CCP 04-26-1999 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

e e . ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION - APRIL 7, 1999 ~OO~~Tr 13 If the buildings were to burn down, the property owner would, for a practical matter, be restricted by the lot lines and easements to rebuild in the same or very similar manner or to start over from scratch. Some lot lines were put in place to meet specific Building Code requirements. Chair Erickson asked if, the existing building and the addition were to burn down, would two non-conforming buildings be allowed to be rebuilt, based on the current Ordinance. Mr. Ringwald stated that the property owner would have no choice but to rebuild the buildings in their current position. If the requested variances were approved and the buildings burnt down, the variances would remain in place to allow the reconstruction of the buildings only in the current location. Therefore, it would not be a non-conforming situation where the rights to rebuild would be lost. Commissioner Baker asked if the new building addition was built assuming that there would be a lot line. He noted that Fire Code separation requirements are different when there is a lot line between two buildings. Mr. Sikora explained that there is a two hour fire wall which separates the buildings and the windows are spaced far enough from the property line per Code requirements. In one comer of the new building, a stair tower was added with an elevator to allow access to all levels of the new and the existing building. This solves any issues for future leasing of the property. DynaMark has a 15 year lease and, if they were to leave the buildings, accessibility is increased for multiple tenants. Commissioner Baker requested confirmation that the proposal will not include a new plat. He noted that the Planning Case heard earlier for a residential division had required a Registered Land Survey and he suggested that a new plat would make the property easier to understand. Ms. Randall explained that, because the property is made up of separate lots, it is not the same as a minor subdivision. Mr. PatKren, 1231 Wyncrest Court, stated that along the west edge of the property there is currently a 100 foot barrier and the proposed lot line appears to be within this barrier. He asked what will happen to the barrier and the trees contained within it if parcel IV were to be sold and why the parcels are being split into such an unusual configuration. Ms. Randall stated that the reason for awkward design was so that each individual parcel would meet the open space and parking requirements. This would prevent one parcel from having all the parking and another having all the open space. Chair Erickson asked why parcel IV includes the small tongue of land on the west side. He noted that parcel IV has an easement for access across parcel III. He asked if there is a no-build area on the west side of the property. Mr. Ringwald stated that there is a 100 foot wide no-build area which was approved as part of Planning Case 98-24. Chair Erickson requested confirmation that the no-build area will be maintained regardless of how the property is platted. Mr. Ringwald stated that it would be.