Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBoard of Adjustments and Appeals - 04/21/1992 - Joint Meeting f R 1 t APPROVED MINUTES JOINT CITY COUNCIL/BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS AND APPEALS TUESDAY, APRIL 21, 1992 6:00 P.M. CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS 7600 EXECUTIVE DRIVE, EDEN PRAIRIE COUNCII.MEMBERS: Mayor Douglas Tenpas, Richard Anderson, Jean Harris, H. Martin Jessen and Patricia Pidcock BOARD MEMBERS: Neil Akemann, Sharon Anderson, Don Argue, John Freemyer, Dwight S. Harvey, Arthur B. Weeks and Michael J. Wilkus COUNCIL AND City Manager Carl J. Jullie, Assistant to the City COMMISSION STAFF: Manager Craig W. Dawson, Director of Planning Chris Enger, Staff Liaison Jean Johnson, and Council Recorder Kate Garwood ROLL CALL I. CALL MEETING TO ORDER Acting Mayor Anderson called the meeting to order at 6:10 p.m. Mayor Tenpas, Councilmember Harris, and Board members Neil Akemann and Don Argue were absent. II. CITY GOALS A. Sign Variances Board Chairman Dwight Harvey pointed out concerns for consistency in dealing with similar items and similar land uses with respect to signs. Shopping Center signs were discussed as an example. Anderson asked what feedback Staff had received about current code requirements and Board actions. Johnson reported that, while tenants sometimes wished more sign area was available, Staff had not received complaints about the amount of signs being inadequate. In addition, Staff had received positive feedback regarding how quickly applications for signs were handled by Eden Prairie. Jessen thought good judgement had been exercised and common sense decisions had been made by the Board with respect to shopping center signs. Pidcock concurred. Freemyer said that inconsistency in handling of sign variances had occurred when one land owner would make a request through the variance process of the Board of Appeals, but the other land owner requested a waiver from the same code provision through the PUD procedure. (This issue was discussed in greater detail later in the agenda.) C • 1 Harvey said the Board had found quality signs within shopping centers resulted from use of consistent colors and sizes of signs on the structures. Anderson said he had not received complaints from business owners, nor did he believe there was "visual pollution" by signs in Eden Prairie. Enger suggested that a simple ordinance amendment could be written to legitimize the successful sign practices, whereby common themes of signs for various uses would be required. B. Shoreland Variances Harvey reported the current practices of the Board regarding Shoreland variance requests were conservative. Procedures required the Board to review all Shoreland ordinance variance requests as the Shoreland regulations were not allowed to be waived through the PUD process. He asked for Council direction for future requests, noting that Shoreland regulations were in the process of amendment across Minnesota. New requirements would be more strict that the current standards. It was pointed out that the number of requests was expected to increase over time. _. Pidcock said consistency was important. Harvey explained that the Board was inclined to be lenient when considering existing conditions, but more strict with new development. Jessen stated he believed a strict interpretation of the Shoreland regulations was appropriate, and noted that nearly all lakes had, or would soon have, public access provided by the City. He said there were good environmental reasons for the strict interpretation. i - - Harvey stated that Shoreland variances requested for property along creeks presented greater difficulties than those requested for lake property and asked for Council direction as to whether the two situations should be treated the same. Councilmembers concurred that the two situations should be treated the same. Enger reported that Staff was in the process of mapping those areas of the City impacted by.the proposed Shoreland ordinance regulations. The mapping would delineate lots where conflicts would arise, allowing the City to make appropriate code provisions specifically for Eden Prairie. Wilkus stated conflicts existed in industrial areas adjacent to creeks, and that such conflicts would continue to exist under the new Shoreland regulations with respect to impervious surface and setback requirements. He explained that it was difficult to act on these variance requests when it may be the only variance for an entire project. Harvey asked for Council direction regarding Shoreland variance requests in the future. Councilmembers agreed that the current approach was appropriate and justifiable. New regulations would require the attention of both Council and the Board. C. PUD Waivers vs. Board of Adjustments and Appeals Variances for the Same Land Use Harvey restated Freemyer's comments regarding the Board's concern that similar requests acted upon by the Council and the Board - one through the PUD process and one through the variance process - be dealt with consistently. One example was the difference in signs allowed for the two automobile 2 R dealerships in the City. One dealership was allowed a greater amount of signs through the PUD waiver process than the other. The exact differences were explained. The criteria for review of a variance versus a waiver required different findings - a variance request must be based on proven hardship, while a waiver from the code through the PUD process was based on merit of design. Occasionally this resulted in different standards for the same land uses depending upon which method was used, PUD waiver or variance. The Board felt consistency was important between similar land uses. Councilmembers concurred. Councilmembers discussed the procedures in detail with the Board and Staff,concluding that consistency was important and directing Staff to point out these situations in the future. D. Achieve Quality Development Without Compromising Code Regulations Harvey stated that the Board was proud of the quality of development in Eden Prairie. He expressed the desire of the Board to maintain those quality standards and to resist the temptation to loosen the standards when building permits and development proposals slowed. Anderson stated that he appreciated the work of the Board. He explained that he thought the role of the Board was one which should protect the established quality by maintaining existing standards of the City. He agreed that this was important even during slow economic periods, adding that it would be beneficial for everyone into the future. Other Councilmembers concurred. ` E. Other Items Parkin at Strip Shopping Centers The Board had observed that the number of parking spaces presented problems in strip shopping centers where restaurants had been issued a liquor license. It was suggested that alternative parking requirements be considered for these situations. Council directed Staff to review this issue. Requests for House Movies The Board was concerned that house moving permits were granted without requirements for financial accountability on the part of the builder. Weeks related one particular situation wherein vandalism became a problem and the home had become an attractive nuisance to kids. Jessen asked if a financial security from the builder could become part of the process. Enger stated that this could be a requirement of the house moving permit issued by the Board. Councilmembers agreed that a bond would be a good tool in these situations. Jessen commented that the joint session was helpful and informative and thanked the Board members for their participation. Harvey stated that it was the Board's desire that such joint meetings occur more frequently. III. ADJOURNMENT 3