03-13-1989 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Zoning File #1377 February 15, 1909 Page 2 of 2 5.Applicant notes that his attempts to purchase the property to the Immediate west have failed to date. Tn® •: proj^erty la owned by Hennepin 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 addH-lons 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. Dieeneeion - Note that applicant’s rear yard rle %t a slope of approximately 10%, just past the 250* setback line, henc^^ la likely that a future garage either be attached to the rear of ^he house or located somewhere (on or either side of) the 250* setback ^ifce. This is a narrow lot, and with the proposed additions, will leave rot quite 10* either side of the residence for future driveway purposes. Applicant’s other option would be tc construct a future garage to the front of the house, which would likely require a front setback variance. The ront yard setback for this zoning district is 30*. 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 c* rrently proposed additions would end up at approximately 10% hardcover. Options for Plannisg CoMissioii Action - Planning Commission 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 t ne 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 ’'••t 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 .^ay 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. 3. Table for further information. 4. Other.