CCP 07-12-2004 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

most southwest property, and they appear to have added on to their principal structure past the building envelope.) . The building envelope was not always this small, When the lot was originally platted in 1956, the side setback was 30', not 40'. The newer code implemented since then has reduced the building envelope. Therefore we contend that this property cannot be developed to the same extent as others in the same area and in the same zoning, and that this constitutes a hardship. (We will individually address the five hardship criteria below.) All of the area surrounding our property is zoned R-1. Another significant feature of this property is that it is a comer lot that does not function as a comer lot. Please see the map on page 14, which shows our property with its existing driveway, and the driveways of our neighbors to the west. Dunlap St. dead ends into a grove of trees about 90' past the comer. The sole purpose of this 90' of roadway is to serve as driveway for three houses. In fact, the road at the north end is 8' narrower than at the comer, and was redone with curb and gutter last year by the city; there are no plans to widen it or push iI through. There is no traffic, so there are no sight triangles to interfere with. I ') \_- The north end of Dunlap has functioned as nothing more than a driveway for 40 years, and there is very little chance of the road ever going through. Please see the map on page 15, which shows the local area. The land immediately north, owned by CountrylMSllnsurance, is a two acre parcel, zoned R-1, but bordered on the north and west by commercial zoning and city parle According to Peter Hellegers, it would be veJ)' difficuN to ever push Dunlap st. through and add several residential lots, because iI would require wetland changes adhering to strict DNR requirements. In addition, we have spoken with Randy Hagerty, the Building Services Manager at Country/MSI Insurance, and he says that the company is very proud of the grounds, and that there are no plans to ever use the land as anything more than green space. (In fact, even if Dunlap could go through, you can see from the map that with the proposed garage addition, sight triangles would still not be a problem.) . As a result, our property functions as an interior lot. We believe iI is reasonable to ask to build up to the side setback of an interior lot. Other comer lots in the area generally have safety and sightline concerns that are not shared by this lot. Because of the unique layout of this lot and the surrounding properties, approving this variance would not set a precedent that could be invoked by other comer properties, Some other considerations for Option A: Safety: It moves the driveway away from our children's playspace. Ecology: It reduces the impervious driveway surfaces compared to Options B (p. 16) and C (p. 16). . (Options Band C will be explained further below.) Watershed/drainage: There is no change to this or any surrounding properties. 4