01-16-2007 Planning Commission Packet

Home Browse Search

. conditions, and the conditions of the site have not changed since the previous resolution and it . seems reasonable to continue the permitted 34.2% impervious percentage to allow the owners to bui(d their third garage stall, especially given the previous landscaping removals which anticipated this project allow the property to maintain the hardcover conformify permitted in the 2002 � resolution. . Additionaf Arguments Why is a third stall necessary? The proposed improvement now the subject of this variance applicafion is a request to add a third garage stall. There are many homes on this street, as well as throughout the neighborhood, that maintain a third garage stall and this application request is generated from the identifiable need to add this third stall. It is a common consideration in this neighborhood that homes are going to have more than two cars, or ofher outdoor items such as mowers, blowers, boats, ATVs, etc and parking them within a garage structure during Minnesota seasonal weather conditions is a characferistic that is not considered a mere convenience. I_s_the proposed design the best for the property? . The design for the proposed garage addition takes into account the exisfing conditions of the site. The new garage configuration is planned out in front of the existing house and garage in order to avoid conflict with the side yard requirements [Because the existing garage is only 6.1 feet from the � side property line, it isn't possible place the new stall between the existing garage and the side . property line]. Additionally, with the existing mudroom and point of entry connected to the existing ` garage, it doesn't make sense to add a third stall at the opposite end of the house. More driveway (which would add additional hardcover) and another point of entry [via the bedroom wing] would be required. Can't the driveway be narrowed or the turnaround area eliminafed? As previously discussed during the 2002 variance request, it was noted that the existing house structure sits well back from the lake (134.3 ft at its nearest point). However, because of the lot depfh, the garage sits 145 feet from the street side properfy line, accounting for the very long driveway. The garage sits along the northern border of the property and requires a turn-around to back vehicles out before traversing the 145-ft driveway. Because of its locafion and need for a turnaround, the vehicular aspect of the property is somewhaf unique. As previously noted, the driveway represents 2201 SF of impervious surface, all necessary to allow cars to safely enter the garage, turn around, and exit the property. It is conceivable that the driveway be reduced in size to allow vehicles to enter the garage, but to eliminate enough square footage to bring the property into compliance would require the elimination of fhe turnaround. It is certainly possible to argue that the unique nature of the garage location, along with its distance back from the street requires a degree of impervious surface that makes it a hardship. The applicant does not wish to remove the turnaround area of the driveway for safety reasons. Pheasant Road is a neighborly area of many young families, and to require the owners and visitors to back out into the street is putfing impervious surface considerations ahead of the public welfare. Is the property still in compliance with at least the intent of the Hardcover Ordinance? The intent of the hardcover ordinance is to prevent overcrowding on Orono properties, which can lead to negative impacts on water and drainage issues in the lakeshore impact zones. Many other � Lake Minnetonka municipalities embrace a similar 25% impervious surface ratio for the same � �r �7 ;=�zs,,;�,,. t""-��i<:a �i_';.;.>�� l �J " / � '•� )J , f:s'; ,.. L:<��,�,.� 7�� ' f'�:� f ..r ..sr� �y.(.'��:�`i: i.... .i: �'�� '7 11 ,,( _ ';i�j' .r�^�i:% n y�;� �gi, �. . A.,:�.� �:'a :- n `�•,, ..:� �.ti,. ,�E;�% I �•, :_: 1`:�;r,,r.-_.::� t„_..::,:i:� �, . �