Laserfiche WebLink
Minutes/Edina City Council/January 20, 2009 <br /> homes that do not fit the character of their neighborhood. He believed that maintaining the single- <br /> story roofline was in keeping with the neighborhood. <br /> In response to Council's question regarding the undue hardship test for reasonable use, Mr. Hammar <br /> noted they did not change the footprint of the home when the bedrooms were added and the staircase <br /> was not changed, which provided the only access to the basement. He stated there was no way to <br /> create more interior useable space for their galley kitchen. <br /> Mayor Hovland opened the public hearing at 7:22 p.m. <br /> Public Testimony <br /> Rick Fergesen, 5351 Kellogg Avenue, stated his support for the requested variances. <br /> Scott Libbey, 5341 Kellogg Avenue, spoke in support of the requested variance. <br /> Quin Scott, 5307 Kellogg Avenue, spoke in support of the requested variance. He also stated as a <br /> licensed architect his opinion of the request meeting statutory requirements for issuance of a <br /> variance. <br /> Member Swenson made a motion, seconded by Member Brindle, to close the public hearing. <br /> Ayes: Bennett, Brindle, Housh, Swenson, Hovland <br /> Motion carried. <br /> The Council discussed the importance of the lot coverage restriction. Ms. Aaker advised that three lot <br /> coverage variances had been issued in this neighborhood, one to conform to City Code for a two-car <br /> garage, and another created a cantilevered staircase to a second story addition. She explained the <br /> proponent could a construct second story but there would be sideyard setback issues if the second <br /> story living area extended out to the sidewalls of the first floor. City Attorney Knutson advised that if <br /> desired, a condition could be placed on the requested variance to not allow any second story <br /> expansion. <br /> Member Swenson stated she would not support the lot coverage variance and expressed reluctance <br /> with placing an encumbrance on a property that would restrict a new owner from having a second <br /> story. She stated even without the carport, the proponent exceeded the lot coverage restriction. <br /> Member Housh stated he supported the lot coverage variance, feeling the City should when possible <br /> allow residents to maintain an existing home or rehabilitate older homes instead of demolishing and <br /> rebuilding. He noted the sideyard setback was not significant and agreed the portico should not count <br /> as lot coverage. Member Housh pointed out that the home owner could demolish and rebuild a two- <br /> story home with more livable space; however, such a home might not fit into the neighborhood. <br /> Member Bennett noted that two of the three variances cited by Assistant Planner Aaker clearly <br /> addressed hardship. She stated that she took seriously the recommendations of the Planning <br /> Commission, Zoning Board, and staff and that the Zoning Board members who had voted to deny the <br /> lot coverage variance also were members of the Planning Commission. She stated that when she has <br /> voted against the recommendations of staff, the Planning Commission or Zoning Board, she has done <br /> so to limit variance from the zoning code. Member Bennett stated she had viewed the subject house <br /> from the front and side and noted there was a larger profile from the side and back. Member Bennett <br /> acknowledged that this was a difficult situation and while she understood the constraints with older <br /> homes, she would not support the lot coverage variance in this instance. <br /> Member Brindle noted the addition would not extend beyond the north wall and was of a low profile. <br /> She felt the addition would not be noticeably different and complimented the designers for creating an <br /> addition allowing space for people to be more comfortable yet small enough to not be noticed. <br /> Member Brindle stated she would support the variances requested. <br /> Page 2 <br />