HomeMy WebLinkAbout1992 09-03 Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting Minutes RegularMINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS, HELD ON
SEPTEMBER 3, 1992, 5:30 PM.
EDINA CITY HALL MANAGER'S CONFERENCE ROOM
MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair, D. Runyan, Rose Mary Utne, Len Olson,
Robert Hale, Chuck Ingwalson
STAFF PRESENT: Kris Aaker
I. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES:
Mr. Olson moved approval of the July 16, 1992, meeting
minutes. Mr. Hale seconded the motion. All voted aye; motion
carried.
II. NEW BUSINESS:
B-92-26 Gene Roering
6519 Gleason Court
Lot 10, Block 1, Gleason Court
Request: a 2% lot coverage variance and a -five foot
rear
Ms. Aaker presented her staff report noting the subject home
is a part of a double dwelling unit located within the Gleason
Court double bungalow subdivision. The proponent would like to add
an 11 X 14 foot porch and 134 sq. ft. deck addition to the rear of
the home.
Ms. Aaker noted that the property backs up to Crosstown
Freeway and is adjacent to the sound barrier. The proposal would
not diminish green area to a significant degree or alter the
intended purpose of the ordinance.
Ms. Aaker concluded that existing circumstances would suggest
that the variance would maintain the established continuity within
the Gleason Court subdivision. Staff recommends approval of the
variance. Ms. Aaker asked the board to note if you just consider
this unit and their "half" of the lot a lot coverage variance would
not be required. Ms. Aaker explained when calculating lot coverage
1
and setbacks for double dwelling units you use the entire lot, not
each half, which is the reason a lot coverage variance is required.
The proponent, Mr. Roering was present.
Mr. Roering submitted to board members written approval from
the neighbors on each side. He also submitted approval from the
architectural committee and a letter of approval from the neighbors
directly across the street.
Mr. Hale noted the subject site's rearyard is the freeway
and the proposed expansion would not impact the neighbors. Mr.
Hale said he has no problem with the proposal as submitted.
Mr. Ingwalson noted he has no problem with the proposal as
submitted but stated there appears to be a pattern evolving with
homeowners within this development seeking variances. He pointed
out this is the third variance request within this subdivision in
a relatively short time. Mr. Ingwalson noted the area has the
feel of being an island onto itself, but stated if we approve all
requested variances aren't we setting a precedent that would allow
every unit to obtain a variance, and building could get out of
control. Mr. Hale pointed out that this unit actually meets the
requirements but when calculated as a whole instead of half it does
not meet our requirements.
Mrs. Utne suggested voting on this proposal and then
discussing our options as a concerned board.
Mr. Ingwalson agreed with Mrs. Utne's suggestion stating he
has no problem with this proposal but does have a problem with the
amount of variances recently requested within this development. He
stated maybe we should set some standards or guidelines that apply
to this subdivision.
Mr. Roering explained he is the original property owner and
the house was designed to his specifications. He said during
construction he did not have enough money to enclose the porch but
had the porch constructed with footings so that in the future he
would be able to enclose the porch. He asked the board to note
that there are seven doubles that back up to Artic Way that already
have porches. He added he does not know if they constructed their
additions without the need for variances or they constructed them
and did not check to see if variances were needed.
Mr. Ingwalson asked Ms. Aaker if the units Mr. Roering is
referring to may have been constructed without obtaining required
variances or permits. Ms. Aaker said she has pulled all permits
for the subdivision and found that some units were originally
constructed with the porches, and some were not. Ms. Aaker added
she does not know if all pulled permits for their porches. She
expanded that patios and decks can creep onto properties without
2
3
our knowledge.
Mr. Ingwalson stressed he is very uncomfortable with this, he
added down the road one variance request may be denied, and what
reason can we give them for denial? He added while this individual
unit "half" meets our requirements our ordinances directs us to
consider the whole lot. Mr. Ingwalson stated a precedent to
approve porches within this development has been established, and
it causes concern.
Mr. Runyan reiterated Mrs. Utne's suggestion to vote on the
presented proposal and address the problems within this subdivision
after the vote.
Mr. Hale moved variance approval, subject to staff conditions
and that materials match existing structure. Mrs. Utne seconded
the motion. Ayes, Utne, Hale, Runyan. Nay, Ingwalson.
3