03-10-2003 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

r f 3^- #03-2865 1973 Fagerncst Point Road February 13,2003 Page 2 On December 9 Council reviewed the application for boulder retaining walls and briefly reviewed the other outstanding unresolved issues with the property. They indicated the shed on the east lakeshore must be removed and applicant w as advised to apply for variances for the parking area and the west deck. Such application has been made, but applicant has additionally included a request for additional hardcover for a deck in the area between the house and garage. Hardcover and structural coverage for a similar (but smaller) deck was denied in a prior application (File U 02-2778, Resolution No. 4788 adopted April 22, 2002). Because each of the three aspects of this request is in a separate hardcover zone, they will be treated individually for the sake of clarity. 1. Gravel Parking Area - East 0-75' Zone The most recent survey on file for the property (November 5,2002) indicates an easterly 0-75' zone of approximately 3600 s.f. based on directly extended lot lines to include the accretions east of the road right-of-way. Applicants submitted hardcover calculations incorrectly include road right-of-way in the area calculation. Staff has received no indication that Manley ’s title registration action to formalize their ownership of the accretions has been completed. Neither the survey nor the detail sheet indicate any angling of the north line to accommodate the neighboring property owners who expressed concerns at the PC meeting last fall. The result of this is that the total square footage of the east 0-75' zone is potentially not yet established, and therefore the percentage to be covered by gravel parking area is potentially subject to change. Assuming, how ever, that the shed will be removed as directed by Council, and that the only other hardcover in the east 0-75' zone is the 400 s.f. gravel parking area, this yields an easterly 0-75' hardcover of 11.1 %. The surv’ey suggests that the existing paved road surface ends about 8' from the edge of the right-of-way. This either means that the 20'x20' gravel area will add 28'deepx20'widc of hardcover, or it means that only 12' of the gravel will be on the property, with the remainder on the right-of-way. It’s unclear from the drawings what is proposed. Worst case is the 28'x20' scenario with the pavement being about 25' from the shoreline. The possible parking area in front of the garage is 17'-19' deep from the door to the traveled paved roadw ay. The average compact car is 14' long, and nothing longer than that could comfortably park in front of the garage without affecting traffic. With a road w idth only 18' -20' wide, there really is no ability to parallel park cars on the street. A parking area for two vehicles on the east side of the road would potentially be of benefit to the neighborhood as well as to the applicant in terms of safety and reducing congestion. The dow nside is that cars will be parked very near the lake. If Planning Commission concludes that a 20'x20' parking area is a reasonable request, and that the existing road and parking conditions as well as the location of the garage near the lot line all suppon a hardcover variance, then staff would suggest three conditions to any approval granted: