10-17-1994 Planning Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

r Zoning File #1959 September 13, 1994 Page 2 Background Applicant constructed a 100 s.f. shed in 1991. noted by the Inspections Department in 1992. The shed is located partially within applicant ’s property, partially within the right-ot-way of Hillside Place, and partially on the Dakota Rail property (see survey). Hillside Place is a public right-of-way dedicated in the plat of Wallace’s Addition to the Village of Minnetonka Beach, aril in which the City maintains a sewer lateral serving portions of the neighborhtxxl to the south. The Hillside Place right-of-way is not open to public travel, and has been maintained to be perceived as a lawn by Mr. Ogland and his neighlnx to the east. In the fall of 1993, Mr. Ogland and his neighbor Mr. Stoyke applied for a vacation of Hillside Place and after review by the Planning Commission withdrew the application since it seemed the DNR was strongly opposed to such vacation. Mr. Ogland is now requesting a variance for the location of The shed, preferring to leave it in its current location rather than place it within the propeny boundaries. PleJi^ eview tlte exhibits, especially Mr. Ogland s letter of request and the survej. Also note the following: 1 he Public Works Department would as a minimum require that the property owner execute a Hold Harmless Agreement if the structure is allowed to remain on the right-of-way. There is. of course, a remote chance the City would have to excavate in Hillside Place to repair or maintain sewer line, and the City would certainly retain the rieht to move or have the owner move the shed if it was in the way. The City has no authority to grant Mr. Ogland approval to keep his shed on the Dakota Rail properly. If the shed is allowed in its current location, the City should condition such approval on the applicant obtaining an easement or as a minimum, written permission tVom Dakota Rail for such encroachment into their property. Attributing the entire footprint of the shed towards lot coverage for applicant ’s property, the shed constitutes an e.xcess in lot coverage. While the allowed lot coverace is 15^c (or 1,500 s.f. including only house and garage), applicant ’s lot coverage with the shed is 1,085 s.f. or 19.1%. A variance is required for lot coverage. Hardcover was not calculated by the applicant but appears to be in the 30% range in the 0-75 ’ zone and around 50% in the 75-250 ’ zone including the entire area of the shed. If the shed is ultimately approved, a thorough hardcover inventory' for the entire property should be required of the applicant.