HomeMy WebLinkAboutBoard of Adjustments and Appeals - 03/18/1976 APPROVED
MINUTES
BOARD OF APPEALS AND ADJUSTMENTS
• Thursday, March 18, 1976 7:30 P.M. , City Hall
Members Present: James Cardinal
Thomas Cebulla
Joan Meyers
Donald Sorensen
Members Absent James Wedlund
Staff Present: Wayne Sanders, Building Official
2. James V. Vohs - variance to operate a cabinet shop in a detached building.
Property located on Tract F of the Registered Land Survey, No. 1410.
This property is located on Crestwood Terrace.
Cebulla, Acting Chairman, asked Vohs to present his case. Vohs said he
wanted to build a 24 x 40 detached building on his 5 acre parcel. Cebulla
questioned Vohs as to the importance of having this as a detached building.
Vohs indicated that it was his preference to have this building detached
from the home. Cardinal questioned Vohs as to how much noise there would
be beyond the building site. Vohs said there was no noise problem presently.
Cardinal asked what waste would be made from this type of occupation.
The answer was sawdust only. Sorensen asked the following questions of Vohs:
• Will the building be air conditioned and heated?
Answer: Yes.
What type of construction will it be?
Answer: The same as the house.
What will be the cost?
Answer: Approximately $8,000 to 10,000 dollars.
How many pieces of equipment will be within the building?
Answer: Approximately 8 pieces of equipment.
How is business normally conducted?
Answer: I go out to get the estimates then go home to make the cabinets.
How much time per week is spent working at this occupation?
Answer: Approximately 3 hours per evening and all day Saturday.
In 1974, how many hours per day was spent at this work?
Answer: 1974 was a spotty year but while I was working I followed the hours
I previously mentioned.
Are you asking for a sideyard variance also?
Answer: Yes, from 50 feet to 30 feet.
•
Board of Appeals and Adjustments -2- March 18, 1976
Meyers asked how many employees Vohs had. He answered myself and a son.
• Meyers also asked what distance are your present neighbors. Vohs said that
the present platted area to the south is a long distance away and there is
a farm to the north across Pioneer Trail. Cardinal asked what is the dis-
tance between the proposed building and the proposed house. Vohs replied
approximately 50 feet.
MOTION
Motion was made by Cardinal, seconded by Meyers to deny this request for
variance with the following reasons and findings:
1. It basically goes against the ordinance.
2. It would set a presidence of going against an ordinance.
3. The structure is as large as the home.
Discussion followed and Cebulla stated that this would be allowing a type
of factory in a residential area. It can be redesigned in the home. Meyers
said that she agreed with the other two gentlemen. It would become a free
standing business. Sorensen also agreed with the others and added the
following: no unique hardship, no unique circumstances, no deprivation
of use of property. Granting would constitute a special privilege. The
side yard setback would be bad.
Vohs asked that should he noU,_-incorporate this into his house, would we
object to exceeding the limit of 2 horsepower for electric motors. He
painted out that most homes exceed this limit.
Sorensen said as he saw the ordinance, it addresses this limit only to
where there is a home occupation. The entire board voted in favor of
denial of the variance.
II. Request of Gerald Hendrickson permitting a variance from Ordinance No. 93,
Section 3 and zoning designation in Ordinance No. 135 allowing a division
of property in the rural district having less than 300' frontage on a
public right-of-way.
Cebulla asked Sanders to explain the layout of the land. Mr. Jack Miller,
Attorney for the Hendrickson party, also explained the case. Miller spoke
of the cul-de-sac being pla-ted up to the. property line. 'He stated the intent
was to build only one more home that would exit off of Crestwood Terrace.
Sorensen asked when the James Sands property was divided off. Sanders
said that there was no land division for this home. Sorensen asked about the
road entrances at the cul-de-sac at Crestwood Terrace might be possible
should they be 50 feet or 60 feet. Attorney Jack Miller asked about any
developer coming in and platting lots. Sorensen said in Ordinance No. 135 .
it does not allow for platting of this type of property that is not serviced
by city sewer and water. Meyers asked if the Hendrickson's would enter
into an agreement with the City. Miller said it is possible, however,
he did not know how mortgage companies would look at this. Miller explained
the financial crunch that people are faced with today especially the Hendrickson's
with this piece of property.
•
Board of Appeals and Adjustments -3- March 18, 1976
Sorensen asked if this home that Mr. Gerald Hendrickson would like to build
. would be placed according to some future plat. Miller answered no, it is
not placed according to any special plat. Sorensen asked Miller if a
Landhold Agreement were entered into, would it be a problem to the Hendrickson's.
Miller indicated he did not think it would be a problem. Duane Cable,
17181 Cedarcrest Drive, expressed his views. Sorensen asked Cable as to
why he was so concerned with the soils and water table. Cable said he is
concerned with soil erosion and when future homes are built they cause dif-
ferent drainage. William Marshall, 17591 Pioneer Trail, the owner of 5
acres of property, said he was in favor of the proposal and was in favor
of granting the variance. Bob Hendrickson, one of the property owners,
sited the drainage from the land would not overall be changed if a home
were built on this property. Sorensen said that a building would cause an
.additional runoff and asked the following questions:
1. Could a ponding area be built?
2. Would he build it if it is found necessary?
Hendrickson indicated this is a possibility.
Mary Cable, 17181 Cedarcrest Drive, said listening to the comments we
see the following problems:
1. All variances should be consistent.
2. There should be a Landhold Agreement.
3. There should be a holding pond.
• She added that an alternate route to enter this property might solve the
whole problem.
William Marshall, 17591 Pioneer Trail, said an alternate route had been
suggested but it would have to be hard surfaced and there would be more
water runoff. Sorensen said Sands driveway seems to be unusable in the
present condition. Would it be agreeable to hard surface the new driveway?
Sands answered yes it would be possible. Mrs. Cable asked if others can
use and benefit from improvements that they have not paid for. Sorensen
said this is an acceptable use when extending a road. Ralph Bahr,
17130 Cedarcrest Drive, said the real question is are there alternate
entrances to this property. Sorensen said any other entrances to this
property would require a variance also. Sorensen asked to continue this
to another date and refer the matter to the City Engineer and Watershed
District. Miller asked if he could read an agreement proposed to both
parties (agreement is attached) .
MOTION
Sorensen made the motion to refer this matter until May 6, 1976. Cardinal
seconded the motion.
DISCUSSION
Meyers said I feel this matter can be handled this evening. Cebulla,
Cardinal and Meyers voted not in favor of continuing the meeting until
May 6, 1976. Sorensen only voted in favor.
Board of Appeals and Adjustments -4- March 18, 1976
AMENDED MOTION
• Meyers made the motion to find in favor of a variance request of a division
Y q
of property in rural district having less than"300' frontage on a public
right-of-way as a reasonable interim use of the land requiring the land-
owners to enter into a Landhold Agreement with the City of Eden Prairie,
to be drafted by the City Attorney, including the following provisions
for the 29.15 acre parcel:
Only one ,additional residence with access on Cedarcrest Drive,
only one additional residence with access on Pioneer Trail
(County Road #1) , no additional construction for 13 years or
until public sanitary sewer, storm sewer and water are availablie and
until consturction of a public street system providing access
west and north from the parcel. The approval shall be based
on a schematic boundary representation dated March 18, 1976.
Building site plans submitted to the Riley-Purgatory Creek
Watershed for review and recommendations on erosion control
measures during construction, water runoff treatment and
driveway construction with review and modifications by City
Engineering Staff. Landowners to comply with all requirements
prior to issuance of a building permit.
Cebulla, Cardinal, Meyers voted in favor of the motion. Sorensen
voted against motion. Motion was carried and the variance was granted.
• III. Variance request from Eagle Enterprises, Inc. permitting 5.4 parking spaces
per 1,000 sq. ft of gross leasable area in a neighborhood shopping center.
Property located at the northwest corner of Highway 5 and County Road #4.
Lance Norderhus presented his proposal for 5.4 parking spaces per 1,000
sq. ft. and said it was more than enough to supply ample parking for their
business. Norderhus also said that a variance will also be required for
the proposed sign on the property. Sorensen asked about the screening
of the open sales area on the west end of the store. Sorensen also asked
if Norderhus would object to making the parking variance contingent upon
screening at the west end of the building. This screening would have to
be agreeable to the City staff. Norderhus indicated that he could do
this. Meyers said that she would like to see better screening at the
west end of the huilding and would like to see: sometning better for shared
parking. Norderhus said that wood railroad type ties would be used for
steps to the church parking lot.
MOTION
Sorensen moved that the board grant the parking variance for 5.39 parking
spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. according to standards developed by the City
staff with the following provisions:
1. If parking is found to be inadequate according to the City staff,
then the landowner shall provide additional parking by one of the
following methods:
• a. Removal of exterior lawn and garden shopping areas.
b. By ramping.
c. Other means acceptable to the City staff.
Board of Appeals and Adjustments -5- March 18, 1976
2. If traffic congestion occurs, that employee parking will be required
• on adjacent church property.
3. Handrails will be installed on steps to church parking lot.
4. That after any substantial snowfall, clear plowing will occur and
not windrowing.
5. - That the exterior lawn and garden area be screened by a wood fence
or other architectural treatment acceptable to the City staff in
addition to the present plan submitted.
Meyers seconded the motion. Cebulla and Sorensen voted in favor.
Cardinal and Meyers abstained.
P,DJOURNMENT
Cardinal made a motion to adjourn the meeting, seconded by Cebulla.
Meeting was adjourned at 10:40 P.M.
Submitted by,
• Wayne Sanders
Recording Secretary