Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBoard of Adjustments and Appeals - 07/14/1988 APPROVED MINUTES BOARD OF APPEALS AND ADJUSTMENTS ThGrsday, July 14, 1988 7:30 P.M. City Hall Council Chambers, 7600 Executiv� Dr. , Eden Prairie, MN 55344 BOARD OF APPEALS MEMBERS: Bill Arockiasamy, (Chairman), Hanely Anderson, Lyn Dean, Steve Longman, Dwight Harvey, Scott Anderson, John Freemyer, Michael Bozonie, Neil Akemann. BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: Scott Anderson, Hanley Anderson, Lyn Dean I. CALL TO ORDER-ROLL CALL-PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Meeting was called to order at 7:30 by Bill Arockiasamy, Chairman. Roll Call: Bill Arockiasamy, Michael Bozonie, Dwight Harvey, Steve Longman, John Freemyer, Neil Akemann. Scott Anderson, Hanley Anderson, and Lyn Dean were absent. All present recited the Pledge of Allegiance. II. MINUTES OF MAY 12, 1988 • Arockiasamy noted that on page 10, the spelling of"catalevered"be corrected. Akemann noted on page 7, the word Crosstown be changed to 494. He also mentioned that on page 11, above item E, Anderson should be changed to Akemann. MOTION: Harvey moved that the Board approve the minutes of May 12 with the above mentioned corrections. Akemann seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. III. APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA MOTION: Harvey moved that Item 10 on the agenda concerning Variance 88-13 be moved to the number 4 position. Longman seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. IV. VARIANCES A. Request # 88-13 At the May 12, 1988, Board of Adjustments and Appeals meeting, the Board approved a variance to permit construction of an MTC Park and Ride lot with a front yard setback of 15' adjacent to Flying Cloud Drive. The Board approved the variance based on a landscape plan which included 6 evergreens to screen the 9 parking stalls adjacent to Flying Cloud Drive. 'The engineering company, who prepared the site plan, has indicated that MNDOT will • not approve the park and ride site with the- 6 evergreens because of sight line ;problems on Flying Cloud Drive. The applicant requests the Board to amend the approved site plan to delete the six evergreens and install 18" Arcadia Juniper based on MnDOT recommendations. 2 Naeem Qureshi reappeared before the Board and explained that the Board had approved his original plan to install 6 evergreens,which had been submitted in May, but MnDot will not approve this plan because of their • concern with the sight line distance. He had worked with Steve Durham on the problem and they had come to the conclusion that a compromise on the matter might be the installation of 15" Junipers to screen th¢ 9 parking stalls. He was now requesting approval of the Board for that plantt. Johnson noted that 2 or 3 staff members had approved the new plan. Longman felt the proposal was acceptable. Harvey asked if the staff felt there was a sight line problem. He also mentioned the possibility of reversing the direction of the traffic. Johnson answered that there was a marginal sight line problem. Qureshi_noted_ that reversing the direction of the traffic would cause back up and congestion in the area. MOTION: Longman moved that the Board amend the vote on Variance 88-13 to drop the requirements for 6 evergreens and add that they be replaced by a row of Junipers. Bozonie seconded the motion and it passed. Harvey voted nay. B`. Re uest #88-17 submitted by Suburban Natibnal Bank for property located at 6 Wes—th Street, Eden Prairie Minnesota. The request is for a variance from City Code,`�CFMa t�er Section 70 b ivd vision D to permittwo walls si ns fou�urba National�Ltotaling .6 s ware . feet, City Code Permits ii t efi_0fT ce o�� District, one irFentification wall sign per accessory use not to exceed 50 square feet. This variance request was withdrawn on June 6, 1988. 0• Re uest #88-18, submitted- � Ronald E. Nelson and H. J. Kleve for ro ert located at 3045 and 13075 Pioneer Trail, Eden Prairie, Minnesota�T-he�regu_est is for a variance from City Code Chapter � Section 1.U3; Subdivision 3 T. '51 ��!a_oonnd2j_ ' erm_i_t arkin to be U from a ssiae lot line C Code repu_i�rese0'•, b vision - ' a driveway- 'from a side lot line at the interectContof eam�ritht-ofawaf line, Cit,� Code requires �0' — — - Q --Y Ronald Nelson appeared before the Board to request a variance from the city code 10' setback requirement. Arockiasamy asked what kind of request had been made approximately one year ago when the applicant had made a previous request. Johnson answered that it had been regarding a parking set back and also a fence height variance. The fence height had been denied, but the parking set back had. been approved. • Arockiasamy asked if this was the final proposal or a trial. Nelson responded that construction was being planned for this fall. 3, • Harvey asked Nelson if the recommendations of the staff were acceptable to him regarding the Black Hills Spruce installation. Nelson answered that he was aware of that, and noted that it was on the blueprints he had submitted. Harvey noted that it was not on the large drawing he had furnished the Board. (Examination of blueprints of the area) litneTs.n thereport diet hacC`recehiave dn. ot.fully understood the screening plan out- Harvey had questions on approval of the variance pending the landscape plan. What if it were not implemented? Johnson noted that the screening code requirement would still need to be met in some way. Nelson did not feel that landscaping would be a problem. Harvey asked if this was a joint application, how would the Board control the matter? Johnson answered that if other problems were- to develop, the applicants would need to reapply at that time for a variance. • Akemann asked why the Planning Dept recommended removal of 2 parking spaces in the area. Johnson answered it was necessary to meet the setback requirement. Akemann asked if the property line was paved only on the applicant's side. Nelson responded that it was paved on both sides, it was a shared driveway. Arockiasamy asked for input from the audience and there was none. MOTION: Harvey moved that the Board approve Variance Request 88-13 with the following conditions: That the landscape plan depicted in Exhibit include the following requirements: 1) Raising the north berm in the front yard (Old Pioneer Trail) to 4' - 51 . 2) Installing a berm of 4' on the southeast corner of the Kleve site to screen parking from Pioneer Trail . 3) Plant additional evergreen screening material on the Suburban Wood Products site to screen views of the loading dock area from Pioneer Trail . • 4) Provide 23 Black Hills Spruce as indicated on Exhibit A. 4 • To these requirements, Harvey added: 5) Remove 2 parking spaces in the NE corner. 6) Future develo ent of the pem property which would remove screening would be reviewed to assure compliance with code. Freemyer seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. D• Reguesstt #88-19 submitted 4 John and Karen Brausen for property located at 6840 Bar er `�L.ane, en PrairieMin'n sota. -Ine re uest is or a var nce from City Code Chapter 11, Section .03, Subdivision 3, to permit construction of a garage addition 39 feet from the front pro erty line, City Code requires—a W6 foot front and se_tack accordingto the existing average set ack of the le�l Tlock, 2 Cit Coe u division �2 o permit construction of a ara a addition 1.8 ' from a side lot line. City requires ' . _ - - John Brausen appeared before the Board stating that he was requesting two variances: (1) A variance from the required front property set back of 46' to 39' . (2) A variance from the required side line property set back of 15' to 11.881 . He noted that the neighbor on the north side had stated that this would be no problem. Also neighbors on the south, across the street,and kitty- cornered were agreeable. . Arockiasamy asked if any other alternatives were suggested by the staff. Brausen mentioned that one alternative was to put the garage flush with the house. The other had been a 24' width. Freemyer said that he could see no problems with the plans, but noted that the garage would be much higher than the street. He asked if Brausen would be having the garage dug in at a lower level. Brausen answered that it would be dropped 40" from the floor level. Freemyer asked if there would be any retaining walls. Brausen answered that there will be one needed on the south, and possibly a ,short one on the north. Arockiasamy asked why the garage needed to be 28' wide. He noted that even if it was O.K. with the neighbors now, would future neighbors feel the same? Brausen answered that it would give more room for vehicles and storage. Harvey asked if the elm and spruce trees would be taken out on the north side of the home. He mentioned that he had no problem with the front yard variance, but did have a problem with the 4' encroachment with the neighbor to the north. • Longman said that a 24' garage was typical, and he felt that Brausen was oversizing. He doubted that an additional 4' would allow another vehicle, 5 and that the porch was generous to say the least. He noted that the Board was looking for some justification in deciding the matter. He asked Brausen how he would respond to the justification issue. . Brausen answered that he had no good answer, just would like the additional .� space. i Longman asked if Brausen would be almost as satisfied with a regular garage. Brausen answered that it would be acceptable, but noted that he now has two cars and would soon have three. Longman suggested that the porch be sized down for storage. Arockiasamy asked if the height of the retaining walls needed to be clairified. Brausen answered that they would be 40" to match the pitch on the roof. Arockiasamy asked for input from the audience and there was none. Akemann asked if the driveway would be paved. Brausen answered that it would. MOTION: Bozonie moved that the Board: ;, Approve Variance Request #88-19 with the following amendments: -The side yard setback of 15' from the north lot line be maintained finding a 24' garage width is sufficient, therefore, not warranting • < ; a variance. The proposed front yard setback will still meet the minimum 30' front yard setback required in the R1-22 Zoning District. The proposed building addition is keeping within the intent and spirit of City Code. Freemyer seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. Arockiasamy asked Johnson the guidelines concerning the retaining walls. Johnson answered that there was no permit required unless they were over 48". E� Request #88-20, submitted b Sign Consultants, Inc. for property located at 565 Prairie Center Drive, Men Prairie Minnesota. die 'Y variance from Cit Code Cha ter request is for a —Y �_ Section O,7ubdivision 3 ��X. to ede p a double faced sign with a distance etween sign faces of �6 City Code ermits 2"-between sign faces on a do Lefaced sign. — . Richard Lang of Sign Consultants and Tracy Lund of Lunds appeared before the Board to request a variance for signage from 12", face to face, to 2'6". Lang stated that they would like a sign that is integral with the project. The block used is the determining factor in the design of the sign. He showed the Board members a photo of similar sign in Wayzata. Lang noted that the signs are attractive. The main problem is to maintain the look of the block and also maintain the look of the shopping center. The original proposal • for the sign had been 36" and he had modified it to 2'6". He stated that the poles could not be made narrower because of the nature of the sign. He stated that the property is large and this sign would address two buildings. 6 Arockiasamy asked if the idea of trying to match the sign to the base was • some requirement of the architect. Lang answered that it was not a requirement,but it was their desire to use the same brick as was being used in the shopping center. Otherwise they would need to go to a steel type sign. Lund noted that the photo shown would be the design for the new sign for all locations. Arockiasamy asked for input from Johnson. Johnson answered that in some instances, wall sign sq.-ft..-.had been-traded in the signage question. In this instance, however, there will be signs on all three sides in addition to the free standing sign. Lang responded to a question by. Akemann on the location of the sign. An explaination was also given on the height of the property above the roadway. Longman stated that the applauded the use of brick, but thinks that plan three could be O.K. Lang stated that Lunds are looking for the classic and not the comptemporary style. Harvey responded that the contemporary look would be only on the edge of the sign. • Lund noted that condsideration should also be given to the physical aspects of the strength of the sign. He restated the desire for classic styling. Longman explained that Eden Prairie has a fairly restrictive sign ordinance. It sometimes causes disagreement on miniscule items. He would like to be convinced of the hardship in having the sign "narrower on the ends." Lang stated that it would not maintain the corporate image. Longman felt that the extra inches would not have that much of an impact. Harvey noted that the signs in the photo depicting the wider widths were developed in the PUD process. He askedLang if the sign face would be consistent with other signs. Lang answered that it would be consistent. Harvey asked Lang if only the edge would be different. Lang answered yes. Harvey said that he felt the edge was important only to architects and designer--not to customers. 1,. Akemann asked if the thinner design would eliminate the use of brick. • Lang responded that the feel of the sign would not be as good. The same block could not be used. In that, instance they would rather go with a steel structure. He jfealt the configuration could not be changed and still interlock with-.:-the bui ing structure. • Akemann asked if it would make a difference in lighting. Lang answered that the lighting would suffer. It would have "ghos s." He felt it was difficult to keep the sign looking good and straight and still maintain the height if a narrower base were to be used. Akemann asked about the possibility of a lower height. Lund explained that there is some elevation from 169, but that some of the words will not be able to be read distinctly. He did say that they could go to a different design of blocks, but that approval had been received from the architect and the city on the type df block work. He felt that some may feel that it is petty to pay attention to such detail, but it is Lund's policy in the store, and he would like to carry it through. Longman felt that was commendable. He felt that the lighting issue of "ghosts" was a consideration.He asked if the posts were made of standard brick. Lang said he did not have the dimensions, but possibly they were 10" brick. Bozonie stated that if the brick were larger than standard, perhaps the sign could be scaled down. Longman stated that he had been swayed to thinking that a wider sign would be needed. How about a compromise? • Lang asked what sign the Board would feel would be better. Arockiasamy asked if the lighting issue dictated the size of the sign. Lang answered that it did, to a certain extent. He described the construction of the sign. Longman asked if the Board decided to reduce the footage, would Lang need a new program? Lang responded that he would need a new program. He expressed concerns about the middle section of brick and the structural soundness of the sign if it were to be modified. Bozonie had questions about the spacing of the brick in the base. Lang stated that all those questions were explained in the plans, but that he did not have them with him. Harvey stated that most variances were about 22". Arockiasamy stated that he felt the design as submitted may not pass.,, Possibly Lang and Lund should reconsider and submit a new request. g Lang said he would be willing to do that. • Freemyer said he did not notice the width of signs. It would not bother him personally if the width was 216". i Arockiasamy stated that the leaders in the community of Eden Prairie had set up guidelines and it was the Board's obligation to see that they were not violated unless there was a hardship. Johnson stated that as 1,2, or 3 requests get approved, it seems to get the ball rolling and people will ask for such variances more often. However, if some factor makes this request different, that must be considered. Arockiasamy told Lang and Lund that he felt that they should research more options. He stated that they could ask the Board to act if they so choose, or ask for a continuance to allow more time for planning. Lang said he would like to restudy the issue and get closer to code. Arockiasamy noted that regarding the corporate image issue, what is a good image to one, may not be to another. Longman stated his support of the use of brick, and said that if Lang and Lund find a compromise, he would support them. Lang asked if it would be possible to submit the reworked design before another month. He felt they could rework it very quickly. The store is to open in Sept. • He said if the Board can.specify parameters he could go ahead now, or else he would need to come back next month. Johnson said the Board would need to approve the variance contingent on if it would work. It would be similar to the garage variance--those plans would not be seen again either. Longman said he felt the board needed to bend a little. Discussion took place comparing the garage variance and the sign variance. Harvey said he was reluctant to design the sign tonight. The request for the sign variance had not been identified early in the development process. Longman mentioned the issue of the timing for the opening of the store. Akemann said he. was trying to identify the hardship here. Arockiasamy said the issue seemed to be centering on the time lost. The store can still open without the sign.He felt it was not so significant an issue. Harvey asked Johnson if the parameters were laid out at this meeting, would they still need to go through the public process to determine what the,' width could be? • Johnson said it could be approved, using certain parameters, subject to the sign company being able to do it. If they could not, they would need to return next month. 9 Lang stated that before, the 2'6" sign was large, but the Board understood . the nature of it. Now, 2'6" is too much and 22" seems to be the consensus. He would like to work with the 22" spacing and would still like an overhang. Lund said that he felt the sign proposal needs to be redrawn. i Bozonie said he does not like the reason for the decision being "because it was done before." Longman said if the Board gives the parameters, they could go ahead and build the sign. Board members opinion's on the issue were: Harvey: no hardship identified here--Sign can be constructed within code.(12") Bozonie:16 z" Akemann:Torn on the issue of brick sign versus keeping code requirements. Fre�em err:Maybe code should be changed. He did not want to .set a precident, but felt it was important to match architecture. Arockiasamy"16Z" Longman:22" Discussion took place on the opinions of the Board Members. The consensus seemed to be 16k". Lang said he would like to come back next month. • MOTION: Harvey moved that the variance 88-20 be continued until next month. Freemyer seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. F. Re uest #88-21, submitted �y Mel Hansen for Propertj located at 9091 West Staring Lane, Eden Prairie Minnesota. The re BBest is for a variance from UITY Code Chapter in, on 3, Subdivision 3=C to ermit construction of anew home on ro osed Lot , Block Mel Hansen Addition 301 from the front lot line, City Code re uires a T6' front and setFak ng accordi to the existing average setback of the lock. Mr. Cardaeile appeared representing Mel Hanson concerning the variance. He stated that they were beginning to plat the property and that it was currently described in a metes and bounds description. He felt a hardship was shown in the steepness of the slope. He was asking a 30' setback from the street. Johnson said that the staff agrees that there is a topographical hardship. Bozonie said he had wanted verification of the measurements taken--where were they taken from? Carter and Johnson explained how the figures had been arrived at for the footage. Freemyer said he felt that 30' was acceptable. MOTION : Bozonie moved that the Board approve the Variance Request 88-21' as submitted. Longman seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. 10 V. OLD BUSINESS MEMO DATED JULY 8, 1988, REGARDING VARIANCE REQUEST 88-13. Arockiasamy asked who enforces the variances once the Board has grant d them? Johnson answered that the City does. The Board considered the following information: At the May 12, 1988, Board of Adjustments and Appeals meeting, the question was asked if Touch of Class Interiors had complied with the conditions of Variance Request #87-35, see attached Final Order #87-35. As a memory refresher for Board members and for the new Board members, Touch of Class, located at 10280 County Road #18, received a variance (#86-10) in 1986, to permit a building located in the Office Zoning District to have an exterior building material of 60% masonry and 40% wood. City Code requires 75% masonry and no more than 25% wood, stucco, aluminum, vinyl, plastic, or a combination of all these materials. In May of 1987, Touch of Class requested the Board to extend Variance Request #86-10 for 1 year. The request was granted to extend not putting masonry on the building until May of 1988. Currently, Touch of Class has not complied with conditions of Variance Request #87 35. The proper procedure to enforce Final Order #87-35 would be for Staff to receive direction from the Board members to enforce conditions of the final order. Upon receiving direction, Staff will contact Touch of Class regarding the exterior building material. • MOTION: Harvey moved that the Board direct the staff to inform Halverson to conform with the requirements of Variance Request 87-35. Longman seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. Discussion took place regarding the use of brick on a well house on Valley View Rd. Akemann asked what legal actions would be taken if Variances were not adhered to? Johnson said that eventually the matter would be taken to court and fines would be imposed. VI. ADJOURNMENT MOTION: Harvey moved that the Board adjourn. Akemann seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. Meeting adjourned at 9:30 P.M.