06-15-1992 Planning Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

-■■■/ft'.r.‘--. i • . -'I '/ 'm* • .f *• « •■?. •■'i "‘-ft# Variance Application Supplement .^■■1 ■■■ ■ ■•\ '>:< DATE: May 21, 1991 TO: Planning Commission and City Council Members FROM: James and Amy Laing RE: VARIANCE APPLICAION ON P.I.D. #38 02-117-23 31 0012 A review of our property survey and proposed additions has identified the need for three setback variances if we are to proceed with our plans. The underlying issue arises from the fact that we are living in a RR-IB single family residential zoning district, requiring a minimum lot size of 2 acres. Whereas, the lot we are proposing to develop on (Minnetonka Bluffs Block 13, lots 22, 23, 24) is less than one-half acre in size. I will address each Variance separately and explain the circumstances unique to the property and request. The proposed family room and attached garage addition on the enclosed plans would require two variances. I would like to address the set-back along the north side of the property (Dickenson St.) first. The current garage is set so close to the street that cars parked in the driveway stick out into the road. As a result, cars driving by are required to steer around these obstacles. This is further-complicated by our garage being situated on the crest of a hill and an alley and neighboring driveway entering Dickenson at approximately this same location. In addition to the congestion, the garage and cars obscure the vision of drivers leaving the alley. There was an accident at precisely this location two years ago. By placing the garage back an additional 20 feet and changing our entrance to the garage to enter and exit from the atiey, all of these safety concerns could be eliminated. Finally, although the proposal places the new family room and garage 20 feet from the property line, in reality it would be approximately 35 feet back from the edge of the Dickenson St. v'l . , . - : -t ■ . 1 The second variance issue relates to the proper'.:/ line to the east along the alley. What is unique to thi tuation is that we also own the property (lots 1,2,3) to tra e.iost. It has been recommended we begin proceedings to legally combine all 6 lots for tax purposes (if allo%^ed). If we are successful there will not be a need for a variance. ■m . V,.‘r- ¥-■ r,; y . *“W ' V ,. ‘ ■ ■ - ftv 1 ■ hlA •i .s .,1^^.. .. V' v-J-