Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBoard of Adjustments and Appeals - 04/13/1989 APPROVED M0=5 • BOARD OF APPEALS AND ADJUSTMENTS THURSDAY, April 13, 1989 7:30 P.M. City Hall Council Chambers, 7600 Executive Dr. , Eden Prairie, MN 55344 BOARD OF APPEALS MEMBERS: Bill Arockiasamy (Chairman), Steve Longme Michael Bozonie, Dwight Harvey, Scott Anderson, John Freemyer, Neil Aker_iann STAFF PRESENT: Steve Durham-Planning,Sharon Swenson-See' BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: I. CALL TO ORDER-ROLL CALL-PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Chairman Arockiasamy called the meeting to order at 7:40 P.M. Roll Call: Arockiasamy, Akemann, Longman, Anderson, Harvey, Bozonie, Freemyer All present recited the Pledge of Allegiance. II. ELECTION OF OFFICERS • This item was moved to the end of the agenda for the evening. (See page 11) III. MINUTES OF MARCH 9, 1989 Harvey asked that the spelling of Engen on page 4 be changed to Enger. MOTION: Harvey moved that the Board approve the minutes of the March 9th meeting with the above mentioned correction. Akemann seconded the motion and it passed unanimously with Arockiasamy, Longman and Bozonie abstaining. IV.VARIANCES A.Re uest #89-12, submitted by CSM Corporation/Fountain Place Apartments for property located at 8560 Flying Cloud Drive, Eden Prairie, Minnesota. The request is for a variance from City Code Chapter 11, Section 11.70, Subdivision ,._A 1 To permit a non-accessory off-site temporary sign on the above references property. City Code does not permit non-accessory (off-site signs• 2 Subdivision 3� Ki to permit a non-accessory off-site temporary real estate sign of 100 square feet. City Code maximum size is _J7 square feet. Dave Carlin appreaed to represent CSM Corporation/Fountain Place Apartments. • He explained that there were 496 units in the complex, which was located on 169. Their request was for additional signage. He understood that a variance can be requested in the event that a hardship was demonstrated. He gave a brief history of the project and explained the plans for the area before the widening of 169 had taken final form. On a sketch he pointed out where the I 2 access point to 169 would have been,if 169 had not taken the course it did. He cited two reasons for hardship as being: 1. Potential renters have passed by the property before they see the sign at it's present location. 2. Columbine Road was to go to Prairie Center Drive, but the City has yet to make the connection. The widening of 169 will take place this year, but there is no deceleration lane there now. This causes lots of hard braking and skidding past the entry to the apartments. He asked that they be able to maintain the 100 sq. ft. sign to be seen in time for allow for safe turns into the project--on a temporary basis until 169 is completed. Arockiasamy asked if "temporary" meant it was tied to the 169 schedule. Carlin said that he felt 169 would be done before all the apartments are rented. They would take the sign down if all units were rented before that time. Durham said there were several things the Board should consider: 1. Is the location unique? 2. Does the newness make it unique? 3. Are the current signs sufficient? 4. Approval could set a precedent--other apartment buildings do not have the same advantage and could request off-site signs. Arockiasamy asked asked about the other sign referred to in the variance. Carlin explained the second part of the variance. • Durham explained that code does not permit off site signs. They do take care of the problem on a complaint basis. One sign per street frontage is now permitted by code. Harvey reminded the Board that this property has had variances before, including shoreland variances. He asked about the exact location of the sign. Carlin pointed out the location on the map. Harvey noted that the temporary sign on Columbine Road is visible. Carlin said that a driver needs to know what he is looking for to see it. Harvey answered that the big banner sign identifies the apartment complex. Gary Holmes, owner of the project came forward. He noted that regarding the variances granted last year--the monument sign was done as a compromise. He did agree that the temporary sign is visible, but people driving 40-50 mph are past the turn by the time they see the sign. He went on to cite City promises that were not fulfilled regarding the site. Harvey noted that Eden Place has no sign on 169. He asked Holmes about his occupancy rate at Fountain Place. • Holmes said that Eden Place is visible from 169. He also added that his occupancy rate for Fountain Place is at 120. Carlin noted that Eden Place had a large sign on Anderson Lakes Parkway and 169. 3 Holmes stated that some of the land on the sketch (he pointed it out) was . purchased for identification purposes. Then the road was moved. He is asking for a temporary sign on a neighbors property. Harvey said that the sign is visible to a southbound 169 driver. Holmes said yes, to a driver who knows what he is looking for. Harvey asked what makes this property unique? Holmes asked what uniqueness had to do with the sign? Harvey said a hardship needed to be identified. Holmes said they had put in a $950,000 road and bought a $250,000 property for the sign. Now the ordinance says they cannot put a sign up. Carlin said the entrance is not finished to the complex and it does not look like an entrance. Eden Place has a semaphore and is on Anderson Lakes Parkway. Fountain Place representatives must tell people to look for a temporary sign. Harvey asked if advertising did nt provide directional information? Holmes answered yes, but the directions were complicated and vague. Anderson asked if the banners would be removed (if they did not meet code). • Carlin answered that they would be removed, if in violation of code. Holmes said that the issue here was that they were asking to put an identity sign on a property that was not owned by them. Anderson asked if Holmes would agree to a maximum of two years. Holmes said he would agree to that. He went on to state that they are asking for only one sign and that the other would be removed. Discussion took place if the land for the temporary sign needed to be owned/zoned by same owner who was doing the advertising. Arockiasamy asked if the "legal" sign would come out. Holmes answered that it would be eliminated and replaced with the sign (on the property that that is not owned by Fountain Place.) Freemyer asked why the road is in a different place than had been originally been planned. Holmes explained the progression of events with the City and stated that affected the road change. Freemyer quoted from the guidelines for the Board of Appeals--"Economic • reasons do not constitute a hardship." He felt it seemed like the main hardship here was economic. Holmes said he did not want the situation to cause an accident. 4 Freemyer asked if a 32 Sq. Ft. sign would do. Holmes said he felt a 100 Sq. Ft. sign was necessary. Freemyer said he had gone to drive by the site and had driven by, as Holmes had noted many others were doing. He did feel a 32 Sq. Ft. sign would do. Holmes said that the Board members live in Eden Prairie and know where they are going to look for the complex. Longman asked if Durha,a had any comments on the history of the road. Durham said he did not have that information or background material. Longman stated some of his thoughts: 1. The apartment complex is obvious. 2. The sign for Fountain Place is huge. 3. Advertising is needed to make a successful project. 4. An alternative less than 100 Sq. Ft. was needed on 169 for signage. Holmes said that 8' by 8' would be sufficient. Arockiasamy said he had the same thoughts as Longman. Maybe some things could be eliminated from the sign so a smaller one could be used. • Harvey asked Holmes how he would attract traffic from northbound 169 if that sign were to be removed? Holmes said he was not concerned about that. Arockiasamy said that 32 Sq. Ft. seems reasonable for a sign. Akemann asked if the sign's purpose was directional or marketing related. Directional is needed, but marketing is already there. He would be willing to vote for a 32 Sq. Ft. sign that served a directional purpose--not a 100 Sq. Ft. marketing sign. He asked what was allowed. Durham answered one sign per street frontage is allowed. Harvey noted that when the variance on the monument sign was granted, there were conditions on other signage included in the variance. Bozonie asked where the sign would be located and if permission had been obtained for it's erection. Holmes said permission had been obtained from Lloyd Cherney, owner of property. Arockiasamy asked for input from the audience. There was none. . MOTION: Akemann moved that the Board amend variance request 89-12 to include one non-accessory sign not to exceed 32 Sq. Ft. on Rd.169. A condition that the sign be removed within a two year period or when an occupancy rate of 80% has been reached was added. Arockiasamy added some additional items to the motion: 5 1. The sign is to be relocated. 2. Safety of drivers is a consideration. 3. The applicant is willing to accept a 32 Sq. Ft. sign. • Harvey summarized as follows: The Board approves one 32 sq. ft. directional sign on 169 with the conditions that the other signs be removed. Signs to be removed include: 1. All roof top banners. 2. Existing 100 sq. ft. sign at Columbine Rd and Fountain Place. 3. Existing 100 sq. ft. sign on lot 1, block 1, Fountain Place apartments. Freemyer seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. B. Re guest #89-13, submitted �y John K. Teman for property located at 8010 Eden Road, Eden Prairie, Minnesota. The request is for a variance from City Code Chapter 11, Section 1 .03, Subdivision 2, B, (1) T 'permit a rural lot size of 1.40 acres for proposed Parcel A and 719 acres for proposed Parcel B. City Code requires a e minimum the Rural Zoning District, 2) To permit a lot width of 17'5—' for Parcels A and B. Cit Code requires a lot width of 300 feet in the Rural Zoning District, �o ermit a lot depth less than 300' for Parcel B. City Code requires a lot depth of 300 feet, City Code Cha ter Subdivision 12, A, to permit Parcel A without frontage on a publicly dedicated street. George Bentley appeared to represent John Teman (fee owner) and explained that he was requesting a variance on 2 parcels of land for lot size, width, and depth. There was no direct access to the road. This would allow a land division to separate them from the larger parcel. He explained • the situation through a sketch he had provided. There were rental homes on the adjoining property (which once had belonged to Teman. ) At the present time, all the property was zoned rural. The variance was needed so the bank that is financing the development can approve the loan. The area will be rezoned when the area is developed. Durham said since this property is in the major center, this type of variance would not be unusual. Harvey asked if the pre-exi sting parcels were zoned rural. Bentley answered that they were. Harvey asked about the remnant parcel of land on the sketch. Bentley said they had been debating that issue. He said that Teman may agree on the deed that it will not be separated off from the rest. It will be considered part of the total parcel. The owner may file a restriction on that property. Anderson asked if the reason for doing this was financial. Bentley answered that the people who owned houses there wanted frontage on Eden Road. Also, Teman wants to maintain his Green Acres status. • Arockiasamy asked if there was any input from the audience. There was none. MOTION: Harvey moved that the Board approve variance request 89-13 based on the following findings: 6 • First, the variances are requested for acquisition purposes only with no intent for residential development, but for commercial development in combination with additional parcels. The proposed parcels meet the minimum size requirement in a C-Reg-Ser Zoning District. Second, the variances are temporary in nature and will cease upon development and combination of the 3 lots on Eden Road and Parcels A and B into one plat and zoning for commercial development. Longman seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. C. Request #89-14, submitted by Rosemount Inc. for property located at 12001 Technology Drive, Eden Prairie, Minnesota. The request is for a variance from City Code Chanter 3�— Section 11.03, Subdivision 2,- B, to permit construction of a Z3' x 9.6' buildin 'addition from a side lot line. uires City Code re ate' th side yard setback in e I- Zonin District. Mike Cuskelly appeared to present the variance request for Rosemount, Inc. He explained that the variance was needed to move the trash compactor from inside the building to the west side of the building outside. A building addition would put the building 7' from the west property line--even though the property line is an internal line and Rosemount Inc. 's property runs for an additional 300' . The trash compactor is currently using an inside dock area and the unit is 10' by 10' by 21' . The company needs to fully utilize both dock areas now, so the compactor needs to be relocated. • Durham noted two items: 1. The property to the west is owned by Rosemount, Inc. 2. The property to the west is not zoned now. Arockiasamy had several questions: 1. Should be properties be combined and the variance taken off? 2. What happens if the property is sold? 3. What plans are in the future for the property next to this? Freemyer asked Cuskelly if he would be willing to make a commitment that (if the property were to be sold) he would be willing to meet the required side yard setbacks or remove the structure? Arockiasamy felt that this was a permanent structure. Cuskelly said he had no problem with either removing or conforming at such a time. He added that he doubted that the property would be sold as they are experiencing rapid growth. Akemann asked that the drawing be clarified. Cuskelly explained the plans in detail to the Board. • MOTION: Freemyer moved that the Board approve Variance Request 89-14 as stated with the stipulation that if the adjacent property were to be sold, the neighboring property would be brought into compliance. Harvey seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. 7 D. Request #89-15, submitted �J Prairie Green Mini-Storage for prop rty located at Eden Prairie Road, Eden Prairie, Minnesota. The request is for a variance from City Code Chi a ter 1�, Section 1 03, Subdivision 3, J, 1 To Permit outside stora a of recreational vehicles over 3/4 ton; capacity. Subdivision 3, E 2 To ermit a fence he�i hht of�0' for screenin purposes. City Code maximum fence height ism- uS bdivision 3, H, To permit parKing 0' from a buildinq. City Code requires a 5' parking set ack _� �_ _ _ �_� from a building ( To permit arkin 0' from a side lot line. City Code requires a 0' Arkin setback from a side lot line—.77) To -permit off-site parking. City Code re uires parking to occur on the same parcel the parking stalls are intended to serve. Durham noted that item # 2 in the Variance Request can be deleted. Items 4 & 5 will be taken away when the property is platted. Brian Cluts appeared to represent Prairie Green Mini-Storage. He explained that the request had been narrowed down to two items: 1. The outside storage issue,and 2. To reduce the parking setback from 5' to 0' . Regarding the parking set back request, the area would be better used for parking-- although he would be willing to relinquish this item if the Fire Dept. felt it was important. John Hay came forward and explained the history of the matter. He said with increased competition, his occupancy rate had declined. Many customers had asked about RV storage. He felt there was a need for this type of storage • with security. They own the land both to the north and east of this property. This type of variance was granted to Deli Express for outside storage. It will be well landscaped and secluded. He noted a recent ordinance regarding parking of these vehicles on private property. Durham explained that the recent ordinance stated that such vehicles can be parked 10' from a side lot line or rear lot line. Fifteen feet is permitted from the road for such parking. He cited the City's concerns: 1. Screening 2. Apartment building is located across the street. 3. It may be setting a precedent issue. 4. Do you want to permit outside storage of RV's? 5. Other developers could ask for the same variance. 6. Is this site unique? 7. Berm 8ite lines--screening. May not adeauately screen the RV's. 8. The matter would need to go to Planring and City Council for approval. Durham added that the variance for Deli Express was granted in 75-78 and at that time there was a, different Board. Hay said he did not feel the variance for Deli Express went back that far. He noted that they were located in between two projects that have this • type of storage. Freemyer said that regarding the hardship issue, the guidelines for the Board state that "ecomomic considerations are not a hardship." He felt that this was economic consideration. 8 Anderson felt he would deny the request. Freemyer asked the applicant if construction of buildings for RV Vehicles had been considered. Hay said that people werE, not willing to pay prices that would be necessary and large buildings would be nE:eded. Akemann said he did not see a hardship, although he complimented the Mini Storage on their complex. Harvey said he saw no hardship, even though there i3 a need for outside storage. There Ere residential areas across Hwy 4. Durham noted that Planning and Council have plans 'or additional buildings on the site. .krockiasamy said since the land can be 113ed in other ways, he saw no hardship. Hay :asked if a precedent had not been set with the vehicle maintenancE! building on that land? Arockiasamy said maybe so, but this is a different use. • Freemyer said the purpose of the outside parking wEs additional income. Inderson said he would remove all outside storage if he had his way. Hay said "we would all do that." After questions to him on the parking issue, he said that matter was conditional on the outside storage variance. Arockiasamy told Hay he could either ask for a continuance (to research other options), withdraw, or the Board could act on the request. MOTION: Freemyer moved that the Board deny Variance Request 89-15 on the grounds that no hardship was defined, it was an inappropriate location, there were no unique circumstances, and the variance was to bring financial gain. Anderson seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. E. Request #89-16, submitted � Zachman Develo ment Corporation for prro ertt� ocate at out west corner ran o Roa an Preserve oulevard,�den Prairie, Minnesota, legally described as• See Reverse fide. The request is for a variance from City Code Cha ter � Section 11.03, Subdivision 3, A, M1 To permit ro osed Lot 1, Block Zachman Brothers Addition with a lot width of 9' City Code requires 90'width on a corner lot. in To ermit ro osed Lot 16, Block 1, Zachman Brothers Addition with a lot width of 88' . City Code re uires a 90' width on a corner lot. • Bob Smith represented Zachman Development Corporation in asking for the variance. He noted that they were before the Board once before and the matter had been looked upon with favor. The papers were sent to the County Surveyor and it was determined that the property to the north did not dedicate enough property for the road. They had been asked to dedicate 9 additional land. He gave the following figures: • Lot 1 Lot 16 Approved 80' Approved 90' Proposed 79.39' Proposed 88.15' Difference .61' Difference 1.85' He said the front yard set back would not be affected. Because of the hardship, they are asking for a variance. Durham noted that most streets do not have a 66' right of way. He added that the mistake had been made with Eden Commons. Arockiasamy asked for input from the audience. There was none. Bozonie asked how hard it was to change the 66' right of way? Durham said it was not practical to do so. Freemyer asked if the builder will need variances to put homes on the lots. Smith answered that was not a problem, as Zachman was doing the building. The County has already approved that. • MOTION: Freemyer moved that the Board approve Variance Request 89-16 as presented on the grounds of the staff findings that it would benefit the public in establishing the proper right-of- way for Franlo Road and public sidewalk/trails. A condition was added that no other variances be granted. Harvey seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. F. Request #89-171 submitted by Bergin Auto Body for propert located at 7690 Corporate Way, Eden Prairie, Minnesota, legally described as: Outlot E, Edenvale Industrial Park, Hennepin County, Minnesota. The re-uest� is for a variance from City Code Chapter lion . 0, Subdivision 4, E. to permit a all sign of 121.25 square feet. City Code maximum size sign permitted in the I-2 Zoning District is $0 s uare feet. Curt Shellum, a representative from Kaufman Sign Co. , appeared to present the variance request. He explained that his company does a lot of work in the Eden Prairie area and that Jim Bergin and he had designed a sign for Jim Bergin's auto body business. He had left town on a vacation and when the permit request for the City was to be taken in, it was not, so the sign went up with no permit. They were over what was allowed in square footage. He is asking for the variance so they can keep the sign up. The report said it was 121 Sq. Ft. , although his figures come to 105 Sq. Ft. The sign there now looks good and he would like to keep it. It was an error on their part. • Durham said the Board needed to consider if there was a hardship in the matter and if the size of the sign was in relation to the size of the building. 10 Arockiasamy asked if alternatives had been considered. • Shellum said that Durham had offered alternatives--possibly the square footage could be cut. He said that if the letters were dropped down, the visibility goes down, as another building is in the way. Freemyer asked if the hardship was economic in the sense that it would be costly to redesign the sign? Shellum said he could not disagree. Freemyer said that the square footage could be brought down without lowering the sign. Durban noted that dead space is counted when measuring a sign. He added that the Crown Auto sign;(150 Sq. Ft. ) was there prior to the sign ordinance. Harvey said he felt there were alternatives. Arockiasamy asked if it was the company's responsibility to see if the sign conforms to code. Shellum answered that it was. Arockiasamy felt that there was not a hardship in this case and added • that the sign is glaring at night--maybe not so much signage is needed. Harvey asked how long the business had been at that location and if the business had been growing. How do clients hear about the business? Bergin said they had been there 3 years-the business had been growing-clients learn of the business through advertising and referral. Regarding the brightness of the sign, it does get dark early in the winter months. Longman said he admired Mr. Skellum's honesty. He also admired Mr. Bergin's appearance--he could have laid all the responsibility on the Sign Company. He did add that he felt there was no reason for a variance in this case. The sign lights up a large area. Skellum asked if they could come back with an alternative proposal--possibly smaller footage? Harvey suggested close to 80 Sq. Ft. Akemann felt there was no hardship here for a variance. Arockiasamy said the applicants could request a continuance to avoid additional costs. Skellum asked for a continuance. • MOTION: Arockiasamy moved that the Board approve the request for a continuance on Variance Request 89-17 to the next meeting. Longman seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. 11 V. ELECTION OF OFFICERS Durham swore Arockiasamy in for another term as a member of • the Board of Appeals and Adjustments. A. Chairman MOTION: Arockiasamy moved that Longman assume the position of Chairman for the coming year. Harvey seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. B. Vice Chairman MOTION: Freemyer moved that Harvey assume the position of Vice Chairman. Longman seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. C. Secretary Harvey moved that Freemyer assume the position of Secretary for the coming year. Longman seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. VI. NEW BUSINESS Discussion took place on the tentative schedule to meet with the City Council Tuesday, June 13, 7 PM. • VII. ADJOURNMENT MOTION: Longman moved that the Board adjourn the meeting. Harvey seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. Meeting adjourned at 9:48 P.M.