Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBoard of Adjustments and Appeals - 04/14/1991 :APPROVED KUM= • BOARD OF APPEALS AND ADJUSIl">l2TTS THURSDAY, APRIL 14 , 1991 7:30 P.M. City Hall Council Chambers, 7600 Executive Dr., Eden Prairie, ITT 55344 BOARD OF A.PPEAT S r¢MERS Harvey, Freemyer, Wilkus, i Akemann, Anderson, Weeks, Arockiasamy STAFF PRESENT: Steve Durham-Planning, Sharon Storholm,Sec`; BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: Akemann I' CALL TO ORDER-ROLL CALL-PLEDGE OF Ar r.FrLANCE Chairman Harvey called the meeting to order at 7 : 30 PM. All present recited the Pledge of allegiance and roll call was taken as noted above. II. MINUTES OF MARCH 14, 1991 MEETING Harvey noted that on page 4 (top of.. page) the 60 ' refers to depth. It should be noted that this helps to mitigate the width variance. • Harvey noted on page 7 Herbst had answered "yes" instead of Ostenson. Harvey noted under Old Business--(third line) that it was the sewer easement that was too large. Harvey noted that on page 9 ( first line) the word should be MUSA MOTION: Arockiasamy moved that the Board approve the. minutes as amended. Wilkus seconded the motion and it passed unanimously with Weeks abstaining. III VARIANCES Chairman Harvey explained the order of presentation for each variance and the order in which persons attending would be heard. A• Rye uest #91-007 submitted by Super Valu for property located at the northwest corner of 78th Street and Prairie Center Drive and south of Leona Road Eden Prairie Minnesota The request is for a variance from City Code Chapter 11 Section 11.03. Subdivision 2B (1) to permit a front yard building setback of 14.5 feet City Code requires a 35' front yard setback Section 11.70 Subdivision 4B. (2) Section 11 03 Subdivision 2B to permit a Floor Area Ratio (FAR) and Base Area Ratio BAR of .237 City-Code maximum FAR and BAR is .2. to permit wall signs on the west elevation of 493 86 square feet City Code maximum permitted is 325 square feet (4) to permit one sign base of 69 96 square feet City Code maximum sign • base permitted is 40 square feet. (5) Section 11.50 Subdivision 7A to permit a structure 14 5' from a road right-of-way. City Code requires a 50' setback according to the Shoreland Management Code. (6) to permit impervious surface for the site greater than 30% City Code maximum impervious surface coverage m a Shoreland area is 30% u 2 • Chairman Harvey suggested that the different variance requests be split into two groupings , and that the set_ back and sign issues should be considered separately. Miss Groeper, representing Super Valu, came forward and said that the building will be located at the corner of W 78th St and Prairie Center Drive. She showed the back side of the building on a drawing and explained that one of the requests this evening regarded the loading dock area. Usually, buildings such as this have open loading dock areas . Super Valu has decided to completely enlcose the dock area. They would like to use the back of the building as a gateway signage area for Eden Prairie. This way, the City will get a better building as well. They are just within the Shoreland Management area and have gotten approval at the last meeting of the Watershed District. Durham noted that Staff has worked with the applicant and feels that the requests may be appropriate regarding the parking lot area. Regarding the shoreland area, Durham said that they come within 1, 000 ft. of the shoreland area--and tho code states a maximum of 30% impervious surface in that area. If the building were not within the shoreland area, the plans would be acceptable and within code. • Freemyer asked if item number 1, regarding front yard set backs, would be within code if it were not for the enclosing of the dock. Groeper said that the dock was being enclosed so the trucks would not .be so noticable in the vicinity. Freemyer asked if item 2 regarding FAR would be acceptable if it were not for the enclosed dock area. Groeper answered yes, it would be. This will be the first building in the U.S with an enclosed dock area. Wilkus asked if screening would require a variance. Durham answered no, possibly it would require height considerations. Arockiasamy asked,if it were not for the shoreland requirements, what would be the maximum for the impervious surface area? Durham answered that the setback requirements take care of those restrictions . Arockiasamy asked if items 1 and 5 both had the same figure of 14.5 ' . Durham answered that was correct. • Groeper said the dock area would not have doors, but be open on the loading end. A four foot dock is assumed. 3 • Anderson asked if the Planning Commission, who had approved the plan previously, had any comment considering that this required a variance. Durham answered that there had been no comments . Groeper explanined that her company had asked for this variance #3 on , the front of the building because there is no other signage on other sides of the building, none on W 78th, and none on the east side. They have designated an area for the city to use as a gateway siqn if it so chooses. They are asking for 493 . 86 ' of siqnaqe and code allows 325 ' . They would like the Super Valu logo, a pharmacy sign, and the Cub 24 hour sign. All this would be on the front area only taht faces the regional shopping center. Pylon signs would be on Prairie Center Drive and W 78th St. One base does exceed the , code requirements of the city. pp Durham said they were allowed two pylon signs--a ails&So�'�r. be sce,,I area Groeper said she felt the variance was not excessive and it would keep the area free of clutter. Durham noted that the Cub sign was 296 sq. ft, the 24 hour sign was 120 sq. ft, and the pharmacy sign would be 77 sq. ft. There could be 1200 sq. ft of signage on this building. If the variance is allowed, Cub will be using only 41% of the sign area allowed. Durham noted that. the Board must consider existing and future commercial sites in Eden Prairie which could ask for similar variances . Advantages and disadvantages of transferring sign area need to be considered also. One sign on one side may be more desirable than 300 sq. ft of signage on each side. The visibility chart should be consulted when determining if the 325 ' allowed would be effective for this building. Groeper said the reason for the pharmacy sign was that the pharmacy had at first been planned for the front of the building and was later moved to an area at the back of the building to allow for a large area of glass in the front. The pharmacy, as a result of this move, needed identification on the front of the building. lot Durham noted that Minnetonka has two Cub Food signs--at Hwy 7 and -1-H . Groeper said that Plymouth has a much larger sign. Durham noted that on a strip mall, each tenant is allowed an outside sign if they are on an exterior wall. In this case, the only exterior wall for the pharmacy is the back wall. Groeper noted that the pharmacy is a tenant in this case also. • Ar.ockiasamy asked if the Cub sign and the 24 hour sign were standard. Groeper answered yes, as is the company .logo. Cub signs can vary in size, and the signs for Eden Prairie are being made smaller. 4 • Groeper said since the sign for Eden Prairie will be smaller, there will be individually cut letters. She added that on the Burnsville store,there is signage on the sides, but not on the back. She added that the company will never ask for more signage no matter what additional development takes place. The back and south walls could have had signage. Harvey noted that there is a pylon sign on the south. ,Arockiasamy said that he liked the idea of consolidating the signage, but felt the pylon signs were ample on the other sides. Anderson asked if the intent of the code was to eliminate excess signage on one elevation. Durham answered that the statement was correct. Groeper asked the Board to consider the massiveness of the building. Sizes that seem large are scaled down on such a large building. It will be tastefully done. Freemyer asked if the base of the sign ( item 4 ) could be smaller. What is the hardship in this instance? Groeper said that the intent was to bring the building element into • the sign. The architect had designed it, brick was important and they want to do the right thing aesthetically. The building will have a great deal of design. Freemyer noted that another major retailer nearby has a pharmacy within the building and no outside signage for that tenant. He felt if the ordinance was bent in this case, others may ask too. Groeper said that Lunds has a restaurant in the front and a sign for that restaurant. In this case, they had planned the pharmacy in the front and moved it to the back of the store to bring in the windows . Cub feels strongly about the pharmacy--it is their tenant. This building is very tastefully done. Freemyer asked if the pharmacy were located on the front of the building, would signage for it be permissible? Durham answered that it would be permitted. Freemyer said that he felt the idea of an Eden Prairie sign on the back of the building is a poor idea and out of place. Weeks asked why a large sign was needed. Groeper said that the Cub sign alone fits within the ordinance. • A variance is needed because of the area of all three. Harvey asked if there was a dividing wall between the pharmacy and the Cub store. 5 • Groeper answered yes, there is a dividing wall. Durham said that code does not distinguish between a commercial building and a strip mall. Wilkus asked if this were to be denied, could the pharmacy sign be moved to the south side. Groeper said it could be moved to the south side, but this is a high integrity building and the landscaping is heavy. Arockiasamy asked if the base on the larger pylon is 70 sq. ft. Durham answered that was correct. Arockiasamy noted that Super Valu has done a lot of work on this project and made a good attempt to satisfy the considerations. The 24 hour sign does not look that large, but as long as a special sign is being made for Cub, does it really need to be that large? Possibly the size could be reconsidered and the variance amount minimized. Harvey asked what the purpose of the sign was other than architecturally pleasing--it will not bring in those who do not know where it is. More customers come from direct marketing efforts . This request is out of porportion for the elevations . • Groeper said that all signage on other sides has been eliminated. Possibly she could work with Staff on downsizing the sign. Harvey said that there will be no doubt that there is a Cub Food store there. He appreciated the effort to not clutter up the other sides, but let' s not clutter up this side either. Groeper said she represents Cub Foods, but cannot make any decisions for them. This will be the corporate headquarters and a flagship store. Harvey felt that there should be a purpose for a sign, not just for architectural purposes--it should communicate something. Regarding the oversized base, the pylon sign could be reduced. Groeper said that there are standard colors--red and white. Harvey noted that the choice of colors is the applicants choice. Groeper said she would be willing to continue the request and research it further. Arockiasamy_ asked if the Board was clear on directions. Durham felt the applicant and the staff needed guidelines. . Durham suggested that the variances be separated and only the sign variances be republished. Groeper asked that the other variances be approved. 6 Harvey explained the options to Greoper: 1. The Board can approve certain sections of the request and not others. It can be appealled to the City Council. 2. The request can be withdrawn. 3 . The request can be continued. Groeper asked that the Board vote on the sections other than the sign requests . She will withdraw that part of the request, but would like clear direction. It would be inappropriate for it to appear too small (the signage) . Harvey questioned who it would appear to small to--those in the parking lot? There is a range of acceptable values in the staff report. Anderson noted that it was the intent of the code to regulate excess signage on one elevation. She feels uncomfortalble making recommendations on signs . Freemyer clarified that items 3 and 4 will be withdrawn and a new request will be rn.s.earefee_. RFsuom1rT-eb • Groeper said yes, that was the case. The Board would be voting on the setback and shoreland management variances . Arockiasamy said the suggestion to reduce the size of the Cub sign was his recommendation only and not necessarily that of the entire board. MOTION: Anderson moved that the Board approve items as follows: 1. To permit a front yard building setback of 14.5 ft. 2. To permit a FAR and BAR of . 237 . 5 . To permit a structure 14 . 5 ' from the right of way. 6 . To permit impervious surface for the site of greater than 30% . The motion is to exclude items 3 and 4. The original intent for the structure met the building code, but due to the redisigning of the dock area, the above variances were necessary. Freemyer seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. Wilkus felt he could justify the pharmacy sign if the others fit within the requirements. Freemyer said there were some extenuating circumstances regarding the pharmacy. . Arockiasamy felt that possibly 400 sq. ft would be acceptable as a trade off if there were no signs on the other sides. Harvey said that other corporations have signage that fits within 7 • code. He felt that this signage could be well below 400 sq. ft. Wilkus suggested a possible maximum of 350 sq. ft. B, Request#91-011 submitted by Larry and Pauline Kacher for property located at 9820 Sky Lane Eden Prairie Minnesota. The request is for a variance from City Code Chapter 11 Section 11 03 Subdivision 2B topermit a side and setback of 30'. City Code requires a SO' side yard setback in the Rural Zoning District Pauline Kacher came forward to present the request. She said she had a beautiful piece of land in Eden Prairie and wanted to protect the natural features . She had submitted photos of the area. The trees are thinner and smaller higher up on the site. So, she would like the house placed higher on .the lot. There is one large tree in particular that she would like to preserve. She hopes to stay as far away from the roots as possible when construction is underway. If no variance were granted, a ravine on the lot would need to be filled and this would be destructive to the drainage area for the root structure of the tree. There is very little flat, unwooded surface on the lot. When rezoning occurs, they will be located twice as far from the lot line. If lots are ever divided off, they would like the houses to be as far apart as possible. Durham said he and a forester had visited the site and staying 30 ' from the tree would preserve the root system. The applicant may want to construct a temporary fence during the building phase so no . equipment jeapordizes the root system. The tree is expected to last another 50 years . He noted that accessory structures are not attached to a house and must be setback 30 ' so the house will be no closer than an accessory structure. He noted that the area is low density residental with a minimum land size of five acres . The area cannot be subdivided until city water and sewer are in place. Steve Longman came forward and said that he was in favor of the reqeust. They have considered other locations on the lot, but this is the only one that is workable. There is minimal fill required. The slope on the lot is workable and not dramatic. MOTION: Freemyer moved that the Board approve variance request 91-011 with the following findings : 1. The lot allows the proposed position as the only practical site for the home. 2. The preservation of the large trees are in the spirit of the Eden Prairie tree ordinance. 3 . The proponent and the builder should take action to save the root system of the very large tree on the . site. Weeks seconded the motion. • Arockiasamy suggested the addition of an amendment stating that no other variances shall be granted for accessory structures. Freem_yer accepted Arockiasamy' s amendment and Weeks agreed. Motion passed unanimously with the addition of the amendment. 8 • C_ Request#91-012, submitted by McGlynn Bakeries Inc for property located at 7752 Mitchell Road, Eden Prairie, Minnesota The request is for a variance from City Code, Chanter 11, Section 11 03 Subdivision 2B (1) to permit a Base Area Ratio (BAR) of .37. City Code maximum BAR is 30 (2) to permit a Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of .39. City Code maximum FAR is 30 (3) Subdivision 3Ii to permit a front yard narking setback of 0' City Code requires 50' Harvey explained that three variances were involved in this request. The representative from McGlynn came forward and stated that the property is located at 7752 Mitchell Road. The property was purchased in 1973 and there was a 30, 000 sq. ft. building on the site then. More land was acquired and an addition was built. Now, there is a total of 292, 640 sq. ft lot. He explained how thefloor area ratio was determined. The ratio is . 39 . The concept of base area ratio did not exist prior to 1987. The BAR is.37 presently. The MN Dept of Transportation condemned part of the McGlynn property for improvement to Hwy 5. From that action, these variance requests have resulted. The problems have been caused by condemnation. Conformation would require that a part of the building be demolished, and thus employees would be affected. Some parking stalls would need to be removed also, and this would also affect employees . The hardship illustrated in this instance is condemndation, which was beyond the • control of McGlynn. These variances will not result in inconsistent use or negative impact, nor will it alter the characteristic of the locality. MOTION: Anderson moved that the Board approve the variance request 91-012 submitted by McGlynn on the grounds that the expansion of Hwy 5 was beyond the control of McGlynn. Wilkus seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. IV. OLD BUSINESS 'Durham explained the new guideline application forms & fees . A sample form was included in the packet for the review of the board members. Durham noted regarding the Beach Road house, a two car garage can fit on the site. There are still road limits/restrictions until May 1. Durham noted that there has not been a date set for the joint meeting. Durham said that the DNR has rules and regulations regarding motors and pontoon boats and will not change from 10 HP. V. NEW BUSINESS • Freemyer felt that the city should review the ordinances on signs . Some may be too intense. we66t5 AGILeev waft {lt�Z_rnyos oN 12-ty z✓ c --,s/6,V_ Weeks felt that strip mall signs were more objectionable than the proposal by Cub foods this evening. 9 Discussion took place on the request by Cub Foods . Anderson felt code should be reviewed regarding signage. Weeks said he would prefer to see signs consolidated. Durham discussed the sign ordinance and detailing. He noted that signs are very expensive. Durham noted that the recognition dinner is on the 24th. The only variance for next month is Cub. VI. ADJOURNMENT MOTION: Anderson moved that the Board adjourn. Wilkus seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. Meeting adjourned at 10 :10.