CC PACKET 05142019 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

May 14, 2019 Page 6 Board of Adjustments and Appeals, recommending to the City Council. As such, the process is the same as the variance process, with the standard of review similar as well. C. Impervious Surface Variance. The third variance requested is an increase in the impervious surface on the property from the maximum 35% to 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 3,482 square feet, an excess area of 232 square feet. As discussed, the applicants made a series of changes to their plan, eventually reducing their variance request to 36.6% coverage. 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. 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. The approval of a variance in this case would appear to be granting a unique privilege not common to similarly situated lands – at odds with the requirements for equal treatment. Finally, a further alternative for the applicants to consider would be construction of a wood deck, which is not considered to be impervious if it 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. In summary, staff does not recommend approval of the impervious surface variance. As noted, the purposes of the ordinance would be thwarted by approval of this variance, particularly without the requisite uniqueness or practical difficulties present. 26