PL PACKET 07172012 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes June 19, 2012 Page 2 I house, noting the variance request will increase lot coverage by 180 square feet bringing the total 2 lot coverage to 5,191 square feet or 57% of the lot. She explained the original concept included 3 an area for a patio that added additional square footage to the impervious surface and the 4 applicant was willing to minimize the impervious surface but still allow people to get safely from 5 the driveway to the front steps, noting that the home does not currently have front steps and the 6 lack of an existing walkway to the front door creates unsafe conditions. She stated the 7 circumstances are unique to the property and are not the result of the current property owners. 8 She stated the variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality and would 9 improve the appearance of the property. She stated that economic considerations are not the sole 10 basis of the practical difficulties and safer access is more important. She indicated the variance 1 I would be consistent with the City's comprehensive land use plan because the property will 12 remain single family residential and the variance would allow for orderly development on the 13 site. She stated the proposal will not reduce light, air or access to the property and will not 14 increase public congestion. She indicated the variance will increase concentration on the site, 15 however, staff believes the applicant has taken steps to decrease impervious surface coverage 16 and the City Engineer feels the variance would not have a negative impact on water drainage. 17 18 Commissioner Jensen asked if plantings will be added to the space created between the sidewalk 19 and house. 20 21 Mr. Wollan replied there are plants in this area that he would like to keep and added he can slope 22 the area as needed but they currently do not have any problems with drainage. 23 24 Commissioner Poucher asked if pervious pavers were considered. 25 26 Mr. Wollan stated he was willing to include pervious pavers but his contractor felt pervious 27 pavers would not be attractive. 28 29 Interim City Planner Corkle stated that the City Engineer has indicated there are some problems 30 with pervious pavers in terms of maintenance if they are not installed correctly and the City 31 Engineer felt that pervious pavers may not provide much value. She added the City Engineer 32 was equally comfortable with concrete. 33 34 Commissioner Poucher asked if the applicant wanted to do a smaller sidewalk or whether he still 35 would like to have the circular patio as shown on the original concept. 36 37 Mr. Wollan replied he was okay with the smaller one. He stated they were planning on stamping 38 the patio and surrounding the perimeter with a hedge or other plantings. He added if the circular 39 patio was approved they would be able to sit out there. 40 41 Commissioner Niccum asked if the larger area made a difference to the City Engineer. 42 43 Interim City Planner Corkle advised that she directed the applicant to make this area smaller and 44 noted they already exceed 35% lot coverage by a significant margin. She acknowledged that the 45 circular patio does not add significant square footage, but if every request similar to this is 46 approved, it has a cumulative impact.