has been raised to join the roof of the addition and to hide the new roof line from the front street. Ms. Aaker pointed out the garage is setback 5.2' from the side property boundary which is within the minimum 5 foot sideyard required, however, the ordinance also requires that 6 inches be added to the minimum sideyard setback requirement for each one foot average building height exceeds 15 feet. The height of the west garage wall has been increased to approximately 18.5 feet due to the new garage roof. Ms. Aaker concluded all aspects of the home remodel conform to ordinance requirements with the exception of roof height of the garage. All living area is well within the sideyard setback requirement guidelines. Given the side/rear yard relationship between the subject home and the adjacent impacted property staff believes the plan is within the spirit and intent of the zoning ordinance and accomplishes a streetscape view more compatible with the architectural features of the structure. r Mr. and Mrs. Schmidt the proponents were present, Mr. Ed Noonan, builder was also present. Mr. Workinger pointed out the extended roof line hides the rear, and questioned if the proponents ever considered adding dormers. Mrs. Schmidt responded they hope to dormer both the house and garage. Ms. McClelland stated in her opinion it is very important to break up the mass of the addition, and the dormers as suggested by Mr. Workinger will accomplish this. Continuing, Ms. McClelland asked if there is living space above the garage. Mr. Schmidt responded there is living space only over a portion of the garage. Mr. Noonan stated he agrees with Mr. Workingers suggestion regarding the addition of dormers, and noted one neighbor did suggest dormers. Mr. Workinger asked if the addition will be finished,with like materials. Mrs. Schmidt said the materials will match, and will be white shake with red brick. Mr. Patton asked if they have had any difficulty in matching the new brick with the existing brick. Mr. Noonan responded they have found matching brick, and will also be replacing any loose existing bricks. Mr. Patton moved variance approval subject to staff conditions and the condition that materials match. Ms. McClelland seconded the motion. All voted aye; motion carried. B-94-33 Larry and Sue McGill 4525 Tower Avenue Lot 5, Block 1, Paul Wind Christopher Addition Request: A 4.83 foot sideyard setback variance for building height Ms. Aaker informed the board the property is located on the southside of Tower Street between St. John's Avenue and Wooddale Avenue. Ms. Aaker explained the proponents plan to add a master bedroom above the existing garage. The sidewall of the garage is located eight feet from the side property boundary. The Edina Zoning Ordinance requires that garages be located a minimum of five feet to the side boundary and living area located a minimum of 10 feet to the sideyard. Ms. Aaker concluded given the building limitations with regard to the site staff can support a variance subject to the use of matching materials. 5 I The proponents, Mr. and Mrs. McGill were present. 0 Ms. McClelland pointed out the side of the garage appears to be very plain and questioned if windows would be added to the garage. Mrs. McGill stated they are planning to add windows to the garage. The windows don't appear on the plans, but will be incorporated into the addition. Mr. Workinger moved approval subject to the use of matching materials as suggested by staff. Mr. Lewis seconded the motion. All voted aye; motion carried. B-94-34 U.S. West New Vector Group Inc/James D. Littlejohn 6250 Tracy Avenue East 223 feet of that part of the NE 1/4 of the NW 1/4 line South of the North 693 feet thereof and North of County Highway 62, except roads Request: A 350 foot setback variance for a 75 foot antenna tower Ms. Aaker informed the board the U.S. West New Vector Group has submitted an application to construct an antenna tower on the City of Edina's fire station site located north of highway 62 and'vest of Tracy Avenue. The purpose of the tower is to consolidate the existing antennae and communications equipment of the fire station and add a cellular telephone antenna for U.S. West New Vector. There are currently two radio towers located on the fire station site used for public safety, a 66 foot tall ground mounted tower and a 95 foot roof mounted tower with supports. Ms. Aaker explained U.S. West is proposing to erect a 94'-9" monopole fire station antenna with cellular antenna functions. The cellular function of the tower would not exceed the 75 foot maximum height requirement per the ordinance and would meet the minimum 50 foot setback standards prescribed by the ordinance. The cellular portion of the tower does not however conform to the provision of the ordinance which requires additional setback requirements from R-1 and R-2 zoned residentially used properties for towers in excess of 65 feet in height. Ms. Aaker pointed out the proposed 75 foot U.S. West New Vector Group portion of the tower requires a 550 foot setback from R-1 and R-2 residential uses. The tower will provide a 200 foot setback therefore a 350 foot setback variance is required. Continuing, Mr. Aaker added the proposal also includes an equipment building addition that will be constructed behind the fire station. The equipment building will allow for separate compartments to house the cellular radio and computer equipment needed for the cellular phone operation and to allow storage space for fire department maintenance equipment. The equipment addition will conform to all ordinance requirements. Ms. Aaker concluded the purpose and intent of the ordinance is to minimize impact of antenna structures from neighboring homes. The proposal meets the spirit of the ordinance by improving on existing conditions. Mr. Littlejohn and Mr. Wong were present representing U.S. West NewVector Group. Chairman Johnson questioned if the Fire Department needs to upgrade its communications equipment. Ms. Aaker responded that is correct. There is a need by the Fire Department to upgrade the present communication standards. Mr. Lewis asked Mr. Paulfranz if he envisions a heliport on the Fire Department site. Mr. Paulfranz said a heliport will be constructed on the Fairview Southdale Hospital campus. Ms. McClelland asked Mr. Littlejohn if he knows the exact dimensions of the "fins" that will be located on the monopole. Mr. Littlejohn said the "fins" or "plates" Ms. Mcclelland is referring to are 8 feet in length. They are slender panels with five panels on each of three sides. Mr. Lewis asked Mr. Littlejohn if the phone company will pay rent to the Fire Department/City. Mr. Littlejohn explained U.S. West NewVector will construct the new tower, remove the old towers, and construct the utility buildings. They will also pay rent to the city. Mr. Patton asked if the monopole is constructed of bent metal. Mr. Littlejohn stated that is correct, adding it will be painted a sky gray color (or what ever color is preferred by the city). Mr. Lewis asked if there will be a strobe on top of the antenna tower. Mr. Paulfranz said the tower will not have lights. He explained no protection is required because the highest point in the vicinity is the water tower, and that is lighted. Ms. McClelland asked if future technology will create smaller antenna towers. Mr. Littlejohn responded he is unsure. A discussion ensued regarding antenna technology, and the location of existing cells within the city. 7 Ms. McClelland stated she does not have a problem with the proposal as submitted. She pointed out the plates are thin, and any impact is minimal because the fire station is surrounded on three sides by highway, park property; and church parking lots. Residential property is located a distance away from the tower, and with the removal of the existing two towers, one tower is preferable. Ms. McClelland moved variance approval subject to staff conditions. Mr. Lewis seconded the motion. All voted aye; motion carried. IV. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 6:35 p.m. LF —W oo g ep a klzb� n