Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1993 10-21 Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting Minutes RegularREGULAR MEETING OF THE EDINA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS HELD ON THURSDAY, OCTOBER 21, 1993 5:30 P.M., EDINA CITY HALL MANAGERS CONFERENCE ROOM MEMBERS PRESENT: MEMBERS ABSENT: STAFF PRESENT: Kris Aaker, Joyce Repya, Jackie Hoogenakker I. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES: Mr. Byron moved approval of the August 19, 1993, meeting minutes. Mr. Workinger seconded the motion. All voted aye; motion carried. II. OLD BUSINESS: B-93-42 Boxes to Go 6811 York Avenue South Registered Land Survey No. 626 Request: 14 square foot sign area variance Ms. Repya informed the Board the subject business is located in the Yorkdale Shoppes, east of York Avenue and south of the Edina Liquor store. The owner of Boxes to Go wishes to add a 2' X 9' sign to the bottom of the existing Yorkdale Shoppes directory sign to better identify the business within the center. The owner has cited that the location of Boxes to Go within the center precludes visibility from York Avenue, thus customers have difficulty finding them. Ms. Repya explained the Edina Sign Ordinance No. 460 allows a freestanding sign no larger than 100 square feet in the PCD -3 zone. The existing Yorkdale Shoppes directory sign measures 8 feet by 12 feet, for a total area of 96 square feet. Ms. Repya said the proponent is requesting the addition of an 18 square foot sign advertising "Boxes to Go" to the bottom of the existing freestanding sign. This additional sign would increase the sign area to 114 square feet, necessitating a 14 square foot sign area variance. Ms. Repya concluded while staff agrees that a hardship exists relative to visibility from York Avenue, there are businesses in the Yorkdale Shoppes for whom this visibility issue is as bad, or worse. If the proposed 18 square foot sign is allowed to be attached to the directory sign, it could be very difficult to justify denial of similar variance requests from other tenants of Yorkdale Shoppes, and the directory sign could grow to over 200 square feet in area Consequently, staff recommends denial of this variance request due to its precedence setting nature. Mary Johnson, proponent was present. Ms. Johnson explained to Board members the traffic on York Avenue is very heavy and quick, and customers have indicated they have a hard time locating the store. Ms. Johnson said she is willing to look into the prospect of rotating signage between the shops that lack exposure. Ms. Johnson asked the Board to note that her requested signage only increases the sign by 1%. Mrs. McClelland acknowledged that exposure is a problem for the store but expressed concern that a precedent would be set if this variance was granted. Mrs. McClelland pointed out if there is a hardship in her opinion it is for six stores, just not "Boxes to Go". Mrs. McClelland asked Ms. Johnson landlords feelings about the request. Ms. Johnson said the landlord is aware of the request, but is remaining neutral. Mrs. McClelland suggested a complete new sign that treats all stores equally. This sign could also incorporate a small map identifying store location. Ms. Johnson explained the freestanding sign with the individual stores sign identity and size are included in the lease. Ms. Johnson said if we were to get a complete new sign every tenant would have to agree, and pay for the sign. Mr. Byron questioned if it is possible to have a temporary sign at this location. Mr. Patton also asked when the building was constructed. Ms. Repya in response to Mr. Byron's question explained that city ordinance prohibits temporary signs. Continuing, Ms. Repya said the building was constructed in 1972. Mr. Workinger asked Ms. Johnson if her business is primarily seasonal. Ms. Johnson said her business is year round but the busiest time is during the month of December. Mr. Workinger said this is an difficult issue, on one hand it is our goal to retain businesses, adding he is concerned over the possible precedent setting an approval will set. Continuing, Mr. Workinger stated in his opinion our ordinance is already overly generous regarding signage. Mr. Workinger suggested using a different color to hi -light your sign. Ms. Johnson explained one problem with the exiting sign is that the lettering is too small, coloring the sign to set it off will not help because it is hard to read. Mr. Patton noted another problem is with traffic flow and the speed at which vehicles travel. Mrs. McClelland agreed suggesting a directional arrow. Mr. Lewis said if we approved the requested signage or approved a temporary sign nothing would prevent the other stores that need exposure from requesting their own sign. Ms. Johnson suggested a permanent sign that rotates between the tenants. Mrs. McClelland commented if size and location of the size comes with the lease it is unrealistic to think stores would give up exposure. Mr. Workinger said he sympathizes with the proponent but pointed out this situation is not unique and he cannot support it. Mr. Byron noted in the past we have had difficulty with multi - tenant buildings. Mr. Byron pointed out without the written approval of the landlord we should not consider the request. If the landlord or property owner were requesting enlargement or a change to the sign that could be considered, but when an individual tenant requests a change it may not be legal to act on that request. Mr. Lewis suggested that the proponent speak with the landlord and have him/her consider a redesign to the sign. Ms. Johnson explained that she has approached the landlord with her problem, but they indicated the variance is something she should pursue. It appears they do not want to become involved. Mr. Byron said in his opinion the landlord should be part of the process and solution. Mr. Patton said he would like to find a solution to this issue. He noted visibility is difficult at this site but granting the variance would set a precedent. Other stores with exposure problems would have the right to increase their signage if this were to be approved. Mr. Patton asked Ms. Repya when a new building is constructed does the city review signage. Ms. Repya said signage is reviewed for new construction, but pointed out this building is over 20 years old and must operate within the framework of our present ordinance. Ms. Johnson pointed out signage size, location, color is controlled by the leasing agent or property owners. Mrs. McClelland told Ms. Johnson Board Members agree there is a problem with signage for this building, and other multi -tenant buildings, but without the cooperation of the landlord she cannot support the request. Mrs. McClelland recommended that we ask the council to review signage as it relates to multi -tenant buildings, noting that in the past tenant is multi -tenant buildings have expressed signage problems and concerns. Mr. Byron moved to deny the variance request on the basis of setting a precedent and noted without involvement from the landlord variance approval may not be valid. Mr. Workinger seconded the motion. All voted aye; motion carried. III. NEW BUSINESS: B-93-45 Highlands Elementary School 5505 Doncaster Way Lot 8, Block 1, Edina Highlands Request: A variance to permit an additional building identification sign. Ms. Repya explained the proponent is requesting a variance to allow a freestanding sign to be erected north of the driveway to the school on Doncaster Way. Ms. Repya pointed out Sign Ordinance No. 460 provides for one building identification sign per street frontage for schools, churches and public facilities. Highlands Elementary school currently has a wall sign on the west elevation of the building, thus a variance is required to erect an additional sign. Ms. Repya pointed out Highlands school is uniquely positioned behind the homes on Doncaster Way with access achieved through one lot in the middle of the block. The school is not readily visible from Doncaster Way, thus the existing wall sign does not serve the purpose of identifying the building from the front street. The proponent has advised staff that on occasion visitors, delivery trucks and emergency vehicles have missed the school driveway and had to ask for directions in the neighborhood. Ms. Repya concluded the subject sign meets all the requirements of the ordinance and although it is a second sign, it is the only sign visible from the street frontage, staff recommends approval of the variance request subject to the plans presented. Mr. Peter Hauge, Principal Highlands Elementary School was present. Mrs. McClelland pointed out if the sign was removed from the school no variance would be required and questioned Mr. Hauge why the sign on the school isn't removed. Mr. Hauge explained the sign on the school has been there for a number of years, and is not visible from the street. Mr. Hauge said it is important to have a sign on the school identifying the building. Mr. Hauge pointed out all schools in Edina have identification on the facade. Mr. Patton acknowledged that the school is situated in a location that is hard to find. Continuing, Mr. Patton suggested locating a directional sign to the school on Vernon Avenue at the stop -light. L. Lorig, 5517 Doncaster told the board a sign is needed on Doncaster to direct people to the school, but asked that the sign be lowered. Mrs. McClelland pointed out that the height of the sign must be visible to people in vehicles and also high enough to clear snow drifts. Mr. Lorig suggested that shrubs or some type of vegetation be planted under and around the sign to soften the impact. Mr. Maughan, 5501 Doncaster Way told the board he believes the sign should be located near 5509 Doncaster Way instead of near his property at 5501 Doncaster Way, the reason being; the sign could be two sided and visible from both directions. Mr. Hauge explained that the school did look at placing the sign near the joint property line of 5509 Doncaster Way but the topography at that location made in impossible to maintain clear view that is required by ordinance. Ms. Repya explained that the sign ordinance states there is no setback from property lines, and clear view usually dictates sign location. Mr. Byron noted this school is located in unique surroundings, which constitutes a hardship. No school within the city is situated like Highlands. Mr. Byron commented that a precedent has been established by allowing other schools in Edina to have freestanding signs, and building identification signs. Mr. Byron reiterated this school does have a locational hardship. Mr. Lewis agreed commenting that the sign design blends well with the surrounding vegetation, and requested that the school consider plantings around the sign. Mr. Workinger said he has a problem with signs in a residential neighborhood, and cannot support the request. Ms. Repya pointed out all schools, and churches in Edina are situated in residential neighborhood, and signs are allowed for schools and churches. Mr. Workinger asked Mr. Hauge what the sign is constructed of. Mr. Hauge said the sign will be constructed of wood to blend in with the surrounding vegetation. Mr. Workinger questioned if the school has considered the possibility that the sign could be vandalized. Mr. Hauge pointed out even if the sign was located closer to the school the sign could be vandalized after school hours. Mr. Hauge contended any freestanding sign within the City could be vandalized. Mr. Lewis moved variance approval noting that a precedent has been established and a hardship exists for this school. Mr. Byron seconded the motion. Ayes; Byron, Lewis, McClelland. Nays, Workinger. Mrs. McClelland suggested to Mr. Hauge that he look into the possibility of lowering the sign. B-93-46 Juan and Victoria Bartolomei #7 Cooper Avenue Lot 1, Bruns Subdivision Request: A 4.75 foot sideyard setback variance and a 3.46 foot frontyard setback variance Ms. Aaker informed the Board the subject property is located on the west side of Cooper Avenue between Interlachen Boulevard and Cooper Circle. The property was developed with a multi level home built in 1965. The homeowners are proposing a dramatic redesign of the home to include the addition of a second story. Additions to the existing footprint include "filling in" the southeast corner of the home and the addition of a new front entry. All aspects of the plan conform to ordinance requirements with two exceptions. The second story addition exceeds the minimum height limitation for a 10 foot north sideyard setback and the reduction in frontyard setback does not meet the average frontyard setback along the block between intersections. Ms. Aaker concluded staff agrees with the applicant that a more traditional housing style would compliment the neighborhood and that adequate spacing between homes will be maintained. It would however appear that with the degree of remodeling being proposed that possibly a more conforming solution could be achieved. The proponent, Mr. Bartolomei was present. Mr. Patton expressed his approval with the addition stating it compliments the neighborhood. Mr. Bartolomei explained it was his intent to create more living space for his family, and a more aesthetically pleasing dwelling. Mr. Patton moved variance approval subject to the plans presented. Mr. Lewis seconded the motion. All voted aye, motion carried. B-93-47 John and Gayle Anderson 7113 Fleetwood Drive Lot 4, Block 3, M.P. Johnsons Prospect Request: A 3.25 foot rearyard setback variance for a porch addition. Ms. Aaker informed the Board the subject property is located on the east side of Fleetwood Drive between Lanham Lane and Kemrich Drive. The home consists of a one story walkout rambler that was built in 1972. No improvements or additions to the home have been made according to building file records. The homeowners are proposing a 12 X 16 foot (192 sq. ft) porch addition to the rear of the home. Currently the house provides a 33.75 foot rearyard setback. Ms. Aaker concluded the design of the remodeling appears to be a reasonable approach in terms of it sensitivity to the character of the home and neighborhood. It is usually a natural progression to add onto the rear of a house. The subject home however, was designed in such a way and placed on the lot so that rear lot expansion is limited. Staff supports the request as submitted subject to the use of matching materials. Mr. Anderson, proponent was present. Mr. Lewis moved variance approval subject to plans presented and the use of matching materials. Mr. Workinger seconded the motion. All voted aye; motion carried. B-93-43 Donald Fleischmann 4615 Arden Avenue Request: A 1.6 foot sideyard setback variance for building height Ms. Repya informed the board the subject property is located on the east side of Arden Avenue between Bridge Street and Country Club Road. The home was built in 1945 and is within the historic country club district. The property has been developed with a two story New England Colonial revival style home with American Georgian Revival influence. Ms. Repya explained the homeowners are planning a two story addition to the rear of their home. The addition will include the expansion of the existing kitchen, a new dinette and family room on the first floor and a master bedroom on the second floor. Ordinance requires a minimum of five feet for sideyard setback for lot widths less than 75 feet. In addition, the setback must be increased six inches for each foot average the building height exceeds fifteen feet. The new addition will be 18 feet in height which requires an additional 1.5 feet of setback of be added to the minimum 5 foot setback. Ms. Aaker concluded staff acknowledges that consideration has been given to architectural detailing, however, it does appear that a conforming solution can be designed with the master bedroom above the garage. The proponents Mr. and Mrs. Fleischmann were present. Mr. Workinger told the proponents the improvements to the house are excellent but has a concern with the north elevation of the addition. Mr. Workinger stated he believes the wall length is too imposing. Mr. Fleischmann told the board he has spoken with his builder and together they have considered shortening the addition, and constructing the chimney not to protrude. Mr. Fleischmann said he has also considered adding more windows which will make the addition more aesthetically pleasing. Mr. Patton suggested reducing the requested 38 foot wall length to 30 or 32' feet. Shortening the addition will lessen the mass. Mrs. McClelland agreed, she said in her opinion the north building wall length is too long, noting she cannot support the request if the plans presented are not final plans. Mrs. McClelland pointed out the proponent has indicated he has discussed revising the presented plans. Mr. Fleischmann informed board members neighbors support the request as presented, and questioned if the board members could support the addition at a reduced length without viewing the plans. Mrs. McClelland explained the board rarely approves a variance without viewing the concrete plans. Mr. Nightingale, 4611 Arden Avenue, told board members he supports the request, noting the request is very similar to the addition they are constructing on their home. A discussion ensued with board members in agreement that the proposal has merit, but indicated they feel the wall length is too extreme. The board suggested that the proponents re -design the addition recommending they break up the mass by adding windows or vertical boards. Mrs. McClelland asked Mr. Fleischmann if it would be a problem for him to return before them with revised plans. Mr. Fleischmann responded he has no problem with a continuance. Mr. Workinger moved to table the item until November 18, 1993. Mr. Lewis seconded the motion. All voted aye; motion carried. IV. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 6:55 p.m.