Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2008 09-04 Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting Minutes RegularMINUTE SUMMARY Edina Zoning Board of Appeals Thursday, September 4, 2008, 5:30 PM Edina City Hall Council Chambers 4801 West 50th Street MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair Michael Schroeder, Nancy Scherer, Mary Vasaly, Bernadette Hornig and Scott Davidson STAFF PRESENT: Joyce Repya, Kris Aaker and Jackie Hoogenakker I. NEW BUSINESS: B-08-46 Southdale Medical Center Grubbs & Ellis 6525 & 6545 France Avenue South, Edina Request: Multiple Sign Variances Staff Presentation: Planner Repya informed the Board the subject property, Southdale Medical Center, consists of two office buildings (6525 & 6545) located east of France Avenue, west of Drew Avenue, north of W. 66th Street and south of W. 65th Street. The property is zoned RMD, Regional Medical District. Planner Repya explained in the Regional Medical and Planned Office District, Edina's Sign Ordinance No. 460.05, Subd. 5 provides for one building identification sign per street frontage not to exceed 50 square feet in area for office buildings up to 4 stories in height (36 square feet for additional street frontages). For buildings 5 stories in height or greater, an 80 square foot sign is allowed (40 square feet for additional street frontages.) The sign may be either wall mounted or freestanding. Additionally, only in the Regional Medical District, one wall sign is allowed for each accessory retail use. Each permitted retail sign must be attached to the ground floor level and not exceed 15 percent of the ground floor wall area of the accessory retail use. Continuing, Planner Repya told the Board the proposed variance request involves allowing seventeen additional signs for non -retail uses — Fifteen signs on the first floor of 6545 France Avenue and two signs on 6525 (one on the first floor, and one on the second floor.) Variances from the Sign Ordinance have been previously approved for both the 6525 and 6545 buildings. Planner Repya concluded staff recommends denial of the variance to allow additional signs for non -retail uses based on the following findings: 1) There is not a unique hardship to the property. 2) Granting variances to allow multiple tenant identification on a medical building would set a precedent for similar requests. 3) Variances to allow additional signage to assist patients in way finding have been granted for this site. The variance does not meet the intent of the ordinance based on the following: a. The intent of the ordinance is to prevent sign clutter on buildings in the Regional Medical and Planned Office District. b. The requested variance would allow seventeen non -retail tenant signs on the buildings, when one per street frontage is allowed. Appearing for the Applicant: Mr. Bruce Carlson, Grubbs & Ellis was present representing the ownership. Representatives were also present for the four medical clinics seeking sign identification variances. Board Member Comments and Concerns: Member Scherer asked Planner Repya to clarify the number of variances Southdale Medical Center has received in the past and the number requested this evening. Member Repya responded in the past Southdale Medical Center received variance approval for seven signs. This evening they are requesting 17 additional sign variances. If Southdale Medical Center receives approval this evening the total number of approved sign variances would be 24. Member Vasaly asked Ms. Repya the difference in Code requirements between retail and non -retail. Planner Repya responded provisions in the Code recognize that retail uses such as a pharmacy, gift and/or coffee shops, are common components found in a medical setting that would merit additional signage. Member Vasaly questioned that provision and asked Planner Repya if she knows the history behind the Code allowing retail signage in a medical zoning district. Planner Repya said the Code was written before she came to work for the City, adding she doesn't know the history. 2 s Annlicant Presentation: Mr. Bruce Carlson addressed the Board and stated he is present this evening along with a number of representatives for key medical clinics to answer any questions the Board may have. Continuing, with graphics Mr. Carlson addressed each sign and its location explaining to Board Members that since 1991 Southdale Medical Center has added over 100,000 square feet of space which requires additional signage to navigate the site and aid in finding the correct entrance. Mr. Carlson said in a sense the proposal presented this evening can be viewed as a "master signage plan". Mr. Carlson stressed to the Board the importance of way finding, pointing out Edina's population is aging and meeting the needs of an aging population is important. Mr. Carlson distributed materials to the Board and stated the submitted "master sign plan" addresses the needs of an aging population, it affords uniform exterior visibility, and allows signage for the larger clinical uses within the medical center. Mr. Carlson pointed out the increase in the buildings square footage has created space for new clinical tenants, adding the terms of their lease indicate they would have exterior signage. Concluding, Mr. Carlson pointed out if the clinical tenants were retail uses, not medical, signage would be allowed, adding in his opinion the line is blurring between what is retail and what isn't. Member Vasaly stated she understands the request; however, doesn't understand the hardship. Mr. Carlson responded Southdale Medical Center is a large complex, with multiple entrances, multiple street frontages, multiple elevators and shouldn't be compared (as staff mentioned in the staff report) to the Titus Building or other similar buildings, adding it's unique. Mr. Carlson stated if the Board approves this variance a precedent would not be set. Member Scherer noted Mr. Carlson's reference to "four" new tenants and asked_ if these tenants have their own entrances. Mr. Carlson responded they do not have their own entrances. Member Davidson noted that on the plans presented one of the signs indicates "Urgent Care", adding he believes it's important to have the Urgent Care sign visible day and night, for way finding. Mr. Carlson agreed. Continuing, Member Davidson asked Mr. Carlson if the building attracts many "walk-in" patients, pointing out usually medical facilities are destination and road based. Mr. Carlson said this medical center is a "hub", adding many visitors are referrals from within the building and from near medical facilities like Fairview Southdale Hospital, etc., concluding in a way they are walk-ins". Dr. Owen McNeil addressed the Board and explained he represents the new orthopedic urgent care tenant. Dr. O'Neil reported his practice is moving from 7373 France, to the subject building, adding it is very important that urgent care has exterior signage. Continuing, Dr. O'Neil stressed how important it is for his 3 patients to easily find urgent care. He pointed out patients that need urgent care are in pain and already are stressed, adding making way finding easier eases their stress which is very important. Dr. O'Neil pointed out to the Board that the orthopedic urgent care is also open during the evening hours making visible signage very important. Member Davidson asked Dr. O'Neil how late urgent care is open. Dr. O'Neil said at this time they believe their clinic will be open to at least 10 PM, possibly midnight. Ms. Tammy Thomas told the Board she represents a future building tenant adding she believes the Board should know how important way finding is. Ms. Thomas said one of the first things patients ask is "how do I get there" and if they have difficulties in finding their destination they question signage. Continuing, Ms. Thomas reiterated the importance of directing people to the right office noting a majority of patients are the elderly and if they experience difficulty in finding their doctors' office their stress levels elevate. Ms. Thomas also informed the Board many of their patients are not from the general area, and many face language challenges so signage becomes everything. Concluding, Ms. Thomas asked the Board to support the request, again reiterating how important signage is. A representative from Suburban Imaging, a radiology practice told the Board the imaging clinic is open from 7 AM — 11 PM and this facility is a very important diagnostic tool not only for Southdale Medical Center, but for the general area. He told the Board one of the problems with Southdale Medical Center is that there are so many doors, adding he believes the hardship is visibility. The Board was further informed that Suburban Imaging can see upwards of 20 patients a day that do "walk in off the street", reiterating the importance of signs directing patients to the right building, right door. Board Member Comments: Chair Schroeder thanked Mr. Carlson and tenant representatives for their input. Chair Schroeder asked for clarification on the schematic and if under the proposed first floor clinic identification signs there is an entrance, adding if there isn't that could cause confusion. Continuing, Chair Schroeder stated in his opinion more signs add clutter, not clarification. Chair Schroeder said Southdale Medical continues to have four entrances, and good street exposure, reiterating in his opinion, too many signs would cause more confusion. Member Vasaly made the observation that in her opinion, the Ordinance doesn't make a lot of sense in differentiating between retail and non -retail in the medial zoning district; however, as presented she believes there is no hardship and too many signs would only add to clutter and confusion. Member Vasaly suggested that the applicant approach the Council for an amendment to the Code as it relates to retail vs. non -retail signage. Concluding, Member Vasaly said the 4 arguments presented by the applicants this evening make sense,. but they should be addressed at the code level, not through the variance process. A discussion ensued between Board Members with Board Members acknowledging that the building has increased in size over the past 15 years; however, certain key elements haven't changed including the number of entrances and street visibility, coupling that with past approved sign variances approving 17 additional signs would only add to site confusion and clutter. Board Action: Member Vasaly moved denial of B-08-46 based on staff findings. Member Scherer seconded the motion. Member Davidson told Board Members he can't support the majority of the requested sign variances; however, in his opinion it is very important that the urgent care clinic has proper signage. Member Davidson suggested an amendment to the motion for denial to include a recommendation of approval for a variance allowing the urgent care element of the building to have additional signage. Member Davidson reiterated he cannot support the other sign variances requested in the sign package, but can support a variance approving a sign for the urgent care tenant. Member Vasaly and Member Scherer accepted that amendment. Mr. Carlson addressed the Board and told them it is very important that all four clinics have signage, not only the orthopedic urgent care clinic. Mr. Carlson asked the Board if they would modify their amendment to include all four clinics. Mr. Carlson said his objective this evening was approval of a "master plan" which included signage for the four clinic tenants. Member Vasaly stated the amendment was only for the urgent care element, not the other three clinics, adding she is comfortable with the amendment to include the urgent care component, but not the other three clinics. Chair Schroeder addressed Mr. Carlson and suggested that either the Board acts on the motion on the table or the master signage plan is withdrawn allowing time to modify the sign package. Mr. Carlson asked the Board to table their request allowing them additional time to modify their signage package. A brief discussion ensued with regard to the date for the public hearing. Mr. Carlson said he believes October 2nd is best. Member Vasaly withdrew her motion. Member Scherer seconded the motion. All voted aye; motion carried. 5 Member Scherer moved to table B-08-46 to October 2, 2008. Member Vasaly seconded the motion. All voted aye; motion carried. B-08-48 Steve Dresler 5130 France Avenue Request: 3.75 foot side yard setback variance Planner Presentation: Planner Aaker informed the Board the subject property is located on the west side of France Ave. consisting of a rambler with an attached garage. The existing home has been posted with a "Do not enter/Do not occupy sign by the City of Edina and orders have been issued for the structure to be demolished. The property has gone through foreclosure with the new owner hoping to re -build on the property with a two story single family home with a two car garage on the site. The new home is to be a LEED certified home. The plan conforms to the Zoning Ordinance requirements with the exception of the north side yard setback in regards to proximity and height. The minimum side yard setback required for the lot is 5.7 feet. The Zoning Ordinance also requires an additional 6 inches of side yard setback for each 12 inches the side wall height exceeds 15 ft. The side wall height is measured from average grade to the edge of the shingles, (on sloped or hip roof). The north wall will be approximately 22.5 feet, requiring a minimum side yard setback of 9.45 feet. The owner is requesting a variance of 3.75 feet. Planner Aaker noted as mentioned previously, the existing home is uninhabitable and cannot be repaired. The property is directly south from a multi -family condominium building. The "Eight on France" building to the north has their underground parking garage access along the common lot line and at a much lower elevation than the subject property. The condo building to the north is far more massive in height and scale than the proposed adjacent house. Planner Aaker concluded staff recommends approval of the requested 3.75 ft side yard setback variance for proximity and height based on the following findings: 1) There is unique hardship to the property caused by: a. The existence of the large condo building to the north. b. The addition will allow for improvement of existing conditions on site. c. The location along an "A -Minor Arterial" County Road. d. The narrow lot. C 2) The variance would meet the intent of the ordinance since: a. Adequate spacing would be maintained between properties. The setbacks are meant to insure comfortable distances betweens structures. The variance would sustain proper setback. b. The variance would maintain the residential character of the property and the neighborhood. c. The home design allows for appropriate transition in heights between the condo building to the north and single family home to the south. Approval should also be based on the following conditions: 1) The addition shall be constructed as per the submitted plan dated September 2008. 3) This variance will expire on September 4, 2009, unless the city has issued a building permit for the project covered by this variance or approved a time extension. The proponent, Mr. Dresler was present to respond to questions. Board Member Comment(s): Chair Schroeder noted the Board hasn't been supplied with an up-to-date survey; which usually is a key component in reviewing proposals. Planner Aaker acknowledged that statement, adding when the building permit is "pulled" a survey will be provided. Board Action: Member Vasaly moved variance approval based on staff findings and subject to staff conditions. Member Scherer seconded the motion. All voted aye; motion carried. B-08-49 Brian and Susan Peterson 4506 Sunnyside Road Request: A 3.55 foot side yard setback variance Planner Presentation: Planner Aaker informed the Board the subject property is two-story home with an attached two car garage located on the north side of Sunnyside Road. The 7 homeowner is hoping to add a second floor above a sun room located in the northeast, (back), corner of the house. All aspects of the plan conform to the Zoning ordinance requirements with the exception of the east side yard setback in regards to height. The minimum side yard setback required for the lot is10 feet. The side wall of the home is located 10.2 feet from the north lot line. The Zoning Ordinance requires an additional 6 inches of side yard setback for each 12 inches the side wall height exceeds 15 ft. The side wall height is measured from average grade to the mid -point of a gable roof. Because the roofline needs to be brought up to the main roof ridge, the height of the addition will be approximately 22.5 feet, requiring a minimum side yard setback of 13.75 feet. The small addition will add 144 square feet to the second floor allowing enough room for a bathroom. Planner Aaker explained the exterior materials will match the existing materials. The addition will be seamless to the eye and will not appear to be an addition. It should be noted that the adjacent property to the east has their driveway directly adjacent to the proposed improvement. Spacing between the subject home and the home to the east will remain the same. Planner Aaker concluded staff recommends approval of the requested 3.55 foot side yard setback variance for proximity and height based on the following findings: There is unique hardship to the property caused by: a. The desire to match rooflines to provide a seamless addition to the home. b. The addition will allow for improvement of existing conditions on site. c. The proposed addition is so small that complying with the ordinance would render the space unusable for a bathroom expansion. The variance would meet the intent of the ordinance since: 1. Adequate spacing would be maintained between properties. The setbacks are meant to insure comfortable distances betweens structures. The variance would sustain proper setback. 2. The variance would maintain the residential character of the property and the neighborhood. Approval should also be based on the following conditions: 1) The addition shall be constructed as per the submitted plan dated August 15, 2008. 2) This variance will expire on September 4, 2009, unless the city has issued 91 a building permit for the project covered by this variance or approved a time extension. The proponents, Mr. and Mrs. Peterson were present. Applicant Comments: Mr. Peterson told the Board he spoke with his neighbors about the project and all have indicated their support for the project as proposed. Board Action: Member Hornig moved variance approval based on staff findings and subject to staff conditions. Member Scherer seconded the motion. All voted aye; motion carried. B-08-50 Greg Wilkinson/Eugene Anderson 404/406 Jefferson Avenue Request: Driveway width variance Planner Presentation: Planner Aaker told the Board the subject properties are located on the west side of Jefferson Ave., each having one and one half story homes with no garage on the lots. The properties share a common driveway up to the front wall of the homes. The properties have a recorded cross -easement agreement extending 85 feet from the front lot line. The easement is meant to gain access into the rear yard for both properties to allow the opportunity to construct a two car garage on each property. The Zoning Ordinance requires a minimum 12 foot wide driveway and there is nothing preventing property owners from sharing a driveway as long as proper access and easements are in place. The owners have indicated that there is 15 feet between the two homes with a side stoop at 404 Jefferson Ave. reducing the distances between homes to 11.5 feet. The owner cannot remove the side stoop without running into building code issues relating to step depth. Both owners intend to extend the common driveway along the side wall of their homes to access the rear yards for the purposes of constructing a two car garage. It should be noted that a minimum two car garage per single dwelling unit is required by ordinance. Planner Aaker concluded staff recommends approval of the requested driveway width variance based on the following findings: There is a unique hardship to the property caused by: �J a. The location of the side stoop at 404 Jefferson Ave. b. The typical driveway within the neighborhood is narrower than the required 12 feet. The variance would meet the intent of the ordinance since: 1. The driveway would be nonconforming in only a small area. 2. The improvements would allow both properties to accomplish a two car garage. 3. The proposed driveway width would be a reasonable use given the hardship imposed by the required driveway width. Approval is also based on the following conditions: 1) The submission of a survey to include both properties and illustrating the cross easement agreement and proposed driveway extension. 2) The variance will expire on September 4, 2009, unless the city has Issued a building permit for the project covered by this variance or or approved a time extension. The proponents, Mr. Wilkinson and Mr. Anderson were present. Board Action: Member Hornig moved variance approval based on staff findings and subject to staff conditions. Member Vasaly seconded the motion. All voted aye; motion carried. 11. PUBLIC COMMENT: No additional public comment. 111. NEXT MEETING DATE: September 16, 2008 IV. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 7:05 PM 10