Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2004 12-02 Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting Minutes RegularA, MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF w91��j�� THE EDINA ZONING BOARD p e tl� THURSDAY, December 2, 2004, 5:30 PM � Edina City Hall Council Chambers Nov .�y 4801 West 50th street • j�C�RPORF.�� • 1888 MEMBERS PRESENT: R.M. Utne, J. Lonsbury, M. Vasaly, D. Byron STAFF PRESENT: K. Aaker and J. Hoogenakker I. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES: The minutes of the October 5, 2004, meeting were filed as submitted ll. NEW BUSINESS: B-04-66 Joel and Kristen Smollen 4014 Sunnyside Road Lot 5, Block 1, Berkley Heights Request: A side street/front yard setback variance Ms. Aaker informed the board the subject property is a corner lot located northeast of Curve Ave. and Sunnyside Road. The property consists of a 1-Y2 story home with a detached garage. The home "faces" Sunnyside Road with the side street along Curve Ave. The homeowners are hoping to add to the back of their home on the first and second floors. The second floor of the home will include "raising the roof"to allow additional 2nd floor living space. Ms. Aaker explained a variance is needed given the setback from Curve Ave. The Zoning Ordinance requires that a side street setback match the front yard setback of the adjacent neighbor if the neighbor fronts the side street, (customarily the side street setback would be 15 ft). The adjacent neighbor to the north is setback farther from Curve Ave. than the subject home. Any improvement along the west wall of the home requires a variance. Ms. Aaker pointed out there will be no physical impact on the neighboring property located to the north. Granting of the variance would allow the logical extension of the home while maintaining existing nonconforming conditions. No sensible addition may be attained given the existing conditions. The property is difficult to work with regarding the required setback. Original house placement is a hardship for the applicant. Ms. Aaker concluded given the hardship with respect to the required side street setback, staff supports the request subject to the plans presented. The proponents Mr. and Mrs. Smollen were present to respond to questions from the board. Mr. Lonsbury questioned if the proposed bump out is within our setback requirements. Ms. Aaker responded in the affirmative. Mr. Smollen submitted to board members letter of support from adjoining neighbors. Mrs. Vasaly moved variance approval subject to the plans presented and the use of like materials. Mr. Lonsbury seconded the motion. All voted aye; motion carried. B-04-65 1St Minnesota Bank Patrick Bradley 4018 West 65th St. Lot 1, Block 1, Southdale Office Park 2nd Addition Request: Variances from the parking requirements Ms. Aaker informed the board the subject property is located along west 65th St and Valley view Road, backing up to the Cross-town highway. The , property consists of a two-story office building with a lower level that has a total useable square footage of 9,902 sq ft. The property is zoned POD -1, Planned Office District One. The proponent is purchasing the property with the intent of locating a branch of 1St Minnesota Bank. The zoning ordinance requires one parking space for every 200 sq ft of usable building area, which translates into 45 parking stalls needed for the site. The site is nonconforming providing 35 usable stalls. The applicant is proposing to provide 36 parking stalls and one drive -up teller facility. The parking lot would be reconfigured to accommodate the drive through and would remove one of the curb cuts along west 65th St. Ms. Aaker pointed out it should be noted that the applicant had recently submitted a variance request for the property to reconfigure the parking lot with two drive -up facilities for the proposed bank. The plan included a one-way traffic pattern that had the potential to block -in parked cars. The requested variances were denied at the November 4, 2004 hearing of the Zoning Board of Appeals. Ms. Aaker concluded staff believes the proposed plan is a significant improvement to the previous plan. The current plan eliminates a curb cut along west 65th St, eliminates one of the drive -up tellers, adds one more stall to the total parking count and maintains a free-flowing circulation pattern. Staff agrees that the banking business has changed and acknowledges that the demand for parking has declined as a result. The new plan is a significant improvement over the previous plan, staff supports the requested variances tied to the plans presented. Mr. Lowell Wakefield and Mr. Joe Arends were present representing 1St Minnesota Bank. Mr. Wakefield addressed the board and told them he believes the revised plan before them is an improvement. Mr. Wakefield added their goal in all of this was to create a more aesthetically pleasing user-friendly bank. He pointed out banks are permitted uses in this district and 1St Minnesota could have moved into the building and immediately commenced business, but it was felt certain things needed to be implemented and improved before the bank opened its doors. Mr. Wakefield told the board 1St Minnesota has constructed and/or renovated five new buildings over the last six years reiterating the plan for this building is to make it more attractive and improve circulation in the parking area. Mr. Arends told the board the proposed bank already has 12 million dollars worth of CD business and 100 million dollars in refinancing business. He explained the bank has a number of customers who desire this location. Mr. Arends explained over the years the banking business has changed with fewer walk-in or drive-through customer trips. He pointed out many people now have direct deposits and also use e-mail or the phone to facilitate banking transactions. Mr. Lonsbury asked if the proponents know how many employees would work at this location. Mr. Arends responded at this time he believes there will be up to 10 employees at this location. Mrs. Vasaly asked Ms. Aaker if the parking stall dimensions meet code requirements. Ms. Aaker responded code is met. Ms. Aaker explained the City does not issue permits for the stripping of lots, and the proposed stalls are indicated at the minimum requirements. Mr. Lonsbury noted there appears to be tenants in the basement area of the building. Ms. Arends responded that is correct. He stated tenants in the lower level of the building have a five-year lease with renewal options. Mrs. Utne asked the proponents if signage has been considered. Mr. Arends responded bank officials are working with City staff with regard to signage. Mr. Byron asked staff if they know the exact number of parking stalls. Ms. Aaker said presently there are 40 parking stalls with five of the stalls not considered "legal". Ms. Aaker noted in her opinion this is a difficult site and "it is what it is". She added few options are available to them to gain more parking. Mr. Byron questioned if approved could approval be subject to just this bank or just this use. Ms. Aaker said if approved approval should be conditioned on the plans presented and subject to the variance being tied to the bank use by a recordable agreement. Mr. Byron commented in reviewing the plans he is not entirely convinced that removal of one curb cut is correct. Ms. Aaker responded the curb cut was removed at the request of the City Engineer. Mr. Arends interjected indicating he would love the additional curb cut but at the request of the Engineer it must be removed. Mr. Lonsbury asked Ms. Aaker if the City has received any complaints from banks with regard to parking, stacking issues, etc. Ms. Aaker said to date she is not aware of any difficulties on any of the city's banking institution sites. After discussion with regard to the potential for additional parking in the near ramp Mr. Byron moved variance approval noting the existing hardship of the site/building, acknowledging the proposed changes improve the situation, and pointing out the near parking ramp. Approval should be conditioned on the revised plans and the variance being tied to the bank by a recordable agreement. Mr. Lonsbury seconded the motion. All voted aye; motion carried. III. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 6:15 PM