06-23-1997 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

. I #2247 June 12,1997 Page 2 increase hardcover to 32%. The second curb cut, if proposed, would require approval of the Public Services Director. It is unclear whether applicants intend to provide a separate driveway access to serve the proposed building. It appears hardcover is and can remain conforming with this proposal. Lot coverage by structures including the proposed building will be 2,632 s.f. or 14.9%, conforming to the 15% limit. Analysis of Request The following factors have resulted in applicant's request for setback variances: 1. Topograph^' of the site. The north half of the rear yard is level, significantly higher than the street. The lot then drops off sharply to the south side, and has been graded into a terrace to accomodate the proposed building. The new house has a south facing walkout door. A steep, long driveway would be necessary to gain vehicular access to a structure centered in the rear yard at the higher level while maintaining the walkout access to the house. It should be noted that preliminary grading for the proposed building apparently was done at the time grading for the new house was completed. This grading work has resulted in minor filling in the City right-of-way however, and slopes are very steep. A grading plan showing how maintainable slopes will be provide must be submitted prior to building permit issuance if the variance is approved; and all fill must be removed from the right-of-way. 2. Existing vegetation. A 36" oak tree near the southeast comer of the house would be jeapordized by moving the front of the proposed building nearer the center of the lot. Existing lilac bushes would also be impacted. These bushes, however, do not provide significant screening in the neighborhood and in staffs opinion their preservation is not justification for a variance. 4. 5. Hardcover. Moving the building further north to meet setbacks would potentially result in increased driveway hardcover if a driveway is proposed. Storage Need. Applicant apparently has a need to provide additional storage on the site. Planning Commission may wish to explore why such a large accessory building is needed. Side Street. The side street shown on the survey as 'Forest Avenue' is an unimproved dedicated City right-of-way. This corridor provides potential future access to the Highwood nature area, and serves as a drainageway. If vacated, the northerly half of this right-of-way would accrue to applicants property, and no setback variances would be needed. However, this right-of-way should not be vacated as it may serv'e future public access purposes. 4