Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBoard of Adjustments and Appeals - 01/13/2000 APPROVED MINUTES BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS &APPEALS THURSDAY, JANUARY 13, 2000 7:30 P.M. CITY CENTER Council Chamber 8080 Mitchell Road BOARD: Kathy Nelson, Chairperson; Cliff Dunham; William Ford; Louis Giglio; Ismail Ismail; Michael O'Leary and Mary Vasaly STAFF: Jean Johnson, Zoning Administrator Carol Pelzel, Recorder GUESTS: Michael Klein, Architect, M.Klein Companies, Inc.; Linda Moore, Chrestomathy, Inc.; and Mark Raiche, Sign Images CALL TO ORDER Vice-Chairperson Dunham called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. ROLL CALL—PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Present: Cliff Dunham, William Ford, Ismail Ismail, Louis Giglio, Michael O'Leary and Mary Vasaly Absent: Kathy Nelson I. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Motion/Second: Vasaly/Ismail, to approve the agenda as presented. Motion carried, 6-0. II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Minutes of December 9, 1999 Motion/Second: Ismail/O'Leary, to approve the December 9 minutes as presented. Motion carried 6-0. Minutes Board of Adjustments &Appeals January 13, 2000 III: VARIANCES A. Request#2000-01 by Chrestomathy II for 7465 Eden Prairie Road for approval to construct an eight-foot high fence along the property's south and east lot lines (Code Maximum height is six feet). Mike Klein, M. Klein Companies, Inc., Architect for Chrestomathy H, explained that the proponent is proposing to convert the former Arbors property to office space for administrative offices and program space for a developmentally disabled adult training facility. The property is located south of Valley View Road and is bordered on the west by County Road 4, on the south and east by single-family residential housing and on the north by"Little Red" gas and convenience store. Mr. Klein explained that the proposed building is approximately 10,000 square feet with the existing building being 2,500 square feet of retail. The retail building will be converted to office and program space. The addition would be on the north and south side of the existing building. Mr. Klein stated that they are requesting to convert the existing fence on the east and south side from six feet to eight feet. At neighborhood meetings, the adjoining residential neighbors requested that the fence be increased in height. Mr. Klein explained the difficulty in providing screening separation between the commercial and residential property on the existing site because it lies on existing grading and landscaping. It would be possible to berm the land and put a six-foot fence on a two-foot berm, however, there are existing trees as well as drainage that would have to be lost or dramatically altered preventing that from being accomplished. Mr. Klein explained the construction of the fence indicating that it would be a wood structure. He stated that in addition to fencing, they will be increasing landscaping significantly along the east property line. In response to Mr. Ismail's question regarding the business, Ms. Linda Moore, Founder and Executive Director of Chrestomathy, explained that this is not an overnight operation but is a day program only. Everyone is usually gone by 5:00 p.m. Mr. Ismail asked if the buildings would be connected or if there will be several buildings on the site. Mr. Klein explained that all of the existing buildings on the site would be removed except for the main building. The main building will be added onto and will be connected to the additions. Mr. Klein further explained that access to the site is from County Road 4 with a right-turn in and a right-turn out. An access easement does exist between this property and the "Little Red"gas station. Mr. Klein reported that the City's Zoning Code does not address the difference in fence heights between residential and commercial properties. Mr. Klein said they feel there should be a distinction between the heights of fence between commercial properties and commercial and residential properties. 2 Minutes Board of Adjustments &Appeals January 13, 2000 Ms. Johnson presented the staff report explaining that the site is south of the "Little Red" store and is the previous site of the Anderson Lake Shop and Arbors Nursery. A staff report had been completed for the Planning Commission and City Council meetings and was included in the Board's material along with minutes from those meetings. Considerable public input was received. Notices were mailed out to adjoining property owners for this request and staff did not receive any inquiries regarding this variance. Mr. Ford asked if there were other instances where the fence height had been increased. Ms. Johnson responded that they have received a few requests. One had been received several years ago for a section of a fence to be increased to eight-feet in a residential area. There have also been eight-foot fences built on large commercial centers. The majority of those fences were constructed to screen outside storage and display. Ms. Johnson indicated that the reason for not receiving many requests for higher fences is probably because many of the sites are new construction and they are able to build berms and have a six-foot fence. Since this particular request is an existing site, it is difficult to build the berms. Discussion at the City Council meeting did include consideration of different windows versus an eight-foot fence. The higher fence was preferred. Mr. Ford asked what the purpose of the fence is and what are they trying to screen. Ms. Johnson responded that the fence would provide privacy between the residential use and the office use. The fence also gives delineation between the property lines. Ms. Vasaly questioned whether or not the eight-foot fence would give the impression of a stockade. Ms. Johnson responded that on some sites it would, however, because of the mature trees on this site it should not look like a stockade. Following discussion, Mr. Dunham opened the public hearing. Having no one appear, Mr. Dunham closed the public hearing. Mr. O'Leary pointed out that the neighbors are in favor of this fence and they would be the ones that would most feel that it looks like a stockade. Ms. Vasaly said that if the use of this fence is to separate people who are different from the residential area, she finds it very distasteful. The purpose of the zoning ordinance is so that everyone gets along. Since Chrestomathy is requesting this variance, she would not object to it. Ms. Johnson pointed out that some other office parks that back up to residential areas use 12 foot to 14-foot berms to separate the properties. An eight-foot fence would not be as high as bermining could be. Motion/Second: Giglio/O'Leary, to approve Request#2000-01 with the hardship being the existing landscaping and grade on the property which would make berming with a six-foot fence impractical. The motion carried, 6-0. 3 Minutes Board of Adjustments &Appeals January 13, 2000 B. Request#2000-02 by United Properties for 930-970 Prairie Center Drive, Prairieview Center for approval to place an 80-square foot, 20-foot high,pylon sign at a zero setback from the new Highway 212 right-of-way(Code minimum setback is 20 feet). Mark Raiche, Sign Images, representing United Properties, explained that they are in the process of trying to get the shopping center identification signage back in place. The original signage was removed because of highway construction in that area. Mr. Raiche indicated that they are proposing to put up two units; one by the entrance to Rainbow Foods and a second monument by the east entrance. Both structures meet the size requirements of the City's Ordinance. However, they are asking for a zero setback for the 80-foot pylon sign at the east driveway. The primary reason for this request is for visibility. Because of the new property alignment, if they maintain the required 20-foot setback, the sign would be placed back in the parking lot. The area has been bermed and landscaped and the sign would have to be placed on the backside of the berm. They need to place the sign up to the property line to keep the sign on the existing green area of the center so that they have adequate visibility. In response to Mr. O'Leary's question, Mr. Raiche explained that the center did give up property for the highway right-of-way and there is 60 feet of green space between the new property line and the curb line of the frontage road. This property no longer belongs to the Center but belongs to the Department of Transportation. Mr. Raiche stated that with the zero setback there would still be approximately a 60-foot setback between the curb line and the Center property line. Mr. Ismail asked if the signs would be illuminated 24-hours a day. Mr. Raiche responded that the signs are internally illuminated and are very similar to the unit removed. There is no indirect lighting and this type of sign is the norm for the acceptable signage used in shopping centers in Eden Prairie. The previous sign was located on the corner of the property and was demolished prior to the road construction because of the change in elevations. That sign was 116 square feet and they are now proposing to take that 116 square foot sign and break it into two smaller units. Mr. Dunham asked if this sign is really necessary considering the graphics located on the buildings. Mr. Raiche stated that this sign is needed to identify the shopping center. The graphics on the buildings identify the businesses and nowhere else on this site is the shopping center identified. Mr. O'Leary asked what the primary intent of this sign is. Mr. Raiche said it is to be seen from Highway 5 and the proposed location would give the best exposure. 4 Minutes Board of Adjustments &Appeals January 13, 2000 Ms. Johnson presented her staff report stating that the previous sign was removed a few months ago. This sign was an oversized sign because the applicant preferred to do this when they brought in the planned unit development rather than have two smaller signs. Because of the extensive right-of-way and the existing parking lot layout the proponent is now requesting a zero foot setback for one of the signs. The monument sign on the west side does meet setback requirements. The 80-foot sign is the one they are requesting the zero setback for. Mr. Ismail asked with the zero setback,would the sign be placed on the edge of the driveway. Ms. Johnson explained that it would be at least 10 feet back,plus there is a 60-foot distance between the sign and the frontage road. The sign would be located 180 feet from the Highway 212 driving lane. Information regarding this request was forwarded to the Department of Transportation and they have not indicated any objection to this request. Ms. Johnson stated that if the Board chooses to approve this request, she asked that the sign installation be coordinated with and not interfere with any road or utility construction and that no part of the sign be over the new property line. Mr. Ford asked what the standard square footage is for a sign. Ms. Johnson explained that the maximum for commercial is 80 square feet and 36 square feet for the second sign. Mr. Ford asked what is allowed for total signage. Ms. Johnson responded that one sign is allowed per frontage with the first being 80 square feet. If there are three frontages, one sign could be 80 square feet and the other two could be 36 square feet. Mr. Ismail asked what the sign's colors would be. Mr. Raiche explained that the colors are intended to match the colors used on the shopping center. Mr. Ford asked if similar requests for zero setbacks have been received. Ms. Johnson said they have and those requests have been approved when they have a large right-of-way to work with. One request in an industrial area would have resulted in the sign being in the woods had they not approved a setback variance. Following discussion, Mr. Dunham opened the public hearing. Having no one appear, Mr. Dunham closed the public hearing. Mr. Ford said he is generally opposed to zero setbacks for signs,however, this one in reality would still be set back quite a distance from the road. Mr. Ismail said that as long as the proponent is careful with the coloring and lighting of the sign and it is pleasing to the eye he would be in favor of the request. Motion/Second: O'Leary/Ismail, to approve Request#2000-02 with the following conditions: 1. Sign installation be coordinated with and not interfere with any road or utility construction. 2. No part of the sign be over the new property line. 5 Minutes Board of Adjustments &Appeals January 13, 2000 Mr. O'Leary explained that the hardship is the distance from the highway and the fact that the proponent gave up a fair amount of property for the right-of-way which caused the hardship and they are proposing to put back essentially the signs that were previously there. The motion carried, 6-0. IV. OLD BUSINESS V. NEW BUSINESS Ms. Johnson reported that the City has asked that this Board consider moving their meeting starting time to 7:00 p.m. rather than 7:30 p.m. This would provide for continuity in the starting times for all Boards and Commissions. After a short discussion a motion was made. Motion/Second: Ismail/Vasaly, to change the Board of Appeals meeting starting time from 7:30 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. The motion carried, 6-0. Ms. Johnson reported that the next meeting of the Board of Adjustments and Appeals is scheduled for February 10 and at this time there are no items for consideration. Ms. Johnson indicated that Ms. Vasaly's, Mr. Giglio's and Mr. Ford's terms on the Board of Appeals expired in 1999. Mr. O'Leary's, Ms. Nelson's, and Mr. Dunham's terms will expire in March of this year. Ms. Johnson explained that these Board members should be receiving a letter from the City Manager's office asking whether or not they would be interested in serving an additional term on the Board. VI. ADJOURNMENT Motion/Second: Vasaly/Ismail, to adjourn the meeting at 8:10 p.m. Motion carried, 6-0. 6