Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBoard of Adjustments and Appeals - 07/09/1992 APPROVED MINUTES BOARD OF APPEALS AND ADJUSTMENTS THURSDAY, JULY 9, 1992 7:30 P.M. , CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 7600 EXECUTIVE DRIVE EDEN PRAIRIE, MN 55344 BOARD OF APPEALS MEMBERS: HARVEY (Chairman) , ARGUE, WEEKS, FREEMYER, WILKUS, ANDERSON# AKEMANN STAFF PRESENT: JEAN JOHNSON, PLANNING SHARON STORHOLM, SECRETARY BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: ANDERSON, ARGUE, AKEMANN I. CALL OR ORDER -- ROLL CALL -- PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Chairman Harvey called the meeting to order at 7:30 P.M. The Pledge of Allegiance was spoken and roll call was taken as noted above. II. MINUTES OF JUNE 12,1992 MEETING Harvey noted that on page 2, next to last paragraph, he had • asked about the new house. Also, on page 4, he had asked when and where the proponent had other similar experience. On page 8, third paragraph from the bottom, Omlie had said the porch was a four season structure. He added that he did not second the motions on pages 13 and 14. It was decided that Freemyer and Weeks had done so respectively. Wilkus noted that the penalty of $100 referred to in the motion for 92-012 was per week. He suggested that the last sentence (referring to the motion passing) be changed to reflect that the amendment was accepted. After Johnson checked on the structuring of the penalties for non completion of the phases of construction for 92-012, it was decided that the minutes were correct. MOTION: Wilkus moved that the Board approve the minutes as amended. Freemyer seconded the motion and it passed 4-0. III. VARIANCES Harvey explained the variance procedure and order for the benefit of those in the audience. 1 A. Request #92-015 by Coleman Griffing at 11073 Bluestem Lane is for a variance to permit a deck 3 feet from the rear lot line. Code requires a 20 foot setback. Chapter 11, Section 11.03, Subdivision 3. , Table 1. No proponent was in attendance to present the request. Johnson noted that she did try to reach Griffing two weeks ago and again today. She could not reach him. She suggested that the request be continued for one month and if no action has been taken at that time, remove the item from the agenda. MOTION: Freemyer moved that the Variance Request 92-015 be continued until the next meeting. Weeks seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. B. Request #92-016 by Fred Pederson of 7683 Paulsen Drive to permit construction of a deck on the Dell Road side of the lot which will be 25.5 feet from the property line. Mr. Pederson came forward to present the variance request. He said that there was no expansion room by his home with Dell Road coming in. He submitted photos of the area in question. He said that the deck will not be seen and will • still be 60' from Dell Road. If built to code, the deck would be 18' by 7' and would not enhance the home at all. He had considered lowering the structure in order to increase the size, but then it would be in front of the garden view windows. The proposed deck would be made of cedar, and stained the same color as the home. Johnson said she had checked the Dell Road design plans. The deck will be 60' from the curb when the road in installed. The deck will meet the intent of the code, but not the physical set back. No comments were received from neighbors after the notices were sent out. Weeks asked what process was used in working with the builder. Pederson said they had told the builder what they wanted when they purchased the lot and he was aware that they wanted to put a deck on the home. If he had known of this complication, he would have changed house plans or selected another lot. Weeks asked if there was a process wherein this type of problem could be addressed. • 2 Johnson said in some instances (if sliding door, etc) the city can check it. The Planning Dept does not get a copy of the house elevations and changes can occur during the building process. Weeks asked if the deck was in line with the neighbors deck. Pederson answered that the neighboring house is set askew, but the proposed deck is almost in line with the corner of the neighbor's deck. Wilkus said that he felt this was an instance of hardship by existing conditions. This property has three frontages. Freemyer agreed that three frontages is unique. Harvey said that the right of way for Dell Road has been the same since the plat was approved. He asked for comments from the audience, but there were none. MOTION: Weeks moved that the Board approve Variance Request 92-016 citing the hardship that the property has three front yards which leaves very little room for expansion. This was an existing condition of the property. Wilkus seconded the motion and it passed 4-0. C. Request #92-017 by Wooddale Church of 6630 Shady Oak Road for permission to install 4 on-site directional signs totally 246 square feet (Code maximum is 36 square feet) . One sign is 3 feet width (Code maximum is 1 112 feet) . Three of the four signs are 10 feet in height (Code maximum is 8 feet) . Trustee Roy Clarke came forward to present the variance. He said that three others and a design engineer had accompanied him to this meeting. He had made visuals for the Board's review. This has been a two year project of studies and surveys. The church has 31 acres. There are 1300+ parking spots not being utilized. Better signage is needed. The first proposal for 16 additional signs, but their desire was to keep appearances good and free of clutter. The slides outlined the problems and suggested solutions. They listed the objectives of the group and showed the layout of the area, both front and back. Also included was a slide of a sign from another facility. He noted that they wanted interior lighting on the signs. Four signs are proposed, three of which will be large signs and one will be smaller. Sign A is a three face internally lit sign that would be located 580' down off Shady Oak Road. Sign B would • be on Bryant Lake Road. It would have 2 faces and be located 3 . 55' from the center of Bryant Lake Road. Sign C would be 275' from Bryant Lake towards the front of the church and would designate visitor parking. Sign D would be 550' in from Bryant Lake Drive. It would be a two faced sign and internally lit. This would encourage people to use the back exit. Johnson noted that about 1 and one half years ago, the City changed sign code. Six square feet was set for maximum size. Total on site signage was set to be no more than 36 sq. ft. Prior to that change, up to 32 sq. ft. were allowed and there was no maximum on how many could be used. It was judged upon need. The request is a significant amount over the maximum. The figures are a result of computing the entire height and width of the structure. Possibly the mass of the sign underneath could be reduced (the area not needed for printing) . Code specifies a maximum of 18" between faces, and this request is for a sign that is 36" between faces. There were no negative comments after letters were sent out. Harvey asked why the change in code had taken place. Johnson answered that there were not a lot of businesses using the maximum at that time. Fast food reader boards are under a different section of the code. She added that when • calculating footage, both sides are used. Both are also used when calculating the fee schedule, when the message is different. Harvey asked if a speed limit was posted. Clarke answered no, there was not. The problem area is on Shady Oak Road where people get too slow. It is their desire to keep traffic moving. Sunday traffic is not considered an issue - it is the visitor traffic that causes problems. They designed sign A higher in order to make it visible over the berm. He would like people to see that there is additional parking in back. Better use of parking spaces can be made. Freemyer commended the committee for a thorough job. He did feel that the signs were overwhelming to a degree. Possibly the hardship could be a safety issue as the problem on Shady Oak would be alleviated. He would like to see the mass reduced on the signs. Clarke said the height is as suggested in order for everyone to clearly see the signs, and to eliminate problems with shrubbery or snow plowing. • 4 • Freemyer felt that 8' should be adequate for height. The amount of variance should be reduced. He would suggest a continuance and redesigning of the signs. Wilkus noted that the proponent is trying to accomplish the task for 31 acres with this signage. Fast food places can get the same footage for only one acre. Clarke said they would like to make the signs cost effective. This way a line of print could be added. Weeks said he would like to see the height of signs A & B reduced to at least 81 . He had questions on the placement of sign B. Wilkus said that they were trying to direct traffic to the ramp. Weeks said that signs A & B do not have the same conditions. Greg Fast from the sign company said it had been designed at 10' because of the large amount of pedestrian traffic. They would like the sign copy to be over the heads and also over snow build up. . Weeks felt that sign B should be comparable to sign C. • Clarke noted that it was only 51 . Weeks said it could possibly be 61 .He asked if sign C was illuminated. Clarke said it would not be lit, and the others would work on a timer with the street lights. Weeks asked if sign B could go where sign C is - could they be combined? Fast said that sign C is for visitor parking. With Week's idea, the ramp parking idea is defeated. Clarke said he would like cars off Shady Oak Road and directed towards the back parking area. Only the regular attenders know of the back area. The signs will alleviate the problem because many do not know that ramp parking is available. Many parking spaces at the church are not utilized. Weeks said he would still like to see sign B reduced to 61 . Harvey said he would like to see signs A & D reduced by 21 . • This is internal signage not publicly visible. Sign B is 5 • visible and the Board has a responsibility to protect off site land users. B should be reduced. Clarke said they have used bulletin boards and posted layout of parking places on various doors in the church in an effort to reduce the problem. They have gone to adult classes and informed those attending of the problem. However, these people are regular attenders and the real problem is with the visitors. The police came in one day and complained about the congestion. Harvey noted that much of the footage is below the lettering. Could there be another design? Clarke said they had not considered that, as it did not blend as well with the architecture. In addition, post signs are almost as costly and not as permanent. He agreed that the Board's points were valid, and the signs could probably be brought down to 8' in height, but not much lower. If lower, shrub height and snow placement could interfere. Freemyer asked why the sign needed to be 31 , face to face. Fast answered that the sign was designed to cover three directions with one sign. • Clarke explained sign A again. Harvey asked about the depth of the white area on top of the signs. He suggested that the logo could be moved below as an alternative. Fast noted that height was important so that people standing in the area do not block signs. Snow build up is another factor. Clarke said it would stand out at night, even at 81 . Weeks felt that sign B should be reduced even further than 81 . He felt the suggestion of moving the logo down was a good one. He was concerned about the impact of the signs on the public roadway. It may even be better if the signs were lower in order to see from the car. Clarke said that the decision is made before that time, and if the sign were low, the cars ahead would block it. Weeks again suggested a 6' sign with lower placement of the logo. Fast asked about raising the berms. • 6 • Johnson said that the berm could be raised on the inside of the island. Rick Ahmann, 6604 Golden Ridge Road, owner of a business across the street,came forward and said that he had not been notified, but did add that he was a tenant and not an owner. He operated a retail business. He said that there were about 10 houses within the 500' distance of notification. The church already has 1,000' of square feet of signage when you consider the steeple. This casts a radiant glow around the area. Now, this request to add additional lights and signage has come up. . He said he would like his signage increased also. He had assumed that he was within the notification area. He would be looking at a 236 + feet addition to the 1,000's of lit square feet already there. He felt it goes against what people want when they go into that area. He said that there are lots of good people in that church and his own children had gone to nursery school there. It is a good church community with a good attitude. If this were to be granted, he felt that he should be able to expect the same variances to be made on his behalf. Notification is an issue that should be addressed. His biggest concern is the lighting and the times these signs would be lit. Ahmann felt the back lots were not used because the corridors in the building to that direction were dark and people need to walk around the building. If this is granted to one proponent, it . should be granted to others. Harvey answered that code does not define the steeple as signage. It was the City Council that permitted the steeple. This Board will deal only with the issues presented this evening. The notification area is 5001 . Freemyer said that it is not this Board's job to design the signs. As the proposal stands now, he would vote against it. Harvey felt that a reduction in signage to the fullest extent was possible and the goal could still be accomplished. He suggested a continuance and redesigned proposal. Clarke noted that they were already a month late in getting to this meeting. If they make concession regarding the height, would they still need to come back to the next meeting? Harvey said that would be necessary. The next meeting would be the second Thursday in August. He explained the options available to Clarke. Clarke asked for a continuance. • 7 • MOTION: Wilkus moved that the Board continue Variance Request 92-017 until the August meeting. Weeks seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. IV OLD BUSINESS A. STUDENT PARTICIPATION ON BOARD Harvey asked about the status of the student participation on the Board. Johnson said she would check on that and get an update. B. INFORMATION ON CONTINUED ITEMS Wilkus suggested that the Board be supplied with more information (at the second meeting) on the items that are continued. Often times this information is not kept and brought along to the second meeting. C. BEACH ROAD HOUSE Harvey noted that there had not been much activity on this project. D. OMLIE HOUSE VARIANCE • Freemyer noted that the Omlie variance decision by the Board had been overturned at the City Council meeting. .It was noted that Freemyer was there and his letter was introduced into the record. E. ATTENDANCE AT BOARD MEETINGS Freemyer was concerned regarding attendance. He noted that it is very important to have a quorum. Harvey suggested that Johnson call or write Argue (at the Board's direction) to ask what his intentions are and about any possible conflicts regarding the schedule. Johnson said that she would do that and would also call Akemann, who is moving to Prior Lake and would no longer be eligible for membership on the Board. Freemyer said he would serve another term if necessary and if it was the desire of the Council. • 8 F. REVIEW OF GUIDELINES FOR SPECIAL MEETINGS MOTION: Wilkus moved that the Board continue this item to the another meeting in order to discuss it when there are more members present. Wilkus seconded the motion and it passed 4-0 V. NEW BUSINESS A. AGENDA FOR NEXT MONTH Johnson noted that there are eight items on the agenda for next month, including three decks and a parking variance. B. ADJOURNMENT MOTION: Freemyer moved that the Board adjourn. Wilkus seconded the motion and it passed 4-0. Meeting adjourned at 9: 35 P.M. • 9