Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBoard of Adjustments and Appeals - 12/20/1994 r APPROVED MINUTES BOARD OF APPEALS AND ADJUSTMENTS TUESDAY, DECEMBER 209 1994 7:00 P.M., CITY CENTER 8080 MITCHELL ROAD EDEN PRAIRIE, MN 55344 BOARD OF APPEALS MEMBERS: ARTHUR WEEKS (CHAIR), CLIFF DUNHAM, DELAVAN DYE, CORRINE LYNCH, RONALD MOELLER, KATHY NELSON, MARY VASALY STAFF PRESENT: STEVE DURHAM, ZONING ADMINISTRATOR ELINDA BAHLEY, RECORDING SECRETARY BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: RONALD MOELLER • CALL TO ORDER - ROLL CALL - PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Chairman Weeks called the meeting to order at 7:00 P.M. There was no pledge of allegiance because there was no flag present. Moeller was absent and Lynch arrived at 7:05 P.M. I. APPROVAL OF AGENDA MOTION• Dunham moved that the Board approve the Agenda as presented. Vasaly seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. H. MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 10j1994 MEETING Dunham moved that the Board accept the Minutes of November 10, 1994 as amended: in the middle of page 3 when it says the designer re-evaluated other alternatives and discovered they were off by 8', it should read that what the person measuring was using was off by 8'. It's a vertical error. Vasaly seconded the motion. Motion passed with Nelson abstaining. 1 Minutes Board of Adjustments & Appeals December 20, 1994 III. VARIANCES Weeks explained the order of the Variance presentation process to those in attendance. A. Request #94-31 by Mark Of Excellence Homes, Inc. to permit: 1. One sign of 100 square feet which has more than 18" between sign faces (City code does not permit more than 1" between sign faces.) 2. One single faced sign of 100 square feet (City code permits a sign not to exceed 32 square feet.) 3. Sign heights of 10' (City code permits a maximum height of 6' in the residential zoning district.) 4 To permit two signs on one lot (may code permits one temporary sign per lot.) Mark Smith, of Excellence Homes, came forward to present the variance request. He thanked the Board for the special meeting because he is trying to get this sign up before the end of the year. He said that he is aware of the new sign ordinance. The reason he feels this sign is a hardship is that the Hartford site has been a commercial site since 1979. When people are told that the location is to the east of Eden Prairie Center, they refer to it as the "commercial park." Nobody is identifying it as a residential development. This creates a hardship trying to get people to start thinking residential. The site is 14 acres on the site and he does not feel two signs are a lot for that size. Dunham asked what the location of the sign proposal is. Smith replied it's on the other side of the driveway, a little more towards Eden Prairie Center Drive. Smith stated that he is not looking at long term, maybe a year at the most. Then he could have a permanent sign that they have done in other developments, a brick sign that fits within the Code. He said it would be oval western wood surrounded by brick, and will become the entrance sign of the development. This is a temporary sign to help the marketing for the development. Nelson asked how he picked the particular dimensions. Smith replied that they have used this on three other sites and never had complaints about them. Lynch asked if they have to get a variance, or is this a more restrictive. Smith replied that this is more restrictive. Lynch asked if they could settle for anything less. Smith replied that they would have 2 . Minutes Board of Adjustments & Appeals December 20, 1994 to do a lot of modifying to the signs and redo them. Dunham asked if the signs have been made and if they used them in other communities. Smith replied that they are already made and have been used before. Durham stated that Staff has not received any comments from any of the surrounding neighborhoods, and no calls have been received about this particular variance. He said that the number of signs for this size project would be considered a large amount. For the number of units, it may be considered a large sign request for the number of units that they are selling. Smith stated that he is not trying to get traffic from 494, but maybe visually conscious people will pick it up. The way they are building on this site, it will not be visible. They are building on one side of the street and those units are up 25 feet above the lower units, so there is almost a wall. Vasaly asked if any of the other developments have signs yet. Smith replied that as far he knows, they do not have signs. • Vasaly asked if the other developments have come in with plans for their signs. Durham replied that they have not. He said that this is a temporary sign, and when they start to build they will come in at that point. He said the definition of a temporary sign is, no sign permit required, 32 square feet maximum, and you go with the district height permitted, and that's six feet. Weeks asked if there are any limitations. Durham replied that after 90% of the development is completed, the sign will come down. Vasaly stated that if these limits apply to the temporary sign, then actually the Code is more restrictive. Durham replied that she was correct. He said that through a PUD process there is the large sign, but this is not a PUD. Dye stated that in the plans it says townhouses and single family homes, therefore, they are not developed. Durham replied that originally that was all office, but there is a building there already. Dye asked if Excellence Homes is planning on developing there. Smith replied that it's Pulte Homes and they will start in the spring or summer. 3 Minutes Board of Adjustments & Appeals December 20, 1994 Dunham asked what the distance of 494 is to this site. Smith replied a quarter to a third of a mile. Dunham asked what size the letters are. Smith replied they are 18 inches high. Dunham asked where would he be approaching the site from 494. Durham replied from the west. Vasaly asked if any study, on the need for the size of the sign, as far as it's use in attracting a certain amount of people, or anything of that sort has been done. Smith replied that they have not done any scientific study, but they have noticed that the signs have been helpful in the past. Once they put up the signs, there was a tremendous amount of people. He said that once a sign is put up, it's known that you have to drive by it six times before it's memorized. The two things they have used in other developments have been the sign and newspaper advertisements. Vasaly asked if they have had any experience with different sizes of signs and determined whether there is a great difference in their utility. Smith replied that they • have not. Durham passed out photographs of the signs to the Board. Nelson asked if the larger PUD would be just one sign, and would it be 100 square feet on each leg of the "V". Durham replied that she was correct. Smith stated that, if at all possible, he could compromise on the "V" sign. He could live with one side of that "V" by cutting that sign in half. Durham stated that as long as there's not 18 inches between them and perpendicular, that would get rid of at least the space. Smith replied that it is acceptable to him. Nelson asked if that's considered a 50 foot square on two sides. Durham replied that in the commercial zoning you allowed 80 square feet on both sides. Vasaly asked if eliminating the "V" sign corrects the #4 variance. Durham replied no, that it's still two signs. It would eliminate part of #1, and then you would be with a 100 square foot sign. Weeks asked what kind of time-frame would Excellence Homes project for leaving • 4 • Minutes Board of Adjustments & Appeals December 20, 1994 the sign up. Smith replied approximately nine months to a year, a year and a half being the longest. Realistically, it would probably be a year. He said he feels the hardship now is trying to convince the people that there are changes and it's no longer a business park. He said he would settle for only 9 months. Dye asked if it was a business, how big could the sign be. Durham replied that 32 square feet is the maximum for commercial, residential or industrial sites. Dunham expressed concern about setting a precedent. He said he can understand the desire to have a larger sign facing 494, but can not understand the rationale here. He asked if the hardship is that they already have the sign. Smith replied that it is not the reason. He said the bigger hardship is people don't have any idea this is a residential setting now, or residentially approved property. Dunham asked what the timetables are of developing. Smith replied probably a basement for the models starting in February. Dunham asked where would they be in a year from now in terms of development. Smith replied probably about 20 units up. Dunham asked if they are going to do more newspaper advertising to make people aware this is a residential building as opposed to commercial. Smith replied that they will do more advertising. He said that their buyers are not typical, that newspaper advertising is not the number one way that they find what they're looking for. The priority is a place of convenience to where they work, where they recreate. They drive in the area that they want to locate in and don't want to look at newspapers. They want things that are visible. He said that their best sites have been close to highways and they can see something happening there. Vasaly suggested buying another sign on 494 because there are lots of signs. Smith replied that they are billboards. Dye was unsure of the amount of lots and asked how many signs will they need if it's one sign per lot. Durham replied that there are individual lots, but this is for the entire subdivision, marketing the entire project. He said it's a six square foot sign per lot. Lynch stated that they could find the hardship is the size just missing the PUD. 5 Minutes Board of Adjustments & Appeals December 20, 1994 Vasaly stated that there are specific Code requirements. She said just because it does not meet the requirements, don't make it a hardship. Nelson stated that she has a lot of concerns about development going on in Eden Prairie and developers making do with the small signs. She said the small signs look better in her opinion. She is not sure that a hardship is warranted. She said the Board is not there to grant variances from sign Code to simply grant people free advertising space along major freeways. A lot of people would like that and the Board has turned them down over and over again. Dunham asked what the size of the billboard sign on 494 is. Smith replied 16 by 40 is classified as a billboard, and would guess at 16 to 18 feet of height. Dunham stated that he's having a problem with this because of the nature of the request. He understands the proponent's desire for this sign. He feels that once this gets developed and gets going in terms of development, people are going to know about it. He has a hard time believing that people will not know about it. He said there are many other resources available that can be utilized to counteract the misconception that this is not a residential site. He is concerned about the two adjacent developments and what they might want to have if something like this is done on this particular site, in addition to other developments throughout Eden Prairie. He feels the hardship is more of an economic hardship than maybe a physical hardship. He said he would deny all the requests and might have some recourse on this if it were for a six foot sign. Weeks opened the public hearing. Weeks closed the public hearing. Dye asked if it's possible if they could put up 29 two by three signs to designate lot #1, lot #2, etc. Durham replied yes, that they are out there in the community. Dye asked if it would require any variance. Durham replied that it wouldn't. Dunham asked if there is a way that they can cut the sign in half and put the two signs back to back so they have a four foot sign. They could have luxury townhomes on one side and something on the other side. Mark replied that would be fine and doesn't have a problem doing that. He said he wants to promote townhomes, that the logo is not as important. 6 Minutes Board of Adjustments & Appeals December 20, 1994 Dunham asked why wouldn't having the company name be important. Smith replied that if he had it his way it would all be there. To him, letting people know what's there is more important. The people will find out who is building there when they call. Dunham stated that if the requests are denied they would have to comply with the ordinance. If the Board felt that there was a way they could continue this, Excellence Homes could come back with an alternative plan. He asked if they are prepared to do that. Smith replied that he's trying to get an idea if it's the sign that faces 494 is the problem, or if it's all the signs that size are the problem. Dunham stated that for him it's all the signs. Nelson stated all the signs are the problem for her. Vasaly stated all the signs are her problem also. • Nelson stated that a lot of developments in Eden Prairie have been building without these big signs. She said this site has a nice setting with lakes and parklands. They are not going to be tough to sell. Smith said that he knows people are driving by there everyday and do not have a clue as to what is going on there. Nelson replied that they might not know in January, but in February or March they will. Weeks stated that if the Board denies this, Excellence Homes has the right to request an appeal within 15 days. If they stick with the Code requirements and utilize other newspapers, they can come back and still request another variance. They would have to pay another filing fee with the City. MOTION• Nelson moved that the Board deny variance request #94-31 in it's entirety. Vasaly seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. IV. OLD BUSINESS 7 • Minutes Board of Adjustments & Appeals December 20, 1994 None. V. NEW BUSINESS None. VI. ADJOURNMENT MOTION: Dunham moved that the Board adjourn. Dye seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. Meeting adjourned at 7:50 P.M. 8