The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutRe: hardcover/setbacks ' ' � � �{�.�r�. G��(`� _.__---�_ , ,4 �� 3�� C�g uu9� Date Application Recei�ed: 07/16/13 J Date Application Considered as Complete: 07/16/13 P�.�l�t�� 5� 60-Day Review Period Expires: 11/13/13 ��f��. `�,� �_y I 3 .,�� Q�/W' i � To: Chair teskinen and Planning Commission Members � Jessica Loftus,City Administrator From: Melanie Curtis, Planning&Zoning Coordinator��/ Date: 10 September 2013 Subject: 13-3618, Edward &Julie Lagerstrom,2248 Shadywood Road, Hardc�ver&Setback Variances PublicHearing-Continued __ _ ___________________ Zoning District: LR-1C, One Family Lakeshore Residential,%:acre/100' Lot Area: 14,467 square feet{0.33 acre) Lot Width: SZ feet Applicotion Summary: The applicants are requesting structural coverage, setback and hardcover variance approvals in order to rebuild the existing detached garage and parking space further from the road than existing. roval as noted within. Staff Recommendation: Planning Department Staff recommends app list of Exhibits Exhibit A. Revised Survey Exhibit B. Revised Proposed Hardcover Exhibrf C. Planting Plan Exhibit D. Neighbor Comments Exhibrt E. City Engineer Memo 09/04/13 Exhibit F. 60-Day Extension Letter Exhibit G. Planning Commission Staff Report 08/14/13 Exhibit H. PC Action Natice Exhibit!. Draft PC Minutes 08/19/13 Background/Update At the August meeting the Planning Commission held a public hearing and discussed the variances requested by the appiicants for rear setback and hardcover in order to permit construction of a new detached garage. The applicants' survey and plan didn't coordinate with respect to a retaining wall to be constructed on the southeast side of the garage and some additional miscellaneous hardcover. Additionally the applicants were asked to pro�ide a plan for landscaping the rear/{akeside of the new ga�age for consideration. The City's engineer has reviewed the revised plan and had minimal comments which can all be addressed prior to City Council review or prior to issuance of a building permit if appropriate. The applicants have pro�ided the requested information. They are requesting a rear setback variance to allow the proposed detached garage to be 20 feet from the rear street lot line where a 30-foot setback is�eQS�o ort 5.4�o�structurah cove agea and auhardcovergva anceCto perlmit 66 s uare feet ove 6.196 revised hardcover where 259�a is normally allowed. � -�. FILE#13-3618 l0 Sept 2013 Page 3 of 3 difficuities exist in the property width, topography and proximity of the existing garage and driveway to the rear property line. The size of the existing garage is not functional. The applicants are attempting to construct a garage which will accommodate reasonable storage space for two vehicles. The variances far 27.3�o hardcover and the structural coverage to permit �,�1 � ±66 square feet of structure o�er 15 may also be reasonable considering the existing � constraints o t e property an�femaf'e a�ai a e so utions such as extensive filling and b`�� grading,tree removal,etc which could potentiall alter the character of the immediate area... SQ e Staff questions the need for the additional new retaining wall "corner" on the southeast side of the garage. The retaining wall area will be bordered by fencing and appear to be additional massing. It appears to be an attempt to achieve an out of the way location to store garbage/recycling receptacles and while they are not proposing to pave this area with hardcover they are proposing to construct the 11' x 40' parking area on the northwest side of the garage. Staff would recommend the retaining w� al b nnected directly to the corner of the garage only if necessary for structural purposes and that no corner niche be created. The southeast wall face of the garage and the north facing portion of the retaining wall should also be screened with vegetation. Other than the retaining wall above, the applicants' request is reasonable; will be consistent with the character of the neighborhood; and results in minimal negative impact to the neighboring properties. Issues for Consideration 1. Does the Planning Commission find that that the property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner which is not permitted by an official control? 2. Does the Planning Commission find that the variances, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood? 3. Does the Commission find it necessary to impose conditions in order to mitigate the impacts created by the granting of the requested variances? 4. Are there any other issues or concerns with this application? Staff Recommendation Planning Staff recommends approval of the hardcover, structural coverage and rear setback variances as proposed. If the Planning Commission is comfortable with the plan as proposed, the applicants should be asked to provide a revised plan which addresses the City Engineer's comments prior to issuance of a building permit and a revised landscape plan to screen the southeast side of the new garage and any retaining wall face as much as feasible. The top and bottom elevations of the new wall should be shown on the survey for permit. If the Commission agrees with Staff's recommendation regarding the �etaining wall area on the southeast side of the garage re�ised plans should be required prior to placement on the City Council's agenda which reflect removal/revision of the wall. Landscape screening should be required as stated above. p ��►,s a�P��-�-s � 9��Q c��S��.�1'�.f�� ✓� -�,, l,�u�r� . ,� Co Je�' n� 3�5o C�.� 3�I� c.�l�; �1n �s u.bo�.� 4��.� �e .�,r.Q�� u.� . � — . , � � � � . u y � FILE#13-3618 `� �� 10 Sept 2013 a � ,o Page 2 of 3 Structu�al Coverage: Total Lot Area Total Structural Coverage 14,467 s.f. (0.33 acre) Allowed: 2,170 s.f. (15%) Existing: 2,136.2 s.f. (14.7°Yo) Proposed: 2,236 s.f. (15.49'0} Hardcover Caiculations: Stormwater Total Previously Allowed Existing Currently Proposed Overlay Area in Hardcover Hardcover Proposed Hardcover(Revised) District Tier Zone Hardcover Tier 1 14,467 s.f. 3,616.7 s.f. 3,193.7 s.f. 3,950.8 s.f. 3,785.4 s.f. (25 90} (22.1%) (2739') 26.1�) -------------------------------------------------------- � � ----------------------- Hardcover Variance The applicants' property is currently conforming with respect to hardcover. However, in order to move the garage away from the street additional driveway is needed. The appli�ants are proposing to keep an adjacent off street parking area next to the detached garage and have proposed a reduced 11-foot wide parking space with the additional driveway. The existing stairs accessing the property from the street/garage area will be reconstructed in a similar location on the northwest side of the driveway but will he moved out of the right-of-way. The applicants have provided revised hardcover calculations which more correctly reflect the proposed hardcover for the site, including the newly installed brick patio by the front door. The plans now show a proposed retaining wall to the southeast of the proposed garage. This area will appeor to be additional structural massing from the lakeside and from the neighboring property; the landscape plan should be revised to propose screening in this location. Structural Coverage Variance The applicants' current structural coverage level is 14.7% where 15% is allowed. The existing garage is a small (20' x 20') two-car garage. The new garage proposed will be a total of 23 feet wide and 24 feet deep on the garage level and 23 feet wide by 22 feet deep on the lower storage level. The additional 2 feet of depth on the garage level is proposed to be achieved with a cantilevered floor. According to the definition of"building footprint" because it is greater than 4 feet above grade, the cantilevered area in this situation does not count toward the building footprint or hardcover. Even so, the 22' by 23' garage footprint bumps the property over in structural coverage by about 66 square feet. Rear Yard Setback Variance Detached side-load garages on lakeshore lots are allowed to be 10 feet from the rear street lot line. There is not adequate width to construct a side-load garage on the property. The applicants are proposing to move the new garage back 20 feet in order to acc�mmodate off- street parking and to create a safer entrante to the garage. The topography of the site combined with an existing tree on the property prevents the garage from being constructed at the 30 foot setback as required. Staff finds that the existing situation (access, off-street parking, setback and ROW encroachments) is less than ideal. The applicants' need to rebuild a deteriorating garage provides them with an opportunity to create a better and safer situation. Staff finds practical