Project Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Request for Council Action continued page 3 of 4 May 10, 1996 Zoning File #2088 M -Footprint of Residence N -Elevation 0 -Planning Commission Minutes 10/20/95 Brief Review of Application At the November 1995 meeting of the Planning Commission all consideration of variances for the redevelopment of this property were delayed until the vacation and acquisition of the additional area was resolved. 5,220 s. f. of the vacated alley has increased the area of the property to 20, 143 s.f. Neighbors in attendance at the November meeting noted concern with the location of the detached garage that encroached the Landmark Drive outlot. Another neighboring property owner to the north was concerned that additions to the east of the structure would impact their views especially since structure is located 3 1/2' from the north lot line and their new structure had to meet the 50' setback. Applicant provided two options for development at the November meeting, refer to Exhibits Hl&2. Option Hl was the most preferred with the expansion to the south towards Bayside. Review Exhibit K, applicant and former owner have met with the Landmark Drive neighbors who have insisted that the existing detached garage be relocated or rebuilt so as to meet a minimum 15' setback. The Landmark Drive homeowners association president has contacted staff to confirm that they have approved the redevelopment plan as proposed by applicant. Planning Commission members asked staff to discuss the condition of the existing foundation and whether the north and west walls of the structure were to remain. The building staff had confirmed that the north and west walls will be used for the new construction but that a support wall will be installed along the east side. Note applicant has extended the support wall 6' to the east. The building staff has advised that it was not necessary that the support wall be extended 6' but could be installed adjacent to the existing wall. The majority of the improvements have been extended to the south so as not to impact the views of the neighbor to the north. Excessive hardcover exists in the 250-500' setback area as both the driveway and major portion of detached garage are located within property and must be credited against hardcover for property ( existing at 45. 5 and proposed at 48. 2 % ) . Hardcover in this setback zone are more excessive because of the limited area. Note hardcover in the 75-250' setback area is at 6.1 % . Access to the site will continue to be via the private driveway along the north lot line, review Exhibit J. The majority of Planning Commission members ( 4 of the 5) felt the applicant had addressed many of the concerns raised by members and neighbors in attendance at the November meeting. They noted that structural coverage was under the 15 % allowed for the property. The west side street setback has been improved from -2' to -3' to 15' setback. The hardships were reviewed from the earlier November review as follows: