02-21-1989 Planning Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

..... nces to remodel Him ££ Motes truct a 2-story remodeling the to remodel the Issued. There p. irlance at the s surveyor has it 9.1' £rom the Le of the house -nv";-. ;•;:nKi'. jssir-. it is mostly d driveway are (50* zone hence t for hardcover sly 24.5%. The p«i"l felilK' existing garage re option is to will require ind acquisition that garage, it ily 40% if the ttached to the house, 75-250* M. - ":'-0 '4‘p : ■■ * -■ pg»i»S'SU« S»r: :g m ■ «u-.-: •'—.1 nf^- :r’ V ■_; .^*tesa ;ji:-:rs«-'';--' ,i,s!■•' ;•■•■■ :;ito L.«v *:..•_■■.• i'- 'f •" jacfce*.—. v^/,.. Hii■■ f. . ■■' :i!■ •:«-tr3if»„v I im&siMmmBm,■ ., ■■.:w^.. -I ii?S fe--- ■/' Zoning Pile *1377 February 15, 1989 Page 2 of 25.Applicant notes that his attempts to purchase the property to the immediate west have failed to date. That property is owned by County for highway purposes, and you may recall it was turned down by the City for variances to construct a residence about 3 years ago. The County apparently has some long-term future plan to straighten out the S-curve in County Road 19. However, staff discussions with the County indicate that there is no projected date for such an occurrence, and it may be 20 or 30 years into the future, given that traffic on this portion of County Road 19 is not expected to increase significantly in the near future. As a result, applicant is proposing to construct additions to the rear of his house rather than to the front, anticipating that the County will ultimately need some portion of his front yard for roadway purposes.0^.mM Dleeuesion - Mote that applicant's rear yard rises at a slope of approximately 18%, P**^ the 250' setback line, hence it is likely that a future garage •lth®r bo Abb&chod to tho roar of tho hojso or locotod sooiowhoro (on either side of) the 250' setback line. This is a narrow lot, and with the proposed additions, will leave not quite 10' either side of the residence for future driveway purposes. Applicant's other option would be to construct a future garage to the front of the house, which would likely require a front setback variance. The front yard setback for this zoning district is 30'. ^ ’’i 4i m-:-I:'-""' %-vM For discussion purposes, if the entire lot was considered as being within the 75-250' zone (which is not consistent with City practice when defining hardcover allowances), the currently proposed additions would end up at approximately 18% hardcover. mmmmm j Options for Planning Commission Action - Planning Ccxnmlsslon has the following options: 1. Recommend approval based on findings that support such a recommendation. Those findings could Include references to the size and shape of the lot, the location and skewness of the house in relation to existing lot lines, and the location of the 250' setback line. Additional findings for the 0.9' side setback variance to the would Include the fact that there is no existing residence on the neighboring property to the west and that property has been denied variances to construct a residence and is now owned by Hennepin County. Planning Commission may wish to address specifically the need for future hardcover associated with a future garage on the property, considering that variances will undoubtably be necessary to construct such a garage. 2. Recommend denial making findings that support denial of the requested variances. mmm 3. Table for further information. 4. Other.:S.VvK # rssipilV. wStesimm Km •. i‘ . . / • ..r* :. * . iV':,-;-': ■; fX.X . H 11 y:-f¥-yyy--iy&B- ^ X ■■M rL^X^'^:'X-XXri mmMy ■ -w,' mmi- L0mM m mmssm ■■mm