Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2009 06-04 Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting Minutes RegularA ow &I e y v � • j�'roRpot�'� • lees MINUTE SUMMARY Meeting of the Edina Zoning Board of Appeals Thursday, June 4, 2009, 5:30 PM Edina City Hall Council Chambers 4801 West 50th Street MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair Mike Fischer, Kevin Staunton, Mary Vasaly, Scott Davidson and Bernadette Hornig STAFF PRESENT: Cary Teague, Kris Aaker and Jackie Hoogenakker I. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES: The minutes of the were filed as submitted. II. NEW BUSINESS: B-09-5 Robert and Christine Doe 5844 Abbott Avenue So, Edina Request: 10 foot side street setback variance Planner Presentation Planner Aaker informed the Board the subject property is a corner lot located in the northwest intersection of Abbott Ave. and West 59th St. The property consists of a two story home with a detached one and one half stall garage loading from West 59th St. The property owners are hoping to demolish the existing garage and replace it with a detached two car garage in the same vicinity as the existing garage. The owners would like to shift the new garage southward to be closer to the south lot line/ w. 59th side street than currently allowed by ordinance. The minimum setback required from the south lot line adjacent to the side street is 20 feet. The homeowner is proposing a setback of 10 feet. The homeowner is hoping to preserve a 24 inch maple tree that is east of the existing garage. The owners have indicated that the garage floor and driveway have deteriorated to the point where replacement is necessary. Removal of the existing garage requires replacement with a minimum two car garage. The zoning ordinance requires a minimum two car garage per single dwelling unit. The owners Zoning Board Meeting Thursday, June 4, 2009 Page 2 of 10 desire a two car garage; it's just that a location that conforms to the setbacks will jeopardize the tree. The large silver maple tree is about 2-3 feet from the northeast corner of the current garage. Many trees have been blown over by storms in the neighborhood in recent years and the homeowners and neighbors would like to protect the remaining larger trees left. Planner Aaker concluded that staff recommends approval of the requested 10 foot side street setback variance based on the following findings: 1) There is a unique hardship to the property caused by: a. The location of a mature tree with the proposed garage at a similar setback from the street as the garage next door to the west. b. The improvements would allow for a minimum two car garage without compromising adequate spacing to the south lot line. c. The addition would be a reasonable use given the hardship imposed by the required setback on a narrow corner lot and the inability to locate the garage without impacting a mature tree. 2) The variance would meet the intent of the ordinance since: a. The encroachment will be consistent with the garage setback to the west. b. The garage materials would match the existing home and would be more in keeping with the look of the existing home. c. The new garage will not alter the character of the property in a negative way; it will instead enhance the property and home by preserving a mature maple tree. Approval is also based on the following conditions: 1) The addition must be constructed as per the submitted plan. 2) The new driveway is installed as required per the City Engineer.. 3) The variance will expire on May 21, 2010, unless the city has Issued a building permit for the project covered by this variance or approved a time extension. Appearing for the Applicant Robert and Christine Doe Zoning Board Meeting Thursday, June 4, 2009 Page 3 of 10 Comments and Concerns of the Board Member Staunton reported that the Planning Commission recently completed the re- write of the Comprehensive Plan and in the re -write there is a section on preserving the urban forest - which this plan does. Continuing, Member Staunton asked Planner Aaker to clarify the need for a two stall garage, not a one stall. Planner Aaker responded that the current Code requires two fully enclosed spaces per dwelling unit. To replace the existing 1 + car garage with a 1 + garage would also require a variance. Retaining the mature maple tree forces the need for the variance. A brief discussion ensued with Members in agreement that saving the tree is very important and allowing the homeowners to have a two stall garage makes sense and is something the Zoning Board has consistently supported. Board Action Member Vasaly moved variance approval for B-09-5, based on staff findings and subject to staff conditions. Member Davidson seconded the motion. All voted aye; motion carried. B-09-6 Ebenezer Society/7500 York Co-op 7500 York Avenue, Edina, MN Request: A maximum square footage variance for 17 dwelling units, and a three-foot setback variance from Edinborough Way Planner Presentation Planner Teague told the Board the applicant is proposing to build a 76 -unit, 4 -story addition to the northwest side of the existing 337 -unit, 9 -story senior housing development at 7500 York Avenue. This proposed project has received Preliminary Approval by the City Council, per Planning Commission recommendation. Planner Teague explained that staff believes the proposed variances are reasonable for this site. In regard to the setback variance, the hardship is caused by the existing location of the underground parking garage. This structure was not built to support the weight of a four-story addition above it. Therefore, the applicant is forced to develop a site plan by Zoning Board Meeting Thursday, June 4, 2009 page 4 of 10 working around this structure. The applicant also does not wish to disturb the open space and garden area along York Avenue. The proposed four-story addition is reasonably sized given the height of the existing building, and the height of buildings in the area. The density of the project allowed by City Code would be 44 units per acre. The applicant is proposing a density of 36 units. Therefore, staff believes the proposed building is reasonably sized, and a reasonable request, given the practical difficulty of having to design a building around the underground parking ramp. The layout of this wing is driven by the Alzheimer's floor The rooms are very small. To take three feet off any of the rooms would not be practical given the needs within the facility. The requested variance would be a minor 3 -foot intrusion into the required setback The majority of existing units within the existing building do not conform to the maximum standard of 850 square feet for two-bedroom units and 700 square feet for one -bedroom units. It would be reasonable to allow housing units within the addition to be consistent with the existing units. The maximum standards were developed to ensure affordable housing for the Planned Senior Residential districts. The existing and proposed units within the 7500 development were and are not intended to be entirely for affordable housing. Of the total 76 units, 59 proposed units conform to the maximum requirement (78%). Ten two-bedroom units and seven one -bedroom units would exceed the maximum requirement. Planner Teague concluded that staff recommends approval of the following variances: 1. A maximum square footage variance for 17 dwelling units. 2. A three-foot setback variance from Edinborough Way. based on the following findings: The proposal meets the required standards for a variance, because: 1. There is a unique hardship to the property caused by the location of the existing underground parking deck, which would not support the proposed addition. In addition, the proposed building location avoids the large open space and garden area along York Avenue. Therefore, the applicant is forced to develop a site plan by working around this structure and the open space. 2. The proposed four-story addition is reasonably sized given the height of the existing building, and the height of buildings in the area. The density of the project allowed by City Code would be 44 units per acre. The Zoning Board Meeting Thursday, June 4, 2009 Page 5 of 10 applicant is proposing a density of 36 units. Therefore, the proposed building is reasonably sized, and a reasonable request, given the practical difficulty of having to design a building around the underground parking ramp. 3. The building layout of the area where the variance is requested was driven by the Alzheimer's floor. The rooms are very small. To take three feet off any of the rooms would not be practical given the needs within the facility. 4. The setback variance is for a minor 3 -foot intrusion into the required setback. 5. The majority of existing units within the existing building do not conform to the maximum standard of 850 square feet for two-bedroom units and 700 square feet for one -bedroom units. 6. It would be reasonable to allow housing units within the addition to be consistent with the existing units. 7. The intent of the maximum square footage standards was to ensure some affordable housing for the Planned Senior Residential Districts. Of the total 76 units, 59 proposed units conform to the maximum requirement (78%). Approval is also based on the following conditions: • Compliance with the conditions required by the City Council for the Final Development Plan required with the proposal. • The variance will expire on June 5, 2010, unless the city has issued a building permit for the project covered by this variance or approved a time extension. Appearing for Applicant Ward Issacson, Pope Associates Inc. Susan Farr and J. Kaiser, Ebenezer Society. Applicant Presentation Mr. Issacson gave a power point presentation and explained that it was difficult designing anew building without encroaching onto the existing underground parking garage. Mr. Issacson explained they really "squeezed" the memory care element of the building to ensure minimal impact. Continuing, Mr. Issacson said the memory care floor guides the project. The corridor and entry can't be moved and because of the nature of the residents the entrance must be "hidden". Lobby areas are also needed at the ends of the hallway. Alzheimer residents tend to wander and encountering dead ends can be difficult for them. Concluding Mr. Issacson said he is available for questions from the Board. Zoning Board Meeting Thursday, June 4, 2009 Page 6 of 10 Comments and Questions from the Board Member Vasaly asked Mr. Issacson why 2 -units can't be removed from the memory care floor. Mr. Issacson responded that a memory floor/facility has a care model based on staffing needs, adding a memory care facility is usually between 14 and 15 units. Mr. Issacson pointed out that although a variance is required from Edinborough Way a parking lot is located across the street from the proposed building, minimizing impact. Mr. Issacson also pointed out that the narrowest portion of the building requires the variance from Edinborough Way. Chair Fischer asked Mr. Issacson if building height could be reduced. He pointed out the height of the building really drives the variance. Mr. Issacson responded that the roof of the building could be flat; however, a flat roof doesn't create a very residential "feel". Member Davidson commented if the proposed mansard roof is eliminated and replaced with a flat roof no variance would be needed. Member Davidson said he acknowledges the preference for a more "residential feel" to the building, but the Zoning Board does not consider aesthetics. Member Hornig asked Mr. Teague if the parking garage could be considered a self- imposed hardship. Planner Teague responded that in his opinion it is not a self imposed hardship. The parking deck dictates building placement, adding the parking deck wasn't constructed to be able to support the weight of another structure. Member Hornig said she agrees, the hardship is not self imposed. Member Davidson suggested that the applicant take a different approach and reduce each memory care unit by 5 inches. Mr. Issacson responded that in dealing with a memory care facility it just isn't that easy. Mr. Issacson explained what they are doing is lining up the proposed building with the edge of the existing parking deck and working from that. Mr. Issacson introduced J. Kaiser and asked her to speak to the questions Board Members raised about spacing requirements for memory care residents. Ms. Kaiser addressed the Board and explained not only is she speaking for the applicant but she is speaking for the future residents of the memory care floor. Ms. Kaiser pointed out that additional space is needed in each living unit to accommodate wheelchairs and walkers. On top of those special spacing needs memory care residents tend to like to wander and they also try to find a "way out". This creates the need for the main lobby and entry way to be designed in a serpentine fashion. Memory care facilities cannot be built with an "easy way out" so taking off inches here or there greatly impacts the resident's safety. Ms. Kaiser pointed out as previously mentioned the memory care floor also has a lobby positioned at each end of the hallway. These lobbies provide a safe turn around without compromising the privacy of those who may Zoning Board Meeting Thursday, June 4, 2009 Page 7 of 10 live at the ends of the hall. Continuing, Ms. Kaiser explained the memory care model also includes such things as a laundry area. She pointed out because of the vulnerability of the residents on a memory care floor space needs to be provided for a laundry room. Staff cannot go to another floor to retrieve laundry — memory care residents can't be left alone. Continuing Ms. Kaiser added each memory care floor needs its own dining area and an area where a resident can find "quiet". Ms. Kaiser said the staff ratio for memory care is 1-8, adding staffing must be planned for very carefully. Member Staunton commented that if the staffing ratio is 1-8 why not 16 units. Ms. Kaiser responded that they do not want the common areas compromised to achieve another unit. Each foot on a memory care floor is accounted for. Susan Farr told the Board another point they need to consider besides the hardship imposed by the underground parking garage is that the residents of 7500 York have a very definite opinion on what type of building they want. 7500 York is home to a number of architects who during the months prior to submittal of the application routinely expressed their opinions. Ms. Farr said 15 renderings were submitted to the review board before the current plan was approved to more forward through the city approval processes. Member Davidson pointed out that 7500 York has a flat roof. Ms. Farr acknowledged that point; adding 7500 York is also 9 -story building and many of the residents don't like the flat roof. Member Davidson asked Planner Teague why there is a cap on square footage in the PSR zoning district. Planner Teague responded the, square footage cap was implemented to ensure affordable housing for seniors. Chair Fischer commented in looking back on the history of the Zoning Ordinance many of the ordinances were written to be project specific. Member Hornig stated in her opinion what isn't being considered is that there is a hardship in constructing this type of building; it's more of a use hardship. Member Hornig pointed out this building isn't just an apartment building it is a special purpose building with completely different requirements and many of those requirements must be met because of building codes and ADA requirements. Member Hornig said it appears to her that the applicant was very aware of code when designing the building and did everything possible to mitigate the variances. Member Hornig said it appears to her for this very specific use that keeping the 3 -feet is a big deal. It isn't as easy as knocking off inches or eliminating units. Every square inch appears to have been Zoning Board Meeting Thursday, June 4, 2009 Page a of 14 accounted for and is needed to run an efficient safe living care facility, and approving this variance meets the spirit and intent of the code. Ms. Kaiser said that another point to be considered is that the memory care floor is on the first floor, establishing the footprint. The reason for locating memory care on the first floor is to provide a safe outdoor area for the memory care residents. Ms. Kaiser said if units are removed on the first floor it would follow suit that the loss would go all the way up. Mr. Grueman, Fairview Southdale Hospital urged the Board to approve the requested variances. David Pyles, attorney representing 7500 York told Board Members that the building design before them this evening is what the residents of 7500 want. He stated the hardship is real, the parking deck does compromise building placement. Mr. Pyles stressed the residents of 7500 York want the new assisted living/memory care building to be residential in flavor and have a pitched or Mansard roof. Residents do not support a flat roof - period. Chair Fischer asked if there was anyone in the audience that would like to speak to the project. No one was present. Member Vasaly said she would like to make an observation. She stated in her opinion this is a very sensible project; however the Zoning Board of Appeals shouldn't have to hear the variance requests. It should have been handled as a PUD at the Commission and Council level. A discussion ensued with Board Members acknowledging the difficulty in the variance requests, noting that rezoning the site actually created the need for the unit square footage variance. Board Members decided to separate the variances and vote up or down on each one. Member Staunton moved to have two separate motions. Member Hornig seconded the motion. All voted aye; motion carried. Member Staunton moved approval of a 3 -foot setback variance from Edinborough Way based on staff findings and subject to staff conditions noting the following: 1. The distance between the 3 -foot encroachment to the nearest neighbor (parking lot) is ample, 100+ feet; 2. The height of the building drives the variance and the building height at 4 - stories is reasonable; Zoning Board Meeting Thursday, June 4, 2009 Page 9 of 10 3. The existing underground parking ramp/deck drives the placement of the proposed building — this is a hardship not self imposed; 4. The needs of memory care residents on the first floor drive the interior configuration and manipulating the interior to eliminate the variance would create obstacles and safety issues for those residents. Member Hornig seconded the motion. Member Davidson stated he opposes the variance, adding all points presented are valid but the mansard roof could 6q a flat roof. Ayes; Staunton, Hornig, Fischer. Nays; Vasaly and Davidson. Motion carried. A 3 -foot setback from Edinborough Way approved 3-2. Member Staunton moved to deny the maximum square footage variance, noting it can't be enforced and the code needs to be amended. Member Hornig seconded the motion. Member Hornig questioned why a "bad" ordinance can't be considered a hardship. Continuing, Member Hornig said she finds it distasteful that seniors are discriminated against by capping the square footage they are allowed to live in. Member Hornig added she is in complete support of affordable housing, adding everything must be done to add and retain affordable housing in Edina; however, in her opinion both affordable and market rate/luxury units can co -exist. Concluding, Member Hornig applauded the City's stand on providing affordable housing, but not at the expense of capping the unit size for seniors. It's discriminatory. Ayes; Staunton, Vasaly. Nays; Hornig, Davidson and Fischer. Motion failed 3-2. Member Davidson moved approval of the maximum per unit square footage requirement for 17 -units based on staff findings and subject to staff conditions. Member Hornig seconded the motion. Ayes; Davidson, Hornig and Fischer. Nays; Staunton and Vasaly. Motion for approval carried 3-2. A discussion ensued with Board Members wondering if the square footage of all the units were calculated and averaged would the proposed building meet code. Planner Teague said that is an interesting point, adding he will run those calculations. Chair Fischer reported that this proposal will now be forwarded to the City Council for their review and action. Zoning Board Meeting Thursday, June 4, 2009 Page 10 of 10 III. COMMUNITY COMMENT: None. IV. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 7:00 PM -7.11 17f 7e --d b y