10-20-2003 Planning Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

This same standard requires almost half of the uidth of the Newkirk’s 132 ft wide lot to be resewed for side yard. It is not as reasonable, and creates a hardship, especially in an area or district where no lot is two acres in area and only one lot is over 200 ft in width. Strict application of the assumed character of development in the LR-1A district, and the ^vo acre standard artd the required combined 60 ft of side yard on this side of Shoreline eliminates the oppoctunity for ty pical or anticipated development of this lake front site. This standard makes sense across Shoreline Dr., where the assumed artd the experienced character are the same, but twt on this side of Shoreline, where they significantly dilTer. The Newkirk’s condition ca.nnot be overcome or addressed by purchasing additional lot width from our neighbors. Add:nonal lot width cannot be purchased from the neighbors as their lots are also non conforming due to area and any deduction from their lots would Increase their non conformity , and therefore would not be permitted by the City. Both neighboring homeowners have reviewed the building plan and the request for variances and have no objection to their being granted. The existing plantings and landscaping between the homes (see photos) provide a transition and buffer between the homes well in excess of that provided by merely distance. Granting the variance would simply maintain the established the existing relationship with the adjacent homes and not alter the essential character of the area. The 15% hardcover standard is met by the proposed new home that is the subject of the requested VTiriances. The change in grade dowTi from the Newkirk’s home to both the home cn the north and the home on the south prov ides a tr^ition and buffer between the homes well in excess of that provided by merely distance. The visual space between the closest comers of the new and comers of each neighbor ’s home. 77 ft to the north. 85 ft to the south, exceeds the 60 ft distance of the combined side yard requirement. The intrusions into the required side yards are not consistent, and the plan reduces the non conforming building area in the required north sideyard from I17sf to 104 sf. The proposed plan places the most passiv e uses, the garage, closets and master bath, on the south side of the home, where greatest area of new side yard intrusion, 736 sf vs 451 sf, is located. Absent the requested variances to permit rebuilding the home, the 0 to 75 ft cov erage will not not be reduced by 519 sf and I00«,i. and the 75 to 250 ft lot coverage will not be reduced bv ->0I9 sf, and 22 Vo. 3. Impervious Surface, 75 to 250 ft. As you kno» by now. «c don't think the site esn be enlarged to create additional impersious ^ace to offset or provide a greater reduction in the necessary . typical and anticipated mimmum impervious surface aasociaied wiih a home on n site like this. In addition, the present shared driveway airangement. that cannot be practically alteied due to the engineering standards of Hennepin County, severely reduces our opportunity to further reduce a major impervious sur^ component at our ute. No parking, even temporarily, will ever be permitted on Shoreline Dr. adjacent to this site. Therefore, a reasonable area to accommodate guest parkins must be provided on the site. * Granting the variance will allow consiniction of a new plan which will reduce the 0 to 75 impervious surface ftom 519 sf toO sf and the 75 to 250 ft impervious suriace from 9241 sf to 4 hr—rill