06-18-2007 Planning Commission Packet

Home Browse Search

, 07-3290 June 18,2007 Page 3 of 5 J. Staff photographs of property K. City Engineer's Report Background This application was tabled to allow further clarification of the hardcover included in the building permit and amendment of the application to address compliance with hardcover regulations for the entire property. The Applicant has amended the application to reduce the amount of weed control fabric that would be removed. This house was constructed in 1990 with no variances. In 2000 a conditional use permit was granted for land alteration and retaining walls in the 0 to 75 foot zone. Included in the CUP was a variance for 433 square feet of hardcover in the form of retaining walls. The house is a partial two-story with a full walkout toward the lake. On the lake side it has a large deck off the dining area and a minimal deck off the master suite. Both are on the main level. How the property came to have 38.16 percent hardcover in the 75 to 250 foot zone was not immediately clear. There were two sets of hardcover calculation in City files, one from when the building permit was issued,the other from the conditional use permit application. The following table compares these calculations as well as those submitted with this application. (Minor differences between sets of calculations can be explained by the change from hand drawn surveys and area calculations done with a planimeter to surveys done with computer aided design programs that automatically generate area calculations.) Hardcover Permitted Pro osed Existing Existing Building 2007 1999 Permit s .ft. s .ft. s .ft s .ft. House . 5265 5265 5108 5457 Driveway 2970 2970 2670 960 Sidewalk 273 273 102 198 Deck 840 450 450 385 Retaining Walls 188 188 Weed Barrier Fabric 1059 1849 1300 Other 3 8 3 8 TOTAL 7,228 10,633 11,033 9,630 7,000 25% 36.78% 38.16% 34.64% 25% There is 3,805 square feet more hardcover in the 75 to 250 than permitted. Subtracting the weed barrier fabric leaves 1,956 square feet. The larger driveway accounts for all of this. Staff thought the building permit hardcover calculations were in error but the surveyor (whose firm completed all three sets of calculations) indicated that in 1990 driveways were sometimes proposed impossibly small so the house could be larger. In his files was a survey (probably the building permit survey) that had a driveway of a pair of one foot wide wheel tracks up to the area in front of the garage. This survey also shows a much smaller paved area in front of the garage than exists today.