Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBoard of Adjustments and Appeals - 06/18/1981 BOARD OF APPEALS AND ADJUSTMENTS ;APPROVED MINUTES Thursday, June 18, 1981 7:30 P.M. City Hall BOARD MEMBERS: STAFF: James Wedlund, Chairman Chris Enger James Dickey Director of Planning Ronald Krueger Sharon Gagnon Richard Lynch Recording Secretary Roger Sandvick CALL TO ORDER - ROLL CALL 1 . House Moving Request # M81-6 submitted by Haakon J. Nyhammer 7447 Eden_ Prairie Road, owner of Lil Red Grocery. Wedlund asked if anyone was present at the meeting for this request and no response was indicated. Nyhammer explained that the City is going to widen Valley View Road and the County will be widening County Rd. 4 creating the need to build a new store and move his existing home to property he owns adjacent to the present location. At this time there isn' t road access to this property and his neighbor to. the south (Westgate Addition) refused to cooperate since he didn' t with to spend the money for a cul-de-sac. Nyhammer said he had hired a surveyor and architect to help with the proposed changes and has .contacted and explained these to his immediate neighbors. Wedlund was concerned about the County Rd.4 entrance to the store. Enger explained it would be a right in right out entrance. Sandvick questioned the number of parking stalls and the flow of traffic. Nyhammer replied that presently he has 14 stalls and will have about double after the moving. The flow of traffic would be improved due to the easier access to the store from Valley View Rd. Wedlund asked if he planned to remain open for business during the changeover. Nyhammer replied yes. Dickey asked if cars would continue to back out on Valley View Rd. after the changes have been. Enger responded to the Board by noting that Nyhammer had applied for rezoning in 1978 and is currently not in a zone that permits commercial use but is grandfathered in. The staff has reviewed the plans and correct parking will be supplied and setbacks will be adhered to the ordinance. There will be considerably more room to the road and there will be no problem such as backing out to Valley View Rd. He added that due to a mispublication, the only item that can be considered at this meeting is the house moving permit. Bd. of Appls. & Adj -2- June 18, 1981 If this house moving request is passed, no frontage on a public road for the house can be considered at the next meeting. There is a 30 day waiting period after a request for house moving is heard before the permit is granted. He also added that this should be considered a temporary situation since the store could be sold in the future. Nyhammer's land is zoned RI-22 and if it would be changed to 13.5 zoning, he would have enough land to create two lots in the future and it would be an advantage to him and his neighbor to the south to have direct access to Westgate rather than County Rd.4. MOTION: Lynch moved, seconded by Sandvick, to approve house moving request M81-6. submitted by Haakon J. Nyhammer. The findings are that there seems to appear no opposition from the neighbors involved. A great portion of this request was necessitated from actions from the City and the County. Ultimately, the building of a new store will be an improvement to the community as a whole and this is not a detriment to the health and we-lfare of the citizens of Eden Prairie. Motion carried unanimously. 2. Variance request #81-13 submitted by Frank & Marion Smetana, for property located at 7722 Smetana Lane, to allow less than 5 acres in a rural zone. Frank Smetana explained that his mother had originally owned a parcel of land which she sold approximately two years ago, a part of it to Cherne and the remaining parcel is less than 5 acres. The division was created because of Smetana Lane on the north and Nine Mile Creek on the south, his father's land to the west and his own property to the east. At the time of the sale they were unaware of the 5 acre minimum in a rural zone. • The deed to Cherne is for only the portion they purchased but the tax statement is still for the original parcel . Wedlund asked if he intended to build on the site. Smetana replied that he would not until the road was improved and City water was available. Lynch questioned the acreage involved. Smetana answered that the remaining portion from the sale is 3.16 and his parcel is 1 .7 acres which still does not add up to 5 acres. Enger noted that if the Board wished to pass the variance request to allow the land to be spliU it would be important to stipulate.� if they so desired,. that no building could be constructed on the site until the necessary improvements are available. Enger explained the procedures of obtaining an administrative land division from the City, State and County and why this request was necessary. Smetana added that it is necessary to have all the signatures from the adjacent neighbors to get approval of a land division without going before the Board but he was unable to secure this. MOTION: Dickey moved, seconded by Sandvick, to approve variance request 81-7 submitted by Frank and Marion Smetana to allow a parcel less than 5 acres in a rural zone with the stipulations that this parcel cannot be built upon until there is proper rezoning, City water is through the area, and a hard surface road would be installed. This is an administrative land division and not harmful to the health and welfare of the citizens of Eden Prairie. Motion carried unanimously. Bd. of of Appls & Adj -3- June 18, 1981 • 3. Variance Request #81-15 submitted by Tudor Oaks Candnminiiim Project. 8400 chooner Blvd. , to allow setback variances. Present for this meeting were Micheal Contact, Brian O'Neill and Bill Turner. Contact explained they were selling 240 condominium units with a portion of the community center which is attached to anon-profit nursing home. Due to federal legislation, a person cannot own a portion of a nursing home. This project was originally approved as a total care facility but is now changed to ownership units. Dickey questioned the changes that would be made for the common wall to comply with the fire code. Enger replied that it was evaluated by our Building Dept. and the proponents are aware they will need to make substantial changes to the common wall for the fire rating and type of closure between the two areas. Contact showed the Board where each of the fire doors would be installed. O'Neill stated he was at this meeting only because he was curious about the construction of this four story retirement and nursing center. Contact said the building was considered a wood stick building with a poor insurance rating. The building was rated 67% and at 66% you fail . They met . with their insurance people and fire marshals in order to get a sprinkler system designed that would eventually save thousands of dollars in premium savings and loss of any lives. Presently they have changed the sprinkler system from facing just downward and have sprinkled every closet, clothes hangers and every wall . Sprinklers were added every 800 sq. ft. between ceiling and floor above and fire zoned it every 3000 sq. ft. There wasn't a fire alarm which they also added. The cost of this was over $50,000. Turner added that their architects also redesigned the plans because of the stick construction so the foundation would be secure. Everything done previously was done in accordance to Ordinance but the architects felt the building needed more bracing and consequently steel was run through the four floors and concrete was knocked out of the footings and steel was run down into the footings and the concrete repoured. The structure is no longer on 2 X 4's studs. Dickey asked what would be done if the variance was not granted. Contact replied that it would be necessary to get federal legislation changed and it would take a long time. Lynch questioned the amount of sales. Contact said they are asking for a certificate of occupancy around August 15th - September 1st. In relation to the economic conditions that most of the sales depend on the resident selling his present home, they are moderately satisfied with sales although it is less than 50%. • MOTION: Lynch moved, seconded by Wedlund, to grant approval of variance request 81-15. The findings are that this is an unique kind of situation in which the original building concept was changed. The common walls are subject to the fire code. This is not detrimental to the health and welfare of the citizens of Eden Prairie. Bd. of Appls & Adj -4- June 18, 1981 • 4. Variance Request #81-16 submitted by Pax Christi Catholic Community to allow_ one employee in a home occupied office use at 10695 Northmark Drive. Present for this meeting were Father Timothy Power and Diana.. Pauly. Father Power stated they were in the process of forming a Catholic Community and plan to purchase land by the end of summer. They hope to have a church and office built in 2 years. In the meantime, they have purchased a house to serve as his residence and if the variance is granted, a parish office with one employee to serve as secretary/office manager. The house will not be used for church services or classes but for some small meetings or counseling. He has not received any strong negative feelings about the use of his residence. Wedlund asked Gagnon if any objections were received at City Hall . Gagnon replied none. MOTION: Dickey moved to approve variance request #81-16 located at 10695 Northmark Dr. The findings are that this is a temporary variance allowing one employee in a home used for an office. There have been no objections from the citizens of Eden Prairie and this will not be harmful to the citizens. Wedlund asked if there should be a time limit included in the motion. Father Power said they envisioned two years since they hope to purchase land this summer and break ground within one year. If necessary they would come back. Dickey agreed to the time limit of two years and added that no meetings should be held over 15 people. Father Power replied that he had trouble with the number 15 since some committees could have more members. Dickey agreed to limit the number to 25 people at any meeting. Sandvick seconded the motion. Lynch abstained, motion carried. 5. Other Business. The Board discussed the possibilities of an adjourning time limit or agenda limitations for meetings. They also discussed the amount of the fee and requirements for submitting material for the request. They asked the staff to poll surrounding communities as to their fees and guidelines. Enger explained the ruling on the interpretation of an accessory structure. 6. Adjourment. MOTION: Sandvick moved to adjourn at 9:30 P.M. , seconded by Wedlund. All in favor.