02-19-2013 Planning Commission Packet

Home Browse Search

� . Council Exhibit G NEW BUSINESS 2. 12-3582 COLSON CUSTOM HOMES ON BEHALF OF BWB HOLDINGS,4731 NORTH SHORE DRNE,VARIANCE,6:33 P.M.—6:52 P.M. Rodney Colson with Colson Custom Homes was present. Curtis stated the applicant is requesting a lot area, lot width, side�treet setback and bluff setback variances in order to construct a new single-family residence. T�e vanas�ces equested are generally consistent with a previous approval for the properly that a�exp ed: � � � Curtis stated in 2006, a number of variances were granted for both��he� s�b�ect property and the neighboring property to the east at 4725 North Shore Drive�in o d�e'r+�b�omple#e`a lo�`l.ine�"'e 'arrangement and a vacation combining three lots into two lots. The home on the neighborin lot was constructed in 2007 by the developer. �� Due to some typographical errors in the resolution that t e,,�Cit��iled with the county,Hennepin County returned it to the City for corrections. Prior to the certificate of oc u,pancy being issued,both properties went into foreclosure and returned to the bank. In�2"d10 the bank remoyedthe 2006 approvals in order to resolve the issues with the resolutions and sell e properties se arately. � � The applicant wishes to construct a home wath a nearly identicalplan�as was originally approved in 2006. This plan requires lot area,lot width, side and stceet se�back�arid bluff setback variances. In 2006, hazdcover variances were granted. HowevE.,due to �e City's�cei��revised hardcover regulations,this proposal fits into the allowed 25 pe�rc nt�or�ier 1 roperties so the�hardcover variance is no longer being requested. The property abuts a 3�-foot v�ide unde eloped-str�etnght-of-way. The previous variance approval reflected an allowed side�stree�etback of 3.feet. The applicant is requesting a 10-foot setback from the right-of-way to allo �o�more functional�gara„ge giv n the limited driveway on the property. � �. In 2006,the bluff was shown 2 �eet from e corner of the proposed home,which is outside the bluff impact zone�but'`til wi�ht�the 30-�foot setbacl�The applicant provided a revised survey today showing the top�o�bluff and it appears`to be co sistent witfi�tr�he previous survey. The proposed home is consistent with t�h�previously-app,�o�ed plan,.�Due to e oth�e,r constraints of the property,the proposed site for the new home may still be tlierbest 1QCat�n. The oprof bluff is 19 feet from the proposed deck. ta.ff wo°uld suggest that the d ck be xelocated or redesigned to have the least amount of encroachment "n�o the bi"'uff,s�etback area. Staff�finds that the practical diff'iculties that the 2006 approvals were based on still�exist with�he property. It ay be appropriate to reconfigure this deck to reduce the degree of encroac 'ent int�e setbac . :.,_ �' �;� � . - . ��- Staff recomme ds approva of the variances as requested. The applicant should address all recommendations bf the City Engineer with the building permit application. Curtis illustrated the prop�sed plan on the overhead and pointed out the location of the street elevation, the front door and side loading gaxage. Staff has performed an analysis of the elevation and the house does fit into the defined height requirement. Landgraver asked where the deck is located. Curtis pointed out the location of the proposed deck on the northwest elevation. Curtis noted a patio is also shown on the plan.