Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBoard of Adjustments and Appeals - 03/14/1985 • APPROVED MINUTES BOARD OF APPEALS AND ADJUSTMENTS THURSDAY, MARCH 14, 1985 7:30 PM, ADMINISTRATION BLDG. , SCHOOL BOARD ROOM, 8100 SCHOOL ROAD BOARD OF APPEALS MEMBERS: Chairman Ron Krueger, Richard Lynch, Roger Sandvick, James Dickey and Hanley Anderson BOARD STAFF: Assistant Planner, Steve Durham and Recording Secretary, Lynda Diede ROLL CALL: Krueger and Anderson were absent. I. MINUTES A. Minutes of February 14, 1985. MOTION: Sandvick moved, seconded by Lynch to approve the minutes of February 14, 1985. Motion carried unanimously. II. VARIANCES • A. Request #85-03, submitted by Vantage Companies for property located north of Interstate 494, east of Highway #169/212, south of Lake Smetana and Nine Mile Creek, and west of Vikings Training Center. The request is for a variance from City Code, Chapter 11 , Section 11 .70, Subdivision 3, K, to permit temporary real estate signs with the following variances : 1 ) Sign A a) To permit a sign 96 square feet (Code permits 32 square feet maximum) . b) Permit two sign faces to be at 600 angle from each other, (Code permits 12 inches maximum). c) Permit sign 20 feet in height (Code permits 8 feet) . 2) Sign B a) Permit two sign faces to be at 600 angle from each other (Code permits 12 inches maximum) . 3) Sign C . a) Permit a sign 140 square feet (Code permits 32 square feet) . 4) Sign D Board of Appeals and Adjustments - 2 - March 14, 1985 a)_ To permit a sign 96 square feet (Code permits 32 square feet maximum) b) Permit two sign faces to be at 600 angle from each other • (Code permits 12") . c) -Permit sign 16 feet in height (Code permits 8 feet) . 5) Sion E a) Permit a second temporary real estate sign on Lot 1 , Block 1 , Golden Strip (Code permits 1 Sig b) permit sign 10 feet in height (r.nde permits 8 feet) . 6) Sign H a) Permit_two sign faces to be at_60" angle from each other (Code permits 12" maximum). Nancy Waterfield and Matt Nicholl , representing Vantage Companies , reviewed the proposal with the Board. Plans for the 106 acre South- west Crossing Planned Unit Development were displayed. The proponent discussed various land uses in the PUD. Sandvick inquired how many rooms would be in the hotel site. Nicholl replied that there would be between 250-300 rooms. Nicholl stated that most of the surrounding cities, in terms of the size of the temporary signs allowed, is substantially greater than currently allowed in Eden Prairie. It is hard to read a 32 square • foot sign from any distance. Waterfield passed out examples of projects of competitors cities. Waterfield noted that Bloomington's Northland Plaza project had several temporary signs on one site. Durham had called Bloomington and stated that the 4 signs are class- ified as directional signs and are not necessarily in conformance with the Bloomington Temporary Sign Ordinance. Waterfield said that Vantage is asking for three large signs. Sign C identifies the project, which is an existing sign of 140 square feet. This sign would have to be demolished if Staff recommendations were adhered to. Lynch asked if Sign C is grandfathered in. Nicholl stated that the existing pylon sign was put in prior to Eden Prairie's sign ordinance. Durham said that he would check it out. Waterfield requested that Vantage be allowed to keep the existing sign in place until Viking Drive is dedicated to the City on June of 1985. Durham stated that the Board cannot grant a variance for the sign in • the public right-of-way. Board of Appeals and Adjustments - 3 - March 14, 1985 Waterfield said that the other two signs identify the office building • under construction and Southwest Crossing Phase II. Waterfield pointed out that the signs are 400-500' from Highway I-494. Proper identification is critical for their development. A minimum of 12" letters is required for visibility at 525". This is assuming that you have maximum readability colors of: white, blue and white, red and white, or black and white. Dickey asked what the minimum square footage they could live with on Signs A and D. Waterfield felt that they could .live with 80 square feet. Durham noted that the square feet of the whole sign is being increased because of the 600 angle. East/west traffic will be looking at the sign in essence of 160 square feet in size. Waterfield said that when you drive by you don't actually turn your neck to read. One does not get maximum readability. Dickey asked what the maximum separation would be needed for the two sign faces. Waterfield said that the 600 angle would be adequate. Waterfield suggested the possibility of the Board granting a variance that would allow Vantage to use an 80 square foot sign in place of a 32 square foot sign on a lot 6 months prior to construction of a new project. • Sandvick inquired if this would be 6 months prior to breaking ground. Waterfield replied yes, there would be one sign per lot. Lynch asked if this was a hardship. Nicholl stated that the hardship is the process, money and time involved. Sandvick inquired how long the signs would be left up. Waterfield said that they would remain until the building is 90% leased, which is according to Code. Sandvick was in favor of proponents coming in each time that there is a request for each sign. Nicholl agreed to drop the request on grant- ing variances for a sign 6 months prior to construction of a new project. Dickey asked for a description of Sign C. Waterfield said that it is a metal pylon on a concrete base. Durham inquired as to the date that the sign was put up. Lynch felt that it was there prior to the sign ordinance in 1974. Sandvick felt that leaving the sign up until the business is 90% leased is a big number. There will be a lot of signs up for a long time. • Board of Appeals and Adjustments - 4 - March 14, 1985 Nicholl stated that a lot of time and effort was put on the design of the sign. It is a highly attractive, subtle sign. Dickey asked if they were asking for Sign A and D for 80 square feet at a 60' angle. Waterfield replied yes. Dickey said that Sign C, if left as is would come down in June of 1985. Nicholl stated yes, when Vantage dedicates the street to the City. Dickey asked if they plan on replacing Sign C. Waterfield said it could be replaced with an 80 square foot sign. Dickey inquired what the height would be. Durham stated that it could be 20' high. Sandvick asked if the sign was lighted. Waterfield said no, none of the signs are lighted. MOTION: Dickey made a motion to approve Variance Request #85-03, submitted by Vantage Companies, with the following findings : 1 ) Signs A and D be reduced in size from 96 square feet to 80 square feet. Sign faces will not create an angle of more than 60 when constructed on site. • 2) Sign C be allowed to remain in its present location until the property is dedicated to the City in June of 1985. At the time of property dedication, Sign C must be removed. The sign shall be removed no later than June 30, 1985. 3) Sign C permitted at 140 square feet until time of removal in June of 1985. 4) Sign C be a maximum height of 20 feet when relocated to Lot 1 , Block 3, Golden Strip. 5) Sign C be removed from public property when dedicated to the City and relocated to Lot 1 , Block 3, Golden Strip. The max- imum sign site for the new sign is 80 square feet maximum. 6) Each parcel be limited to one contractor sign. Sandvick seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously. B. Request #85-04, submitted by Bruce Kunkel for property located at 7358 Hames Way. The request is for a variance from City Code, Chapter 11 , SeCtion 11 .03, Subdivisio con- struction of a deck within 5 feet of the side lot line Code re- quires 10 feet) . Bruce Kunkel , proponent, presented his request to the Board. His house is located 15' from the lot line. There is an easement of 5' and a setback requirement of 5' for a total of 10' . This only Board of Appeals and Adjustments - 5 - March 14, 1985 leaves a 5' area to build a deck. This was due to placement of the . contractor's location of the building. The side utility will not be affected. The proposed deck will not affect any utilities to neighbors. Kunkel presented a statement from surrounding neighbors agreeing to the request. Mrs. Rick Williams , 7370 Hames Way, stated that the request does not bother either herself or her husband. Dickey asked where the deck would egress from. Kunkel replied that it would exit to the south. MOTION: Dickey made a motion to approve Variance Request #85-04, submitted by Bruce Kunkel with the following findings: 1 ) Signatures have been obtained from 4 of the famili.es closest to the home. 2) One neighbor, Mrs. Williams, 7370 Hames Way, was kind enough to come and state that the deck would actually enhance the property, Sandvick seconded the motion, Motion carried unanimously. C. Request #85-05, submitted by William Gilk and Jervell Halmrast for property located south of Scenic Heights Road, north of Red Rock Lake and west of Scenic Heights Addition. The request is for a variance from City Code, Chapter 11 , Section 11 .50, Subdivisi_o_n 6, B, 1 , C, to permit platting of lots with public sewer and water abutting Recreational Development Waters with the following variances• 1 ) Permit lot sizes less than 20,000 square feet (Code requires a minimum of 20,000 square feet. ) 2) Permit lots with a minimum width at building line less than 120 feet (Code requires a minimum of 120 feet) . 3) To permit lots with a minimum width at the Ordinary High Water Mark less than 120 square feet (Code requires 120 square feet). 4) To permit Lots 12, 15, 16, and 17 with minimum setbacks from the Ordinary High Water Mark less than 100 feet (Code requires a minimum of 100 feet). This variance request has been rescheduled until April 11 , 1985. Due to the snow storm on March 4, 1985, the Public Hearing Notices re- quiring a 10 day advance notice could not be mailed. • Board of Appeals and Adjustments - 6 - March 14, 1985 D. Request #85-06, submitted by Vantage Companies for property located • north of Interstate 494, east of Highway #169/212, south of Lake Smetana and Nine Mile Creek and west of Vikings Training Center. The request is for a variance from City Code, Chapter 11 , Section 11 .03, Subdivision 2 B, 1 to permit a front yard setback of 35' for building E, Code requires 50 feet in I-2 zoning district 2 To permit driving land and parking stalls on the west and south side of building A to be 60 feet from curb to curb, Code requires 62 feet from curb to curb) . John Komula, representing Vantage Companies, reviewed the proposal with the Board. Request #2, to permit driving land and parking stalls on the west and south side of building A to 60' from curb to curb, (Code requires 62' from curb to curb) , has been withdrawn. The new site plan will meet Code. Komula stated that they started the development with 5 buildings. Because of an encroachment of a building, they were asked to remove one building. This cut coverage considerably, losing about 20,000 square feet. To get square footage back, the size of the building had to be increased. Durham noted that a new landscape plan must be submitted. MOTION: Dickey made a motion to approve Variance Request #85-06, submitted by Vantage Companies with the following findings : 1 ) A revised landscaping plan be submitted. Sandvick seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously. III. OLD BUSINESS None IV. NEW BUSINESS None V. ADJOURNMENT MOTION: Lynch moved, seconded by Sandvick, to adjourn the meeting at 8:20 PM. Motion carried unanimously. •