05-17-2004 Planning Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Ma* r. 2004 Pagt3«r4 The proposed plans indicate that all other zoning requirements will be meu including setbacks and structural coverage as indicated in the Lot Analysis ^ orksheet above Hardship Statcmcot Applicant has provided a brief hardship statement in Exhibit B. and should be asked for additional testimony regarding the application. Hardship Apalysts fit coHiUering appUcathns for varUmee, the Plaiming Commiulon shaU consider the effect of the Piloted variance upon the heaUh. safety and welfare of the community, existing and anticipated 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 CommlMSlon shall consider recommending approval for variances from the literal provisions of the Zoning Code In Instances where their strict enfnf'emtnt would cause undue hardship because of circumstances unique to the individual property under consUeratlon. and shall recommend approval only when it Is demonstrated that such actions will be In keeping with the spirit and intent of the Qrono 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 many years prior to the demolition of the previous home in 2001 . Several of the homes along that stretch of Old Long Lake Road are 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. The tfore, staff is in support of the requested lot area variance as all of the above are valid hardships. Site Plan Comments 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 follow ing plan elements that need to be addressed ^fore permits arc issued, some of which the Plaruiing Commission may choose to address: The side-loading garage at a side setback of 30 ’ faces the neighboring property . It has an apron proposed at elevation 970’. The topography drops 4* to the lot line, so a 2’-3’ retaining wall will be needed 5' from the side lot line alongside portions of the driveway in order to maintain a functional, safe slope on the drivew ay 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. The 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. 1.