Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBoard of Adjustments and Appeals - 05/12/1988 APPROVED NnR] ES • BOARD OF APPEALS AND ADJUSTMENTS Thursday, May 12, 1988 7:30 P.M. , City Hall Co cil { Chambers, 7600 ExecutivelDrive Eden Prairie, MN 55344 -BOARD OF APPEALS MEMBERS: Bill Arockiasamy (chairman), Hanley Anderson, Lyn Dean, Steve Longman, Dwight Harvey, Scott Anderson, Michael Bozonie, John Freemyer, Neil Akemann. BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: Hanley Anderson, Lyn Dean I. CAL., To ORDER--ROLL CALL--PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Meeting was called to order at 7:30 by Bill Arockiasamy, Chairman. Roll Call: -Bill Arockiasamy, Steve Longman, Dwight Harvey, Scott Anderson, Michael Bozonie, John Freemyer;-Neil Akemann. Lyn Dean and Hanley Anderson were absent. All present recited the Pledge of Allegiance II. MINUTES OF APRIL 14, 1988 • Motion: Harvey moved that the Board accept the minutes of the April 14 meeting with the correction regarding variance 88-09 on page 5. Harvey abstained in this motion rather than Anderson. Longman seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. III. VARIANCES A. Request #88-132 submitted by MTC for property located east of Hwy. #169, exit- am rp at-Shady Oak Roaci, south of Shady Oak—Road and' west of F1 ing Cloud Drive, Eden Prairie Minnesota. The request is for a variance from City Code, Chapter h,Section 1 00 u ivision7� to e�rmi nstallation of a MTC Park and Hide lot with a front yarn- set�iack of 15'-a�acent to i in C I ud Drive. City —Code- requires a minimum front yard setback of 50' in the Rural Zoning District. _ Naeem Qureshi appeared before the Board concerning this request and explained that approval was now needed from the MN Dept of Transportation. He had contacted them over a year ago and just recently heard from them on this matter. Because of the delay, he would like an extension for Variance: Request. 87-48. Durham explained to the Board that approval again was needed since construction did not occur within one year. He felt that as far as he could forsee, there • was no problem with the variance, except in the matter of the screening of 9parking stalls, whether this should be done with a fence or trees. Qureshi responded that he had submitted the plan to MN Dept of Transportation with 9 trees, but this had not been approved by them for sight line reasons. L Arockiasamy asked if the screen for the parking area was to be the trees. Durham answered that it was. • Harvey asked why the MINT Dept had disapproved the trees. Qureshi answered it was a matter of visibility. Long man asked if there was not a fence there . Qureshi answered that there was not. Harvey asked if the parking lot was lower than the street. Durham answered that at the lowest point, it was 10' below the street. S Anderson asked if these grades were existing or proposed and also had questions concerning the berming of the area. Qureshi answered that the grades were existing and there was no berming. S Anderson asked if consideration had been taken on expansion of Flying Cloud Drive. Durham answered that as. far as he knew, there were not plans for four lanes. S Anderson asked if the land was deeded or had an easement. Qureshi answered that it had an easement. . Longman asked how the Board could make Qureshi adhere to the original proposal if MN Dept of Transportation won't let them. Qureshi stated that they had problems selling ideas to MN Dept of Transportation. They had planted junipers in the area. Arockiasamy asked for the specific area of the trees. Qureshi showed a large plan of the area and explained the layout of the trees. Durham explained that code does not provide for junipers as screening material. Akemann asked if there was a bus shelter in the area. Qureshi answered that there would be one. Akemann asked if it would be a transfer station. Qureshi answered that he did not know the long range plans. Harvey noted the site lines concerns and asked why not reverse the one ways streets. . S Anderson agreed, but felt it could be too close to the intersection. . Longman asked who had the last word-the Board or MN Dept of Transportation. wDurham answered that a compromise was needed. 3 Qureshi said they were trying to meet conflicting requirements. He added that cost was not the issue, that the fence would be cheaper than the junipers, which allowed people to see over them now. • Longman stated that he felt that 18" junipers don't provide much screening. , Longman asked if the suggestion to change the one ways was an option.. Akemann felt it was not because of how the buses would have to pull into the area. Qureshi pointed out where the shelter would be on the plan. An attorney from the audience stepped forward and stated that he represented the owner of the parcel of land south of Flying Cloud Drive. He felt that the property looks nice, but if a park and ride would go in, it may look trashy. He urged the Board to stand tough on screening-he would prefer the natural vegetation. Durham suggested that trees be put in the middle of the parking area and the ones near -the entrances be removed. This would lessen the sight line problem. The attorney specified the location of his client's property, and restated that they would prefer the natural vegetation rather than a fence. Qureshi said that they could provide more junipers. Longman said he was flexible, but was not too excited about 18" junipers. He felt if the variance request was passed as originally intended, that Qureshi should work with Durham concerning the placementlof trees in the area. • Durham felt the Board should set limits for him to work with in doing this. MOTION: S Anderson moved that the Board approve Variance request 88-13 with the suggestions of staff to reduce 49 evergreen to 46 by removing trees at the southern entrance to comply with MN Dept of Transportation, to improve sight lines. Longman seconded ' the motion and it passed unanimously. Arockiasamy asked if the trees were to be eliminated or moved. Anderson answered that they were to be eliminated. B. Variance,Request #88-14, submitted �y R.H. Williams Sales, Inc.,- for pLoyfLt located at 7061 Flying Cloud Drive, Eden Prairie Minnesota. The request is for a variance from City Code, Chapter 11 Sentinn z SlIbUivision to permit a free-standing -sign height oft575' . City Code maximum height in the Industrial District is 15.81 . Chuck Lerberg of Nordquist Sign Company appeared before the Board and asked Durham if the Variance for the height was correct. Durham answered that it was correct at 15.5' . Lerberg explained that Mr. Williams wanted to request a variance to 15.5' • or the sign could not be seen. The present allowable 8' would not allow it to be seen. Durham added that the sign would be visihle. The road elevation i.n "the"area is 877' and considering the height of a car, he felt that the 51gn wo ld be visible. The property is zoned industrial. Arockissamy asked if the sign would be on the berm next to the driveway, where the area was higher. • Williams answered yes, the top of the berm is about level with the h ghway. The building is lower than the highway. Durham clarified that the top of the berm is 879' , which is 2' above the road. Harvey asked if there was access to the location southbound on 169. Williams answered no. Harvey asked if it was true that visibility doesn' t help when going southbound on 169. Williams answered no, it does not. Harvey asked if the use would be mini-storage. Williams answered that it had started out that way, but the plans were dropped due to tax laws concerning rental space. Now it would be a show room for carpet_ in the front. They could have a larger sign if it were on the building, but they would prefer a smaller one in this location. Harvey asked about the use for the remainder of the building. Williams answered an office building and a video business. • Harvey asked if the building is full size. Williams answered that it was. Durham stated that it was the first building of an approved plan. Akemann voiced concerns about the sign being seen because of the trees. Williams agreed that they were somewhat of an obstruction. Williams and Durham explained the layout to the Board members. Harvey asked about the carpet showroom. Williams said that there would be some retail. It would be delivered to the homes. It should not be a big item-maybe 2-3 cars per hour. Harvey asked if all the signage were to be used for carpet store, what about the other tenants. Williams said that this will be all the signage, and he did not expect to have any other. Anderson said that the nice thing about the signs in Eden Prairie, •they were • not on posts in the ground. He would rather have larger signs, not on posts. An 80 Sq ft sign did not bother him as much as one on a post. He suggested some brick framework be installed. Harvey stated that he had a hard time justifying a hardship. Anderson asked if the sign would be backlit. Williams answered yes. Lerberg noted that higher signs had been allowed. Durham explained that this had taken place when there were other members on the Board., Arockiasamy added that those situations do not set precedents, that he felt each situation was considered on it's own merit. MOTION: Harvey moved that the Board deny Variance request 88-14 on the grounds that no hardship or unique circumstances were presented. Code could be followed and the building identified in that way. Akemann seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. Arockiasamy told Williams that he could appeal to the City Council. Williams thanked the Board for their time. C. Variance Re uest #88-15, submitted byThe International School of Minnesota for property located at 6385 Beach Road, Eden Prairie, Minnesota, legally described as: See Reverse Side. The request is for a variance from City Code C a ter 11��ection 1 7 lTo ermit a free-stan i� ing sign size of 8� 8 s uare feet City Code permits � s are, feet in the Public Zoning District. 2 To errmiitt a sign base of 65 s uare feet, City Code permits 40 square feet. permit a sin height of C1t Comae ermits • TracyWhitehead Director of Operations of the International School a eared � Op � PP before the board. She asked if the Board had received a copy of the letter and if they had a chance to read it. Durham answered that they had. Whitehead explained that they would like to have a sign that was visible from the Crosstown. Hennepin County had put up a berm and a concrete noise barrier that blocks the school, so it can't be seen. To succeed in business, they need students and clients, they need identification. She displayed pictures of the school and the site. Harvey asked where the fence was in relation to the sign. Whitehead answered that it would be 10' back from the fence (required setback). All the property on Beach Road is owned by Hennepin County Hwy Dept and there were no signs allowed. She felt they have a great school and no one can find it. The sign would be 100' back and up and on the hill. She would like to put up a classy looking sign and is willing to pay extra for a logo in the sign. 80 sq ft sign placed 100' back from the road would allow identification. Lee Data had a similar variance, and also others in traveled areas where it can be read easily. Another instance nearby in Minnetonka has a sign much larger than what they are requesting. There would be no other signs in that area as either the school or Hennepin County owns the property. • Durham said he felt Whitehead did a good job explaining the situation and that the situation was indeed a problem for the school, in that it has poor-.visibility. 6 Durham stated that 80-100 feet from the highway potential locatioL g Y are for the sign. There may be room for options, but it would be one of the largest variances approved by the Board. • Whitehead said that they are in a public zone as opposed to industrial or commercial. The base of the sign would be aluminum and it would be doe in the school colors. It would be a two faced sign. Akemann had questions about the placing of the signs. Durham said that the signs need to be put back to back , no more than 12" between sign laces. Freemyer asked what other private schools have for signs. How about Breck and Blake? He noted that these schools had small names on their signs or signs of about 50 sq ft on pedestals. He asked how much business the sign would add. Whitehead answered a lot of business. She said that those schools have been around many years and have been widely known. They need to do very little advertising. The International School is brand new. Freemyer felt the sign only helps to identify the school for someone who is already going there. Whitehead said they had purchased the property at a high price for the location and visibility. She said it was important to put the grades and other information on the sign. Harvey asked if all this information would be visible. • A sign consultant who had accompanied Whitehead to the meeting said she felt it would be visible. (Sign Consultant: Barbara Pitcher) Akemann asked if the sign would be for advertising or identity. Whitehead said it provided name and place recognition. Harvey felt it did not accompolish the directional aspect. Akemann said it would seem like a sign with no building. Longman said he did not accept the concept that off street traffic will come in because ofsignage in this instance. Whitehead said that they could not depend on their alumni as some others have been able to do. They run an extended day care program and location is' as important in schools as in other businesses. Longman said that he realized that this was a problem, but all a person has to do is find the school one time. Bozonie remarked that there was 200' of unnecessary sound wall. Harvey stated that there was a home in that area, and that is why the sound wall was there. • Anderson stated that Blake has arches for identification. He felt if anything was done, he would like to see the base done in masonry. He did not feel that "college prepatory" or the grades should be listed on the sign. Longman stated that is seems like a billboard and not a small school ign. It should be a monument. • Freemyer said that he liked the brick base idea. He did not mind the logo, but felt that "College prepatory" should be eliminated from the sign. Arockiasamy stated that the variance could be continued to another me ting or the Board could vote on it now-what would Whitehead prefer? Durham asked if Whitehead had any other thoughts on the sign. Whitehead said she wanted clarification of the Board's position. Longman said he did not feel that the Board could tell Whitehead what she should have on her sign. Whitehead asked if the Board could give her the size they would allow and they would see what they could do. Longman and Harvey agreed that they did not recognize a hardship. Freemyer asked what was the maximum square footage allowed. Durham responded that it was 80 sq. ft. Arockiasamy felt the Board should look at .the matter again after the school had come up with another proposal for the sign. • Whitehead again asked for a footage amount to work with in order to avoid futher delay in the matter. Harvey stated that the Board had recommended an alternative of 99 sq ft. The base could be narrowed and a brick base would be better than aluminum. Akemann noted that there were very few signs between 494 and Valley- View. Whitehead stated that they would like internal lighting. Anderson asked if the alternative idea in the staff report was acceptable. Whitehead said that originally they felt they needed 122 sq. ft. If they could do a sign with that sq footage, would that do? Freemyer said that he could understand why Whitehead wanted a framework to work with. Arockiasamy asked if there were any others present in the audience who had opinions on the matter. Mr. Don Poupard of 6251 Beach Rd, who lives next door to the school stepped forward. He said that one year ago, Whitehead made many promises to him and he is still waiting for them to be adhered -to. He said that she is asking for 23' in height and he felt that she already had that above the Crosstown • with the hill there. On 494, there are lots of retail operations, all with signs of 64 sq ft. He felt the Board would have lots of class action suits ' if this variance was granted. He asked if signs were allowed on freeway and on the entrance. Durham answered that this was allowed. Don Poupard stated that Whitehead has caused him many problems because she has not followed through on her promises. • Freemver asked if the objections were because of the sign or a lack of commitment of the promises. Don Poupard said he felt a small sign was sufficient. Whitehead said that she too would like to get rid of the traffic, but the police will not allow the gates to be locked. She said she understood that the Board disapproved original plan, but their goal was to get students signed up for summer session, so she would like to know what the Board would allow-what size? Harvey said he had a problem with size and height, but he would be willing to allow 99 sq ft. Durham said that the base can be 40 sq. ft. Freemyer said that a sign up to 99 sq ft with no variance was allowed on base or height. He preferred base brick. Durham said that the Board has the right to put on conditions. Bozonie asked why brick was being suggested. Longman said it would be doing the school and Eden Prairie a favor, so it looks stylish. Akemann asked if the axis runs north and south. Whitehead answered yes. Akemann asked how about the earth berm. Barbara Pitcher, a sign consultant, stated it could not be physically done. Longman said he felt it should be 99 sq ft because of the distance from the freeway and it should have a brick base. Akemann asked if the matter thould be continued or resolved. Whitehead said she would want it resolved so she had some criteria to work with. Durham said it 's height from the base was 18' . Measurement is always taken from the lowest grade elevation. Longman felt the base should be brick for sure if the height was 18' . Discussion took place •on the placement of the sign and the Highway Dept land. Arockiasamy said he felt it was like giving a blank check, he added that he felt it needed some more work before a final decision could be made. Should • the decision be moved to the end of the meeting? Longman said Fie felt the Board has minimized as much as they could. Anderson asked if a motion could be made to outline the ideas for the • sign and approve or disapprove on staff recommendation. Durham felt it was not a good idea to put the staff in that position] Longman asked if parimeters needed to be given for Board approval later. Akemann said he was not ready to approve at this time. Freemyer said he did not know about slope of hill. Harvey said possibly a motion to continue the variance should be made. Longman asked if the Board could do that. Durham said it could be continued,but Whitehead has the option to request action. Whitehead said she would not like the, matter continued. Arockiasamy said that there were 3 variances involved. These involved the size, the base, and the height. Anderson suggested that a sign up to 99 sq' ft be allowed, the shorter side of the base not to exceed 8"pbove grade and area of base should, not exceed 40 sq. ft. • Whitehead showed pictures to Board again, and discussion continued on the site of the sign. She stated that she did not like this problem either, but has no choice because of Hennepin County: Akemann said the matter could.,be approved, denied, continued„ or parimeters could be given. Arockiasamy asked Pitcher what kind of height was being considered. Pitcher replied a l to 2.5 or 3 ratio. Anderson said he could accept it if the short elevation did not exceed 8". Harvey felt the Board should consider continuing the variance.. He asked questions concerning the MN Dept of Transportation and this matter. Whitehead responded that she had called and they were not receptive. Arockiasamy said that at the high end, the base will be about' 4' . At the shorter side, it will be less than 12". Harvey noted that at 80 sq ft, �the Board has no control, but 'at 99 sq ft, there is control. • Arockiasamy asked as long as there was a 10' setback, did the Board have the right to say where the sign is placed? 10 Durham responded that the site plan indicated the location. Harvey felt the site should be specified. He added that the Board wa lacking information,in his opinion. MOTION: Harvey moved that since the Board did not have sufficient information, the the variance be continued to the June meeting. Akemann seconded the motion. Anderson suggested that the statement be added to the motion that the Board tried to add parimeters. He asked what more would be needed. (No vote on this motion) Harvey responded to Anderson's inquiry that he would like specifics on site and design. Durham stated that he has schematics to show where the sign would be located. He felt that the Board would like to see the sign redesigned. Arockiasamy asked if the Board could make a motion to continue if the applicant insists on action. Durham responded that the decision was up to the applicant. Whitehead asked if the sign needed to be exactly as the Board specified and say exactly what the Board specified. Akemann noted that the issue was the size, not the wording. Whitehead asked if the following specifications were acceptable-a brick base, (no more than a 12" base or 25 sq ft of base), a 99 sq ft sign, which was no more than 9 or 10 ft high from the base. Arockiasamy suggested that the sign could be cantilevered over the base. Durham asked if 99 sq ft could accomodate the sign on the drawing submitted. Pitcher responded that it could, if the wording was reduced, but it would be better as shown. Harvey withdrew the motion to continue, which was madE earlier. MOTION: Harvey moved that the Board approve variance 88-15 with the following stipulations: That the sign be no more that 99 sq ft, that the. base be no more than 30 sq ft, that the maximum height be no more than 14' from the lowest grade to the top of the sign. Harvey added that the base material be brick. Freemyer seconded the motion. Arockiasamy asked if some flexibility should be allowed in the base. - Discussion took place on the base. Motion passed 6-1. Bozonie voted nay. 11 D. Variance Request #88-16 submitted Py the Helle Partnership for property occated at -1020 allele View Road, Eden i7rairie Minnesota. The request is for a variance from City Code, Chapter 11 Section 11,.03, Subdivision 3, H z 40 S b annJ H. 7, to permit parking0' from a side lot line, it Code re uires "t0 and to prmit the end of—a driveway 01from a properly Tine, City Code requires 1�' . — — _ Sigmund Helle appeared before the Board to present his variance. He displayed a drawing of the area to clarify the situation for the Board. He noted that it was a physical situation and gave a brief history of the issue. He explained that if a planted area was required, it would allow only 10' for his company to get trucks to the rear of the building. He said that they had tried to design the best building possible, and had tried to shield the dock in the best manner he could. If the issue of truck access were to become a problem, he stated that a potential tenant in the south building would be lost. Arockiasamy asked where the area of the variance was on the drawing. Helle pointed out the area under discussion. Durham noted that the Planning Commission and the City Council have reviewed the request. MOTION: Freemyer moved that the Board approve the variance as presented. Harvey seconded the motion. • Anderson asked why the lots were not one lot instead of two. Freemyer answered that it is a mortgage issue. The motion passed 6-1 with Anderson voting nay on the grounds that it would have been just as easy to make the lots one lot. Akemann; noted to Helle that there was some brush accumulating at the loading dock area in the rear of the building. E. Variance Request #88-17 submitted b Suburban National Bank for property located at 0 West_ th tS-reet, E en ra�irie Minnesota.—_TFe rreegnestt is for a variance from City Code, Chapter 1�Section 0, Subdivision 4 DZ to permit two wall sign for Suburban National Bank totaling 3 .65 s uare feet, City Code ermits in the Office Zoning District, one identification wall sign per accessory use not to exceed 50 square feet. Willie Furry appeared for the Suburban National Bank and stated that they had been in the building for 7 years and in that time the trees had grown considerably. The signage was needed for both advertising and identity purposes. The sizes specified were so because the bank had them from previous buildings and by using these, they would not need to purchase new ones. • Durham noted that Furry did a good job of explaining the situation. 'The existing sign is 8' and somewhat blocked by trees on other property. He said that the considerations should be the appearance and size of the sign, the percent of hardship and the amount of variance requested. l L. Eery said that the sign on the canopy would be lighted, but the one in the back would not be. Arockiasamy asked questions concerning the existing signs. Eery verified that they were from other locations. i Akemann asked if the bank owned the building. Eery answered that they did not. Akeman asked how this would make the building more visible. Eery answered that being on the building itself would give more identity to the bank-some customers think the bank is only a drive-through. She felt the signs were tasteful. Bozonie asked the Board for more information on the conflict of interest issue. Durham answered that it was determined by the fact that if it would benefit you, then it would be conflict of interest. Freemyer felt that the sign for the north side is. way more than necessary. Akemann agreed that the bank looks more like a drive-through, but the sign would not change that. He felt it was not consistent with the area and it was out of character. • Eery stated that they are located in a difficult place, but that the sign could be seen from Co Rd. 4 when illuminated. Akemann suggested a combination sign with the Prairie Physicians. Eery said that she had not thought about that, but felt it would be a lot of verbage on such a sign. She noted that the competition had much signage. Harvey asked if the existing sign would come down. Durham answered no. Harvey asked if this would come to 2%2 times code. He asked if the sign across the street meets the code (The Eden Place Bank). Durham answered that it did as it was zoned commercial -and this instance was zoned office. Harvey said he could see the need for identity, but the current sign does that. Freemyer asked about the possibility of having a smaller sign on Hwy 5. Eery answered that it would be a consideration. She noted that they had withdrawn other requests earlier concerning raising the height of the present sign. • Longman noted that this was an unusual place for a bank. He did not feel he could vote on this as there were too many sizes. In his opinion some real criteria was needed. Emry noted that it was a difficult issue. What about the matter of the trees? • Longman noted that they were a hardship in this instance, but nothing that the Board could act on. Harvey said the bank could go up to a 50 sq ft sign. Durham noted that up to 32 sq ft of ground .mour_ted directional signs were allowed. Arockiasamy told Furry that he felt the Board would not pass the- variance. She had the options of: withdrawing, continuing, or let the Board act on the variance. Emry requested that the Board continue the variance until the next meeting. Akemann still felt that something different in the front was needed. Furry stated again that she would like a continuance. Lerberg, from Nordquist Sign Co, asked if there would be an option to drop the sign in the back. Fmry felt that there would be a problem with that. MOTION: Longman moved that the variance be continued for one month. Anderson seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. • IV. OLD BUSINESS Durham asked the Board members their opinion on the Data Base examples they had received in the monthly mailing. The members felt it was very helpful. V. NEW BUSINESS Arockiasamy felt the discussion needed to be expedited at the meetings. Perhaps each member should organize their thought on the variance being considered and then have one turn to suniarize their opinion on the matter. He felt that when a variance took an unusually long time, other persons with variances were made to wait too long to present their issue to the Board. Longman felt the the Chairman should call for motions at the end of the discussion instead of members offering them during the discussion. VI.ADJOURNMENT MOTION: Harvey moved that the Board adjourn. Longman seconded the motion. Board adjourned at 10:50 P.M.