Laserfiche WebLink
r <br />Zoning File #1947 <br />July 13. 1994 <br />Paee 3 <br />Review of Current l*roposiil <br />The module would now be located 10' from the street lot line. Application #1874 <br />proposed a 28 ’ setback. 'Fite storage module has doors on both sides of the structure. Planning <br />Commission members were under the impression that the storage facility would be accessed only <br />on one side Review Exhibit J. The storage module will now abut landscaped area along the <br />west/sireet lot line. Review E.xhibit I, note that an existing planting will be removed along the <br />north side with the installation of the storage imxlule. Applicant proposes plantings witl'-n the <br />10 ’ landscape area and along the south and north side. Special care must be given to any <br />plantings within the 10 ’ wide landscape area because of the sighting issues at the intersection <br />with the County road. As structure must be accessed on both sides, there will be a need to <br />provide adequate space to facilitate access along the west side of structure. The storage module <br />will occupy one parking stall as opposed to original proposal that resulted in the loss ot two <br />stalls. Review E.xhibit E, note letter from Minnetonka Center for the Arts. <br />Review Exhibit D. The DNR limits approval of any impiovement to no net increase in <br />imperv ious surface. Note the module will be extended northward within a portion of a non ­ <br />hardcover area. Applicant must provide for a non-hardcover surface in another area to offset <br />increase of approximately 20 -b square feet of new hardcover. <br />Issues for Consideration <br />1. How should landscaping be addressed adjacent to curb cut^ at intersection ot County- <br />Road? ... limit on maximum growth height to 3’? ... other.^ <br />2.If plan is approved, applicant must designate non-hardcover area to ottset 20-some square <br />feel expansion of 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 irap.ici of an 8' hiiih. 8' x 20' storage module il placed within <br />parking stall 34. Does the fact that the property owner has no legal claim to a view ol <br />the lake have any bearing on your consideration? <br />4.Does the fact that the structure is accessed on both sides impact the tinal location o <br />structure on property? Are there additional safety concerns with moving structure closer <br />to street lot line? <br />5.What options for improvement do Planning Commission members prcacr.^ <br />A