03-19-2007 Planning Commission Packet

Home Browse Search

'� _ . #07-3259 1374 Rest Point Road March 14,2007 Page 5 ' With tlle proposed project, overall site hardcover remains at aboui 1300 s.f. inore fi11an this site would normally be allowed. The hardcover calculatioils iiiciicate about 600 s.f. of llardcover is associated with the pool in the 0-75' zone,phis a�i aciditioiial 300 s.f. for walls aud walkways. The combination of hardcover additions and removals yields a proposed 75-250' hardcover "equivalent" of 5,891 s.f when tlie site would norinally be allowed 4,576 s.f. The City's 1999-2004 review of lakeshore rebtulds suggested t11at for lakeshore lots with 75-250' zones of 16,000 to 20,000 s.f., oi�ly 2 of 6 properties were gra.nted variances, and those only for 28%. The other 4 met the 25% liinitation. While the pool is an attractive anienity for this site, it is the primary reason for excess hardcover on the property. Platuung Comnussion must consider whether sufficient hardship or justification is present to allow it to remairi. Ciiy Engineer's Comments � The City Engiiieer reviewed the grading and draiiiage plaii submitted witli the initial proposal and provided written comments (Exhibit H of 2/15/07 memo). Those corruzients have not been � completely addressed with the revised site plan, but are seen by staff as issues that do not substantially affect the site layout or hardcover variance review. Staff would suggest that if this application is moved forward by Planning Commission, the engineering issues need to be resolved before this is presented to Council. Issues for Consideration . � . 1. Should the pool be allowed to remain in conjtinction with this project tliat is being considered as a total rebuild? Is there any justificafiion for a hardcover variance in either zone? It can Ue argued that the pool is the sole reasoii for the hardcover variances needed. The proposed house has beeii relocated and modified so that it cail be constructed a.nd attached to the gaxage without the izeed for any variances other than the 9.1' existing garage setback. With over 4500 s.f of liardcover allowauce, the lot certainly has the ability to contain the proposed 2250 s.f. of house and garage and the triple-wide 850 s.f. of existing driveway,plus a few other ainenities. � 2. Does Plaiuiing Conimission have aliy conceriis about coiinecting�lie house to the garage when the garage has a slightly substandard side setback? 3. Because removal of the principal Uuild'uig automatically t�iggers the provisions of Section 78-1432,requirin�reiiloval of non-conformiiig accessory structures and requiring an'`agreenient' for retention of coiiforming accessory structures, a valiance to this section is teclmically required in order to retain the garage and/or the pool.