07-10-1989 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MimiTBS OF RB6DLAR ORONO CODNCII. NEBTIWS m lOaiBB PIU Iiaic-BARR COHTIROBD garage to the existing garage. Nr. existing garage is nearly 1,000 s.f. to it would put him over the maxiauai 1*000 s.f* flMf requirement. He preferred to construct the additlOMl ftMf^ this fashion because it would be the least obtrusiw^. Barr sxplsiMi;^lMp-%^ Attaching snotiMIt itiiilWMii Counci 1 member Callahan stated that he would bs ineXinsd to agree with the Planning Commission's recommendation for donial* Be can see no hardship in this matter. The applicant's lot is very limited. If Nr. Barr made revisions to his plan that would not requiie variances, that would be fine. However, he would not approve any other plan. CounciImember Peterson asked Gaffron what size limitations the applicant could meet without the need for variances. The current code allows multiple accessory structures as long as they are detached. Mr. Barr could have as many 1,000 s.f. buildings as long as hardcover area limitations are adhered to. The location of the structure and how much driveway would be needed to access it will determine the maximum size the building can be to conform to an existing or decreased level of hardco^'er. ihere was a brief discussion pertaining to areas above garage structures and the potential for them to be turned into living space. City Administrator Bernhardson suggrsted that the Council return this matter to the Planning Commission. It would be necessary for them to review this application since Mr. Barr had deviated from his original plans. Also, there would need to be a review for the possibility of an after-the-fact conditional use permit for the area being occupied above the existing garage. Assistant Planning and Zoning Administrator Gaffron stated that whether the applicant needed variance approval for his proposed construction, he would still need to apply for ^ separate conditional use permit for the dwelling above the existing garage. In light of that, this matter would have to be reviewed by the Planning Commission. It was moved by Mayor Grabek, seconded by CounciImember Callahan, to refer this matter back to the Planning Commission to address the revised plan and the after-the-fact conditional use permit. Motion, Ayes*5, Nays=»0, Motion passed. #1320 DR. AND MRS. BRANDBNBORG 719 MINNETONKA HIGHIANDS LANE VARIANCE RESOLUTION #2494 The applicants were not present for this matter. City Administrator Bernhardson apprised the Council that the applicants were seeking hardcover variances to reconstruct a screen porch and existing deck on the lake side of theix home. Currently there is 3 1.8% hardcover in the 75-250’zone and would require an average lakeshore setback variance. Assistant