Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2007 01-04 Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting Minutes RegulariNA, MINUTES �� REGULAR MEETING OF THE EDINA ZONING BOARD O e THURSDAY, JANUARY 4, 2007, 5:30 PM �+ O EDINA CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS 4801 WEST 50TH STREET •r • N�RPOi� less MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair Michael Schroeder, Mary Vasaly and Nancy Scherer MEMBERS ABSENT: Rose -Mary Utne and Edward Schwartzbauer STAFF PRESENT: Cary Teague, Kris Aaker and Jackie Hoogenakker I. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES: The minutes of the November 2, 2006, meeting were filed as submitted. II. OLD BUSINESS: B-06-80 Mr. and Mrs. Sanderson 6519 Interlachen Boulevard Request: Front/Side Street Setback Variance Ms. Aaker explained that on December 21, 2006, the Zoning Board of Appeals heard and tabled the owners request for 2 variances to allow additions to their home that would overlap the front yard and side street setbacks from both Interlachen Blvd. and Ridge Road. The property is a corner lot located in the south east portion of the intersection of Interlachen Blvd. and Ridge Road. The Zoning Ordinance requires that additions to the subject home conform to the average front yard setback of both Interlachen Blvd. and Ridge Road. The average front yard setback along Interlachen Blvd is 90.3 ft. with the average front yard setback along Ridge Road at 39.3 ft. The existing home is located 46.6 ft from Interlachen and 52.6 ft from Ridge Road. The existing home is severely nonconforming regarding setback from Interlachen Blvd. Nearly any addition to the home would require a variance. Ms. Aaker concluded that new plans have been submitted that reduce the variance requested along Interlachen while still falling within the front yard setback range along Ridge Road. The project has been redesigned at the request of the Zoning Board of Appeals to further comply with the ordinances and to accommodate neighbor concerns. Staff supports the revised plan. The proponents, Mr. and Mrs. Sanderson were present to respond to questions. A brief discussion ensued with Board Members in agreement the revised plan reduced the magnitude of the variances. Mrs. Vasaly moved variance approval subject to the plans presented, with the use of matching materials and noting the house is already non -conforming. Mrs. Scherer seconded the motion, adding the topography mitigates the setbacks. All voted aye; motion carried. III. NEW BUSINESS: B-07-01 HRP Edina LLC, Southdale Office Center 6740 France Ave. So. Torrens Certificate number 1027227 Request: Variance to allow a restaurant use to be accessible from the exterior of a principle building, a 5 ft setback variance of building area to parking lot and a variance to allow patio seating area approximately 21 ft from front lot line. Ms. Aaker explained HRP Edina LLC/Southdale Office Center is proposing to locate a 228 seat Cafe Promenade restaurant in the former Pizzeria Uno/Marc's Big Boy restaurant building connected to one of six buildings that compose the Southdale Office Center Business Campus. The Business Campus is situated south of west 66th St. between France Ave. and Valley View Road and is zoned POD -Planned Office District 2. The existing restaurant space consists of 5,200 sq ft on the main level and 2,000 sq ft of storage area in the basement. The applicants are proposing a 1, 730 sq ft main floor addition to the south side of the building consisting of 590 sq ft of vestibule area and 1,140 sq ft of bar area. The applicants are also proposing a 2,250 sq ft landscaped outdoor dining area to include a patio bar, water feature, fire pits and seating for 82 on the east side of the building along France Ave. Ms. Aaker pointed out a restaurant use has occupied the subject location since the mid -1960's and was most recently known as the Pizzeria Uno restaurant and prior to that was known as Marc's Big Boy. The entire Southdale Office Campus was zoned C-3, Commercial Zoning District when it was developed in the 1960's. The C-3 zone allowed restaurants as a permitted E principle use. It should be noted that the site had always been projected to be an "office area" in the Southdale Area Development Plan even though it was originally zoned to allow other commercial uses. In 1984 the City Council took action to rezone the site to POD -2, Planned Office District in order to protect and ensure that the site remained office use. The rezone was part of a recodification process. At the time, the property owner understood that the rezone would create a nonconforming situation regarding the restaurant use. The POD -2 zoning district allows restaurant uses in office buildings consisting of 40,000 sq ft or more, provided it functions as an accessory use with access gained only from inside the office building. Pizzeria Uno received a variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals in 1991 to allow exterior access. The variance was granted by the Board given that the City had changed the zoning of the property creating a nonconforming situation. Ms. Aaker reported the proposed restaurant is requesting a variance for exterior access similar to pizzeria Uno with the applicant proposing an addition to the south side of the building to relocate the entry area to include a hostess stand and to add a bar. On -Sale intoxicating Liquor Licenses are permitted in the POD - 2 zoning district as of a 2004 ordinance amendment; however, restaurant uses are still restricted in the POD -2 Office zone by only allowing access/entry to the establishment from the interior of the office building and by limiting their signage. It should be noted that Pizzeria Uno also received sign variances in 1991 given that out side signage is so limited in the POD -2 zone. The original Marc's Big Boy signage became nonconforming upon rezoning in the 1980's. The applicant has not finalized the sign package for the proposed restaurant so it cannot be addressed at this time. If the signage is consistent with the variance granted in 1991, no additional variances will be needed. Ms. Aaker concluded the property was rezoned by the City in the 1980's forcing it into nonconformance. Even a minimal addition to the building to accommodate necessary improvements requires a variance. The seasonal outdoor dining and landscaped area will add beauty and vitality along France Ave. that can be appreciated by all. The site provides more parking than required by ordinance even with implementation of the proposed plan. Staff supports the request as submitted. Mr. Greg Hackett was present representing the proponents. Mrs. Vasaly asked Ms. Aaker if the ownership of the restaurant has changed. Ms. Aaker responded to the best of her knowledge the restaurant space is leased, adding this would be a different leasee. Mrs. Vasaly commented that it appears the site has adequate parking and questioned why the parking spaces just can't be bumped back to avoid the setback issue. Ms. Aaker acknowledged that fact adding the clients indicated they want to retain that parking stall area. 3 Chair Schroeder questioned if it would be possible to reconfigure the entire let to provide accessible spaces closest to the front door (but maybe not as close as the non -conforming space). Chair Schroeder suggested that the applicants consider reconfiguring the entire parking lot. Mr. Hacket explained the new restaurant leasee doesn't control the parking lot or possible reconfiguration. Their goal is to improve the restaurant by working with what already exists. Mr. Gene Persha, 6917 Cornelia Drive, addressed the Board and told them he is concerned about the current trend of every restaurant wanting to serve liquor and the change in the ordinance allowing liquor to be served at restaurants. Mr. Persha said he is worried about the impact this outdoor seating area will have on France Avenue. Mrs. Scherer said she observed on the plans that there appears to be a fire pit on the patio and asked if this would be allowed. Ms. Aaker said fire pits are allowed in the City with a permit from the Fire Department. The applicant would have to meet fire codes before constructing the fire pit. A discussion ensued with Board Members acknowledging parking is adequate for this site and in their opinion the parking lot/stalls could either be reconfigured or restriped to eliminate the need for the parking setback variance from the building. Board Members also agreed the continued use of the property as with a restaurant with exterior access is reasonable and the proposed outdoor patio area is of benefit to the area. Mrs. Vasaly moved variance approval to allow restaurant use to be accessible from the exterior of a principle building and a variance to allow patio seating to encroach into the frontyard setback. Mrs. Scherer seconded the motion. All voted aye; motion carried. B-07-2 DJR Architects/Tom Miller 3101 and 3201 69th Street West Request: Multiple Variances Mr. Teague presented his staff report noting: 1. A building height variance from 4 stories (50 feet) to 12 stories (146 feet) for the apartments; 2. A building height variance from 50 feet to 54 feet for the senior apartments; 3. A floor area ratio variance from 100% to 159%; 4. Building setback variances for the market rate apartments: a) Front setback variance from 146 feet to 100 from York Avenue; 4 b) Side street setback variance from 146 feet to 75 feet from 69th Street; c) Side yard setback variance from 146 feet to 54 feet; 5. Building setback variances for the 55+ apartments; a) Side street setback variance from 54 feet to 20 feet from 69th Street. b) Rear setback variance from 54 feet to 30 feet from Xerxes Avenue; and 6. Drive -aisle setback variance from 10 to 6 feet from the south lot line. Mr. Teague concluded staff recommends denial of the variance request for the proposed redevelopment of 3201 and 3101 69th Street West for DJR Architects on behalf of Tom Miller based on the following findings: 1. The height of the building would be eight stories, or 96 feet over the maximum height allowed by city code. 2. The proposed floor area ratio is nearly 60% over what is allowed in the PCD -3 zoning district. Therefore, the proposed uses are too intense for a property of this size. 3. In February of 2006, the City Council examined building heights in this specific area, and amended the zoning ordinance to the current standards. The Council concluded that the west side of France and east side of York should be limited to four story or 50 -foot tall buildings. 4. There is no hardship to justify the large variances. The variances are self created. If the variances were denied, the applicant would not be denied reasonable use of their property. 5. The close proximity of single-family homes located in the City of Richfield. (270 feet away.) Mr. Tom Miller, property owner, Dean Dovolis, architect, Bill Griffith, attorney for the project were present. Residents of Edina and Richfield were also present. Mrs. Vasaly asked Mr. Teague why the City decided to limit building height east of York Avenue. Mr. Teague responded when the City Council was studying the greater Southdale area it was decided that buildings in excess of four stories would be appropriate west of York Avenue and east of France Avenue. Mr. Schroeder commented that during the process of studying the greater Southdale area any development or redevelopment was encouraged to better address the street. Creating a pedestrian friendly environment was very important. Mr. Dean Dovolis, 5009 Ridge Road, Edina with the aid of graphics explained the proposed redevelopment of the site. Mr. Bill Griffith, 7900 Xerxes Avenue, addressed the Board and explained Edina's Comprehensive Plan supports this type of redevelopment, pointing out 5 the Southdale and York Avenue area is the area where the majority of higher density residential developments occurred. Mr. Griffith stated this proposal expresses vision and a higher goal. With regard to the requested variances Mr. Griffith stated the proposed reuse of the land is reasonable, adding the Comprehensive Plan says it is reasonable, the Planned Commercial District says it is reasonable and the Greater Southdale Area Study says it is reasonable. Mr. Griffith noted in his opinion it is also reasonable in light of the surrounding developments and redevelopments (Westin) and Code change. With regard to hardship Mr. Griffith stated there are circumstances that are unique to this site including the site is comprised of two separate small parcels and combined the parcels create a small irregularly shaped development site and the recent change to the Code does not allow the height needed to redevelop this site for mixed use. Mr. Griffith said the requested variances if approved will not alter the character of the neighborhood and certain design aspects (green roof, hidden parking, step down housing element) and the inclusion of an affordable housing component mitigate impact. Concluding, Mr. Griffith said the proposal received approval from the Planning Commission. Mrs. Vasaly commented that in her opinion the size of the parcels is not a hardship, adding as she views it in the immediate area there are a number of lots of similar size. Mr. Griffith acknowledged that point, but pointed out redevelopment of a site is more difficult and expensive than development of a vacant site in an undeveloped area. Mrs. Vasaly questioned the recent Code change that now prevents the construction of a building taller than four stories, and why that is a hardship. Mr. Griffith said City Code was changed to accommodate the construction of a Westin Hotel directly across the street; however; between first and second reading building height east of York Avenue was limited to four stories. This Code change created a hardship for the owner and for the property. When the property was purchased the Code allowed a 10 story building on this site. The property owner was also told by the Council that any redevelopment proposal would be viewed on its own merits. Chair Schroeder questioned Mr. Griffith's comment that providing affordable housing should be considered when reviewing this proposal. Mr. Griffith responded with the introduction of affordable housing density bonuses should be considered (allowing taller buildings). Mr. Griffith said the addition of affordable housing allows the City to realize its vision for the area and an important part of that vision is providing affordable or work force housing. Chair Schroeder agreed the City is concerned about the ability to provide work force housing. Mr. Bohan, 800 Coventry Place told the Board the "rules" on the books today should be the "rules" the City goes by when considering proposals. Mr. Bohan said that while a development of this type may be "in sync" with the Comprehensive Plan - it isn't with Code and the Code is what residents rely on. Mr. Bohan said economic hardship should not be considered when reviewing proposals. C: Ms. Fran Peterson, 6912 Washburn Avenue, Richfield, told the Board she doesn't want to see such a tall building constructed so close to residential homes. She added the proposed tower would have a negative impact on property values and sun light. Concluding Ms. Peterson said in a different setting this project would be wonderful, but it doesn't belong across the street from residential single family homes. Ms. Joann Blanchert, 6936 Washburn Avenue, Richfield, told the Board she is very concerned about the impact this building will have on Richfield. Ms. Blanchert said presently when we look out our windows to the west the tallest thing we see is the Edina water tower, adding if this building is constructed we won't even be able to see that. Ms. Blanchert complimented the architect on the beautiful design of the project concluding in her opinion it just doesn't belong in this location. Ms. Thorpe, 6916 Cornelia Drive, Edina, told the Board she is delighted to see so many residents of Richfield present and echoed their concerns. She stated the Code should be adhered too. Mayor Debbie Goettel, 6525 James Avenue, Richfield, told the Board she is concerned if this request is approved that a precedent would be set in the Southdale area opening the door to further redevelopments with tall buildings. Ms. JoEllen Dever, 7405 Oaklawn Avenue, Edina, told the Board she doesn't want affordable housing used as a tool to achieve higher density in the form of taller buildings. A discussion ensued between Board Members with Board Members in agreement the proposal as submitted is very well done; however, there is no hardship present to support approval of the requested variances. Mrs. Vasaly moved to deny the request for multiple variances for B-07-2 noting there is no hardship present that would prevent the reasonable use of the subject site(s). Mrs. Scherer seconded the motion. Ayes, Scherer, Vasaly and Schroeder. Motion carried. Mrs. Vasaly told the Board the presentation prepared by the applicant was excellent; however, in her opinion it comes down to hardship and she found no hardship to support the request, adding the property can be redeveloped to a reasonable use. Mrs. Vasaly acknowledged the connection between the goals of the Comprehensive Plan and redevelopment but believes at the Zoning Board level that isn't a concern. Continuing, Mrs. Vasaly said in her opinion it is the job of the Planning Commission and City Council to mesh the Comprehensive Plan with City Code. Mrs. Vasaly said if an argument is to be made that the City was unfair in amending the Code mid -stream and that Code Amendment negatively impacted the subject property that needs to be addressed by the Council, not the Zoning Board. Concluding, Mrs. Vasaly said the purpose of the Zoning Board is 7 to interpret the Code as it is today. Mrs. Vasaly reiterated in her opinion there is no hardship to support the granting of multiple variances to redevelop this site. Mrs. Scherer stated this evening their job is to only look at the variances requested, adding she finds that no hardship exists to support the request. Mrs. Scherer said her lack of support for the requested variances in no way lessens the appeal of this project. Mrs. Scherer pointed out there are many wonderful things about this project but project approval should be at the City Council level not Zoning Board level. Mr. Schroeder told the Board he supported this project at the Planning Commission level and continues to believe it is a good project. Continuing, Mr. Schroeder said one of the things he liked best about this project is that it doesn't deal with Richfield as a "back door'. The project addresses Xerxes Avenue in a positive way with the front door of the proposed senior element facing Xerxes. Continuing, Mr. Schroeder said both Cities should try to find a more positive way to address Xerxes Avenue. Mr. Schroeder acknowledged the magnitude of the variances; however, in his opinion density credits should be given to developers if they provide affordable housing, screened and/or underground parking, etc. Concluding, Mr. Schroeder said the greater issue for him is how to address the boundary between Richfield and Edina. Mr. Schroeder acknowledged this is a difficult site to redevelop. Mr. Schroeder said both Cities are in the process of amending their Comprehensive Plans and maybe that would be a good way to begin discussions on how to better address this common boundary. IV. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 7:10 p.m. 1-4 Pok RE.,aA JI:T :