|
J
<br /> Bremer inc�uired whether the Commission feels there are allowances oc llardships wifih respect to the
<br /> . . ..a.
<br /> access,site topography, ancl bluffto 111ow a home on the westernmost lot(4731),which functionally will
<br /> ,
<br /> be a walk-out liome with two levels above but would actually be defined as a three-story house by the
<br /> City's current methods.
<br /> �.�,::
<br /> �t 4 �J��5
<br /> ��J i T����.j!'P}7 Fl,{�7�`'O�Y�
<br /> . r�! �S :c+� iA'rv`' .
<br /> }!t ���'�s G*��'�.'��zT
<br /> �,�`§„ "'41,�3aw�,�p�?�`�
<br /> Curtis noted this is a question she would like the Planuiugy�Comm�ssion to discuss but that it is not
<br /> . . j}��N�i A"'�'�$ �ai53��y,��k����2��`f'��F d,
<br /> �� z a1�'�4aA'N ♦��i �°�.2 r L
<br /> necessar.ily the case in this application. Cut�tis stated the�challe►iges o�the lof�make iC��tery dt�cult to
<br /> �� � �����z���tF��1 itd������ v;�;���E�-'��:u����.�+'�4���fy'�
<br /> " construct a two and a half stor house. �'``���}f`�'k�1=�`'�� � ���,"h��r'�'�,"��`s �
<br /> o�;
<br /> Y �i�j�l��9��F d C4ti� �`4��t��a�
<br /> f t�r��s�l��.'-;��,q Fi p.�h,
<br /> �e`�` ayxf��'���'����'2t�a�4�a}i,�.
<br /> Bremer stated the Planning Commission is veiy consisten�on�ifs height restrictions aud that she would
<br /> `� `",� � ��
<br /> � '����t�z����
<br /> not be iu favor of allowin an hin over two and a half stories R���'���'2r �,
<br /> g Yt g 4, � ��� , ���� �,:s.�?75
<br /> ���������y�����`������ �������
<br /> a�r t 4 � '"�.�,� � �s:N
<br /> It was tlie consensus of the Planning Comm�ssion that tl�ey°w4ould not be in favor of a residence in excess
<br /> e�}�,�,���� ��-p�'�5�`i�'�,s�;���'� '��.��
<br /> �t. t+ X�1'� f.t?k' ���,h.Y�k' '�.�', ,a�.��
<br /> of two and a half stories: �r;�����q� ���� ��, .���c�?���;
<br /> �� ;. �
<br /> �s`}�� �`���`�x ��Y��;����
<br /> � y� ,.'�r; � ci�>
<br /> Bremer inquired of the Planning Co„�mmi.ssion whether tfie home o�.the western lot should be moved
<br /> j�"��'�h�-��� g��`��'4y,�'s�,s��`�
<br /> closer to the county road to allow for reorientation o�the dr��ewa
<br /> �#�,�j`��; `4 �������r:.r y.
<br /> <,,���#��;T� +�°�� �r.'�;`� c,e
<br /> �:
<br /> Curtis noted if the l�ome wer'e;relocated closer to the road,a variance to the rear yard setback would be
<br /> ��''�#'-��_�
<br /> °��r��-r'�
<br /> required but��uFld'allowµfor additiona�(off stceet parking.
<br /> E`'``���'�`y��y�'ir€. '4Ar2�.� �T 4 1"��`tf� �4
<br /> ���s}.d-�� t�°ya���'���,+��t�� �}tt�✓'�r Q��i �`5' .
<br /> �,,,� P 54'��{v`�� �'�e"a,c'4 =4`'35. � �*A`'�sr�r1Y�';n"
<br /> , Kemp���stat�ed he would n���t��e�op�osed to relocat�g`the house closer to the road since it is consistent with
<br /> �, yi �_.,
<br /> �, �-+�'-x��h� `�'k9?.�;k�,��.v.{,f'fw,+1-?.. � TE � .
<br /> the o�her�iomes in the neigh6orhood:��:. �
<br /> ���`��w�. � `�'���"� . '
<br /> 1��?�' ,�,� � �,�. �dr+'��s.�:� •
<br /> Rahn sYated if there is no method,xfor:the driveway to be moved closer to the property line, he would not
<br /> '� ���+a�� ., -'�,tR�
<br /> ��.�t���'$m�s g���a� ��.�P"�.�,
<br /> be oppos.ed t�ot t�:e h,ouse being relocated.
<br /> �'�,�q���;��t�I�'4�n {.�������'Y� . .
<br /> ��S�. f� ��:
<br /> 4* I 3� .3.R�yG F'i+F� F�+ .'
<br /> Jurgeils stated`re�ocattrig�lie house closer to the road would result in tlie driveway beco�liing steeper
<br /> ����x�'f,��z����t�:F���
<br /> �,;.��, �,���t�:
<br /> unless the garage�s iaised and that he personally feels a 20-24 percent driveway is not a good option for
<br /> ����'� .
<br /> driveways in Minnesota. Jurgens stated there is bacely enough room on the western lot to park a car in
<br /> fi•ont of the garage without hanging over into the neighboring lot. Jurgens sfated in his opinion an unsafe
<br /> condition is being created with the current design of the driveway.
<br /> Bremer inquired whether the liouse should be oriented fiirther to tlie west.
<br />
|