Laserfiche WebLink
, , ' , <br /> FILE#11-3514 <br /> 14 July 2011 <br /> • Page 4 of 4 <br /> and patios be revised to accommodate additional hardcover removals, areas shown on the <br /> survey and hardcover worksheets as landscaping to remain should be evaluated and possibly <br /> further reduced or removed. Removal of the decks and/or patios from the lake yard would <br /> reduce the 0 to 75' hardcover by 615 square feet; including removal the landscaping in the 0 to <br /> 75' zone reduces it 350 square feet further for a total of 13% hardcover vs. 25.5% as proposed; <br /> • minimal landings are required outside of each exterior door. Additionally, the applicant <br /> continues to propose 1,150 square feet of landscape hardcover within the 75' to 250' zone. It <br /> remains unclear to staff if this landscape area is lined with plastic or fabric, but it should be <br /> removed. Removal of the landscape areas will bring the 75' to 250' zone hardcover level to <br /> 43.5%as opposed to 62.2%as proposed. ' � <br /> � Structural Covera�e: The applicant's proposal exceeds the 15% structural coverage allowance <br /> � by 324 square feet; the existing level exceeds this allowance by 183 square feet. Could the <br /> proposed garage be reduced and still result in a functional garage for the property owner? <br /> Perhaps. A 24'x24' garage is a reasonably sized garage which can accommodate two vehicles <br /> plus miscellaneous storage. Reducing the garage to 22'x22' reduces functionality, only saves 92 <br /> square feet and still results in a 1.6%overage on structural coverage. Due to the property's size, <br /> staff finds practical difficulties with respect to the level of structural coverage allowed. Because <br /> the setback from the side lot line and home are met,the additional square footage requested do <br /> not appear to limit the light,air and open space afforded to the adjacent property owner. <br /> Issues for Consideration <br /> 1. Does the Planning Commission find that that the property owner proposes to use the <br /> property in a reasonable manner which is not permitted by an official control? <br /> 2. Does the Planning Commission find that the variances, if granted, will not alter the <br /> essential character of the neighborhood? <br /> 3. Does the Commission find it necessary to impose conditions in order to mitigate the � <br /> impacts created by the granting of the requested variances? <br /> 4. Are there any other issues or concerns with this application? <br /> Staff Recommendation <br /> Planning Staff recommends the Planning Commission review the application focusing on � <br /> determining an appropriate level of hardcover to remain on the property if the setback and lot <br /> coverage variances are found to be acceptable. The City Engineer's recommendations must be <br /> met as well. <br /> r <br />