PL PACKET 04162019 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

April 16, 2019 Page 7 aspect of the project to avoid having to return to this issue at a later date. Because the concrete encroachment is already in place, and because staff’s interpretation is that this area is required to meet a 5 foot setback, the alternative would be to initiate an enforcement action to remove the encroaching pavement. Nonetheless, staff does not recommend approval either as constructed or as shown on the modified plans, and additional pavement removal would be the result of a variance denial. C. Impervious Surface Variance. The third variance requested is an increase in the impervious surface on the property from the maximum 35% to, originally, 37.5%. Impervious surfaces are those that are covered by material that is highly resistant to infiltration by water. The purpose of impervious surface regulations is to minimize flooding and stormwater control issues that contribute to sedimentation and pollution of local and regional water bodies. Particularly in areas that were developed prior to contemporary stormwater ponding and treatment requirements, managing impervious surfaces is a key component in avoiding these problems. The requirement for lots of more than 9,000 square feet (as with the subject parcel) is a maximum impervious coverage of 35%. For this parcel, this results in a total of 3,250 square feet of eligible impervious surface. As designed, the surveyor’s plans show an impervious total of 3,410 square feet, an excess area of 160 square feet. This has been adjusted downward from the original plan which proposed 3,482 square feet (232 square feet over the limit). The applicants note that for lots below the 9,000 square foot threshold, the impervious allowance is 40%, a standard that can result in anomalous impacts – such as, an 8,900 square foot lot which would be permitted more total impervious area than the applicants’ parcel (up to 3,560 square feet in this example). Nonetheless, the issue is not whether the applicants are close to the standard, but whether the variance criteria are met. The applicants have an otherwise conforming parcel with no apparent unusual conditions that would separate it from other similar parcels in similar circumstances. However, connecting the front sidewalk, front entryway, side/rear deck, and alley-fronting garage and driveway is a reasonable use of residential property. The applicants, if reducing all sidewalk areas to 5 feet or less, would still exceed the 35% threshold, suggesting that a small variance to the impervious standard is supportable. Finally, it is noted that the code permits construction of a wood deck, and exempts such decks from the impervious limit if the deck permits precipitation to drain through the deck to a pervious ground below. While the soils in the area do not easily accommodate infiltration, this solution is allowed by the code and is available to the applicants without increasing impervious coverage beyond the 35% standard, presuming it would meet required setbacks of 5 feet from the side property line.