12-16-1985 Planning Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

To Planning Commission Members From: Michael P. Gaffron, Assistant Zoning Administrator Date:December 9, 1985 Subject: #996 James McNaughton, 1800 Shadywood Road - Variance Zoning District - LR-IC, 1/2 Acre Application - Hardcover variance to pave driveway and backup apron. List of Exhibits Exhibit A - Exhibit B - Exhibit C - Exhibit D - Exhibit E - Exhibit P - Exhibit G - Exhibit H - Exhibit I - Application Plat Map Property Owners List Sketch of Request by Owner Sketch to Scale by Staff (On Survey) Hardcover Calculations Staff Letter to Builder 9/27/85 Resolution #1718-A Duane Barth's Letter of November 1984 You will recall that the vacant lot at 1800 Shadywood Road was allowed to be built upon per Variance Resolution #1718-A approximately one year ago. The new home is substantially completed now. However, the new owner, Mr. McNaughton, is requesting a variance to allow 36.4% hardcover in the 75—250' setback zone (rather than the 25% allowed) in order to constiuct a paved driveway rather than the "grass paver" or "strip" driveway, which was originally proposed in order to meet the hardcover requirements. Remember that developer, Duane Barth, in the original lot area and width variance application, stated that he could meet the hardcover requirements by using an alternative type driveway. Mr. McNaughton now claims the 'grass pavers will not be suitable under a full-year usage situation and in this climate, which may in fact be true. Staff knows of no location in the area that has installed "grass pavers", hence we have little to go on as far as their suitability for driveway purposes. At this point, the driveway is graveled approximately in the con figuration Mr. McNaughton would like to pave. The gravel was placed with out staff review and the applicant was notified after its placement that it exceeded the hardcover requirements. The applicant was given the option to remove the gravel and adhere to the 25% limit or to leave it in place temporarily (thru the winter) pending the result of his variance appli cation. Given the fact that a lot area and lot width variance was granted than a year ago, and that the original applicant was very aware of the City's hardcover concerns and requirements, is there a hardship shown now that would justify a variance? (NOTE: in Resolution #1718-A note that hardcover is limited to 2280 s.f. or 25%. The surveyor's subsequent calculation showed that the lot is slightly larger than originally calculated by staff, and 25% is 2444 s.f.)