HomeMy WebLinkAboutBoard of Adjustments and Appeals - 10/11/1990 APPROVED MINUTES
BOARD OF APPEALS AND ADJUSTMENTS
THJRSDAY October 11, 1990 7:30 P.M. City Hall Council
Chambers, 7600 Executive Drive,
Eden Prairie, MN 55344
BOARD OF APPEALS MEMBERS: Dwight Harvey (Chairman), Arthur
Weeks, Bill Arockiasamy, Scott
Anderson; John Freemyer, Neil
Akemann, Mike Bozonie
STAFF PRESENT: Jean Johnson, Planning
Sharon Storholm, Recording Secr'y
BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: Bozonie
I. CALL TO ORDER--ROLL CALL--PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Chairman Harvey called the meeting to order at 7:32 P.M. Poll call was taken
as noted above. All present recited the Pledge of Allegiance..
II. *1PTUTES OF SEPTT`1BER 13, 1990
MOTIONT: Akemann moved that the Board approve the minutes of the September
13th meeting as submitted. Weeks seconded the motion and it passed
unanimously with Arockiasamy abstaining. *Anderson was not present until
7:47 P.M.
III. %1ARIXTCES
Chairman Harvey explained the variance process to those present and outlined
the order_ for variance presentations.
A. Request #90-28 submitted by Hampton Inn for property
located at 7740 Flying Cloud Drive Eden Prairie
Minnesota. The reauest is for a variance from City Code
Chapter 11, Section 11 70 Subdivision 4 B to permit a
free-standing sign of 126 square feet. City Code permits
80 square feet maximum
Since no one was present to explain the variance request, this item was moved to
later on the agenda. Johnson noted that Durham had met with the proponents and
had reviewed the application with them. Johnson had not been able to contact them.
2
B. RgImLest 90-31 submitted b Shar n and Douglas McChane
for bronerty located at 6625 Rainbow Drive Eden Prairie
Minnesota. The r2cruest is for a variance from City Code
%a ter 11, Section 11 50 Subdivision 6C to permit a
deck/three season porch addition 50 ' from the Ordinary
High Water Mark of Purgatory Creek. City Code requires
a 100 ' setback
Douglas McChane appeared to present the variance and said that he believed the
Board had received the information in the packet relevant to his request. The
basic premise is that the original set back on the property was 50' . There has
been a change in the setback requirements and now 100'• is required. Any expansion
of the property would require a variance. A narrow band on the north property
line would be buildable, but it would be inconsistent with the neighborhood. He
cited reasons he felt the request should be approved:
1. This was allowable originally in 1981.
2. The property would comply with all other zoning ordinances.
3. There are no . objections from the D. N. R.
4. All neighbors approve the expansion.
5. The expansion would have no impact on the existing topography.
6. When he bought the home, the lot was being mowed to the edge of the
creek. He had discontinued that to promote natural vegetation. He
added that he felt an elevated deck would be a good solution.
7. Since they would like more living space, this seems to be the only
good location for the expansion.
8. Such an addition would approve the look of the home. It is now square and
tall and this would give more of a horizontal look.
9. Construction materials would be as natural as possible to blend with the
environment.
To summarize, McChane said that the uniqueness of the lot and the circumstances
at the time the home was built create hardships. The request is only to extend
the home out 6' farther than what it is.
Johnson said that there had been no calls or comments from neighbors. There was
a letter from the DNR suggesting that if this is approved, additional plantings
should be included so the impact of the expansion is softened.
McChane said that the lot was long and the home had a three season porch on the south.
Harvey asked if the deck would be within the 100' set back requirement.
Johnson answered that it would.
Freemyer clarified the method that the DNR had used to figure the distance of
the creek from the deck and said that if this were to be approved, a hardship would
need to be demonstrated. This cannot be economic reasons alone.
* Anderson arrived at 7:47 P.M. t
McChane said again that the hardship was the unique shape of the lot and the location
of the creek. Present guidelines would not allow any expansion what so ever.
3
C
Akemann asked about the dotted line on the map '(certificate of survey).
McChane answered that when the lot was laid out, that area was buildable.
Arockiasamy and Weeks had no questions at this time.
Anderson said that the future owners of property must be considered also. He
asked about any flood damage that may have occurred at the site.
McChane answered that all parts of the structure are beyond the level of water
in the last flood (1987). The deck is cantilevered.
Harvey noted that the home was constructed before the enactment of the shoreland
ordinances. Any expansion would require a variance, and McChane had nothing to
do with creating the variance.
Arockiasamy said that if this is approved, the DN.R. request should be included
regarding additional screening. He felt that the slope depicted was not entirely
accurate as shown.
McChane said that he fully intended to comply with D N.R. suggestions regarding
Cscreening. He had let the cattails come back in the area.
Arockiasamy questioned if the D.N.R. letter meant natural vegetation or trees.
Johnson said that in other instances--willows, cedars, dogwood or fruit trees
have been called for.
Arockiasamy felt that trees were preferable over shrubs and bushes.
Freemyer quoted from the D.N.R. letter that suggested any building materials
used be of natural color to the creek area and be screened with natural vegetation.
He asked if he was correct in stating that the request was for not less than 50' .
Harvey answered that was correct.
Johnson noted that building inspectors check, elevations of each corner of
the structure.
Freemyer noted that the plan is not an official document like a survey. Since
there is confusion on the distance issue, perhaps actual distances should be
added to insure clarity and correctness.
Harvey asked if Freemyer was suggesting staking out and measuring the site to
make sure of the location.
Freemyer said it was not realistic to discover errors after the structure is built.
The D.N.R. possibly used aerial photos. He suggested a third party certify distances.
Akemann suggested a contingency in the final order that the distance issue be
resolved officially.
4
C
McChane asked if the variance could be granted with the stipulation that the distances
are correct.
Anderson asked if the distance was 50' from the ordinary high water mark. Would the
property addition be at 860'?
Harvey answered that this was correct.
Anderson asked if the farthest corner of the deck was 50' from the ordinary high
water mark.
McChane answered that the statement was correct.
MOTION: Freemyer moved that the Board approve variance request 90-28 as submitted
with the following unique circumstances: At the time the home was built,
the setback requirements were met. Changes in setback since this time
have caused problems that were not brought on by the homeowner. There
is no other means of expansion without the variance. An additional stip-
ulation will be required that a registered land surveyor verify the
distances for the proposed addition. It should be no closer than 50'
to the ordinary high water mark of the creek. Additionally, screening
that is acceptable to City Staff shall be provided between the deck and
the creek. Arockiasamy seconded the motion and it passed unanimously.
C - Rectuest 490-32 submitted by Kevin and Mary Devaan for
Property located at 15628 Oak Ridge Road Eden Prairie
Minnesota. The request is for a variance from City Code
Chapter 11 Section 11 03 Subdivision 3C to permit a
building addition 30 ' from the front property line The
average existing front yard setback for the legal block
is 40+1 setback.
Kevin Devaan appeared to present the variance request. He said that the site was in
the northwest part of Eden Prairie. He indicated the location and layout of the
property with a drawing. The purpose of the request is to allow construction of
a two story addition on the west side of the property. It would contain three bedrooms.
The home is a raised ranch type with a walk out. The proposed addition is 26' by 12'
on the west end. There are close trees in the back and the lot slopes 35' from the
high point to the front street. They had purchased the property in 1986. They now
have another child and need a fourth bedroom. When the home was constructed, a
portion of the road on the west end of the property did not exist. The street had
been placed on the western most edge of the City right of way there. The property
has a fairly unique set of circumstances. He showed the layout of the property
through use of a video presentation. The presentation on video showed the front
of the home, slope of the lot, westward view down the lot line, pine trees, city
property he has maintained, and the site of the proposed addition. He would like
to preserve the large elm tree and this is the reason for the offset. He went on
to show the back of the home and the continuation of the deck and the east side
of the lot. Regarding the alternates described in the letter from Staff:
1. Expand in an "L" shape addition to the north: This would put the structure
within 2' of the walnut tree and saving it would be questionable.
5
2. Second story in the back of the home: The joists are not strong enough.
3. Addition on the east side: There is sufficient room, but access would need to
be through the kitchen.
Devann said that the proposed addition presents the most practical alternative.
Through discussion with neighbors, he has ascertained that they agree with the
proposal and has a signed letter from them in favor of the request. He distributed
copies of this letter to the Board.He summarized as follows: The proposed addition
is the most practical expansion of the property. The request is to go 16' from
the, lot line. There are unique aspectsto the property (sloped,wooded) and the
sideyard became a second front yard when the road expanded.
Harvey asked if the right of way for the road had been shown in the present location
when the survey was done. There have been similar situations in the neighborhood.
Johnson said she did not know if the right of way had been shown originally.
Devaan said he had tried to get that information.
Weeks asked if any landscaping would need to be removed.
Devaan answered no--the driveway would be curved up and would not affect the bushes
or trees.
Weeks asked about the houses behind the home in relation to the deck.
Harvey said that the house to the north is screened.
Anderson said that a wide swath had been taken for city street--this would be
41' from the curb after the addition, so he had no problem with it.
Arockiasamy asked if the street was there when the property was purchased.
Devaan answered that it was.
Arockiasamy said that there are alternatives. The one suggesting the addition
right behind the home on the north side should be considered. Closets can be
accomodated in the expansion. Two bedrooms would still be usable. This may be
a good alternative to the extreme variance.
Devaan said the problem of saving the walnut tree came into the picture and
there was also a problem with light in the inner rooms.
Arockiasamy still felt this was a reasonable alternative. He was uncomfortable
with the structure that close to the street--precedents may be set. The back side
proposal may not be the most convenient, but it should be considered. A justifiable
hardship is needed to grant this request.
Deljaana answered that the addition proposed would still be 41' from the curb.
The average for other houses in the area is 35' from property line.
6
c
Akemann felt it was more reasonable to built toward the street (south).
He said he was not comfortable with this request.
Devaan said it was the same average set back requirement.
Anderson asked if McChane had considered building in front of the garage.
Devaan said it was less obtrusive to go into the area screened by pine trees.
Akemann felt the variance was too great.
Freemyer had no additional comments.
Harvey felt the addition on the north would not require much more in terms of
of excavation. There is not that much of a slope there. He said that there are
lots of corner_ lots in-Eden Prairie. The Board has dealt with sideyard variances
a number of times and he cannot think of many (if any) that have been granted.
Especially, when there are alternatives that are not much more expensive
that what is proposed.
Devaan . said it was more expensive. Although he realized that this alone was not
a hardship, such alternatives would need basements or frost footings. The
proposed addition can be constructed and tied into the existing structure. The
alternatives would risk trees.
Harvey noted that regarding the north side suggestion, much of the addition
could be built before the actual opening was made.
Weeks added that the windows could be moved in one of the existing bedrooms.
Anderson said he agreed with the Board that this is a large variance, but the
distance factor from the lot line to the curb is significant. The resale value
would be better as the addition is suggested by McChane.
Devaan said originally he had measured from the middle of the street and was
shocked to learn where the lot line actually was.
Freemyer said this was a severe variance. There are circumstances that should
be reviewed. Although the proponent has an excellent design, he said he could
not overlook the severity of the variance request.
Harvey said that this property is similar to other earlier rP^uests. It would
set a precedent if this were to be granted. He was not sure this property was
unique enough to justify a variance.
Arockiasmy said if one looks at the proposal (not considering the amount of
variance) it seems the most logical expansion. But, when one considered the
variance requirement, it cannot really be justified. He said he was concerend
about the corner encroachment and was not comfortable with the request.
I-leeks said that the design was nice and made sense. He did feel, however, that
the north side alternative had not been fully explored.
7
Weeks asked how future improvements to the area could affect the design.
Johnson said that the street could be improved with curb, gutter,and sidewalk.
This would probably be on the side with more right of way.
Devaan said even considering those improvements, they would still be 30'
from the sidewalk.
Freemyer said he had worked on street improvement projects in the Metro area.
It is a common practice to center streets if they had not been previously.
MOTION: Anderson moved that the Board approve variance request 90-32
citing hardships as being: the home was built initially according
to code requirements & the street improvement had created a hardship,
Even with the addition, the distance will be at least 40' from the
curb. No second to motion. Motion dropped.
Harvey explained the alternatives to McChane: 1. Continuance 2. Withdrawl
3. Decision (it may be appealed).
MOTION: Akemann moved that the Board deny variance request 90-32 and added
that no hardship or unique circumstances had been substantiated. There
may be alternatives that would eliminate the need for a variance.
• Arockisamy seconded the motion. (Motion withdrawn later)' See below.
Ileeks said that regarding the north option, McChane may want to come back and
present that option again.
Harvey said a variance is required in that instance also.
Freemyer asked what the setback off the frontage road was.
Johnson answered that it was 30' according to code.
Devaan said that considering the broad area of land not within the city right
of way, could that area be vacated and purchased?
Akemann said that the house is 29.8' from the west frontage. A variance would still
be required even if it were built to the north.
Anderson felt the Board could not respond to the question on vacation of the land.
Johnson said that would be a City Council process.
Devaan - said he had been planning the work for eight weeks. He did not know he
needed a variance. A continuance would only set the time off, probably for the
Year. He could sell the home, but he likes the area and the neighbors. He would
ask for a continuance, but the north alternative would also require a variance.
• Ire would like to examine the process of vacation of the land. He maintains it
and it will never be used. He would like to request a continuance.
Akemann withdrew the motion and asked if a variance coulee be passed for the
addition to the north. '
,
Freemyer said he was not sure this could be done.
MOTION: Freemyer moved that the Board grant a continuance to 11/8/90 for vari(ce
request 90-32. Arockiasamy seconded the motion and it passed unanimously.
D. Recruest #90-33 , submitted by Mark and Tamara Thune for
Property located west of Eden Prairie Road between 9630
and 9740 Eden Prairie Road, Eden Prairie Minnesota. The
rectuest is for a variance from City Code Chapter 11,
Section 11. 03 . Subdivision 2B (1) To permit a rural lot
size of 5 acres. City Code requires a minimum lot size
of 10 acres, (2) To permit a rural lot with street
frontage less than 3001 . City Code requires 3001 .
Mark Thune appeared to present the variance request. He said that the hardship
was not his, but his neighbors. The neighbor would like to put in another
safer road. William Bearman, who owns the stables, started to negotiate 3-4
months ago for proprty for a different driveway. The present driveway is shared
with 3-4 other neighbors and he has tried to make the driveway safer through
negotiations with these neighbors to no avail. The neighbors cannot seem to find
time to meet on the matter and the situation has become very dangerous. The
hardship demonstrated is safety.
Johnson noted that in the Staff report is a representation of the area, including
lot sizes. The City looked at the ssht lines for the two proposed driveway locations &
they are feasible. There will be no additional home sites involved.
Harvey asked if the three acres were combined as one lot with the stables.
Johnson said yes, that was so. The driveway topography and lot lines should be
submitted before construction begins. Sidehill modifications and grading permits
may be necessary.
Bearman said he would like 90 days instead of 60.
Akemann had no further questions.
Freemyer said he would have preferred drawings.
Bearman drew the area on a board and explained the layout. He said that the
fight line. on Eden Prairie Road was considered in locating the entrance/exit.
F reemye r said that although a good job of presenting the request has been done,
he would still feel more comfortable with seeing recommendations of engineers.
Anderson asked why he would acquire the land rather than get a roadway easement.
Bearman said he had tried that option and problems had come up.
Thune said he would prefer to sell.
Harvey wanted to know what Freeman's objection was.
Freemyer said that there is no real plan. He did not feel comfortable with C
unknowns and would like more detail. He would not necessarily vote against it.
Bearman said that there is a 16' easement to the south of the Thune property
9 .
to provide access to other lots.
Anderson asked if the access was moved, would there be a problem.
Bearman answered no--they would like two accesses.
Anderson said that they were creating another entrance.
Johnson noted that the old access point had been taken from the early 1900's.
Bearman said he has spend $1,000's of dollars to get the property owners to
cooperate on the present driveway.
Anderson said that essentially, they are creating a new stable entrance.
Bearman said there have been four accidents in that area.
Arockiasamy, I-leeks and Harvey had no further questions.
MOTION: Arockiasamy moved that the Board approve variance request 90-33 as
submitted. This variance does not include permit or approval of a
second driveway access for Woodbear Stables. Approval shall be granted
through the Engineering and Planning Departments. The three acre site
must be combined with the 11.4 acres of Woodbear stables site. Approval
shall be based on the following findings:
1. The lot size of 5 acres is consistent with the minimum lot size of 5
acres prior to 1982.
2. The variance is granted in an effort to improve access/safety to
Eden Prairie Road. This may benefit the interest of the general public.
3. The property is not inconsistent with other five acre parcels within
the surrounding area.
4. The 8.08 parcel is not being subdivided into two parcels, but three
acres is being added to a larger parcel of rural property. No additional
lot for residential structure would be created.
An additional condition states that the driveway access engineering
work is acceptable to City Staff.
The lot division/r_onbination shall be ?ccomplished within 90 days.
Anderson seconded the motion and it passed unanimously.
E. Request #90-34 submitted by Don Hedcruist for property
located at 12900 Gerard Drive Eden Prairie Minnesota.
The request is fora variance from City Code Chapter 11
Section 11. 03 Subdivision 2B (1) To permit lot
frontages less than 90 ' for lots within the proposed
Hedcruist Addition. City Code requires 90 , of frontage in
the R1-22 Zoning District (2) Subdivision 2A to permit
driveways 0 ' from the side lot lines City Code requires
a 3 ' setback from a side lot lifle.
Continued. to November meeting.
10
F Request #90-35 submitted bV Bohl Hel eson for propertV
located at 6600 Cit West Parkway Eden Prairie
Minnesota. The request is for a variance from City Code
Chapter 11 Section 11.70 Subdivision 4D to permit an
identification si n of 95 Square feet. City Code maximum
for a wall identification sign is 50 s(Tuare feet.
Beth Grill of Brentwood Commercial came forward and requested a continuance as
the proponent was not present at that time.
MOTION: Mr. Weeks moved that the Board continue variance request 90-35
to the next regularly scheduled meeting on November 8th.
*'See below. (Item discussed under E. as proponent arrived later)
Akemann asked if there were any candlepower requirements in the city code.
Johnson answered that there were not--just glare. The sign can advertise any
product or service at an establishment.
MOTION: Arockiasamy moved that the Board continue variance request 90-28 until
the next meeting on November 8th. A condition was added that if .the
proponent did not come to that meeting, the request would be considered
withdrawn. Weeks seconded the motion and it passed unanimously.
IV. OLD BUSINESS
Johnson noted that the home in Eden Prairie(that had: been granted a ram„Aar for
moving)had finally been moved. ��
The proponents for the Bohl/Helgeson variance request arrived at 9:35 P.M.
III. VARIANCES (continued)
*F• Request #90-35. submitted by Bohl/Helgeson for property located at 6600 City West
Parkway Eden Prairie. Minnesota legally described as Lot 1 Block 1 City West 3rd
Addition. The request is for a variance from City Code Chapter 11 Section 11 70
Subdivision 4D, to permit an identification sign of 95 square feet City Code maximum
for a wall identification sign is 50 square feet
Anderson noted that he had financial involvement with the building and asked
if there were any objections to his voting on the request.
Harvey said that if Anderson felt he was objective, it was acceptable.
Helgeson said that he was in the middle of negotiating a new lease on another location
and would like to move the sign on the present building to the new site if the lease
is finalized. He needs the word ERA displayed next to his name according to the
franchise requirements. He cannot consider just the name Bohl/Helgeson. With this
move, he would just be moving the variance that had previously been granted for
the sign two years ago. Essentially, the buildings are the same type. He said that
the word "realtors" could be dropped, but he would prefer not to. He would prefer
just moving the entire sign. The proposal is for 80 Sq. ft (with "realtors" removed.
Weeks said that Staff report has the square footage as 80.
Johnson said the City uses the accepted method for calculating square footage. She
also noted on page 8, (in the 6th paragraph from the top) the figure of 150 sq. ft.
should be changed to 122 sq. ft.
11
i
Harvey asked if the building was on the corner of Shady Oak Road and City
West Parkway.
Johnson answered that it was located there.
Harvey asked if there were two frontages on public streets.
Johnson answered that there were three frontages. She added that the Marquette
Bank Bldg across the street had been granted a variance.
Weeks asked if the ordinances regarding signs addresses how close the buildings
are to the streets.
Johnson answered that it did not address that issue.
Arockiasamy said he had voted in favor of this request the first time and later
had thought it was too large. He can understand that the proponent would like
to make use of the sign he already owns.
Helgeson said that the sign would cost about 12,000 to build today. They did
comply with the specifications at the time it was built. They have had comments
that the sign is attractive. If it were to be made smaller, it would be dwarfed
by the building.
Akemann asked how the building would be identified from the south.
Helgeson answered that they would utilize monument signs.
Akemann said that Hwy 212 is the front door to Eden Prairie. He had been
surprised at the size and illumination of the sign. The proposed sign will be
visible basically to the south bound traffic. He felt the illumination should
be toned down.
Helgeson said he was not a sign consultant, but if it were to be reduced in
size, there will be costs at that time and possibly then would be the time to
tone it down also.
Akemann said he would need additional information on the toning down before
voting on this request.
Freemyer asked if the proposed site was smaller than the present site. Is the
sign going to be closer to the ground if the variance is granted?
Helgeson said the building is one floor smaller, but the front is the same.
Freemyer asked if Helgeson was locked into the lease.
Helgeson said the moving of the sign was necessary to continue negotiation on
the new lease.
Freemyer asked what would be the outcome if the variance request was not granted.
Helgeson said they would not move ift that event.
12
Freemyer said that he had originally voted against the sign, but that the
circumstances are different now. He did say that the brightness should be
controlled.
Anderson said he felt he should abstain.
Harvey said that there should be a purpose for the sign. With the realty business,
he is not convinced this would be necessary. He asked Helgeson to verify that
a sign was being requested for 212 and also a monument sign.
Helgeson said that the monument sign is not being requested this evening. The
signage would go on the existing monument sign..
Harvey asked if the request were to be granted, would it be acceptable that there
were no other identification signs on the building?
Grill answered that it .was acceptable. There will only be one tenant.
Harvey still felt there should be a purpose for the sign. He said he was having
a difficult time--just as he had two years ago. He felt the address should be
sufficient.
Weeks had questions concerning the hardship.
Helgeson felt it would appear as if they were out of business if the sign were
to be taken down. If the variance is not granted, they would be held hostage to
the present building as long as they are in Eden Prairie. The name of the
company is well known and recognizable.
Harvey answered that the company gets recognition from many things other than the sign.
Weeks said that the Board cannot rewrite the ordinance, but should consider the
illumination of signs.
Helgeson said that in total, the Marquette Bank sign is larger.
Arockiasamy said that if the sign were to be replacedby another that was acceptable,
no one would think the company was out of business.
Helgeson said that they would run the risk of another perception--scaling down.
Arockiasamy said that regarding the Marquette sign, the effect is less than this
one. After the first approval, almost all Board members felt it was too bright and
large, but, it was there. It will be there unless a move is made. It could be
reduced to 80 sq. ft. The extra cost involved in modifying the sign is perhaps
a hardship, but if the request were to be denied, it could result in a 12,000
hardship.
Akemann said he was not in a position to vote on the matter because of the C
illumination issue. He added that Helgeson is willing to drop the work "realtors"
and there are trade offs: relocation, reduction,. and visibility to southbound
traffic only. He could see approving the variance.
13
C
Harvey said that he understands that Bohl/Helgeson is a large name, but that does
not make it acceptable. There are alternatives.
Akemann said that scaling the sign down does present the image that the operation
has scaled down.
Pat Gin sback, sales manager for Bohl/Helgeson, came forward and asked that the
work"realtors" be left in the sign.
Freemyer asked if the ERA part of the sign could go on another frontage of the building.
Helgeson said it would be a violation of the franchise for ERA.
Freemyer said that if there were no compromise, he would vote against it.
Harvey noted that Helgeson had agreed to drop the word "realtors".
Helgeson confirmed that he had agreed to do that. He did not want to have the
item continued as the lease would be signed as soon as this decision was made--
if it were granted. They would like to plan to be in the new building by Nov. 15.
Harvey asked about a continuance for illumination.
Helgeson asked how the illumination was determined. He is willing to work on it.
Harvey asked if Helgeson was willing to accept the approval with a contingency
on the illumination.
Johnson said that tubes can be dimmed somewhat.
Freemyer suggested a dimmer switch.
Helgeson said he was open to all of this as long as significant dollars were not
involved.
Freemyer asked what the estimated cost to make this move was.
Helgeson said it would be about $2.00/Sq.Ft (or $20,000).
Freemyer said that if it was important enough to spend $20,000, possibly he should
consider the rebuilding of the sign.
Helgeson said that he had worked hard to build the company, and felt that he
must protect that good will.
Akemann asked why the sign was located in the center of the proposed site.
Helgeson said it was the most aesthetically correct position. He wanted it to look
good.
[weeks noted that the building was not perfectly symetrical.
Grill said that Helgeson is really in the retail business and needs sign frontage.
C
Akemann said that there was a compromise by dropping the word "realtors."
This is an identification sign, rather than advertising.
Arockiasamy suggested that the sign (as modified) be allowed to be moved if
the illumination were toned down.
Arockiasamy suggested a 25-30% reduction in brightness.
Helgeson suggested 20% reduction in brightness, as long as no more than(possibly)
$500.00 dollars was involved.
Weeks asked what the procedure for implementing the final product would be.
It is difficult to determine--it is a subjective matter. How will the guidelines
be met?
Johnson said that it would come through sign consultants assurance based on
meter readings.
Freemyer said that Helgeson would like to put a dollar limit on the work.
Helgeson said that he did not want to leave anything open ended.
Arockiasamy said he felt the cost would be minimal.
MOTION: Arockiasamy moved that the Board approve variance request 90-35
because the applicant has a sign in his possession and it would
be costly to recreate a sign. The sign puts undue restrictions
on the business. There will be a compromise in the size of the
sign (limited to 80 sq. ft.) --to include the words ERA Bohl
Helgeson--and to eliminate the word "realtors." The brightness
shall be reduced by 20%.
Weeks offered an amendment that no other signs be allowed on the
building. Arockiasamy agreed with the amendment.
Akemann suggested that the reference to an economic hardship be
dropped.
Arockiasamy said the reason cannot be based soley on economic hardship,
but when combined with other hardships, it has merit.
Akemann said that the variance goes with the business, not the property.
Weeks seconded the motion and it passed 4-1 with Harvey opposed and
Anderson abstaining.
Harvey stated his reason for opposition as being that there should be a purpose
for a sign. It is not necessary to draw business in this situation. Much more
important to this business are the little yard signs and the Timber Creek signs.
He felt there is no hardship to justify signage to exceed50 sq. ft.
V. NEW BUSINESS
Johnson noted that next month the Board would hear the request for the Headquist
variance. It regards a number of lots with problem frontage and proper width.
In addition, .there may possibly be the continuation of the item from this evening
as well as a request from McDonalds (they had put up a reader board over code, which
had since been taken down. )
VI. ADJOURNMENT
MOTION: Arockiasamy moved that the Board adjourn. Freemyer seconded the
motion and it passed unanimously.
Meeting adjourned at 10:45 P.M.
C