Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBoard of Adjustments and Appeals - 04/14/1988 APPROVED MINUTES BOARD OF APPEALS AND ADJUSTMENTS Thursday, April 14, 1988 7 :30 P.M. , City Hall Council Chambers , 7600 Executive Dr. , Eden Prairie, MN 55344 BOARD OF APPEALS MEMBERS: Bill Arockiasamy (acting chair- man) Hanley Anderson, Lyn Dean, Steve Longman, Dwight Harvey, Scott Anderson, Michael Bozonie, John Freemyer. BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: Neil Akemann BOARD STAFF: Zoning Administrator, Steve Durham Recording Secretary,Sharon Swenson CALL TO ORDER--ROLL CALL--PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Meeting was called to order at 7 :30 by acting Chairman, Arockiasamy Roll Call: Bill Arockiasamy, Hanley Anderson, Lyn Dean, Steve Longman, Dwight Harvey, Scott Anderson, Michael Bozonie, John Freemyer. Akemann was absent. • All present recited the Pledge of Allegiance I. INSTALLATION OF BOARD MEMBERS Freemyer, Bozonie, and Anderson were sworn in as new Board members. Arockiasamy welcomed the new members to the Board. II. ELECTION OF NEW OFFICERS Harvey moved that the Board move item II (Election of Officers) to the end of the meeting. Anderson seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. III. MINUTES Minutes of March 10, 1988 meeting MOTION: Harvey moved that the Board accept the minutes with cor- rections as follows : On variance 88-06, the vote was not recorded. The variance was denied 6-0. On variance 88-07 , no second had been recorded. This should be added and also that it passed 6-0. Anderson seconded the motion to approve the minutes with those corrections . • 2 1 Arockiasamy briefly explained the system used by the Board of Adjustments and Appeals concerning variances . He advised any Board Member that had a personal interest in an issue to abstain from voting, although he could participate in the discussion. IV. VARIANCES j A. Request #88-08, submitted by A to Z Rental for property located at 12600 Plaza Drive, Eden Prairie, Minnesota. The request is for a variance from City Code, Chapter 11, !Section 311. 3, Subdivision to permit outside storage of rental equipment, City Code requires equipment and vehicles over-774--ton capacity to be stored within an enclosed building 2 Subdivisions H, 5, b� to permit a arkinq lot 0' from a rear lot line, City Code requires a 10' setback. Roland Roos displayed a sketch of the area and explained that there would be 3 phases . He established the location was near Menards on Plaza Drive. Phase I was a rental facility, phase II was a second addition of the building, and phase III was a single story building. He gave a brief overview of the project which included a brick face on the building with a ste--1 facade. The signage will have black letters with light backdrop. The area has an elevation change which will benefit the outside storage of equipment in the aspect that it will be less visible when standing on ground level. LandscaVing would be done in addition to conceal the storage area with 6-8 blue spruce. Most of the medium sized equipment would be stored inside. The variance would be needed for outside storage of trucks and vans . Durham added that all the areas explained by Roos are correct . He also explained that a 0' lot line parking set back is a common occurence in a' commercial district. S Anderson asked about the land between Plaza Drive and Valley View. He also had questions on the elevation. Roos answered that it was classified as an out lot at present . He referred the Members of the Board to the site plan as he explained further. S Anderson asked about the signage. Roos answered that uniform lettering would identify all tenants and potential tenants . He gave examples of potential tenants . Harvey asked about the timing of the phases . Roos answered Phase I starts about 5/15/88 . Phase II starts in 18 mo . • Four or five months prior to the end of Phase II, Phase III would begin. It was an educational process for customers , to acquaint them them with the new location. Harvey asked if the berm used for screening would be there only temporarily (for the 18 months) ? 3 Roos answered that it was correct. • D. Harvey asked if Phase .II was not done in 18 months , would more screening be needed? Durham answered that provisions had not been made. ' Roos stated that if more landscaping was required , it would be done. D. Harvey asked what was the size of the largest trucks? Roos answered that they were 10' . S Anderson asked about landscape bonding . Durham answered that it covered a period of 2 years after completion of Phase III . He clarified the time period. D. Harvey asked if the temporary berm was part of Phase I . Roos answered that it was . S Anderson asked if the end of Phase I was reached and Phase II was not done , how would they gain access to the property . Roos answered that there was a provision in the agreement . Longman complimented Roos on his presentation and the planning that had gone into the project. He was in favor of it. MOTION: Longman moved that the Board grant Variance 88-08 with the following findings and conditions : 1) Should a parking problem occur with Phase I, additional parking will be required. Should parking problems occur after all building phases are constructed portions of the outside storage area will be reduced to provide adequate parking for the retail use. 2) No outside storage beyond the designated area be permitted. 3) Should the temporary berm not effectively screen the outside storage area, the berm will be increased. 4) The variance is only applicable - to A to Z Rental . Should A to Z Rental relocate, the variance request will become null and void. 5) The Planning Commission and City Council have recommended approval based on revised material dated March 9 and March • 11, 1988. D. Harvey seconded the motion with one more condition : If Phases II & III were not begun within 18_ months' of Phase I , a temporary berm and. vetetation be planted to provide a screen from the roadways . Motion passed unanimously. 4 B. Request #88-09, submitted Red Rock Heights Partnership for Property located east of Alpine Trail , south of Chicago, Milwaukee, St.a and—Pacif-i—CRa-f—Iroad, Eden Prairie, Minnesota. The request is for a variance from City Code Chapter 11 Section 11.03 �ubd I v i si one to ermi t ro ose3 Lots an3i5 �To-cTc lot depth less than 1501 , City Code requires lots abutting on a railroad to have at least 150' depth. D. Harvey noted that his vote on this Variance would be an abstention , as he lived near the area considered for the Variance. Bill Gilk represented Red Rock Heights Partnership. He displayed a layout of the area and explained that a reduction in the amount of dirt to be hauled had been reduced from 75 ,000 tons to 25 ,000 tons . This would reduce the impact of the neighborhood from the trucks and noise. Durham reminded the board that the issue had been under controversy for years , but that a change in the road plan had reduced the amount of fill that would be required. A similar Variance had been granted last year for 2 lots ,and he stated this appeal had merit because the amount of fill had been reduced. Arockiasamy asked if the Variance that had been granted last year • had been utilized. Durham answered that it had not as the area had not been platted yet . Gilk added that the City Council had voted to deny the Old Alpine Estate Addition and approve this new proposal. Arockiasamy asked if the original Variance was over 12 months old. Durham noted the date on the original Variance as May 14 , 1987 . Longman asked why there was such a concern over the amount of fill on the site? Durham answered that it was a residential neighborhood with trees and it was not appropriate for the site. Gilk stated by changing the amount of fill , the amount of grade had been lessened. He said that they would be using an end loader instead of a scrapper to minimize the amount of impact on the neighborhood . Freemyer asked why the cul-de-sac was temporary and not permanent . Gilk answered that there was an adjacent area to the east and if changes took place there, an extension may be needed. Freemyer asked if there would be further development there . Gilk answered that at the present time, the owners had no intention of doing so , but that there is potential there for someday . The Board examined the drawings and plans submitted. Bozonie asked if the area to the east was a flood plain that would • require more fill. Was that an issue now? Gilk answered that it was a large hill and that the flood plain was below. MOTION: Longman moved that the Board grant Variance request 88-09 as such: Approve Variance Request #88-09 as submitted with the following finding: The proposed plan consisting of 16 single family lots mitigates grading and fill on the site. . Proposed Lots 3, 4, and 5, Block 1, Alpine Estates 2nd Addition meet all R1-13.5 Zoning District standards and are adequate in size for residential construction. The Planning Co7anission and City Council have approved the development proposal . Dean seconded the motion and it passed 7-0 with D Harvey abstaining. C. Request r88-10, submitted by Birchwood Laboratories for property located at TTW-Fuller Road, en Prairie, Min eso nta. he request is for a variance from City Code Chapter�Sctio�1.03Subdivision 3, H, 7, c to permit a driveway at the intersection of a right-of-way line and property • line with a setback of3.2' , City Code requires a 1 ' setback. � City Code Chapter 12, Section �2.30, Subdivision 21 A,_ to eQ rmit platting_ of proposed Lot 4 in the Birchwood Labs plat without lot frontage on a publicly dedicatea street. City Code requires all lots to have frontage on a publicly dedicated street. John Hay represented Birchwood Laboratories . He stated that they had been there since 1969 when they had purchased the land. (He drew the Board' s attention to a hand out he had prepared. ) He clarified the location of the parcels of land and the location of Fuller Road . One lot had no frontage on Fuller road, although the State had given an easement for access . Durham stated that if the layout of the lots were to be changed, other variances would come up for lot 3 . He felt that this was the best solution . Freemyer asked if the driveway was in place and questioned Hay on the entrance to the mini storage. Hay stated that an agreement had been reached so the parcel could be used and not land locked. S Anderson asked Hay if Lot 1 was mini storage , lot 2-vacant , lot • 3-laboratory, and lot 4-vacant? Hay answered that those descriptions were correct . 6 Bozonie asked if the new lots 3 and 4 were the same as the old lots 4 and S . • Hay answered that they were . He added that if land in the area would be further developed , Fuller Road would probably be extended. Arockiasamy asked if there were any present in the audience that had opinions on the subject . No response. MOTION: D Harvey moved that the Board approve Variance Request 88-10 as submitted with the following findings : a) Planning Commission and City Council have reviewed and approved the preliminary plat. b) Due to existing land use, existing Parcel 4 historically did not have access to a publicly dedicated street. The preliminary plat design could not be designed to include lot frontage for Lot 4 without creating additional variances for Lot 3. c) The driveway variance will mitigate additional intersections onto County Road #4. Reducing. the number of intersections on County Road #4 is supported by Hennepin County and the • City. H Anderson seconded the motion and it passed unanimously . D. Variance Request #88-11, submitted �y Bohl/Helgeson for property located at 6442 City West Parkway, Eden Prairie, Minnesota. The request is for a variance from City Code Chapter 1 Section .70, Subdivision , D, to Permit a wall sign of 05 square feet, City Code maximum size sign in the Office Zoning District is 50 square feet. Dean stated in this request , he would abstain from voting. Brace Helgeson represented the Bohl /Helgeson Company in this request for a Variance. He asked if the Board had received the blueprints he had submitted ( they had) and stated that it was his wish to maintain his name in the signage they were requesting. He said that their company was a small real estate company of about 20 agents and that they had experienced strong growth and now were in need of additional office space . They desired high visibility and a professional site. He felt that visibility was critical in his business and mentioned that the bank had made a similar request which had been granted because they were a retail orientated business . This would be a major financial commitment for Bohl/Helgeson since they would be leasing over 10,000 square feet of space . Location of the site and visibility were very im- portant factors in their choice of location . They would like to be granted the same size letters as U. S. West had been granted, although he did acknowledge that their name was shorter . He felt that if they were the same size, it would maintain asthetic con- gruency. Possibilities that had been considered were to eliminate ERA, which was part of the name, or to eliminate realtors , which 7 would leave many confused as to the business Bohl/Helgeson was engaged in. He felt many in the community were unfamiliar with • the name Bohl/Helgeson unless the word realtors were added for identification. The company had been expereriencing an exciting growth period and desired this location because it was highly visible. Pat Hagen, representing the owner of the building, stated that it had been designed as a multi-tenant building although to date more anchor tenants and single user tenants had leased space. He felt that continuity should be maintained. They were proud of the project and felt that the signage asked for by Bohl/Helgeson was in scale with the building. Durham stated that according to code, each wall can have 50 square feet of signage and that :this building has only one street frontage., Bozonie asked what size the lettrs for Prime Tech Company were. Bohl/Helgeson respesentative, Mr Helgeson answered that they were 13" high, or about 40square. ft. He felt that they were relatively difficult to read from Hwy 169. Arockiasamy asked if the letters would be lighted. Helgeson answered that they would be. He added that Prime Tech did not have internal lighting, but was lit with flood lights . • Arockiasamy asked what was the business of Scamp Company. Helgeson answered that computers werethe business of that company. Arockiasamy asked how the letters in that name would identify the company. Helgeson answered that each letter stood for something and that it was well known in the computer industry. Arockiasamy asked how significant the word realtors was in the name of Bohl/Helgeson. Hagen answered that the word realtors would be very significant and that the owner would like this tenant in the building. Helgeson said that originally they had submitted requests for 205 square feet with the word realtor being the same size as Helgeson. They had reduced the word realtors , but felt if it were to removed, the business of the company would not be known. He felt it was critical to their identity. S Anderson asked if the letters ERA would be in blue. • Helgeson answered that they would be orange and blue. Harvey asked what the present location of the company was . Helgeson said that they had been in the Pheasant Run office building 8 i for 3 1/2 years . . Harvey asked what was the source of clients now. Helgeson answered that 60% were from Eden Prairie and 40% were from adjacent communities . Some were from new construction. Harvey asked how the clients found them now. Helgeson answered yard signs , mailings , door knocking, and adver- tising. There was very littel walk in traffic because of the location. He added that even Edina Realty got only about- one walk' in cus- tomer per day and that . his company would like to increase that by moving to a more .vis*ible location. Harvey asked if it would increase on Hwy 169 . Helgeson felt it would increase and also give credibility to the company. Harvey stated that the company had grown to 20 agents , was that correct? Helgeson answered that it was . Harvey stated that he was nottoo fond of sign variances . He felt that there was no need to go over code. He could see the Prime Tech sign as it was. Helgeson stated that Merrill Lynch had letters allaround their location ,and Harvey Hanson had letters 30" high ,and that Marquette Bank had signage 2 1/2 times larger. He did not feel that their proposed signage would clutter the street considering the others. Harvey stated that the bank was totally dependent on walk in traffic and he questioned the increase in walk in traffic that this would create for Bohl/Helgeson.He questioned the hardship issue and did not see a need to exceed code. Longman said he could see both sides of the issue-He felt it was tasteful, but at the same time, he questioned the walk in traffic argument.He felt it provided status and credibility for Helgeson and would be good for the company. He added that he was 100% for Eden Prairie businesses , but felt they needed to consider the hardship issue in this matter. Helgeson said that in order for Bohl/Helgeson to grow and compete with Edina and Coldwell Realtys , they need to have credibility amongst their piers . They need to recruit other agents in the com- munity. They need the help of Eden Prairie in order to be established as a corporate leader in the industry. He asked the Board not to make a major issue of the walk in traffic matter, but did state • that people need to recognize them in order to become a major player in the industry. They had franchised with ERA in order to get 10 years ahead in credibility-they would like the 54% variance. 9 Harvey stated that he sympathized, but felt that it was the responsibility of the Board to judge according to hardshi does it deprive Bohl/Helgeson of the best use of the proppty? He did not believe that a hardship was demonstrated, or that the company was being deprived of success . H Anderson stated that he felt the issue was becoming clouded. It is not the problem of the Board if a company competes or survives . He felt that typically, these types of variances have been granted. How can the Board grant such variances for Marquette Bank? Many variances have been granted when the tenant is the main tenant in a major building. Hagen pointed out that U. S. West signage was an example where larger square footage had been allowed because it was on two separate streets . He asked what the difference was in 2 50' signs or one 100' sign. They would like the 100' sign. S Anderson felt that it could be an opportunity to make the office building more successful . Perhaps when it is tastefully done, the opportunity should be taken. Longman asked if 30" high letters were proposed, as used by U.S. West and Scamp. • Hagen answered that the same size was proposed, but a different style. He noted that U.S. West letters were 26" high. Longman stated that he first felt that the word realtors would not be needed, but then later felt it would help the company more than hurt Eden Prairie. He said that he is bullish on Eden Prairie businesses and projects . Freemyer referred to the hand-out provided by Bohl/Helgeson and stated that he felt few people knew that ERA is a realty firm. He felt that the Board should not put too much emphasis on the letters being the same size as others nearby since the style was different. Arockiasamy asked if any attempt had been made to consider dif- ferent sizes . Helgeson answered that there had. His company had decided on 105 Sq ft, which was less than the bank signage. S Anderson noted that Scamp and U.S. West were one and two story buildings . The building considered by Helgeson was more building and he would prefer to see the signage match. Harvey replied that the building is currently identified with • signs that meet code. He did not see a need to go over our code. lu Hagen noted that the words Prime Tech are less to read than Bohl/Helgeson Bruce Eggeston stated that he had an architects opinion that 50 Sq Ft would not be recognizable on this size building. The architect felt that a sign too small would not be appropriate. H Anderson remembered approving Suburban and Marquette Banks appeals for variances when a hardship did not arise for those two companies . He felt it is hard to deny some and grant others . Longman answered that competition with other banks was the issue at that time. Helgeson noted that the staff report stated that the signage would be 1 . 1% of the total footage of the building. The area of the building is larger than that of the bank building, and less signage is being requested. S Anderson asked if 70 sq ft sign was adequate. Helgeson answered that it was not . They had considered many things , including the speed on the roads nearby and had come up with 105 Sq ft . He did not feel that the variance was excessive. Harvey asked if the frontage area of Marquette was larger than that of the building being considered where both face 169. Helgeson answered that it was . Hagen noted that the square footage was very close. Arockiasamy asked for input from the audience . (none) Freemyer asked if there were plans for any more partners in the firm. Helgeson answered that there were not . Freemyer asked how long the company had gone under this name. Helgeson answered that it was known as ERA Bohl/Helgeson for 2 years . MOTION: S Anderson moved that the Board approve option 2 in the staff report as follows : Approve Variance Request #88-11 as submitted with the following findings and conditions: • a) The building is located in the 87 acre City West PUD. PUD's allow for greater flexibility in design standards than provided in the City Code. The Board has identified a trade-off and unique circumstances to the property. b) The building has only one street frontage as designed through the PUD. c) Prime Tech will remove the existing Prime Tech wall sign. d) No other tenant signs be permitted on the building as long as the Bohl/Helgeson sign is on the building. e) This variance is only valid for the Bohl/Helgeson sign. Should Bohl/Helgeson move out of the building, no other sign will be permitted at 105 square feet. Longman asked if a hardship had been demonstrated. S Anderson said he felt the circumstances were unique in consideration of other buildings in the area and also that there was only one frontage. H Anderson seconded the motion . Harvey , Freemyer and Bonzonie voted nay. Arockiasamy and Dean abstained. • This resulted in a tie vote with 3 in favor, 3 against, and two abs ten tions .Motion did not pass as presented. Discussion Continued on the variance . mendment added,Pg. 12) Durham said that normally the chairman does not abstain. Arockiasamy explained that he may be in a similar situation in the future and would chose to not cast a vote in this instance. Bozonie suggested that consideration be given to option 3 in the staff report which suggested a lesser amount of signage. Harvey said that a reduction in the amount of the variance would be acceptable to him. Durham said the item could be continued until more members were present on the Board. Helgeson stated that he felt the difference between 85 Sq Ft and 105 Sq Ft would not be harmful to Eden Prairie ' s asthetics but would greatly increase the benefits for the company . Bozonie said he was not suggesting that the word realtors be removed. He was comfortable with option 3. Helgeson said he felt that 20 sq. ft . was splitting hairs . It seemed to him like a small concession when Marquette Bank got • 352 sq ft only 12 years ago. He said his company needs this variance. Harvey stated that the Board members now were not on the board at that time. 12 1 Arockiasamy felt that 20 sq ft would not achieve anything of • significance-possibly the Board was becoming too number orientated. He suggested that the Board vote again. Freemyer said that these issues can work 2 ways . The requests must stand on their own merit . He felt that Helgeson had tried to compromise, but that others had conformed to the code. Helgeson asked if it was correct that under PUD a greater flexibility was allowed. Longman answered that those issues went through the City Council. Eggeston said that from the landlord' s perspective they would not ask that the smaller tenants have larger signs than code allows . Longman asked what Helgeson felt about H Anderson' s suggestion that the letters be modified to be 28" high. Helgeson answered that it was a business place, and it was a big financial decision. He would need to justify the decision for years . His company would be signing a guaranteed lease. The issue here seems to be 20 sq ft. He is asking for support in this decision. Freemyer responded that the issue was 55 sq ft, not 20 sq ft. • S Anderson said he was in favor of the proposal, but would not be if it were in a strip center. H Anderson asked about the area of the Coldwell Banker sign. Durham answered that 15% of the wall area (commercial area) is allowed. It is . ` a complicated formula to determine this percentage. Eggeston stated that 15% would be 195 Sq ft in this case. Harvey asked if a compromise could be reached. Arockiasamy asked if the size could be reduced and the same format utilized. Helgeson answered that they could go to 28" which would bring it in under 100 sq ft . Bozonie asked if the original motion should be withdrawn. MOTION: S Anderson moved that an amendment be made to the original motion which would set the maximum s9 ft at 100. The height of the letters would be 28' with the realtors portion being 16" high. H Anderson seconded the motion. Motion passed 4-3 with Dean abstaining. Harvey, Bozonie and Freemyer voted nay. • They felt that no hardship was demonstrated and appropriate use of the property was not denied by conformation to code. (Original motion with amendment concerning modification on size of letters to reduce area to under 100 sq ft was passed as above. ) E• Variance Request #88-12, submitted �j Vir inia Gunnarson for property ocl ated-at Val e View Roams,—Eden Prairie, Minnesota. he re uestif for a variance from City Code, Chapter 11, Section 11.03, Subdivision 23 B, to permit an existing structure with a side yard setback of ' on one side with a total of 50' for both sides. City Code requires a minimum side yard setback of 50' on one side with a total of-50' for both sides in the Rural Zoning District Virginia Gunnarson appeared to present her request as stated above. Board members read the request for the variance and briefly studied it . Longman noted that he remembered the issue. Arockiasamy asked if there were any questions . MOTION: H Anderson moved that the Board approve the variance as presented. Harvey seconded the motion and it passed unanimously . V. ELECTION OF OFFICERS FOR 1988 : Arockiasamy noted that the one year terms for the offices of Chairman , Vice-chairman and Secretary were open. Were there any nominations? S Anderson asked what were the obligations for each office. Durham explained that the Chairman would chair the meetings . The Vice-chairman would take over when the chairman was absent, and if both were absent the Secretary would take over. H Anderson stated that he would not wish to be an officer, but would like to nominate Arockiasamy as chairman. Harvey nominated Longman for Chairman. MOTION: Longman moved that nominations be closed. H Anderson seconded the motion and it passed unanimously . Scott Anderson asked if a member could vote for himself . Durham answered that he could A vote was taken on the office of Chairman . Arockiasamy received 5 votes and Longman received 3. Arockiassmy was elected Chairman. Harvey nominated Longman for Vice-Chairman MOTION: H Anderson moved that nominations be closed. S Anderson seconded the motion. A vote was taken of the office of Vice-Chairman. Longman took the • position by a unanimous vote of the Board . 14 Harvey nominated H Anderson for the position of Secretary. • Harvey was nominated for the position but declined the nomination. MOTION: Arockiasamy moved that nominations be closed for the office of Secretary. Longman seconded tAe motion and it passed unanimously. A vote was taken on the office of Secretary. H Anderson took the position by a unanimous vote. VI. MEMBERSHIP EXPANSION: Arockiasamy asked Durham to explain the membership expansion plan. Durham stated that the membership is- expanded to 9 members 'as directed by City Council. VII. STAFF REPORT FORMAT: Durham asked the board if they were comfortable with the outline and flow of the meetings . He asked for input on the order of the meetings . . Arockiasamy felt that the meetings were speeded up when Durham explains the issues to the Board, either through staff reports or orally. • Durham explained that his intention was to highlight the reports and conclusions . Harvey felt he would like to see more indication of the staff position on the issues . Durham said that he went by the examples of other variances that had come to the board in the past years . He felt it was akward for him to recommend or deny as in some instances the variances have been granted and in others they have not. Harvey felt the circumstances behind some of the issues may have been helpful as in this evenings meeting. Durham said if the Board wanted definite recommendations , he could provide that for the Board. Arockiasamy said he could pretty well tell from the reports what Durham' s opinion was and felt the Y resent system should be kept. P Durham mentioned that variance. information was on a data base which was not open to the public. Durham explained the PUD program and also the term trade-off . • MOTION:Harvey moved that the Board adjourn.Dean seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. Meeting adjourned at 10: 10 P.M.