#2370 Scanned File - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

I;: i #2370 -O'Keefe June 11, 1998 Page 2 A revised grading plan has not been submitted, although applicant notes that while the walkout excavation has been abandoned, he would like to do some shaving in the 0-75' zone along the northwest side to match the neighboring elevations. Staff is concerned how this will impact a remaining 20" maple in this area. Hardcover The revised hardcover proposal includes some changes to the driveway and patio concepts. A backup or parking area near the garage is proposed, as well as a "percolating paver" patio at the northwest corner of the house, just off of the kitchen and screen porch. While no detail information has been submitted about the specific paver material proposed, in all past applications the City has considered such materials as hardcover, regardless of their permeability, much the same as weed-control fabrics in landscape beds. Including the patio and reconfigured driveway, proposed hardcover in the 75-250' zone is 6,505 s.f. or 42.8%, as compared with 41.4% in the first proposal and 26.2% existing. Also, the revised proposal has significantly more driveway in the south 0-75' zone than the first plan, approximately 1100 s.f. as compared to just 600 s.f. See the following comparison table: Hardcover: ---i / I Existing 1st Pro12osal Revised Pro12osal Allowed 0-75' N. 496 sf ( 6.3%) 0 sf (0%) 0 sf (0%) 0 sf (0%) 75-250' 3985 sf (26.2%) 6288 sf (41.4%) 6,505 sf ( 42.8%) 3800 sf (25%) 0-75' S. 2284 sf (29.6%) 605 sf (7.8%) 1,100 sf (14.2%) 0 sf (0%) 6765 sf 6893 sf 7,605 sf 3800 sf A variance to allow 40% hardcover in the 75-250' zone for a complete rebuild is not necessarily in keeping with the City's normal practice of holding new construction to a higher hardcover standard than when an existing home is added onto. The primary factor that supports some degree of hardcover variance is that the 75-250' zone is reduced in size by having lake on both ends of the lot. While there is nothing 'magic' about the existing overall site hardcover number (6,765 s.f.), it would appear somewhat inconsistent to allow an increase in hardcover for a total site redevelopment when the total site is already significantly over the hardcover limits. Planning Commission's suggested reduction of the 75-250' zone to 40% could have resulted in a plan that was less than 6,765 s.f. overall if the driveway had not increased and the patio was not proposed. If there is a need to have added driveway with the current plan, that need should be documented so that Planning Commission can determine whether it constitues a hardship or is merely a factor in the total site hardcover balance. Planning Commission must weigh all these factors in reaching a recommendation.