Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2007 06-21 Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting Minutes Regularto r -k O1 iNl <NA. MINUTES Regular Meeting of the Edina Zoning Board Thursday, June 21, 2007, 5:30 PM Edina City Hall Communitx Room 4801 West 50 Street MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair Bill Skallerud, Floyd Grabiel and Jim Nelson MEMBERS ABSENT: Julie Risser and Rod Hardy STAFF PRESENT: Kris Aaker and Jackie Hoogenakker I. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES: The minutes of the April 19, 2007, meeting were filed as submitted. II. NEW BUSINESS: B-07-21 5125 Edina Industrial Blvd, Subway and Catering of Edina, Inc. Request: 7 stall parking variance Ms. Aaker informed the board the subject property is the Edina Convenience Center located south of Edina Industrial Boulevard and west of Highway 100. The Edina Convenience Center is currently zoned Planned Commercial District 2, (PCD -2) and consists of a retail strip building with a mix of commercial uses. There are eight tenant spaces located in the building with 7 uses currently occupying the center. There are: a Chiropractor, Soup and Salad Cafeteria, Pizza shop, Subway, Hair Salon, Sign Shop, Caribou Coffee and a space formerly occupied by a banking use located within the building. Ms. Aaker explained the existing 1,110 sq ft Subway sandwich shop is hoping to V expand their restaurant into the 1,188 sq ft space formerly occupied by the banking use. The expanded Subway would be approximately 2,298 sq ft in area, would have a second sandwich counter, and add 34 additional restaurant seats and 2 employees. The expansion will require 7 additional parking spaces according to the Edina city ordinances. The parking lot currently provides 102 parking stalls that are shared by tenant spaces. A few of the spaces are assigned to Cheetah Pizza and the Chiropractor .The Subway sandwich shop is an allowed use within the PCD -2 zoning district with restaurant use requiring added parking given additional seating and employees. Ms. Aaker told the board the Edina Convenience Center was approved in 1983 for a 15,000 Sq ft building with 58 percent restaurant use and 42 percent Commercial/retail use. The mix of restaurant use within the center before the expansion is 38 percent and after the expansion it would be 47 percent. Ms. Aaker said RLK Incorporated reviewed the expansion based on Edina code requirements, ITE's parking requirements and existing and proposed trip generation and concluded that in their professional opinion, the Subway expansion is the best use for the site as the customer base is already present and the associated trip generation and parking requirements are not predicted to increase. RLK Incorporated concluded that a new retail destination in place of the vacant bank use could increase the trip generation on the site and in turn, requires more parking. Ms. Aaker concluded staff recommends approval of the requested 7 -stall parking variance based on the following findings: 1) There is a unique hardship to the property caused by: a. The center was planned to allow 58% restaurant use with the proposed improvement increasing restaurant use to 47%, which is less than the intent of the original plan. b. The city code requires parking calculations based on individual retail use even though the site meets all of the criteria for a shopping center with the exception of gross floor area. The site would conform to city code if it were to be considered a shopping center for the purposes of calculating the parking requirements. c. The expansion is not expected to draw in new customers; instead it will service the existing clientele more efficiently and therefore would allow for quicker parking stall turn over. 2) The variance would meet the intent of the ordinance since: a. The variance will correct a unique circumstance that is site specific given the original site approval for tenant mix. b. The improvements would better serve existing customers and allow for more efficient parking for the entire center. c. The Proposal would comply with the parking requirements for shopping center use. Ms. Aaker stated approval is based on the following conditions: 1) The variance shall be granted exclusively to Subway and Catering of Edina, Inc. and shall not be transferred to any other business or tenant within the building. 2) The addition must be constructed as per the memorandums and project narrative dated May 2, 2007 and June 6, 2007, from RKL Incorporated and C & C Associate's dba Subway and Catering of Edina, Inc. 3) The variance will expire on June 21 2008, unless the city has issued a building permit for the project covered by this variance or or approved a time extension. Mr. John Dietrich, RLK, was present representing the interests of Subway. Mr. Connelly property owner was also present. Mr. Grabiel asked Ms. Aaker the reason parking "worked" with the bank occupying the space and now a variance is required if Subway expands into that same space. Ms. Aaker explained Code calculates parking needs differently between uses. Code requires that restaurants provide parking at a higher level to accommodate employee parking needs. Mr. Nelson commented that Subways aren't typical "sit down" restaurants, pointing out they don't have the traditional "wait staff' on site. Ms. Aaker said she agrees with that comment. Mr. Dietrich told the board he believes the proposed expansion will be an improvement for the site. He pointed out the existing Subway is rather small and there are times the service line is "out the door" with customers spilling out the door and waiting on the sidewalk to order their food. Mr. Dietrich said in his opinion this expansion will reduce congestion and wait time by actually moving people in and out of the store quicker while at the same time freeing up parking spaces faster. Mr. Connelly added he agrees with those comments. He stated the restaurant will run more efficiently as a result of the proposed expansion. A discussion ensued with board members acknowledging this expansion is positive and will not impact the site negatively. Mr. Grabiel moved variance approval noting staff findings and subject to staff conditions. Mr. Nelson seconded the motion. All voted aye; motion carried. B-07-22 Leslie and David Lagerstrom 4548 Oxford Avenue, Edina, MN Front/Side Street Setback Variance Ms. Aaker informed the board the subject property is a corner lot consisting of a two story home with an attached two car garage. The applicant is proposing to add-on to the existing garage while converting a portion of the existing garage into kitchen and mudroom space. The garage currently loads from Hollywood Ave. The new garage will have driveway access from Oxford Ave. The subject home is required to maintain the front yard setback established along Hollywood and Oxford Ave. The existing front yard setback required along Oxford is 59.25 ft. The subject home is located 30.6 ft from Oxford Ave. and is therefore nonconforming. Most all of the existing home is nonconforming regarding front yard setback. Ms. Aaker explained the applicant is requesting a 26.65 ft front yard setback variance from Oxford Ave. and a 21.66 ft side street setback variance from Hollywood for the 788 sq ft garage addition. The plan will allow a kitchen and mudroom expansion into part of the existing garage area. The existing floor plan dictates where these expansions may occur. It should be noted that the addition has been redesigned from its original plan. The homeowner wanted to bring the garage wall to within 7.7 ft of Hollywood Ave. right-of-way and within 23.8 ft of Oxford Ave. The plan was modified to line up with the existing front wall of the home along Oxford Ave. with the corner of the garage setback 15.06 ft from Hollywood to match a typical side street setback of 15 ft. Ms. Aaker said she believes the request is justified and staff recommends approval of the requested 26.25 foot and 21.66 foot front yard/side street setback variance based on the following findings: 4) There is a unique hardship to the property caused by: a. The location of the existing home relative to the required corner lot setbacks. b. The existing home is nonconforming regarding setback. c. The lot arrangement and original home placement limit design options. 5) The variance would meet the intent of the ordinance since: a. The encroachment has been modified as much as possible to be similar to a typical corner lot. b. The improvements would follow the existing wall lines and architecture of the home and should have no impact on sight lines. c. The addition would be a reasonable use given the hardship imposed by the required setbacks. Approval is based on the following conditions: 1) The addition must be constructed as per the submitted plan dated June 6, 2007. 4 2) The variance will expire on June 21, 2008, unless the city has Issued a building permit for the project covered by this variance or or approved a time extension. The proponents, Mr. and Mrs. Lagerstrom were present. Interested neighbors were also present. Mr. Grabiel asked hypothetically if the property owner wanted to add on to the rear of their home would they need a variance. Ms. Aaker responded it is possible a variance would not be required if the addition were constructed to the rear of the existing home, but without reviewing a set plan it would be difficult to say for sure. Mr. Lagerstrom told the board the size of the kitchen was a real issue for them when they purchased their property. Mr. Lagerstrom said they studied many different design scenarios, revised their original design, adding they believe the revised plan presented this evening is best. Mr. Lagerstrom pointed out his property has limited expansion opportunities because two front yard setbacks are required to be maintained. Mr. Lagerstrom noted the addition has been redesigned to line up with the existing front wall of the home on Oxford while maintaining a typical side street setback from Hollywood Road of 15.06 feet. Mr. Lagerstrom concluded the proposed placement of the addition also works best with the internal layout of the existing home. Mr. Grabiel asked if exterior materials will match. Mr. Lagerstrom responded exterior building materials will match. Mr. Richard Miller, 5340 Hollywood Road, told the board he believes when the subject house was originally constructed it was not constructed according to Code and may have been granted a variance. Continuing, Mr. Miller informed the board he has lived in his house since the late 70's and has substantially upgraded his home, adding he feels the proposal as presented would negatively impact his property, and his property values. Mr. Miller said if approved he will have to look at a huge garage. Mr. Miller stated in his opinion the proposed garage is just too large, adding the garage could be constructed in the rear yard with less impact. Concluding, Mr. Miller pointed out the subject house is already non -conforming and any addition would only increase that non-conforminity. Mr. Miller stressed that again, in his opinion, the proposed garage is just too big and could be located to the rear. Mr. Bruce Kivimaki, 5324 Hollywood Road, told the board the location of the proposed garage, in his opinion, will change the character of the neighborhood. Mr. Kivimaki said he wants garage access to remain on Hollywood Road, not as proposed off Oxford Avenue. Mr. Kivimaki said he is worried the expansion as designed would lower his property values, adding presently he has a very nice view out his window and if constructed as presented he would be looking at an overly large garage. Mr. Lagerstrom told the board their goal was to design a beautiful project that maintained the character of the house and neighborhood. Mr. Lagerstrom 5 acknowledged the size of the garage could be considered large; however the proposed garage size was to ensure that vehicles are parked inside the garage not outside on the driveway. Ms. Carolyn Bisson, 5340 Hollywood Road, commented that if she remembers correctly the original access for the garage was off Oxford Avenue. Ms. Bisson said she thinks this house has undergone a number of alterations since it was first constructed. Chair Skallerud said as he viewed this proposal he concluded that he agrees with the findings of staff. Chair Skallerud pointed out the sidestreet setback that will be maintained after renovation is the same sidestreet setback enjoyed by similar properties, including the property directly across the street. Chair Skallerud pointed out the house is non -conforming making it difficult to add on to in a conforming location. Mr. Grabiel said he is a bit troubled by this application. He said he understands the reasoning behind the garage; however, purchasing a house with the intent of changing it may not have been the best idea. Mr. Grabiel pointed out not everything one desires can be accomplished on their properties. Mr. Nelson stated he struggles with this request. He pointed out there is space to the rear that could be used, and suggested a redesign of the plan. Mr. Nelson acknowledged this is a difficult issue. Ms. Scott, 5309 Hollywood Road, questioned if members of the board visited the site (Board members acknowledged they visited the site.). Continuing, Ms. Scott asked the board "whose burden is this"; pointing out the rear of the property drops off significantly and building out the rear would also have impact on neighboring property owners. She added in her opinion building out the side has less impact on the topography and immediate neighbors, stressing that should be considered as well. Ms. Scott stated she isn't opposed to the variance; she supports it, and questioned again, where the burden lies. Mr. Grabiel commented that that is a very good question and agreed the property does slope off to the rear, adding a conforming location may not necessarily be the best. Chair Skallerud told the board when he reviews a variance application he doesn't differentiate between "long time" Edina residents or "newer" residents. Chair Skallerud said old or new residents have the same rights, and Mr. and Mrs. Lagerstrom have every right to appear before this board to achieve their dream for their home. Mr. Miller stated Edina residents should be able to rely on the Code and the Code should be upheld. He reiterated he has lived in the neighborhood for many years and relies on the Code to protect his property values and maintain the character of the neighborhoods. Chair Skallerud said he considers reasonable use of the property and hardship and pointed out the subject lot is a corner lot that is required to maintain larger setbacks than neighboring corner lots. Chair Skallerud stated in this instance he respects the findings of staff and can support the request as submitted. Mr. Grabiel pointed out if one were to strictly adhere to Code it would be like saying "there can be no change". Mr. Grabiel pointed out City Code provides a variance process because "not all things are the same" and relying on the Code to keep things the same totally rejects the part of the Code that considers hardship and reasonable use through the variance process. Mr. Lagerstrom said he may have made a mistake when he filled out the variance application indicating when they purchased their home they intended to remodel the kitchen, they did intend to remodel, that was the truth; however Mr. Lagerstrom said he doesn't really consider himself a "new "resident, adding he realizes he hasn't lived in the neighborhood as long as some, but has lived in his house over seven years. A discussion ensued with board members agreeing there are challenges in adding onto this house, including the existing non-conforminity of the house and the topography. Board members acknowledged change is difficult. Mr. Grabiel moved variance approval noting staff findings and subject to the following conditions: • The addition must be constructed as per the submitted plan dated June 6, 2007. • The variance will expire on June 21, 2008, unless the city has Issued a building permit for the project covered by this variance or approved a time extension. Mr. Nelson seconded the motion. Ayes; Grabiel, Skallerud. Nay, Nelson. Motion carried. Chair Skallerud informed residents of the appeal process if they do not agree with the board's action. III. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 7:00 PM. aljlo� - -