Laserfiche WebLink
FILE#05-3136 <br /> � 9 August 2005 <br /> Page 5 of 6 <br /> . Hardship Analysis <br /> br consideriitg app/icaiioirs for vrrriaiice, lhe Pla�uting Cornmission shal! conslder t/re effect of the <br /> proposed vrrriance upo�r t/re Irea/t/r,safc�ty a�:d welfare of't/re co»tnruniry, exisling niid a�rticip�rled trnffrc <br /> cnnditions, ligllt rrnd air, drurger of fire, risk to Ure public safety, aird ll�e effect a� vnlues of property iu <br /> tfre surrou�rrling aren. The Pla►uri�rg Cnnrrnissiofr s/ra!!carsider recnnnne�r�liirg approva! jor vnriances <br /> fro�n tlre literu!provisions of tlre Znrring Cotle iir i�rslu�rces w/rere t/reir strlct enjnrcement wo�rld cause <br /> urrdue lrnnls/tip becacrse of clrccn�rstn�rces �uriqrre to 1/re i►rdivi�lua/property u»rler cofrsideratiar, arrc! <br /> s/ral! recoinnrenrl approvaJ nnly wlreir it is demarstraJed t/►al such actiorrs wil!be in keeping wilh t/re <br /> spirit a�id intent of tlre Orono Zonifrg Code. <br /> Staff finds that the location of the adjacent home to the west creates an unusual average <br /> lakeshore setback line. The applicant has proposed to construct the new home completely <br /> behind ihe site of the existing home to better the average lakeshore setback situation. <br /> With respect to Dave Zetterstrom's (Hennepin County) comments on the originally <br /> submitted plan regarding the County Road 15 access, the Plaruiing Commission should <br /> discuss the merit of relocating the driveway so the property only has access off of <br /> Heritage Drive. With the revised plans the applicant has proposed to develop guest <br /> parking off of Heritage Drive and keep the existing driveway off of County Road I5. <br /> Staff feels that only one access to the property is appropriate and the applicant cannot <br /> have both guest parking off of Heritage Drive and a driveway off of County Road 1 S (see <br /> Exhibit H). <br /> Issues for Discussion <br /> 1. The City Engineer commented on an initial site plan (Exhibit F), please discuss the <br /> City Engineer's conunents regarding the initial proposal, are any of the comments <br /> applicable to the current version of the plan? <br /> 2. Due to the high traffic on County Road 15 should the applicant be encouraged to <br /> abandon the driveway access off of CR 15 and construct a new access from Heritage <br /> where he has proposed guest parking? <br /> 3. Is the guest parking appropriate in its proposed location off of Heritage or should the <br /> applicant be required to accommodate necessary guest parking within the existing <br /> driveway and turnaround? <br /> 4. The proposed 500' driveway is 5' from the south lot line leaving no place for visual <br /> screening of the 145' length of the house. What are the visual impacts to the property <br /> to the south? <br /> 5. Does the Plan.ning Commission feel that the grading proposed is unnatural and <br /> specifically contrived to create a walk-out basement on both the front and rear sides <br /> of the home? Would basement look-out level windows be more appro�riate for the <br /> site? <br /> 6. Does the Planning Commission have any other issues or concerns with this <br /> application? <br /> Staff Recommendation <br /> Plaruling Staff recommends approval of the lot width and average lakeshore setback <br /> variances subject to the City�ngineer's approval of the proposed gr�ding plan for a look- <br /> out basement. <br /> 5 <br />