Laserfiche WebLink
FILE#LA21-000034 <br /> May 17,2021 <br /> Page 2 of 3 <br /> • All setbacks listed are for buildings <br /> Section 78-1403—Structural Building Coverage: <br /> Preliminary calculations of the proposed lots show structural coverage for lot 1 at 23.4%, and <br /> the proposed building on lot 2 at 11.4%. The maximum permitted without a variance is 20 <br /> percent. Lot 1 would need to be approximately 7,000 sq ft larger to accommodate the structural <br /> coverage, which reduces the size of lot 2 below the 20,000 sq ft minimum. <br /> Section 78-1680 and 78-1700—Hardcover Calculations: <br /> Stormwater <br /> Overlay District Total Area in Allowed <br /> Zone Hardcover <br /> Tier <br /> Tier 2 (Lot 1) 47,017 s.f. 14,105 s.f. <br /> (30%) <br /> Tier 2 (Lot 2) 25,000 s.f. 7,500 s.f. <br /> (30%) <br /> Hardcover calculations have not yet been completed for this proposed sketch plan but are <br /> expected to be in excess of the maximum. <br /> Access. The applicants have requested permission to relocate the entrance off of Shoreline. <br /> Preliminarily,the County does not support this change(Exhibit E). Other than the drive serving • <br /> the existing parking lot to the south of the building, access is not proposed, or recommended, <br /> off of Kelly Avenue. <br /> Analysis: <br /> The proposed lot split meets the lot area and width requirements of the zoning district. However, <br /> proposed layout will likely require variances for hardcover and structural coverage for the existing <br /> building, and, as shown, a side street setback for the proposed drive through building. Staff has <br /> provided additional comment regarding the proposal in a letter dated April 30, 2021, attached as <br /> Exhibit D. These comments include a review of the parking study provided for the new building, <br /> information on business design outlined by the city code, and the stormwater/ structural <br /> coverage issues identified above. <br /> Staff does not typically support variances for subdividing property. However,given the age of the <br /> existing building and the era in which it was developed (pre stormwater regulation) some <br /> flexibility in the form of variance is likely justified to facilitate incremental reinvestment in the <br /> property. <br /> Public Comments <br /> To date, no public comments have been received. <br /> Issues for Consideration <br /> 1. Does the Planning Commission have comments regarding the proposed lot split? <br /> 2. Are there any other issues or concerns with this application? <br />