Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBoard of Adjustments and Appeals - 02/19/1981 f APPROVED MINUTES EDEN PRAIRIE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS AND ADJUSTMENTS THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 19, 1981 7:30 PM, CITY HALL MEMBERS PRESENT: James Wedlund, Chairman, Richard Lynch, and Roger Sandvick MEMBERS ABSENT: Ronald Krueger, Vice Chairman, James Dickey STAFF PRESENT: Carl Jullie, P.E. , Director of Public Works and Karen Michael , Recording Secretary CALL TO ORDER - ROLL CALL 1. Minutes of January 15, 1981 meeting: no action was taken as there was not a majority of those attending the meeting present this evening. 2. Variance Request #81-2 submitted by James A. Anderson to allow Lot 10, Block 3 to be split with less than the required 6,500 sq. ft. Malcolm D. Reid, attorney for James A. Anderson, explained that the applicant wishes to have the lot divided in half along the existing center wall of the structure, a double bungalow. The structure is about two and a half years old, and the applicant wishes to sell it to people who will be homesteaders. He feels it will be less complicated if the lot line is straight rather than one with metes and bounds which would tend to be more confusing. This would, however, result in one lot being less than the 6,500 square feet minimum lot size. The subdivided lots would be 6,557 square feet and 6,445 square feet. MOTION: Moved by Wedlund, seconded by Sandvick, to grant variance #81-2. It was noted that the neighboring property owners had been duly notified and that none have shown any objection to the granting of this variance. Motion carried unanimously. 3. Variance Request #81-3 submitted by John A. Benedict to allow the use of a home as an office in an office district for a period not to exceed 5 years. Tim Pierce, representing John Benedict, gave a brief history of the property. He stated that the Council on January 20, 1981 had given 1st Reading to an Ordinance which would rezone the property from Rural to Office; 2nd Reading for which he thought would be scheduled for March 3, 1981. The reason for this particular variance request is that the building materials in this structure do not meet the code for that of an office building. Richard Lynch noted that he can think of three or four structures which are used as offices but are in residential structures; namely a dentist on Franlo, realtor on Eden Road, and a dentist near Rosemount. What is the difference between those uses and the one? Board of Appeals and Adjustments -2- February 19, 1981 • Carl Jullie explained that because this use is also involved in a rezoning re- quest, the City Ordinances come into play. The structure as it exists would not be in conformance with Subdivision 2.7 of Ordinance 135. This subdivision does not allow wood as an exterior material . The proponent wishes to use the struc- ture as it exists, without major modifications for a period not to exceed five years. Richard Lynch asked what would happen in five years should the owner not wish to further develop the property? Tim Pierce explained that the Developer's Agreement also addresses the things which must be done and also the five year time period. Carl Jullie stated that after discussion with the City Attorney, he has con- cluded that if the Board of Appeals wishes to grant the variance, it is within their jurisdiction to place conditions upon the variance -- such as the time limitation. If at the end of five years, no improvements were made or new construction begun, the City could remove the zoning, or the variance would expire and the proponent could be required to bring the building into conform- ance with the Ordinance. MOTION: Lynch moved, seconded by Sandvick, to grant variance #81-3 to John Benedict to allow use of a home as an office in an office district for a period • not to exceed 5 years. If at the end of 5 years no improvements or new construc- tion has begun, the City could remove the zoning. The variance is subject to the following conditions: 1. Ramp installed to primary entrance, 1' of raise in 20' of horizontal run. 2. Install 1 hour rated door and frame with closure between office space and garage. 3. Common wall between office space and garage space, and projecting 4'0" on perpendicular walls and ceiling, shall be 1 hour rated construction. 4. It should be noted that there are at least four other in- stances in the City where similar conditions exist and are are not detrimental to the health and welfare or well-being of the residents. Motion carried unanimously. 4. Other Business. There was none. MOTION: Wedlund moved, seconded by Lynch, to adjourn the meeting at 8:05 p.m. Motion carried unanimously. ,•