Laserfiche WebLink
6. Allhough there are two doors shown on ihc lakeside of ihe walk oul level of the proposed <br />home, there will be no hardcover landings outside the doors; <br />7. It is the applicants’ responsibility to contact LMCD regarding dock placement on l ake <br />Minnetonka; <br />8. Other issues raised by the Planning Commission. <br />Staff Recommendations: <br />Staff can support the variances for lot area, lot width, hardcover in the 0-75’ setback zone and <br />grading within 75’ of the OIIWL. <br />However, staff can not support the variances for hardcover c.xceeding 25 “o in the 75' to 250' <br />setback zone nor staiclural coverage exceeding the 1 5 “/b maximum permitted. It is the City's <br />policy that all new construction meet the hardco\er and structural coverage requirements when <br />possible. Given the size of the combined property, it is possible to meet the hardcover and <br />structural coverage requirements and still build a new home. <br />It has been suggested by the applicants that the property could be looked at as two potential 50' lots <br />that could each be granted the same variances as were granted the single 9,000 s.f lot next door, i.e. <br />46% hardcover and 1500 s.f. of structure. In fact, in 1986 the City declared that 1290 Sprtice w as <br />unbuildablc (Resolution No. 2088) and released it for sale to adjacent owners to mike the ;r r.'«'rert>' <br />more conforming, despite the fact that each of the two lots had been assessed for sewer. It is .viai:'? <br />opinion that comparing the applicant’s double lot with the extremely substandard lot next door at <br />1270, is not a reasonable com,wi.son. <br />Stafl' would remind the Planning Commission that hardcover and lot c<'verage variances have <br />consistently been denied for reconstruction on similar .d/ed (approximately '/i acre) lots in the ’: acre <br />and I acre zones over the past 4 years. The comparison with the '/i acre zone is a fair one since the <br />hardcover, setback and lot coverage standards arc virtually identical with those of the 1-acre Ziuie. <br />Recent lakeshore rebuilds (2002-2003) that compare with the cunent proposal include. <br />- Soojian at 4496 North Shor« Drive (1 00' widtii, 0.55 acres, no 1 1C or lot coverage variances <br />granted) <br />- Tvvidwell at 1865 Concordia Street (102’ width. 0.56 acres, granted 32.4% HC due to tree <br />hardship limiting home placement, no lot cov erage variance) <br />- Lindbcrg at 3440 North Shore Drive (100’ width. 0.47 acres, met all HC and lot coverage <br />limits, no variances) <br />- Goldberg at 1160 Loma Linda Avenue (1 13 ’ width. 0 68 acres, no HC or lot coverage <br />variances granted) <br />- Cable at 3532 \\y Place (100’ width. 0.522 acres, denied vari,ince.s for HC exceeding 25*") <br />Staff recommends tabling the application to allow the applicants to decrease hardcov er in the 75' <br />to 250’ setback zone to no more than 25®/o by redesigning the propo.sed home. A home located <br />30’ from the street with a 600 s.f. driveway and 100 s.f of sidewalk could have a 2.050 s.f <br />footprint. <br />M0S-2m Cerda and Ed Toth <br />5JH/2003 <br />Page 5 of 6