05-17-1993 Planning PacketC - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

7.ining FUe #1826 May 13, 1993 Page 3 The applicants propose a lakeside deck, the majority of which will be placed within the 75 ’ setback where no such encroachments are encouraged and few are allowed. As for the visual impact upon adjacent residences, they would appear to be minin.al. Because of the location of the principal structure in relation to house on the west side, the deck will not be visible from the view windows of the residence. The vegetation and plantings along the east side shall minimize impact of deck upon the views from principal structure on east side and from the deck. Applicants principal structure already is located well in front of the residences on both sides. Upon your site inspection, review the area where the driveway will enter the property at the county road. Note catch basin to the east that takes drainage from county road through culvert at the west side lot lin'*. Installation of the drive will involve alterations within the countv road that may impact the underground sto:n'-■»ater facility. Applicant has been advised to contact the Hennepin County Department of Transportation as a permit is required before work can commence within right-of-way. Applicant shall be asked to provide more detailed plans on any changes in elevation or any excavations within the underground tiled area. Staff cannot schedule the application before the Council until the county has signed off on the proposed improvement. Issues for Consideration 1.Can a lakeside deck be relocated on the property to minimize impact on 75 ’ setback area? Note 24’ exists between principal structure and cast lot line. A 3 ’ wide walkway could be provided from proposed doors at lakeside providing access to lakeshore deck within side yard. Walkway would not extend any further than the principal structure at the west side. The majority of deck hardcover would now be relocated within the 75- 250 ’ setback area. Are there other improvements on the property that could be considered for removal? 3.Lot co'vtiay-e on the property has been increased 2.6%. Applicant has proposed the removal 5 ’ x 24’ shed along the west lot line. The two garages create a coverage problem for the substandard property. Can any structures be reduced in area? Applicant should be asked to respond. 4.Excesses of hardcover e.xist within the 250-500 ’ setback area. Applicant proposes a 10% decrease. If the deck/patio area at so'hie 90 s.f. adjacent to existing garage along east and north side is increased, an additional 4.4% reduction of hardcover would be realized. Paved area at 1,120 s.f. is needed to provide access to and from garage. Ik.