Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBoard of Adjustments and Appeals - 01/21/1982 - :APPROVED MINUTES BOARD OF APPEALS AND ADJUSTMENTS THURSDAY, JANUARY 21, 1982 7:30 P.M. , CITY HALL BOARD OF APPEALS MEMBERS: Chairman James Wedlund, Richard Lynch, Ron Krueger, Roger Sandvick and James Dickey BOARD STAFF: Wayne Sanders, Building Official and Barbara Anderson, Recording Secretary ROLL CALL: Roger Sandvick was absent. I. MINUTES A. Minutes of December 17, 1981, regular meeting. MOTION: Lynch moved, seconded by Dickey to approve the Minutes of December 17, 1981. Motion carried unanimously. II. VARIANCES A. Variance Request #81-36 submitted by Northern Telecom, Inc. , 10125 Crosstown Circle, requesting a variance from Ordinance #261 for a second sign of 50 sq. ft. to be located on the back of the building. This variance request was tabled at the December 17, 1981 meeting. Mr. Scott Anderson from ADI was present representing Northern Telecom, Inc. He reviewed the existing signage and their proposal for additional signage. He showed the Board a copy of the site plan and a graphic of the proposed sign. He described the existing building and its location on the site. He discussed the purposes of the building which are computer services, engineering and train- ing facilities . Wedlund commented that it appeared to him that there wouldn't be many people coming to this building; Mr. Anderson stated that there are other departments on the second floor which would require that people come to this location. Krueger commented that the additional sign of 50 square feet would bring their total signage to about 100 square feet. Sanders stated that the Ordinance allows 50 square feet of signage per building. Wedlund inquired how much of the building was occupied by Northern Telecom. Mr. Anderson replied that Northern Telecom occupies 68.5% of the building with an option on an additional 20% which is leased from ADI. He stated that ADI does not have a sign for themselves; the major tenant of a building would be the one to have the signage. Wedlund inquired how many people will come before the board asking for the same variance if they grant this one. Mr. Anderson stated that the area is already built up and no one else has asked for a variance as they have their signage already. Sanders inquired whether there was a present sign on the front of the building. Mr. Anderson responded negatively. Sanders asked whether they would settle for a small sign . on the ground to identify the building and then use the big sign where they want the new one. Mr. Anderson stated that would be acceptable but they have already constructed the new roadway sign and it's ready to be installed. Kruger commented that he felt that was irrelevant to the matter now pending before the Board. Discussion ensued regard- BOARD OF APPEALS AND ADJUSTMENTS January 21, 1982 -2- • ing the size of the small identification sign which was proposed. Sanders stated that he was thinking of something small and low to the ground that would identify the building, but not provide any advertising. Wedlund stated that he would prefer a small sign that wouldn't be obvious from any distance. Mr. Anderson stated that the only time they allow anyone to put a sign on the building is if they are a major tenant. They stated that they are trying to enhance their corporate image and let people know that they are an asset to the community. Wedlund inquired whether he was able to make a trade off for Northern Telecom. Mr. Anderson responded affirmatively. Dickey commented that there was nothing in the Ordinance prohibiting the sign being moved should Northern Telecom move out of the building. Discussion ensued regarding the square footage of existing and proposed signage. Ten square feet was proposed as an identification and address sign size. Mr. Anderson commented that he feels that is quite small but it would fit in with the rest of the neighborhood. MOTION: Krueger moved, seconded by Dickey, to approve Variance Request #81-36 for Northern Telecom, Inc. allowing them to have a sign of 50 square feet and an additional sign at the driveway entrance of 10 square feet. He stated that he feels the variance will not harm the citizens of Eden Prairie in any way. Motion • carried unanimously. B. Variance Request #81-27 submitted by Suburban National Bank, located at 9593 Anderson Lakes Parkway, requesting a variance from Ordinance #261 for an additional sign. This variance request was tabled at the December 17, 1981 meeting. Mr. Ray Terwilliger was present representing Suburban National Bank and Mr. Dick Gibson, representing the owner of the shopping center was also present. Mr. Terwilliger reviewed the existing signage and the proposed sign which would go on the existing pylon sign. He stated that they do not have an existing sign at this time. He stated that they will be moving out of the center as they expand and need drive up windows. He stated that to put the sign on the pylon will require a variance and they prefer to do this rather than mar the exterior of the center building. He stated that they will void their existing sign permit if they are permitted to put their sign on the pylon. Wedlund commented that they had understood from Mr. Steinhoff, who appeared before the Board on December 17th, that the center would not allow them to put their sign up on the building. Mr. Terwilliger stated that can put it up but it would require the permission of the landlord and the City. Mr. Gibson explained the details of the sign graphic, and stated that they need all of the area shown. Wedlund stated that the variance request is for one additional sign and in fact they are requesting two additional signs according to the graphic presented. Mr. Gibson stated that they would like to apply for a variance; Wedlund stated i BOARD OF APPEALS AND ADJUSTMENTS January 21, 1982 -3- • that it was not possible for them to apply at that meeting, as the request has to be published in the legal newspaper 10 days prior to the meeting, and he will have to come back later. Sanders stated that the Board has to look at the entire structure not just the proposed variance. He stated that the existing portion of the sign structure is 80 square feet. Lynch commented that as it exists it's a non-conforming sign. Dickey stated that they have to deal with this as the bank's sign as they have brought in the variance request. Lynch read a q y portion of Ordinance #261, Section 2 {W} which states the frame of the sign is included in the overall sign measurements. Dickey inquired how long it would be before they move the bank to another location. Mr. Terwilliger responded that it would probably be in two to three years , and they have a three year lease in the center. MOTION: Dickey moved, seconded by Wedlund, to approve Variance Request #81-37 for Suburban National Bank for an additional sign to be added to the pylon sign with the provision that this is a temporary sign and is to be removed when Suburban National Bank moves to it's own structure in two to three years. He stated that granting this variance request causes no hardship to the citizens of Eden Prairie. Motion carried unanimously. C. Variance Request #82-1 submitted by Harold Schaitberger, located at • 13090 Pioneer Trail , DBA Flying Cloud Oil Company, requesting a variance from Ordinance #135 for front yard setback for oil tanks. Mr. Harold Schaitberger was present, and he showed pictures of his property both past and present. He stated he has owned the property for approximately 25-30 years. The Highway Department took a good portion of his land when they installed a road adjacent to his property for right-of-way, and he is currently in litigation with the Minnesota Department of Transportation about the acquisition of this property. He stated that he had been informed by a City Planner that he was in violation of the law and needed a variance to come into conformance. Wedlund inquired why he needed the variance as he was grandfathered in since the Highway Department took the land after he was there, not before. Mr. Schaitberger stated that he did not move the boundary of his property, the State did. Sanders stated that there was no need for Mr. Schaitberger to move the existing tanks because of the moved boundary. Mr. Schaitberger stated that he occasionally needs to make repairs on the tanks, and he is concerned that he would need a variance in order to maintain his facility. He understood that the City was going to pass an Ordinance requiring tanks to be buired underground. He doesn' t want to be in violation when he goes to court or wants to sell the property. That is why he wants the variance. Lynch inquired what would he gain if the variance were granted. Mr. Schaitberger responded that he would be able to sell the plant and the City would have decided that they want a bulk plant there...by having granted him the variance. Wedlund commented that he is unsure that it . would be legally there just by having his variance granted. Mr. Schait- berger stated that he is concerned with the legality of his position. Lynch stated that these questions should be addressed to the City Attorney as the Board is not qualified to answer these questions. Wedlund stated that if Mr. Schaitberger talks to the City Attorney and finds out that BOARD OF APPEALS AND ADJUSTMENTS January 21, 1982 -4- he did not need to appear before the Board for a variance they will give him his money back. Lynch stated that he is not comfortable in granting the variance because he doesn't think it will help his situation at all . Dickey stated that he would be opposed to granting the variance because it would cause a confrontation as it could be interpreted as permission to have the bulk plant there forever and if there were an accident some time in the future they might want to get rid of it. Wedlund stated that the Board is not comfortable making a decision on this issue. He stated that if Mr. Schaitberger has to come back before the Board after discussing this with the City Attorney it will be handled as a continuation. He directed Wayne Sanders to discuss this petition with the City Attorney and report his findings back to the Board. MOTION: Wedlund moved, seconded by Krueger to table Variance Request #82-1 for Harold Schaitberger until the February meeting if it is determined that a variance is needed by the City Attorney. Motion carried unanimously. D. Variance Request #82-2 submitted by Sylvester Jacques , located at 18801 Townline Road, requesting a variance from Ordinance #135 for a side yard setback for the construction of a garage. Mr. Don Jacques and Mr. Sylvester Jacques were both present. Don Jacques • asked Mr. Wayne Sanders to explain his variance request to the Board. Mr. Sanders stated that they are requesting a variance to keep the garage as far to the west as possible for appearances and accessibility. Rural zoning requires a 30 foot side yard setback, but the lot is substandard, and all adjacent land is open farmland. Don Jacques explained the topography of the lot and the filling and extra work entailed if the variance is not granted. Wedlund inquired whether there were any plans for the area, and Sanders responded that there were none that he was aware of. Mr. Jacques stated that they border Minnetonka and there is open land to the west of them which is farm land right now. Discussion ensued regarding the size of the lot and the location of the proposed garage on the lot. MOTION: Lynch moved, seconded by Dickey, to approve Variance Request #82-2, submitted by Sylvester Jacques , which would allow a 5 foot side yard setback and a 13 foot rear yard setback as it seems to be a reasonable request and is not detrimental to the Citizens of Eden Prairie. Motion carried unanimously. III. OTHER BUSINESS Mr. Grant Sutliff, 7070 Eden Prairie Road, stated he wished to address the Board to discuss plans for houses to be moved into the City of Eden Prairie adjacent to his property. He stated that the developer has a ten percent saturation level for homes moved into the City which is very high for Eden Prairie standards. He stated he was opposed to this and would fight it in any way he possibly could. He discussed the status of repairs which should have been made on the two houses which have been moved into the area already. Discussion ensued regarding the responsibility and obligation to complete improvements which are promised and directed by the Board. BOARD OF APPEALS AND ADJUSTMENTS January 21, 1982 -5- . Sanders stated that he feels people don't realize just how costly it is to move a house and possibly they are running out of money and cannot complete improvements even though they may want to finish them. Krueger stated that perhaps a bond would be a good solution and the Building Department could be the official overseer of the bond release by certifying the improvements had been completed. Wedlund commented that perhaps the petitioner could submit an estimated cost list of the required improvements to the Board with the petition. Sanders stated that this might be difficult to do because of the technical data required and the inexperience of most people who are moving the houses in. Discussion ensued regarding the possibility of requir- ing a bond from petitioners who are proposing to move houses into the City. Lynch requested that Mr. Sanders discuss the possibility of setting up bonding requirements for prospective house moving with the City Attorney. Lynch stated that Mr. Sutliff's input has been good and he appreciated it. IV. ADJOURNMENT MOTION: Krueger moved, seconded by Dickey to adjourn at 9:08 P.M. Motion carried unanimously. j