Laserfiche WebLink
I* <br />Request for Couti'^il Action continued <br />Page 3 <br />October 19,2000 <br />#2630 Gregg and Stephanie Larsen <br />2.Should the applic2int be allowed to trade existing driveway (which significantly exceeds the <br />driveway allowance approved in 1987) for additional deck in excess of the 135 s.f. deck that <br />previously existed? <br />Stan’RecommendatioD: No, based on the 1987 approval which allowed much less driveway <br />than currently exists. <br />3.Should the excess driveway that currently exists be allowed to remain in light of the 1987 <br />allotment? (1,299 s.f. existing vs 810 s.f. allowed in 1987) <br />StafTRecommendation: The driveway access already exceeds the maximum 20' width allowed <br />by Code Section 6.05 Subd. 9B. The 30' width allowed in 1987 is warranted by the narrowness <br />of Rest Point Road and the fences which restrict visibility along it, as well as the lack of on* <br />street parking due to the narrowness of the road. All portions of driveway in excess of 30'x27' <br />as approved in 1987 should be removed. Unfortunately, the current owner will be penalized <br />for actions or inactions of his precedent owners, which Council may wish to consider... <br />STAFF RECOMMENDATION <br />1.Approve the 0-75* variances for replacement of retaining w-alls as proposed, subject to a <br />vegetative screening plan to be approved by staff prior to issuance of a land alteration permit <br />for the walls. <br />Approve a 75-250' hardcover variance as follows: <br />a) Applicant to remove 1,727 s.f of plastic/fabric from landscaping areas. <br />Applicant to reduce driveway from 1,299 s.f to 810 s.f <br />Applicant allowed to replace the former 135 s.f deck with a new 135 s.f patio. <br />Final 75-250' hardcover as follows: <br />Existing house/attached garage/covered porch 2,650 s.f <br />Driveway after removals 810 s.f <br />Concrete & wood steps 135 s.f <br />New Patio 135 s.f. <br />Total 3,730 s.f (41.2%) <br />b) <br />c) <br />d) <br />COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED <br />Option 1. Refer application back to Planning Commission for further consideration of <br />information that has come to light since the October 16 meeting. <br />Option 2. Adopt the attached resolution based on the above Staff Recommendation. <br />1