Laserfiche WebLink
property was determined to not be part of the 100 year floodplain for Lake Minnetonka, and 2) there <br />was some discussion in the minutes related to the total allowed lot coverage by structure being 1,500 <br />s.f. This lot is allowed 2,199 s.f. of structure. tLot Size of 14,663 s.f X .15) = 2,199 s.f. <br />Other Approvals in the Rest Point Road Neighborhood <br />1354 Rest Point Road (1999) - Received after-the-fact variances to permit a 195 s.f deck on the <br />property. <br />1366 Rest Point Road (2000) - Received variances for an addition of a sun porch. The approval was <br />subject to an equal replacement of c.xisting hardcover. <br />1386 Rest Point Road (2002) - Variances were approved to permit construction of a residential <br />addition up to 15% of the lot area of the property. Such approval required an equal removal of <br />existing hardcover on the property. <br />1392 Rest Point Road (1995) - Variances were approved for residential additions equaling 19.9% <br />structural lot coverage and approved variances to allow additional hardcover on the property. Total <br />hardcover on the property is equal to 31.4% of the 75-250* lakeshorc setback /one where 25% is <br />allowed. <br />1405 Rest Point Road (2000) - Variances were approved that allowed new construction of a house <br />on the property up to 15% of the lot area. The house was constructed 34 ’ from the lakeshore due to <br />the general shape of the lot and the location of a City operated lift station. Total hardcover on the <br />property is equal to 76.9% of the lot area in the 75-250’ lakeshore setback zone, (this lot has only <br />3,731 s.f in the 75-250’ setback). <br />Staff Recommendation: <br />Staff recommends the proposed lot coverage be limited to 15% of the lot area. Staff agrees the <br />existing garage is not the safest access to the property. <br />Planning Commission should also review the previous actions by the Council. Meeting minutes and <br />Resolutions are attached for your review. <br />Discussion Items: <br />1. Planning Commission should consider conditions and discussion regarding two previous <br />variance approvals for Rahn. <br />2. Does the Planning Commission agree that the existing garage access is not the best location <br />for a driveway on the property? <br />3. Does the determination that the area below the 931 .5’ elevation is not part of the 100 year <br />flood elevation of Lake Minnetonka change how the Planning Commission considers new <br />development on this property? <br />4. Does this property have a valid hardship to allow further development? <br />102-2791 David and iodi Rihn <br />l3>5lUviPoimRoad <br />4 of 5