Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1992 02-06 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes RegularMINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE EDINA BOARD OF APPEALS AND ADJUSTMENTS HELD ON THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 61 1992, 5:30 P.M. EDINA CITY HALL MANAGER'S CONFERENCE ROOM MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman John Palmer, Nan Faust, Len Olson and Lee Johnson MEMBERS ABSENT: Rose Mary Utne STAFF PRESENT: Kris Aaker Jackie Hoogenakker I. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES: Mr. Olson moved approval of the December 5, 1991 meeting minutes. Mr. Johnson seconded the motion. All voted aye; motion carried. II. NEW BUSINESS: B-92-2 Bruce D. Langford - Applicant H. Swenson Development Company - Property Owner 5331 Pinewood Trail Lot 2, Block 1, Pinewood Request: A 1.1% lot coverage variance to allow the addition of a 141 R 14, all season porch Ms. Aaker presented her staff report noting the subject lot is zoned R-1, single dwelling unit district and is currently being developed with a 2368 square foot walkout rambler. Building department records indicate that a permit was issued on September 29, 1991, for the structure and building inspectors have stated that as of January 29, 1992, the house was approximately 90% complete. The original proposal included a 12' X 19' (228 sq. ft.) deck that has now been put on hold until resolution of the porch variance request. Total lot coverage of the original proposal including the deck was to be 24.7%. Ms. Aaker explained that while staff is sympathetic to the applicants desire to add a four season porch, staff is unable to Ei identify any special conditions or circumstances or hardship unique to the property that would allow for approval of a variance. In addition, approval of a variance could potentially set a precedent or grant a special privilege to the applicant that is denied by this ordinance to others. Ms. Aaker said in response to the developer's belief that the overall average lot coverage of Pinewood meets the intent of the ordinance staff states that variances are specific to the site and coverage cannot be transferred from one site to another or averaged among a group of lots. Ms. Aaker concluded based on lack of demonstrated hardship and the potential of setting a precedent staff cannot support approval of the request. Mr. Harvey Swenson, proponent and Mr. Mark Elko, house builder were present. Mr. Elko explained that the original house design included a walkway and three season porch. Mr. Elko said in reviewing the ordinance he made a mistake in calculating the deck into the lot coverage, which is the reason for needing a lot coverage variance for the proposed four -season porch. Mr. Palmer pointed out that the city recognizes that decks are "open area" which is the reason for the 150 square foot allowance. Continuing, Mr. Palmer said a four -season porch is covered mass, and must be calculated into lot coverage. Mr. Palmer asked if a compromise could be reached between the deck and porch so a variance would not be required. Mr. Palmer concluded in his opinion there is no hardship, and he cannot support this request. Mr. Elko pointed out that the lot in question contains a jog in the lot line, and if that jog were corrected and the piece of the adjacent property added to the present lot the City's lot coverage requirement would be met. Mr. Palmer pointed out that lot coverage is calculated per lot, not per development, and a lot division would be needed to add this piece to the lot. Mr. Johnson noted that the size of the lot in question is larger then the other lots in the subdivision, and in his opinion is already overbuilt. Continuing, Mr. Johnson said if a lot coverage variance is granted for this lot a precedent may be set within the subdivision. Concluding, Mr. Johnson said this is a new subdivision, and variances for development should not be needed. Mr. Johnson moved to deny the variance request for lot coverage. Mrs. Faust seconded the motion. All voted aye; motion carried. Mr. Palmer informed Mr. Swenson he has the right to appeal the decision of the Board to the City Council. 2 B-92-3 Andrew B. MacPhail 5236 Brookview Avenue Lot 5, Block R, South Harriet Park Request: A 2% lot coverage variance and an additional 1 foot side street setback variance Ms. Aaker presented her staff report noting the subject property is a single family home located on the corner of 53rd Street and Brookview Avenue. She added applicants are hoping to add a small eating area, mudroom, bay window seat, and half bath addition to the rear of their home. Ms. Aaker explained the proponents state that the addition although modest in size, would go a long way towards accommodating their growing family needs and would be preferable to the purchase of a larger home in a different neighborhood. Ms. Aaker pointed out that in the past this property received approval for two variances. Ms. Aaker concluded that based on lack of demonstrated hardship, staff cannot support approval of the request. Mr. Olson asked Ms. Aaker what the lot coverage is at present. Ms. Aaker responded at present the lot coverage is 30.8%. Mr. Goldstein of 5300 Brookview Avenue, told the Board he agrees the design of the present house doesn't work efficiently for a growing family. He added the MacPhail's are good neighbors who beautifully maintain their home and are an asset to the neighborhood and community. He concluded that the variance should be granted thereby allowing a growing family to remain in their home. Mr. MacPhail addressed the Board informing them as a family they have a problem with the interior layout of the house, and performing the basic everyday household chores. He explained the kitchen is very small and the side door opens directly into the kitchen. Mr. MacPhail pointed out the opening and closing of the door in the winter with small children playing on the kitchen floor causes concern. He concluded he understands the position of the board, stating this addition would allow them to remain in the home and their neighborhood. Mrs. MacPhail explained that the previous variances were granted and the addition of a 2nd. floor bathroom added before they purchased the home. She said in her opinion, the proposed addition would not negatively impact the neighborhood, and would create a much more workable kitchen, with the mudroom providing a new entry 3 and exit for her family. Mr. Olson asked Ms. Aaker if in her opinion, the proposed addition would have a negative impact on the neighborhood. Ms. Aaker stated visually the proposed addition would not have an impact on the neighborhood. Mr. Olson stated that he believes the proposal has merit, stating in his opinion, it is important to upgrade older homes within the City allowing the homeowners to remain in their homes and neighborhoods. Mr. Palmer stated he knows the area well, pointing out the house at present is large, and already exceeds the City's lot coverage requirement. He added that while he sympathizes with the proponents this lot appears to be developed at maximum, and he can find no hardship to grant the variance request. A discussion ensued between members of the board. Mr. Olson moved to approve the variance request. There was no second; motion failed. Mr. Johnson moved to deny the variance request. Mrs. Faust seconded the motion. Ayes; Palmer, Faust, Johnson, Nays, Olson. Motion to deny was approved. Mr. Palmer told Mr. and Mrs. MacPhail they have the right to appeal the decision of the Board to the City Council. III. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 6:00 p.m. Kh', "X M1 TIVITMISIT - .. - -i 4