Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBoard of Adjustments and Appeals - 07/09/1987 APPROVED MINUTES • BOARD OF APPEALS AND ADJUSTMENTS THURSDAY, JULY 9, 1987 7:30 PM, CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 7600 EXECUTIVE DRIVE BOARD OF APPEALS MEMBERS: Chairman Ron Krueger, Hanley Anderson, Roger Sandvick, William Arockiasamy, Lyn Dean, Steve Longman, Dwight Harvey BOARD STAFF: Zoning Administrator, Jean Johnson, Recording Secretary, Lynda Diede ROLL CALL: Sandvick and Anderson were absent. I. MINUTES A Minutes 'of June 11 , 1987. MOTION: Harvey moved, seconded by Longman, to approve the minutes of June 11 , 1987. Motion carried 4-0-1 . Krueger abstained. II. VARIANCES A. Request #87-36, submitted by Helle Partnership for property located at 10025 Valley View Road, Eden Prairie, Minnesota. The request is from City Code, Chapter 2, Section 2.11 , Subdivision 2,for the Board of Appeals and Adjustments to hear an appeal of determination made by City Staff to require rooftop mechanical screening at the above ref- erenced property. City Code, Chapter 11 , Section 11 .03, Subdivision 3, G, 4, K, requires mechanical rooftop screening. George Hoff, attorney,representing Helle Partnership, reviewed the request with the Board. Sigmund Helle, co-owner of Helle Partnership was introduced. Site plans and pictures were shown depicting visibility of rooftop units from the roadway. Helle stated that rooftop units could be screened by plantings along the boulevard. He is concerned about the way his building looks and would rather incur the additional expense of plantings rather than use metal for screening, Hoff stated that in addition to the plantings in the plan, most of the trees have died, The contractor has agreed to replace them, Krueger stated that three letters were recetyed from Charles E; Garrity, 9977 Valley View Road, (Exhibit A, B, C) Garrity is adamatly opposed to the request, Krueger said that Garrity was under the impression that there would be screening, Board of Appeals and Adjustments - 2 - July 9, 1987 • Helle said that there was a different ordinance in effect at the time of the hearing. Michael Franzen, senior planner, stated that there has always been an ordinance for mechanical screening. The City Code Was updated May 29, 1985 under Ordinance #15-85. City Code, Chapter 11 , Section 11 .03, Subdivirsion 2, F, states: "All mechanical equipment is to be physically screened from all public roads and adjacent differing land uses in a manner architecturally integral to the building or buildings on site. " This mechanical screening ordinance update was in effect prior to the issuance of the building permit for the Valley Gate Offices on July 31 , 1985, On May 6, 1987, Ordinance #9-87 was adopted, This ordinance continues to require, a physical screen from all public roads and adjacent differing land uses for rooftop mechanical equipment, The code identifies when mechanical screening is required. Hoff stated that the City approved a site plan for the office warehouse which showed no rooftop mechanical screening. Based on that approval , Helle installed the mechanical units at additional expense because of added duct work necessary to service the units, Hoff said that there was a document from the Staff that approved no screening, There was nothing received back from the Staff indicating • that work should be stopped, Hoff said that the City overturned the administrative decision in regard to screening, Hoff said there is an intimation in the Staff Report that screening cannot be done with natural plantings. it has not been done before, but that is not relevent, it is clearly authorized under tho City Code, Ordinance #9-87, "screening by natural or artificial means, " Hoff stated that he is looking for a common sense solution and answer to the problem and what the agreement is, Krueger inquired about the construction detail furnished, showing how the mechanical units could be screened and a bond covering the cost of physical screening for all 18 mechanical units, Hoff said that was correct, it was provided as there were tenants that wanted an occupancy permit, so,a bond was put up, There was an express understanding with the City that the decision would be appealed, Helle stated that Garrity was told, his office/type zoning would be in the middle of an office/warehouse area, Helle said that according to Braun testing, Garrity placed fill on Helle"s property and did not put in a retaining wall . , This prevented • Helle from completing landscaping work on his property, Also, there is inadequate screening of parking to Garrity"s property, Board of Appeals and Adjustments - 3 - July 91 1987 Helle felt that Garrity should respect the original agreement with is the City. In regard to dissimilar zoning, Hoff said that the ordinance says dissimilar uses and not dissimilar zoning, It is Office looking at Office, The zoning classification is not relevent. The ordinance probably does not apply in any event. Hoff said that if we say that the latest ordinance applies, these are not dissimilar uses, therefore, there should be no plan for screening from that adjacent office use to ours. Harvey commented that the number of units on the roof had increased from 9 to 18 which meant that the information previously supplied by the proponent to the City did not fully represent the extent of mech- anical unit visibility in the field, Helle said that if 9 units had been installed, they would have been larger units. According to the photograph, visibility is decreased by installing smaller units, Only a couple of units are visible, Helle said that the number of units is a mote issue, The dispersal of units is not difficult, Harvey stated that he could see the units, while driving along Valley View Road from both the east and the west, Harvey inquired if they were bonded, Helle said yes. • Helle said that there will be a new Valley View Road and the units will not be visible, Harvey asked if the landscaping plan was reviewed, Franzen said that Staff had looked at plant materials and there was not enough room within the setback area for plantings, Franzen said that plant material dies, has gaps in it, and dpesn "t grow in uniform shape, Therefore, it is not a desirable solution, Franzen cited Vantage Company as an examp1'e, They proposed to use plant material to screen and 11-2 years later they found that it was not possible to totally screen with natural material , Longman asked if Helle would rather spend more money on landscaping than less money and comply with the ordinance, Helle said yes, he does not feel a wood trellis mitigates it,, He is doing his best within the constraints of the topography, , With the new roadway on Valley View Road, the units will not be visible, Longman said that even though the units looked clean, he felt that no amount of landscaping could screen them, Longman inquired if the units were painted the color of the fascia, Helle replied no, they were army green, • Helle said that there is the opportunity to place large evergreens on the boulevard, There is a one year guarantee on the plantings, The units would be seen only if one is looking for them, Board of Appeals and Adjustments - 4 - July 9, 1987 Krueger wondered if the intent of the Code was being satisfied, Franzen said it depended on how good a job was done and the type of mechanical screening used. Longman asked if a painted metal panel was any different than painted units, Helle said that at 30 miles per hour it would not be noticeable, Hoff stated that the date of the building approval was March 27, 1985, This was before the other ordinance was adopted, Krueger noted that 37 other buildings have completed mechanical equip- ment screening to City Code or are covered with a developers bond, Hoff said that there is non-applIcability ',of the new ordinance, This was done under the old ordinance, Longman questioned the effectiveness of the trees, Helle said that Staff wanted screening on the rooftop and was not willing to look at screening of trees, Krueger suggested Helle work further with the Staff to explore the landscape situation, Helle stated that he could prepare a study with the new roadway and topography and submit it to Staff, • MOTION: Longman made a motion to continue Variance Request #87-36, submitted by Helle Partnership for a period of up to 60 days,to direct Staff to work with,'the proponent to come up with a mechanical screening solution; Arockiasamy seconded the motion, Motion carried unanimously, B. Request #87-37, submfitted by John P McSw an and Na McSwiggan for' ro ert' ;, ocat at 7270 Divinity Lan Eden,,Pra.1 ri e, Minnesota. e request is for a variance from`Cit Code!, a ter T1 , Section' 11 .03, Subdivision; , B,. to ermit`constr ction 0- aleck with a rent yard setbac of 20 Ci V Code requ 3011, The applicant has requested a continuance ',until the August 13, 1987 meeting, C, Request #87=38, ,submitted ,b John and Sandra McCraw'-foir property located`at' 10452 De,vpn�-h-i re Place, Eden P ati ie, Minnesota, ` The request iS `fora variance from'City Code, Chapter 1 , Section; 1 03, Subdivision:2 B, to ermi t-construction o as r o T'on'with as front yard setback'of`16` JCiU ,t6do ,roquiros 3 John and Sandra McGraw, 10452 Devonshire Place, presented their request to the Board, They would like to ',construct a three season porch room addition, If a porch were putlin the back, of the house • it would be over the look-out windows of the basement, Krueger read the Staff Report: 4It is Staff's position to support Board of Appeals and Adjustments - 5 - July 9, 1987 City Code when options exist to meet Code,, In this variance request, a room could be constructed on the property and meet Code, " Arockiasamy asked if there was a patio door, Mrs. McGraw said that it is all closed. They would like to add a french door and a privacy fence. There were no comments from the audience, ' Mrs. McGraw said that the porch would tie' in with the house, fence and landscaping, Krueger said that he would like to see an alternative, Mr, McGraw said that there is 45' from the street to the house, Krueger stated that the McGraws could withdraw their variance request, The McGraws agreed to withdraw their request. D, , Request #8 -39; submitted b��Twi n C�i ti es, Federal 'Bank ng -and -Savings for pro' ert 1ocated`a�t "1�__R pud�Dri e, den`Prai ^ie, Kirnesota. The request is br a variCi t' C de C apter., 1�1 , �Set ti� n,11 , , Subdivision 1 . o e a ace sign of 2 between sfi n faces Ci t Code ermi is maximum`betty en`si' aces; and Sub- division 4, to t Aermi si nr et iit:-of 9,' ' -(C-i y CaC10( maxi.mum si n e g t' is `8 • H.D. Shannon, representing Twin Cities Federal Banking and Savings, reviewed the request with the Board, TCF 'has relocated from the Eden Prairie Center to the Minnesota Protective Life Building on Flying Cloud Drive, Code allows one free-standing identification sign of 50 square feet and 121' between sign faces, Additional space between sign faces is required to permit installation of standard TCF logos and electrical time and temperature electronic reader board, Shannon said that the sign is 12� taller because they would like the copy off ground level from a maintenance standpoint in the winter months. Shannon stated that it is a free-standing pylon sign, Krueger inquired about a 20' high sign, Jean Johnson said that other properties in this area are zoned, Commerci'al which allows a 20' height, This use is in an Office District, Shannon said that TCF is in a temporary office for 2-22 years, Arockiasamy inquired about the 92' sign, Shannon said that normally the sign is put 201 up, however, there is ''a berm so it doesn't have to be higher, • There were no comments from the audience, Board of Appeals and Adjustments - 6 - July 9, 1987 MOTION: Arockiasamy made a motion to approve Variance Request 46 #87-39, submitted by TCF with the following findings: 1 ) The 24" distance between sign faces is required for install- ation of time and temperature reader board, which will serve the general public, 2) A variance of 92' is a small variance. 3) This variance request must be utilized within one year, Longman seconded the motion, Motion carried unanimously, E. Re uest #87-40, submitted by Cit of Eden Prai'riefor, ro ert located at 12100 Sunny'rook Road, E en PPrairie,,. Minne ,ota, T ere uest is for a variance from ,City Code, Cha ter 11 ; Section 11 .0 Sub ivision 27 , to ermi t-construOtion of a , re'nation b ui l d i`n -with" a ront and setback �alon Homeward Hills ad of 35� Ciltv Code requires a 50' front yar setl�ac i-n the Pub i c Toni ng District. Phil Mathiowetz, fire marshal , represented the City of Eden Prairie. The City Council has approved the location and building plans for a fire station at 12100 Sunnybrook Road, Mathiowetz said that the property has a 125 foot wide NSP utility easement which runs through the center of the lot. Initially, NSP indicated that the fire station could be located in the utility ease- ment: NSP now requests that the building encroachment be minimal , so the City has moved the fire station building west on the lot. Mathiowetz stated that the proposed location will require a 37 foot front yard setback for the northwest corner of the building, A small portion of the northwest corner of the building will encroach into the front yard setback, Mathiowetz said that NSP requires the building to provide a two hour fire rated roof system, This significantly raises the cost, but the City is willing to do this, Mathiowetz stated that there were no significant problems in discussions with surrounding residents, There were no comments from the audience, MOTION: Dean made a motion to approve Variance Request #87-40, submitted by the City of Eden Prairie with the following findings: 1 ) The proposed fire station will be utilized to benefit the health, welfare, and safety of Eden Prairie residents, 2) The structure setback of 37 feet is not inconsistent with the is surrounding residential land use, Board of Appeals and Adjustments - 7 - July 9, 1987 3) This variance request must be utilized within one year. • Longman seconded the motion, Motion carried unanimously, F. Request #87-41 , submitted by R.M. Feerick Associates and Eden Prairie American Legion Post #409 for property located north of Easy Street and east of County Road #4, Eden Prairie, Minnesota. The request is for a variance from City Code Chapter 11 Section 11 .03 Subdivision 2, B, 1 To permit a C=Com lot size of 2.9 acres. (City Code requires 5 acres 2 To permit a platting of an avera a lot depth of 250' . Cit Code requires 300' in the C-Com Zoning District). 3 To permit an I-Gen lot size of 4.5 acres (City Code re uires 5 acres) , 4 To permit an I-2 lot size of 1 .6 acres (City Code requires 2 acres) , 5 To permit platting of a lot depth of--298.74' (City Code requires 300' in the I-2 Zoning District and 6 City Code Cha ter 12 Subdivision 122 to permit platting of a lot without frontage on a publicly dedicated street JLijty Code requires all lots to have frontage on a publicly dedicated street). Dan O'Brien, representing R.M. Feerick Associates and Eden Prairie American Legion Post #409, reviewed the request with the Board. O'Brien stated that the American Legion proposes to remove its existing building and construct a new two-level structure. The proposal includes variances for lot size and minimum lot width and depth. O'Brien said that the property is being rezoned Community Commercial . The development proposal includes the platting and rezoning for I-2 and I-Gen Industrial to C-Com Community Commercial for the American Legion site and the platting of a vacant I-2 and I-Gen Industrial zoned sites. O'Brien said that the I-2 and I-Gen property is being platted into two lots, The development proposal for I-Gen includes a private cul-de-sac, O'Brien stated that the Planning Commission, reviewed and recommended approval of the preliminary plat anp zoning, City Council approved lst Reading of the development property, 2nd Reading is scheduled for July 21 , 1987, There were no comments from the audience, Harvey inquired about the private cul-de-sac, O'Brien said that it would be constructed to City minimums, Longman said that it would enhance the area, MOTION: Arockiasamy made a motion to approve Variance Request #87-41 , submitted by R.M, Feerick and Associates and Eden Prairie American Legion Post #409 with the following findings: 1 ) The American Legion building has been operating in its present location since 1953,first in a limited Commercial, Zoning Disc trict and later in the Industrial Zoning District, Rezoning • the property to Commercial will accurately reflect the use of the property and conform to City Code except for lot size and lot depth, Board of Appeals and Adjustments - 8 - July 9, 1987 2) The vacant lots currently zoned I-2 and I-Gen do not meet Code. However, the 1966 zoning map indicates the lots were zoned Industrial and the Guide Plan indicates Industrial land use for the sites. Granting of the variances would remove the lots from non-conforming status. 3) The Planning Commission has reviewed the proposed development and recommended approval , 4) The City Council has reviewed and approved 1st Reading of the development, 5) This variance request must be utilized within one year, Dean seconded the motion. Motion carried 4-0-1 . Krueger abstained. G, Request #87-42, submitted by David N. Thompson for property located at 16101 Valley View Road, Eden Prairie, Minnesota. Th°, request is fora variance from City Cod—e ha ter ll , Section 11 .03; Subdivision 2, B, 1 To permit—platting of two lots at 15,200 square feet in the 1-22 Zoning District 2 To ermit aside and setbackOf 10' for the exist- ing house on proposed Lot 2 City Code requires 151 David H. Thompson, 16101 Valley View Road, presented the request to the Board. The property involves platting of a ,993 acre lot into two single family lots. Two variances are required with this subdivision, lot size and structure setback. Thompson said that sewer and water were already in, Krueger inquired if there was a service for the extra lot, Thompson said that it was stubbed in, The Planning Commission reviewed the development proposal and recommended approval , The City Council reviewed the development proposal and approved 1st Reading, Longman asked if the adjacent lot was intended to be sold to a building contractor, Thompson said yes, There were no comments from the audience, Johnson noted that the adjacent lot has sufficient size, MOTION: Longman made a motion to approve Variance Request #8742, submitted by David N. Thompson with the following findings: 1 ) A home being built on the adjacent lot must conform to the size of the property, The Board would not support a variance for set- back lines, 2) This variance request must be utilized within one yeor, • Dean seconded the motion, Motion carried 470-11 Krueger abstained, Board of Appeals and Adjustments - 9 - July 9E 1987 HLi Request #87-43, submitted by Donald P. Berne for property located at • 7332 Franklin Circle Eden Prairie, Minnesota. The request is for a variance from CityCode, Cha ter 11 , Section 11 .03, Subdivision 2, B, l To ermit lattin of Proposed Lot 2, Block T. Berne Addition with a lot size of 20,331 square feet (City Code requires 22,00 s uare feet) , 2 To permit the existin structure with a side and setback of (City Code requires 15' in the R -22 Zoning District). Frank Cardarelle, representing Donald P. Berne, reviewed the request with the Board, The Planning Commission reviewed the proposed Berne Addition and recommend- ed approval , The City Council reviewed and approved the preliminary plat on March 27, 1987. Prior to final plat, the applicant requested two add- itional variances. Cardarelle said that Berne requested a variance to permit platting for proposed Lot 2 of 20,331 square feet instead of the 22,000 square feet required in the R1-22 Zoning District, There is sewer and water available, Cardarelle stated that for the second request the R1-22 Zoning District requires 15 feet, Berne is requesting a 10 f(dot setback of the existing accessory building, There were no comments from the audience, • MOTION: Harvey made a motion to approve Variance Request #87-43, submitted by Donald P, Berne with the following findings: 1 ) All setbacks for the future single family home on proposed Lot 2 must meet R1-22 setback requirements, 2) The variance request for lot size is consistent with surrounding property sizes, 3) The existing driveway to service the rear of proposed Lot 1 can be maintained without removal of trees and meet City setback requirements, 4) This variance requestmust be utilized within one year, Longman seconded the motion, Motion carried unanimously, I, Request #87-44„ submi tted,by,Timber Creek `North Partnership for.property located sou oun ,o �wer e I ew a r' , ator Creek Eden, Prairie, Minnesota. he reques s or a varia ce from C`i t -ode,:, ha ter 1 6tfJ57n ,, enti Subdi v�i s,i'on fi, �qrglt�,the- o. towinq, vary ah"s r W to t 9'- 4ly Lots 10, i oc.k Tim er Cree ; Nor fTmum w bui l di n l i ne.: ess than 12W for,, Tots,l , e tres 1 0' , "Minh um Wi&h a ` the, r an`ary�, ig,� ; er. ,ar ess- an for Lot 0- Ci f Code reu'i res u i pi e mi ly s rpo etas is 5-10 y 37 and S;�' Bloek, ,,` 'Tilmben Creek- North; immum �sl-V?S 'bf 7 , square feet ; CJ:1t ode re 'birds' -`s'quar' ee wa Board of Appeals and Adjustments - 10 - July 9, 1987 building line of -28' (City Code requires 100' ) . 3) Minimum, setback • from the Ordinary i h Water Mark less than 150' Cit Code 'requires fr a 150' setback om the Ordinary .Righ Water Mark), Terry Schneider, project developer from Timber Creek North Partnership, presented the request to the Board. Proposed Timber Creek North is located within Timber Creek Woods Planned Unit Development which was approved August 16, 1983. Schneider said 88,9 acres are north of Purgatory Creek. Fifty-one acres will be dedicated to the City for Park dedication, 14.8 acres for medium townhouse development and 23 acres for low density single family develop- ment, Portions of the property under development are under the jurisdiction of the City's Shoreland Management Ordinance. Schneider stated that Timber Creek was reviewed at the Planning Commission on June 8, 1987, Krueger inquired if it was all floodplain, Schneider said that Outlot A was in the floodplain, Chuck Davis, 16722 Whitington Walk, wondered how the community benefited from the project. Schneider said that the project is for 68 townhouses • and 40 single lots, Davis was concerned about the raising of the water level . Schneider said that there are 30 acres of floodplain which will be dedicated to the City. Storm water run-off is proposed to be collected within a catch basin system located within the roadways, Davis inquired about the price level of the homes, Schneider said that they would be $140,000 for the townhouses, They are between 1800-2200 square feet, Harvey inquired about shoreline lot width restrictions, Jean Johnson said that shoreline restrictions are for wide lots. This is to prevent too many yards fronting along the shoreland, There were no comments from the audience, MOTION: Longman made a motion to approve Variance Request #87-44, submitted by Timber Creek North Partnership with the following findings: 1 ) Planning Commission has given recommendation, 2) It is good use of the property, 3) fit is a well thought out plan, 4) This variance request must be utilized within one year, Krueger seconded the motion, Motion carried unanimously, Board of Appeals and Adjustments - 12 - July 9, 1987 • MOTION: Harvey made a motion to deny Variance Request #87-45, submitted by Signcrafters Outdoor Display, Inc, with the following findings: 1 ) The Board may find City Staff's interpretation of the City Code true and correct and uphold Staff interpretation not to permit an electronic center reader board. Dean seconded the motion, Motion carried 4-1-0, Longman voted nay, Johnson stated that an appeal can be made to the City Council , K. Request #87-46, submitted b �Al T fund Corporation for rp opertyz jP ated, at 6501 168th Avenue West, Eden Prafrie, 'Minnesota. The request Is f r a variance from City Code, C� ter`"l�, Section l .0 , Su division 3; to ermi t 01 atti ng of �a c riser l-ot wi tFa�widt ,-o - 85' Ci-t Codii r _of es a ,mi ni mum wi dth�ft)r a ' corner 1 of -of 95 -and -i-nt,no case l ess than 90'' Steve Pellinen, ,;-civil engineer with Hansen, Thorp, Pellinen, Olson, Inc._ , presented the request to the Board, The applicant is in the process of subdividing and zoning from, Rural to R1-13,5, a 5 acre tract of property into 11 single family lots, The Planning Commission was concerned about the installation of a cul-de-sac, They recommended approval of the subdivision with the condition that the plat depict a through street connection to 168th Street prior to City Council • review, The City Council reviewed the development proposal on June 16, 1987, and is scheduled to approve lst Reading July 7, 1987, based on a plat with a through street, Lot 2, Block 2, of proposed Majectic Oaks plat does not meet the minimum lot frontage required, The request is a 6% deviation from Code. Pellinen stated that the driveway for this lot would enter from North Manor Road and no setback variance is needed for the lot, Pelliene said that the request to reduce lot width to 851 will result in a buildable lot while maintaining feasible development of an 11 lot subs. division, Numerous other site layouts have been explored, with the proposed layout seeming the most workable and requiring just one variance. There were no comments from the audience, MOTION: Harvey made a motion to approve Variance Request #877.46, submitted by All Land Corporation with the following findings: 1 ) City Council and Planning Commission have reviewed and approved the development proposal based on a through street being incor- porated into the plat, • 2) All structures must meet the minimum building setback requirements of the R1-13,5 zoning district, The Board would not support structure setback variances 'for proposed Lot 2, Block 4, Board of Appeals and Adjustments - 11 '- July 9, 1987 J. Request #87-45, submitted by -Si' nc 'afters Outdoor Display, Inc for • property located at 6 95 Wa ner Way, Eden Prair*e, ,innesota. The request is for a variance from City Code, Cha ter 2 Section 2.11, Subdivision 2, for the oard of Aepeals and Adjustments to ear an appeal of determination made by Cit Staff Jonin Administrator. Staff finds the use of an electronic messa e,-center, providing1nformation other than time, date, tem erature, or similar public service in or- mation is not permitted, based on City Code, Chapter 11 , SectioF 11 .70, Subdivision 3, C, Jack Lawrence, president of Signcrafters Outdoor Display, Inc. ,reviewed the request with the Board, City Code, Chapter 11 ,Section 11 .70, states the following: No illuminated sign which changes in either color or intensity of light shall be permitted except one giving time, date, temperature, weather or similar public service information, The Building Official in granting permits for illuminated signs shall specify the hours during which same permits for illuminated signs shall specify the hours during which same may be kept lighted when necessary to prevent the creation of a nuisance. All illuminated signs shall have a shielded light source and concealed wiring and conduit, and shall not interfere with traffic signalization, • Lawrence stated that the message requested is for the Bank of Eden Prairie, located at the northeast corner of Highway #5 and County Road #4. Drawings were displayed. Lawrence stated that the illumination is controlled by a sensor, It is a quality sign and would be a compliment to the City, Lawrence said that similar message centers in St. Louis Park and Crystal have caused no problems in regard to traffic. Krueger inquired about the letter from the City Attorney. (Exhibit D) Johnson said that it was determined that the Board could not grant a variance for a use which is not permitted by City Code, The applicant is appealing this Staff determination. Lawrence said that they are asking for the bank use of 35% and 64% time and temperature and public service, Arockiasamy asked if the letters moved, Lawrence said that they could move from left to right or up and down, The letters do not jump, Johnson stated that other banks have not requested reader boards yet. Requests from fast food restaurants have been received, but not permitted, Longman was not against the sign, He felt that it could be good for the community. Harvey asked if the sign would face Highway #5, Lawrence said yes, it is 100 feet from the canopy to Highway #5, Board of Appeals and Adjustments 13 - July 9, 1987 3) This variance request must be utilized within one year, • Arockiasamy seconded the motion, Motion carried unanimously, III, OLD BUSINESS Durham stated that the City Council overturned the Board of Appeals and Adjustments decision regarding Variance Request #87-20, (Anderson Garden Shoppe) IV. NEW BUSINESS None V, ADJOURNMENT MOTION: Arockiasamy moved, seconded by Krueger, to adjourn the meeting at 9:30 PM, Motion carried unanimously, • I EXHIBIT A � r VALLEY PLACE OFFICES 9977 VALLEY VIEW ROAD #220 EDEN PRAIRIE, MN 55344 April 3, 1985 Mr. Steve Durham Board of Appeals & Adjustments City of Eden Prairie 8950 Eden Prairie Road Eden Prairie, MN 55344 RE: Variance Request No. 85-09 Dear Mr. Durham: My partner and I own the property directly to the east of the proposed • development. In putting together the design of our office park, we worked closely with the City of Eden Prairie so as to preserve the natural terrain, the existing trees, etc. Our original plan was modified substantially in accordance with the City's wishes and suggestions. We believe that the finished product is a credit to this combined effort. With this background in mind, we are naturally very concerned about the aesthetics of the proposed development. When we first received notice of the public hearing on the development, we reviewed the plans on March 15, 1985; major concerns were that the loading dock would not be exposed to our development and that the mechanical equipment would be screened from a site line of our offices. The plans bore out that the layout of the building would be such that the loading dock problem was minimized and we were assured by the City Planning Department that they woul d recom- ment the shielding of the mechanical. I notice in Mr. Helle's request and letter dated March 13, 1985, that he mentions a possibility of loading docks being exposed to the east and south in Paragraph II B (Page Two). We feel that any rearrangement of the building that results in such exposure to us would certainly be a gross violation of the aesthetics that we have worked so hard with the City to achieve. F wr Mr Steve Durham Page 2 April 3, 1985 I do not feel competent to comment on Mr. Helle's request for the above-mentioned variance except to say that we would have no objections on our part. We would, however, have the strongest possible objection to being exposed to the loading docks. I am available for questions or comments at any time. Thank you for your consideration in this matter. Sincere y yours, Cha of E. Garrity, P tner CEG:njl� EXHIBIT B VALLEY PLACE OFFICES ASSOCIATES 9977 VALLEY VIEW ROAD, SUITE 220 EDEN PRAIRIE, MN 55344 (612) 941-7006 June 30, 1987 Board of Appeals and Adjustments City of Eden Prairie 8950 Eden Prairie Road Eden Prairie, MN 55344-2499 Gentlemen: RE: Variance Request No. 87-36 Our partnership owns the property (9971, 9975, 9977 and 9979 Valley View Road) immediately east of 10025 Valley View Road, the site in question for the above-referenced variance. We are adamantly opposed to the granting of such variance. Please see copies of letters dating April 3, 1985 and July 3, 1986, in • both of which we reiterated the city's assurances that Mr. Helle was going to shield the mechanical on the building. We feel that of all the buildings around this area, this one needs the mechanical roof top screening the most. We note that in a letter dated March 13, 1985, to the Board of Appeals for set back variances, that Mr. Helle states, . . ."Asthetics: We feel the Prominence of this site presents an opportunity for an office/warehouse building that has a composition as a whole and that can be appreciated as° such by passing observers. . . ." (Copy of letter attached.) We have worked hard to preserve the aesthetics of our site and the neighborhood. We feel that to allow the variance requested would set a bad precedent as well as damage our and the surrounding property. sincere y Cha es . Garrit Partner CEG:njl Enclosures EXHIBIT C VALLEY PLACE OFFICES ASSOCIATES 9977 VALLEY VIEW ROAD, SUITE 220 EDEN PRAIRIE, MN 55344 (612) 941-7006 I July 3, 1986 Hr. Scott A. Kipp Assistant Planner City of Eden Prairie 8950 Eden Prairie Road Eden Prairie, MN 55344 f Dear Scott: This is in follow up of our conversation last Wednesday afternoon regarding the building directly to the west of our office park. Enclosed is a copy of my notes on the subject of screening the mechanical from view of our office park. These notes indicate that I visited the • Planning Commission office in person March 15, 1985, and reviewed the Plans with a staff member. I received verbal assurance that the staff would make recommendations to shield the mechanical. Regarding the public hearing for variances that was held on April 11, 1985, I had submitted a letter in advance reiterating our understanding of the city's assurances of shielding the mechanical. Enclosed is a copy of that letter herewith for your reference. It I hope this is of some help; we will wait to hear from you. Sincerely, Charles E. Garrity CEG:njl cc: Terry Schneider • EXHIBIT D LANG, PAULY &GREGERSON, LTD. ATTORNEYS AT LAW 230 SUBURBAN NATIONAL BANK 0 300 PRAIRIE CENTER DRIVE EDEN PRAIRIE,MINNESOTA 55344 TELEPHONE:(612)829-7355 ROBERT 1.LANG MINNEAPOIIS OFFICE ROGER A.PAULY 410E IDS CENTER DAVID H.GREGERSON RICHARD F.ROSOW 80 SOUTH EIGHTH STREET MARK J.JOHNSON MINN S MINNESOTA 55402 _ (612)338-07538-0TSS JOSEPH A.NILAN JOHN W.LANG REPLY TO EDEN PRAIRIE OFFICE DIANA P.MASSIE LEA M.DE SOUZA May 22, 1987 Ms. Jean Johnson City of Eden Prairie 7600 Executive Drive Eden Prairie, Minnesota 55344 Re: Sign Crafters Outdoor Display Dear Ms. Johnson: I have reviewed the request for variance by Sign Crafters Outdoor Display for an electronic message center on the bank canopy. It is our opinion that City Code §11.70 Subd. 3 (C) is a restriction on use and therefore is not subject to the variance procedure. Minnesota Statute §462. 357 Subd. 6 ( 2) provides that: The Board of Appeals and Adjustments or the. governing body as the case may be, may not permit as a variance any use that is not permitted under the ordinance for property in the zone• where the effected person's land is located. The Board does have the power to hear and decide appeals in .. cases of a dispute over a decision or determination made by the administrative officer in the enforcement of the zoning ordinance. Very truly yours, LANG, PAULY & GREGERSON, LTD. RFR:f1c BY: Ric r F. R6sovf