06-14-2004 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

M01.2671 Nfay 17,2004 Piig€ 3 of 4 The proposed plans indicate that all other zoning requirements will be met, including setbacks and structural coverage as indicated in the Lot Analysis Worksheet above. Hardship Statement Applicant has provided a brief hardship statement in Exhibit B, and should be asked for additional testimony regarding the application. Hardship Analysis /« cottsldering applications/or variance, the Planning Commission shall consider the effect of the proposed variance upon the health, safety and welfare of the community, existing and anitclpated traffic conditions, light and air, danger of fire, risk to the public safety, and the effect on values of property In the surrounding area. The Planning Commission shall consider recommending approval for variances from the literal provisions of the Zoning Code In Instances where their strict enforcement would cause undue hardship because of rl.cumstances unique to the individual property under consideration, and shall recommend approval only when it is demonstrated that such actions will be In keeping with the spirit and intent of the Orono Zoning Code._______ ________ Staff finds that a valid hardship exists in that the lot is a legal lot of record, recorded at Hennepin County, and a house has existed on the lot for matiy years prior to the demolition of the previous home in 2001 . Several of the homes along that stretch of Old Long Lake Road arc under the 2 acre requirement and have existed for many years. Also, the applicant is unable to purchase any vacant property in an effort to reach the 2 acre requirement as the Luce Line trail exists to the south, existing residential homes to the east and west (both under 2 acres), and Old Long Lake Road right-of-way to the north. Therefore, staff is in support of the requested lot area variance as all of the above arc valid hardships. Site Plan Cuniiiieiils In most respects the site plan meets City requirements to allow issuance of building permits. However, in reviewing the site plan the Planning Director noted the following plan elements that need to be addressed before permits are issued, some ot which the Planning Commission may choose to address; 1. 2. The side-loading garage at a side setback of 30’ faces the neighboring property. It has an apron proposed at elevation 970'. 1 he topography drops 4 to the lot line, so a 2'-3’ retaining wall will be needed 5 ’ fiom the side lot line alongside portions of the driveway in order to maintain a functional, safe slope on the driveway apron. Note that the driveway plan eliminates the natural screening (3 or 4 trees) between the two properties. The driveway design will have to incorporate drainage control features to avoid adding excessive runoff to the neighboring property. 1 he two driveway accesses will require Public Services Director approval, as the City code allows only one driveway access per property. The westerly portion of the driveway encroaches the existing well, so either the driveway or the well will have to move. « • --■•i k c ‘ 4» ^ -tgb