Laserfiche WebLink
WI-2722 N!ichael and Monica Brown <br />December 12.2001 <br />pane 2 of 3 <br />3. The proposed garr.ge would be 28 ’ X 24* and would have the doors facing Ihe slreel to allow backing <br />out onto Minnetonka Avenue rather than having to back out to the existing parking area. Across <br />Minnetonka Avenue arc two detached garages that arc b'lilt on the lots with direct access to the <br />street. The clo?esl garage, across the street is 12.5' from the paved surface of Minnetonka Avenue. <br />A second garage is IcKatcd 25' from the paved surface of the street. The proposed garage would be <br />located 22 .5* from the paved surface <br />4. The applicants have stated their hardship is the garage could not be moved further to the north due <br />to a large pine tree being located behind the garage that thev' would like to keep on the propertx'. <br />Staff has measured the tree and confirmed it has a trunk diameter of approximately 16" and has a 30* <br />diameter drip line. The tree is located 12' from the back wall of the existing garage. <br />5. Nearly all garages built in the Crystal Bay neighborhood on comer lots have the garage with direct <br />access, including the two lots across the street. One problem with the direct access is the fact the <br />garages have very short driveways which do not accommodate olT street parking very well. <br />Adequate off street parking is not always available and Minnetonka Avenue is a narrow road only <br />paved 15' wide. <br />6 The fence would replace an existing fence located 27' from the property line, and would provide <br />privacy screening for the back yard of the house. <br />7. The lot is a 1/4 acre property located in a 2 acre /tuiing district requiring 50' setbacks for fences <br />greater than 6' in height liKatcd adjacent to a street property lines. The properly is a comer lot where <br />construction of n 6' privacy fence would require the fence to be constructed over an area of the <br />property where it could not provide screening for Uie back yard area of tlic house. <br />Staff Kecommendaliun <br />Sufi's recommendation difiers slightly from the Planning Commission recommendation. SufTs <br />recommendation is to approve variances to permit a 6β€˜ fence to be located 2fil fri>ni the property line <br />(Plaiming Commission reviewed a request for a fence 15! from the property line). Staff agrees with the <br />Planning Commission recommendation to approve the garage as proposed. <br />I1ie resolution requires a 20' setback for the 6' fence rather than a 15 β€˜ setback for the area of the property to <br />be used for the parking stall. The discussion of the 15' setback was a change to the original request by the <br />property owners to replace the fence in its’ existing location 2T from the property line The 15' setback <br />concept was first discussed with the Planning Commission the evening of the meeting on November 19. <br />2001. <br />Staff has since reviewed the request to permit the fence only 15' from the property line rather than 27' and <br />has recommended Ihe fence be constructed 20' from the property line for the portion of the property that is <br />used for the single outsiue parking stall. Based on new information the additional 5* was requested for two <br />[SaSSDL <br />I) Personnel assigned to plow snow in the Crystal Bay neighborhood has indicated it would be Ihe best case <br />scenario to have additional space to plow snow and to eliminate the potential for an obstacle if a large vehicle <br />is parked in that location. 2) 20' is the sundard length for a parking stall and would allow the property <br />owners and their guests to park a vehicle completely on their property without encroaching into the public <br />right of way. If the parking space became an obstacle in the right of way the City could reserve the right to <br />prohibit parking over the property line into the right of way.