10-17-2011 Planning Commission Packet

Home Browse Search

RECEIVE�; SEP 2 1 2011 Description of Request: ��F�� We are requesting some minor modifications to existing hardcover variances that have been granted on our property. We purchase the home from the builder in December of 2010 during a planned relocation of our family to Minnesota. 1. We would like to replace an existing patio and grill platform in the back of the house that was not laid correctly and was heaving and breaking(both the grill platform which was collapsing as well as the patio which had an improper base). We had the failed patio removed as it was a safety hazard for our children and it has subsequently been replaced temporarily with crushed stone pending approval by the city to replace the lay pavers. The replacement patio proposed is the same size. In this process we also discovered that the existing patio was not included in the builder's requested hardcover variance from the city and was not on the existing survey filed with the city. As a result the city required a new survey be conducted that reflects the patio. We requested that the survey company include the patio as"hardcover" even though it is now gravel to properly represent the overall hardcover percentage. There is a slight difference between this new survey and the prior survey with the new survey actually reflecting a slightly smaller overall percentage of hardcover, even when considering the small patio that the builder failed to include in the original variance application. The total hardcover percentage in the 75- 250' setback zone per the existing variance reflects a percentage of 28.4% The new survey, which includes the small patio reflects a hardcover percentage of 27.8%for the same area not including the crushed stone addition to the driveway turnaround being proposed in 2 below. It is important to note that one of the primary reasons the hardcover variance exists in the 75- 250' setback zone is due to the property being bisected by a sewer easement. Placing the house on the street side of this easement would have created a hardship because the house would be 20 feet closer to the lake and the house to the east would be 70 feet closer to the lake so lake views would be limited. 2. The original turnaround on the driveway is inadequately sized and Placed in a position where the turnaround is at a steep incline on the drive. As a result the turnaround is not deep enough when backing from the existing garages to enable a common turn and so narrow that drivers entering and exiting the property consistently drive off the driveway creating targe ruts, mud and standing water. In the winter, due to the incline where the turnaround was placed and the slick driveway caused by weather conditions, vehicles exiting the property cannot hold traction in the turnaround and slide down and off the driveway causing the vehicles to get stuck and putting drivers and passengers at risk for injury. In the winter we have had a number of vehicles slide off the driveway and get stuck due to these conditions. Due to the higher speeds traveled on North Shore Drive,the hidden curve to the west side of the drive,and the long tiered nature of the driveway, it is impractical and unsafe to back out of the driveway to enter North Shore Dr.,which would be the alternative to using the turnaround in the winter months. To mitigate these risk factors we are proposing adding an area of crushed stone on either side of the turnaround to provide additional turnaround space and the option of a lower entry point .�.t�� '�