PL PACKET 08202019 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes April 16, 2019 Page 2 City Planner Stephen Grittman reviewed the applicant has constructed an addition to the rear of 1 an existing home at 2609 Pahl Avenue. The applicants are Lindsay and Tom Wernimont. The 2 addition to the one-story rambler included a large window well area to provide light to the lower 3 level. As a part of the project, the applicant constructed walkways and a side yard patio that were 4 not included on the original plans. Additional work includes front and rear raised landings, one 5 of which is the construction of a front stoop that encroaches into the front yard setback. In 6 reviewing the work, the project both as now constructed and as proposed raised three potential 7 elements that would have required variances, as follows: 8 9 A. Raised front steps that encroach farther into the required 35.9-foot yard setback (the existing 10 structure is currently closer than the average setback of the adjoining parcels). The proposed 11 setback would be 25.6 feet. 12 B. Sidewalk access between front and rear yards which expands to a patio that encroaches by 13 3.8 feet into the required 5-foot side yard setback, to a proposed setback of 1.2 feet (this 14 portion was constructed but not approved previously). 15 C. Steps, walkway and patio which combine to increase impervious surface on the lot by 2.5% 16 beyond the required 35% maximum coverage (a proposed maximum impervious of 36.7%). 17 18 Since the time of the original public hearing notice, the applicants have worked with staff to 19 refine their application, making changes to increase conformity with several aspects of the 20 zoning ordinance. Those changes resulted in narrowing of much of the paved space in the side 21 yard to less than 5 feet in width, and a resulting reduction to overall impervious surface to 22 36.7%. 23 24 Mr. Grittman reviewed the variance criteria and justification for the requested variance. 25 26 • Use is a reasonable one, given the character of the neighborhood 27 • Unique conditions exist on the property 28 • Those conditions create practical difficulties in putting the property to that reasonable use 29 • Conditions cannot be created by the owner 30 • Conditions cannot be solely economic in nature. 31 32 The site plan was amended to remove some existing pavement and expands the deck. A deck 33 does not constitute an impervious surface. For the front yard setback variance, the applicant is 34 asking for a variance of 5.3 feet. Staff is supportive of this request. For the side setback variance 35 for patio, some modifications have been made to the site plan. Original installation was at 1.2-36 foot setback (3.8 feet encroachment). This has been revised to meet sidewalk width (no setback) 37 with one exception (7-feet x 8-feet) at 3.5 feet setback. The applicants did not originally apply 38 for this variance. Staff does not recommend the variance as there is adequate area that could 39 meet the setback requirement with further modifications. The applicants have revised their plans 40 to get closer to the setback requirement. 41 42 Mr. Grittman reviewed the impervious surface variance – 35% maximum requirement (3,250 43 square feet on subject property. The original proposal was at 37.5% (3,482 sf). Revised proposal 44 is 36.7% (3,410 sf). Staff recommends including elimination of some “patio” pavement 36.6% 45 (3,400 sf) of the modified plan. The applicant would still exceed the impervious amount. 46