Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBoard of Adjustments and Appeals - 07/12/1984 APPROVED MINUTES • BOARD OF APPEALS AND ADJUSTMENTS THURSDAY, JULY 12, 1984 7:30 PM, ADMINISTRATION BLDG. , ROOM 5 BOARD OF APPEALS MEMBERS: Chairman Ron Krueger, Richard Lynch, Roger Sandvick, James Dickey and Hanley Anderson BOARD STAFF: City Research Planner, Steve Durham and Recording Secretary, Lynda Diede ROLL CALL: All members were present. I. MINUTES A. Minutes of June 14, 1984. MOTION: Dickey moved, seconded by Sandvick to approve the minutes of June 14, 1984. Anderson abstained. Motion :carried. II. VARIANCES A. Request #84-35, submitted by Douglas Bischoff for property located at 7740 Atherton Way, legally described as Lot 3, Block 2, Heritage • Park 1st Addition. The request is for a variance from City Code, Chapter 11 , Section 11 .03, Subd.2. B, to permit the construction of a deck within 6 feet of the side lot line. Code requires a 15 foot minimum . Douglas Bischoff, 7740 Atherton Way, presented the request to the Board. He proposes to construct a two tiered deck with each level 16'xl6' . The south side of the house is only 22' from the property line. Sandvick inquired if Bischoff had talked with the neighbors. Bischoff replied yes and there were no problems. The area to the south of proposed deck is heavily wooded. Dickey questioned the possibility of reducing the deck in width from 16' to 12' . Bischoff stated that 16'xl6' was preferable. Sandvick asked if Bischoff intended to have an enclosed screen porch. Bischoff replied no. Lynch questioned the utility easement. Durham stated that Crescent Ridge PUD is proposed behind the Bischoff home. Although it is not likely, at some future date the utility easement may be needed. Bischoff inquired about the installation of utilities. Durham replied that it was possible in the future. Board of Appeals and Adjustments - 2 - July 12, 1984 Krueger commented that one should consider the possibilities of utilities coming in when building the deck. The proposed deck will • encroach into the 10' drainage and utility easement by 4' . Lynch inquired if cantilevers were an option. Bischoff stated that they were a possibility. MOTION: Lynch made a motion to approve Variance Request #84-35, submitted by Douglas Bischoff, with the following findings: 1 ) The likelihood of utility easements used is very low. 2) Proponent would have to accommodate the utility ease- ment should they be installed. 3) This variance is not detrimental to the health and welfare of the citizens of Eden Prairie. Sandvick seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously. B. Request #84-36, submitted by Mr. & Mrs. Clinton Shaver for property located at 6601 Beach Road, legally described as Lot 5, Block 2, Bryant Lake View Estates. The request is for a variance from City Code, Chapter 11 , Sec. 11 .50, Subd. 6, B, T4Tto permit construction of the tennis court within 30 feet of the ordinary high water mark. Code re- quires 100' . • David Kirscht, landscape architect, representing Mr. & Mrs. Clinton Shaver, reviewed the plans with the Board. The site was difficult to work with as a steep slope begins at approximately 70' from the shoreline and rises approximately 55' . Neighbors have no objections to the plans. The tennis court would be 30' from the ordinary high water mark of 852.6' on Bryant Lake. Dickey inquired if they planned to put, a 10' fence around the tennis court. Kirscht replied yes, except for the retaining wall . The Staff recommendation was 4' fence lakeside and 6' on the ends of the court. Due to the nature of the tennis game, the Board recommended 10' fence on lake front and ends of court. Photos were displayed of the site. Sandvick commented that if the fence area was screened it would lessen the impact. Kirscht stated that they would be willing to supplement. Lynch inquired if approval was granted by the Nine Mile Creek Watershed District. Kirscht stated that application had been submitted. Margaret and Michael Bauer, 3932 Blaisdell Avenue, Minneapolis , own land north of the Shavers and were concerned regarding the view they would see of the tennis courts. They had no objections after their concern was answered. Board of Appeals and Adjustments - 3 - July 12, 1984 MOTION: Dickey made a motion to approve Variance Request #84-36, submitted by Mr. & Mrs. Clinton Shaver with • the following findings : 1 ) Prior to construction, the applicant shall submit a landscaping plan for approval to the City which screens the court from Bryant Lake. Plant material indigenous to the area should be used to screen fencing. Plant material is also required above berm. 2) Fencing along the lake front shall be 10' in height; fencing on ends shall be no greater than 10' . All fencing shall be dark green vinyl cyclone. 3) Prior to construction, the applicant shall submit to the City proof that the Nine Mile Creek Watershed District has granted approval . 4) No lights be constructed around or on the court. 5) Applicant to be aware of utility easement under proposed tennis court and their responsibility of removal of court and cost incurred if access to sanitary sewer line is needed in the future. Sandvick seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously. C. Request #84-37, submitted by Dean Longyso for property located at 12454-12461 Sunnybrook Road, legally described as Tract H Registered Land Survey #751 The request is for a variance from City Code, Chapter 11 , Section 11 03, Subd 2. , B, to permit the construction of a deck within 101 .5" from east propentL line and 12' .11 " from west property line. Code re wires 50 minimum one side, 15W min- imum one side, 150' minimum both sides. Dean Longsyo, 12465 Sunnybrook Road, spoke to the request. He proposes to remove existing entry porchs and construct covered entry decks and sundecks in the sideyard setback of existing duplex. The present porchs are dangerously deteriorating. Plans were displayed to the Board. Dickey asked if Longsyo owned both units. Longyso replied yes. Durham displayed photos of the site. Longsyo stated letters were signed by neighbors approving the variance request. MOTION: Anderson made a motion to approve Variance Request #84-37, submitted by Dean Longsyo with the following findings: 1 ) Approve the variance according to the RM-6.5 • District standards of maintaining setback one side, 25' minimum setback both sides. Board of Appeals and Adjustments - 4 - July 12, 1984 Dickey seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously: • D. Request #84-38, submitted by St. Andrew Church for property located at 14100 Valley View Road. The request is for a variance from 1 _ City Code, Chapter 1.1 , Section 11 .03, Subd. 2.B, to permit a building height of 50.6 feet. Code allows 30 feet maximum. 2 City Code, Chapter 11 , Section 11 .03, Subd. 3, F, to permit a cross height of 64.6 feet. Code alows 55 feet maximum. 3 Cit Code, Chapter 11 , Section 11 .03, Subd. 3, H, 5 to permitparking_ setback from interior lot line of 0' . Code requires 10' . 41 City Code, Chapter 11 , Section 11 .03, Subd. 2, to permit 25' parking set- back from Baker Road, Code requires 50' and 10' parkingsetback from St. Andrew Drive, Code requires 25' ). 5 City Code, Chapter 11 , Sec. 11 .03, Subd. 4, K. to permit wood as an exterior material . Lloyd Berquist, representing St. Andrew Church, presented the request to the Board. Site plans were displayed. The triangular shape, steep topography and street exposure result in a hardship. Planning Commission and City Council recommended approval of the project, provided variances are granted by the Board of Appeals. Dickey asked if there would be wires attached to the 14' cross. Berquist replied no, it would be tubular with no guidelines or wires attached. Dickey inquired how close parking would come to the berm. Berquist replied 25' . • Sally Quan, 7216 Vista Court, showed concern regarding screening of the parking lot. Berquist stated that it was their intent to screen. $10,000 worth of landscaping had been invested. Pastor Rod Anderson stated that they had placed 12'-15' pine trees to accommodate screening of Golf Vista residents. MOTION: Dickey made a motion to approve Variance Request #84-38, submitted by St. Andrew Church with the following findings: 1 ) There was audience concern regarding the berming and plantings. 2) The cross is made of tubular steel with no guidelines. 3) There were no further comments. 4) It is in the best interests of the health and welfare of the citizens of Eden Prairie. Sandvick seconded the motion. Anderson abstained. Motion carried. • Board of Appeals and Adjustments - 5 - July 12, 1984 E. Request #84-39, submitted by Bert A. Notermann for property located at North of 16180 Flying Cloud Drive. The request is for a variance • from City Code, Chapter 11 .03, Subd. 2, B, to permit development of 9.6 acres for single family use in a rural zoning district. Code requires 10 acres. Dick Putnam, Tandem Corporation, representing Bert A. Notermann,. reviewed the request with the Board. There were no comments from the audience. Bert Notermann, 16180 Flying Cloud Drive, passed out a letter from a resident in support of the variance. MOTION: Sandvick made a motion to approve Variance Request #84-39, submitted by Bert A. Notermann, with the following findings: 1 ) Specific site information for Lots 2 and 3 be submitted to the Planning Department prior to building permit. 2) Restrictive covenants be placed on Lot 2 at time of final plat and prior to building to protect and retain the Indian burial mound. 3) There were no objections from the audience. • 4) A letter of support was received. 5) The variance is not detrimental to the health and welfare of the citizens of Eden Prairie. Krueger seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously. III. OLD BUSINESS MOTION: Sandvick made a motion to approve the summary of evidence, findings and order regarding David Brown request for Variance #84-19. Dickey seconded the motion. Anderson abstained. Motion carried. IV. NEW BUSINESS There was discussion regarding average setbacks and definition of a block. Due to uncomfortable environmental conditions of meeting room, definition of a block was not resolved and no direction by the Board of Appeals and Adjustments to address the City Council with a "definition" was given. V. ADJOURNMENT MOTION: Sandvick moved, seconded by Anderson, to adjourn the meeting at 8:55 PM. Motion carried unanimously. i