Loading...
Cncl Mnts• i / THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING OF MARCH 27 1973 The meeting was called to order by Acting Chairman Harju at 7:30 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT: Harju, Crowder, Wahlberg MEMBERS ABSENT: Minish OTHERS PRESENT: Jerrold Boardman - Planning Assistant MOTION by Crowder to approve the minutes of the March 13, 1973 meeting as written. Seconded by Wahlberg. upon a voice vote, there being no nays, the motion carried unanimously. 'J 1 Mr. Boardman explained to the Board that the first item, a sign variance for Georgetown Court Apartments, was not scheduled for tonights meeting but Mr. Filister had been told by the Building Inspection Department that 'he could appear before the Board and present his request without going �J through the normal procedure of having public hearing notices sent out first. Mr. Filister was present to explain his sign variances to the Board. He described the sign as a 12 foot by 8 foot sign placed between two brick pillars and it would be located just north of the entrance. The sign would advertise the complex and would have Georgetown Court Apartments in old english script with the address. Mr. Crowder said that his biggest question on the sigh size was how the vision of the automobiles would be affected? Mr. Filister answered that they could not see any problem with the sign in blocking vision. There would be approx- imately 60 feet from the street curb to the interior drive and that at least three cars could be backed up and still not be visually blocked. Mrs. Wahlberg asked what other signs were presently on the buildings or grounds which are used as area identification? Mr. Filister answered that at present there are two signs located on the buildings and a free standing sign in front of this sign he wants approved. Mr. Crowder asked if these sign will come down? Mr. Boardman said that the developer is required to take down all temporary signs (which are now located there) after the project is 95% completed. Mrs. Wahlberg asked how high the sign would be off of the lot grade? Mr. Filister answered that it would be approximately 9 feet. Mr. Harju asked if this would comply to the Zoning Ordinance? Mr. Boardman stated that the height would also have to be varied because 6 feet is the maximum height from lot grade in an R-3 District. Mr. Harju asked the reason for the location of the sign so close to the property line and not further back? Mr. Filister answered because of the proximity to the entrance and if it was back further the electric pole it is sitting next to would block the view from East River Road. • • The Minutes of the Board of Appeals Meeting of March 27, 1973 Page 2 Mrs. Wahlberg asked if there was any other location on the site that he could put the sign? Mr. Filister said that this was the only spot that was appropriate for the entrance sign. Mrs. Wahlberg asked if the properties surrounding this property in question had been notified of this variance? Mr. Boardman said they had not because Mr. Filister had only brought the sign in for review that morning. Mrs. Wahlberg then asked why was the hearing tonight in view of the many variances? Mr. Boardman answered that Mr. Filister had called in to see if he could get on the agenda tonight because he had ordered the sign and the pillars were already in before he realized that he would have to appeal and he wanted to get it as fast as possible. Mr. Crowder asked for the list of appeals that they will be acting on for this request. Mr. Boardman said the variances are:.l. Sign area from 24 square feet to 96 square feet. 2. Sign setback from 10 feet to approximately 5 feet. 3. Sign maximum height from 6 feet to approximately 9 feet. Mr. Crowder asked if there are other apartment complexes that are also using signs larger than the 24 square feet. Mr. Boardman said that he thought there were some signs that were larger than the required 24 square feet but could not say for sure, and added, that they would not be for a complex this big. Mr. Filister said that he could go along with 24 square feet of sign area for a smaller complex but he said that because his complex is a lot larger than any other and the location is on such a busy street, he should be able to put up a larger sign. He said he didn't feel that the sign ordinance that set 24 square feet for all apartments regardless of -size was just. Mr: Harju stated that he wants notices sent out to adjacent property owners so they can appear at the Council meeting if they have any complaints about this sign. MOTION by Crowder to recommend approval of the variances, as previously listed, to the City Council with the following stipulations: 1. That the City send out public hearing notices to the adjacent property owners. 2. That all other temporary signs be removed. Seconded by Wahlberg, Upon a voice vote, there being no nays, the motion carried. Mrs. Wahlberg said she wanted to register a complaint with the administration. She felt all persons coming before the Board of Appeals should have to go through the normal appeal process with only special consideration going to those with severe hardships only. All of the Board members agreed with the complaint. REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING APRIL 2, 1973 . PAGE 14 _ECEIVING THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING OF MARCH 2 REQUEST FOR SIGN VARIANCE FOR GEORGETOWN COURT APARTMENTS: Councilman Breider said the Board of Appeals has recommended approval of the variances with the stipulation that the other signs are taken down when this one would be completed, The City Engineer said the street sign may create a problem. He said the construction of the sign had already begun. Councilman Nee said he was not aware there would be a problem. He asked if it would be a masonry structure. Mr. Filister said this was correct for the four foot footings and under where the piers extend up. Mayor Liebl said it was to be an all brick structure. Councilman Nee asked why there was a conflict? The City Engineer called the Council's attention to page 9-D of the agenda stating the sign would be close to the projection on the intersection. He asked how far the sign would be from the black -top. Mr. Filister said it would be at least 48 feet and it may be more. Councilman Nee asked if the new sign would be approximately where the other sign is now? Mr. Filister said it would be a little further from the black top. He said he would have liked the sign to be set back more, but there was a conflict with a telephone pole. Mayor Liebl said he would like to get rid of the temporary signs, he added, this would be costly, but the new sign is attractive. Mr. Filister said the complex has an entrance in a bad location. He said there is no place to put a sign on the entrance. He added, logically, there should be a sign. The City Engineer said the correction would be to expand the entrance. He said he did not know when the stop sign would be installed. MOTION by Councilmen Nee to grant the sign variances asstipulated by the Board of Appeals. Seconded by Councilman Utter. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Liebi declared the motion carried unanimously. A REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE OF SECTION 45053, 1. FRIDLEY CITY CODE TO REDUCE THE MINIMUM LOT AREA.FROM 9,000 SQ. FT. TO 8070 SQUARE FEET TO ALLOW THE CON- STRUCTION OF A DWELLING ON ALL THAT PART OF VACATED JEFFERSON STREET LYING BETWEEN BLOCK 2, AND BLOCK 3, OF OAK HILL ADDITION, AND LYING NORTH OF THE SOUTH LINE OF BLOCK 2 EXTENDED WEST AND SOUTH OF THE NORTH LINE OF BLOCK 2 EXTENDED WEST, ALL BEING IN THE PLAT OF OAK HILL ADDITION, THE SAME BEING 581 - 53RD AVENUE, FRIDLEY MINNESOTA, (REQUEST BY MR. IRVING OLUND, 571 - 53R AVENUE NE, FRIDLEY, MINNESOTA: