Laserfiche WebLink
Dm ft <br />Subjects <br />Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administrator <br />Michael P. Gaffron, Asst Planning & Zoning Administrator <br />November 22» 1988 <br />#1006 Chris 6 Dale Palm, 1710 Shadywood Road - <br />Review of Recent Hardcover Proposal <br />As a result of your recent meeting with Mrs. Palm, you have requested <br />that I review the before and after hardcover situation on the Palm <br />property. I have reviewed the original hardcover proposal, the proposal <br />that was finally approved by Council, and building plans upon which a <br />permit was actually granted, and have made a site inspection today to <br />verify what items of hardcover currently exist. Based on the attached <br />hardcover review and diagrams, I would make the following conclusions: <br />1. The house addition for which staff ultimately Issued a building <br />permit, exceeds the 17.5% hardcover allowed per Resolutions #1936 6 <br />2415, by 39 s.f. or 0.6%. An additional 67 s.f. of hardcover <br />comprised of a concrete step and rock beds over permeable fabric were <br />never given written authorization from staff (during the time the <br />fabric was placed under the rock, it is feasible that staff gave <br />applicants' builder a verlble OK to place the fabric). Total existing <br />0-75' hardcover is 19.7%. <br />2. In the 75-250' zone, the current hardcover comprised of house with <br />attached garage, covered walkway, gravelled driveway, rock and fabric <br />landscape bed, and the pre-existing garage and concrete driveway areas <br />associated with it, result in a currently existing hardcover of 44.4%, <br />far in excess of the 29% allowed in Resolution #1936. This comprises <br />a 1,578 s.f. hardcover excess. <br />3. In the 75-250' zone, applicant suggests that removal of the <br />existing gravel driveway and non-use of the attached garage as a <br />garage, should allow her to keep the existing detached garage and <br />concrete driveway areas associated with it. She also maintains that <br />the house is smaller than was originally proposed, however the fact is <br />that the addition was widened and lengthened in such a manner that the <br />house is actually larger than was approved. In fact, removal of the <br />gravel driveway and removal of the rock/fabric beds will still leave a <br />640 s.f. hardcover exces& within the 75-250' zo In order to meet <br />the 29% limitation, not <*: Xy the gravelled driv j, but the bulk of <br />the existing concrete parking apron would have t^' be eliminated. In <br />my opinion, his would leave little or no room for guest parking nor <br />would leave room for a back-up apron. It also would not accomplish <br />the removal of a non-conforming garage structure that is 4.7' from the <br />right-of-way line and about 1.5' from the neighbors' property line.