Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> <br />One of the roles of the Planning Commission is to again weigh whether or not there is a basis for a <br />variance that puts the property to a reasonable use that is not allowed by code due to the practical <br />difficulties that exist. If the Commission is receptive to a deviation from the code because you feel this <br />threshold has been met then city staff may suggest as an alternate design that consideration be given to <br />combining the accesses and having a shared driveway. This option presents its own set of code <br />challenges (i.e. creation of lot that does not meet definition and shared driveways are not allowed by <br />code), but it would provide some additional side yard space alongside the driveway for the front yard <br />155 feet. Shared driveways can become problematic for ongoing maintenance and use of space <br />between neighbors, but this is slightly different in that it would be roughly 20% of the driveway that is <br />shared between the two properties. There would still be ample driveway area for homeowner use and <br />dedicated parking to each property that is separate from one another. Shared driveways are not <br />prohibited in every community and they have been proven to be beneficial. Planning staff has not <br />researched shared driveways, but rather is only suggesting that there may be alternate layouts if the <br />Labore Road access is to be considered. <br /> <br />In further review of the driveway access along Labore Road another code requirement under <br />903.050D.8.g says “curb cut openings shall be at minimum five (5) feet, not including curb radius, <br />from side or rear property lines”. As proposed, the current site plan would not comply with this <br />requirement therefore an additional variance would be required to approve the site plan as submitted. <br />Thirdly, the City Attorney in their review has reiterated that economic factors such as one access over <br />another may be more expensive to construct or that a tuck under garage is harder to market should not <br />be a basis for granting a variance. They have also advised that if the City is to vary from the Keller <br />Parkway access then the landowner is required to present a strong position on damaged to the shoreline <br />and impacts of that disturbance. With the information submitted, their office has indicated that it <br />would be hard to justify one lot and the justification does not appear to have been met for two lots. <br /> <br />Finally, planning staff has included with this report some initial comments from the City Engineer <br />regarding the submittal. Staff has forwarded the Simple Subdivision and Variance request onto the <br />Ramsey/Washington County Watershed District and the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources <br />for comment. At the time of writing this report, city staff has not received any feedback back <br />regarding the proposed. <br /> <br />Based on the above, city staff is recommending denial of the variance request for a reduced lot width <br />on lots 1 and 2 along Labore Road as proposed by Mr. Yargici based on the following findings of <br />fact: <br /> <br /> Ramsey County has indicated approval in concept for creation of two access points along <br />Keller Parkway. This preliminary feedback suggests that access could be created that would <br />meet code requirements. The current configuration seeks a variance that is necessitated by <br />the landowner. <br /> City staff finds that the proposed plan does not demonstrate sufficient space for snow storage <br />that could be maintained entirely on the lots created specifically in the front yard areas <br />without discharging onto the neighboring properties. <br /> The threshold for providing supporting justification on the environmental impacts to the <br />shoreline has not been satisfied. The preference to leave the area undisturbed by the <br />homeowner is not just cause for granting approval.