Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2008 10-16 Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting Minutes Regularo e • f�CO leeas �E9� Edina Zoning Board of Appeals Minute Summary October 16, 2008, 5:30 PM Edina City Hall Communit� Room 4801 West 50t Street MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair Grabiel, James Nelson and Helen Winder MEMBERS ABSENT: Rob Hardy and Julie Risser STAFF PRESENT: Kris Aaker, Joyce Repya and Jackie Hoogenakker 1. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES: The minutes of the August 21, 2008, meeting were filed as submitted. NEW BUSINESS: B-08-46 Grubb & Ellis Southdale Medical Center 6525 & 6545 France Avenue, Edina Planner Presentation Planner Repya told the Board on September 4, 2008, the Zoning Board of Appeals heard and continued the request for a sign variance to allow 17 non - retail signs for the Southdale Medical Center at 6525-6545 France Avenue. Planner Repya explained that when considering the initial request, there was a motion and second to deny the variance for 17 additional signs. Prior to the vote, one Board member stated that he believed the variance for the "Urgent Care" sign could relieve a hardship situation, and asked the proponent if they would be comfortable with an amended motion in favor of allowing only the "Urgent Care" sign. The proponent indicated that they would prefer a continuance of their request until October 4th Zoning Board meeting to allow time to complete an amended request. An additional continuance was then requested to the October 16th meeting. Planner Repya said the revised variance request under consideration involves allowing the following four additional signs for non -retail uses: Urgent Care, Minnesota Orthopedic Specialists, Suburban Imaging and Minnesota Oncology Concluding Ms. Repya said staff finds that while the number of signs requested has been reduced, the conditions surrounding the amended variance request have not changed from the original request, thus denial is recommended. Appearing for Applicant Dennis Zylla, Grubb & Ellis. Board Questions and Comments Chair Grabiel asked for clarification on the retail signage component allowed by Code in the Regional Medical District. Planner Repya explained Code permits retail identification signs on the first floor of a medical office building. Planner Repya noted the Code recognizes that support elements such as a pharmacy, uniform store, optical store, and restaurant benefit a medical building. Continuing, Planner Repya said Code 460 contains a "Special Provisions" clause for the Regional Medical District only that allows one wall sign (ground floor only) for each accessory retail use. Apalicant Presentation and Tenant Comments Dennis Zylla, representing Grubb & Ellis, addressed the Board and explained he was the development manager for the 6525 building expansion and in his private life served on the City of Plymouth's Planning Commission, adding he is familiar with variance criteria. Continuing, Mr. Zylla said the hardship criteria established by Code is difficult to justify from a sign standpoint. Mr. Zylla stated he believes the request is reasonable. Mr. Zylla reported the tenant lease permits signage, adding the hours of operation for these four tenants are extended, not the normal 9 to 5. Mr. Zylla pointed out that 1St floor retail signage already exists on the building and in his opinion the "character" won't be altered because of the request. Mr. Zylla noted if the four new "uses" were retail, not medical, exterior signs would be permitted; reiterating the character of the building wouldn't be compromised. Concluding, Mr. Zylla asked the Board to note that the request presented this evening eliminates a number of signs which were depicted in the original request and were of concern to the past Board. Dr. Sborov, Oncologist, told the Board it is very important that his patients easily find his office. Dr. Sborov explained that he has extended evening hours, 2 reiterating adequate signage is very important. Dr. Sborov noted many of his patients are already stressed and if they cannot find the right office it can become very stressful. Mr. Bob Starosta, Suburban Imaging, told the Board their office is usually open from 11 AM until 11 PM, six days a week. Mr. Starosta said their office has received a number of complaints from patients who have had difficulty finding the correct office, adding additional signage would aid with way finding. Especially after hours when portions on the building are chained off. Dr. Kelly stated it is very important that the urgent care clinic is adequately . signed. Dr. Kelly said after regular business hours it can be difficult to navigate the building if one accidently goes in the wrong door, adding there are areas in the building that are cordoned off. Board Member Comments Member Winder stated she has concerns with this request. She questioned if the issue is more with the management of the building, or would this request be better served through a Code amendment. Member Nelson said he agrees with the comment from Member Winder that this request would be better addressed through an ordinance amendment. Member Nelson pointed out there are a number of similar medical office buildings in Edina and if this request is approved others could request similar variances. Concluding, Member Nelson stated his struggle is with identifying a hardship. Chair Grabiel asked how ground floor medical offices are handled by Code, and questioned how the Code came about. Planner Repya responded she believes the Code may have been written to accommodate this building. Planner Repya said originally the first floor of the building contained a restaurant, optical, bank, pharmacy and a uniform store. The exterior signage accommodated those retail uses that were frequented by both internal patients and the outside public. Chair Grabiel pointed out if this variance is granted first floor medical offices would be treated differently than third floor medical offices, questioning what the difference is. Planner Repya responded there isn't any difference between a third and first floor medical office suite. Mr. Zylla interjected and stated he believes these four medical offices have different circumstances, their patient mix and hours of operation. Chair Grabiel said if patients have difficulty navigating the interior of the building he believes that is a management issue. Chair Grabiel commented that in his opinion it is important that the urgent care clinic is signed, but the others really are no different than other medical offices in the building on different floors. 3 Mr. Zylla informed the Board that for many elderly patients the site is confusing adding their request this evening is only for additional signage for the four medical uses, not 17 signs as previously requested in the "master" sign plan. Member Winder said in her opinion medical offices aren't the same as a Starbucks. Member Winder added most patients have an appointment and the ability to phone ahead to get directions. Member Winder said in her opinion, if way finding isn't a management problem this should be reviewed at the Council level through an amendment to the Code that would permit 1 st floor medical offices signage. Dr. Kelly reiterated how important it is for the orthopedic urgent care to have a sign. Chair Grabiel stated he makes a distinction between the urgent care office and the other medical offices, adding in his opinion an urgent care office requires exterior signage. Continuing, Chair Grabiel noted every identification issue that applies to the three medical offices requesting a sign variance could also apply to all other medical offices in the building regardless of their location. Chair Grabiel acknowledged that it is difficult to sit on the Zoning Board and realize a hardship and this request is no different. Chair Grabiel said he believes the way finding problem could be addressed through management by adding more interior way finding signs or some other means of way finding. Chair Grabiel said another tool may be for the City Council to approve an amendment to Code that would allow exterior signage on the first floor elevation of a medical building for all uses, office and retail. Concluding, Chair Grabiel reiterated he supports exterior signage for the urgent care element of the proposal, but cannot support a signage variance for the other three medical office uses. Member Nelson told the Board he agrees with all comments made this evening by Board Members. Member Nelson noted the Board is charged with measuring hardship and in this instance a hardship hasn't been identified. Board Action Member Winder moved that the variance request for additional signage be denied (except for the Urgent Care office). Denial is based on staff findings. Member Nelson seconded the motion. All voted aye; motion carried. The applicant was advised of their right to appeal the decision of the Zoning Board to the City Council. 2 B-08-48 Steve Dresler 5130 France Avenue South, Edina Request: 4.5 foot front yard setback variance Staff Presentation Planner Aaker explained to the Board the subject property is located on the west side of France Ave. consisting of a rambler with an attached garage. The property has been issued a demolition permit to remove the structure on the premises. The home was ordered demolished by the City's Building Inspections Department because it had been posted Do not enter/Do not occupy by the City. A new home is proposed for the property that received a 3.75 foot side yard setback variance on September 4, 2008, to allow a 5 foot setback on the north side adjacent to the "Eight on France" condominium building. The owner wanted to keep the new home as far away from the single family home to the south as possible and to create a "step-down" transition from the taller, multi -family building, (north) to the single family home to the south. The placement of the new home closer to France Ave. was also chosen to help buffer the home to the south from France Ave. and the Condominium building to the north. The homeowner also desires to maintain as much private rear yard space as possible, Upon building permit application it was discovered that the desired placement of the home from France Ave. requires a front yard setback variance. A survey is required for permit application and the surveyor determined that the required average front yard setback on the block is 44.9 feet. Planner Aaker explained the Zoning Ordinance requires a minimum front yard setback that is the average setback of the buildings along the block between intersections. There are two condominium buildings and three single family homes along the subject block and they vary in setback from between 19.8 feet - 71.1 feet from France Ave. The average front yard setback for the block 44.9 feet with the proposed home at 40.9 feet from France Ave. There is a 51 foot difference between the closest and farthest building from France Ave. along the block. The owner had assumed a front yard setback of 40.4 feet to the front of the house with a front porch beyond. Upon permit application, a survey was done to place the home on the lot. The front yard setback average was determined to be deeper than assumed and desired by the applicant. The average front yard setback reduces the rear yard area from 39 feet to 33 feet. The owner would like to preserve as much area for a private back yard as possible, as opposed to a deeper front yard setback along a busy county road, (France Ave.). The proposed setback would still be over 12 feet farther back from the street to the front porch than the closest structure on the block. The purpose of the front yard setback requirement is to maintain continuity with existing front yard setbacks. 5 There appears to be no continuity with regard to front yard setback along the subject block of France Ave. Planner Aaker concluded staff recommends approval of the requested 4.5 foot front yard setback variance based on the following findings: 1) There is unique hardship to the property caused by: a. The uneven and inconsistent streetscape along the west side of the subject block. b. The orientation, spacing and grade relationship of the adjacent structure north of the subject property. c. The limited opportunity to transition between a multi -family building to the north, France Ave. to the east and the single family home located south of the property. 2) The variance would meet the intent of the ordinance since: a. The variance would preserve the variation in setback along the block. b. The variance would not disrupt the goal of maintaining a consistent front yard pattern, because there appears to be no consistency with regard to front yard setback. c. The variance would maintain the residential character of the property near multi -family and nonresidential uses. Approval should also be based on the following conditions: 1) The addition shall be constructed as per the submitted plan dated September 2008. 2) This variance will expire on October 16, 2009 unless the city has issued a building permit for the project covered by this variance or approved a time extension. Appearing for the Applicant The proponent, Mr. Steve Dresler was present. Member Comments Member Nelson asked staff if they received any negative response from immediate neighbors. Planner Aaker said the city hasn't received any calls opposing the proposal. Planner Aaker said she believes the house plans have been shared with neighbors. 0 Member Action Member Nelson moved variance approval based on staff findings and subject to staff conditions. Member Winder seconded the motion. All voted aye; motion carried. B-08-60 Julie and Jim Wohlford 4519 Edina Boulevard Request: 1.09 foot and a 2.09 foot side yard setback variance for a box and bay window and a .167 inch side yard setback variance Planner Presentation Planner Aaker informed the Board the subject property is a corner lot located north east of the intersection of Edina Blvd. and Bridge Street within the historic Country Club District. The house is two and one half stories and consists of an English Cottage style home as listed in the Historic and Architectural Survey of the Country Club District. The subject property has an attached two car garage behind the home that loads from Bridge Street. The owner would like to remove the existing garage and replace it with a breakfast seating area, a hearth room and garage on the main level and a master bedroom with bath above on the second floor. The proposed addition will be farther from the north lot line than the existing garage. The existing garage is located slightly more than 7 feet from the north lot line. The new addition would match the setback of the existing home which is slightly nonconforming. The minimum side yard setback for living space is 10 feet. The existing home is located slightly more than 9 feet 10 inches from the property line. The proposed addition would match the setback requiring less than a 3 inch variance to line up to the existing north wall. Variances are also needed to accomplish a 1 foot box window and a 2 foot bay window along the north wall of the home. The second floor expansion conforms to the height/setback requirements. The addition will actually be farther from the north lot line than the existing north wall of the garage. It should be noted that the adjacent home to the north has their driveway located next to the new addition with spacing between structures remaining generous. Planner Aaker concluded staff recommends approval of variances based on the following findings: There is unique hardship to the property caused by: 7 The existence of other homes in the district already with similar setbacks. The home was built on the north side of the lot with existing improvements and driveway access limiting design options. The addition will improve the existing conditions on site by allowing the living space addition to be farther from the side yard than the existing garage. The variances would meet the intent of the ordinance since: • The variances would be similar to existing surrounding conditions. • The variances would maintain the residential character of the property and the neighborhood. • The variances would not interfere with sight lines. • The variances would maintain adequate spacing between structures given the driveway adjacent to the north. Approval should also be based on the following conditions: The addition shall be constructed as per the submitted plan dated October 10, 2008. This variance will expire on October 16, 2009, unless the city has issued a building permit for the project covered by this variance or approved a time extension. Appearing for Applicant Mark Shariat was present representing Mr. and Mrs. Wohlford Board Action Member Nelson moved variance approval based on staff findings and subject to staff conditions. Member Winder seconded the motion. All voted aye; motion carried. III. PUBLIC COMMENT: No additional public comment. IV. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 6:45 PM