The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1996 07-11 Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting MinutesMINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE EDINA ZONING BEARD OF APPEALS HELD ON THURSDAY, JULY 11, 1996 5:30 P.M., MANAGER'S CONFERENCE ROOM MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair, David Runyan, Rose Mary Utne, Len Olson, William Skallerud MEMBERS ABSENT: Charles Ingwalson STAFF PRESENT: Kris Aaker and Jackie I. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES: Mr. Skallerud moved approval of the May seconded the motion. All voted aye; motion can II. NEW BUSINESS: B-96-36 Aller minutes. Mrs. Utne 15, ClaIands Subdivision of Emmas Abbot Park Request: > €i4 3.3 f ' t.' `; rd setback variance for both the north and q si Ms. Aaker infor::ed'the Board the subject property is located on the west side of ervork Avenue:nd consists of a rambler with an attached two car garage. The .owners are hoping to add a second story to their home that requires a sideyard k::varianc�ue to building height for both the north and south property Ms. Aaker concluded that generally staff is hesitant to support a request for a second story addition that requires a variance from both interior lot lines. It would appear however, that the addition compliments the adjacent structures. 1 i -R S� o 4 A f' h The proponent, Mr. Carlson was present. Mr. Skallerud asked Ms. Aaker if staff supports the request. Ms. Aaker commented the proposed addition compliments the homes on either side, but if this request is approved it opens the door for future expansion along the block. Mr. Carlson interjected stating a decision was made to not include M bay window on the south building wall which is indicated on the propped pls. Mrs. Utne said she can support the request aaiysented=t roved approval of a 3.3 foot sideyard setback variance for both the.;h.rth and so[trt'pf the dwelling, approval is also subject to the plans presented, and< e use :..:teriajs. mot . :..carri. Mr. Olson seconded the motion. All vote aye, Ms''Aaker co€Itdthe addition proposed is a deck on grade that is not enclosed living spaced comfortable distance from the neighboring property. StafFeupaorts the reacts#es submitted. The proponent Mr. and Mrs. Mulvaney were present. asked if a deck at grade still requires a 42" railing. 11 r `Mulvaney said the proposed deck will be 3'/ feet off grade because of the change in grade, with a privacy fence and a 42" rail along the back side of the deck. He commented that he believes building code requires a rail around a deck. 2 Mr. Runyan said this proposal adds mass, and questioned how high the privacy fence is proposed to be. Mr. Mulvaney said the proposed fence is four feet in height with two feet of lattice at the top, which is a total of six feet. Mr. Skallerud observed the deck appears at grade, but because of the minimal slope in the terrain it would appear the proposed fence is also needed for safety reasons. Mr. Mulvaney agreed the fence is also for safety purposes. Mr. Mulvaney informed board members the neighbor to tld'irdiate east supports the request. Mr. Runyan commented in viewing the plani he obser d th considerable amount of spacing between the exisfnhomed adj adding the existing trees help screen the propose+ k'` Mrs. Utne moved approval subject to the condi ...... he deck remain unenclosed. Mr. Olson seconded the motion. Mrs Skalle'r`< d.. Mr. and Mrs. Mulvaney if in the future they may want to enclose::: deck-.::::M*.-.",-.'..-,,.'.-.-,*..:.ulvaney responded the have no future plans to enclose the d.s l i3 nd cpept the''s--t— I tion that it remain Y unenclosed. All voted aye; motion carr' ....... B-96-38 Kurt N 64533 of the nt-lons imposed on variance approval Ms. Aalttned to#ktd the property owner of 6433 Sherwood Avenue is re uestin ''' e.xtensloE >of the conditions posted on their October 20. 1995, q g ::::.....:.::.::.:::::.: variancetipprovaf`nted the to the following conditions: ♦ The driveway fr€::Sherwood Avenue accessing the single car garage is removed and relaced with lawn the remain.de"r of the house if finished in the materials used on the addition stall garage door facing Sherwood Avenue is removed and replaced Driate finishes. ♦ all above conditions will be met by July 1, 1996. The proponent, Mr. Kroening was present to respond to questions. Mr. Kroening told board members his plan is to have the siding completed in a few weeks. He asked the board to recognize he is doing the construction himself. Mr. Runyan said he sympathizes with the neighbors, this has been a lengthy process, and is pleased Mr. Kroening is planning to side the house in the;, y near future. Mr. Runyan also questioned the old driveway, and the pa.. ng 9 chicles on it. Mr. Kroening said only one neighbor has me the look of the house. Continuing, Mr. Kroening ex accomplished earlier, but during renovation it was;,. replaced with new. Mr. Kroening explained what h" complete some of the items stipulated at the varia concluded that he believes he has made clear prop Mrs. Utne said she appreciates the fact himself, but firmly believes the driveway shout; of the driveway involves minimal expense, to I the for today' -fa ng in October upset with to ling doing the work fiately, and removal i€dfiMi1Vlr. Kroenings immediate r'she fAs:::ri t''spoken to Mr. Kroening dged tk work that has been done to competed. Ms. Berman added in her en,m t first, not the interior renovations. Ong to the addition)can't be replaced, re vehicles parked in front of a family Mr. Sk €II&U"d:.:bsked M , r why this variance had conditions that were required to bei...,...rtet 4 f re::the oris mar anniversary date of October 20, 1996. Ns. Aaker said*""'*'**! e of the variance hearing the board made the decision to shi r t�ten the allowed: r :frame for completion of certain aspects of the project. Ms. Aalconcluded it is ,r understanding the board can impose conditions. Mr. Runyan id in his opinion the board needs to tackle the siding issue, that to. be co _06ted as soon as possible. :Kroening, in response to Ms. Bergmans' comments said he has no objection to not parking on the driveway, reiterating at this time he is working on the siding. Mr. Olson asked Mr. Kroening why he did not realize earlier that windows 4 needed to be replaced. Mr. Olson said he cannot support any extension. Mr. Kroening said his goal is to bring uniformity to the house, and since he is doing the work himself, he can work when he has the opportunity, and the funds. Ms. Utne asked Mr. Kroening how long he feels he needs to complete the imposed conditions. Mr. Kroening said he would like to have until the annrsary date of his variance request (October 1996). erud have beee. Aaker �:t::�lriveway going to the old garage could Aker responded that technically the old driveway could '#rdinances that require its removal, but the project 00W the driveway was a condition of approving that tat removal of the driveway is a minimal expense, and "able, but removal of the apron may be more expensive. Mr. ng the driveway and sodding before requiring removal of qffig interjected that he would like to complete the siding before the Runyan said he agrees that the siding should be completed as soon as house does not look finished. Mr. Olson moved to grant a 90 -day extension. Mrs. Utne said she cannot support a blanket 90 day extension. She said there is no sensitivity to the neighbors, 5 and with all respect, the conditions stipulated at the October 20, 1995, variance hearing should have been met. There was no second. Mr. Olson moved to grant a 90 day extension. Mr. Skallerud seconded the motion and recommended the following amendment to the motion: ♦ siding to be completed by September 1, 1996 ♦ driveway is to be removed by October 1, 1996 ♦ sod is to be in place by October 1, 1996 ♦ driveway apron is to be removed by the annivE Ayes; Skallerud, Runyan. Nays, Utne. Olso. Moti .............. .... Mr. Skallerud noted it appears we are at artri'it members reconsider the previous motion so somethin asked the board to reconsider their vote, and add re s` him that from the discussion this evening board mdmbers t? opinions that these conditions should have been:>rnet. He f request for an extension is approved, he sh€ize the another request for an extension in the f�I"ire °'> " :::;. q ....... .......................... Mrs. Utne moved to reconsi motion. Motion carried. Mr. Skallerud moved following deadlines: ♦dih€#o be cap ♦ dr'ry .. be re t ♦ sod s'place by ♦ drive'artri>i..to be Olson and 20, 1996. hed. Mr. Skallerud ig, and explained to sssed their roening if his II not support favor to reconsider the ion oficonditionsof the variance subject to the eptember 1, 1996 October 1, 1996 Lar 1, 1996 ,ed by the anniversary date of October 20, 1996 motion. Ayes: Utne, Olson, Skallerud, Runyan. Motion Mr. Skallerud;iked the board to accept an amendment to the motion. He asked iponent torowledge the proposed conditions, and agree with the time frame ted. Mr4oening agreed with the time frame. Amendment accepted. Motion III. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 6:30 p.m. ,:1