Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBoard of Adjustments and Appeals - 05/10/1990 ,APPRMM MIIN= • BOARD OF APPEALS AND ADJUSTMENTS THURSDAY, May 10, 1990 7:30 P.M. City Hall Council Chambers, 7600 Executive Dr. , Eden Prairie, MN 55344 BOARD OF APPEALS MEMBERS Dwight Harvey (Chairman), Arthur Weeks, Bill Arockiasamy, Scott Arderzon, John Freemyer, Neil Akemann, mike Bozonie STAFF PRESENT: Steve Durham-Planning, Sharon Storholm,Sec'y BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: Bozonie, Akemann i. CALL TO ORDER-ROLL CALL-PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Chairman Harvey called. the Meeting to order at 7:32. Roll call was taken as noted above. II. SWEARING IN OF BOARD 101BER ANDERSON Durham swore Scott Anderson in as a member of the Board of Appeals & Adjustments. III. MINUTES OF APRIL 17, 1990 Arockiasamy noted that on the last page, paragraph above NW BUSINESS, the word impair should be changed to "improve." Also, the word extract should be changed to "pet." MOTION: Arockiasamy moved that the Board approve the minutes of the April 17 meeting with the above changes. Freemyer seconded the motion and it passed 3-0 with I-leeks and Anderson abstaining. IV. VARIANCES A. Rectuest #90-13-M submitted by Mark Robert Pieper. The residential building is to be moved to 6910 Beach Road Eden Prairie Minnesota. The building' s Present location is at 6641 Beach Road Eden Prairie Minnesota. The type of building to be moved is a single family residential structure. Nark Pieper came forward to present the variance request. He explained that he would like to move a home two blocks down the street from 6641 Beach Road to 6910 Beach Road. The home was purchased from the City of Eden Prairie. Elevation for the home will be 2' above flood plain. He has soil borings and the corrections will be made to make sure the soil will support a structure of that nature. He would like the Board's approval so work can begin on the pad. it Durham noted that the home was built in 1977. It is a five level split with approximately 2,568 square feet. The proposal is to move the home down Beach Road and there will be no utility lines interrupted. The site will need soil corrections. There are water/sewer connections available to the WNTE and also to the west where an application would need to be made with Metro Waste Control. 2 • The lot was platted in 1964 and zoned R1-22. The Department of Natural Resources requires a 100' setback from the flood plain elevation, which can be accomodated. The home is consistent with the neighborhood. Durham would suggest that the Army Corp of Engineers be contacted to make sure a. wetland area is not being filled in. The following conditions should be included: 1. Soil Bore information. 2. Grading /Fill plan 3. Certified Survey of final home location. 4. Exterior elevations of changes to existing home. 5. Requirement of a bond for $5,000. 6. Proof that the Army Corps of Engineers was contacted. 7. Home to be on foundation no later than August 31, 1990. Possibly another condition could be added that the house not be moved until the pad is in place. Harvey asked if there was a deadline from the City for the moving of the house. Durham answered that it was TIay 10, but can be extended to June 15. Durham suggested that a building permit be issued to get things under way. Harvey asked what the Army Corps of Engineers response time was. • Durham felt the response should come within that time frame. Pieper said he did not have prior knowledge of all these additional requirements when he purchased the home--if he had known, he could have been working on it. Clean fill has been added to the lot. The site plan shows the house backing up to the easement area. Durham explained placement of the sewer line and 50' easement area. Pieper said that Advanced Engineering will stake the lot and he will make sure that it is beyond'the easement area. There will be about 8' of soil correction and the home will be upgraded in it's new location. Durham said the home should be located approximately an additional 25' to the south. Weeks had questions regarding the 100' setback and garage level. Durham said the setback is required by code. Pieper answered that the garage will be lowered to about 4' above flood plain. Weeks asked if a final grading plan had been submitted. Pieper said no, but the basement will be a total walkout. At this time he did not know if he would occupy or sell the home---probably occupy it. Durham said that 10% of the trees on the lot can be removed with the building permit. Preservation of the oaks is the most important. 3 • Weeks asked if the adjacent lots were suitable for development. Durham said the area is zoned, but it would need to go through the Army Corps of Engineers. Dick Cosette of 12550 Beach Circle came forward with two concerns: 1. Scheduling--where will the home sit until the pad is ready? 2. The fill covers the road behind all three lots. Ed Schuck of 12535 Beach Circle came forward and said that in the 100 year flood, there was a lot of water in that area. He would be concerned about a wet basement unless the home were at a safe elevation. Also, there is a safety concern if the home sits long before being placed on the foundation. Although he said he was certainly not an expert, he wondered if raising the home 2' above flood plain was sufficient. He felt there were good intentions here, but had these concerns. Pieper explained that once the pad was built, the house will be moved on to the site and jacked into the air. Then, after the basement is constructed, it will be lowered on to it. Sandy clay soil will be used with compaction tests every two feet. The home passes all building requirements. Durham said that the building inspector will check the house to made sure it • is current with code. He asked Pieper if June 15 was a logical date for completion of the pad. Pieper answered that it should be done between June 1-3. Harvey asked if all excavation will be hauled off site. Pieper said that the top soil will be needed to build up the green areas. Schuck asked if Pieper owned all three lots and intended to develop all three. Pieper said he did own them and there were actually four lots. Three of these could be developed. Requirements can be net on lots 1 & 2 with no problem, the third lot could be worked on, but the fourth one probably is not suitable. Anderson suggested that Pieper consider placing the home one foot higher. Pieper said that if it was workable, he may do that. Harvey asked if Pieper would object if it was made a condition. (858' ) Pieper said that would be acceptable, although it would not look good until the landscaping was completed. Cosette said there were two homes north of his that did the same and they had • water in their basements. 4 • MOTION: Anderson moved that the Board approve Variance Request 90-13-M finding the building to be moved is consistent with the existing neighborhood. The lot is zoned R-122 which is appropriate for a residential structure. Prior to building permit issuance, the applicant need, to meet the following conditions: a. Soil bore information. b. Grading/fill plan. C. Certified survey of final home location. The survey is to indicate flood plain elevation. Setbacks must meet all R1-22 setback, shoreland setbacks and be located out of all recorded easements. d. Plans indicating the lowest floor elevation is four feet above the flood plain elevation. e. Exterior elevations of changes to the existing home. f. A bond for $5000. 00 be submitted to the building department prior to building permit/house moving permit to insure completion of the house moving to the new site and cover expense for removal should the applicant default on the house move. g. Prior to establishment of the homes foundation, the applicant contact the Army Corp of Engineers for comment. City must have proof the Corp was contacted. h. The home must be established on the new foundation no later than August 31, 1990. i. The house shall remain in it's present location until the pad on the new site is in place. The deadline for moving the home shall be extended. until June 15. Arockiasamy seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. B. Request #90-14 , submitted by McDonald's Corporation for Property located at 598 Prairie Center Drive Eden Prairie, Minnesota The request is for a variance from City Code, Chapter ll Section 11 03 Subdivision 3H to Permit parking 7. 51 from a rear lot line City Code requires a minimum 10 ' rear yard setback I-lerb Backmeyer came forward to represent McDonalds at 1650 11 82nd Street. He explained that they are requesting a parking lot set back of 72' . Durham explained that initially the setback was reviewed through the PUD process. Technically, it does not meet the 15 acre minimum. The City Attorney felt that it was not a valid PUD and the waiver for parking could not be granted through the PUT process. The Attorney had recommended the variance process to grant this variance. Staff has no problem with the request. i 5 MOTION: Anderson moved that the Board approve Variance Request 90-14 finding the variance requested is required due to a technicality in the Eden Square PUD. The variance request has merit since it is an internal lot line and screening for parking is not a priority within the Eden Square pUD, Freemyer seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. C. Variance Request #90-15 , submitted by Northco Corporation for property located at 16500 West 78th Street, Eden Prairie, Minnesota. The request is for a variance from City Code, Chapter 11, Section 11.70, Subdivision 4B (1) to permit transfer of the wall signs permitted for each tenant space located on the north wall of Prairie Village Mall to the south wall facing Highway #5, (2) to permit the total square feet of wall signs on the south wall of 852 square feet. City Code maximum size sign is 300 square feet for each exterior wall in excess of 500 square feet. (3) To permit a total of 951 square feet of sign area for the entire Prairie Village Mall. City Code maximum sign area for the entire Prairie Village Mall is 918 scruare feet. Theresa Riley, Property Manager for the property for which the variance was being requested came forward to present the variance request. The owner of the property is Northco Corporation. Riley explained that she is present on behalf of the merchants in the shopping center asking for additional signage. The tenants want more exterior identification. It is important for these small retailers to establish their locations to the customers. Many are experiencing a loss of business. Because the style of the center is older, the tenants cannot identify their products to the public. A visible name is needed. The landlord has lost tenants because of this. They are requesting an additional 486 sq. ft. of wall signage identification from County Rd 4 and 5. Linda Fitch, sign consultant came forward and said that she was working on appropriate signage. She would like it to compliment the architecture. It would allow each tenant 27 square feet. The space would be equal for each business. The existing sign would stay in place. Present plans are to make the background dark and the lettering light colored. Tenants will be allowed to use their own type face. Durability will be important as well as appearance. A standard color background will be used (probably dark red) that is fade resistant. A transfer of square footage available would be made from the back to the front. There will also be an increase in total footage. They have tried to determine how large the lettering would need to be to been seen from the roadways. Since the traffic is moving, she would like to recommend a minimum of 11". There would be a minimum of 20- required between tenants signs. Durham noted that these were internal occupants. Most centers now are strip centers with exterior walks. The Staff concern is to not go above what is permitted for square footage for the entire building. • Arockiasamy asked if there were signs on the back side that would be moved to the front. - -_ - -- 6 • Riley answered that there are no signs on the back but that there could� be. Durham explained that they are asking to transfer the amount of signage space available to the front. Even with this transfer, it would still be about 40-50 square feet over permitted footage. Arockiasamy said he understands the hardship, but is not comfortable with filling the walls with signs either. Possibly there could be other methods of identification used. Riley said they had considered pylon signage, but it did not work from any distance. There is a similar mall in Woodbury and the change has been very effective in producing a positive response from the public. Arockiasamy said this proposal may not look good. Freemyer said he was not happy with the way it would look. He would prefer signage with a list of tenants. Riley said there is an existing pylon sign which was constructed 4 years ago. There were budget restraints and City code limitations. These merchants do not have an opportunity for identification when the customer is looking. Major regional malls have large anchor tenants and the smaller tenants benefit from that. `s ''c' • Anderson said there was a center across the street under construction and felt this may have precipitated the request for signage. Riley said she has only been with Northco since October of 89. Weeks asked about the previously mentioned hexagon shaped signage. Riley answered that originally this hexagon shaped sign was on the building--it was very minimal. Then there were approximately 20 tenants in the building. The sign has since been taken down. Weeks noted that there were two types of shoppers: 1. Destination 2. Browsers. Bob Tallman, president of the merchants association of the shopping center, came forward and noted that he was the manager of the Snyders store in the center. Although there have been no formal studies done, about 15-25% of his customers come from Chanhassen, Chaska and Waconia. The hexagon shape had been ineffectual as signage. He felt that exterior signage was vitally important. Many shoppers are unaware of the small businesses in this center. This lack of signage puts the existing businesses in this center at a disadvantage to new businesses with signage. Riley said their goal is visibility in the marketplace. Tallman said his business is increasing, but he has signage. Others are suffering. Weeks asked of there would be lighting g ing on the signs. Would there be one or two rows of letters? Would the pylon sign remain? What is the present copy size on the Prairie Hardware sign? 7 • Fitch answered that the Prairie Village Hardware sign lettering is about 18" high. The signs will be internally lit. Riley said that the center had undergone rennovation two years ago. Northco has managed the property since the early 19801s. The pylon would remain. Riley noted the pictures of the center she had posted to show the center in the current state. There were a lot of restraints involved in the signage. The copy proposed is 11". Some have logos. Harvey asked where the picture had been taken from,and asked if this was a community commercial center. Durham answered that it was a community commercial center(to serve a 3 mile radius.) Fitch said the photo had been taken from Highway 5. Harvey asked what the average speed by the center was for autos. Fitch said that some go 40-50 mph. The lettering would need to be 7" high to be readable at 300' . She felt 11" lettering should be minimum. If the traffic was traveling 50 mph, the lettering would need to be 24" high. Fitch said there may be 2 stacks of lettering on some signs. Harvey said the only two businesses he noted on the reader board were the florist and video shops. Why not other businesses? Riley said there is a charge for the use of the board. The new signage will be the landlord's expense. Harvey said he did not like to see that much of the wall covered up with signs. Fitch agreed it was not an ideal situation, but gives the tenants a change to identify themselves. If they were to be listed on a pylon, the driver would need f to stop to read it. Harvey noted that the other mall across the street will not have easily readable identification either. Riley said she disagreed with that--their identification would be better. Anderson felt this center was at a disadvantage. He wondered why the center had been designed this way in 1974. Why was the signage issue not addressed then? Durham answered that it was the trend at that time, and also the climate was a factor in choosing this style. Bill Smazel came forward and said that he had a shop T.W. Williams, in the center. He was an original tenant in 1977. When he had signed the lease, it had stated } that there would be no other center built within 3 miles on Highway 5. Then they did not need a sign there, but they do now. Shoppers need to know there is a complete center there. 90% of retail is impulse buying. Jamie Foster,representing Parkway Dental,came forward and made an appeal for the small businesses. She said often patients were 'very confused as to where the office 8 is located. The dental office has wanted signage for a couple of years. At the dental office,they have a designated receptionist who takes "confusion calls" F61"to help people find the location. Tallman said the landlord and the tenants have not always worked together, but the merchants have always wanted signs. The comparison to the larger malls is unfair. They draw from a very large area--but not this center. Most tenants have left because their businesses failed, not just to relocate. This signage is needed to keep the businesses healthy with the increased competition.Signage does make a difference. David Dunbar, representing Eden Prairie Liquor, came forward and said that many don't know the liquor store is there. He gets many calls asking where they are located. This is the only liquor store with no signage. Fitch said this was not an economic, but a physical hardship. The market has changed to strip malls and people do not know that the tenants are there. In the 50's and 601s, the opinion was that this style was good, but it did not work. All such centers cannot be abandoned. Arockiasamy said he has been in Eden Prairie since 1971 and lives close to this site. The center is nice. He agrees with the changing of times and hardship issue and the need for signage. The difficulty is that a nice building could be a little bit spoiled by lack of planning. He is not convinced that this will do the job that is expected. There may be a better way of achieving the goal. Maybe more effort should be made to get the people there. He did not like the mixed type of signs--possibly they could be coordinated. How about going back to the drawing boards and come up with more possibilities? Freemyer asked how the city zoned this neighborhood. Is the center properly promoting itself? Although there are 23 tenants now, there could be more later. Freemyer said he did not believe the presentation was adequate. Anderson said he wanted to make sure this was not an economic hardship ,and can see it is a physical hardship. He is not 100% convinced about the looks and aesthetics and would like alternatives---maybe a monument sign? Weeks indicated an economic hardship was not demonstrated and agreed that it was a physical hardship. He said he sees the need for additional signage, but more infor- mation is needed. The signage is subjective. He would like it laid out in front of him. Alternatives should be considered. Harvey said he agreed with the other Board members. They all can see the hardship, but want to make sure the solution is good. He sees very little in the way of center promotion. There are too many names to look at to put all up on the walls. Possibly some on the walls and others on a pylon? The applicants have choices: 1. The Board can vote on this. It would probably be denied at this time. 2. It can be continued until the next meeting and bring additional information. 3. Withdraw the request. • Riley said that they would like to ask for a continuance. 9 • MOTION: Arockiasamy moved that the variance request be continued until the next meeting. (Variance Request 90-15). Weeks seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. V. OLD BUSINESS None VI. NEW BUSINESS Durham reviewed the variances requests that are scheduled for June. Arockiasamy noted that he had gotten some feedback from a council member on the last month's minutes. The Council would like to meet with the Board. The Board agreed it would be pleased to meet with the Council at it's convenience. Arockiasamy restated that the Board does want reasons for the overturns by the Council. VII. ADJOURNMENT MOTION: Harvey moved th& the Board adjourn. Freemyer seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. Meeting adjourned. at 10:02 PM.