HomeMy WebLinkAboutBoard of Adjustments and Appeals - 01/14/1988 APPROVED MINUTES
BOARD OF APPEALS AND ADJUSTMENTS
Thursday, January 14, 1988 7 : 30 P.M. City Hall Council
Chambers , 7600 Execut 've Dr . ,
Eden Prairie, MN 55344
BOARD OF APPEALS MEMBERS : Chairman Ron Krueger, Steve
Longman, Hanley Anderson,
Roger Sandvick, Lyn Dean,
William Arockiasamy, Dwight
Harvey
BOARD STAFF: Zoning Administrator : Steve Durham
Recording Secretary:Sharon Swenson
ROLL CALL: Krueger, Harvey, Arockiasamy and Sandvick were present .
Longman, Anderson and Dean were absent .
I . MINUTES
A. Minutes of December 10, 1987.
MOTION: Arockiasamy moved that the Board approve the minutes
• of December 10, 1987 . Harvey seconded the motion and it was
passed unanimously.
II . VARIANCES
A. Request #87-73, submitted by Laserdyne for property located at 6690
-Shady Oak Road, Eden PFii_ri7e9 Minnesota. The request Is for a
v ira ance fry C ty e, C apter 11 ectionT. 0, u ivfsion 4.
sperm tt 3 wal sigrisE tafing 93.5 square feet ty Code
maximum wall sign for a building tenants-50 squareeet�.
Marvin E Williams appeared to represent Laserdyne and apolo-
gized for not attending the last meeting when Mr. Dedlopf
represented the company. He stated that the original request
was based on the fact that the company has a new parent
company with a different name . It was now necessary to
identify with that name . Laserdyne has been in the same
facility since 1981 , but now the new identity is Lumonics-
Laserdyne . They would like to be identified as Lumonics
Laserdyne from hence forth, but would also like to retain
the Laserdyne name . A sign with both names was what they
had decided upon with Lumonics on the top in larger letters
and Laserdyne below in smaller ones . The original sign that
was put up before this reorga.ni.zation is located in the
S.W. corner of the building in the S.W. bay. It was installed
one year ago and is 26 Sq. Ft . It is the company' s desire
to retain that sign and put up a new sign as described above
that would be about 50 feet away toward the center of the
building.
Mr . Williams stressed that the important name now is
• Lumonics but that they would like to retain the Laserdyne
name . He was aware from the results of the previous meeting
that this arrangement was 47per-centover the allowable signage .
He stated that at that time they were advised of the alter-
natives and considered them. They now have made amendments
to the variance which would hopefully allow them to put
Lumonics Laserdyne sign in place but not retain the original
Laserdyne sign. At this point he produced blueprints and
showed them to the board. Again, he did stress the wish to
retain the original Laserdyne sign. The request that his
company was now making would make the footage of the signage
67 as opposed to 50 which is the maximum allowed by the city.
Sandvick asked if they had agreed to remove the old sign.
Williams answered that they had.
Sandvick stated that the request had been dropped from 47%
to 26% .
More discussion on the matter took place at this time.
Krueger asked if there were any present in the audience
with an opinion on the subject .
• No response .
MOTION; Sandvick moved that the board grant Variance
Request 87-73 with the revised sign area of 67. 5 square
feet . He felt that it was a significant reduction from
one month ago and that a good effort was shown on
Laserdyne ' s part .
Harvey seconded the motion on the condition that the
existing sign be removed .
Motion passed unanimously.
B. Request #88-01 , submilt.ed by Amoco Oil any for property located
Shady Oak Road,. Eden Prairie, Minnesota. The request s for a
variance from City Code, Chapter 11 Section 11 .70, Subdivision 47.
'N,to permit a free-standing pylon sign of 115-37 square ee City
erode maximum s—ign size permitted in the C-Wining strrcT s 0
square feet .
Jim Filipei represented Amoco Oil . He requested that they
be given permission to erect a 6 by 10 ' sign in the N.W.
• corner of property located at the intersection of Cross-
town and Shady Oak Rd. It would be similar to the one at
the facility on Aztec nr. ,where the sign has 3 frontages .
The 80 ' size is restrictive from their standpoint ._ They
will eliminate 2 other freestanding signs and put up a
quad price sign and an insert on one pole . After discussion
3
with Steve Durham he understood how the difference in
the amount of square footage came about . (130 Sq Ft
as opposed to 99 . 6 Sq . Ft . )It was the space between
the signs that made up the extra and he stated that
they would push the bottom one up to close that g4p.
Harvey asked if it would then be 99 .6 Sq. Ft .
Filipei answered that it would.
Arockiasamy asked if there were a sign like this in
the other facility.
Filipei answered that there was and it was identical
to the one at Mark' s Amoco.
Harvey asked if that sign was 99 .6 Sq. Ft .
Filipei answered that it was .
Durham stated that the variance was granted for Mark' s Amoco
at 90 Sq . Ft . according to the records .
Filipei stated that the actual sign was only 53 ft . , but
• but use of rectangle pushes footage up over 80 ft . He
added that they could go to 152 Sq . Ft . with three signs
so he felt that they were not asking for more signage
than allowed-They would just be consolidating them.
Harvey stated that it was like a trade off-two signs
for one .
Krueger asked for any input from the audience .
No one responded .
MOTION: Harvey moved that the Board approve Variance
request 88-01 as submitted with the following
finding and conditions :
Conclusion : the site housing one free standing
sign is more desirable than a total of 3 free
standing signs .
Condition: No additional free standing signs are
permitted on this site . The approved 130. 7 Sq .
Ft . is a trade off for additional free standing
signs . Sign to be no larger than Aztec Dr . Amoco
Arockiasamy seconded motion. It passed unan4d&pry.
C . Request #88-02, submitted by Richard Bergman and Richard Ziminske
• for property located at 14117 Holly Road, Eden Prairie, Minnesota.
The request is for a variance from City Code, Chapter 12, Section
12 O idSu idSu iv s on 12� to permit platting ova —resiTential of
without frontage on a publicly dedicated streat TCi y Code requires
all lots to have frontage on a publicly d d_ street).
4
i
Frank Cardarell made the request for Variance 88-02 .
• The request is for a variance from City Code to permit
platting of a residential lot without frontage on a publicly
dedicated street . He stated that they would like to make
three lots out of this property in the subdivision. One
lot would not be on a publicly dedicated street .
Krueger asked for a motion on the matter .
MOTION: Krueger moved that the Board approve Variance
request 88-02 based on the Planning Commission
recommendation.
Harvey seconded the motion
Motion passed unanimously.
D. Variance Request 88-03
Withdrawn
E. Request # 88-04-M submitted by Renee Peterson to be moved to
15361-15363 Trillium Ci e, Eden Prairie, Minnesota. The
building's present location is at 7785-7787 Carnelian Lane, Eden
Prairie Minnesota. The type of building to be moved is a twin
• Renee Peterson appeared before the Board to state that
the State of MN has purchased her property and that she
needed to move her residence . She would like to move her
home to Trillium' Circle. Most homes there are 10 years
old or older. Although hers is only 2 years old, the
market value is approximately the same . Hers is a rambler
type home .
A picture of the residence was passed for the Boards inspection.
Sandvick asked how the moving of the home would be accompolished
Peterson responded that the garages would be cut off and
then the home would be moved down Main and then down County
Road 4 to Valley View.
Harvey asked if permission to do this had been received.
Peterson stated that the mover was taking care of that
matter . The route that had been chosen was the best
alternative because of the mail boxes on other routes .
Krueger asked if there were any present in the audience
that wanted to speak on the issue .
• Brian Rosenberg came forward at this point and presented
his views on the issue to the Board. He lives across the
street from where the home will be relocated . - (Trillium
Circle) He had lived there since 1979 . He was not here
5
to object to the double bungalow on the site , but has
looked at Peterson' s property and feels that it would be
an eyesore in the neighborhood. The homes in his area are
all well kept up. He had noticed a number of things on
Peterson ' s property that he wished to bring to the attention
of the Board. Some of these things were : campers , snowmobiles ,
3 wheel vehicles , discarded tires , dog droppings and an
uncut lawn. He said that this type of neglect is not found
in the present residences in the neighborhood.
Krueger asked if that was Rosenberger ' s concern.
Rosenberger answered that it was .
Sandvick stated that the structure has to be architecturally
compatible and that those requirements were met . He said
that Rosenberger ' s objection was the ownership ' s ability to
maintain the residence . This is not a matter for the board
to consider.
Durham stated that according to Chapter 10 , page 270-1 ,
the homes should be compatible according to age .
Rosenberger answered that he wanted to come anyway and voice
his opinion on the matter.
• Harvey replied that it is not the Board' s responsibility to
judge how Peterson cares for her home.
Rosenberger said he had not been aware of that , but still
felt it was important to voice his opinion.
Krueger asked for any more discussion on the matter that
would be relevant .
At this point Rosenberger left the podium.
Sandvick asked if there were questions concerning bonds
required in the moving process .
Durham answered that the code says the standard is $1000.00
to cover damage to mail boxes that may incur along the way.
Krueger asked for a motion on the matter .
MOTION: Arockiasamy moved that the Board approve the
building moving request 88-04-11 with the follow-
ing findings and conclusion :
Finding: The proposed site location is the
appropriate zoning and size/style of buildings
• Conclusion : The applicant must file all procedures
for a building permit as outlined in Chapter 10
of the Eden Prairie City Code .
6
III . OLD BUSINESS
NONE
IV NEW BUSINESS
A. Code Amendment Chapter 2 . Proposed Ordinance 1-88 .
Durham explained that there used to be a 45 day period of
time during which variances could be appealed. On the
advice of their attorneys , they had ,decided to change
this to a 15 day period.
Harvey asked if the public was notified on appeals .
Durham stated that he did not believe so .
Arockiasamy asked if that were the only change.
Durham answered that it was and that all else remains
the same .
• Krueger asked for a motion to adjourn.
MOTION: Sandvick moved that the meeting adjourn.
Krueger seconded the motion.
Motion passed unanimously.
Meeting adjourned at 8 : 10 P.M.
•