HomeMy WebLinkAbout8B - Keyland Homes Variance
MEETING DATE:
AGENDA #:
PREPARED BY:
REVIEWED BY:
AGENDA ITEM:
DISCUSSION:
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
MARCH 6, 2000
8B
JANE KANSIER, PLANNING COORDINATOR
DON RYE, PLANNING DIRECTOR / 0
CONSIDER APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION 00- vh'
UPHOLDING A DECISION OF THE PLANNI~
COMMISSION APPROVING A VARIANCE TO THE
REQUIRED SIDE YARD SETBACK ADJACENT TO A
RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF AN
ADDITION TO THE EXISTING KEYLAND HOMES
BUILDING IN THE C-5 ZONING DISTRICT
History: In January, 2000, the Planning Department received an
application for a variance to allow the construction of an addition to
the existing Keyland Homes building on the properly located at 17021
Fish Point Road in the Waterfront Passage Business Park. The
existing building is setback 20' from the south property line, where it
is adjacent to a Residential Zoning District. The proposed addition to
the building will also have a 20' setback. Therefore, a 55' variance to
permit a structure to be setback 20' from the side yard adjacent to a
Residential District rather than the required 75 feet (City Code Section
1102.1406) was requested.
On January 24, 2000, the Planning Commission held a public hearing
to consider the requested variance. The Planning Commission heard
testimony from the applicant, Kevin Horkey representing Keyland
Homes. There was no other testimony at the hearing. Upon reviewing
the hardship criteria, the Planning Commission concluded there is a
hardship with respect to this property in that the greater setback is a
result of the annexation and rezoning of the adjacent property, and the
location of the existing building limits the options for the placement of
an addition. The Planning Commission thus approved the variance
request. A draft copy of the Planning Commission minutes are
attached to this report.
On January 27,2000, D.R. Horton, Deerfield Development and John
and Mary Mesenbrink, all owners of property within 350' of the site,
submitted the attached letter appealing the decision of the Planning
1:\OOfiles\OOappeal\OO-O08\008cc2.doc 1
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 I Ph. (612) 447-4230 I Fax (612) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNI1Y EMPLOYER
"Y'''"T'''"f
Commission. This letter is consistent with the provisions of Section
1108.408 of the Zoning Ordinance.
The City Council originally considered this matter on February 22,
2000. The Council deferred action on this appeal until March 6, 2000,
to allow the City Attorney to address the legal questions concerning
the requested variance. The City Attorney's memorandum addressing
the legal aspects of this case will be forwarded to the City Council on
Friday, March 3, 2000.
Current Conditions: The property located at 17021 Fish Point Road
SE was originally platted as Lot 2, Block 2, Waterfront Passage
Addition in 1993. In 1998, the applicant purchased an additional 1/2
acre of land from the City Economic Development Authority and
added it to their existing lot in order to construct an addition to the
existing building, as shown on Exhibit A.
The existing building was constructed in 1993 and met all required
setbacks at that time. The property directly to the south was annexed
in July, 1997. Late in 1997, the Comprehensive Plan was amended to
include this property in the MUSA and designating it for Low to
Medium Density Residential uses. In 1999, the property was rezoned
to the R-2 district. Once rezoned, the 75' setback requirement from a
Residential District became effective.
The building envelope on the subject site meeting all setback
requirements, shown on Exhibit B, is approximately 165' long by 135'
wide. The building envelope is primarily located on the north half of
the lot. The proposed addition is 150' long by 100' wide. It consists
of a shop and warehouse space. The loading docks and parking are
located on the north side of the building. The proposed addition is
located 20' from the south property line and 45' from the rear, or east
property line. The setback from the south property line is consistent
with the setback of the existing building.
The Issues: The City Council must determine if it concurs with the
Planning Commission's decision that the proposed development meets
the hardship criteria. In the letter appealing this decision, the
appellants state "the appeal is based on several inconsistencies in the
application, and the fact that the criteria for granting a variance have
not been satisfied. 11 This letter does not include any specific or
supporting information.
On February 16,2000, the staff received a second letter from the
appellants outlining their arguments against the variance. The staff has
reviewed this letter and provided an analysis of the relevant points in
the attached memorandum dated February 18,2000.
1: \OOfiles\OOappeal\OO-008\008cc2 .doc
2
The hardship criteria are listed in Section 1108.406 of the Zoning
Ordinance. The following includes the hardship standard as well as a
suggested finding relating to that standard.
1. Where by reason of narrowness, shallowness, or shape of a lot,
or where by reason of exceptional topographical or water
conditions or other extraordinary and exceptional conditions
of such lot, the strict application of the terms of this Ordinance
would result in peculiar and practical difficulties or
exceptional or undue hardship upon the owner of such lot in
developing or using such lot in a manner customary and legally
permissible within the Use District in which said lot is located.
While the lot itself is not exceptionally narrow, the location of the
existing building on the lot limits the placement of an addition to
the building. If the addition were to meet all required setbacks, the
options for the placement of parking and loading docks are very
limited. This location would nearly eliminate the use ofthe
building for warehouse purposes.
2. Conditions applying to the structure or land in question are
peculiar to the property or immediately adjoining property,
and do not apply, generally, to other land or structures in the
Use District in which the land is located.
The existing building complied with the required setbacks at the
time it was constructed. The subsequent annexation and rezoning
ofthe adjacent property created the additional setback requirement.
3. The granting of the proposed Variance is necessary for the
preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of
the owner.
The property owner purchased the property from the City for the
express purpose of building an addition to the property. This
addition cannot be built without granting of the variance.
4. The granting of the proposed Variance will not impair an
adequate supply of light and air to the adjacent property,
unreasonably increase the congestion in the public streets,
increase the danger of fire, or endanger the public safety.
The addition conforms to the location of the existing building, and
will not impair the supply of light and air to the adjacent property.
The addition will not significantly impact the public streets or
endanger public safety.
1:\OOfiles\OOappeal\OO-008\008cc2.doc
3
, "T'''''T .,,.
5. The granting of the Variance will not unreasonably impact on
the character and development of the neighborhood,
unreasonably diminish or impair established property values
in the surrounding area, or in any other way impair the health
safety, and comfort ofthe area.
The addition setback conforms to the setback of the existing
building on this site. The required landscape bufferyard located
along the south 'property line will provide screening between this
site and the adjacent residential district.
6. The granting of the proposed Variance will not be contrary to
the intent of this Ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan.
The granting of this variance is not contrary to the intent ofthe
Comprehensive Plan. When the applicant purchased this property,
he entered into a development agreement with the City. That
agreement notes the further development of this site by expanding
the existing building is consistent with the development objectives
set forth for the tax increment financing district.
7. The granting ofthe Variance will not merely serve as a
convenience to the applicant but is necessary to alleviate a
demonstrable undue hardship or difficulty.
The location of the existing building limits the options for the
location of any addition to that building. The granting' of this
variance is necessary to alleviate a demonstrable hardship.
8. The hardship results from the application of the provisions of
this Ordinance to the affected property and does not result
from actions of the owners of the property.
The annexation and rezoning ofthe adjacent property created the
need for the larger setback than originally required on this site.
9. Increased development or construction costs or economic
hardship alone shall not be grounds for granting a Variance.
This variance is not based on economic hardship.
Conclusion: The Planning Commission and staff recommend
approval of the requested variance on the basis the request appears to
meet the hardship criteria in that the greater setback is a result ofthe
annexation and rezoning of the adjacent property, and the location of
I :\OOfiles\OOappeal\OO-008\008cc2 .doc
4
FISCAL IMPACT:
ALTERNATIVES:
RECOMMENDED
MOTION:
REVIEWED BY:
1:\OOfiles\OOappeal\OO-008\008ec2.doc
,. "Y--"" '--r
the existing building limits the options for the placement of an
addition.
Approval of the variance will allow the construction of an addition to
the existing building, thereby increasing the tax base.
The City Council has three alternatives:
1. Adopt Resolution DO-XX upholding the decision of the Planning
Commission to approve the variance requested by Keyland
Homes.
2. Deny Resolution DO-XX and direct the staffto prepare a resolution
overturning the decision of the Planning Commission and denying
the requested variance.
3. Defer this item and provide staff with specific direction.
The staff recommends Alternative #1, adoption of Resolution OO-XX
upholding a decision ofthe Planning Commission approving the
variance request to allow an addition to the existing building to be
located less than th quired 75' from the side lot line adjacent to a
Reo strie .
Frank B Ie Cit Manager
5
/10
RESOLUTION 00~,f
RESOLUTION OF THE PRIOR LAKE CITY COUNCIL UPHOLDING A DECISION OF
THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO APPROVE A 55 FOOT VARIANCE TO PERMIT
THE CONSTRUCTION OF AN ADDITION TO AN EXISTING BUILDING IN THE C.,5
DISTRICT TO BE LOCATED 20 FEET FROM A RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT RATHER
THAN THE REQUIRED 75 FEET
MOTION BY: SECOND BY:
WHEREAS, on February 22, 2000, and on March 6, 2000, the Prior Lake City Council
considered an appeal by D.R. Horton Custom Homes, Deerfield
Development, LLC and John and Mary Mesenbrink of the Planning
Commission's approval of a request for a variance by Keyland Homes to
locate an addition to the existing building at 17021 Fish Point Road SE 20'
from the side lot line adjacent to a Residential District rather than the
required 75' for the property legally described as follows:
Lot 2, Block 2, WATERFRONT PASSAGE ADDITION, Scott County,
Minnesota together with that part of Lot I, said Block 2, described as
follows:
Beginning at the southeast comer of Lot 2, Block 2, of said plat; thence North
00 degrees 10 minutes 44 seconds East plat bearing along the east line of said
Lot 2, a distance of 228.00 feet to the northeast comer of said Lot 2; thence
South 89 degrees 49 minutes 16 seconds East along the easterly extension of
the north line of said Lot 2, a distance of 100.52 feet; thence South 00
degrees 10 minutes 44 seconds West a distance of228.00 feet to the
intersection with the south line of said Lot 1; thence North 89 degrees 49
minutes 16 seconds West along the said south line, a distance of 100.52 feet
to the point of beginning.
WHEREAS,
the City Council finds that the requested variance meets the standards for
granting variances set forth in Section 1108.400 of the City Code, and that
the appellant has not set forth adequate reasons for overturning the decision
of the Planning Commission; and
WHEREAS,
the City Council has determined that the Planning Commission's decision
approving the requested variances should be upheld.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF PRIOR LAKE:
16200 Bi'Bllfi~pmW?~~,:~qem5f-t.oake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 I Fax (612}a~7-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
.
--~--_.- ..---.~ .~ ..._"_.""..._",._-_...
,
FINDINGS
1. Kevin G. Horkey has applied for a variance from the Zoning Ordinance in order to permit
the construction of an addition to an existing warehouse/shop building in the C-5 (Business
Park) District located at 17021 Fish Point Road SE and legally described as follows:
Lot 2, Block 2, WATERFRONT PASSAGE ADDITION, Scott County, Minnesota together
with that part of Lot 1, said Block 2, described as follows:
Beginning at the southeast comer of Lot 2, Block 2, of said plat; thence North 00 degrees 10
minutes 44 seconds East plat bearing along the east line of said Lot 2, a distance of 228.00
feet to the northeast comer of said Lot 2; thence South 89 degrees 49 minutes 16 seconds
East along the easterly extension of the north line of said Lot 2, a distance of 100.52 feet;
thence South 00 degrees 10 minutes 44 seconds West a distance of 228.00 feet to the
intersection with the south line of said Lot I; thence North 89 degrees 49 minutes 16 seconds
West along the said south line, a distance of 100.52 feet to the point of beginning.
2. The Board of Adjustment has reviewed the application for variances as contained in Case
File #00-002 and held hearings thereon on January 24,2000.
3. The Board of Adjustment concluded the variance met the hardship criteria and approved the
request.
4. D.R. Horton Custom Homes, Deerfield Development, LLC, and John and Mary Mesenbrink
filed an appeal to the decision of the Board of Adjustment in accordance with Section
1109.400 of the City Code on January 27,2000. .
5. The City Council has considered the effect of the proposed variance upon the health, safety,
and welfare of the community, the existing and anticipated traffic conditions, light and air,
danger of fire, risk to the public safety, the effect on property values in the surrounding area
and the effect of the proposed variance on the Comprehensive Plan.
6. Because of conditions on the subject property and on the surrounding property, it is possible
to use the subject property in such a way that the proposed variance will not result in the
impairment of an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent properties, unreasonably
increase congestion in the public streets, increase the danger of fire, and danger to the public
safety, unreasonably diminish or impair health, safety, comfort, morals or in any other
respect be contrary to the Zoning Ordinance and Comprehensive Plan.
7. The location of the existing building on the lot limits the location of any addition to this
building. An addition meeting all required setbacks would nearly preclude any parking and
loading areas for the building.
8. The City of Prior Lake Economic Development Authority entered into an agreement with the
applicant for the purchase of the property with the express purpose of constructing an
addition to the existing building. The Development 'Agreement states the development of
this site is consistent with the goals and objectives of the Tax Increment Financing District.
1 :\OOfi les\OOappeaJ\OO-008\rsOOxxcc.doc
Page 2
..
9. There is justifiable hardship caused by the location of the existing building on the lot.
Reasonable use of the property does not exist without the granting of the variance to permit
the addition to be located consistent with the setback of the existing building.
10. The granting of the Variance will not serve merely as a convenience to the applicant, and is
necessary to alleviate demonstrable hardship.
11. The contents of Planning Case File #00-001 are hereby entered into and made a part of the
public record and the record of decision for this case.
CONCLUSION
Based upon the Findings set forth above, the City Council hereby approves the following
variance for the proposed structure as shown in Exhibit A:
1. A 55' setback from the south property line rather than the required 75' setback..
The following are conditions which must be adhered to prior to the issuance of a building permit
for the proposed structure:
1. The resolution must be recorded and proof of recording submitted to the Planning
Department within 60 days of the date of approval. An Assent Form must be signed and,
pursuant to Section 1108.400 of the City Code, the variance will be null and void if the
necessary permits are not obtained for the proposed structure within one year after adoption
of this resolution.
Passed and adopted this 6th day of March, 2000.
YES NO
Mader \ Mader
Ericson \ Ericson
Gundlach \ Gundlach
Petersen \ Petersen
Schenck \ Schenck
{Seal}
City Manager,
City of Prior Lake
I :\OOfiles\OOappeal\OO-O08\rsOOxxcc.doc
Page 3
~
January 25,2000
Zoning Administrator
City of Prior Lake
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. SE
Prior Lake, MN 55372
RB: Appeal to the City Council: Variance Key Land Homes Board of Adjustment
decision of January 24,2000
Dear, Zoning Administrator:
We are property owners within 350 feet of the subject property. We are filing an appeal
to the variance granted by the Board of Adjustment at it's January 24,2000 meeting. We
make this appeal in accord with Section 1109.400 Prior Lake Zoning Ordinance. The
appeal is based on several inconsistencies in the application, and the fact that the criteria
for granting a variance have not been satisfied.
Sincerely,
_~~[m::~:
Donald Patton
Manager Land Development
. ."
._. - I
r . __1 ~;
Honorable Mayor & City Council
City of Prior Lake
16200 Eagle Creek Ave.
Prior Lake, MN 55372
RE: Appeal, Variance Key Land Homes
Dear Mayor and Council:
Midwest Planning & Design, LLC was asked to review the application for variance and
to prepare a letter to the Council. In our review ofthe information supplied to us, we
have found the following:
. There are several additional variances, which are required and which have not been
applied for
. The criteria for granting a variance to the side yard requirements of the City
Ordinance have not been satisfied.
. There may be a conflict with the City Council acting on an appeal and also members
serving on the EDA, which sold the property to the applicant. Also, there is a
conflict with the City Staff recommending a variance and providing staff services to
the EDA.
At your February 22nd, meeting, you are being asked to approve a variance to the
required yard of an industrial building which is adjacent to D.R. Horton residential
development, Deerfield. We are asking you to deny the requested variance. The request
for a variance is clearly an attempt on the part of the applicant to over use the adjacent
property to the determent offuture homeowners and to the determent of DR Horton and
the Messenbrinks. Midwest Planning & Design, LLC representing the adjacent property
owner makes this request to deny the variance for the following reasons:
1. D.R. Horton's new residential homes are required to maintain a yard and to provide a
landscaped buffer yard. We diligently provided this separation and the landscaping
knowing that the requirement from the adjoining property would be 75 feet for any
new buildings. D.R. Horton also purchased this property with the understanding that .
although the existing industrial structure was only 20 feet away from property any
new structures would be required to be 75 feet from the south property line. We also
understood that the City performance standards would help the interface between
these land uses. A variance to this standard will have a negative affect on D.R
Horton's development and the Messenbrink's property and on the value of the homes
to be built.
2. We are required to provide class one construction on the to be built homes. The
Councils intent of requiring class one is to make our "for sale" owner occupied homes
appear attractive from the adjoining property including this industrial property. Yet
the adjacent user is allowed to build a high bulk metal building only 20 feet from
south property line. This standard is inconsistent. Although section 1102.1407(2)
Additions and Alteration. Provides that the addition should be made of the same
Midwest Planning & Design, LLC
_~..u_.u. .... .
materials as the principle structure, it is hard to believe that the Council's intent was
to allow a metal building 20 feet from the property line adjacent to a residential use.
3. The purpose of required yards especially as separation from incompatible land uses is
to create buffers. Your ordinance realizes this requirement and requires additional
space and landscaping between incompatible land uses. Yet this application is to vary
the standard that is so important to maintain property value and habitable space for
new residents. The staff report indicates that this property was purchased before the
zoning was changed to residential. This is true. However, both the EDA and the
Applicant were aware that the Messembrink land was planned for residential use
before the ~ acre was sold to the Applicant. The sale occurred in 1998. The
Township land use on the Messenbrink property has been residential for a number of
years. The City's Comprehensive Plan showed this property as low to medium
density residential use in late 1997.
4. The existing building is a non-conforming structure. Based on the following Sections
of the Prior Lake Zoning Ordinance, the proposed expansion is illegal.
. Section 1107.2302 (2) "A nonconformity sball not be enlarged, extended,
expanded or changed in any manner or dimension except to comply with
provision ofthis Ordinance". Expansion of this nonconforming structure is illegal
unless the City grants a variance to this section of the Ordinance.
. Section 1107.2303 Special Requirements. (2) Nonconforming Structures. a.
Permitted construction. "In the following cases, construction is permitted on a
legal nonconforming structure. Construction, which does not extend, expand, or
intensify the nonconformity. The existing building a nonconformity and is being
allowed to expand with out a variance to this section of the Ordinance. This is
clearly illegal.
. Section 1107.2303(5) Nonconforming parking. "Any use on any property which
contains a nonconforming parking lot sball not be expanded or intensified unless
the property is brought into compliance with the standards contained in subsection
1107.204." The existing parking lot is nonconforming in that it is 20 feet from
Fish Point Road. The requirement in this zoning district is that the parking lot be
at least 30 feet from Fish Point Road (Sectionll102.1406). Section 1107.204
requires that parking abutting an "R" District be at least 20 feet from the side lot
line and a Type "c" buffer yard be provided adjacent to the parking lot. The
applicants existing parking is less than 20 feet from the side lot line. The Zoning
Ordinance requires that this parking lot be brought into conformity. The proposal
does not show that the existing parking lot is being brought into conformity.
Likewise, the Ordinance's required buffer yard is not being provided adjacent to
the existing parking lot.
5. Not only is this an application for a yard variance, but the proposal seems to vary
several zoning performance standards with out application for a variance. We
understand that these variances have not been applied for but they will affect the
relationship between the properties. We suggest that this application be sent back to
the Board of Adjustment so they can act on all of the variances at the same time. The
ordinance clearly requires variances to the following section to allow this building to
be built on this lot:
Midwest Planning & Design, LLC
. Besides the specific performance standards, the proposed use does not
conform to the following Standards:
. Section 1107.305 there is no indication from the plan provided to
us that the requirement for off street parking and loading are met.
. Section 1107.1904 There is not indication from the plan furnished
to us that the landscape requirements are being met.
. Section 1107.2202 (1) there is not indication from the plan
furnished to us that the standards for roof top equipment is being
met.
. Section 1107.2202 (6). There is not indication from the plan that
required class I material is being used. Nor is there a description in
the staff report, which indicates that these standards have been met.
Section 1102.1407 (2) requires that "all subsequent additions and
exterior alterations shall be the same as those of the principal
structure... This provision does not prevent upgrading of the
quality of material". The City Staff is interrupting this section to
mean that a non-conforming structures can be enlarged with a side
yard variance. This interruption is wrong. The existing structure
is a nonconforming structure. Section 1107.2300 clearly provides
that this existing structure must be brought into conformity to be
allowed to expand or intensify.
. Section 1107.2202 (8)(t). From the plan furnished to us there no
indication that pedestrian areas are provided as required by the
Ordinance.
6. In the interface of incompatible land uses it is important to maintain separation not
only for the livability of the residential property but also the usability of the industrial
property. Standards are important to be maintained by both parties so that the
industrial user, the resident and the city are provided the longest and highest value
from the property. Variances are not the rule but the exception.
7. We know from experience that the over use of property with building or parking lot
has determaental affects on the surrounding property and the city. These affects are
as follows:
. Blighting influences on the industrial and residential property because of not
enough room to provide bus~ess operations and to provide effective yards
between buildings and uses
. Blighting influences because of the lack of parking and the use of the public street
for over flow parking which has been the case for a number of years in this under
designed industrial park.
. Blighting influences because of the not enough room to provide public fire
protections because ofthe reduced yards, which are filled with landscaping. One
of the reasons to have larger yards is to provide both landscaping buffers and a
means of fighting fire
. Surface water run off is increased because of the lack of impervious surface.
Midwest Planning & Design, LLC
.
.-.......,.....
I
The State Legislature has realized that the variance is a tool that can be only used if
"undue hardship" exists. The City Ordinance requires that all nine conditions for granting
a variance must be met in order for the Board of Adjustment to grant a variance. The
following conditions have not been met:
1. There is not an undue hardship as defined by the City Ordinance or by the
State Statute. This is not an extra ordinary exception as is required by the
city ordinance. This lot is s~ to most of the lots in the industrial area.
The property owners simply wants to over use this lot and not adhere to the
city standards which are meant to protect other property owners in the area.
2. Conditions applying to this structure or to the land are not peculiar to this
property. The applicant and EDA were aware that the adjacent land was
planned residential when the property was purchased for the expansion. It is
unlikely that this is the only property in Prior Lake where the interface
between land uses does not conform to the existing ordinance.
3. This property is being used at the present time. The property owner is not
being denied the us,e ofhis property.
· Granting the va.riafice will increase the danger of fire and will endanger public
safety. With only 20 feet between property rather then the required 75 feet the
ability to fight fires on the south side of the metal building is impaired when
the required landscaping matures.
· Granting this variance including harm to the ability to sell adjacent property
will impact the neighborhood. Granting this variance will reduce the value of
the adjacent property. Like wise, the proposed building is not too standard as
it relates to the architectural design standards, Section 1107. By not requiring'
a variance to these standards and the nonconformity standards, the Board of
Adjustment violated the City Ordinance.
· Granting this variance will not be in keeping with the Comprehensive Plan,
which requires buffers between land uses. and requires high design standards
· This variance is to serve the convenience of the applicant. An undue hard
ship as defined by the State in the Enabling Legislation does not exist.
Reasonable use of the property can be made with out granting the variance.
. The hard ship results from the actions ofthe owners to over use the property.
Granting this variance will do harm to the value of the adjacent residential property and
to the general welfare ofthe community as well as to the public safety. For his reason
we are asking the City Council to deny the variance.
Sincerely,
Midwest Planning & Design, LLC
~ ~/A-s
Richard Krier, AICP
CC D.R Horton Homes
Donald Rye
Midwest Planning & Design, LLC
fILE COpy
Memorandum
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
Frank Boyles, City Manager
Jane Kansier, Planning coordinator~
February 18, 2000
Additional Information for Council Agenda Item 78, Keyland Homes
Variance
RE:
cc:
Don Rye, Planning Director
On February 16, 2000, we received a letter from Dick Krier, on behalf of the
appellants, D. R. Horton and John and Mary Mesenbrink, outlining their
objections to the variance for Keyland Homes. The variance will allow Keyland
Homes to build an addition to their existing building that will be located 20' from
a residential lot line rather than the 75' required in the C-5 District. This letter
was included in the agenda materials; however, the staff did not have time to
respond to this letter before the agenda was mailed. The following is our response
to the relevant points of this letter.
Mr. Krier claims the building materials used for this addition are inconsistent with
the Ordinance requirements. Section 1107.2202 lists the general requirements for
architectural materials. The C-5 district, however, has a specific set of design
standards for buildings in that district. These standards are listed in Section
1102.1407. According to this section, metal panels with interlocking, concealed
or tongue-and-groove seams and concealed fasteners are an acceptable building
material in the C-5 district if the exterior finish is warranted by the manufacturer
for twenty years against blistering, peeling, cracking, flaking, checking or
chipping and if not more than 50% of the building elevation faces the street. The
attached description of the building material for the Keyland building shows that
it is clearly consistent with the requirements ofthe C-5 district.
In addition, Section 1102.1407 (2) specifically references additions and
alternations to buildings within the C-5 district constructed of materials that do
not conform to the current requirements. This section states "all subsequent
additions and exterior alterations built after the construction of the principal
structure(s) shall be of the same materials as those used in the principal structure
.
1:\OOfiles\OOappeal\OO-008\response.doc Page 1
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 I Ph. (612) 447-4230 I Fax (612) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
.1
. 'If
and shall be designed to conform to the original architectural concept and
general appearance. This provision shall not prevent the upgrading of the quality
of materials used in a remodeling or expansion project". This section also allows
the materials used in the proposed addition.
Mr. Krier also references the nonconforming requirements (Section 1107.2300) of
the Zoning Ordinance and suggests variances to these requirements are also
necessary. It is true that the setback of the existing building is nonconforming.
This setback cannot be expanded without a variance to the setback requirement, as
requested by Keyland Homes. The setback variance is the appropriate variance.
A variance to the nonconforming provisions is unnecessary and redundant.
Mr. Krier also references Section 1107.2303 (5) which pertains to nonconforming
parking areas. First of all, he is correct in stating the setback of the existing
parking area from Fish Point Road is nonconfonning (20' instead of the required
30'). However, this section of parking lot is not being expanded. No parking will
be located closer to the right-of-way than the existing area. A portion of the
existing parking lot is also located closer than 20' to south property line where it
is adjacent to a Residential district. Again, this section of the parking lot will not
be expanded. All new parking areas will meet the requirements of the ordinance.
Finally, this letter suggests the following criteria have not been met:
. Section 1107.305, off-street parking and loading. The use requires 49 parking
spaces and one loading space. There are 59 parking spaces and at least 4
loading spaces on the site.
. Section 1107.1904, landscaping. The use requires a Bufferyard Type "E"
along the south property line for the length of the new building. This
landscaping is provided.
. Section 1107.2202 (1), rooftop equipment. There will be no rooftop
mechanical equipment.
. Section 1107.2202 (8,f), pedestrian areas. A total of936 square feet of
sidewalk or plaza is required. The existing sidewalks meet this requirement.
The criteria used to grant a variance are addressed in the agenda report.
1:\OOfiles\OOappeal\OO-008\response.doc
Page 2
'.~.~ ;,
.,
.Ji,
. ~
, . 'VP 09~.~efS"i3!<iJ!ils:'gff&ti1jlfngatf~c!t~W~rc~~eauraIlYmta~.;g: ~~ -'~~~~;' .
. G;EN~@'rp~~~-;r;Q~<~~;If.~~rf~~r;:~a~e .In:mostK':i~:;,::~,~~~~;-'~~Y;'~,~c~fEtrs~'~#;~~jr~ifk'
. The umque deslgnp~'yP's:;:: >::~:~;faclhtl~~.~~i:;.iCq$;'''':''''': ~'tA"'" h't' "ctV ""~'I'A . '..... ._. "~
. ........." "." ....'~.... .' .. '.:.: ..:"Hr'~"""'. . ..",:..~.,...~.,; rc Ie ura ppearanc
archttectural wall panels provides. '..:';~'.:..'~.~; Because ,0 . e Danes rength""11-''''''''''''''~''A''''''''i:'I...r.. " .c"';':fi.~'''''l
., .. .... '. "';'" .... ";'. ...... '. ....:.<...".."....-............-..;;:<.._.~~-;..'.'-,J.-...,. -.' .... ntenor pp Icatlons ';.,
. for. many attractiv.e buddmg .' ":,.:.~and eas~:oflpsta!latlo.nconstru.:~...."'.,,,. . "".-;. ,~.:. :;., :''i.;,:;~';,<.
. .-.....,.... ;. '. .... ,,' ....... .....-;.........:::;...." "'''',......'''''."....,. ...,':...::.. 'Fast Construction :":"'~'~"
.appltcatlons;--VP ,lOOlsa ':. .. .".:~.: tlontlme .ana cost. IS held toa--;, ..;c. .;~.,..", ..::..."..... '. ~""" .' .... .":n~':.#
. sculptured exterio':'sti:ad'ciw' panel::' ~.minjrjlUftt--::1Xolj'f.buil~frig~[f~,,~'~~. ::~. JEQergy" ~fficlent ~'~:\"~i,:r~
whit;:~ can be usedwithinteriorc:'.'; .:~tti'erefor~,.more~ec:orromicai and}:~}!~~I(::.EconomjcaICosf '.:;~..;f.~
/iner.panel~i~.com~if]~iii,off with..:~:/:....~:re~~yl€E.~k:m:0J~8~~y;~1~Ja:ci;:~~~~~7.f.~;~~;::::~~~It:;";:\~~~::::,,:;; {~,{I:~:
fiberglass or rigid. board insulat:on; .. ':'::;tt:ese ,wall. systems :are rri:CI~" ". ~.. .'. '::,:~ii:.i.J'~~5:~"
; ....... _. - ;.-........(~._.. .~.,....~~.:.~..,.~~!'.':="~~4J....r~_.,~~;~;r.... .~:...-.1.~
. Th!s attractive panel IS excellent .c';~:f.econor(ucal;tfiartconcre~e;
. for facade and buildi1l9 trolltage '..'::::~fi;~~on1Y~~~ii ~.
applications. . '. .~., '. . .' .."'.....~.~~"'~-?;:
VP 002 is a flushpariel used
either externally or as a liner
panel, especially appropriate for
mailufacturin~ \'/arehous3 interior
applications. This panel is
excellent as an accent panel for
. 'VP ,1.QO walls and is widely used
for facades and soffits. With the
variety of insulation options
available. your Builder can help
you decide on the optimal
insulation approach. considering
up-front cost and long term energy
savings. These interlocking
panels come with built-in weather
seals for weathertightness.
All fasteners are completely .
concealed on VP 100 and VP 002 ".'
panels. VP 100 pariels cOlne in a ::~;j
wide variety of color5":~VP b02.<,;.:1:~:'
panels are availab!e in. ~gyp~i~ri.:;~:
White and Patticia~. f3ronze a~:~:.
standard. . Also,. th~.s~ 'p~n~I~~ :QJ;
come in lengths to'38 .f~e!,pr6vi.CI~
us wall anel from' ::;~k~.
.. ~ . ." .
..l~{;'.:i~I:':'. '.
.'--' '.. .
. .... ~..'~.~.~.-.
.~... " .' II. ",' -
.' -........-:.........
. .'\-"
. .:,,::>:~~S::;..:;c:::;;.3::. ;,~;:~~~lii~:J.;~:.~0':~:
~~~.> ,'.' ... .. {~}!~li~~~~~tii~r~~.
..Avp 100 & VP 002;.:,.',. .. "FINISH WARRANTJES.<
_~~~j~I~~~dl~~~~~~~:I~~n~IS pluvide 12Ir:., not C~.:' ~ ~~-:i,~,,' :..~'.~'KX~~;~~~J!:~:;'/:{~i~"r:..
. :yiith lerigthsofup.to 38 feet. Pan31s are?'P ~"':~" '0'" ~r:lrJr.VARCO.PRUDEN AND .,'
;:~6.ptiohal}for VP 100 ana- 24 gage sta~'jl:l:,' . :' ;~' w.'....~~lQnal) lor ~FTHE VP CONTRACTOR
. .002. Both panels t'.ave a G90 galvanized steel coating and KXL paint . Vareo-Pruden h.as built its
"'finish for~exterior a'~plications. KXL Is a 1 mil. KYNARt based finish reputation as aleade~ !n the
,; :appiiedto the sOrface of G90 galvanized steel to giVE a long-life color nonresidential construction maiket
. ;:~~at resists fading and chalking. by suppl~ing.~~p~,ri.?~ service .and
,rL~~- ~ VP 1o~7vp oo;..;~~~~~~~;~ SECT10NS---'----.-- .~~~~~~;~;~r:BUJlderS
.~. r~'.......~I. ;'.: .- "4" .. .:.:i~~:~~~~~~f2cl~;d~~~:~~~~ly
Vi{;:' " . .. -J-:-: -\' '~-j-=-r:~;;:.' ".~~~~'t~~~~f~~~~~g~~~~':~~e.
1< a frJ - . - _ _ -=:J - Each and every'" facility"carries a. '
'1'" - "reputation'for-'qualitY"and value,'{:
.. ::,~,. .. . .'.. VP wall~ems'ai8d.sjgried to
" ~ '::'" . meet ihe.niostexactingcustomer .
;;:'./ ' , I r;quirerT!en~St1.~~~}ro.fu'!he""';< ",' ':"::.;."~y:.~f ..
.l~-::;i"." '-'. ".Q" ~. '" I !In. .!3.~~ ~~e_.~U'1.3;'PO.:.!21r,2.tL~~.p'I~dntf'.; ...'....... ','.<;.:f>.~>:;,'i~l;
'~+!!'I : -. :','. .:'. . :.': "'.. enVJronment;yolJ a~e'as~ure ,0 '<::~,:';>S'.r~'"
'5.~~:.q.,:. . ..~: ..7' ':,: ":' 'V' " . '.'.' "~~: .:/'N-1.:; :: :.I':)i'.~~gh.';~i~!~~W;:~!gh}Y~fJlgle~t'~<;:..':.:'::':';. /:~~::~:
"'::~J':'; :" t.,:, .,:t...: ;,' . .' ",:;, ...;:L.... 4: . structure;:~VP_wall system~ also:', _ : :u._.'r..,.:
;~ .~~~~::;.-::.;~.~,:;....-..~:~ ~:..~:d~...~., '.,' ':..i-.~ .., ~":'" ',:. ,.: <. .::( , . ': :- ;t:.;. ,.;.,:> .:~ ::.:: ~.. ~1:':~9~iD~:JI1)i~~E~~,,~ty:~(~!.?~S_:':'i';\n~~~:L;~f
'.' "~r:."")(~- .,;.:. "f" .- '~...-. :': .... -: '. . . " . --';., . ~:':' :.,:,:'.. '-=--,'~-";. . ,; ~md finishes to'meet your exact .'............ "-":';;';"'"
~ !:!E~~' :.:';:~<=::.~'::: .....y ::'~:. . ." .' . ~'..' :', .' ". :" . :. > .~.. '. '. :':\:::":. ~:'~':~' .~: ~ ~:' . '1,:?~esth-~,~?TeJiul~em~n~~t~~~'~A:~~:i:~~~'~,~s~~i
'...-..,: .:.,. ..' ...::: ".. ..' . '. " . .... . . "..' , .. ....,.. '.. -.j.. . ;...' . '. ',:;,when'non-metal walls are deSired, .\_~.'.::/';:.;;,~
?;'.'kr.;~7'SECTioNPROPERTJESOFARCHITECTURALPANELS .;..~" -:-,. ..... '.0;' ...-'.. _~~." ,"", " "?~__'::,:;~",?).;
"l :. ....?:. '- ..-.' .'. .', . . "., ....'.' . your Vp Budder can construct your '.:'" _" -~.;.J:
.': .
,- ~ ..
"
.',; .
....
.:j~i;~;~.~2.~nmoo"'" (;~h"'l . . '.'~~~fl'~
-1:>: Ix ~ Moment 01 inertia (inches') '.:''.:.(.S'' !4
..~ ,--- ---- -- '.>\, .1
. :J
J
.:~
:. :~..; '.f:..':..;.::..:., ~~:.:::~x.{:~... :.-_:-:' -. ,', ~',: ,~'~::':':~>". .<;.:;........ .~.,:. ~.': .>:.;_.~:..:,:;: . "~:,-i: ;~~":.::<::..~ ;.:,!...;....:.:~: ;'{; -: ~ ......:.-. ~.~ '.~-::..; ;.:~..,. :,;,....:._........:-#-..... ".~:. ..... ~ ..:..."'....._.._. ._._:-. .' ~.. ",
r-- -- THERMAL D~SIGN VALUES FOR VP 100IVP 002
J. Blanket Insul~t!on
l, ~ ~ic:~ess
I" . ~:
.f
l.' "'Calculated thermal values ,:'3 based on full insulation thickness.
~ '. .'':In-Place thermal values are based on ASTM C2~6 Gu~rded Hot 80~ Tests or are
I . . calculated accounting for effects of fasteners and Insulation compression .,.,hen the
L2:s~0_t_~ailabl~:~___.____ .___ . , .
Calculated-
R-Value U-Value
7.41 0.~35
In-Place"
R-Value U,Value
6,08 0.165
7.74 0.129
8.45 0.118
1:.80
().~'S5
0.066
15.10
.~ .::-::>~,~,(
. .~. :\~f~l-
.;/~~~.
;'~;1f
::1
~:i~'; ij
r -.------------- .----.. -.--------- ----.- -
_~~~d!\~-~'!;'!'l:'"ll~~~."!;~;21.[';;~-;::...S;.:~..:,-:::~.~!...7;.:'"'~'"~~~~-:~~~~'~=~~"~:'~~;;~gC.:f;;
~. Varcc..PrudelfJ
:.~"~..'~_~:ii_WJ,.' 8~i~da~IBS
~_ _ ___ 11 U~I'tcri fl....m:...l.C.,., r,..,.,.,,,r Ii'
,. 1;.....- ''''''.....hl; I! ......!,.~.:;.,'f
eu;ldor'3 Ncm.,
V~r(~rudon 3uildin'$', a Division ot
United Oominion Industris" Inc.
...-.......------r--.---........--..--.....-.-.---.-- ..._....-...._..~.
"
.-....-...............-.
_...__._---.;../'...,_..~- ........ -.--....-...
",
A.: .'
..
'0
~
KOOOJ.
~
-j (\ V.::,l'\ l'l
......, t .....J'-\ .i\
'yV.,\R:'~\tlT'f EZ' jDO~(Sf.iV\ ;:>ri
".
i< ;;!. P~~N~~ t=lN~5H
.~
;:
~.
~.
I,;':~~ '~I-':;~;,,~jJ..;It!:.;~.iO~. l) ::~"i~~f' .'
1\ ""'..:f'!-_"t1 "t.; ~ .J~~ ';'\i.;'''l
, '"
_ "'11.}l:. .J:J""II"'!~~";
:.;'~"'" :~;;:'41.. . "'\..
:'J
~
~
~
~~
~3
..l:
~:':;I' '. .:: ~ ~: ~t ;~i" ""<:1' :Q~... ." :., '~: ~"1;
.::; ~~(.==:l~' ..1';"'. '.' ,;.JC:~~~C~~ : ~c#.:m=;;:::c,:j.;n . .~r~.:c::-:,..
c' oJ"" .1,.I.~C=.;"IU~N b;ac...~.n !hu '~nlcllJo 2d ~ICII!',
C.J"ancnlc;i '':'Jnuda oJn4 AllJs~o. ond ~ .:;aoo,od !o .,.),tlIci
~rr:loson'mc cond/ric", os d~lin.d lHlow ""'i;i, ,ubl,",CI I" :1,,)
~anci'~On\ .:Ind ii/niteloonl :.rJlI~ iolll", _m:n>j. :tOt cr~c:t. chc!<,
blO.'..... paQI. fjo~" 01 ch,p. -::r dlat;lI In -colo, ""'1'0 d>an Sf UI1l11 ,,.
":'Ieosu'lId I.' OCCQ,.:onc, wit~ A,57M C.2;1,w.79 .,oro~,oph
J J ~ 01 ::~ chalk In t"c~'s cl on ASTj\,I, ~~~ ~ 3' 'Olin; fo, 0
p3rood "lrwo"'Yi:Cl yeon oftor sr.ipm.1>iW.
~S'S wmrcniy CO" '01 o~ply, hO.....8v.,r 10 'oaf ond/cr 'oVd ponals
,t"".,ii"d ~!' O:'!.... b:.:i!:Hr:; IOC::f:d it' th:; "iciiMit ~ ~ ~ul"',
. c;.os:oi sho,al.n". or chom.-:::I plonl or any ~~ ~ SU=If'!S
domog. 10 ,ooi ond/o' woll poneb mo. la l1ac:lcblo 10 on
..:i3n,.liabl" 10U'C, 01 carro""., di$ChCil"S=' ~ or c~
Wlllch ho"o. on :: .lll;\:lo. basi., olf.~2d wdI ~ilc'!ng.
in oedlllon. Ihls worrcnty s;,oll nol opply !o:
loi roo I ondio, wall ~ono!ls thaI ho"" bo3n eamo,od In lrc:nti
. or on lob I,I.f or hovil been imprope,ly llorlld;
(bl rocl c,.~ w.:;1I ;:onols thol hOVG boen lubl<<J.xIl\3 ml:vzo.
""s"go"C:2. 0' hove baon ,neved f,om Iho orisir>d ~c'J ef
,,'-cllon, or ,ad and/or wal! panol~ Iho. hCO'N not bun
o'.~:2d .n occord:lI'C3 w.th 011 o!lplicc~le v~CCH'~t.mEN
dro"",ng~ and InstructionJ ond gooc olr"Cion ~
lel collal:)ral building mat~ricls. ':;I:::l1ori,)I. /tqu;FM.li and
':)I;,,:r II~ms nOlsoid b'/ VA1KC :':!UDEN one! ~y dctr~-
.to ~cd an~/o' wdl ~nois resulllng Ih"ro/rom:
:d) Jamo9" !;, 0' dO;:2c:s ,n '001 ond/e' wail pon9lJ o;OU$I):i ~:
. .morop"" 'nll']lIa~on
(;:) damoc;,'!o or del"ca in '001 and/or wall POnti" eou$lt~ by
i"m 0;:1:110'"'' 0' fOllan"" ;'10' lupoiil,d bv VA~:O.
.PilUDE:"'ol 0' OO/""or::l,on ,;'I Ih~ '",of o'"d/o, ":'ell ponall
:oIOIl!d rhl!r-:lo;
(11 rho condition known OJ "mic,ocrocling' 0; r::oI and/or ~,d
'. . : Doneb .,,!I.cl, i$ 0 common oe::urronct in Ihl! lor;n.n9
, p'o':;:s~ of cola, :col,d ,oel ond/o, weil ;lCMll and is nol
/0 b.! c<::lrr.~ci 0 dolecr warranted ,",or,l;:loor: end
. :~: ==:~:g~. ~C:iIJf! IJr d~f'!t:a cOIJ:~d ~y Ac:: of Goc. t;::Hir.g
.- 00: ~:'l. O:I"r;'lol 'orca., .aplcillJr., fi'd. rooiJ. clv.1
:::''''''0100n1. ~o'rr.fui lume:, !llrJlgn lu!:;:oneJ1 i!1 rilll
'::~:)~':;'~:"3. or :.~rrC$;cri cOt.;-..od b,.. .)lt~Q~~:r~ te r.'\Qrlr.1.'
~~O$Pi'~(I!.)clt !p:Q~". cn,Jml~::::!~. 0,1;', cr alc:nu: redia::":,,,
..
'j
'.~
J
-~
'.~
:i
\:1
.:d
<~
.:. ~ i
J
i
;~'.
.
::."
~~~-
-~'! N:J':cnry ,~ a:\;e'~d~d 10!e;y, '~ I~? O'Nn'~~. nCiT.eC! horoin on,' ::
-c:"'.:rc:;~brobl~ en:! :\O:1<J'Ulgnc.:::~. &r.I~ -:cndlt'lon I~ a ."c:~ncJ tt,!)J'm
~;' rh:s wCflCnry c:'\c c:)nhc.~~~:ion c:f ~he term bv ih1 OW~:I( 01 ib cc~nt
or t~~~t:~~~'O:I."'~ ~hQII ;!":.lC::" 'JA~CO..P~UD~;~J ~..cm it3 obJigo!ior.~
"''':t~...n::~r
7~:: W.l,~i!;~;-;n~s C .:5GICtD ;":--';D ~IM!7~iJ AaOVt AND TH:
~~ "l::JtES S~7 .-:.::! rH 3EtOV-1 F'O~ .<CC.t AN~l:~ \"VAt~ ?.b.NE:..S
:.i-lA:.L 5E iN :.lEu ~:F .I,~l m~E~ 'NAHANTlES OR 1~:\~EDI~5
'","P.T:.,E:; ~;:j'l~:3S~O O~ 1;.Mt:fD. :NCtIJ;.:!~.G 3t!i NOT l:MIT:;::)
r:;'Ar.'( IM?I.l;;O '''J.~,~!l,~I'lTIES OF Mc~CiANTA8ll1TY AND
~,.~~.:3S FOr...~ ?A1iT1CIJLAR ?U~!'OS~.
Upon ",,,lion nolificellon '9c~.".,d by VAilCO.PRUDEN within rho
7.~'. QOO'fe-1fol:1d wor,onty pnriod ond mcdo by tho Ownllr within rhirty
(301 dO'ls !rom delodon 0; any fOilvrll of thll mo!.rials 10 CQniorm 10
:ho ocrov9 worren"/. u~on ptllsan'otion bj' the O..,nor of this fully
~xecl;lod worranty ogr..,emcnl, alld uFon inlp,clion by VARCO.
. PRU",EN 10 verify said nonconformity. VARCC.?RUDEN "'011. 01 ill
soil! oplion. "poir, ropl-:c, or '~JXlinl rocf and/or ':ltOH poII,.!s prO'ttd
10 bo eellldive wirhou. chorse to thQ Owne,. actior. any color c!lange
8 ./'.......... 'r"' .
Wi ijn ::iupenOr .";:).]r/lca
:-, ~;,)..r:.'I:':1C :n ~.::O::t
-:r'"" :'1c.\
:r ~lrt .')n ~('."":ll\ ;....1"::
" --:.~o..~,..,d
;.-. ....n_ ...
-."!"'''''\.
:.. ~;1.' :'. __ ;:, I ,; :~t: ........;.;'1.: .:'"
; ';1' ~ ''';' ~
1~:Ci':~..;." ......~;:l .J :' .. ...u~":,, ...,.... ::.~~ .1;" 11~::~')1I"::"
"'::.!cctlr:t.ntfhU. In ih.. rr.ann3r :nd "':or 'h" '''flod OOOvt1' 1nr:1I1
CC.\:.IIiuts iV:!liJm-tn. f.Jt oil ::ci&~Oflon' -.)1 '.I;\~<':::;.;~UCfl'J II') !h.., C..,.,...o~
w;uril..r bos~ ~~n conrrac!, lort (includinq n.gligon:;'ll. lIner hob.lil)
or OIt.'lW'~1. ,\ny "'I=:Ji'oo, '''!lotnl.d or 'oplec)-:f :-eral. lupph"d .n
sclis.:cc.:tIQr'\ 01 tn.;l oblig-::tic:"\1 und~, rhn .....,OIFOf\l'y ~n.::i: be lub'flCf :0 !t.us
wctr\.1n.)' only ter *"., :'~momd.J( .;:)f ~o P4l1od a;::~la:o:i., !o the ;)todu,:'
cn91naily purchO~lld. roiiur" o!lhe Own')r 10 gl"" IImei.,. nOhce 10
".,,~c.J.;"~:JDEN 01 10.I'J':: 10: ccnb,m rei:~.,~s VA~c..:>.P~'..JCE~ 01
:.r:'1 and ;:Iii cbJi9c~ons unci", m'$ worrQniy
Tii: :U:,""Eulb :iE: ~U~!l1 HnE!N .It,il: EXClUSIVE, WiTHel)T
:tEGAllD TO WHETl-'~~ . '';'' D::~;:Ci W,1,S OISCOVEflAiHE C~
LAT~NT ..iT THE TIME I..~ (;~~IV~~Y OF THE MATERIALS ro THE
OWNEl. ThO! essenliol purpose ollhls aXdUIIV& ,emedy ~holl b. 10
p,ovide the Ownar willt ,opolt 0' ~lIploc~' '..nl al pan.1s thaI p,ov. /0
bo dllloc:livlI within :11. pe""d t'nd ltr.j6~ 1.." :cno:liens p,ovloully sel
;o,n,. This exdusive remedy ~noil nOI he". I. I-,J 01,11 .uenllol pl."rpo~.
(0; the: 'erm is used in the Unilo~m Comme,clal Cod.,) p,ov.ded
V).ilCC-i'~UOEN remoins wli:ing to 'It!X=1f or '.pioco d~leclivo paneh
within 0 comm~rcially rlJO\1' l!'Jhi, rim:2 0110' il oblo'n\ oCluel
~nowl.,d;., of the ....:lenC:2 cf 0 porticulor oel,,<;1.
IN :--JO EVENT SHALL VARCO.PlI::.JDEN BE LIABlE FO~ ANY
Si'E~IAl. CCNS:~U;:NTI";l. !NCIDENTAl O~ !NDIRECi DAMA0cS
WITH RES?ECi TO THIS SALE OR ANYTHING CONE IN
CONNECTION HERt:WITH (INCLUDING, WITHOUT llMITAilON,
nECiION SE!W1CES ?~O"I('l:D BY WILDER Oi\ BY VM1CO.
P!!'JD:NI. W~'ETHE~ 3il.,SED UPON CONTRACT. TORi
(INCtJDING ~::GtIGENCEl, STic!CT LIABILITY 011 OTHERWISE
e;<C::PT 1'1.) THE EXT,Nr MODIFIED HEREIN, THE WARRANTY
COYE:V~c:,' ':'PPllCAil~E 70 7HIS 3lJIlDING SI'iALl SE AS STATED
iN VA::C:).PllUDEN'S 'c;j.l.NDARO WA~~ANTY: AND All
UMITA"'J()N::i, ."XCLuSh.:''' is AND OISCL~IMEi!S iNCLUDED IN
$)J~ .S"i.- NDAltfl ',"':'.:::V" .' fY' SHAlt AP?: Y "'!171-' FUll FORCE
HE~::-:-c- t;(,:~!'T rQ:l T;-.;E AF'!V"\ATiV; 0 ILlGA7:0N$
l!~iC':1.: ',;{~N ~'1 '1.dC,:'.P~UJ:N HE~E!N. AN'f
Il'-lCON~;.;:E1'il'i' 3fTWE:N 7H~ 7~~MS Or THIS WAR~..l,;-"'iY ;'N:)
Tii;,: TEl,"'.; OF SAle .S7....NOA~O WARRA,'\jT'(" $.-,'.Ll eE
~cSClVED ,N ;:A'IO~ Of THE TE;l.ItIS CF SAiD 'STANOA:?C'
V"..;i!~...\NiY. .
Oct) l~i"Iod
Vorc::....-,TlJ~hr, .:"u-;F.Orizc:t:or.
O'A~;;
V;J Jet' ~1
Joo Loccrion
S' et:f
.ay
S,C'O
f'
r.
fliI
f
~
I
~
jl;~
~
~
-~
;~
f.{;:
.~
~.
~
i!1
~
~
I
f
17021 Fish Point Road
4
2
ouot
WATERFRONT
PPSSAGE 2ND AOO'N
o
I
400
800 Feet
~
N
:~
<(
}..
I
-
CD
-
3:
><
W
ClO
~
en
I
iD
oCO
~~
on,,"
.!~ '+
o -
."' eft
.~~ .-
e'; ::::
.! J: CO
c:o
...-......
N.g C'\f
"'c:-
. u CO
"':::I.....
i I
~ I
I'
! !
!
...
('~ 0
... ..J
"'''' ~ , 15
i=... ",,2 ~...
Z'" Z
~g _Ill
"""" :J
""" i!:
~l5 0,.", ~o
~~ S5ffi a ::;~
"', F=""
~::; ~u
'~~ ""
O:j!: oIlI>",
I!!", ......0:
"'0 .. e,:)Z'"
~z 0 ;; ! ",,"':1:
~ .. .. z2'"
L. S ~ :(~o
. 0:"""
. o...m
L:
o
......
>.
v
>
'-
:J
(f)
......
o
v
.....
o
U
\i::
.....
'-
v
U
a:
o
u
'"
'"
,
,/'/
, /
...
N
"I.{)
::l .
"0
r
a
~
~~.~
::l ,
.. I
r
..~~
o
z
o
F=
""
...
Z
'"
'"
'"
'"
0..
'"
'"
...
u
'"
0:
a:
o
u
o
z
""
~.~
/~.a..
:Cffi
~'a.
oll.~
~~
~.~
, ' ~...
..::. /,
"'" ,
{ ........ C)CI
,,~ ~~ It
I' 5<5
/- ",m II
/ "
l..../
I' "-
/--./~
I.... / /
/. V
,
";-
, ,
":'~
-~
:;l
ClO
I
...,
ClO
....
X
~
... 0
:Z T ClO
0'" ClO
-~ ..
f; :;l
'50:2....
J: oj 'N' (/)
~~U; W
<om..... ::!:
o
:r:
Q
Z
<
--'
>-
W
~
()
()
/.
_-I
('('
_W
OVO~ INIOd HSI..:l
~
~
c:
g~
~:
o:~
~:!
~~
;.: ~la.
a~
c ~;i
I !lG
IS ...t!
e ~5
.. !!i
I ~:~
.. ~g~
~ ~::!
IS ~i!li
tIn
HI: t H : 6 ~~ ~
~~.~_~~-.L..Z. z
~ ~
o 0
2' 2'
..
~
::I
III
~a
;ll~1:l
;lll!j!"
i!~~C5
5a;~ ..
linH
C::l!il!i.."
;gg;!;J;J
oO!iogo
'~hh~
1D1lI
~a
-'",
"'!.!
2:~
li~ ..
ow! ~
G=~ ~
i:...~ ~
a~il
~~&
ilIoi!5
-:~
~~i
~i!5!
~~~
.."..
i!~
"01..
~w~
ll!a
8l!iO
W..1lI
llI~O
o"~
z;l..
~
~
..
&
o
.. ...
i! ""
.. i!:
o
! . ~
o ~ ~
....~ ~ OIl(
~~ ~ ~
i~ ; li
..!l ! ~
i~ ~ :
~& ~ !!i
t!li j i
gi ~ i
..~ u rl
l:fb( ~ ;
U ~ ~
---? ~
~ ~ ..
F= F= ~
"" "" F=
~ ~ ~
d d cd
g ~ ~
~ m ""
... IL ...
'" 0 ~
~ 0.. '"
9 ~ ~
~
o
z
...
g
...
Q
'"
~
0:
...
o
'0
..
u
.~ ;
:::10
~]
...
ti ~s
a u 1:
-.0
~ 8'5
Ill::
e .~
~ 5N
o E...
'" 0 u
0.. 00
""iii
~ ~~
~ en"
u '" .
'" ""-
... 0.._
C t- ~
Z
~ ~o
e,:) "-_
~ ~ &.
~o
s:;
N-
...:5
~ OJ
iii...
u
N:5
u
-'"
00
...J_
""
!!!
'"
~
'"
...
:::I
o
X
~~
",,0
~'"
",,:!!
"''''
""
00
"'z
"5
~m
0:",
~j!:
"IL
mo
'"
0:,.
~~
~~
'{~
i[ ~
@ ~
~
a----
l ~)'::~
. ~::~:~ =---
o
'"
,.
~
a:
::>
"J>
,-"
'"
'"
'"
'"
!!!
~
0
x
III
'" (
<
...
Q. ii!
'"
u
)(
'"
lfi
...
z
"'.
::li0
x8
~'"
~>
x'"
u""
z~
",z
""
0:">
0...
",0
"',.
z""
~o
~j!:
li1'"
0..",
2-
-x
~...
oz
xo
"'ii!
05
...0:
'"
...0..
"'~
0'"
&0
~'"
0..",
bO
Z,.
",:::I
~ffi
00
...z
-~
o
I-
W
W
L.-
a
CO
-0
ON u
o ..... 0\ .S 0"0
~3co~:~'~
~ ~ ~ g :: ~~
u 1ft 0 ..... .....-
~o"'~.~!r
~ ~-E .2
......S 5oo~o
~;:5 5:;: .
;ZN'~~'i~.r ~
.~ ~ ~..! :5-g.~ ~
..... u :::;8~ en
"0 0<2 ~o ~o.o
.aa;o~.._
N 0 _ ft:5 .!~ 0
~ g' ~ g ~ .S ::5
m'~~:u~-;g,
N ~ 8 -; i ;.~:s
'0 ~ ;; ..2 :5 -(I'f 0
~ ~ j ~ ~.!::
~~ i~.!g~l
~ en c: ..~a:)~N
~ '0 . "0 . ~"O"'!
u a:5 &g-~8
..... u 0 u - ocG_
g = : : '0 e='O
s=.... CICDoCa
"&.... -!-.~e
" ,; g ! Vi :a ::2
~ ~ <<i E:a o5'!!
: .~ ~ 'f 0 -;;:5 ~ 0
8
00 O~N~;:. ~
.~: ~ "0 ~o:i en
~ g c: ::...J c:-' J:
'g.z-i:~ ~~~
CD '0 "0 "0 " ...."
II
:x:
u
~
~
'"
....
'"
to
t-,
-
to
-
J:
><
W
~
01
I
10
010
;i~
"'11..
.l~ ~
o _
.... en
~il
eo;; _
"" 110
- lID
Co
w_.......
N-8 N
~H)
N::I '-'
II
o~ I
I'
~ !
~
('~
(/)
w
2
o
:r:
o
z
<
~
W
~
L:
o
'+-
>.
CI.l
>
L
::J
(f)
.....
o
CI.l
......,
o
u
t;:
~
L
CI.l
U
WN
j!:...
~9
...
":0
~~
~:l
""j!:
~""
"'0
~z
/ b
... <../ / ~
~~ --"'.....0
.:2 \ '1 .:>. w
~~ _ """' z
~~ '"<- c- <.... :l
:l:", ( -... J i!:
tf:Jffi . ...rj J....... a
"'~:J:: ( '"
~:::>E -" rj .......... ", ~
""a,.. FJ...... ,
D-~'" '" - .... :! '
o ~VJ(CJ:l :: i
l ,~! ::
)I \,.... ."<- . .
,\
iOO'9ZZ\\. iM..t~O ~.OOS~
~o
:J~
~.
::>u
.
~>
'"
w""""
..,zw
~~~
.'"
""..>-
owm
~
L
:!
:.
I
IN
I
I ""
I 0
\ I ..J
,I ...
,I 0
,
a:
o
u
w
Vl
,
,"
I
"
, "
v
()
()
-~
('(...
_!..J
~
~!~;
~ ,
- I
r
-~~
o
%
o
~
~
z
w
'"
w
'"
D-
W
'"
...
u
w
'"
'"
o
u
o
% ...
.. Z
w '"
~; '5 a
~ "111 ~ I!:,..
~o bO ~ -< m
:(~ "'x 15 !!! fil
l!~ !~ ~ '" ~
;:3 !s ~ ~ 0
~~; ~!I ~ ~ g ~
~ ~~ ~i~ i ~ ~ ~ ~
~ ~~ lie~ e... l!l 9 ~ ~
~ ~~ ~ai ~~ e ~ ~ ~ ~
~'l~ ~/:~; ~i ~; ~o:!;) ~
I ~ ,,::: il:: i ~ -
i ~ 9&1'" .. '" ,,~~
. ! I!; ii; !: i : ~ g
I~I~ ~~Y1 gi ~ i ~~
II ':i wU e~ ~ l'J ,.....
~ ~~~ ::c I!' !; el 0
.. ~~ ~~:: U S ~ ffi ~
I!! I!! I!! I!! I!! I!! x'"
i ~ i i 'i 'i ~~
OVO~ lNIOd HSI.:l
---7 ~
I~
~~gl
z ~.. ~~~~ "
i ~.~ IIUii
gg iH!lH!
! ~ ~ nuu
i ~ i HI! t H
co
N
co
2!
'"
..
i
3=
0
);
Vl
'"
.
...
D- Vi
W
U
x
w
.,;
""
%
w 0
::10
,,0
UO
.'"
~).:"
x""
u.
z::>
w%
.
","'>
0...
",0
"",..
~~
~j!:
ij1"'
a.",
::1-
-j!:
3=
0%
);0
"'Vi
0>
...""
'"
,,"a.
"'::>
0'"
Q ...
""u
::>",
a.""
bO
z>-
",::I
~ffi
00
'=~
~
w
" '0 w
u..
gN .. 0
.c '0 en ~ 0;2 10
" t:-'C05:~a II
"0 ~.Y:5~"="
.. .. a ~ C:~:5:5 J:
.. U
.~ ; u_V1v:t:2g'1 ~
i 0 ..:5.5 gc
::E.!! :5 u g_E.-3
>.:2 ~::S :2:5-;;
c..
ij " ~~N'~:~~a. w
u... :2 : _ ~ ~ :~.~ ...J
.. <(
::.e a:5.3 :~~5'3. u
" ~ VI
u u '0 g'~ ~8 ~=.x
"':;
.... N ~ "~.c btO '0
%
ON _ " ---
E", ~ ~ ~ l:! ',s :;:6
au Q5'c; ~5 u:5-;&.
0"
.0; . .. 15 u .s..
~:2 N.D u cr-52E:5
.." '0 '0 -;; 5:5 -en 0
"," :~ ~~~l::
'"
.-
o.~ ~ g ~ g ~ g ::.;
....3 vl&J CWN .~
~'O E" nW1~uN
0"0 ,. "'0 d ","Oil'!
...~ u5:5&o_cn8
"" ~ "~.!~-oco_
~g, g " _ "(; 35'0
~o :5: :~35~D
.c g " - :: 5 ~~ 5 ~
N~
",:5 ~ - -... u-
::J'" . :J.!! c'"
~'i ":5.s ~.s" 0_:0 S
O;~ _ ENE 0 -;;= " .,;
v 00 O~N:C;:. 0
.s:.
N~ ",
.. ...- c: ,..
-'" .S " ~ "a ~o= '"
00
..J- .~e a~~5~5
g' ~:i :'0 ~'a 6 ~-
Q)'O'V'V""""
2
<
~
'W
"
.-
-
UJ
\-
\
'..< .....-. . .
~~..
$J:)ep'~
.leuun PlAeg .
III
<< l! : g
, ~i c
i: I; 1- j i
ii rlE, t~ Ii.; 1-
ii l:~~i~ - fi I! :~
U r~~ln f'~; g !!'
II (/~ tl ~ f~'.i; 'ii'
· i . 4 i "4'~. t-
'~n. "hlll/I?
1 ~ ~/i~'>>.l~B
f I 1.~;~t~2~!
2 !j,lilan
~~
.........;;we I
t
111 I "
hh.1I
f
k..
!?
~;
,
\
.,
~
t
$UI
U) i~U
ill=<
" ~ f.:
~ ~
~O~
z:r:~
o l:
;:: -
gn~
~Zj
~<(It
z-J.Q
-<}-It
IlJ
Y.
Iii
---- -....-4._.--.--._-.....-...':l:"._'-.. 9
-.= .= ~~~---L::"'_~==.
-'--'--'- ""'-~H$/J -_
"
z.; .....:.. """''' '''''r .: .'" "'Old S1J31/ """ ">><11 air", : "'"'
-_.._.....~._......._--_._._-_.---_.
~
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
MONDAY, JANUARY 24, 2000
1. Call to Order:
The January 24, 2Q90, Planning Commission meeting was called to order by Chairman
Cramer at 6:30 p.m>..Those present were Commis~ners Cramer, Criego, Stamson and
Vonhof, Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier, ZoI).ing Administrator Steve Horsman and
Recording Secretary Conriie Carlson. //
, /
,
,-
/"
/
/'
\\\ /
/\ Present
// \ Present
/ \
Cramer / \present
_ Stamson /., . Present
~ .~,
3. Approva~fMinutes: "\.
The Minutes~m the January 10, 2000, Planning ~ission meeting were approved as
presented. /
2.
Roll Call:
.,
""
Vonhof
Criego
4. Public Hearings:
~
A. Case File #00-001 Keith Horkey of Keyland Homes is requesting a variance to
the required side yard setback adjacent to a residential district in the C-5
(Business Park) District for the construction of an addition to an existing
building on the property located at 17021 Fish Point Road SE.
Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier presented the Planning Report dated January 24,
2000, on file in the office of the Planning Department.
The Planning Department received an application for a variance to allow the construction
of an addition to the existing Keyland Homes building on the properly located at 17021
Fish Point Road. They are requesting a 55' variance to permit a structure to be setback
20' from the side yard adjacent to a Residential District rather than the required 75 feet.
Staff felt the proposed request appeared to meet the hardship criteria in that the greater
setback is a result of the annexation and rezoning of the adjacent property, and the
location of the existing building limits the options for the placement of an addition. The
staff therefore recommended approval of this request.
Comments from the public:
L:\OOFILES\OOPLCOMM\OOPCMIN\MNO I 2400.DOC 1
Planning Commission Minutes
January 24, 2000
Kevin Horkey, Keyland Homes, explained the company needs additional storage would
like to expand and this is the only way to do it.
The public hearing was closed.
Comments from the Commissioners:
Stamson:
. The City marketed and sold the property with this in mind.
. Staff pointed out the variance meets all the criteria.
. Supported the request.
V onhof:
. Agreed with Stamson on the variance hardship st
. The annexation caused the hardship.
. Supported the requested.
Criego:
. Hardships have been met.
. Agreed with staff s recommendation.
Cramer:
. Questioned landscapi
a buffer yard and t
. Lighting require
. The hardship c
'lding. Kansier said they were building.
dinance requirements.
BY STAMSON, APPROVING RESOLUTION 00-
ANCE TO PERMIT THE CONSTRUCTION OF
UILDING IN THE C-5 DISTRICT TO BE
SIDENTIAL DISTRICT RATHER THAN THE
by all. MOTION CARRIED.
5.
A. Case File #99-100 Hillcrest Homes Variance - Resolution
Zoning Administrator Steve Horsman presented the Planning Report dated January 24,
2000 on file in the office ofthe Planning Department.
On January 10,2000, the Planning Commission held a public hearing regarding the
requested variances on this property. After reviewing the proposal with respect to the
1:\OOfiles\OOplcomrn\OOpcmin\mnO 12400.doc
2
.
Halleland
Lewis Nilan
Sipkins &
Johnson
Pillsbury Center South, Suite 600
220 South Sixth Street
Minneapolis, MN 55402-4501
Phone: 612.338.1838
Fax: 612.338.7858
MEMORANDUM
TO:
City Manager, Mayor and City Council
FROM:
Suesan Lea Pace, City Attorney
DATE:
March 1, 2000
RE:
Keyland Homes Variance
The purpose of this memorandum is to respond to an inquiry raised by the City Council at its
February 22, 2000 meeting. The City Council has asked for input regarding an appeal filed by
D.R.Horton, Deerfield Development and John and Mary Messenbrink to the decision of the
Prior Lake Planning Commission approving a variance to the required side yard setback
adjacent to a residential development for the construction of an addition to the existing .
Keyland Homes building.
BACKGROUND
The Planning Commission, after conducting a public hearing, voted to approve Keyland
Homes' application for a variance. The facts relating to the variance are set out in the staff
report that was included as part of your City Council agenda materials for your February 22,
2000 meeting. Part of the agenda materials contained an undated letter from Richard Krier,
Midwest Planning and Design, on behalf of his client D.R.Horton. The letter was received by
the City on February 16, 2000 and set out the appellant's arguments against issuing the
variance. At its February 22, 2000 meeting, the Mayor asked if the City Attorney had had
sufficient opportunity to address the allegations set out in Mr. Krier's letter. I responded to the
Mayor that I had not had sufficient opportunity to evaluate Mr. Krier's allegations. The Council
voted to defer action until its March 6, 2000 meeting.
At the Council's February 22, 2000 meeting, the appellant was represented by counsel, David
Sellegren. Mr. Sellegren addressed the City Council. The substance of his comments
addressed the statutory criteria for issuing a variance, and why, in Mr. Sellegren's opinion,
Keyland Homes had failed to carry its burden of proving that its requested variance met the
"hardship criteria" necessary to support the approval of the variance.
.
.,-_ m _ _.
DISCUSSION
The issue the City Council must consider is whether Keyland Homes meets the criteria to
support issuance of a variance as set out in the City Zoning Code. I have reviewed the entire
record before the City Council, including all of the background material submitted by Keyland
Homes in connection with its variance application. I have also met with City Planner Jane
Kansier to review the Keyland site plan and discuss Keyland's proposed expansion and the
alleged impact Keyland's expansion will have on Deerfield Development. I have analyzed Mr.
Sellegren's comments and Mr. Krier's correspondence. Finally, I have analyzed Minnesota
appellate cases dealing with appeals to the approval of a variance.
Attached is a copy of Rowell v. Board of Adiustments of the Citv of Moorehead 446 NW 2nd
914 (Minn. App. 1989). I have made annotations in the margins directing your attention to
those aspects of the Rowell decision which in my judgment are analogous to the allegations
raised by Mr. Krier and Mr. Sellegren.
CONCLUSION
Minnesota law is well established; where municipal proceedings are fair and complete and
there is legally sufficient evidence in the record before the Council to support its decision, a
Court will not substitute its judgment for that of a City Council. Swanson v. Citvof
Bloomington, 421 NW 2nd 307, 313 (Minn. 1988).
In my judgment, and relying heavily on the Court's analysis in Rowell, the record before the
Council contains legally sufficient facts to support a conclusion that Keyland has met its.
burden of proving undue hardship and the criteria relevant to variances as set out in the City's
Zoning Code.
The Rowell case also deals with the issue Mr. Krier raised concerning expansion of a
nonconforming use. Interpretting Moorehead's ordinance regarding a prohibition against
expanding or enlarging a nonconforming use the Court said:
[The ordinance] does not specifically prohibit variances. Its prohibition
against enlarging, expanding or extending non conformities can be
read to mean.. that [the church] is prohibited from building its proposed
addition closer to the property line than the current three feet.
1Q at 919.
"Keyland's current building is set back 20 feet from the south property line, where it is adjacent
to a residential zoning district. The proposed addition to the [Keyland] building will also have a
20 foot setback". See. City Council Agenda Item 78 dated February 22, 2000. Applying the
analysis in Rowell, Keyland's proposed addition would not expand a nonconforming structure,
as alleged in Mr. Krier's letter.
I would be happy to respond to any further questions the Council may have.
H:\FORMS\PACEL TRH.DOC
.
Page 3
446 N.W.2d 917 printed in FULL format.
John Rowell, Appellant, v. Board Of Adjustment Of the City Of Moorhead, Respondent, Trinity
Lutheran Church, Respondent
No. C7-89-637
Court of Appeals of Minnesota
446 N.W.2d 917; 1989 Minn. App. LEXIS 1139
October 16, 1989, Decided
October 24, 1989, Filed
SUBSEQUENT HISTORY: Petition for Review Denied
December 15, 1989.
PRIOR HISTORY:
[**1] Appeal from Clay County District Court, Hon.
William Walker, Judge.
DISPOSITION: Affirmed.
CORE TERMS: variance, ordinance, municipal, undue
hardship, church, feet, setback, zoning variance, vot-
ing, zoning, nonconformity, neighborhood, landowner,
property owner, reasonable use, disqualified, locality,
build, property line, architect, space, green, existing
building, front line, financially, built, match, spoke,
practical difficulties, information required
SYLLABUS:
1. Failure to comply with procedural requirements
of a zoning ordinance is not grounds for setting aside a
city's grant of a variance.
2. A city's grant of a zoning variance did not violate
an ordinance prohibiting expansion of existing noncon-
formities.
3. A financially contributing member of a church is
not disqualified from voting on a zoning variance re-
quested by that church.
4. Aesthetic and functional considerations supported
city's finding of undue hardship in grant of zoning vari-
ance.
COUNSEL: William Kirschner, Fargo, North Dakota,
for Appellant.
Gregory D. Lewis, Moorhead City Attorney,
Moorhead, Minnesota, for Respondent Bd. of
.
"---"T"'-" ~ -,,-,
Adjustment.
Randolph E. Stefanson, Moorhead, Minnesota, for
Respondent Trinity Lutheran Church.
JUDGES: Short, Presiding Judge, Foley, Judge, and
Lommen, Judge. *
* Acting as judge of the Court of Appeals by ap-
pointment pursuant to Minn. Const. art. 6, ~ 2.
OPINIONBY: SHORT
OPINION: [*918] Trinity Lutheran Church (Trinity) ob-
tained a zoning variance from the Board of Adjustment
(Board) of the City of Moorhead (Moorhead). Appellant
John Rowell brought suit [**2] against Trinity and
Moorhead to invalidate Moorhead I s action. The trial
court granted summary judgment for the respondents.
Rowell appealed, and we affirm.
FACTS
On June 1, 1988, Trinity's architect sent a letter to
Moorhead requesting a zoning variance to build an ad-
dition to an existing building three feet from the front
property line. The Moorhead ordinance requires a front
yard setback of 25 feet. Moorhead notified local resi-
dents of a public hearing to be held regarding Trinity's
request for a variance. Rowell received notice.
On July 25, 1988, the Board held a public hearing.
Rowell spoke at the hearing arguinR....the addition wo~q,
exp~~ _tl).e e~isting enc[Qachm~Jlt bX TguilY..4 wou d
cause a loss of green space, and that neighborhood meet-
ings should be held to obtain neighborhood input on
Trinity's proposal. Trinity's architect explained that a
parsonage had been removed because it was no longer
needed. A run-down apartment building had also been
446 N.W.2d 917, *918; 1989 Minn. App. LEXIS 1139, **2
Page 4
LEXSEE
J
removed from the site and would be replaced by green
space. The architect said the strip in front of the addition
would be landscaped and maintained. The hearing was
continued to July 26.
On July 26, the Board met and again discussed the
[**3] matter. Rowell again spoke, arguing Trinity's
request for a variance had not been sufficiently publi-
cized. The Board decided to delay action until a neigh- .
borhood meeting could be held. On August 11, a neigh-
borhood meeting was held. Twenty-three people at-
tended, including Rowell and representatives of Trinity
and Moorhead. On August 15, 1988, the Board met
again. ~e ~~~ite~~.expl~ined th..~~..t~~,::d~.itio!l_~uld
match the e,)C'1stiriliuildin 's matenals ana ar. ite u aJ
,~Sl~; and 'ihaCiheroof lines would match.- He also
addressed concerns about parking congestion, saying
Trinity planned to expand the parking lot. Rowell spoke
against the variance, stating the addition would cause
a loss,of green s~e, increased traffic, and generally
detract fi(l1ii'ilie'attr~~!iY$;:Hess of th~_.111~!9.[ic;al_nei h-
b()rhood. He aiso argue .~. varImce would violate
~'" __ '"'T"'- .....-. . ,.........,.__._~._.M......,w.-.- . r'o ---- '..
Moorhead, MInn., MunicIpal Code ~ 1O-2C-l (1988),
which prohibits enlarging nonconforming uses. Rowell
aiSo saTd1he"adclIt10n Would be VISIble from hi~ resldeii4 e
.~rnlt~~:{9.l1ttYafd ~~itl~,iio(~~:~~~~~~E~i~?
e oar e erre a III vote on e varI ~
pending advice from Moorhead's attorney.
...,....,j
[*919] On August 29, 1988, the Board resumed [**4]
its meeting, and Moorhead's attorney and Rowell's
attorney argued about whether the variance violated
Moorhead Municipal Code ~ 1O-2C-l on nonconforming
uses. The Board approved the variance, with four mem-
bers voting yes, one member voting no, and one member
abstaining. Four affirmative votes were required to ap-
prove the variance.
All the meetings, except the neighborhood meeting,
were taped and sununarized in prepared minutes. On
October 8, 1988, Rowell filed a lawsuit seeking declara-
tory and injunctive relief. The Board and Trinity an-
swered and counterclaimed.
On November 8, 1988, the Board moved the trial court
to remand the variance to the Board for the Board to en-
ter a written decision containing formal findings. The
Board met on December 5, 1988, and approved a reso-
lution that was later filed with the trial court. Presented
with a record of undisputed facts, the trial court granted
respondents' motion for sununary judgment.
ISSUES
I. Does an applicant's failure to comply with procedu-
ral requirements of a zoning variance ordinance render
a city's action invalid?
@oes a grant of a variance authorized by ordinance
VIOlate another ordinance prohibiting expansion of ex-
isting [**5] nonconformities?
III. Is a financially contributing member of a church dis-
qualified from voting on a zoning variance request from
the church?
@:lo aesthetic and functional considerations constitute
undue hardship under Minn. Stat. ~ 462.357, subd.
6(2) (1988)?
ANALYSIS
In reviewing a zoning action, we give no defer-
ence to the trial court's findings and conclusions.
UmLandschoot V. City of Mendota Heights, 336 N. W 2d
503, 508 (Minn. 1983). Where the municipal proceed-
ings are fair and complete, review is on the record before
the municipal agency. Swanson V. City of Bloomington,
421 N. W2d 307, 313 (Minn. 1988). This court is re-
luctant to interfere with the management of municipal
affairs. 1d. at 311.
I.
The Moorhead Municipal Code provides that a vari-
ance shall not be granted by the Board unless:
1. A written application for a variance is submitted
demonstrating:
a. That special conditions and circumstances exist which
are peculiar to the land, structure or building involved
and which are not applicable to other lands, structures
or buildings in the same district;
b. That literal interpretation of the provisions [**6] of
this Title would deprive the applicant of rights com-
monly enjoyed by other properties in the same district
under the terms of this Title;
c. That granting the variance requested will not confer
on the applicant any special privilege that is denied by
this Title to other lands, structures or buildings in the
same district under the same conditions.
Moorhead, Minn., Municipal Code ~ 1O-2-6(A) (1988).
Rowell argues the June 1 letter and the accompanying
site plan did not satisfy the requirements of this code pro-
vision, and that the Board's actions were thus ultra vires
and void. While the June 1 letter did not contain the
information required by section 10-2-6(A), the defect is
446 N.W.2d 917, *919; 1989 Minn. App. LEXIS 1139, **6
Page 5
LEXSEE
technical. Technical defects made when complying with
procedural requirements do not suffice to overturn gov-
ernmental action, so long as the defects do not reflect
bad faith, undermine the purposes of the procedures, or
prejudice the rights of those intended to be protected by
the procedures. See City of Minneapolis v. llUrtele,
291 N. W.2d 386, 391 (Minn. 1980). The information
required by section 1O-2-6(A) was presented at public.
hearings, of which Rowell had notice. In the absence of
[**7] any suggestion of prejudice, Moorhead's decision
[*920] to waive strict compliance with section 1O-2-6(A)
will not be overturned.
I~ l.o",,^ '
.-to\C"ur~ ..r.,~..-~~....~~~~
~ll t\l>t t Further, Rowell hu:st~pp~<.!.!r.g,!!l...21.?i$!!pg to the vari- \
\l'l~ ';, ance on the grounds that the application was defective
M- ~ f because he failed to raise the issue at the public hearings,
~, i.... despite th. e fa. ct. th. at he .had legal representat~\um~J!~~
~ I 0 portunity to speak at the public hearing~ The defects
'in the app lcation cOUld have een east y corrected if the
issue had been raised at an earlier stage of the process.
Under these circumstances, Rowell "sat on his rights"
and is estopped from raising these issues in a lawsuit.
See Pilgrim v. City of Winona, 256 N. W.2d 266, 270
(Minn. 1977).
II.
The Moorhead Municipal Code defines a variance as
a "relaxation of the terms of the zoning ordinance," and
it authorizes variances for, among other things, setback
requirements. Moorhead, Minn., Municipal Code ~~
10-1-5, 1O-2A-5 (1988).
The Moorhead ,Munic;ipal J:odestat~s:
~""..",,~,_..,,--;;::..:"~ "'~"'c'.;,. ", :.:,.,,:"..~... '. . ., ."
It is further the intent of this Title that the nOI!confo~-
..Jie.~,~!!.aJJI),9t be..eplM"~ec:l upon, expanded or extended,
nor be used as groun s for adding other structures or
uses not permitted in the district.
[**8] Moorhead, Minn., Municipal Code ~ 1O-2C-l
(1988) .
Nonconformities include conditions that were lawful
when built, but are unlawful under existing zoning laws.
Id. The existing Trinity building is three feet from the
property line, but the distance is legal because it was
"grandfathered in." Rowell argues the addition expands
a nonconformity and thus violates section 10-2C-1.
The interpretation of an existing ordinance is a ques-
tion of law for the court. Amcon Corp. v. City of
Eagan, 348 N. W.2d 66, 72 (Minn. 1984). The zon-
ing variance authorized by sections 10-1-5 and 1O-2A-5
arguably conflicts with the result otherwise dictated by
section 1O-2C-1. We are required, however, to attempt
to construe the provisions together. See Minn. Stat.
--.... - .~,,~~~.....__<.-. 7- '0
-
~ 645.26, subd. 1 (1988). In doing so, we interpret
the provisions most consistent with the underlying pur-
poses of the zoning code and construe them in favor
of the property owner and against Moorhead. Amcon
Corp., 348 N. W.2d at 72. The interpretation a city gives
its ordinances is entitled to some weight. Chanhassen
Estates Residents Association v. City of Chanhassen,
342 N. w.2d 335. 340 (Minn. 1984). [**9]
Section 1O-2C-1 does not specifically prohibit vari-
ances. Its prohibition against enlarging, expanding,
or extending nonconformities can be.read to m~~ t~at
. ~~~~~~t~S ~~o:;~~t:~;r~~ ~u~~~'~~rr~~f os;~~a~~:~io~ .~'.
OiIier-'words, bUlidulg two - 'teet from -itie property line
would extend or enlarge the existing three foot noncon-
formity. The variance granted under section 10-2A-5 ~
can thus be read as .consistent with section 10- 2C-1, and .
if so construed,. dqes not prohi~i~ >~~~_~~i~~,-& .
case A I'
-' ~ r\ I'\...C.ot "- -n. ~ iI\ J Cc::;v't\ p. l)'to..Oo.J )
III. ~~on, i\j
The deciding vote granting the variance was cast by
a financially contributing member of Trinity. A public
officer who is authorized to take part in any manner in
making a contract in his official capacity shall not volun-
tarily have a personal financial interest in that contract,
or personally benefit financially therefrom. Minn. Stat.
~ 471.87 (1988). The term "contract" in section 471.87
has been broadly construed. See E. T. 0., Inc. v. Town of
Marion, 375 N. W.2d 815, 819-20 (Minn. 1985) (hold-
ing section 471.87 applies by analogy to issuance of a
liquor license).
The seminal case discussing an impermissible interest
[**10] is Lenz v. Coon Creek Vtbtershed District, 278
Minn. 1, 153 N. W.2d 209 (1967). The Lenz court held
a public official is disqualified if he or she has a direct
interest in the outcome of the matter under considera-
tion. The factors to determine whether such an interest
exists include:
(1) the nature of the decision being made;
(2) the nature of the pecuniary interest;
(3) the number of officials making the decision who are
interested;
[*921] (4) the need, if any, to have interested persons
make the decision; and
(5) the other means available, if any, such as the oppor-
tunity for review, that serve to insure that the officials
will not act arbitrarily to further their selfish interests.
446 N.W.2d 917, *921; 1989 Minn. App. LEXIS 1139, **10
Page 6
LEXSEE
/d. at 15, 153 N. W2d at 219. The Lenz court applied
its test to find officials who owned land in the district
to be benefited by the official action were not per se
disqualified from voting. Id. at 16, 153 N. W2d at 220.
Here, the nature of the pecuniary interest was such
that it could not reasonably have influenced the voting
Board member. We agree that the Board member had"
a non-pecuniary interest [**11] in the general welfare
of Trinity. This interest, however, is not likely to be
contrary to the interests of the general public. To dis-
qualify city officials from matters in which their church
has an interest would unnecessarily tie the hands of city
agencies. City agencies would be particularly affected
in smaller towns, where the likelihood of a city official
being a member of the local church is greater. A Board
member's membership in Trinity, without evidence of a
closer connection, is not a sufficiently direct interest in
the outcome of the matter under consideration to justify
setting aside Moorhead's action. See Shelton v. City of
College Station, 780 F.2d 475, 485-86 (5th Cir. 1986)
(en banc) (church member not disqualified from voting
on zoning matter opposed by church), cert. denied, 479
U.S. 822, 93 L. Ed. 2d 41, 107 S. Ct. 89 (1986).
IV.
Finall):'.l-gQ.~~ll ar~u~s the Board's J:!:rant.?f a ,,~rianc;.~
is void because Trinity failed to gemonstrate undue hard-
",shi(>. A revIewing court ~ill set aside a city's decision
in a zoning variance matter if the decision is un.reasgn-
able. lhnLandschoot, 336 N. W2d"ar508; Tuckner v.
"TOWnship of May, 419N. W2d836, 838 (Minn. Ct. App.
1988). [**12] Reasonableness is,measured b the stan-
""I- "~'_-'''",.>,_..,,,"---.,,-.,,.,,..,,..,''._..'' .. ,-.....-_....,.. ,----"-,,..
dards set out III e Cl y. S or !.nan~es. lhnLandschoot,
~6 N:W1d ar5uljTz:'6,~- Castle Design & Development
Co., Inc. v. City of Lake Elmo, 396 N. W2d 578,
581 (Minn. Ct. App. 1986). ,We.wiltnotJIJYalidate
Moorhead's zonin,g; variance cJec.i~tol! ifM()orh~ acte~
In good X~ithap.<!J:'iQliI!Jh~".broad discretion accon1ed).t
"by statutes aud.onlinances. lbnLandschoot, 336N. W2d
at 509. Moorhead's decision will only be reversed if its
stated reasons are legally insufficient or without factual
basis. Northwestern College v. City of Arden Hills, 281
N. W2d 865, 868 (Minn. 1979).
A city's authority to grant variances cannot exceed the
powers granted by Minn. Stat. ~ 462.357, subd. 6(2).
Costley v. Caromin House, Inc., 313 N. W2d 21, 27
(Minn. 1981). The g~t1}.!2D.:',,~Q!j!Y_~J,Q~@~
in cases of '~~~.. where:
The property in question cannot be put to a reasonable
sejfus~q )JQder c " !ilis ;.l!Jowedb t&=otfIClaJ.~n-
.t.mJ.s, .!IW.pligqt 0 e landowner i.s ~~e t? ~c~mstances
-.....'"
~tque_to th~Qroperty not created by the landowner._~
thevariance,j**13] ifgranted, will not alter the essen-
tialcharacter.().f the JQ<;altiy. Ecoiiomic "considerations
alone shall not constitute an undue hardship if reason-
able use for the property exists under the terms of the
ordinance.
Minn. Stat. ~ 462.357, subd. 6(2) (1988).
The Moorhead Municipal Code also authorizes vari-
ances only upon a showing of "undue hardship."
Moorhead, Minn., Municipal Code ~~ 10-1-5, 1O-2A-
5(B). By adopting the precise language of the enabling
statute, the Moorhead ordinances grant the zoning au-
thority the same power to grant variances as is allowed
by Minn. Stat. ~ 462.357, subd. 6(2). Thus, if the
variance is permitted by the statute, it is also permitted
by the ordinance.
According to the stipulated facts, strict enforcement of
Moorhead I s setback reguirement would require Trini!}' ,~
addition to be built 22 feet back from the front line
of the existing buildins. The Board's written decision
found that enforcing the setback requirement would cre-
ate hardship for Trinity because the addition would not
be coordinated with the existing structure. The roof
lines and front line would not [*922] match, the inter-
nal corridors would be misaligned, and the classroom
windows, exit routes and [**14] classroom configura-
tions would be adversely affected. All these findin~s are
supported by the evidence presented to the Board at the
public hearings, either in testimonial form or from the
blueI?rints of the addition plan,S.
We believe these circumstances s~sfy the require- l~ LJ I ~
~nts .fur undue hardshig as defined by MInn. Stat.
~ 462.357, subd. 6(2). The first requirement is that
the property cannot be put to a reasonable use without
the variance. This provision does not mean that a prop-
erty owner must show the land cannot be put to any
reasonable use without the variance. In such a case the
constitution would compel a variance regardless of the
statute. See Holasek V. Village of Medina, 303 Minn.
240, 244, 226 N. W2d 900, 903 (1975). The statute is
clearly intended to allow cities the flexibility to grant
variances in cases where the constitution does not com-
pel it. Thus, we read the first part of the definition of
"undue hardship" as requiring a showing that the prop-
erty owner would like to use the property in a reasonable
manner that is prohibited by the ordinance. On the facts
..Qf this case, the precise issue is whether it would be rea-
sonable to ex ect **15] Trinit to build its addition 22
feet ac from the front line of the existing buildin~..1f
evidence supports Ule -aoard 's finding that building 22
~et baCK WOmd be an unreasonable use, we must affirm.
446 N.W.2d 917, *922; 1989 Minn. App. LEXIS 1139, **15
Page 7
LEXSEE
The statute and ordinances unfortunately provide no
standard for determining reasonableness. Minnesota
courts distinguish between area and use variances. /n
re Appeal of Kenney, 374 N. W2d 271, 274 (Minn.
/985). An exemption from a setback requirement is
an area variance. Id. Practical difficulties may jus-
tify an area variance. See Merriam Park Community
Council, Inc. v. McDonough, 297 Minn. 285, 292, .
210 N. W2d 416, 420 (1973) (holding sufficient "prac-
tical difficulties" existed to justify area variance), over-
ruled on other grounds, Northwestern College v. City of
Arden Hills, 281 N. W2d 865, 868 n.4 (Minn. 1979);
Curry v. Young, 285 Minn. 387, 396-97, 173 N. W2d
410, 415 (1969) (holding variance required where set-
back requirement would force property owner to build
much smaller structure); see generally 3 R. Anderson,
American Law of Zoning ~~ 20.49-.52 (3d ed. 1986)
[**16] (analyzing court decisions on area variances).
The evidence before the Board supported its determi-
nation that requiring Trinity to build its addition 22 feet
back from the existing building is unreasonable. The
Board properly considered the practical difficulties strict
enforcement of the setback requirement would cause, in-
cluding the functional and aesthetic concerns mentioned
above.
The second requirement is that the plight of the
landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property'
_ _ -4
I\'
r~~h~ o~ ~l"-t~ ~M::l ~OM
\-\.e.~'5~~~ t ~~ a.1\{)~~1
~t7If' o.V"If\A.~o..~o~ 0\,d ~ ~~
~ '\2:n.c'Ci?\ov..p o..~ t--e..cz.."'J -h:. 0&J1\~
~ ~~)- .
.
---'''-00''
not created by the landowner. The record reveals the ex-
isting church has only a three-foot setback because it was
built before the enactment of the present ordinance. This
is a unique circumstance not created by the landowner.
The third requirement for undue hardship is that the l~ ~
variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character b~ ~
of the locality. Since the church already exists.....~ ~ IL~
tion will not alter the character of the locality. The Board ;.41 ~~
carefully conditioned its variance on Trinity's promise ~d..t6/)
to plant trees, place planters along the facade of the 0.. *
addition, and preserve the existing courtyard and play- ~~l r\
grounds. We think these precautions guard a ainst any dl k-r'
alteration 0 e c aracter *1 of the local it . Thus, "~~'."
the varIance ordinance and statute have been sa isfied, (Ut...MG&t.1J:,
and Moorhead's finding of undue hardship is su ported ~ .
by the record. .A()'6-L~
DECISION
Trinity's failure to comply with the proce ural re-
quirements in applying for a variance is not gr unds for
setting aside the Board's decision. The varian did not
violate the ordinance prohibiting expansion 0 noncon-
formities. The Board's decision was not invali because
a voting member was a member of Trinity. F ally, the
Board's [*923] finding of undue hardship was upported
by the record.
Affirmed.
I~~ ~~u.
~k \l'lAM-. f1"D.U1c! e. .
h-u~ ~~..,
\~~ ~~
a..u.A. \..hr'l +t.~
~~~.
0.~/2~/00 MON 15:40 FAX 6124474245
CITY OF PRIOR LAKE
~002
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
CC:
Suesan Lea Pace, City Attorney
Jane Kansier, Planning CoOrdinatorqv
February 28, 2000
History of Keyland Homes Property
Frank Boyles, City Manager
Don Rye, Planning Director
In 1993, H & S Investments, L;LC, also known as Keyland Homes, purchased a
parcel ofland from the City of Prior Lake, legally described as Lot 2, Block 2,
waterfront Passage Addition. Subsequently, Keyland Homes constructed a
14,000 square foot warehouse/office building on this parcel.
In 1998, H & S Investments, LLC, signed an agreement to purchase an addition
1/2 acre of land adjacent to its existing parcel on the east side. This parcel is
partially described as a part of Lot 1, Block 2, Waterfront Passage Addition. The
process of subdividing this 1/2 acre parcel from Lot 1, Block 2, was completed
through the Administrative Lot Subdivision procedure in October, 1998. As part
of this Administrative Lot Subdivision, the existing utility easements located on
the common lot line were vacated in October, 1998. The existing Keyland parcel
and the 1/2 acre parcel were ultimately combined UIlder PID #25~296-003-0 on
October 22, 1998.
The purpose of the lot combination and the easement vacation was to allow the
construction of an addition to the existing Keyland Homes building. A variance
application to allow this construction was submitted in January, 2000.
I hope this information is helpful. Please let me know if you have any questions.
l:\OOfilcs\OOappeal\OO-OO8\history.doc
fILE COpy
Memorandum
FROM:
DATE:
Frank Boyles, City Manager
Jane Kansier, Planning coordinator~
February 18,2000
TO:
RE:
Additional Information for Council Agenda Item 7B, Keyland Homes
Variance
cc:
Don Rye, Planning Director
On February 16,2000, we received a letter from Dick Krier, on behalf of the
appellants, D. R. Horton and John and Mary Mesenbrink, outlining their
objections to the variance for Keyland Homes. The variance will allow Keyland
Homes to build an addition to their existing building that will be located 20' from
a residential lot line rather than the 75' required in the C-5 District. This letter
was included in the agenda materials; however, the staff did not have time to
respond to this letter before the agenda was mailed. The following is our response
to the relevant points of this letter.
Mr. Krier claims the building materials used for this addition are inconsistent with
the Ordinance requirements. Section 1107.2202 lists the general requirements for
architec~al materials. The C-5 district, however, has a specific set of design
standards for buildings in that district. These standards are listed in Section
1102.1407. According to this section, metal panels with interlocking, concealed
or tongue-and-groove seams and concealed fasteners are an acceptable building
material in the C-5 district if the exterior finish is warranted by the manufacturer
for twenty years against blistering, peeling, cracking, flaking, checking or
chipping and if not more than 50% of the building elevation faces the street. The
attached description of the building material for the Keyland building shows that
it is clearly consistent with the requirements of the C-5 district.
In addition, Section 1102.1407 (2) specifically references additions and
alternations to buildings within the C-5 district constructed of materials that do
not conform to the current requirements. This section states "all subsequent
additions and exterior alterations built after the construction of the principal
structure(s) shall be of the same materials as those used in the principal structure
1:\OOfiles\OOappeal\OO-008\response.doc Page 1
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 I Ph. (612) 447-4230 I Fax (612) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNIlY EMPLOYER
-
.--,r-.----.------
. .
and shall be designed to conform to the original architecturcil concept and
general appearance. This provision shall not prevent the upgrading of the quality
of materials used in a remodeling or expansion project". This section also allows
the materials used in the proposed addition.
Mr. Krier also references the nonconforming requirements (Section 1107.2300) of
the Zoning Ordinance and suggests variances to these requirements are also
necessary. It is true that the setback of the existing building is nonconforming.
This setback cannot be expanded without a variance to the setback requirement, as
requested by Keyland Homes. The setback variance is the appropriate variance.
A variance to the nonconforming provisions is unnecessary and redundant.
Mr. Krier also references Section 1107.2303 (5) which pertains to nonconforming
parking areas. First of all, he is correct in stating the setback of the existing
parking area from Fish Point Road is nonconforming (20' instead of the required
30'). However, this section of parking lot is not being expanded. No parking will
be located closer to the right-of-way than the existing area. A portion of the
existing parking lot is also located closer than 20' to south property line where it
is adj acent to a Residential district. Again, this section of the parking lot will not
be expanded. All new parking areas will meet the requirements of the ordinance.
Finally, this letter suggests the following criteria have not been met:
. Section 1107.305, off-street parking and loading. The use requires 49 parking
spaces and one loading space. There are 59 parking spaces and at least 4
loading spaces on the site.
. Section 1107.1904, landscaping. The use requires a Bufferyard Type "E"
along the south property line for the length ofthe new building. This
landscaping is provided.
. Section 1107.2202 (1), rooftop equipment. There will be no rooftop
mechanical equipment.
. Section 1107.2202 (8,f), pedestrian areas. A total of936 square feet of
sidewalk or plaza is required. The existing sidewalks meet this requirement.
The criteria used to grant a variance are addressed in the agenda report.
1:\OOfiles\OOappeal\OO-008\response.doc
Page 2
:-~.
'. /~r..'" :,~_'~: >.
:....~ ~ :.
.'.....
:.-.;<..
.'. . ..' ........ '" ;..,.,.......=......,. .,.... .', .
.:.~~~..:):.:~::~ ,.;' :,,;.~'
;.... .- ~ #
'.
..,:::<':\~s.::..:;>:;:;~~.~,. ;.~;~~i~l~::::[~.~iY.!ff#.
'. VP 002" '.-. 'els"'rii3ki:fhis:.Ol!tceltlan' atfacH' "'1norearChheautally:iritii- . :;..-'~~~~~~-:
';";::i.oi'~,*~'i~.~t;i('~M~ii-f,'E;~~;jrt:,,;~it~~;~.., '.' .... . .:;.:;f.'~~f~J:~i'"
~ GENERAL DESCRIPJ1PN :{~}:,,:;:;'.~t;!(~f9UQaatjon .tcfeave n'mos.,,;:., EY BENEFITS ":~0):,~~..,:-t~~:
. The~~niqUtfdesig~.'ptyp's: :'~':::<;~(?fa~iir~j~~:~1.Jr .. :~~;1Y?0r-:"...~",q;~ ., "~~Archlte'Cimal' Appg~~~nce
architec.tlJralw~lI.ijan'els'pr~v.ides ::.~:::.:.':f?B~calis'i:(01~.the Da~el'(.' 1~~gt~1f..;0~'." ..':-1,....P"t.. """t.'".9;'A'"",,v';;'I;'''-:''t".' "!':~'.8' . ..
._ ..... ..','" ....."... '.' . ...;....,......_"",.,..............~".r;-....,-""..._. -"'''l'..,,,,,.-,nenor pplcalons.,
. for many attractIve building .' :,:,:.and ease'oflnstallatlonconstruc-.!>'tf,;:..~:)i......-.,,,. . ".,.,..~.:. :., ,."~ -":",:'
applications';':: VP ;1 00 is . a". '.' . . ",.:: . 'tion iimEnincf'cost'is';l1eid toa~';i. ift....~f.a...S.t9.~D~~r!J9~io.rl ,t:!fi{(~
'sculptured exterio;:--shadow panel H ~';mi~ir!iu~~1Youlbuil~frig~is"''.;,~.~~. ;E,:~. JEQergyEfficient -g.~~;{:;~7~:,
.'" _ .~. ".". ,". ........:-.':"......~..;.,).";..,....6"'<".._.-:-~"!"~."'t'I...~..-......._.,...-_...:....,....~:.;...-,....,.. .,;_.,.~~~._.__.'r......... ..:...-.-...~.:.:~~...
whl~hcan be used wlthmtenor....; ...therefor~mo!e.ecpnomlcaland!':ni.~~. .::'Ecotiomica) Cost '.,:-,::;:~
. '. _ ..... .... _. '_._' . ..._..... ,,'~' ...,.-~......:.c--:~"'t....~~\r,.VO''''=':"I!"'...''':.;~~....~......~..:~.....-....~...~o:''!~.." '" , : ."' ." . - --._; -.-'--'.'
liner. panels in combination With. ..:<JeadYJo'Jjse;'mor~quickly.:Hn:.fac~;,7~;~" '-:.'-'(;.'i.<',: {~-~,:;:""
. ........ .....;....... ..:. '.'_ .:..:.... .,.........",......_;.:;-)ll...:-;""''-'!!l!"......;:A.'''.''i'<-r...:'~''':;.......:. f"".
flb~rgla~s ~r ngld bo~r.~;I~sulat:Ol)~~#t~~~~~MX,7J!~~~JI1cl'a :;f~;: -
. Th!s attractive panel IS excellent .::,,:f'econorr:lIcahtlian:concrete' -~,
. for facade and buildi~g frontage '-'~;;';[rn~~~~l~!'JiS ,..'
applications. . . .._:,,,,...,.~--.,---~
VP 002 is a flush panel used
either externally or as a liner
panel, especially appropriate for
mai1ufacturinc I,'/arehous3 interior
applications. -This panel is
excellent as an accent panel for
. 'VP ,1.QO walls and is widely used
for facades and soffits. With the
variety of insulation options
available, your Builder can help
you decide on the optimal
insulation approach. considering
up-front cost and long term energy
savings. These interlocking
panels come with built-in weather
seals for weathertightness.
All fasteners are completely
.:oncealed on VP 100 and VP 002. ":
panels. VP 100 panels Caine in a . :}
wide variety of colors....VP.Oq2;.::.}.l~::
panels areavailable in.Egyptian':;:
White and Patricia~. B.ro~ze a~~f?;~
standard. .AlsQ, th~.se 'p~'il~ls~':;~:;l
come in lengths to:38 .f~e~;prOvj.d~
inQ ~~ontinuou~ waI\~:~?;.I.. fr~~:'i.;~~"!1!:oo;7~~~"'"aro'atrraCfrv9! c.rd8'l9f{tfi~e6Ul"
. J. ~ft
,;..
. ~..' ,:~':.;~~~~~"-:' ....-:~,....... .~--:. ~ ,': ,:-: ;-':.':~:
r- ~- THERMAL ri~SIGN VALUES FOR VP 100NP 002
"t:. Blanket Insulzt!on
l :'. ~ ~lc~~ess
1:. ~:
.,r.
"1. "Calculated thermal values ,:3 based on full insulation thickness.
. r ~ .'':In.Place thermal values are based on ASTM C2?6 Gu~rded Hot 8o~ Tests or are
.L' . calculated accou~ting fo~ effects of fasteners and InsulatIOn compr~ssloll when the
.' Tests are not available. . __'. .
-------....-----..--.- '" '.
I ... .. .... . '~". .c,..-.;.._....
~fkir;,. · ". . .".~;;~!,,:~:2i,J',i;~~~~~.:2;~.;:,
:<. .. .' ". .:' ',,: FINISH WARRANTIES,> .
,WP 100 & VP 002 """':";'" . ..... .
_i~~H~I;.~~I~~~~~~~~~~nels provide 121r :. not C~t." ~'~:~-:'.;i~..:./KX~~~~~~j~:~.;;r:\~..c::.'
~witti' lerigths'o(up:'to 38 feet. Pan31s are ?~ ~"':~' . r_~ ~r.r:1r.VARCo..PRUDEN AND.' .
;:~.ptiohal) fcifVP 100 and 24 gage stan'jl:i:, . :.' ~~' w ".J,.~lQnal) lor VF THE VP CONTRACTOR
:002. 80th panels rave a GSO galvanized steel coating and KXL paint . Vareo-Pruden h~ built its
:'llnish. for-exterior a'~plications. KXL Is a 1 mil. KYNARt based finish reputation as a ieader in tho
=, :appiied'to thesOrface of G90 galvanized steel to givE. a long~life color nonresidential construction maiket
Jhat resists fading and chalking. by supe~y-lng .~~p~.r~~~ service .and
%1-"'.' VP 1o~7vp oo;".~~~~~~~~~~ SECTtONS --.------" ~~~is~~~,~f~8UJlderS
; ~;Np~8ilffdershav'e :CO"nsii-uCted .
~.~.... .....t.ft'I.< : ,.... i .....t.hoiJsan(js..'of fadli.t.i.tl.'s'fo. r'v.i.rtua/ly .
.~fgrs. J - '\ :rT:~~:~~.:i~~:~~gbtW;n~e
I, · ~ - '.'L~ Ii Each and eveiyfaeilltycarries a .
. :t~':<:i.r; . .' -= ~ 'reputatlonJ~t'qu.@.~tY)nd~alue..t;
. .',~;, .' VP walrsystemsare:oesigned to
, '~~'" . meet the. most exacli~g customer..
,... . . require"!en~:~~~~e}rofu!he" ';: .
j~r'->,,:: .......,... .' .....'~ ~ I :~~%~~~~. io~~.Jls1t:~t'-
~.~:~~..':.::. ,~..-2:~.:,.~!.~..~:.:.,...:...;..',;:(.'...~..'~.~.."Y..:....:.:....:..';.:.,.;.....'.i..::.'.....'....;...........:......~.;:.:..:..:.....1.....;,.....:~;.,..~..:... . "tV'............ ..... .. <Ai, . . .j~t~i~L ;...I,~i~l~t~y~11~E.;;~~ki~J
~.;~. --...- ~... - _:... :: - - .. . . . '-,:' ~ .: . .. :'.:~.;;;......~. ~...~.;.:. ~'io ~~. # . " "r > ~ .... t. ....: "~+:f....-" .__..a.: 'ft>r :",'; .....; ,..... ..to;. ..' ."...;/.~ . ~:~t~~~~. '..:.i~'~
..".,.......... " , .. d . ..';-H.."''''"'. ..'~.aesthetic.r~U1remE!n!s:~,And, k~..?,~..:....,~jc..:",;,:{:9.:
;:c ~:~". ,-::~ .L'~: '::::. ~:.? ., :,~": : ::' . :.: ':'.' .:.... '. ." . ". ." . "." .... . '. .~"., "':""""""hX.' :':' . >'wherr~"on:: metat walls -~i're'Cfesireo. "::::~.~t.;':;;~.~
?-'{:'kG.~:;'SECTION PROPERTIES OF ARCHITECTURALPANELS';.:~'i'-':"'''' ..'" .' .~~. .....;... ","'"" ...~.. . c', ":J~"'':::;~;.+A'
I ,~fit:~i1-~.,;.!;t~\. .' ..(F.io08 Foot. O'W1;':{;:\ .' . ....I' ';.':.;: :..~~~~~~~~?;;;&ly~nf:OU~5'J~~~
'. :.'-r:'~:',:: '. ,. ; ''', ::." ,....c, '. .... . "~'''.' " 01 R'b ", ',' '. alternative matenal. eaSily. .". "c. ':>''':';~,,::
'l~rf;~f: ;,~~ .Jr~~~f!:k.5t;:~)~{~~j'?" .. .......".;;." .c. ""';~~~i0'
.~. ;" VP 0(;2;" ":24' :.::0.02790.262 0.082 ..0.085 '.: 0,082 ..~. '.'~:;'~:>"", .' .
~t~i(~~:~n~~u,~ (in~'''J'' . " ';t~~ :~
~ '.~: Ix;' Moment of inertia (inches"). :'-t:~.::>:'J
-..--- ---- --. '~;.: :.~
.,,' "'il"
~. ;:
'. '.:'";~~".~ ':"1
'- .- ....;.. ~ . . 'J
,,~ "-.;.T
,}~:. ::1
":"'~l
Calculated'
R-Value U-Value
7.41 O.~35
11.80 CI.:)!!5
15.10 C.066
In.Place.'
R.Value U,Value
6.08 0.165
7.74 0.129
8.45 0.118
.. .... ;.
'.0 . .
.', .;,..
'u.'. .
-. .,;....------~..... ._.__.~~..~....._. '. .... ._.....~..._-_..~_.._~ '....,.. '~_.-..-..
, .
,A..: .'
I -.-----------~- _. ------~-- .--- .. -_..
~!S~~i]l~3&~-~~~:!:?:::~~!r;:~:":'~;2:;;~7':'''':~~?~~~~,i'!~~<;.x::~J&:.;:~::T:;:'i''l:Z-;':f'~
Vartfl-frude;n
8~i]di~:as
~ U~I'tOri fir..,m;~I'C"" r...,,.,.,fV:.I"'
.. 1......- .....oj....I. " .......JII,'t-....I/
Built :)n Superior S1r/;ce
tj
'.~
....!.
'.e:(
"
. ~1
.il
:~
..1
"J
;J
\~
'/j
J
.:
:~~l
.....-
,
.....
. ,
:~.
t....
K oeo J .
" .. ....- " X
....f. "-:.1'\'
~'\J a;,...J-..
VVAR:'V\i"JT'f :::tiDO~tSf.;\A::>ri
..,
'..v; i:),\ ",I~J ~l'\.D~~
4' ....,:. ; ..-'\~""1j.;:,.: ~""'id~;-J
J_~~:-: '~'~~~:"; .jl....:ltC.;~iOj. ,,) :::"~~k>n ;; _',,".)~ )'~--:I~'~~-;
1\ V";.~:"!~'\fl "c.: c:. .)-:~ l~., :.:'::""'1 :r:;;:~..\.. . ....
}:.:,,' ': ...... ':I-ul ':~i"Y~; :C;"'lw. of ~,; ".:~' 1;
.:;:.: ~=(.::=:t::: ....;'" ",.:.JC:.:..,.",!~c:~~ 1 ~C_~::'1::'::::c.:j;n .'Ir.,.:::::-:',,:..
.;" .;r.', h\~(:.fll!U>':N b;~.n !hQ ':A~nlcll.J. ~d ~lellH.
(.)nl,n;lnlci:::nn,J1l -::nG Ah.ll~o. <l"d ~ .:;&QOUld :0 ~')fnlcl
~!,."osOh~t1C cond,~ions os doiil'll.d !J.alow wiil. 'Ubl"CI 10 II"J
"One"IOnl (lnd ;;,niICIoOn. :.>;1 I~ 1/;) 1I~ -w:~,., *>, croc:'. d,-"c~,
0111111'. pool. iiok" 01 ~n,p. >;;1 ~ !::I ol;Olo, ~~ thon 5E UfIIll ra
~~asurild I~ OCC1Jt~QnC~ "Mit~ A37M C.~2~.79 po..a~(opn
J J ~ J 0; chalk .n t"C~'1 cf on ASr,.,. ~~~::o. 3 ,oling fef 0
:;I3"od d ~onryr2C: yeorl oflar lr.ipm.M1.
:~
.~
.~..
~..
;\'
.,
~
,J"
~~-
i;;'1 w<:r,anly coo, ,,,1 o?piy. how"...." 10 '001 ondiCf ':Vt:i pan""
1"~I~,;.,d ~!" :::::'1"1 ::.:i!d:r.; lo::::I~d i., Ih;; ....cj..,;; ~ ., ~uf,,'.
. c:'os:::! lhoroitnQ. 0' ch on...:::: I plant or any ~~ ;l,c:::t ~lI'!l
domag. 10 ,ooi ond/o' wall panela mol I, lrttc~oblo 10 on
l.;j~nl,noble sou'c::~ 01 corrOllv", disch~ ~ Of c:~
wnlch novo. on ::I .llguloi oOlil. oIf5c:~d :.udl ~ilc:ing.
:n o,:olllon. 111'1 worrcnry lhell nol opply !o:
(oi '001 andior wall pe,,~ll /1101 110..... ~ dome'ioc:i In lTc:ng'l
. 01 on job Ilr" or 1I0...~ beon imp,apo,ly lIa'lld;
(b) roef ar~ well ;:onels rhol hava baen lub,td"d ~ ml~I/:O.
""Shgotlc". or -'0". b"on '''C''~ Irom rho orislnc:l ?loC'1 cf
"fe'cllen, or ,ocl end/ol wol! ponol: rhol h~"no! beon
e'eC:::id .n oeco,cbnc2wllh 011 opplicc~le VA::CQ..?:tL!CJEN
dra....lng~ and I",rfudion~ ond gooc ",.,dion ~
(el collo:::rol building mOI\1,ids. .:c:ceI10,i\1I, !lC;U:~iliond
>:11";:1 "!!ml nolloid b'/ VAilCC :-:WOEN Qnd t::ny c:!elT::sa-
'10 ;ed on':/Ol wdl po:.nois resulting rh"rolrom:
:dl dQmo9~ :;, 0' dcillcll ,n rooi ondi 0' woil ponels -:CUII): l:rr
. 'mOfOC"" .nll"lllollon
(::1 comoS":o 0' def"ell in ,oof ond/ot wclls:;onl'lls cou~~ by
'"m O~COHOI"U 0' fOllan\!f) nol luppliltc by V All :e.
.?RUDE~ 0' del""o,:)lion I~ tho r~of andlol well ponola
:elcllld ,h:r~!o;
{II rhl! condition known 01 'microeracxing' or f:ol end! or '>Id
. : poneil wh,el, 'I 0 commt;n oc:urrllnct in lh'l formIng
. prO':"SI of color :col,d '001 and/o, well pOM!1 ond il nol
10 b~ c::~rr.~O::l dllfee: worrenlcd ~~I"l;;1dof: end
i2; :::;"7"::g~. fClllJ(! t;Jf ~~fl!':~ ccu:-:c ~y Ac:: of Goe. bi!ir.g
OOi~:'I. -.:>I..,f:'lol ~orC<lI. e~pICllC,r:. fi,~. flol1. Clv.1
,;:r;:~chons. ~ormftJi f\Jmc~. ~Ori)lgn suc::onCJ1 ;~ r~~,
:::.~o~~;'.~;" 3. iJr :crrC$.cn COI,;',.od :,~ ')X;C':'o~t~ Ie mCrlti','
Z':":"lC5::".1!r~. 1ch !pro~". ch.Jml~:!S. C1n, cr oic::lIcrcdia:tc:"1
.~.~ tli~r..cn~ .!~ a:\i7;'\d~d ~o!e:y. t~ f~: C''''I''~~ .ncn:ea haroin onc.1 ::
"':::"\.rrc!;~f::robt~ en:: :'lo:'\-O~~JgnC':::13. If:l~ cc:\dthon IS a mcr~ncJ t:Q'!'T1
~';' r~:~ werre""1 ~nd C'.'J"hc.~t~:ion cf :he 'IJtm by ~~ OW~:1( 01 ::~ cg~nr
or 'e,:~~:.~"tQ:I''''~! ~hcll i~t.,<<::.., 'JA~CO.P~UOEN ~:-:i1'1 it3 oblig~tior.:.
"'':'~:.in::~,.
7~~ "V';~?;:'Nii~S ~.:3Ci5(D A~D '.IM!T~O ,,;JOVe AND THE
~~.t.DI~S 5;::7 .~.::~ fH aEtCW fO!t ~CC-~ Al'i;:)/:R WAlL ?,o\.NE'.S
:,HA:..L a~ iN U~tJ ~:f A~l OTH~~ 'l-lA~RANTIES OR ~~;\~EDI~5
I',"::T:~E~ ~::?~:S~~D m 1:,lrUfD. INClIJi:'!~~G 9~i NOT L!Mli~~
r;-.:, M.'Y IM:'U;;C W';,~V,o'lTlcS OF Mc~CiiANTABllI'j'( Ai'tO
~,i~~,3S fOR .~ ?J\:iTICUlft.R ?U~ros::.
Upo., ",rollon nOhliC::I,on r~C:~lIv':ld by '1"\~CO.PllUDcN ...ithin rho
~:',~ (loo~e-Iror~c:! worranry pmioc and mc:do by rho Ownllr within thiny
(:leI dO"!1 from dllrlK:ion 0; any foilurll of th" mol.riQl, to conform fo
:ho eb'e..., werren!',. u~on pr21anlalian bi' the Owner of this full,!
~ltec:.:rad warranty ogr..,eml)nl. oild upon inlpllClion by VARCO.
?!tUOEN to vorify said nonconformity, VARCC.PRUOEN St"oJl. al ill
$01" "plion, r~poir. ropl-:c, or r1pcinl tQQf and/or W<lD ponttla pro"~
10 ~ C:81~ive wirnoul e;'orsa 10 IhQ Own.r. Solcr. any color d\Qnge
..---.- --'7""--
I~. ,r;"71
1 "*P:tii: ;
'H ;~)".r:,T:.'C ;n ~':::O:::i 1 ::~c..t.i,.,d -:'~.. :;.,c.\ ':r -:'~ !')('l t:c:'"-li\ .-..,j ": ~
"....,...\'J:... .
..'I: ;
-'"'!".,. ",
:" - ;:. I
.;:~ I.: -4,....;., 'I,: .:..
.... . ; .;i' .'.;....
''':0; ':~..;" .."":,_;:1 ~ J.. ... u:..:. '~''''' : :~. ~ .1;" ~1~C.')Ch':~
;"l'-:.~Cc~t:':lnlrhU. !n ~h. 'T':on03r ::n~ r.-:r ;hf'J ;Jar1od oooy., :01)11
CCII:lliul~ i\J::,:/m.,nl 'Ji (.III -:;i;ir!JlJlIOnl'lj "I,"~CO."~UiJEN 10 'h" 0..."",
wn~m"f bOled "!Xln con,rec!. totl (including negligonC'l!. llnct hob,lil)
0' olt.~r',,",~. ,\ny r"~;)i'O>d. ''lpotnfotd 0' '"ploc,-:t ~,."I. Iuppj'~d on
letis.:c:cl'OI'l oj til;, obligclic ns und", :h'l ....cuanry ~;..ci; be :uol<lcr 10 !hls
we'tl.In;'f aniy for 1l-." r~mel"d.Jr .:1 ~o P<lllod o;::;;!;co:i<< to !ne ;l,oducr
erlglnoily pu,cnoled. roiiufa ollh.. Own'), 10 g:va I.meiy nQhce 10
'I,,\~C:".?~:":O€N of fo,lu'e 10;: conlo,m ,~i:~"~1 VAR(':J.PR'JCE~ of
:.r:y ond :;,il oblisc~onl unc,,, rtm .....am:snty
f11E ~:;."'EUlc5 :)ti ~U~1I1 HnE!N .It,~: t;::Cll1SIVE. W!THC'JT
:tEGA~D TO WHET)-l~~ . '';'' D!:~cCi WAS DISCOVERABLE e~
LAT:;NT).T THE TIME ~:- (;e~lv::~y OF THE MATEi!IALS TO iHE
OWNE:!. Th" _u/lnliol purpose Ollhi, ,xd':'"..., 'tlmedy lholl be 10
p,eVlae Its. Q'Nnar with ropelf 01 :llplac~' '"nl 01 pQnlllls rho! p'a". 10
bo doloct". ....ilhin rne ~r."d "nd \,r:.:i,: ',.01 :::no:riens prevloully leI
ictrh. This exclusive lemedy lhail nol heve!. I." of:lI euenllal p\:rp::llt!
(01 fhe: te,m ;1 u,ed ;n rhe Uni;o~m Comm~rClol Cod", p,ovldad
V...ilCC.i'~UOEN femoins w.!!ing 10 '1I~1f 01 repiae;) d31ec::rivo ponei1
wi/hin Q comm."ciolly r~OH'r!':]l,ia !ime afro, il obla.nl acluol
~nowledso oil!'!!! "ltl~l.nc" 01 0 porfic:uier d!!;v.!.
IN :-.JO EVENT SHALL VAilCO.i'~:":DEN 8E LIABLE FO;( ANY
S?Ec'IAl. CCNS:~U!:NTI";L. !NC!DENTAl OR !NDIRECT DAMAC:;:S
WITH ~ES?ECi TO T:1I$ SALE OR ANYTHING DONE IN
CONNECTION HfRt:WIT:1 !INCLUDING. WITHOUT LIMiT... iION.
E~ECiICN SE~VICES P~C"I(,\:D aV OUtlDE!! 0;.: BY vARce.
P!PJO:NI. Wr'EiHE~ MSED UPON CCNTP.ACT. TORi
(INC..JDING NeGtIGeNCE:. STR!CT llA8111N OR OTHExWISE
e:;<C::l'T ;0 THE EXTENT MODIFIED HE~EIN. THE WARRANTY
COVE~AC:,' ..i'rL!CAa~E iO iHIS 3WllDINC; SI'lALL ~E ':"S STATED
Ii'; '1Ai:C:).PlWOEN'S '<;TANOAi1D WA2~ANTY" AND All
tIMITA....!()N::i. '-XCtu 5 h.:." is AND DISCL~IMEi!S iN(lU::)ED iN
~~ 'S'i.. NDAkO '.'I:'.::V.. .' ry' SHAlt AP?: Y "VIiI-< fUll FOllCE
Ha::-:-C'. E;(,-:~!'r rO~ T:-iE ArF!V.lATlVE 0.lIGA7iONS
Ln"iD~1.', ',:<~N ~y ,/.1~C.:--?~UJ:N He~E!N. AN'f
INCON~:.;;~i'iry 3ET'vVE:N 7;;2 7~~MS Or THIS WAH.\l'<iY AN:)
THo; iEHii.; OF SAID .S7ANOAllO WARRANTy' S...,'.ll eE
~cSCl'{ED .1'1 f.'WC~ OF THE TEV,\S CF SAiD 'STA~CA2C
"N,:"i!~.'\NTY.'
Od3 l~ul:;C
V crc::..,f)ru3:Jr. .~u-;;Orizc:;:or:
QW~;1
V:J Jet' .:~
Joo Loccrion
S' el::l
.C::y
5 t.:: '"
euildor3 Nom"
V~N:e-Prudon auildin~5. a Division of
United Ogmir.ion Indushi-!!5, lnc.
IC2~ iO/92.S00.AP
I".
"
'"
~
i
~
~
f,
~.
!i.
I
,.~
~
~
'~
;~
~.<;
~
~
~
~
~
~:.,-
I'
(i
~,>
f'
ri.
I
Mar-D3-ZDDD II :ZBam From-PETERSON FRAM BERGMAN
851ZZBI753
T-Z78 P.DDZ/DD3 F-DZ5
Warren E. Peterson
Jerome P. Filii.
Daniel Will Fram
Clenn A. 8erem,In
lohn Mlctla.l MiII~r
Mlch1l81 1: Ob~rle
Sl~ven H. ISNns.
Paul W. F'ahninR
Esther E. McCinnis
,-fIre!.' I. Cohen
p~D~n1\l
FRAM~~~ ~ERGMAN
:..:-~~.:.: ~":::~.I:::..~r-=-:;_ ~.~~_~'t.~:l::' .~...~~
Suite 300
50 East Fifth Stteet
St. Paul, MN 55101-1197
16'511291-895';
(6'31) 2J8-11~ 3 faC1limlle
Direct Dial ##(6S 1) 290-6907
jfjlla@p~pa.I;Qm
March 3, 2000
JliQ Facsimile (612) 447-4245
Mayor Wes Mader and City Council Men1bers
City of Prior Lake
16200 Eagle Creek Avenue SE
Prior Lake, MN' 55372-1714
Re: Keyland Homes
Variance Request
Dear Mayor Mader and City COlU1cil Members:
Out firm has experience in regard to land use planning and zoning matters. I have been asked
by Steve Nelson, who is the attorney for Keyland Homes (K.eyland), to review and comment on the
variance requested by Keyland. I have reviewed the following documents, which I believe to be the
existing record in this case:
1. Prior Lake Variance and Non-Conforming Use of Standards;
2. Real Estate Purchase Agreement, dated December 22, 1997;
3. Development Agreement, dated March 1998;
4. Amendment to Real Estate Purchase Agreement, dated October 19, 1998;
5. Planning Commission for February 24, 2000;
6. Midwest Planning Memo, received by City on February 16, 2000;
7. City Planner Memo, dated February 18,2000;
8. City Planner Memo prepared for meeting of Feb:IUary 22, 2000 and attached
Resolution;
9. City Council Minutes for meeting of February 22,2000;
10. City Attorney Memo, dated Feb~. 28, 2000;
II. City Attorney Memo, dated March 1,2000;
12. City Planner Memo prepared for meeting of March 6, 2000.
The City's Variance Regulations are consistent with the requirements to the Minnesota Land
Planning Act. Essentially, the City needs to be able to detennine that an undue hardship exists
before it can grant a variance. According to state law and the city's regulations. an undue hardship
means (1) the Keyland property cannot be put to a reasonable use under the conditions allowed by
the city's 'zoning regulations; (2) the request for a variance is due to circumstances unique to the
Keyland property and not circumstances created by the owners of the property; and (3) the variance,
if granted, will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood.
'^~50 ~MJTT~D IN WI:;CON';I'"
.
'~--'-....,.-----<.,.._..."._._..,~,. .-."M'.'",,_ ......_v..___....___.____~..."..__"~_____~___~
Mar-D3-2DDD 11 :2Bam From-PETERSON FRAM BERGMAN
651ZZ81753
T-276 P. 003/003 '. F-D25
Reasonable Use. The variance is being requested only in regard to the land
acquired from the Prior Lake Economic Development Authority (parc.el of land
approximately 100 ft. x. 228 ft.). When this parcel was acquired, the City and
property owners anticipatec:l. and the purchase documents reflect, that it would be
developed consistent with the then current 20 ft. set back requirement. The parties
alSQ. anticipated that the parcc1 would be used for an expansion of the Keyland
building located westerly of the parcel. . Keyland would have not purchased this
parcel from the City if it could not have been used for the expansion. Given the
geographical location of this parcel of land, there is no other reasonable use
consistent with the City's regulations.
Unique Circumstances/Not Created by PropeI\Y Owner_ What is unique about 1his
parcel is its size, its adjacency to Keyland's current use, and the fact that it cannot be
reasonably used in connection with property located south, east, or north of the
parcel. The circumstance which requires variance was not created by Keylandl but
it was due to the annexation request of the property owner to the south. When
Keyland purchased the parcel from the City, the City's regulations allowed a 20 ft.
set back. After the City annexed the property to the south, amended its
Comprehensive Plan and then re-zoned the propeny to the south, the 75 ft. set back
requirement was iInposed by the City's regulations. All of this occurred after
Keyland purchased the parcel from the City in antiCipation of expansion.
Q).aracter of Neighborhood_ The area south of the Keyland property is currendy
undeveloped even though a development plan has been approved. It is diffic\llt to
adversely impact the character of an undeveloped area. In addition, Keyland has
agreed to landscape in a manner that will soften the impact of the building expansion.
It is also possible for the owner ofllie southern parcel to add additionallandscilping
on its nonh property line, if they choose to do so, even if the additionallandsc:aping
is not required by the City.
The record before the City indicates that the variance of standards imposed by state law and
the additional Standards contained in the City's zoning regulations have been satisfied. On behalf
of Keyland, we encourage the City Council to accept the recommendations of the planning staff' and
planning commission. which are consistent with the legal analysis done by the City Attorney.
Keyland will be represented at the council meeting. However, it is out intent only to respond to
questions which the City might have, unless new information is added to the record.
Respectfully submitted,
JPF:bg
J-'~
illa
cc:
Jane Kansier, Planning Coordinator, City of Prior Lake
Frank Boyles, City Manager, City of Prior Lake
Suesan Lea Pace, Attorney at Law (via facsimile 612-338-7858)
.
~___._,_-'....L...",_...:,.,,,~,,,~~__
Mar-oS-Zooo o9:oSam'
WIII.t..n E. Petel'5on
Jetome P. Filla
Daniel Witt Fram
al~l1n ^. Rerllmlln
lohn MiChael Miller
MIchael 1: Obe(/t:
Steven H. Bruns'
Paul W. Fahnin~
E:iither E. McCinnls
Jeffrey I. Cohen
From-PETERSON FRAM BERGMAN
.._' __PSIERS~__ ___
FRAM .' BERGMAN
J:...: ~7. ~-::' s. :L'~ ~~ Y.~~;._ ,~. '-;;-'';'.i.:!:f~.2.:t::.:~;'.~: .
651ZZ81753
T-Z94
P.ooZ/ooZ F-07Z
Suite 300
50 East Fifth Street
St. Palll, MN 55101-1197
(651) 291-8955
16')11228-175~ facsimile
March 6, 2000
Direct Dilll #(65]) 290-6907
jfjlla@pfb.pa.com
Viti Facsimile (612) 447-4245
Mayor Wes Mader and City Council Members
City of Prior Lake
16200 Eagle Creek Avenue SE
Prior Lake) MN 55372-1714
Re: Keyland Homes
Variance Request
Dear Mayor Mader and City Council Members:
I would like to correct a statement contained in my correspondence of March 3) 2000. I
stated that a variance requested was only for a parcel recently acquired from the City. I made a
mistake. It was not intentional. 1 realize that the variance is necessary to allow expansion of the
building on the original parcel, as well as the recently acquired parcel. Please accept my apologies.
Very trUly yours,
~ f/ll4/
Jerome P. Filla
1PF:bg
cc: Jane Kansier, Planning Coordinator, City of Prior Lake (via facsinrile)
Frank Boyles, City Manager, City of Prior Lake (via facsimile)
Suesan Lea Pace. Attorney at Law (via facsimile)
'AL.SO AOMITT!l> IN WISCONSIN
------y-....~.._~._- .
.
03/06/00 MON 17:26 FAX
141002
,
Minneapolis
London
1100 Inrcrnational Centre
900 Second Avenue South
Minneapolis, MN 55402-3397
(612) 347-7000
FAX (612) 347-7077
www.frl.dlaw.com
FREDRIKSON & BYRON, ~A.
Attorneys and Advisors
AfJiliattd ofJirtS;
Mexico City
Warsaw
Direct Dial No.
(612) 347-7136
dsellergren@fredlaw.com
March 6, 2000
Mayor and City Council
Attn: Don Rye, City Planner
City of Prior Lake
16200 Eagle Creek Avenue SE
Prior Lake, MN 55372-1714
VIA FACSIMILE
Re: Keyland Homes Variance Request - D.R. Horton Company
Dear Mayor and City Council Members:
I write on behalf ofD.R. Horton Company, developer of the Deerfield PUD.
D.R. Horton Company continues to oppose the granting of the variance requested by Keyland
Homes for an expansion of an existing industrial building. As you know, the proposed
expansion is immediately to the north of the residentially-zoned Deerfield PUD. We do not
believe there is a sufficient factual basis to make the findings required by your ordinance and
Minnesota Statutes relative to the granting of a setback variance under these circumstances. We
previously expressed our reasons at the City Council meeting of February 22, 2000. To be clear,
D.R. Horton does not oppose the expansion. It opposes the setback variance of 55 feet (20 foot
setback instead of required 75 feet).
If, however, the Council is inclined to grant the variance, D.R. Horton Company requests that the
Council add conditions to the approval of the variance, as follows:
1. Require Type I building materials along the south wall of the expansion. This request is
reasonable because Type I materials are required for the homes within the Deerfield PUD
and the buildings will face each other.
2. Require landscaping over and above that required by "Bufferyard E" under your
ordinance. We would ask that the additional plantings be evergreens of substantial
height.
. --,._-----~"._."
03/06/00 MON 17:27 FAX
raJ 003
FREDRIKSON & BYRON, p.A.
Attorneys and Adwm
Mayor and City Council
March 6, 2000
Page 2
3. Reduce the 55 foot setback variance to a 35 foot setback variance. This would create a 40
foot setback, providing an additional 20 feet within which more landscaping buffer can be
planted. Obviously, this would require a jog in the building and make its use somewhat
inefficient, but I doubt this would be fatal to any reasonable use of the property which is
the standard for granting a variance.
There is ample legal authority for imposing additional conditions. Minnesota Statutes,
~ 462.357, subd. 6(2) provides, in part, "The board or governing body as the case may be may
impose conditions in the granting of variances to ensure compliance and to protect adjacent
properties." D.R. Horton Company believes these conditions are necessary to protect its adjacent
property.
Don Patton of D.R. Horton Company will be in attendance at your meeting tonight.
Sincerely yours,
cc: Don Patton, D.R. Horton Company
Suesan Lea Pace, City Attorney
: :ODMA\PCDOCS\FBDOCSl \2357574\1
i
I