Laserfiche WebLink
94 MINUTES <br />EDINA CITY COUNCIL HELD AT CITY HALL <br />JANUARY 25, 1988 <br />OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE <br />Answering rollcall were Members Kelly, Smith and Turner. <br />the meeting. <br />Member Turner chaired <br />CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS ADOPTED. Motion of Member Kelly was seconded by Member Smith <br />to approve and adopt the consent agenda items as presented. <br />Rollcall : <br />Ayes: Kelly, Smith, Turner <br />Motion carried. I *MINUTES OF SPECIAL MEETING OF DECEMBER 21, YEAR END MEETING OF DECEMBER 30. 1987 <br />AND REGULAR MEETING OF JANUARY 4. 1988 APPROVED. <br />seconded by Member Smith to approve the minutes of the Special Meeting of December <br />21, 1987, the Year EndMeeting of December 30, 1987 and the Regular Meeting of <br />January 4, 1988 as submitted. <br />Motion of Member Kelly was <br />Motion carried on rollcall vote, three ayes. <br />FINAL PLAT APPROVED FOR ROLLING GREEN PARKWAY ADDITION. <br />presented the request for final plat approval for Rolling Green Parkway Addition, <br />generally located west of Rolling Green Parkway and south of Annaway Drive. <br />recalled that preliminary plat approval was granted by the Council at its meeting <br />of October 5, 1987. All conditions for preliminary plat approval have been <br />satisfied and staff would recommend final plat approval subject to subdivision <br />dedication fee based on a land value of $100,000.00. No objections being heard, <br />Member Smith introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption, subject <br />to payment of a subdivision dedication fee of $8,000.00: <br />Planner Craig Larsen <br />He <br />RESOLUTION APPROVING FINAL PUT <br />FOR ROLLING GREEN PARKWAY ADDITION <br />BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Edina, Minnesota, that that <br />certain plat entitled "ROLLING GREEN PARKMAY ADDITIONw, platted by Charles David <br />Luther and Anne Wther, his wife, and presented at the regular meeting of the City <br />Council of January 25, 1988 be and is hereby granted final plat approval. <br />Motion for adoption of the resolution was seconded by Member Kelly. <br />Rollcall : <br />Ayes: Kelly, Smith, Turner <br />Resolution adopted. <br />VARIANCES GRANTED CONDITIONALLY FOR 5324 WEST 62ND STREET. <br />presented the appeal of David Constable, 5324 West 62nd Street, from the Board of <br />Appeals decision of December 17, 1987 concerning variances for property located at <br />5324 West 62nd Street. The request heard by the Board of Appeals was for a 2.4% <br />lot coverage variance, a 4.5 foot setback variance for a new deck and a 4.5 foot . <br />setback variance for a fence in excess of 6 feet in height. <br />is currently developed with a single family dwelling unit. <br />enlarged and refurbished at the property and a fence ranging in height from 7' 10" <br />to 9'6" was also added. <br />in violation of the Zoning Ordinance. <br />required to maintain a 5 foot setback to the property line; only a half foot is <br />provided. Structures at residential properties are not permitted to cover more <br />than 25% of the lot area. <br />exceeded the 25% limit; with the addition of the deck lot coverage at the site is <br />27.4% <br />exceed 6 feet in height when adjacent to a property line. <br />required to maintain a 5 foot setback; only a half foot is provided. <br />Larsen advised the Council that there is an apparent discrepancy as to setbacks <br />in the neighborhood. <br />proposed location for the house when it was built in the late 1950's. The City <br />does not have a current survey of the subject property but does have a survey <br />showing the-actual location of the house next door to the East (5320 West 62nd <br />Street). All variance measurements are based on the actual location of the house <br />presented showing the location of the deck and fence as related to the house next <br />door. <br />variances and ordered reconstruction to comply in all respects to the Zoning <br />Ordinance. <br />in lot coverage. <br />due to the on grade patio of some 400+ square feet. <br />since the time of the decision by the Board of Appeals the proponent, David <br />Constable, has provided statements in support of the variance requests from <br />property owners in the immediate area. <br />Board of Appeals, <br />Council outlining how he perceived the process unfolding and his reasonings in <br />this matter. <br />questions. <br />that she had these concerns: 1) that the survey on the subject property is not as <br />the property exists, 2) no building permits were obtained, and 3) that the <br />variance requests were heard before only four members of the Board. David <br />Planner Craig Larsen <br />The subject property <br />Recently a deck was <br />Both structures were built without permits and both are <br />Planner Larsen explained that the deck is <br />The dwelling prior to the deck addition already <br />Fences in residential districts in the side yard are not permitted to <br />The new fence is <br />Planner <br />For the subject property there is only a survey showing the <br />.next door combined with field measurements taken by staff. A graphic was <br />Planner Larsen reported that the Board of Appeals took action to deny the <br />He explained that the Zoning Ordinance now includes decks and patios <br />The removal of the deck would still leave a lot coverage problem <br />Planner Larsen said that <br />Those letters were not available to the <br />Further, the proponent has addressed a letter to the Edina City <br />He advised that David Constable was present to respond to any <br />Member Kelly commented that she had viewed the subject property and