Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2009 11-05 Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting Minutes RegularMINUTES Edina Zoning Board of Appeals Thursday, November 5, 2009, 5:30 PM Edina Cil Hall Council Chambers 4801 50 Street West, Edina, MN MEMBERS PRESENT: Acting Chair Mary Vasaly, Nancy Scherer and Scott Davidson MEMBERS ABSENT: Michael Schroeder and Bernadette Hornig STAFF PRESENT: Kris Aaker, Joyce Repya, Jackie Hoogenakker I. APPROVAL OF MEETING MINUTES: The minutes of the September 3, 2009, meeting minutes were filed as submitted. II. NEW BUSINESS: B-09-24 Thomas A. O'Connell 5200 60th Street West Edina, MN Request: 40.3 foot front yard setback variance Planner Presentation Planner Aaker informed the Board the subject property is a corner lot with a one story home that has an attached two car tuck -under garage located in the northwest intersection of 60th St. West and Code Ave. The home faces west 60th St. with the "side street" along Code Ave. The home is nonconforming regarding setback from Code Ave. The owner recently purchased the property hoping to add a small, 5 x 16 foot, (80 square foot), addition to the front of the house to expand a small kitchen. The addition would be in the southeast corner of the building. A variance is required from the east side street lot line adjacent to Code Ave. The property is subjected to two front yard setbacks along both 60th St. West and Code Ave. The zoning ordinance requires that the subject property respect the front yard setbacks of both the homes to the west and to the north. The subject home is set back 63.4 feet from 60th St and was one of the first homes built in the area. Property was platted around the subject home with newer homes built along Code Ave. at much deeper front yard setbacks than provided by the Minutes of the Edina Zoning Board of Appeals Thursday, November 5, 2009 Page 2 of 12 subject home. The home to the north of the subject home is located 70 feet from Code Ave. right-of-way. The proponents home is located 29.7 feet from Code Ave. and 40.3 feet in front of the home to the north. Planner Aaker explained that the homeowner's wish is to build a modest addition to the front of the house that will increase the kitchen space on the main level. The existing kitchen is a narrow, walk-through space that connects a side door with the dining room/living area. Currently cabinet doors interfere with one another and block traffic patterns. As demonstrated in the attached photos, if the refrigerator door is open, access to the living room is blocked. The oven doors and the refrigerator door cannot be opened at the same time. Other alternatives are not viable; expansion cannot be achieved behind the kitchen since stair access to the basement is behind the kitchen. Planner Aaker concluded that staff recommends approval of the requested 40.3 foot front yard setback variance for proximity based on the following findings: 1) There is unique hardship to the property caused by: a. The existence of the nonconforming location of the subject home. b. The home conformed to the ordinances at the time it was constructed with surrounding development and rule changes causing the property to be nonconforming. c. The addition will be located at the same nonconforming setback as the existing side wall to Code Ave. but cannot be accomplished without the benefit of a variance. 2) The variance would meet the intent of the ordinance since: a. The variance would not impact the neighbor to the north, would be similar to existing conditions and would not alter spacing to Code Ave. b. The variance would provide a small, 80 square foot addition in an area of the property that would have no visual encroachment on the streetscape. Approval should also be based on the following conditions: 1) The addition shall be constructed as per the submitted plan dated September 18, 2009. 2) This variance will expire on November 5, 2010, unless the city has issued a building permit for the project covered by this variance or approved a time extension. Minutes of the Edina Zoning Board of Appeals Thursday, November 5, 2009 Page 3 of 12 Appearing for the Applicant Tom O'Connell Discussion Member Davidson asked Mr. O'Connell if he knew the age of the house, acknowledging it must have been one of the original homes in the area. Mr. O'Connell agreed, adding he believes it was a farm house and the age is somewhere between 1937 and 1944. A brief discussion ensued with Board Members agreeing with staff's summation, noting the nonconforming location of the house is a hardship. Action Member Scherer moved variance approval of B-09-24 based on staff findings and subject to staff conditions. Member Davidson seconded the motion. All voted aye; motion carried. B-09-25 Refined LLC/Pat Fleetham 4300 Branson St Edina, MN Request: 1.4 foot 1St floor height variance Planner Presentation Ms. Aaker told the Board the subject property consists of a one story home with a detached one car garage located on the north side of Branson Street. The lot is approximately 181 feet deep with the home located over 130 feet from the street. The lot is 50 feet in width. The subject home sits well behind the homes on either side. The applicant is proposing to demolish the existing one story home/detached garage and replace it with a new two story, contemporary style home with a front loading two car attached garage. The new home will be built to line up with the homes on either side of the subject property, so it will be moved forward on the lot in a location more in -keeping with the other homes on Branson. The existing home is situated very deep from the street and is on a low spot in the lot. The zoning ordinance has been amended recently to require that rebuilt homes provide a first floor elevation no higher than 1 foot above the 1St floor of the home to be torn down on the property. It is a relatively new change that was meant to prohibit a new first floor substantially higher than neighboring homes Minutes of the Edina Zoning Board of Appeals Thursday, November 5, 2009 Page 4 of 12 and that perhaps would be significantly higher than what had always been provided on a site. A survey of the property reveals that the existing first floor of the subject home is at 901.8. The new home cannot have a first floor elevation higher than 902.8. The homeowner desires to match the average first floor elevations of the homes on either side. The home to the east has a first floor elevation of 904.1 and the home to the west has a first floor at 904.3. The proponent is hoping to set their first floor at 904.2. The proposal would match the neighbor's first floors and would bring the property up to a level consistent with the existing homes adjacent and along the block. Planner Aaker concluded staff recommends approval of the requested 1.4 foot 1St floor height variance based on the following findings: There is unique hardship to the property caused by: a. The structure's location deep in and at a low spot on the lot. b. The home was located closer to the northerly lot line, well behind adjacent homes and currently does not have any sort of visual relationship with, or association to, the first floor elevations or locations of the homes near by. c. The ordinance would require a lower floor height than neighboring properties potentially causing retaining walls along the side lot lines to maintain lower grade elevations to accommodate the codes and potentially pose drainage issues. The variance would meet the intent of the ordinance since: a. The variance would be similar to existing first floor elevations of adjacent properties. The intent of the ordinance is to maintain floor heights in a neighborhood and limit a new home from being built with a much higher first floor that perhaps would be out of character with its surroundings. b. The variance would maintain the intended spirit of the ordinance by allowing the new home to simply match the neighborhood. Approval should also be based on the following conditions: 3) The home shall be constructed as per the submitted survey dated October 20, 2009. 4) This variance will expire on November 5, 2010, unless the city has issued a building permit for the project covered by this variance or approved a time extension. Minutes of the Edina Zoning Board of Appeals Thursday, November 5, 2009 Page 5 of 12 Appearing for the Applicant Andy Porter, 6125 Westridge Road Applicant Presentation Mr. Porter told the board the overall goal was to construct a new house that maintained the streetscape, pointing out the current house is set farther back on the lot and at a lower elevation. Continuing, Mr. Porter said in his opinion the plans as submitted maintain the character of the neighborhood and if approved the variance would eliminate the necessity of retaining walls by leveling the lot to match the properties on either side. Public Comment Mary Carte, 4208 Branson St, told the Board she doesn't necessarily object to the new house she just wants assurances when the project is completed that the water flow remains the same and her property is not negatively impacted. Ms. Carte also commented that in her opinion the style of the house is a bit too modern but she acknowledged that house style was up to the homeowner. Concluding, Ms. Carte stated she appreciates that the Heritage Preservation Board is considering doing a bungalow study in the Morningside neighborhood which she supports. Gene Mattson, 4214 Branson St. stated he also wants to promote the Morningside bungalow study. Continuing, Mr. Mattson said his concern is with the potential for water run off from the new house. Candy Barrett, 4206 Branson St stated she has no problem with the elevation. Her issue is with the style of the house. Mr. Porter responded that the grading and layout of the lot/house will direct water run off toward the front street. He stated all hard surfaces will drain properly, and not negatively impact neighboring properties. Discussion Member Vasaly said in her opinion the request meets the intent of the ordinance, adding she supports the request as proposed. Board Members agreed. Action Member Davidson moved variance approval of B-09-25 based on staff findings and subject to staff conditions. Member Scherer seconded the motion. All voted Minutes of the Edina Zoning Board of Appeals Thursday, November 6, 2009 Page 6 of 12 aye; motion carried. B-05-26 Andrew and Staci Will 5024 Scriver Road, Edina MN Request: 2.5 foot 1st floor height variance request. Planner Presentation Planner Aaker told the Board the subject property consists of a split entry home with and attached two car garage located on the south side of Scriver Road. The applicant is proposing to demolish the existing home on the property and construct a new two story home with an attached 4 car garage. A survey of the property reveals that the existing home is a multi-level home with the front entry 3 feet higher than the lowest level of the house and 6 feet lower than the main floor elevation. The entry level, which consists of a landing for stairs going both up to the main level and down to the lower level, is at an elevation of 950.1. The main level of the home is at an elevation of 956.1 with the lower level at 947.08. There is also a third level above the garage at an elevation of 959.35. The zoning ordinance was recently amended to require that any re -built home on a property provide a first floor height of no higher than one foot above the existing "first floor" height. Planner Aaker explained that the subject property is a split entry home with the ordinance stating that if a split level dwelling is torn down and a new home is built, the new first floor or entry level elevation may not be more than one foot above the front entry elevation of the home that is torn down. In this instance the new first floor of the home may not be higher than 951. 10, where as surrounding homes have first floor heights ranging from 953.6 — 954.9. The applicant would like to set the first floor height of the new home at 853.6, which is similar, and in some instances lower than the first floor heights of surrounding properties. Planner Aaker concluded staff recommends approval of the requested 2.5 foot 1 st floor height variance based on the following findings: 1. There is unique hardship to the property caused by: a. he existence of the split entrance that has a lower entrance than first floor elevations of near by homes. b. The home is a unique nonstandard design with the ordinance requiring a first floor elevation that is not in -keeping with adjacent homes. Minutes of the Edina Zoning Board of Appeals Thursday, November 5, 2009 Page 7 of 12 c. The definition of "first floor" in the ordinance resulting in holding the property to a lower elevation than anything near by. 2.The variance would meet the intent of the ordinance since: a. The variance would allow a new first floor elevation to be similar to existing surrounding conditions. b. The variance would maintain the integrity and purpose of the ordinance by allowing the new home to match heights of neighboring properties. Approval should also be based on the following conditions: • The addition shall be constructed as per the submitted plan. • This variance will expire on November 5, 2010, unless the city has issued a building permit for the project covered by this variance or approved a time extension. Appearing for the Applicant Andrew and Staci Will, property owners and Troy Anderson, excavator, appearing for the property owners. Applicant Presentation Mr. Anderson addressed the Board and explained that due to the style (split level) of the existing home and because of the recent change in code a variance is required to be able to position the new house at the same elevation as the neighboring homes in the area. Public Comment Nancy Jaos, 5112 Scriver Road, stated she has no objection to the variance. Her concern is with privacy. She asked that when the new house is constructed that careful attention is paid to preserve the existing vegetation and the 100 year old Oaks that line the property. Ms. Joas added that new landscaping be planted (if needed) to soften the impact of the new house. Mr. Will responded that everything in his power will be done to preserve the existing vegetation and large Oak trees on the property. Mr. Will added that privacy is also important to his family and reiterated everything possible will be implemented to ensure safety of the existing vegetation. Member Vasaly asked Mr. Will if he knows how many trees would be impacted by the Minutes of the Edina Zoning Board of Appeals Thursday, November 5, 2009 Page 8 of 12 new house. Mr. Will responded that he knows that one large Oak tree would be lost as the result of this construction; reiterating his goal is to maintain as much vegetation as possible. Action Member Scherer moved variance approval of B-09-26 based on staff findings and subject to staff conditions. Member Davidson seconded the motion. All voted aye; motion carried. B-09-27 Twin City Orthopedic 4010 65t St West, Edina Request: Multiple Sign Variances Planner Presentation Planner Repya told the Board the subject property consists of a 4/5 -story medical office building and a four -level parking ramp, which is currently under construction. The building fronts West 65th street to the south. The rear of the building faces the Crosstown Highway 62 to the north. The property is zoned RMD, Regional Medical District. In December of 2008, the applicant received a rezoning to RMD and the following variances to construct the building: 1.Front building setback variance from 74 feet to 52 feet. (A 22 -foot variance.) 2. Rear building setback variance from 74 feet to 20 feet. (A 54 -foot variance.) 3. Side building setback variance from 74 feet to 20 feet. (A 54 -foot variance.) 4. Front parking structure setback variance from 67 feet to 18 feet. (A 49 -foot variance.) 5. Rear parking structure setback variance from 67 feet to 20 feet. (A 47 -foot variance.) 6. Side parking structure setback variance from 57 feet to 10 feet. (A 47 -foot variance.) 7. A side yard drive -aisle setback variance from 10 feet to 3 feet. (A 6.7 -foot variance.) 8. Minimum tract area variance from 10 acres to 2 acres. (An 8 acre variance.) 9. A parking stall variance from 393 stalls to 373 stalls. (A 20 -stall variance.) Planner Repya explained that In April 2009, the Regional Medical and Planned Office District section of Edina's Sign Ordinance No. 460.05, Subd. 5 was revised to better identify medical office buildings by allowing more signs, and larger signs. The previous ordinance only allowed one building identification sign per frontage. The revised Minutes of the Edina Zoning Board of Appeals Thursday, November 5, 2009 Page 9 of 12 ordinance now allows a wall sign and a free standing sign per frontage. Also, for a building larger than 4 -stories, the signage size increased from 80 square feet to 120 square feet total for the two signs. Additionally, address signage for a building over 4 - stories increased from 6 to 40 square feet, and the address sign does not count toward the signage requirement. The rationale for the amendments was to allow larger signage to assist in way finding for patients at medical clinics; in particular, patients of medical clinics or buildings with multiple tenants. This building will have one tenant. The subject sign package is the first to be subject to the new ordinance. Planner Repya concluded that staff recommends denial of the variances to allow larger signs, decreased setbacks for monument signs, and a sign where no street frontage occurs based on the following findings: 1) There is no hardship that it unique to the property. If the variances were denied, the applicant would not be denied reasonable use of the property. The applicant could install code compliant signs that meet all size and setback requirements, and would still provide adequate building identification 2) The Regional Medical District section of the Sign Ordinance was recently revised to provide for larger, and more numerous signs as a means to improve building identification and way finding. 3) The building received setback variances to locate the building closer to all lot lines than what would normally be allowed by Ordinance. Because the building is located closer to the adjacent roadways, signs will be more visible, and do not warrant the need for larger signs. 4) The building has one tenant. 5) The building faces residential apartments to south. 6) Address signage will help identify the building. 7) The sign proposed at the entrance to the parking ramp is located in the clear view zone, which would make it difficult for cars exiting the site to see traffic from the east. Appearing for the Applicant Mark Hansen, Mohagen/Hansen Applicant Presentation Mr. Hansen addressed the Board and explained that the signage package addresses the interest of the property owners, adding within the package there are two signs of importance. One is the sign identifying the entrance to the subject ramp. A parking directional monument sign is needed in this area to differentiate between the parking ramp for 4010 West 65th Street and the ramp that services Fairview Southdale Hospital Minutes of the Edina Zoning Board of Appeals Thursday, November 5, 2009 Page 10 of 12 (FSH). Mr. Hansen stressed the importance of ensuring that people who visit FSH park in the FSH parking ramp and not the adjacent parking ramp that services the Twin Cities Orthopedic building. The other sign is the one proposed for the west fagade of the building. It is believed that it is imperative that the building is easily identified to east -bound drivers on Crosstown 62. A safe exit on Valley View Road is very important to the area, minimizing impact at the France Avenue/Crosstown intersection. Concluding, Mr. Hansen said that the site is tight pointing out that some of the variances are for setback. Mr. Hansen also acknowledged that the building is large but the signage allowed is too small, adding in his opinion the larger letters that require the variances are more in proportion to the building. Mr. Hansen asked the Board for their support. Discussion Member Scherer asked Planner Repya if the Board needs to deny the entire sign package or can the Board approve and/or deny the variances separately. Planner Repya responded the Board can act on each variance request. A discussion ensued on the merits of each requested sign variance with Board Members expressing their opinion that there was no hardship to support granting the following variances: The wall sign proposed for the canopy was denied. The sign on the canopy is to be erected at 80 square feet or less. The monument sign proposed at 14.58 feet from the curb of the street was denied. The wall sign proposed for the north elevation of the building was denied. The sign on the north wall of the building is to be erected at 80 square feet or less. Board Members indicated their support for two variances as follows: The Board expressed their opinion that there was a hardship present to support the granting of the variance to allow signage on the west elevation of the building due to the property's close proximity to a major highway system. This location made it imperative that the building would be easily identified to east -bound drivers on Crosstown 62 by allowing drivers the opportunity to exit at Valley View Road alleviating traffic congestion on France Avenue. The Board did require that the sign area not exceed 80 square feet. The Board also felt a hardship existed to support the granting of variances for the parking directional monument sign. Board Members noted that a previous Zoning Board granted building setback variances thereby eliminating a conforming location at 20 feet. The Board also expressed the opinion that the existing curvature of the street Minutes of the Edina Zoning Board of Appeals Thursday, November 5, 2009 Page 11 of 12 created difficulty in locating the parking directional monument sign in a conforming location and at a conforming height. Allowing tenant identification (advertising) on the parking directional monument sign would prevent confusion between the subject ramp and the hospital ramp directly to the east. Action Member Scherer moved to deny the proposed 116.78 sq. ft. wall canopy sign on the south elevation. If a sign is erected the sign size is limited to 80 square feet. Member Davidson seconded the motion. All voted aye; motion to deny carried 3-0. Member Scherer moved to deny the location of monument sign on the south side of the building proposed at a 14.58 foot setback. The setback is to be 20 feet. Member Davidson seconded the motion. Ayes; Scherer, Vasaly. Nay, Davidson. Motion to deny carried 2-1. Member Davidson moved to recommend approval of a setback variance for a parking directional monument sign, a variance to allow tenant identification (advertising) on the parking directional monument sign and a variance to allow the parking directional monument sign to exceed the 3 -foot height requirement for locating within the clear view zone. Member Scherer seconded the motion. Ayes; Davidson, Scherer. Nay, Vasaly. Motion to approve carried 2-1. Member Scherer moved denial of the proposed 116.78 square foot wall sign on the north elevation of the building. Member Davidson seconded the motion. Ayes; Scherer, Vasaly. Nay, Davidson. Motion carried 2-1. Member Davidson stated he supports this variance request because of the speed of the passing traffic. He pointed out this sign faces the highway, it makes sense and is reasonable. Member Scherer moved approval to allow a wall sign on the west elevation of the building; however, the size of the wall sign is limited to the 80 square feet, not the requested 99.26 square feet. Member Davidson seconded the motion. All voted aye; motion to approve carried 3-0. III. PUBLIC COMMENT: None. Minutes of the Edina Zoning Board of Appeals Thursday, November 5, 2009 Page 12 of 12 IV. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 7:35 pm