11-17-2003 Planning Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

ofih. Ne*ldA-, 132 ft ui* lo. «,be «s^ for side yard. It is not as reasonable, and creates a hardship. especiaJlv in an area or distmi uhere iio lot is mo acres in area and only one lot is over 200 ft in width. Str :t ch^tcr of developinent in the LR-fA district, and Lhe mo acre stand^ wd the required combined 60 ft of side yard on this side of Shoreline elimi-ates the ^r^ty for typical or anticipated development of this lake from site. This Kand^rd iJJes ^di nei^rins homeo^MKn have revie«ed the building plan and the req. •« f.- variance, jmd ha« no objecUon to U«ir being g™,,ed. The existing plantUtgs and S-t bi^Sr provided by iwrely distance. Granttng the variance uould simplv maintain the er-H^.>-ed the e^i nelauonahip with the adjacent homes «k1 m,t alter the e;sential chi^K^of tl^-e^Th. ^ the Neutirk-s home to both the home cn"the no,* mul ?mv^Z*h " T!? •"* l»t«een the homes well hi exce« of *0^provided by n^lydi«ance. The vistml space bemeen Uie closes, comers of tfte'new and pl«es the most passive uses, the garage, closets and master bath, on the south sid* of the hom where greatest area of new side yard intrusion. 736 sf vs 451 sf. is located . the home, the 0 to 75 ft coverage will not sTal^^V. ' “ «0 ft 'ot coverage will „o. Sd ^ mT» 3. Impervious Surface. 75 to 250 ft. As }^u know by novw we don't think dte site can be enlarged to create «lditio- •> i-cervious surface* offset or tde a gieater ^ucUon in Ute necessary, typical and mtticted m^I ^veway ^gement. that cannot be pracUcirily altered due to the engineering sa-dr^rf Hennepin County, severely reduces our opportunity to further reduce a major imee-.ious Crating the va^ewUl allow consmicUon of a new plan which will reduce te 0 to 75 mtpervious surface fiom 519 sf to 0 stand the 75 «,250 ft impervious surftce from 9241,”*