Laserfiche WebLink
:ent <br />;ary <br />Zoning File #1947 <br />July 13, 1994 <br />Page 3 <br />Review of Ciurent Proposal <br />The nuxlulc wixild now be located 10' trom the street lot line. Application #1874 <br />proposed a 2S* setback. I'he storage rruxiule has doors on both sides of the structure. Planning <br />Comnussion members were under the impressit>n that the storage facility would be accessed only <br />on one side. Review F.xhibit J. I'he storage mcxiule will now abut landscaped area along the <br />wesL/street lot line. Review Txhibit I, rk>ie that an existing planting will be removed along the <br />north side with the installation of the storage mtxlule. Applicant proposes plantings w ithin the <br />10 landscape area aiKl along the south and rkirth side. Special care must be given to any <br />plantings within the 10’ wide laralscape area because of the sighting issues at the intersection <br />with the Counts road. As structure must be accessed on both sides, there will he a need to <br />provide adequate space to facilitate access along the west side of structure. I’he storage module <br />will occupy one parking stall as opps>sed to original prqwsal that resulted in the loss of two <br />stalls. Review Exhibit E. note letter from Minnetonka Center for the Arts, <br />Review E.xhibit D. The DNR liniit.s approval ol any improvement to no net increase in <br />impervious surface. Note the module will be extended northward within a ponion of a non- <br />hardcover area. Applicant must provide for a non-hardcover surface in another area to offset <br />increase of approximately 20-*- square feet of new hardcover. <br />Issues for Con.sidcTation <br />1. How should landscaping be addressed adjacent to curb cut at intersection of County <br />Road? ... limit on maximum growth height to 3’? ... other? <br />2. It plan is approved, applicant must designate non-hardcover area to offset 20-some square <br />teet expansion ot structural hardcover placed over existing non-hardcover. <br />3. Applicant has submitted this revised plan at the request ot an adjacent property owner <br />who claimed ^visual impact of an S’ high. 8’ x 20’ storage module if placed within <br />parking stall 34. Does the fact that the property owner has no legal claim to a view of <br />the lake have any bearing on your consideration? <br />E Does the tact that the structure is accessed on both sides impact the final location of <br />structure on property? Are there additional safety concerns with moving structure closer <br />to street lot line? <br />j. What options lor improvement do Planning Commission meml>ers prefer?