Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1994 05-19 Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting Minutes RegularMINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE EDINA ZONING BOARD HELD ON THURSDAY, MAY 19, 1994, 5:30 P.M. EDINA CITY HALL MANAGER'S CONFERENCE ROOM MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman, Johnson, McClelland, Lewis, Patton MEMBERS ABSENT: Workinger STAFF PRESENT: J. Repya, J. Hoogenakker I. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES Mr. Lewis moved approval of the March 17, 1994 meeting. Mr. Patton seconded the motion. All voted aye; motion carried. II. NEW BUSINESS B-94-3 Health Risk Management 7900 West 78th Street Lot 3, Block 1, and the easterly ninety-five (95) feet of Lot 2, Braewood Park, Hennepin County, Minnesota Ms. Repya informed the board the subject property is Located east of Highway 169, south of Braemar Park and north of Highway 494. The building currently displays a wall sign on the 4th story advertising "HRM". The owner wishes to replace the existing sign with a new one which would read "HRM Institute for Healthcare Quality". Ms. Repya concluded considering the unique nature of the Braewood Office Park; isolated from other office buildings in Edina and difficult to access from Highway 494, staff believes that the proposed variance request is justified and reasonable, thus approval of this request is recommended. Mr. Lee Lippert was present representing HRM. Ms. McClelland asked Ms. Repya the size of the Munsingwear sign. Ms. Repya explained Munsingwear received approval for a 50 square foot sign. Mr. Lippert interjected the Munsingwear sign is at the least 71 square feet. The sign HRM is requesting is 60 square feet. 1 Ms. McClelland questioned how Munsingwear received approval for a 71 square foot sign, and asked if a variance was received. Ms. Repya explained staff received dimensional drawings of a proposed Munsingwear sign and issued a permit according to the information on the application. That information conformed to city requirements. Ms. Repya pointed out when a sign is erected on a buildings upper level it is difficult to measure the size of the sign, staff assumes the sign is the size indicated on the application. Ms. Repya stated if the Munsingwear sign is over 71 square feet it was erected without approval, reiterating they received approval for a 50 square foot sign. Ms. McClelland commented in her opinion the sign ordinance should be carefully monitored, and everyone should follow the process. Ms. Repya agreed. Mr. Lippert explained the reason for the request for a larger sign is due to visibility, and the fact we are in close proximity to Bloomington, and actually mistakenly followed the requirements stipulated by Bloomington's sign ordinance. Ms. McClelland pointed out the sign contains neon lighting, and expressed concern that the lighting of the sign could be offensive to neighbors. Mr. Johnson pointed out the building is separated from residential properties by the freeway, adding he does not believe the lighting of the sign would be offensive or disruptive. Ms. McClelland said she understands the position of HRM, adding she does not want to see Edina resembling the 494 strip. Mr. Lewis moved variance approval subject to plans presented. Ms. McClelland seconded the motion. All voted aye; motion carried. Ms. McClelland questioned if the board should direct staff to contact Munsingwear regarding the sign. Ms. Repya responded she has flagged the permit and if Munsingwear requests any change to the sign it will have to be brought into compliance. B-94-19 4005, A Partnership 4005 West 65th Street Part of Lot 3, Block 2, Southdale Office Park 2nd Addition Request: Setback variance and sign height variance for a building identification sign 2 Ms. Repya informed the Board the subject property is located on the south side of West 65th Street, east of the Edina Realty building. The two story office building is setback 35 feet from West 65th Street and currently has no building identification sign. The proponent is requesting a variance to permit the erection of a freestanding sign. Ms. Repya concluded staff is of the opinion that the proponent has demonstrated that hardship conditions do exist relative to the ability to identify the building within the parameters of the Sign Ordinance. The proposed sign is low key at six square feet, and by providing photos of a "mock up" sign, the proponent has demonstrated that sight distances for vehicles entering and existing the site would not be compromised. Thus staff recommends approval of the variance request subject to staff approval of the final sign design. Mr. Tom Bryant was present representing 4005 Partnership. Mr. Johnson asked Ms. Repya if 4005 is up to code on parking requirements. Ms. Repya responded 4005 meets all parking requirements. Mr. Bryant explained the request is to achieve identification. Mr. Bryant explained they were careful with the design of the sign so clear view would not be obstructed. Ms. McClelland asked if the sign has been permanently made. Mr. Bryant said the sign will not be permanently constructed until approval has been granted. Ms. McClelland stated she can understand the "flag" type of style depicted in the photo but expressed concern that the "flag" style may not be sturdy enough, and suggested the possibility of two thin legs supporting the sign, not one. Mr. Lewis commented that staff will have to approve the final design plans and suggested they work with staff to come up with a workable solution. Mr. Lewis moved variance approval subject to final sign approval by staff. Ms. McClelland seconded the motion. All voted aye; motion carried. B-94-20 Thom and Bev Larson 5400 York Avenue South Lot 1, and the north 1/2 of Lot 2, Block 2, Seely's First Addition to Hawthorne Park Request: A 6 foot sidestreet setback variance 3 Ms. Repya informed the board the proponents are planning to add a front entry to their home and raise the roof of the existing second story to increase their living space. Ms. Repya explained all aspects of the project conform to ordinance requirements with the exception of the north sidestreet setback. Current zoning ordinance standards require a minimum sidestreet setback of 15 feet. Ms. Repya pointed out the neighborhood in which the home is located was developed many years ago prior to current ordinance standards. In addition, the area illustrated on the survey had been owned and built-up by one party with no relationship to the city codes or ordinances. Non -conformities can be commonly identified throughout this area. Ms. Repya noted the proposed additions and remodeling of the home will not increase the original footprint of the home with the exception of the new front entry and all aspects will remain at the 9 foot setback. Impact along West 54th Street (side street) will be minimal due to the creek lying north of West 54th Street and that the proximity of neighboring properties in view of the variance are a distance away. Ms. Repya concluded the home is existing non -conforming in terms of setback allowing little opportunity for a legal expansion. The homeowner merely wishes to work within the confines of the existing footprint. Given the undue hardship regarding the original placement of the home. Staff supports the request as submitted. Mr. and Mrs. Larson were present to respond to questions. Interested neighbor were also present. Ms. McClelland asked Ms. Repya if the proponents are close on lot coverage. Ms. Repya stated with the addition the lot coverage will be at 29.8% which is virtually at maximum. Ms. Huber, 5406 York Avenue told board members he has a concern regarding the proposed addition because his side view of the creek may be lost as a result of the addition. Continuing, Mr. Huber explained the Larsons also erected a garage in the rear yard that blocked creek views from his home. Mr. Larson responded that the garage in the rear yard was legally constructed and did not require a variance. Ms. McClelland observed this is a difficult situation because the house is already non -conforming and the lot is nearing maximum lot coverage. Mr. Johnson questioned Mr. Huber on his concerns regarding loss of view 0 asking if the height factor of the proposed addition enters into the loss of view. Mr. Huber stated he is not sure, if it will be the height of the proposed addition that is a factor or it may just be the fact that it will be constructed off the front. Mr. Huber said he believes any addition off the front would impact his property. Ms. Repya clarified that Mr. and Mrs. Larson are not requesting a frontyard setback variance, the variance requested is only for the sideyard. Ms. Repya pointed out the sideyard setback of the house is already non -conforming, and the proponents are trying to work within the confines of the existing footprint. Any addition to the front can be accomplished without a variance. Mr. Huber explained he personally is not concerned because his house is on the market adding presently there is a potential buyer for the property and he may have a concern. Mr. Johnson asked Mr. Huber if the potential buyer is aware of the variance. Mr. Huber stated he is not. Ms. McClelland pointed out as mentioned by staff, the request is only for a sideyard setback variance, and if the proponent does any expansion to the property a sideyard setback is required because the house as it exists is non -conforming. Mr. Larson interjected if there is a concern regarding loss of view the front entry area that projects into the front yard is constructed with pillars so Mr. Huber will not have his view completely obstructed. Mr. Patton added in his opinion the addition will up -grade the neighborhood. Mr. Johnson explained to Mr. Huber loss of view is something that is not considered by this board. Mr. Patton moved variance approval subject to plans as presented, and subject to materials matching the existing dwelling. Mr. Lewis seconded the motion. Ayes; Patton, Lewis, Johnson. Abstain, McClelland. Motion carried. III. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 7:10 P.M. �►�`�'1,� tic:►�i��t�N►ri'.J 5