The URL can be used to link to this page

VAR 94-216125454266 September 9, 1994 6 1 2D 5 4 5 4 2 E - 6 0 TO: 612 571 1287 P02 Scott Hickok City of Fridley 6431 University Avenue NB Fridley, MN 55432 ► Dear Scott, This letter is request the minutes from the August 23, 1994 Appeals Commission meeting, including the introduction of members and the section regarding Variance Request VAR #94-21 for River Pointe Apartments. In addition, I would like the names and contact numbers of the members of the panel on that night. Please forward this infor- mation to me by Monday, September 12, 1994 or call me to let me know when copies would be available to pick up at your office. We appreciate your prompt consideration of this matter. Thank you. Sint iy, L% /M Myrna; rensten cc. William Burns, City Manager Bob Levine, KMS Management, Inc. 0 • Y COUNCIL MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 6, 1994 AGE 16 pay a park dedication fee of $750.00 per lot at the ime of buil- ding permit issuance; (6) the petitioner shall p ide a verifying survey prior to the capping of the foundation• (7) the petitioner and staff shall designate which trees shal e preserved and pro- tected pursuance to the restrictive cov ants. The map prepared as a result of the staff's field ins _tion shall be attached to these stipulations; and (8) each 1 shall be assessed $1,000 for the 64th Avenue storm water pr ect. Seconded by Councilwoman Bolkcom. Upon a voicevo , all voting aye, Mayor Pro Tem Schneider declared the mot' n carried unanimously. 7. ESTABLISH A PUBLI HEARING FOR SEPTEMBER 19, 199 CORNER OF THE MOTION b Councilwoman Jorgenson to set the public hearing for Plat Reques , P.S. #94-05, for September 19, 1994 and notify residents who tended the prior meetings. Seconded by Councilwoman Bolkcom. Up a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Pro Tem Schneider declared e motion carried unanimously. 8. RECEIVE AN ITEM FROM THE APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING OF AUGUST 23, 1994• A. VARIANCE REQUEST, VAR #94-21, BY IMAGINALITY, INC., FOR MEADOW RUN APARTMENTS TO REDUCE THE SETBACK OF A SIGN FROM THE PROPERTY LINE FROM 10 FEET TO 0 FEET TO ALLOW THE CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW SIGN GENERALLY LOCATED AT 7855 EAST RIVER ROAD (WARD 3): Mr. Hickok, Planning Coordinator, stated that this is a request for a variance to allow the setback of a sign to be at zero feet instead of the required ten feet to allow construction of a new sign which would run perpendicular with the roadway. He stated that there is an existing sign which will be removed as well as the center monument. Mr. Hickok stated that the Appeals Commission unanimously recommended approval of this variance. He stated that staff believes there are alternatives to this variance by modifying the entry island. He stated that this will allow the required 25 foot aisle and still provide adequate space for the sign to meet the required ten foot setback. Mr. Hickok stated that staff has just learned that the County may need additional right-of-way at this location for the 'improvement of East River Road. He stated that if that is the case, the sign may have to be replaced. Ms. Olek, representing the Management Company for Meadow Run Apartments, stated that she felt the best place for the sign is FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 6, 1994 PAGE 15 Mr. Hickok, Planning Coordinator, stated that staff evaluated the woodland area, what significant trees existed, and identified the trees to be preserved on this site. Mayor Pro Tem Schneider asked who is the owner of the property. Ms. Dacy stated that Tim Strong is the petitioner and will e acquiring the property behind 1476 and 1490 64th Avenue if is lot split is approved. She stated that the owners have signe for the lot split. Ms. Dacy stated that the Appeals Commission consider/aont yard variance request for placement of the homes on the sand this was unanimously approved. She stated that since were no objections this issue would not be submitted to Cou Mayor Pro Tem Schneider stated that the ditch at runs on the south side of the parcel has been an issue wit the neighborhood for years. He asked staff's proposal for main fining this ditch. Mr. Hickok stated that on the south side the is a natural growth area, while there has been some trimming d ne on the north side. He stated that neighboring residents want d to let the site grow in a more natural state, and he believed is should be encouraged. Councilman Billings asked if the/eunder a lot split that splits the west and east halves of this lot Ms. Dacy stated that these lots separate descriptions, and she did not know when that o lot split took place. Mr. Hickok stated that the Co ty has indicated that there was a survey on file before 1959 t t indicates there are two lots. He stated that each of the to s are separate tax parcels and are recognized as the east an west half of Lot 1, Block 2, Spring Valley Addition. He sta d that the lot split will separate the two pieces and allow the to be sold as independent parcels. MOTIO/dh Councilwoma Jorgenson to adopt Resolution No. 72-1994, with following ipulations attached as Exhibit A: (1) the petitshall p ovide the information requested in Items a throuprior t the issuance of a building permit: (a) clarify the at of f' 1 in the front yard by adding additional spot elevaand rainage arrows on the grading plan; (b) clarify how the sw d' ch section along Arthur Street will be handled; (c) provicu to first floor elevations to insure proper grades for the sar sewer services; and (d) provide an erosion control plan pliance with Chapter 208; (2) water and sewer services shallrovided to the dwelling units; (3) the sanitary sewer conneshall be made via the manhole located at the intersec- tion rthur and Camelot Streets; (4) the petitioner shall pay the ariate connection fees and SAC charges ($800.00 per unit) at the time of building permit issuance; (5) the petitioner shall contract with ACCAP to administer the home improvement ant program. MOTION by Councilwoman Jorgenson to approve the service ontract with Anoka County Community Action Program for adminis ration of the home improvement grant program. Seconded by uncilwoman Bolkcom. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, M or Pro Tem Schneider declared the motion carried unanimously. 10. AND 3 ) Cel Ms. Dacy, Community Development Director, ated that the Anoka County Community Action Program (ACCAP) ha submitted an applica- tion to the Minnesota Housing Finance gency to acquire and rehabilitate one four-plex and two seve unit buildings in Hyde Park. She stated that the purpose of the project is to create affordable housing for single, low inc e individuals. She stated that the three buildings will be own d and managed by ACCAP as a leasehold cooperative, and the tena is will lease the share from ACCAP, rather than own a share of t cooperative. Ms. Dacy stated that the properties to be acquired are 6008 2nd Street, 5908 2-1/2 Street, and 5916 2-1/2 Street. Ms. Dacy stated that adoption o this resolution endorses Council's support of this project. She tated that ACCAP has also requested HRA assistance, and they /haveagreed to finance up to fifty percent of the rehabilitation coShe stated that there would be a tax loss for the three propeof $1,309.94; however, the advantage is the units would be ilitated to an increased value and create affordable housin low income individuals. MOTION by Councilwoma Bolkcom to adopt Resolution No. 73-1994. Seconded by Councilm7h Billings. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor ProT Schneider declared the motion carried unanimously. 11. APPO Ms. Dacy, Comunity Development Director, stated that the Human Resources Co mission has recommended that Mr. Charles. Welf be appointed as the City's representative to the National Organization on Disabil' y. She stated that Mr. Welf would replace Mr. Roger Blohm who as previously appointed and is no longer able to serve as the Ci y's representative. MOTION y Councilwoman Jorgenson to appoint Charles Welf as the City's/representative to the National Organization on Disability. Secon t d by Councilwoman Bolkcom. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Pro Tem Schneider declared the motion carried unanimously. FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 6,1994 PAGE 17 perpendicular to the monument. She stated that the traffic area is very tight. If the curb was moved in any closer, there could. be increased problems with traffic, snow removal, and the garbage trucks coming into the site. She stated that tonight was the first time she has heard of the potential right-of-way problem. Mr. Flora, Public Works Director, stated that the City received notice today from the County that they had received funding for the improvement of East River Road in front of the Meadow Run Apart- ments and are looking at an additional 27 feet of right-of-way. Ms. Olek stated that the sign is not a permanent structure and could be moved at a later time, if necessary. Councilwoman Bolkcom stated that she felt it would not increase its visibility by moving the sign forward. Ms. Olek stated that she felt locating the sign closer to the road and having lights would provide a grand entrance for the apartment complex. She stated that locating the sign further from the road- way, near the landscaping would not be that visible. Councilwoman Jorgenson felt that by removing the pillars, the sign would become more visible, but she cannot support the variance as it stands. She felt that perhaps the petitioner would like more time to contact the County as to their plans for the improvement of East River Road. Ms. Olek stated that this would be satisfactory, as tonight is the first she received word on the County's plans. MOTION by Councilwoman Bolkcom to table this item to the October 17, 1994 Council meeting. Seconded by Councilwoman Jorgenson. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Pro Tem Schneider declared the motion carried unanimously. 9. APPROVE SERVICE CONTRACT WITH ANOKA COUNTY COMMUNITY ACTION PROGRAM FOR ADMINISTRATION OF HOME IMPROVEMENT GRANT GRAM: Mr. Fernelius, Housing Coordinator, stated t at their February 7, 1994 meeting Council allocated $124 2 in CDBG funds for housing rehabilitation. He stated that ese funds are to be used to provide grants for low income ho wners to upgrade their residences to meet the basic code re irements. Mr. Fernelius stated that applications were acce ed in July. Over 23 people applied, and twenty were eligibl for this program. Mr. Fernelius stated that e City has contracted with the Anoka County Community Action ogram (ACCAP) to administer this program at a cost eleven pe ent of the budget. He stated that this represents an inc se of one percent from last year's service contract. He ecommended that Council approve this service Run: 6 -Sep -94 10:28 CFS14 , FRIDLEY, MN POLICE DEPARTMENT is Page 1 Primary ISN.s only: No Begin Date and Time: 01/01/93 00:00 End Date and Time: 09/06/94 10:28 How Received: All Activity Resulted: 09401 thru 09513 Dispositions: All Officers/Badges: All Grids' 2 thru ZZZZZZZZ Patrol Areas: All Number Remark lines: None Enfors Calls For Service INCIDENT SUMMARY BY ACTIVITY Locations Selected: Street: ERR Addr#: 007800 thru 007899 City: All D PRI INCIDENT H I TIME DATE ACTIVITY GRID P/A LOCATION APT CITY OFF NUMBER ISN R S RECV REPORTED NAME -------- -------- --- -------------- --------- --------------- ------------ -- - - -------- --- ---------------- NON-REPORTABLE ACC 019424 2 11 7845 ERR FRIDLEY 006 94133889 1 R S 1920 8/01/94 CHAPLIN, KIMBERLY RE PI - MV & MV IN ROADWAY 019444 it 7800 CRR FRIDLEY 030 930'-901 ANDERSON, STACIE SHA PD - MV & MV IN TRAFFIC 09444 2 1 t 7845 ERR _' PD - MV & MV IN TRAFFIC PAZ-,- PD MV & MV IN TRAFFIC v,191 PD -H&:R PD -H&R **#t Report Totals: 7 Incidents JAPP, SCOTT RICHARD SHORT ELL10" ""DRI�n� Run: 6 -Sep -94 10:38 CFS14 Primary ISN's only: No Begin Date and Time: 01/01/93 00:00 End Date and Time: 09/06/94 10:38 How Received: All Activity Resulted: 09401 tkru 09513 Dispositions: All Officers/Badges: All Grids: 2 thru ZZZZZZZZ Patrol Areas: All Number Remark tines: None ACTIVITY GRID P/A LOCATION -------------- --- ---- --------------- 09424 2 11 PEARSON ERR PI - MV & MV IN ROADWAY # Report Totals: 1 Incidents FRIDLEY, MN POLICE'DEPARTMENT Enfr.-P5 Cads For Service INCIDENT; SUMMARY BY ACTIVITY Page 1 Locations Selected Street: PEARSON ERR Addr#: thru ZZZZZZ City: All D PRI INCIDENT H I TIME DATE APT CITY OFF NUMBER ISN R S RECV REPORTED NAME --------------- ------------ -- - - ------------ -------------------- FRIDLEY 027 94063056 1 R S 1856 4/21/94 LIFER, JOANN ARDITH DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: ISSUE • • Community Development Department PLANNING DIVISION City of Fridley September 1, 1994 William Burns, City Manager Barbara Dacy, Community Development Director Scott Hickok, Planning Coordinator Variance Request, VAR #94-21, by Imaginality for Riverpointe Limited (Meadow Run); 7855 East River Road N.E. At the August 23, 1994 Appeals Commission meeting, the Commission evaluated the request by Imaginality to install a 24 square foot sign on the property line adjacent to the right-of-way at 7855 East River Road N.E. (Meadow Run Apartments). Section 214.09.01.0 of the City Code requires a minimum distance of 10 feet from any property line or driveway. The entry gate feature that exists at this complex will be resurfaced with stucco and the center monument will be removed. The petitioner does not want to reconstruct the entry island to meet the required 10 foot setback from the property line. uT CTnTW There have been two cases where a 0 foot setback has been approved. These sites are the Medtronic facility at 7000 Central Avenue and the Grace Evangelical Free Church at 7436 Melody Drive. APPEALS COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION The Commission unanimously concurred with the petitioner and recommended approval of the variance request. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that a modification to the entry island will allow the code required 25 foot aisle width and still provide adequate space for a sign that meets the required 10 foot setback VAR #94-21, by Imaginality September 1, 1994 Page 2 from the property line. An illustration has been attached to highlight the potential alternatives. Staff recommends denial of the variance request to allow the sign to be constructed with a 0 foot setback due to the alternative sign locations available. SH/dn M-94-517 APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING, AUGUST 23, 1994 PAGE 9 is level so there is no need for correction. It about four inches above the 100 -year flood level. Mr. Kuechle stated the house looked like it was below the dike. Mr. Maher stated when sitting in the living room they can see the Mississippi River. MOTION by Ms. Smith, seconded by Dr. Vos, to close the public hearing. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, VICE -CHAIRPERSON KUECHLE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED AT 8:03 P.M. Ms. Smith stated this is an unusual situation where there is discussion about side yard or front yard. In this case, what is referred to as the back yard is the side yard. If this was considered to be the side yard, it would be within the code and would not require a variance. The public purpose is being served, and there is plenty of green space. She would vote for approval. Dr. Vos concurred. The foot print, even with the addition, leaves a lot of green space. The lot has the corner cut out of it so they really cannot move it anywhere and still put on the addition. It makes sense. Mr. Kuechle agreed. Although the way the rules are written, it is not a back yard. It really functions as a side yard. MOTION by Ms. Smith, seconded by Dr. Vos, to recommend approval of Variance Request, VAR #94-20, by Monte and Michelle Maher to reduce the rear yard setback from 40 feet to 30 feet on Lots 16-21, Block W, Riverview Heights Addition, the same being 7965 Riverview Terrace, to allow the construction of an addition with the stipulation: 1. Special Use Permit, SP #94-12, shall be approved. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, VICE -CHAIRPERSON KUECHLE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Mr. McPherson stated the Planning Commission would review the special use permit on September 7 and the City Council would review the request on September 19. 4. PUBLIC HEARING• CONSIDERATION OF A VARIANCE REQUEST, VAR #94- 21. BY IMAGINALITY INC. FOR MEADOW RUN APARTMENTS: Pursuant to Section 214.09.01.0 of the Fridley Sign Code, to reduce the setback of a sign from the property line from 10 feet to 0 feet to allow construction of a new sign on Lot 3, M APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING, AUGUST 23 1994 PAGE 10 Block 1, Meadow Run First Addition, the same being 7855 East River Road. MOTION by Ms. Smith, seconded by Dr. Vos, to open the public hearing. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, VICE -CHAIRPERSON RUECHLE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE PUBLIC HEARING OPEN AT 8:05 P.M. Mr. Hickok stated the variance request is to reduce the sign setback from 10 feet from the property line to 0 feet. The property is the former Meadow Run apartment complex. Between 1970 and 1972, three buildings were constructed, along with a recreational complex and a swimming pool. Along with the construction of that complex was an entry gate feature which includes a large bollard with a stone face on either side of the entry. On the island between the entry and exit lanes, there is another monument with stone face, and the sign for the complex was on that entry gate. The petitioner wishes to take out the center monument and build a new 24 square foot sign perpendicular to the roadway with a zero foot setback. The requirements in the R-3, General Multiple Family Dwelling, require a 10 -foot setback. Staff reviewed the request based on the following criteria: A. That there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances applicable to the property or to the intended use that do not apply generally to other property in the same vicinity and district. Staff reviewed the site and feels that, for the most part, there are many other examples of similar complexes that have similar conditions and have been able to construct a sign within the 10 - foot setback dimension. As noted in the staff report, Georgetown Apartments were granted a variance to less than 10 feet due to conditions on site. The variance was granted to approximately 5 or 6 feet from the property line. There are no exceptional or extraordinary circumstances applicable to the subject parcel. B. That the variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right possessed by other property in the same vicinity and district, but which is denied the property in question. Staff feels this is not a unique situation and that other complexes with similar circumstances have been able to live with the 10 foot setback dimension. C. That the strict application of the Chapter would constitute an unnecessary hardship. Ltw 0 . 0 APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING AUGUST 23 1994 PAGE 11 Staff after review feel denial would not constitute a hardship and the petitioner could according to some alternatives install the sign according to code. D. That the granting of the variance would not be materially detrimental to the public health, safety, or general welfare, or detrimental to the property in the vicinity or district in which the property is located. The purpose of the sign code is to limit the number, size and location of sign in order to reduce visual clutter. Staff feel that granting this variance would be contrary to the intent of the code. Mr. Hickok stated the petitioner has submitted a letter, included with the staff report, which states they feel there are circumstances on the site to make the variance necessary, including: 1) to install the entrance monument to make it visible to oncoming traffic prior to the point of turning; 2) there is not sufficient property to install the sign so it is visible - the sign needs to be perpendicular to traffic and double faced; 3) to remove the existing stone monument structure from the entrance island; 4) the current setback of 10 feet would place part of the sign in the midst of a two way drive through; 5) to increase the center island curb into the two way drive area would interrupt traffic flow and add significant cost; and 6) to grant the variance would be of no harm, materially or generally to the public or the property. Mr. Hickok stated staff has indicated there are alternatives. One alternative is to reduce the size of the two-way drive aisle to 25 feet and move the center island curb back which would require reconstructing the radius on the back side. Doing so would leave 19.5 feet from the curb of the radius to the property line. Staff feels there would be adequate space in that area to construct a sign. The petitioner feels this may cause additional problems due to traffic. There are parallel parking stalls along the edge of the parking lot. The petitioner could add a radius to the entry sides the same distance and delineate these parallel parking stalls. Mr. Hickok stated the petitioner would prefer to keep the sign perpendicular to the roadway to make it visible to those who travel along East River Road. Staff feels the complex itself does its own advertising and there is a plan to match the color scheme on the building with the sign package. Another alternative might be to place the sign parallel with the road way which would allow to see the sign at the complex. Mr. Hickok stated, in the past, the Commission has approved a sign variance to less than 10 feet. Staff feels the petitioner has not met the four criteria for granting a variance. Staff has no KM APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING, AUGUST 23, 1994 PAGE 12 recommendation at this time; however, the request is within previously granted variance limitations. Ms. Smith asked where the property lines are located. Mr. Hickok stated the property lines are where the bollards are current located. The center island extends beyond the property line. Dr. Vos asked if the monument removal would provide better site lines when going down East River Road. Mr. Hickok stated staff discussed this with the petitioner. He thought there is a toss up between this location and pulling the sign back. He felt pulling the sign back may actually increase the sight lines. Ms. Orensten, Imaginality, stated staff comments indicate the purpose served is to control visual pollution and eliminate the potential for signs which conflict with driver visibility. As they look at the complex, they don't see the sign until right at the complex. There is then a right turn into the complex and another immediate right turn to the parking lot. They feel an attractively designed sign will enhance and beautify the entrance to the complex and not be considered visual pollution. The proposed sign area is also planned to make sense with the landscaping. The area is extensively landscaped. The current sign or even a new sign that is not perpendicular could be considered a hazard because it is not visible until just before the turn. They are proposing a sign which is visible 200 feet before the entrance at 0 foot setback. If the sign is at the 10 foot setback, they feel the distance where it would be viewed would be reduced both for those coming in but reduce visibility for those inside the complex. Ms. Orensten stated the purpose of the sign code is to limit the number, size and locations of the sign in order to reduce visual pollution. They disagree in that they are not asking for additional signs or a larger sign. The location back from the curb makes a great deal of impact on the flow of traffic within the complex. Bringing the curb out within the complex would be additional cost which is the hardship. This also affects snow storage and removal. They are upgrading the entire complex part of which is to remove the monument in the island, removing the dark lava rock from the bollards and re -stuccoing them, and upgrading the landscaping. Ms. Orensten showed photos of other complexes and their signs. The proposed sign for this complex is a very tasteful sign to enhance the complex. She showed a rendition of the proposed sign at the current setback within the existing structure and showed another version of the same sign with a pedestal. Their concern with an APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING, AUGUST 23, 1994 PAGE 13 extended curb in the island is that the driving lanes would be reduced and then the turn would be to tight. Dr. Vos asked Ms. Orensten her reaction to the alternative setback nearer the building. Ms. Orensten stated she thought this would do more harm than good. There would then be no visibility before getting to the complex. East River Road is a busy street and, if someone not familiar with area and looking for the complex, they often almost drive past and then slow suddenly to make the turn. The proposed plan actually decreases the number of signs. Ms. Smith asked if she had gotten police records to see if there were traffic problems in that area. Ms. Orensten stated she understood from property management that it is tough traffic area so they wanted to get the police reports to have some statistics. They have talked to them to find out what the problems are in that area. They have not received the police reports at this time. Mr. Kuechle asked if they had considered turning the sign 90 degrees. Ms. Orensten stated by making the sign parallel to the street becomes the issue of visibility to the oncoming traffic who is being addressed. Mr. Kuechle asked if the addresses are given by street or by the complex name. Ms. Orensten stated it would normally given by the street. Mr. Levine, KMS Management/Meadow Run, stated the signage issue is part of a total upgrade. They acquired the property in May. This was the only property in the City which did not have emergency lighting which they have now installed. The property had five underground storage tanks of which three were leaking. This has all been corrected. All buildings will have new roofs. The indoor pool is being redone and an outdoor pool added to the property. They are doing a tremendous amount of cosmetics. As owners, they feel what they are asking for is reasonable and ties in with the whole upgrade. An interesting thing about the property is that, inasmuch as the property line is really at the sign, it appears to be at or near the roadway because of the location of the landscaping. Their intent is to take down the monument, remove the lava rock face and re -stucco so what is left is a sign that appears to have a setback. The other signs will be removed so there will be one attractive sign. The alternative of extending back the island is a hardship in that it creates traffic problems as well as MI APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING, AUGUST 23, 1994 PAGE 14 additional expense. They felt the money would be better spent on safety concerns. What they are proposing will improve the overall entry and the property in general. Ms. Smith asked what they would do if the variance were denied. Mr. Levine stated felt the alternative would be to put a sign parallel to the street. The existing monument that is there is now on the property line as are the monuments to the side. Ms. Orensten stated, if they needed to get permission to do that, how would they get the same 10 foot setback given the structures that are existing. The existing structures are already on the property line. They could put a sign on that wall of the sign in the center island but it would not enhance the project. Mr. Kuechle asked if the monument in the center island would be removed. Ms. Orensten stated yes. Mr. Levine stated he saw the survey when he acquired the property. They had thought of keeping the middle monument and bring a sign out over the planter so that the front post would be at the planter which is over the property line. The side monument also encroaches on the property line. The only way to install a sign and keep it behind the property line is to take down the monument which will clean up the area and make it more pleasant. There are also parking problems and they need all the spaces they can get. Ms. Smith asked, with the existing monument already encroaching, if they do anything to the signs, do they need to make the request to change a sign. Mr. Hickok stated yes. The changing is asking for a new sign structure. It could be argued that these are signs and not entry gates. Removing the signs at the gate would bring us to a new permit situation and another variance. Mr. Levine stated the Meadow Run sign is in the ground in front of that wall. He has a hard time believing that cosmetically resurfacing an existing wall has anything to do with changing the structure. Ms. McPherson stated this technically should not be in the public right-of-way; however, it is not a structure that they can attach a building requirement to. It is rather an aesthetic enhancement which does not fall under the setback requirements. Once you put signage on it, however, that will trigger a variance. • APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING, AUGUST 23, 1994 PAGE 15 Ms. Smith asked how far from the property line the center structure was located. Mr. Hickok stated this was approximately 2 feet from the property line. Dr. Vos asked if the County had any plans to widen East River Road. Ms. McPherson stated the County has not yet improved this section. She was not sure where this is as far as the County improvement plans are concerned. She thought the County had adequate right-of- way to do their work. If the County moved the curb line, the sign would be closer to the right-of-way. Mr. Brandt, 190 Craigbrook Way, stated he did not agree with the request to put a sign on the property line. There is no obstruction in front of the apartment building going north or south. Setting the sign 10 feet back should be no reason a person could not see that when driving by. If someone cannot see that sign driving by at 10 feet, they ought not to be driving. Visibility should have nothing to do with it. There is no obstruction. You can see that sign for a long way going either north or south. This is a residential area. Some of the signs shown earlier were, not in residential areas. A 24 square foot sign at 10 feet is adequate. They have enough signs there now and he did not think they needed any more. Ms. Smith stated she drove by the complex and did not see the sign. When going by during rush hour, traffic moves quickly and it is difficult to see. She asked Mr. Brandt if he was aware of any accidents or traffic problems in that area because -people did not see the signs. Mr. Brandt stated he had never seen an accident on that corner. Ms. Olek, KMS Management/Meadow Run, stated the way the curb is now is very tight and, when traffic is entering, they must stop for traffic now. Moving in the curb would make it more of a problem. MOTION by Dr. Vos, seconded by Ms. Smith, to close the public hearing. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, VICE -CHAIRPERSON KUECHLE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED AT 8:53 P.M. Dr. Vos stated he drove into the complex. He would not be in favor of moving that curb any closer in. You have to look to the left to see anyone coming in that lane if turning to the north. Moving that curb back would not be advantageous. The monument being taken out should enhance the area. He vote in favor of having the sign APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING, AUGUST 23, 1994 PAGE 16 placed in the island. He was convinced this was as good as any place. He would vote in favor. Ms. Smith stated, when she came to the meeting, she was inclined to vote against the request. But as she looks at the alternatives, her sense is that for the public safety the 0 foot setback would be advantageous. It would clean up that area and give the visibility the sign needs to turn into there. Traffic does move quickly on East River Road. The sooner someone can see the sign, the safer it would be. Mr. Kuechle concurred. Of all the possibilities that are there, moving the curb back would have a negative impact. He can see moving the monument out and putting the sign there. He would like to see the sign self supporting rather than between the posts. That would narrow the sign down somewhat and perhaps bring it in not quite to the lot line. MOTION by Dr. Vos, seconded by Ms. Smith, to approve variance request, VAR #94-21, by Imaginality Inc. for Meadow Run Apartments to reduce the setback of a sign from the property line from 10 feet to 0 feet to allow construction of a new sign on Lot 3, Block 1, Meadow Run First Addition, the same being 7855 East River Road. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, VICE -CHAIRPERSON KUECHLE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Ms. McPherson stated the request would be reviewed by the City Council for final approval on September 6. 5. PUBLIC HEARING• CONSIDERATION OF A VARIANCE REQUEST, VAR #94- 22, BY GARY LARSON: Pursuant to Section 205. 07. 01.B.(4).(a) of the Fridley City Code, to increase the allowable square footage of a first accessory structure from 1,000 square feet to 1,220 square feet, and Pursuant to Section 205.07.03.0 of the Fridley City Code, to increase the maximum lot coverage from 25% to 26.8%, in order to allow the construction of an attached garage addition on Lot 3, Block 3, Riverview Park Addition, the same being'7121 Riverwood Drive N.E. MOTION by Dr. Vos, seconded by Ms. Smith, to open the public hearing. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, VICE -CHAIRPERSON KUECHLE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE PUBLIC HEARING OPEN AT 8:57 P.M. #C STA]Fiv REPORT Community Development Department Appeals Commission Date : August 23, 1994 Planning Commission Date City Council Date APPLICATION NUMBER: ♦ VAR #94-21 PETITIONER• ♦ Imaginality Inc. KMS Management - River Pointe Apartments LOCATION: ♦ 7855 East River Road; near the southeast corner of the intersection of East River Road and 79th Way. The property is zoned R-3, General Multiple Family Dwelling and is subject to the residential district requirements of the Sign Code. REQUEST• ♦ To reduce the setback from 10 feet to 0 feet to allow installation of a new 24 square foot sign. The petitioner has indicated that they do not believe there is adequate property in which to install the sign in such a manner that the sign could be visible. According to the petitioner, the sign needs to be perpendicular to traffic and double faced. The petitioner also indicated an intent to remove the existing stone monument structure from the current entrance island in order to make room for the proposed sign this does not include the brick/rock signs which flank the driveway). BACKGROUND• ♦ The petitioner recently applied for a sign permit to install a 32 square foot identification sign on the East River Road frontage. Between the years 1970 and 1972 permits were issued for 3 - 59 unit buildings and a recreation complex with a 20' * 40' pool and a series of garages. Those buildings comprise the complex which will be known as the River Pointe Apartments (formerly Meadow Run). In 1971 the first of the three apartment buildings were completed and a permit for a 40 square foot wall sign was issued. There was also an 0 Staff Report VAR #94-21, by Imaginality Inc. Page 2 ornamental gate/wall constructed to the entrance to the complex. This feature also included a sign to identify the Meadow Run complex. The City records are unclear as to the size of the sign, and the date of installation. ANALYSIS: ♦ Section 214.09.0l.0 of the Fridley Sign Code requires a minimum distance of 10 feet from any property line or driveway. The public purpose served by this requirement is to control visual pollution and eliminate the potential for signs which conflict with driver visibility. Prior to granting a variance from the provisions of the Sign Code, four conditions must be met. These four conditions are outlined in Section 214.21.02 of the Sign Code and are as follows: A. That there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances applicable to the property or to the intended use that do not apply generally to other property in the same vicinity and district. Georgetown Apartments, located at 5750 East River Road is a similar property in use and zoning. Located on that property is a 96 square foot sign which received a number of variances to increase the height, square footage, and distance from the property line (see attached minutes). The sign is located at the entrance to the complex, and is parallel to the street. The subject parcel, in comparison, has buildings closer to the street, and the proposed sign is perpendicular to the traveled way. The parcel is not unique when compared to other apartment complexes like Moore Lake Apartments, River Road East Apartments, and the apartments located on Polk Street and Lynde Drive. These complexes have complied with the ordinance requirements. There are no exceptional or extraordinary circumstances applicable to the subject parcel. B. That the variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right possessed by other property in the same vicinity and district, but which is denied the property in question. The petitioner can exercise their property right by installing a sign to the 10 foot minimum setback required by code. Denial of the variance would not deny the petitioner Staff Report VAR #94-21, by Imaginality Inc. Page 3 this property right. C. That the strict application of the Chapter would constitute an unnecessary hardship. Denial of the variance would not constitute a hardship as the petitioner has installed a sign as permitted by code. D. That the granting of the variance would not be materially detrimental to the public health, safety, or general welfare, or detrimental to the property in the vicinity or district in which the property is located. The purpose of the sign code is to limit the number, size, and location of signs in order to reduce visual pollution. Granting the variance would be contrary to the spirit and intent of the code. RECOMMENDATION/STIPULATIONS: ♦ The petitioner has not met the four criteria for granting a variance to the sign code. Staff has no recommendation at this time; however, the request is within previously -granted variance limitations. One example is that Medtronic was granted a reduction in the sign setback code from 10 feet to 0 feet in 1992. EXTENT OF VARIANCES GRANTED 1986-1993 Case No. Address Code Section Title Required Granted 92-14 991 - 68th Ave. 205.07.04.D.(1) Front yard 35 17.5 C 86-14 205.15.03.C.(1) Front yard 80 35 I 86-10 55 - 77th Ave. 205.18.03.D.(2) Side yard 20 0 88-22 5973 - 3rd St. 205.16.03.D.(2) Side yard 15 5 C 90-04 7680 Highway 65. 205.17.03.D.(2)(a) Side yard 30 4 C 91-04 5201-5275 Central 205.15.03.C.(2) Side yard 15 0 Lot 15, Block 2, 86-13 Riverwood Park 205.07.03.D.(2)(c)((2)) Side corner 30 5 88-10 1357 - 64th Ave. 205.07.03.D.(2)(c)((1)) Side corner 17.5 5.5 90-14 .350 Osborne Rd. 205.07.03.D.(2)(c)((3)) Side corner 25 15 I 90-31 7786 Beech St. 205.18.03.D.(2)(b) Side corner 35 8 Rear yarn 88-06 6051 - 3rd St. 205.07.03.D.(3)(b) detached accessory 3 1 89-08 115 Glen Creek Rd. 205.07.03.D.(3)(a) Rear yard 33 0 C 92-21 7620 Univ. Ave. 205.15.03.D.(c)(3) Rear yard 40 0 C 87-05 6501 E. River Rd. 205.14.03.C.(4) Residential setback 50 11 Miss. River 90-11 7806 Alden Way 205.25.08.C.(1) bluff line setback 40 5 Normal high water 90-11 7806 Alden Way 205.25.08.C.(2) line setback 100 40 86-34 537 Fairmont St. 205.07.03.A.(2) Lot area 7,500 5,500 I 90-31 7786 Beech St. 205.18.03.A Lot area 65,340 14,320 I 90-31 7786 Beech St. 205.18.03.B Lot width 150 89 Maximum accessory 91-07 1420 Rice Cr. Rd. 205.07.0l.B.(1) building area 1,400 1,932 86-09 6468 Ashton Ave. 205.07.0l.B.(4)(a) Maximum garage area 1,000 1,300 91-12 405 - 57th Place 205.07.0l.B.(4)(a) Maximum garage area 1,000 1,270 I 87-02 5280 Main Street 205.18.03.C.(1)(a) Maximum lot coverage 40% 490 81 EXTENT OF VARIANCES GRANTED 1986-1993 PAGE 2. Case No. Address Code Section TitleRequired Granted I 88-18 7770 Ranchers Rd. 205.18.03.C.(1) Maximum lot coverage 40% 49.50 90-15 590 Kimball St. 205.07.03.0 Maximm lot coverage 250 28.6% C 87-05 6501 E. River Rd. 205.14.07.D.(6) Screening strip 15 0 91-33 501 Glencoe St. 205.07.04.B.(2) Min. structure size 768 712.12 C 88-05 5351 Central Ave. 205.04.06.A.(6) Fence height 8 15 91-10 7905 E. River Rd. 205.04.06.A.(7) Fence height. 4 7 C 89-07 1001 Hillwind Rd. 205.16.04 Building height 45 52 Parking setback - I 86-17 250 Commerce Cr.S. 205.17.05.D. (5) (a) public right -of -bray 20 0 Parking setback - C 86-24 7699 Viron Rd. 205.15.05.D. (5) (a) public right-of—day 20 0 C 90-05 5205 Central Ave. 205.15.05.D.(4)(b) Driving aisle 25 20 91-01 6180 Central Ave. 205.16.05.D. (4) (b) Driving aisle 25 20 C 92-21 7620 Univ. Ave. 205.15.05.C.(1) Parking spaces 102 13 Parking stall length 20 1 Parking stall width 10 9 Driveway/ C 87-24 7315 Highway 65 205.17.05.D.(4)(c) Intersection Distance 75 19 C 87-38 6257 Highway 65 214_.11.02.B Sign area 80 s.f. 224 s.f 90-20 6881 Highway 65 214.09.02.B Sign area 3 s.f. 80 s.f C 86-05 7810 Univ. Ave. 214.11.02.0 Sign area 25 s.f. 34 s.f OC 92-05 7000 Central Ave. 214.12.02.E Sign setback 10 0 92-25 7436 Melody Dr. 214.05.06.B Sign setback 10 0 81 APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING, AUGUST 23, 1994 PAGE 9 is level so there is no need for correction. It about :four inches above the 100 -year flood level. J Mr. Kuechle stated the house looked like it was blow the dike. Mr. Maher stated when sitting in the living roam they can see the Mississippi River. MOTION by Ms. Smith, seconded by Dr.Vo to close the public hearing. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYES' VICE -CHAIRPERSON KUECHLE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED AT 8:03 P.M. Ms. Smith stated this is an unusual situation where there is discussion about side yard or/ ont yard. In this case, what is referred to as the back yard ?is the side yard. If this was considered to be the side yard, it would be within the code and would not require a variance,: The public purpose is being served, and there is plenty of greed space. She would vote for approval. Dr. Vos concurred. The foot print, even with the addition, leaves a lot of green space. The lot has the corner cut out of it so they really cannot move it anywhere and still put on the addition. It makes sense. Mr. Kuechle agreed. Although the way the rules are written, it is not a back yard. It really functions as a side yard. MOTION by Ms. Smith, seconded by Dr. Vos, to recommend approval of Variance Request, VAR #94-20, by Monte and Michelle Maher to reduce the rear yarC setback from 40 feet to 30 feet on Lots 16-21, Block W, RivervieW Heights Addition, the same being 7965 Riverview Terrace, to allow the construction of an addition with the stipulation: 1. Special Use Permit, SP #94-12, shall be approved. UPON /A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, VICE -CHAIRPERSON KUECHLE DEC RED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. M . McPherson stated the Planning Commission would review the ecial use permit on September 7 and the City Council would review the request on September 19. 4. PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDERATION OF A VARIANCE REQUEST, VAR #94- 21, BY IMAGINALITY INC. FOR MEADOW RUN APARTMENTS: Pursuant to Section 214.09.0l.0 of the Fridley Sign Code, to reduce the setback of a sign from the property line from 10 feet to 0 feet to allow construction of a new sign on Lot 3, 0 APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING AUGUST 23 1994 PAGE 10 Block 1, Meadow Run First Addition, the same being 7855 East River Road. MOTION by Ms. Smith, seconded by Dr. Vos, to open the public hearing. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, VICE -CHAIRPERSON RUECHLE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE PUBLIC HEARING OPEN AT 8:05 P.M. Mr. Hickok stated the variance request is to reduce the sign setback from 10 feet from the property line to 0 feet. The property is the former Meadow Run apartment complex. Between 1970 and 1972, three buildings were constructed, along with a recreational complex and a swimming pool. Along with the construction of that complex was an entry gate feature which includes a large bollard with a stone face on either side of the entry. On the island between the entry and exit lanes, there is another monument with stone face, and the sign for the complex was on that entry gate. The petitioner wishes to take out the center monument and build a new 24 square foot sign perpendicular to the roadway with a zero foot setback. The requirements in the R-3, General Multiple Family Dwelling, require a 10 -foot setback. Staff reviewed the request based on the following criteria: A. That there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances applicable to the property or to the intended use that do not apply generally to other property in the same vicinity and district. Staff reviewed the site and feels that, for the most part, there are many other examples of similar complexes that have similar conditions and have been able to construct a sign within the 10 - foot setback dimension. As noted in the staff report, Georgetown Apartments were granted a variance to less than 10 feet due to conditions on site. The variance was granted to approximately 5 or 6 feet from the property line. There are no exceptional or extraordinary circumstances applicable to the subject parcel. B. That the variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right possessed by other property in the same vicinity and district, but which is denied the property in question. Staff feels this is not a unique situation and that other complexes with similar circumstances have been able to live with the 10 foot setback dimension. C. That the strict application of the Chapter would constitute an unnecessary hardship. APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING, AUGUST 23, 1994 PAGE 11 Staff after review feel denial would not constitute a hardship and the petitioner could according to some alternatives install the sign according to code. D. That the granting of the variance would not be materially detrimental to the public health, safety, or general welfare, or detrimental to the property in the vicinity or district in which the property is located. The purpose of the sign code is to limit the number, size and location of sign in order to reduce visual clutter. Staff feel that granting this variance would be contrary to the intent of the code. Mr. Hickok stated the petitioner has submitted a letter, included with the staff report, which states they feel there are circumstances on the site to make the variance necessary, including: 1) to install the entrance monument to make it visible to oncoming traffic prior to the point of turning; 2) there is not sufficient property to install the sign so it is visible - the sign needs to be perpendicular to traffic and double faced; 3) to remove the existing stone monument structure from the entrance island; 4) the current setback of 10 feet would place part of the sign in the midst of a two way drive through; 5) to increase the center island curb into the two way drive area would interrupt traffic flow and add significant cost; and 6) to grant the variance would be of no harm, materially or generally to the public or the property. Mr. Hickok stated staff has indicated there are alternatives. One alternative is to reduce the size of the two-way drive aisle to 25 feet and move the center island curb back which would require reconstructing the radius on the back side. Doing so would leave 19.5 feet from the curb of the radius to the property line. Staff feels there would be adequate space in that area to construct a sign. The petitioner feels this may cause additional problems due to traffic. There are parallel parking stalls along the edge of the parking lot. The petitioner could add a radius to the entry sides the same distance and delineate these parallel parking stalls. Mr. Hickok stated the petitioner would prefer to keep the sign perpendicular to the roadway to make it visible to those who travel along East River Road. Staff feels the complex itself does its own advertising and there is a plan to match the color scheme on the building with the sign package. Another alternative might be to place the sign parallel with the road way which would allow to see the sign at the complex. Mr. Hickok stated, in the past, the Commission has approved a sign variance to less than 10 feet. Staff feels the petitioner has not met the four criteria for granting a variance. Staff has no 0 APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING, AUGUST 23, 1994 PAGE 12 recommendation at this time; however, the request is within previously granted variance limitations. Ms. Smith asked where the property lines are located. Mr. Hickok stated the property lines are where the bollards are current located. The center island extends beyond the property line. Dr. Vos asked if the monument removal would provide better site lines when going down East River Road. Mr. Hickok stated staff discussed this with the petitioner. He thought there is a toss up between this location and pulling the sign back. He felt pulling the sign back may actually increase the sight lines. Ms. Orensten, Imaginality, stated staff comments indicate the purpose served is to control visual pollution and eliminate the potential for signs which conflict with driver visibility. As they look at the complex, they don't see the sign until right at the complex. There is then a right turn into the complex and another immediate right turn to the parking lot. They feel an attractively designed sign will enhance and beautify the entrance to the complex and not be considered visual pollution. The proposed sign area is also planned to make sense with the landscaping. The area is extensively landscaped. The current sign or even a new sign that is not perpendicular could be considered a hazard because it is not visible until just before the turn. They are proposing a sign which is visible 200 feet before the entrance at 0 foot setback. If the sign is at the 10 foot setback, they feel the distance where it would be viewed would be reduced both for those coming in but reduce visibility for those inside the complex. Ms. Orensten stated the purpose of the sign code is to limit the number, size and locations of the sign in order to reduce visual pollution. They disagree in that they are not asking for additional signs or a larger sign. The location back from the curb makes a great deal of impact on the flow of traffic within the complex. Bringing the curb out within the complex would be additional cost which is the hardship. This also affects snow storage and removal. They are upgrading the entire complex part of which is to remove the monument in the island, removing the dark lava rock from the bollards and re -stuccoing them, and upgrading the landscaping. Ms. Orensten showed photos of other complexes and their signs. The proposed sign for this complex is a very tasteful sign to enhance the complex. She showed a rendition of the proposed sign at the current setback within the existing structure and showed another version of the same sign with a pedestal. Their concern with an APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING, AUGUST 23, 1994 PAGE 13 extended curb in the island is that the driving lanes would be reduced and then the turn would be to tight. Dr. Vos asked Ms. Orensten her reaction to the alternative setback nearer the building. Ms. Orensten stated she thought this would do more harm than good. There would then be no visibility before getting to the complex. East River Road is a busy street and, if someone not familiar with area and looking for the complex, they often almost drive past and then slow suddenly to make the turn. The proposed plan actually decreases the number of signs. Ms. Smith asked if she had gotten police records to see if there were traffic problems in that area. Ms. Orensten stated she understood from property management that it is tough traffic area so they wanted to get the police reports to have some statistics. They have talked to them to find out what the problems are in that area. They have not received the police reports at this time. Mr. Kuechle asked if they had considered turning the sign 90 degrees. Ms. Orensten stated by making the sign parallel to the street becomes the issue of visibility to the oncoming traffic who is being addressed. Mr. Kuechle asked if the addresses are given by street or by the complex name. Ms. Orensten stated it would normally given by the street. Mr. Levine, KMS Management/Meadow Run, stated the signage issue is part of a total upgrade. They acquired the property in May. This was the only property in the City which did not have emergency lighting which they have now installed. The property had five underground storage tanks of which three were leaking. This has all been corrected. All buildings will have new roofs. The indoor pool is being redone and an outdoor pool added to the property. They are doing a tremendous amount of cosmetics. As owners, they feel what they are asking for is reasonable and ties in with the whole upgrade. An interesting thing about the property is that, inasmuch as the property line is really at the sign, it appears to be at or near the roadway because of the location of the landscaping. Their intent is to take down the monument, remove the lava rock face and re -stucco so what is left is a sign that appears to have a setback. The other signs will be removed so there will be one attractive sign. The alternative of extending back the island is a hardship in that it creates traffic problems as well as 0 APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING, AUGUST 23, 1994 PAGE 14 additional expense. They felt the money would be better spent on safety concerns. What they are proposing will improve the overall entry and the property in general. Ms. Smith asked what they would do if the variance were denied. Mr. Levine stated felt the alternative would be to put a sign parallel to the street. The existing monument that is there is now on the property line as are the monuments to the side. Ms. Orensten stated, if they needed to get permission to do that, how would they get the same 10 foot setback given the structures that are existing. The existing structures are already on the property line. They could put a sign on that wall of the sign in the center island but it would not enhance the project. Mr. Kuechle asked if the monument in the center island would be removed. Ms. Orensten stated yes. Mr. Levine stated he saw the survey when he acquired the property. They had thought of keeping the middle monument and bring a sign out over the planter so that the front post would be at the planter which is over the property line. The side monument also encroaches on the property line. The only way to install a sign and keep it behind the property line is to take down the monument which will clean up the area and make it more pleasant. There are also parking problems and they need all the spaces they can get. Ms. Smith asked, with the existing monument already encroaching, if they do anything to the signs, do they need to make the request to change a sign. Mr. Hickok stated yes. The changing is asking for a new sign structure. It could be argued that these are signs and not entry gates. Removing the signs at the gate would bring us to a new permit situation and another variance. Mr. Levine stated the Meadow Run sign is in the ground in front of that wall. He has a hard time believing that cosmetically resurfacing an existing wall has anything to do with changing the structure. Ms. McPherson stated this technically should not be in the public right-of-way; however, it is not a structure that they can attach a building requirement to. It is rather an aesthetic enhancement which does not fall under the setback requirements. Once you put signage on it, however, that will trigger a variance. APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING, AUGUST 23, 1994 PAGE 15 Ms. Smith asked how far from the property line the center structure was located. Mr. Hickok stated this was approximately 2 feet from the property line. Dr. Vos asked if the County had any plans to widen East River Road. Ms. McPherson stated the County has not yet improved this section. She was not sure where this is as far as the County improvement plans are concerned. She thought the County had adequate right-of- way to do their work. If the County moved the curb line, the sign would be closer to the right-of-way. Mr. Brandt, 190 Craigbrook Way, stated he did not agree with the request to put a sign on the property line. There is no obstruction in front of the apartment building going north or south. Setting the sign 10 feet back should be no reason a person could not see that when driving by. If someone cannot see that sign driving by at 10 feet, they ought not to be driving. Visibility should have nothing to do with it. There is no obstruction. You can see that sign for a long way going either north or south. This is a residential area. Some of the signs shown earlier were not in residential areas. A 24 square foot sign at 10 feet is adequate. They have enough signs there now and he did not think they needed any more. Ms. Smith stated she drove by the complex and did not see the sign. When going by during rush hour, traffic moves quickly and it is difficult to see. She asked Mr. Brandt if he was aware of any accidents or traffic problems in that area because people did not see the signs. Mr. Brandt stated he had never seen an accident on that corner. Ms. Olek, KMS Management/Meadow Run, stated the way the curb is now is very tight and, when traffic is entering, they must stop for traffic now. Moving in the curb would make it more of a problem. MOTION by Dr. Vos, seconded by Ms. Smith, to close the public hearing. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, VICE -CHAIRPERSON KUECHLE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED AT 8:53 P.M. Dr. Vos stated he drove into the complex. He would not be in favor of moving that curb any closer in. You have to look to the left to see anyone coming in that lane if turning to the north. Moving that curb back would not be advantageous. The monument being taken out should enhance the area. He vote in favor of having the sign APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING, AUGUST 23, 1994 PAGE 16 placed in the island. He was convinced this was as good as any place. He would vote in favor. Ms. Smith stated, when she came to the meeting, she was inclined to vote against the request. But as she looks at the alternatives, her sense is that for the public safety the 0 foot setback would be advantageous. It would clean up that area and give the visibility the sign needs to turn into there. Traffic does move quickly on East River Road. The sooner someone can see the sign, the safer it would be. Mr. Kuechle concurred. Of all the possibilities that are there, moving the curb back would have a negative impact. He can see moving the monument out and putting the sign there. He would like to see the sign self supporting rather than between the posts. That would narrow the sign down somewhat and perhaps bring it in not quite to the lot line. MOTION by Dr. Vos, seconded by Ms. Smith, to approve variance request, VAR #94-21, by Imaginality Inc. for Meadow Run Apartments to reduce the setback of a sign from the property line from 10 feet to 0 feet to allow construction of a new sign on Lot 3, Block 1, Meadow Run First Addition, the same being 7855 East River Road. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, VICE -CHAIRPERSON KUECHLE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Ms. McPherson stated the request would be reviewed by the City Council for final approval on September 6. 5. PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDERATION OF A VARIANCE REOUEST. VAR 494- 22, BY GARY LARSON: Pursuant to Section 205. 07. 01.B.(4).(a) of the Fridley City Code, to increase the allowable square fo ge of a first accessory structure from 1,000 square f t to 1,220 square feet, and Pursuant to Section 205.07.03.0 6f the Fridley City Code, to increase the maximum lot cov age from 25% to 26.8%, in order to allow the construction f an attached garage addition on Lot 3, Block 3, Riverv' Park Addition, the same being 7121 Riverwood Drive N.E. MOTION by Dr. Vos, econded by Ms. Smith, to open the public hearing. UPON A VOICEZVOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, VICE -CHAIRPERSON KUECHLE DECLARED THi-'MOTION CARRIED AND THE PUBLIC HEARING OPEN AT 8:57 P.M. • PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE APPEALS COMMISSION • Notice is hereby given that the Appeals Commission of the City of Fridley will conduct a Public Hearing at the Fridley Municipal Center at 6431 University Avenue N.E. on Tuesday, August 23, 1994, at 7:30 p.m. for the purpose of: Consideration of variance request, VAR #94- 21, by Imaginality Inc. for Meadow Run Apartments, pursuant to Section 214.09.O1.0 of the Fridley Sign Code, to reduce the setback of a sign from the property line from 10 feet to 0 feet to allow construction of a new sign on Lot 3, Block 1, Meadow Run First Addition, the same being 7855 East River Road. Any and all persons desiring to be heard shall be given the opportunity at the above stated time and place. DIANE SAVAGE CHAIRPERSON APPEALS COMMISSION Any questions related to this item may be referred to the Fridley Community Development Department, 571-3450. Hearing impaired persons planning to attend who need an interpreter or other persons with disabilities who require auxiliary aids should contact Roberta Collins at 572-3500 no later than August 16, 1994. VAR #04-21 Imaginality Inc. (Meadow Run Apartments) Imaginality Inc. 6182 Highway 55 Golden Valley, MN 55422 Meadow Run Apartments Building Manager 7825 East River Rd NE Fridley, MN 55432 Meadow Run Apartments Building Manager 7895 East River Rd NE Fridley, MN 55432 Bruce Miller 7872 Firwood Way NE Fridley, MN 55432 Walter Klus 7899 East River Rd NE Fridley, MN 55432 Watkins Brothers P.O. Box 87 Sauk Rapids, MN 56379 Current Resident 7869 Firwood Way NE Fridley, MN 55432 .Mailing List Meadow Run Apartments 7855 East River Rd NE Fridley, MN 55432 Meadow Run Apartments Building Manager 7845 East River Rd NE Fridley, MN 55432 Park Construction Co. 7900 Beech Street NE Fridley, MN 55432 Barry Blower Company 99 - 77th Way NE Fridley, MN 55432 David Fuerstenberg 7701 East River Rd NE Fridley, MN 55432 Current Resident 7865 Firwood Way NE Fridley, MN 55432 Current Resident 7861 Firwood Way NE Fridley, MN 55432 Current Resident Jeffrey Jones/Curr. Res. 7857 Firwood Way NE 7851 Firwood Way NE Fridley, MN 55432 Fridley, MN 55432 Scott Cammeron/Curr. Res. David Parke/Curr. Res. 7843 Firwood Way NE 7847 Firwood Way NE Fridley, MN 55432 Fridley, MN 55432 •Mailed: 8/9/94 Meadow Run Apartments Building Manager 7805 East River Rd NE Fridley, MN 55432 Meadow Run Apartments Building Manager 7875 East River Rd NE Fridley, MN 55432 Richard Peterson 7939 East River Rd NE Fridley, MN 55432 River Pointe Ltd. Part. c/o KMS Management Inc. 5801 Cedar Lake Road Minneapolis, MN 55416 David Fuerstenberg 1021 E Moore Lake Dr NE Fridley, MN 55432 Michael Betz 2712 Terrace Drive Burnsville, MN 55337 Roger Carey 10270 Mississippi Blvd Coon Rapids, MN 55433 Current Resident 7855 Firwood Way NE Fridley, MN 55432 Mark Jedlenski/Curr.Res 7833 Firwood Way NE Fridley, MN 55432 Current Resident Jonathan Soule Edward Willey 7837 Firwood Way NE .7838 Firwood Way NE •7830 Firwood Way NE Fridley, MN 55432 Fridley, MN 55432 Fridley, MN 55432 Douglas Lindquist 194 Pearson Way NE Fridley, MN 55432 Current Resident 176 Pearson Way NE Fridley, MN 55432 Eldon Metaxas 175 Craigbrook Way NE Fridley, MN 55432 Robert Skorczewski 170 Craigbrook Way NE Fridley, MN 55432 John Dunphy 155 Stonybrook Way NE Fridley, MN 55432 Hickory Properties 881 Pandora Drive NE Fridley, MN 55432 Current Resident 7855 Hickory Street NE Fridley, MN 55432 David Larson 4521 Culver Road Golden Valley, MN 55442 Michael Klismith 7905 East River Rd NE Fridley, MN 55432 Eugene Hebzynski 184 Pearson Way NE Fridley, MN 55432 Current Resident 174 Pearson Way NE Fridley, MN 55432 Donald Giorgio 185 Craigbrook Way NE Fridley, MN 55432 Leonard Brandt 190 Craigbrook Way NE Fridley, MN 55432 Charles Martin 133 Stonybrook Way NE Fridley, MN 55432 Current Resident 7849 Hickory Street NE Fridley, MN 55432 Victor Daml 9412 Flintwood Coon Rapids, MN 55433 Dennis Prokop 165 Craigbrook Way NE Fridley, MN 55432 William Dombrowsky 160 Craigbrook Way NE Fridley, MN 55432 John Anderson 165 Stonybrook Way NE Fridley, MN 55432 Current Resident 7851 Hickory Street NE Fridley, MN 55432 Current Resident 7853 Hickory Street NE Fridley, MN 55432 Micro Matic1� Current Resident 7871 Hickory Street NE 7831 Hickory Street NE Fridley, MN 55432 Fridley, MN 55432 Current Resident 'Current Resident 7890 Hickory Street NE 5,5 - 77th Way NE Fridley, MN 55432 Fridley, MN 55432 Current Resident William Walus 231 - 79th Way NE 221 - 79th Way NE Fridley, MN 55432 Fridley, MN 55432 Curreht Resident 211 - 79th Way NE D-62 Properties 10112010 Woodhill Lane Lawrence Davis 1210 Longfellow St. NE Fridley, MN 55432 Blaine, MN 55434 Fridley, MN 55432 Gary Stelton John Jarvi Michael Sutton 230 Longfellow St. NE 240 Longfellow St. NE 195 - 79th Way NE Fridley, MN 55432 Fridley, MN 55432 Fridley, MN 55432 Current Resident Thomas Gavic Michael Lund 181 - 79th Way NE 2540 - 131st Avenue NW 161 - 79th Way NE Fridley, MN 55432 Coon Rapids, MN 55433 Fridley, MN 55432 Current Resident Janet Chisholm Richard Mottl 260 Longfellow St NE 151 - 79th Way NE 141 - 79th Way NE Fridley, MN 55432 Fridley, MN 55432 Fridley, MN 55432 Lee Wyandt Lynn Canfield Donald Lewis 139 - 79th Way NE 131 - 79th Way NE 134 Longfellow St NE Fridley, MN 55432 Fridley, MN 55432 Fridley, MN 55432 J. Wodziak/J. Knealing Leonard Benser Susan Blilie 144 Longfellow St NE 154 Longfellow St NE 166 Longfellow St NE Fridley, MN 55432 Fridley, MN 55432 Fridley, MN 55432 Troy Tjepkes Current Resident Jean Oakvik 176 Longfellow St NE 190 Longfellow St NE 196 Longfellow St NE Fridley, MN 55432 Fridley, MN 55432 Fridley, MN 55432 F. Kevin McGinnity Gerald Harris Gina Damiani 124 Longfellow St NE 121 - 79th Way NE 260 Longfellow St NE Fridley, MN 55432 Fridley, MN 55432 Fridley, MN 55432 John Zielinski Current Resident V. Froneyberger 7889 Firwood Way NE 7891 Firwood Way NE 7885 Firwood Way NE Fridley, MN 55432 Fridley, MN 55432 Fridley, MN 55432 Current Resident Cynthia Czichary Current Resident 7883 Firwood Way NE 7879 Firwood Way NE 7881 Firwood Way NE Fridley, MN 55432 Fridley, MN 55432 Fridley, MN 55432 Jahn krvanitis David Kaliher Neil Hyatt 7875 Firwood Way NE 107866 Firwood Way NE •7858 Firwood Way NE Fridley, MN 55432 Fridley, MN 55432 Fridley, MN 55432 Cynthia Robb 7852 Firwood Way NE Fridley, MN 55432 Appeals Comm. Chair Lee Grant 7844 Firwood Way NE Fridley, MN 55432 City Council Members CITYOF CITY OF FRIDLEY FRIDLEY COMMISSION APPLICATION REVIEW File Number File Date Meeting Date 43 8/8/94 8/23/94 File Description: VAR #94-21 by Imaginality for River Pointe Limited (Meadow Run), to reduce the setback of a sign from the property line from 10 feet to 0 feet, 7855 East River Road N.E. Complete Review Checklist; Return to The Community Development Department *** Comments *** Barbara Dacy Scott Hickok Michele McPherson Scott Erickson John Flora John Palacio Clyde Moravetz Leon Madsen Dave Sallman Dick Larson 0 August 5, 1994 Scott Hickok City of Fridley 6431 University Avenue N.E. Fridley, MN 55432 Dear Scott, • The following is to go with our sign variance application to briefly answer the questions posed in the appeals process section. At the time of the meeting we will present pictures and further details. REQUEST: To have a variance in order to place sign within the 10' setback, We request a 0' setback. 1. We want to install our entrance monument sign in a position that would make it visible to oncoming traffic from East River Road, prior to the point of turning. 2. There is not sufficient property on which to install the sign in such a manner so that the sign could be visible - the sign needs to be perpendicular to traffic and double faced. 3. We intend to remove the existing stone monument structure from the current entrance island in order to make room for the proposed sign. 4. With the current regulation of a 10' setback, one end of our sign would be in the midst of a two way drive through. This would be hazardous and disrupt traffic. 5. We do not believe that increasing the center island curb area into the two way drive would be reasonable because it would not be even with the rest of the drive - it would protrude into a critical area. Turning radius for large trucks (which people use to move) and snow plowing becomes very difficult. We are concerned that this may be hazardous to drivers and the sign is more liable to be damaged. In addition there would be a significant additional cost in the new island and maintenance thereof. 6. Granting this variance would be of no harm, materially or gen- erally to the public or the property. This is made to enhance the beauty of the property, the neighborhood and reduce the opportu- nity for accidents, due to sudden stops and turns. SinGer�ly, Myrna rensten President cc: Bob Levine, KMS Management, Inc. CITY OF tqIDLEY (A31 UNIVERSITY AVENUE N.E. FRIDLEY, NIN 55432 0 (612) 571.3450 ('70MMUNITY DEVELOMMENT DEPARTMENT VARIANCE APPIA CATION FORM PRO. PERTY INFORMATION - site phari required for submittal; see attached Address- -70 '; .5- Z -,j e -,l (2 - Property Identi fication Number (PIN) Legal description: 0 i� ee,(-A -1 U + 0, cA,� ; 4- � o v-) 0 � e Lot Block Tract/Addition Meac,6,) cc(Ac� 1-4 i o Cun-crit zonbig: Square footagelao-ea -7 ge Reason for variance and hardship: --')V 42 Section of City Code, Have you operated a busJnoss in a city which required a. business license? Yes, .- No If yes, Which city? If yes, what type of business? —' Was that I iCC11SC eVei.- jetlied or revoked? Yes No FEE OWNER INF QRMATION (as it appears on the property litle) (C 011tl-aICL PLII-Chasers: NAIME V, Jed A D D R ESS' L10 IS SfGNATURE L Fee 0woers 111U.StSiL,)11 this f0i'llkPi'lor to processing) DAA 71MFPHONE DATE NAME Y) 0, ADDRESS I z Nv`,11 (-20 DAYTIM1.31"HON Y SIGNATORE'— DATE SV 3 /A 1 el Ilee.. $1000) i'crm1t,VAR # Applik-wim received J)y: Scheduled Appeals Commissim date: Scht duled City COL111C-I -- for residential properties Rect�'Ipt "O'T d 00*01'.] 7�:S V -6'S fj'r'U .8B -T!S-�-,T9 :�3i k-' 2-8 TT A319MJ JO AiID VAR #94-21 litmaginality Inc. I rz� , 1, 1 p STREET _ 332 /1u 9"B 26 "s 242? � S 4 Z / 9 F"7 �� 323/�'�S�Y Y. ��24 ov 174-94 P Gl F45/J/. a ( -- -- �� Y3 i ��) (I/ .; /> 4 ' 2" 94 S 4 J F 5 — g ARSOIIi�� /ST 7F 7s9s— 78 a . 6�) -I - 9s ti i `l9 71 2 .9 CORNER (u) 78,5 I A fEA D RUN PROOOSE AT ON 3 % SOS' 7 825 Y v - /ST 4> k ADD. • 19 — 362 -- �y�-�T``Ye'i1J,'t'_.a �R FI µ ^5 ` �y Q PEARSO s� _ 7701 ADD. N 8E LOCATION MAP VAR #94-21 iiFRF7a�CJ1;k.'k 13 ' ' C- -'' � I.;.{ 1". 14 , r. v� ,ImaginaIity Inc. �7 1� Q I`_ERTY O G R- r z Q 19 DISTRICT LEGEND R-1 ONE FAMILY DWG'S ❑ M-1 LIGHT INDUSTRIAL ❑ ❑ El R-2 TWO FAMILY DWG'S M-2 HEAVY INDUSTRIAL ❑ ❑ R-3 GEN. MULTIPLE DWG'S PUD PLANNED UNIT DEV. ❑ R-4 MOBILE HOME PARK S-1 HYDE PARK NEIGHBORHOOD L.I P PUBLIC FACILITIES ❑ S-2 REDEVELOPMENT DISTRICT C-1 LOCAL BUSINESS 0-1 CREEK 8 RIVER PRESERVATION GJ C-2 GENERAL BUSINESS 0-2 CRITICAL AREA z C-3 GENERAL SHOPPING ❑ 21 C -RI GENERAL OFFICE VACATED STREETS sD ZONING MAP VA < Imaging • ��meN�SioY1S �'S.F Q2(�ieo� �at"�oc� .VAR 494-21 Imaginality Inc. 0 -Irtp Tk- VAR # Imakin G� CS5 ��l