CCP 07-13-1987 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

7 Excerpt from Board of Appeals Meeting Hinutes of June 30, 1987: . Case #87-21 - Site CoveraRe Variance for Parki~~t Expansion at 1275 Red Fox Road , Everest II The Board discussed, at length, this requsted variance. Based on the information Board Members had on hand, the vote was split with two aembers voting in favor of the requested variance (Piotrowski and Lemberg) and two members opposed (McGraw and O'Neill-Hedlund). .The members voting in favor of the variance stated the following reasons: 1. The remaining setback, if.the variance is granted, will still contain some of the existing trees and shrubs. It was also the members opinion that a berm should remain in the area, even though the area is only S ft. wide. They stated they preferred a brick vall, similar to the brick on building, 3 feet in height, be constructed to further screen the veh~cles from the adjacent proPerty. Board members also recommended Council approval be condition ed, upon the applicant submitting a more detailed landscape plan, possibly with more plantings and berming ~han ahown on the original application. 2. Based on information received, relative to a proposed access road at this location ~y Opus/Northwoods development; Board members determined that Nielsen Associates should have the right to decide if they want to enter into an agreement for an access road with the Opus Corporation or not. If an access drive for emergency vehicle turnaround is needed, the Opus/Northwoods development was . responsible for formalizing that easement. ~. Davidson, rept;esent!tive.of Nielsen Associates, advised on July 1..1987, that no agreement has been formalized > . with Opus and it would be their responsibility to redraw their plans for provision of the access if they deem it to be necessary. 3. The Board members were of the opinion that thirty additional parking spaces were not an unreasonable request: it.~s.the Boards understandng that if the the requested variance was denied, Deluxe Check would vacate the premises. The members voting in opposition to the requested variance.gave the follow!ng reasons: ,~ ," l. It was their opinion there was no hardship identifiable to justify the variance request. 2. It was their suggestion that Nielsen offer to purchase land from Opus to accommodate the addition parking, rather than eliminate the green space. Nielsen stated on July I, 1987, that he has not approached that angle as yet. 3. The members commented that one of the nice things about Arden Hills now is the amount of green space in the Village; once we give green space away, we -can't get it back (if Deluxe ever moves to larger quarters). 4. They expressed concern that granting this variance could be precedent setting. . GENERAL CONCLUSION: The Board would like to keep as much green space as possible in beautiful Arden Hills, but at the same time realizes that business helps keep Arden Hills green. Submitted by Chair Barbara Piotrowski