HomeMy WebLinkAbout2008 06-05 Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting Minutes Regular9iNA,l MINUTE SUMMARY
Meeting of the Edina Zoning Board of Appeals
o e �� Thursday, June 5, 2008, 5:30 PM
�y Edina City Hall Council Chambers
H 4801 50th Street West
,888
MEMBERS PRESENT:
Chair Michael Fischer, Kevin Staunton and Arlene Forrest
MEMBERS ABSENT:
Mary Vasaly and Scott Davidson
I. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES:
The minutes of the April 3, 2008, meeting were filed as submitted.
II. NEW BUSINESS:
B-08-47 Cypress Equities
7311 France Avenue
Request: Approve amended variance condition as per City Council
Mr. Teague informed the Board that Mr. John Bohan appealed the Zoning Board of
Appeals approval of a variance on December 20, 2007, to allow signage to face a
public park. On February 4, 2008, the City Council upheld the Zoning Board's approval
of the variance. The following were the conditions that were negotiated and required by
the City Council at their February 4th meeting:
1. Wall signs shall not exceed 10% of the area of the store front.
2. No wall signs shall be allowed on the east elevations of Buildings B and C.
3. Signs shall not be illuminated between the hours of 10 P.M. and 7 A.M., provided
however, that no sign shall be illuminated for a business during any time that the
business is not open to the public.
4. Signs shall be illuminated only by indirect, up -lighting methods. No neon, fiber optic
or direct light sources shall be allowed, provided, however, that projecting signs may
be illuminated with reverse channel lighting.
5. No portion of a sign shall exceed 14 feet in elevation.
6. Signs shall only be placed at the principal entrance to a business.
7. Wall signs shall not exceed 36 inches in height.
8. Businesses with a principal entrance on the south elevation of Building C shall be
identified only with a single faced projecting sign with the sign panel facing west and
with a blank face on the east side.
Continuing, Mr. Teague said at this time applicant is requesting a revision to condition
#5 to read as follows:
5. No portion of a sign on the East wall of Building A shall extend more than 4 feet
above the canopy.
Mr. Teague concludes staff recommends that the Zoning Board approve the revision to
condition number five of the original variance approval based on the following finding:
There is a grade change from the north end of the building to the south that
makes it difficult to meet the original condition of the variance approval regarding
maximum height of the wall signs, and still maintain a uniform sign band above
the store fronts.
Approval is also subject to the following conditions, which include the original conditions
of approval:
1. Wall signs shall not exceed 10% of the area of the store front.
2. No wall signs shall be allowed on the east elevations of Buildings B and C.
3. Signs shall not be illuminated between the hours of 10 P.M. and 7 A.M., provided
however, that no sign shall be illuminated for a business during any time that the
business is not open to the public.
4. Signs shall be illuminated only by indirect, up -lighting methods. No neon, fiber optic
or direct light sources shall be allowed, provided, however, that projecting signs may
be illuminated with reverse channel lighting.
5. No portion of a sign on the East wall of Building A shall extend more than 4 feet
above the canopy.
6. Signs shall only be placed at the principal entrance to a business.
7. Wall signs shall not exceed 36 inches in height.
8. Businesses with a principal entrance on the south elevation of Building C shall be
identified only with a single faced projecting sign with the sign panel facing west and
with a blank face on the east side.
Mr. Brett Witzig was present representing Cypress Equities, the proponent and property
owner.
Chair Fischer stated to be clear the request before the Board is only for a change to
one condition. Planner Teague responded that is correct. This request is only a
modification to the Council condition #5.
Member Staunton questioned if hearing this request is procedurally correct, adding in
2
his opinion it isn't so much of a variance but an amendment or modification to a
condition of approval directed by the Council. Planner Teague responded that the City
Attorney advised staff to bring this before the Zoning Board. Member Staunton said he
believes this modification should also go before the Council, noting it was their
condition.
A brief discussion ensued with regard to the process noting the signage variance was
granted by both the Zoning Board and City Council; therefore, the hardship test was
met. Continuing, Members asked Mr. Witzig to clarify how the Board got to this point.
Mr. Witzig explained at the time of the Council hearing he was asked how high the
sign(s) would be. Mr. Witzig said he responded 14 feet. Mr. Witzig said he came up
with the 14 feet without realizing there is a grade change. Continuing, Mr. Witzig stated
in reality nothing has changed, the signs will be erected as indicated; reiterating, there
is a grade change which changed the height of the sign on one end of the building.
Chair Fischer asked if anyone is present in the audience that would like to speak to this
matter.
Mr. John Bohan, 800 Coventry Place, agreed that there was an oversight on the part of
Cypress, adding he would like to see the signage lowered by 6 inches.
Member Forrest moved to close the public testimony. Member Staunton
seconded the motion. All voted aye; motion carried.
Chair Fischer asked Mr. Witzig if signage could be lowered 6 inches as suggested by
Mr. Bohan. Mr. Witzig responded that would be difficult to say. Mr. Witzig said he
really would be uncomfortable saying yes it can be reduced, or no it can't. He added he
isn't proficient in signage, adding the brackets the signs are fastened with could be
different for each store front which could make a difference. Concluding, Mr. Witzig
said he honestly can't comment on 6 inches. Chair Fischer acknowledged that
requesting that an applicant (or anyone for that matter) redesign `on the spot" isn't in
the best interest of anyone, the City or the applicant.
Member Staunton said he has no problem with this request; however, he wants the City
Council to review it.
Member Staunton moved variance approval based on staff findings, subject to
staff conditions and subject to the following conditions as set forth by the Edina
City Council:
1. Wall signs shall not exceed 10% of the area of the store front.
2. No wall signs shall be allowed on the east elevations of Buildings B and C.
3. Signs shall not be illuminated between the hours of 10 P.M. and 7 A.M.,
provided however, that no sign shall be illuminated for a business during any
time that the business is not open to the public.
4. Signs shall be illuminated only by indirect, up -lighting methods. No neon,
fiber optic or direct light sources shall be allowed, provided, however, that
projecting signs may be illuminated with reverse channel lighting.
5. Signs shall only be placed at the principal entrance to a business.
6. Wall signs shall not exceed 36 inches in height.
7. Businesses with a principal entrance on the south elevation of Building C
shall be identified only with a single faced projecting sign with the sign panel
facing west and with a blank face on the east side.
Approval is also conditioned on: no portion of a sign shall exceed 16'8" and that
the City Council will review this request for the requested
amendment/modification to their condition #5. Member Forrest seconded the
motion. Ayes; Staunton, Forrest, Fischer. Motion carried.
B-08-21 DJR Architects/TE Miller
3101 and 3201 69th Street West
Request: Multiple Variances
Planner Teague informed the Board the applicant is proposing to tear down the existing
two office buildings on these sites and build the following:
• Two buildings containing retail space that would total 18,000 square feet.
• A 114 -unit, 4 -story apartment building located along the east side of the site,
adjacent to single family homes in Richfield.
Planner Teague explained the applicant has revised the previously approved plans from
2007, by reducing the square footage of the retail space from 40,000 square feet to
18,000 square feet, and increasing the number of apartments from 85 to 114.
Planner Teague asked the Board to note the request requires the following variances:
1. Retail building setback variances from 35 feet to 20 feet from York Avenue and
69th Street;
2. Apartment building setback variances from 54 feet to 35 feet from 69th Street and
Xerxes;
3. Parking lot setback variance from 20 to 5 feet; and
4. A building height variance from 50 feet to 54 feet for the apartments.
Planner Teague reported that building height and setback variances for the apartments
4
are now required because of the recent Zoning Ordinance amendment that now
requires the building height to be measured from existing grade. The proposed height
and setbacks have not changed from the original plans. However the building is now
over 50 tall when measuring from existing grade rather than proposed, therefore, the
setback requirement increases from 35 feet to 54 feet, because of the way building
height is now measured.
Planner Teague concluded staff recommends approval of the variances as requested at
3201 and 3101 691h Street West for DJR Architects on behalf of Tom Miller based on
the following findings:
1. The proposed use of the property is reasonable; as it would
encourage ground level retail and service uses that create an
active pedestrian and streetscape environment.
2. The intent of the ordinance is to encourage retail uses to create an
active pedestrian and streetscape environment that can provide
future pedestrian connections.
3. The building height and setback variances for the apartments are
now required because of the recent Zoning Ordinance amendment
that now requires the building height to be measured from existing
grade.
4. The proposed height and setbacks have not changed from the
original plans. However the building is now over 50 tall when
measuring from existing grade rather than proposed grade,
therefore, the setback requirement increases from 35 feet to 54
feet.
and approval is also subject to the following conditions:
1. Compliance with the conditions required by the City Council for the
Conditional Use Permit and Final Development Plan required with the
proposal.
2. The variance will expire on June 5, 2009, unless the city has issued a
building permit for the project covered by this variance or approved a time
extension.
Mr. Dean Dovolis and Mr. Rob Miller were present to answer questions from the Board.
Chair Fischer noted Final Development Plan and Conditional Use Permit approval
including variances for the project was heard and approved by the Planning
Commission at their last meeting and asked Mr. Dovolis if he believes the project is
over -parked. Mr. Dovolis responded the project is only over -parked in the aggregate.
Mr. Miller interjected that the reason the project is over -parked is the result of the
underground parking spaces. Continuing, Mr. Miller said he believes the project is only
over -parked by one on the retail element. Concluding, Mr. Miller said he believes
parking needs to remain as proposed because parking demands should be contained
on the property and not spread to the street.
Member Staunton stated he is very supportive of the variances for building height,
noting the recent code change. Continuing, Member Staunton added he is a bit
concerned with the parking variance and hardship test. Member Staunton asked
Planner Teague to clarify his position with regard to the parking variance. Planner
Teague said in his opinion this situation is rather unique because of the overly large
green space between the street curb and the parking stalls that creates the appearance
of compliance. Continuing, Planner Teague said the proposed placement of the retail
buildings to create a more "urban feel" and pedestrian friendly project created the need
for a parking setback variance. Designing on a more traditional scale would have
probably eliminated the need for a variance.
Chair Fischer stated he understands the reasoning for a parking variance; however, it's
hard to pinpoint hardship. Mr. Miller said in his opinion the irregular shape of the
subject lots creates a hardship when it comes to building placement and accompanying
parking lot(s). Mr. Dovolis also indicated that parking lots are difficult to address when
designing an urban project.
Member Forrest said in her opinion it is good to retain that extra retail parking space
and questioned if some change could be made to the residential parking stalls. Mr.
Miller responded that he would like to maintain all surface parking stalls as proposed.
Mr. Miller pointed out visitors need parking spaces and when a new tenant moves into
the building parking spaces could be blocked for a period of time by moving trucks.
Concluding, Mr. Miller stated that it is very important to him to avoid if at all possible on -
street parking.
Mr. Dovolis told the Board the "fat" so to speak is in the underground parking. Mr.
Dovolis reiterated surface parking is important to maintain to eliminate the potential for
on -street parking on Xerxes Avenue. Mr. Dovolis also pointed out, at least for the retail
element of the project, that in this area (along York and 69th Street) parallel parking is
prohibited making it that much more important to retain as much surface parking as
possible.
Chair Fischer asked if anyone from the audience would like to speak to the proposal.
There being no one, Chair Fischer asked for a motion to close the public testimony.
Member Staunton moved to close the public testimony. Member Forrest
seconded the motion. All voted aye; motion carried.
A brief discussion ensued with Board Members in agreement over the logic of the
hardship for the parking variance and the building setback hardship due to a change in
code.
3
Member Staunton moved variance approval based on staff findings and subject
to staff conditions with the additional condition that the two (2) northern most
parking stalls for the apartment building be removed, noting a hardship exists in
developing an urban project when the traditionally found street parking
opportunities are not available, pointing out had the lots been more traditionally
developed parking would not be an issue. Member Fischer seconded the motion.
All voted aye; motion carried.
B-08-27 Paul Schoenecker
5945 Ashcroft Avenue
Request: 1.2" side yard setback variance and a
7.3 foot 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 hoping to modify and add-
on to the home to include an addition to the front and back of the garage and a bay
window addition to the front of the facade.
Ms. Aaker explained the owner is hoping to maintain the existing nonconforming side
yard setback of the garage with the new construction. The ordinance requires a
minimum 5 foot setback for garage area. The existing garage is located 4.3 feet from
the north side yard lot line. The plan is to extend the garage at the same setback and
maintain the same wall -plane. All of the improvements will remain at an existing
nonconforming setback with the exception of the bay window addition to the front
fagade. The homeowner would like to emphasize views towards the front yard area
instead of to the side street. The subject corner lot is across the side street from the
loading dock and garbage dumpsters of the Edina Community Center. The owners are
hoping to focus their home towards Sherwood instead of bringing space closer towards
the Community Center, Middle school and corresponding traffic that occurs along South
View Lane. The footprint of the home will remain essentially the same as existing with
the exception of the additions to the garage and the small bay window.
Ms. Aaker concluded staff recommends approval of the 1.2 inch side yard and 7.3 foot
side street setback variances based on the following findings:
1) There is a unique hardship to the property caused by:
a. The location of the existing home relative to the interior side yard and side
street.
b. No variances were required when the home was constructed; ordinances
have changed, forcing a nonconforming situation.
7
c. The corner lot arrangement and original home placement limit design
options.
2) The variance would meet the intent of the ordinance since:
a. The proposed encroachments will match the existing encroachments.
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.
Ms. Aaker stated approval is also based on the following conditions:
1) The addition must be constructed as per the submitted plan dated April 4,
2008.
2) The variance will expire on June 5, 2009, unless the city has
Issued a building permit for the project covered by this variance or
or approved a time extension.
The proponent, Mr. Paul Schoenecker was present.
Member Forrest commented that it appears to her that the garage will remain as is. Ms.
Aaker responded that is correct, the proponent is only "popping" the roof and adding a
deck and porch.
Chair Fischer asked if anyone was present that would like to speak to this request.
There being no one. Member Forrest moved to close the public hearing. Member
Staunton seconded the motion. All voted aye; motion carried.
Member Staunton moved variance approval based on staff findings, subject to
staff conditions noting the design is sensitive to the surrounding properties.
Member Forrest seconded the motion. All voted aye; motion carried.
B-08-28 Marty and Patti Nannie
5300 Dundee Road
Request: 16 foot variance from Mirror Lake
Ms. Aaker told the Board the subject property is located along Dundee Road, backs up
to Mirror Lake and consists of a two story walk -out home with an attached garage. The
applicants built their home in 2004 conforming to all setback, height and coverage
requirements. The owners have lived in their home for a number of years and have
found it lacking in porch/outdoor living space. The owners are proposing to construct an
elevated concrete deck with a flagstone floor to include an outdoor kitchen off the main
level of the home and with a porch area below offering a fireplace and water feature.
The addition to the home expands the living space from the main and basement levels
of the home. The deck/porch will encroach 16 feet into the 75 ft setback required from
Mirror Lake. The deck/porch encroachment will consist of approximately 690 square
feet. A survey of the property illustrates that the home is located 79 ft from the lake
edge. The deck/porch will reduce the setback to 60 feet.
Ms. Aaker explained the homeowners have stated that their wish is to build an outdoor
oriented addition that will increase living space and open up the main and lower levels
to the outdoors. The addition will allow suitable area for grilling, eating, sitting and quiet
enjoyment of views. It should be noted that the property received no variances at the
time it was constructed in 2004. There also have been no ordinance changes since
2004 that would significantly affect the home design if built today.
Ms. Aaker concluded that staff recommends denial of the 16 foot setback variance for
proximity to Mirror Lake based on the following findings:
1) There is no unique hardship relative to the property caused by:
a. The existence of other homes and structures farther from the Lake edge.
b. The home was designed and built by the current homeowners in 2004 on
a 69,550 square foot lot under similar guidelines and in compliance with the
ordinance.
c. The addition will breach setback and erode what the Department of
Natural Resources considers reasonable distance from a Lake edge.
2) The variance would not meet the intent of the ordinance since:
a. The variance could negatively impact surrounding conditions.
b. The variance runs counter to the intent of the ordinance to protect land
areas upland from water bodies.
If the Zoning Board stipulates findings for approval then approval should be based on
the following conditions:
1) The addition shall be constructed as per the submitted plan dated February
25, 2008.
2) This variance will expire on June 5, 2009, unless the city has issued a
building permit for the project covered by this variance or approved a time
extension.
Mr. Nannie was present and Mr. Josh McGuire was also present representing Mr. and
Mrs. Nannie.
P1
Mr. McGuire addressed the Board and explained the reason for the variance was to
comply with front yard setback requirements. Mr. McGuire pointed out the Nannie
home was required to be setback farther back into the lot to maintain the front setback
requirements on the block. Mr. McGuire pointed out the Nannie lot is very large
reiterating when the house was constructed they had to maintain the average
established front yard setback creating less rear yard.
Member Staunton asked Ms. Aaker if patios are treated differently from decks. Ms.
Aaker explained they are treated the same, however; control is lost with patios because
the City does not require a permit to construct a patio, it does require a permit for a
deck.
Member Staunton questioned if the setback requirement from water bodies is DNR
driven. Ms. Aaker acknowledged Code was change to match the requirement
stipulated by the DNR. The previous Code allowed a 25 foot setback from water
bodies.
Mr. Nannie addressed the Board and acknowledged this is a newer home, but after
being in the house for a while the kids would like some additional play area.
Chair Fischer acknowledged he struggles with this request especially in light of the fact
that the house is relatively new construction.
Member Forrest commented that a self imposed hardship isn't really a hardship.
Mr. Nannie said he doesn't agree that this is a self imposed hardship. He pointed out
his lot is very large but was subjected to the front yard setback rule which pushed the
house farther back into the lot reducing rear yard area.
After further discussion Board Members indicated they could not support the request as
presented and agreed with staff findings.
Member Forrest moved to deny the variance request for B-08-28 based on staff
findings. Member Staunton seconded the motion. All voted aye; motion carried.
Chair Fischer advised the proponent of his right to appeal.
III. PUBLIC COMMENT:
No public comment.
IV. ADJOURNMENT:
The meeting adjourned at 7:30 PM
10
F
' + 5►, . MAIM �6 v,l_ 10 i .
11