HomeMy WebLinkAboutBoard of Adjustments and Appeals - 09/10/1987 APPROVED MINUTES
• BOARD OF APPEALS AND ADJUSTMENTS
THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 10, 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 and Dwight Harvey
BOARD STAFF: Assistant Planner, Jean Johnson and
Recording Secretary, Lynda Diede
ROLL CALL: Krueger and Arockiasamy were absent.
I. MINUTES
A. Minutes of August 13, 1987.
MOTION: Harvey moved, seconded by Anderson to approve the minutes of
August 13, 1987. Motion carried 4-0-1 . Sandvick 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 roofto mechanical screening at the above
referenced property. (CityCode, Chapter 11 , Section 11 .03, Subdiv-
ision 3, G, 4, k, requires mechanical rooftop screening.
This item was continued from the July 9, 1987 meeting.
Site plans were displayed.
Sigmund Helle, proponent, reviewed the appeal with the Board,
Helle stated that the City Staff does not feel that it is possible to
effectively screen rooftop units from the roadway with plantings,
Helle said that significant cost would be incurred in purchasing 18'
conifers. The cost would be approximately $10,000,
Photos were displayed depicting other sites ' screening.
George Hoff, attorney for Helle, stated that there was a legal position
involved. The City approved a site plan for the office warehouse which
showed no rooftop mechanical screening. Helle installed the mechanical
units at additional expense.
• Hoff said that Ordinance #9-87 allows for screening by natural or
artificial means .
Longman remarked that more money is proposed to be spent on trees than
rooftop screening.
Board of Appeals and Adjustments - 2 - September 10, 1987
Helle stated that the Staff is concerned with the evergreens on a
three to one slope. This can be addressed in two ways: a good
watering and creating a water pot.
• Helle said that there would be a guarantee from the planter.
Jean Johnson stated that another concern is that on a slope there is
not enough room for the roots to grow out.
Harvey inquired about the agreement with the City. Hoff stated that the
agreement is related to the submission of certain data by Helle concern-
ing site lines and momentary visibility from the roadways. The dispute
was regarding adjacent or non-adjacent roadways.
i
Harvey asked about the initial plan for nine units. Hoff said that
the nine units on the original plan are twice the size of the present
eighteen units.
Harvey inquired about the location of the units. Helle said that they
were set further back. The units were moved to lower the height of
the actual unit.
Helle said that his original submission stated that his units would
be visible briefly along the adjacent roadway for westbound traffic
along Valley View Road. That was identified through the City.
Helle asked the City to respond if the plans were not acceptable and
there was no confirmation letter.
Helle asked the City to respond if the plans were not acceptable.
There was no confirmation letter.
Helle asked how Helle would address the visibility from the north.
The units are visible from the south. Helle said that the view will
be blocked by additional landscaping.
There were no comments from the audience.
Sandvick inquired as to the Staff recommendations regarding screening
the units in compliance with the City Code. Johnson said that Staff
had received the plans. The evergreens will not meet the Code at the
time of installation, as there will still be gaps. There may be a
five+ year wait for the trees to grow. Ground plant material has
never been used before to screen rooftops.
Staff is unsure that the three to one slope will provide the trees
enough growing space to ensure maximum height.
Sandvick asked if the City Forester was contacted regarding a three
to one slope. Johnson said yes. There have been problems in the past.
Sandvick asked if what Helle had proposed was reasonable. Johnson said
that the Staff does not feel that it is a reasonable conformance to the
Code. A metal or wood screen would accomplish the intent of the Code.
Harvey inquired about the trees identified at 12' or 16' . Helle said
that the trees will be 18' in diameter. They have high shoulders and
are not traditional Christmas trees.
Anderson asked if the issue of hardship was addressed. Hoff said that
the issue is not a variance, but a Staff interpretation.
Board of Appeals and Adjustments - 3 - September 10, 1987
Harvey inquired if the City was aware that the trees were 18' . Johnson
• said yes.
Harvey said that going west on Valley View Road, there are mechanical
rooftop units visible. Johnson said that there was no screening con-
trolled in the ' 70's.
If major remodelling occurs, screening is required. Also, some of
the buildings have bonds .
Longman said that he would consider that the property is satisfying
the intent of the Code.
Sandvick said that the proponent is asking not for a variance, but for
approval of the plantings. It is an approval of the screening proposal .
Sandvick stated that the Board is designated to deal with variances .
Johnson said that the Board can also deal with determinations of the
Staff review of the Code.
Hoff said that the application was an appeal before the Board of
Appeals and Adjustments for review of administrative determination
of City Staff to require rooftop mechanical screening versus natural
plantings.
Harvey asked if it was necessary to get a release of a bond. Helle
said that they were not seeking a release of a bond at this point.
They are seeking a Staff acceptance of the landscaping proposal .
Harvey asked if there was a requirement for mechanical rooftop screening
once it is in place. Johnson said that they must be painted and main-
tained. For the plant material , the bond is in effect for approximately
one year. If the plant material dies after the bond is released, the
City may not have recourse,
Helle said that his nursery guaranteed plantings for eighteen months.
Harvey asked if the appeal was approved, if it would be appropriate to
state as conditions of the approval : should the landscape material
expire, then some other screening should be provided. Johnson said
that it would be appropriate for the Board to attach conditions upon
their actions. That motion and action can then be recorded at
Hennepin County.
Anderson said that all the other buildings in /the' City completed
mechanical required screening to City Code, or were covered iiith a
bond. Why should there be an exception for one building.
Longman said that 37 other buildings have had mechanical screening
put on the roof. Howerer, the proposed issue may have value as a
pioneer.
• Longman said that he would like to see the idea succeed. A condition
could be attached that if the trees die, then an agreement could be
made to screen at the rooftop.
Board of Appeals and Adjustments - 4 - September 10, 1987
Johnson said that they do have a bond on rooftop plans. If the Board
• is entertaining a motion to approve a landscape plan, perhaps another
bond will be needed to cover the tree material .
MOTION: Dean made a motion to approve Appeal #87-36,for a review
of administrative determination of City Staff with the following
findings:
1) If, after 24 months, the trees have died, then the Cite may,
do rooftop-screening per the previous bond and detail on fil-e.
Sandvick seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously.
B. Request #87-52, to review and consider the Variance Request #87-52,
submitted by Vantage Companies for property located north of Viking
Drive and south of Smetana Lake, Eden Prairie, Minnesota. The request
is for a variance from City Code, Chapter 11 , Section 11 .50, entitled
Shoreland Management: 1 Subdivision 6, A, to permit a building
setback of 95' from the Ordinary High Water Mark of Smetana Lake for
the proposed 2 Southwest Crossing Building, (City Code requires 200' ) .
2 Subdivision 7, B, to permit a buildin height of 153' for the
proposed 2 Southwest Crossing Building. (City Code maximum buildin
height is 30' on lots abutting a designated shoreland area. 3 Section
7, C, to permit impervious surface of 74%, (City Code maximum permitted
is .30 on lots abutting a designated shoreland area) .
The development includes the construction of a 247,000 square foot, ten
story office building.
Kelly Doran, project manager for Southwest Crossing II, with Vantage
Companies , asked the Board if they had any questions regarding the
request.
Harvey inquired about the space adjacent to Viking Drive to allow
berming for screening. Doran said that the footprint was 23,00&)-square
feet for both phases .
Vantage agreed to raise the parking ramp up 3' to increase the amount
of landscaping between the parking ramp and Viking Drive. The height
of the wall has also been increased by 12' .
Harvey asked if the size of the building decreased. Doran said no.
Phase I is 249,000 square feet and Phase II is 300,000 square feet.
Harvey asked what objections the DNR had. Doran said that they were
concerned about the impact of the building and the view of the lake
surface.
Johnson said that the DNR is reviewing the water level . The DNR is
• working with the Watershed District.
Board of Appeals and Adjustments - 5 - September 10, 1987
Doran said that utilities were placed in. All drainage will go to the
• retention pond.
Harvey was concerned about the overall impervious surface ratio. Doran
said that the impervious surface for the whole development will not
exceed the City Code.
Doran said that in the entire PUD, a density transfer occurred from
the eastern portion of the PUD to preserve natural characteristics in
that area.
There were no comments from the audience.
MOTION: Harvey made a motion to approve Variance Request #87-52,
submitted by Vantage Companies with the following findings:
1 ) The development is located in the MCA and consistent with
objectives of the MCA. In addition, the Planning Commission
and the City Council have approved the development.
2) The setback from the Ordinary High Water Mark is required in
this case.
3) This variance is caused by the configuration of the property.
4) This variance request must be utilized within one year.
Anderson seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously.
C. Request #87-53, submitted by Investment Services Group, for property
located at 6600 Washington Avenue, Eden Prairie, Minnesota. The
request is to have the Board of Appeals and Adjustments grant again
Variance Request #86-38 which included the following variances: A
variance from City Code, Chapter 11 , Section 11 .03, Subdivision 2, B,
1 To permit construction of an office warehouse building with a
floor area ratio of 30.7% (City Code maximum is 30o . 2 To permit_
a front yard parking setback of 40 feet City Code requires 50'
Tony Feffer, president of Investment Services Group Inc. , requested an
extension of the variance for one year.
The Board approved variances associated with the development, Eighteen
Park Business Center, on September 15, 1986. Construction for the
business center has not begun yet.
There were no comments from the audience.
MOTION: Anderson made a motion to approve Variance Request #87-53,
submitted by Investment Services Group Inc. , with the following
findings:
• 1 ) This variance request must be utilized within one year.
Harvey seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously.
Board of Appeals and Adjustments - 6 - September 10, 1987
D. Request #87-54, submitted by Prairie View Associates for property
• located at 928 Prairie Center Drive, Eden Prairie, Minnesota. The
request is for a variance from City Code, Chapter 11 , Section 11 .03,
1 Subdivision 3, H, 5, d, to permit the arking lot with a 0' set-
back from the side lot lines (City Code requires 10' 2 Subdivision
3, H, 5, d, to permit off-site parking facilities. (City Code requires
off-street parking facilities to be on the same parcel of land as the
structure they are intended to serve ._
Mark Rooney, general partner with Prairie View Associates, reviewed
the request with the Board.
Site plans were displayed.
In the process of leasing the development, a major tenant, Bakers Square,
requested that they have their own lot. They would like to own the lot
for two reasons: for a separate tax parcel and for the option to purchase
within the lease.
The first variance request is that the park setbacks be waived from the
side lot setback. Both Bakers Square and the shopping center will share
the parking.
The second variance request is for off-site parking facilities. The
proposed restaurant lot can accommodate 16 on-site parking stalls.
Harvey asked if the parking had been worked out with Bakers Square.
Rooney said yes. There is a cross parking easement that will be
recorded along with the plat.
There were no comments from the audience.
MOTION: Harvey made a motion to approve Variance Request #87-54,
submitted by Prairie View Associates with the following findings:
1 ) The variances requested are consistent with purpose of the
approval Prairie View Center site plan.
2) The creation of the restaurant lot is for ownership purposes.'
3) Subject to conditions outlined in the Prairie View Staff Report,
dated August 7, 1987.
4) This variance request must be utilized within one year.
Sandvick seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously.
E. Request #87-55, submitted by Kenneth P. Rannow, for property located
at 15595 Morraine Way, Eden Prairie, Minnesota. The request is for a
variance from City Code, Chapter 11 , Section 11 .03, Subdivision 2,
B, to permit new construction of a house with the deck/three season
porch 12' from the rear lot line. (City Code requires a 20' rear
yard setback.
Board of Appeals and Adjustments 7 - September 10, 1987
John Weber, owner of the property at 15595 Morraine Way, presented
0 the request to the Board.
Weber stated that the porch is on the left hand side of the house rather
than on the right, as shown on the plans. It is a writing error, ,but
does not change the variance.
Harvey asked if the property was for sale. Weber said that a down pay-
ment on the lot had been made.
Harvey asked who the previous owner was. Wever replied that the previous
owner was Jim Millermon.
Harvey noted that the Staff had suggested an alternative. Kenneth Rannow,
builder, said that the alternative was not acceptable because it puts the
entrance to the porch in the bedroom, not the family room. The size is
also a factor.
Weber said that because of the size of the lot, it will take an unusual
home to fit on the lot.
Longman asked the size of the porch. Weber said that the porch plans
were 16' out by 14' across the back.
Longman said that it was a big porch. Perhaps the Variance request
could be minimized with a more standard sized porch.
Weber inquired if a variance went through with a 14' porch, why it couldn't
go through for a 16' porch. Longman said that the Board tries to minimize
the impact of the variance.
Weber said that the houses on either side of them have porches and decks
that are closer to the water than they will be. There is nobody behind
their house, so they are not encroaching on anybody's property.
Harvey asked if the property could be replatted. Johnson said that it
could be replatted, but the rear lot line is approximately 12' from the
water level. Staff would not suggest platting lot lines under the water.
Harvey felt that there was no hardship. Not granting the variance does
not deny use of the property, There are alternatives that would not
require a variance.
Weber said that their lot had the highest elevation on the north side
of Village Woods Drive,
Anderson would have liked to see a more detailed plan.
Michael and Terri Hoy, 15609 Canyon Ridge, submitted a letter requesting
that the variance request be denied (Exhibit A) . Photos were displayed.
. David Clark, 15585 Canyon Ridge, felt that the variance should not be
granted. If granted, it would be a hardship for the surrounding property
owners (Exhibit B). Photos were distributed to the Board.
Board of Appeals and Adjustments - 8 - September 10, 1987
Kathleen Rolfsrud, 15597 Canyon Ridge, opposed the variance request on
• the basis of aesthetic consideration (Exhibit C) .
Barry Stivers, 15573 Canyon Ridge, requested that the Board deny the
variance request.
Anderson was uncomfortable with granting the variance. He suggested
that the proponent reconsider and redraw the plans. They could go
back 20' and try to fit another home on the plans.
Anderson asked if the proponent could withdraw the request. This had;
been done in the past. Sandvick said that a truly custom designed home
does not need a variance.
Sandvick added that three different parties submitted exhibits of the
configuration of the lots. It would be a 60% variance, which is not
tradition to grant.
MOTION: Harvey made a motion to deny Variance Request #87-55,
submitted by Kenneth P. Rannow, with the following findings:
1 ) It is a variance of convenience.
2) There is no hardship involved.
Dean seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously.
Longman stated that an appeal could be made to the City Council .
F. Request #87-56, submitted by Lynn A. Bachman and Pemton Company for
property located at 17036 Weston Bay Road, Eden Prairie, Minnesota.
The request is for a variance from City Code, Chapter 11 , Section
11 .50, Subdivision 6, A, to permit new construction of a house 118'
from the Ordinary High Water Mark of Mitchell Lake, Cit Code
requires 150
Dan Herbst, representing Lynn A. Bachman and Pemton Company, presented
the request to the Board.
Three concerns were addressed:
1 ) Will the granting of the variance have a negative impact on
the neighbors or the City.
2) Will a precedent be set.
3) Is there a hardship involved.
Herbst said that plans had been taken to neighbors on both sides. They
support the request.
• Herbst stated that there is a substantial amount of tree cover on the
property. The DNR and the City had concern of what it would look like
from the lake. All of the trees are being preserved so the home will not
be visible from the lake.
Board of Appeals and Adjustments - 9 - September 10, 1987
Herbst said that the original plat of the property was for 59 townhouses.
• Most of the townhouses were within the 150' setback. Some were within
the 75' setback. A precedent will not be set.
When the preliminary plat was prepared, it appeared that they could
accommodate an approved house on the lot. However, as they started
accommodating the road and the configuration of the storm sewer, the
size of the lot was substantially reduced.
Herbst said that it is one of the only lots in the subdivision that
could allow them to put an end loading type garage on.
The preliminary plat was displayed.
There were no comments from the audience.
MOTION: Dean made a motion to approve Variance Request #87-56,
submitted by Lynn A. Bachman and Pemton Company, with the follow-
ing findings:
1 ) The required Shoreland setbacks in conjunction with required
front yard setbacks create a hardship in developing this lot
for a single family structure.
2) This variance request must be utilized within one year.
Harvey seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously.
F. Request #87-57, submitted by Vantage Companies for property located
at 10340, 10260, 10180, and 10100 Viking Drive, Eden Prairie, Minnesota
The request is for a variance from City Code, Chapter 11 , Section 11 .30,
Subdivision 2, D, 1 To allow transfer of the permitted 15% commercial
use from 4 buildings. 2 To ermit a maximum of 21% commercial use.
City Code, Subdivision 2, D, states supporting minor commercial uses
as contained within office/industrial buildings, providing a supple-
mental function to the major office and/or industrial use. The commercial
use is not to exceed 15% of the Gross Floor Area of the buildin it
occupies .
Kelly Doran, with Vantage Companies, reviewed the request with the Board.
The tenant that would like to occupy 22,397 square feet of commercial
space is Class Import, Inc. This is a sales, leasing, and service
agent for luxury imported automobiles.
Drawings were displayed.
Doran said that four buildings instead of one or two buildings' ,ere con-
structed to minimize disturbance of the natural character of the site.
Doran stated that there was a slight difference of interpretation with
the uses within the City. The use of the space is broken down into five
different components:
Board of Appeals and Adjustments - 10 - September 10, 1987
1 ) Limosine service
• 2) Car wash
3) Service area
4) Wholesale (6,200 square feet)
5) Commercial (45-50%)
Doran said that if the business was wholesale or distributes automobiles,
it would be an applicable use under the Industrial Zoning property.
Photos were displayed of an industrial business park in Kansas that had
no outdoor storage or sales,
Doran stated that Vantage will not sell any of the individual buildings,
Doran asked that the Staff Report be clarified on the issue that the
variance cease when the lease terminates for the use.
Johnson said that Vantage's written proposal states that the "variance
will terminate with the termination of Class Import, Inc. " This was
submitted to the Staff by Vantage Companies. Staff and the City Attorney
felt that it would be difficult to maintain the agreement unless the new
owner comes in to sign an agreement. Therefore, the variance should lapse
with occupancy change. Vantage would agree to a modifying language that
would be acceptable to the Staff and City Attorney that would be restrict-
ive enough to continue the use through the terms of the lease. The tenant
would still have the ability to sell their business.
Harvey asked how long the proponent had been in business. Doran said that
the proponent as individuals , had many decades of experience.
Harvey inquired about the 21% commercial requirement and 15% use that it
is not to exceed, Johnson said that most auto dealerships are strictly
wholesale. Once clients come into a building to look at cars, Staff has
no control over where they are going in the square footage of the lease
space. Experience shows that clients are allowed access throughout, so
the entire space is considered Commercial .
Harvey inquired about putting up a wall . Johnson said that if two
separate applications were filled out, there would be two steparate tenants.
Johnson stated that the Board of Appeals was the group that set the limit
of 15% three or four years ago. It was incorporated into the Code.
Doran said that the issue was the hardship created by the site conditions.
Johnson said that a purpose of the 15% was to protect the Commercial Dis-
tricts. If too much Commercial is allowed in Industrial or Office, they
won't be able to lease out the properties that are zoned Commercial .
• Doran did not feel that this was traditional Commercial use.
Board of Appeals and Adjustments - 11 - September 10, 1987
Harvey didn't feel that the lot was intended for commercial use. If the
. variance passes, the City would define it as commercial use.
There were no comments from the audience.
Signumd Helle, 7398 Washington Avenue South, had concern over traffic
timing. Helle has had delays in his projects due to traffic studies.
Doran said that by creating more traffic for themselves, they are cutting
down their ability to ultimately develop the rest of the property. Also,
the buildings were set up to handle 100% Office, which is approximately
four people per 1000 square feet. The building could hold,from a tenant
occupancy standpoint, 85-90 cars. Employee use would be 25 per day with
15-20 customers a day. This use would have less traffic impact than a
conventional use.
Longman did not see that the building would generate a lot of traffic.
Johnson said that this use won 't have the peak traffic that other office
uses do as the traffic will be spread out throughout the day.
Doran said that there will be a recordable document that will be dis-
cussed and negotiated with the City Attorney. Vantage will maintain
common ownership of all four buildings . There will be no other com-
mercial activity or storage of outside vehicles .
Doran said that if the variance is approved, Vantage would agree to approve
it subject to the negotiation of the recordable formed document that is to
the satisfaction of the City Attorney and the Staff.
MOTION: Anderson made a motion to approve Variance Request #87-57,
submitted by Vantage Companies, with the following findings:
1 ) No outside storage of vehicles be permitted.
2) No other building in Southwest Crossing II will have commercial
activity. The building owners will sign an agreement prepared
by the City to this condition.
3) The variance is approved based on the floor plan submitted with
the variance application and dated August 14, 1987.
4) All four buildings must be maintained under one owner.
5) The variance will be null and void when Class Import Inc. lease
ceases.
6) Subject to the negotiation of the recordable document that is to
the satisfaction of the City Attorney and the Staff.
7) This variance request must be utilized within one year.
• Sandvick seconded the motion. Motion carried 4-1-0. Harvey voted
nay with the comment that a precedent could be set for other com-
mercial uses.
Board of Appeals and Adjustments - 12 - September 10, 1987
H. Request #87-58, submitted by CSM Corporation for property located west
. of Highway 169, north of Columbine Road, Eden Prairie, Minnesota. The
request is for a variance from City Code, Chapter 11 , Section 11 .50,
entitled Shoreland Management, Subdivision 7, B, to permit construction
of an apartment building 52' in height, Cit .Code maximum building is
30' when located within a designated Shoreland Area) .
George Watson, Brauer and Associates, represented CSM corporation.
A large portion of the property is on flood plain.
The variance request is in association with the proposed Fountain Place
Apartments. There would be a total of 490 apartment units in six buildings .
The Planning Commission had reviewed and recommended approval of the
development. City Council reviewed and approved 1st Reading fo the
development proposal .
Site plans were displayed.
The building is located a distance of 250' from the Ordinary High Water
Mark and is 52' in height.
Actual infringement of the creek is lessened by this distance. The
building is located in the Major Center Area (MCA) which anticipates
building heights in excess of 30' .
MOTION: Harvey made a motion to approve Variance Request #87-58,
submitted by CSM Corporation with the following findings:
1 ) The 250' setback from the Ordinary High Water Mark of Purgatory
Creek is a mitigating factor in reducing building height impact
on the creek.
2) The building is located with the Major Center Area where
building heights are expected to be over 30' .
3) Planning Commission and City Council have reviewed and approved
the development proposal .
4) This variance request must be utilized within one year.
Anderson seconded the motion. Motion carried 4-0-1 . Sandvick
abstained.
Discussion: Sandvick asked if the there was a change in the Code.
Johnson said that the City Council and Planning Commission would
rather keep the 30' and have a detailed review on each proposal .
Sandvick requested that City Council or Staff advise the Board on
guidelines for heights over 30' . Sandvick would like guidelines
• for future variances.
Board of Appeals and Adjustments - 13 - September 10, 1987
I. Request #87-59, submitted by Suburban National Bank for property,
• located at 16570 West 78th Street, Eden Prairie, Minnesota. The '
request is for a variance from City Code, Chapter 11 , Section
11 .70, Subdivision 4, D, to permit the existing free-standing pylon
sign to be raised to a height of 30' , Cit Code allows 8' height
in the Office Zoning District) .
Roy Terwilliger, president of Suburban National Bank, requested a
continuance of Variance Request #87-59, to October 8, 1987.
J. Request #87-60, submitted by R.M. Ferrick 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 2.7 acres, Cit Code requires
5 acres , 2 to permit a latting of an average lot depth of 238' .
City Code requires 3001 in the C-Com Zoning District) , 3 to permit
an I-2 lot size of 1 .5 acres City Code requires 2 acres) , 4 to permit
platting of a lot depth of 288.74 City Code requires 300 in the I-2
Zoning District) .
Hennepin County had a requirement that 10' of land on the west portion
of the site be dedicated for road right-of-way.
MOTION: Dean made a motion to approve Variance Request #87-60,
submitted by R.M. Ferrick and Eden Prairie American Legion Post
#409, with the following findings:
1 ) This variance request must be utilized within one year.
Harvey seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously.
III. OLD BUSINESS
A. Review of Final Order for Variance Request #87-37
MOTION: Harvey made a motion that the Final Order for Variance
Request #87-37, submitted by John P. McSwiggan and Nancy McSwiggan
is accurate. Anderson seconded the motion. Motion carried 3-0-2.
Sandvick and Dean abstained.
IV. NEW BUSINESS
None
V. ADJOURNMENT
MOTION: Sandvick moved, seconded by Harvey, to adjourn the meeting at
10:35 PM. Motion _carried unanimously,
•
EXHIBIT A
To: City of Eden Prairie, Board of Appeals and Adjustments
From: Michael & Terri Hoy, 15609 Canyon Ridge, Eden Prairie
Subject: Variance request #87-55
Dear Board:
We hereby request that you DENY the variance request #87-55. This
request for denial is based on the following reasons:
1. Our selection of a building site on the north side of Outlot C was
based on the attraction of having a buffer zone comprised of both space
and foliage between our site and those across the pond. Granting of the
variance will remove this natural foliage screen.
2. Due to the narrow lots around the pond, most of the homes on the
north side of Outlot C are designed to make maximum use of the southern
exposure and therefore has extensive glass orientated towards the lot in
question. Removal of the natural foliage will result in us having to be
exposed to their north elevation , yet they get the benefit of natural
screening from our homes.
3. Although Lot 17 has a unique size and shape, We believe a truly
custom designed home must take these limitations into account during its
design. Having designed homes for over 13 years, I belive you either
find a lot to fit the home or design a home to fit the lot. This home
does not fit the lot and therefore should be redesigned or another lot
selected.
Sincerly,
; � e),
Michael & Terri Hoy
EXHIBIT B
. Karen Clark
15585 Canyon Ridge
Eden Prairie, MN 55344
September 8, 1987
City of Eden Prairie
Board of Appeals and Adjustments
Re: Notice of Public Bearing 87-55
We oppose the variance by Rannow Contracting,
Inc. We recently purchased our home at 15585 Canyon
Ridge on the basis the City would respect the commit-
ment made in establishing a City Code requiring a
twenty foot yard setback from Outlot C.
It is not our responsibility to accept a
reduction in our property value or personal preference
for privacy because Lot #17 is of a reduced lot size. , .
Therefore, the City should keep their commitment to
maintain the requirements of the Code.
We expect the City to be sensitive to the
majority of home owners who have worked within the
Code requirements and are therefore maintaining an
environment of privacy within the natural surroundings.
The character of the community around Outlot C has
been set; investments have been made on the basis of
the Code as it is written.
Now that there is a difficult lot to work with
and the owner is asking for a variance is no time to
deviate from the original aesthetic goal around Out-
lot C.
Eden Prairie is to be congratulated on the high
level of priority they have alotted to open spaces and
green nature areas . We have lived in Eden Prairie for
ten years and recently purchased our new home on Out-
lot C because of the natural beauty and sense of privacy
it provides. It is shocking to think the City is
considering deviating from the direction it has been
taking.
We ask that you deny the variance request and
respect the present homeowners' property investment and
decision to build within the Code.
David W. and Karel Clark
EXHIBIT C
September 8 , 1987 j
Planning Commission
City of Eden Prairie
Re : Notice of Public Hearing 87-55
We oppose the variance request by Rannow Contracting Inc . on the
basis of aesthetic considerations .
"Outlot C" is a beautiful pond softly buffered by trees and bushes .
The lush natural foliage hides the numerous homes surrounding the
pond , providing privacy and a pleasing view to all -- to say
nothing of enhanced property values. Homes are set back from the
pond far enough to allow ample intervening greenery , blending them
in and giving a natural appearance from across the pond .
The one exception is the Halmrast property cited as an example
in the Rannow Contracting request .
The Halmrast property is out of character with the other homes
on the pond because it juts , without natural buffers, onto the
pond . The view from the protruding deck there is no doubt
spectacular . But the scenery is afforded by the setbacks and
buffers contributed by other lots around the pond . This aesthetic
arrangement , unfortunately , is not reciprocal - That ' s because the
deck footings are so close to the water ' s edge it is not reasonable
to expect there will ever be any natural growth to buffer the
concrete block and three-story back wall .
Now comes the request from Rannow Contracting to savage wooded
Lot 17 . They propose crowding a three-season porch and deck as
close to the pond as possible to exploit the view. The view from
Lot 17 is indeed gorgeous and Lot 17 is valuable precisely
because the homes were not crowded up to the edge of the pond .
The justification for the proposed encroachment seems to be an
assertion that the Halmrast enroachment is really worse than the
one proposed by Rannow, even though it was done legally . There
also seems to be an urgency to get all the lots on Outlot C and
Eden Prairie developed as soon as possible .
Lot 17 was a "difficult lot" long before Rannow Contracting
considered taking it on . That inherent difficulty , however ,
should never be the problem of the many homeowners there who
have done their parts to preserve the natural values around
Outlot C.
. Eden Prairie Planning Commmission Page 2
We will leave other considerations of high water levels , safety and
precedence to your expertise . Thank you for considering our input
on aesthetics .
L6
A
S n and Kathleen Rolfsrud
15597 Canyon Ridge
Eden Prairie , Minnesota
•