pf08-007 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

4.0 BACKGROUND 4.1 Mr. Johnson owns the residential property at 2271 Marion Street. The property has a Comprehensive Plan designation of Low-Density Residential (LR) and a zoning classification of Single-Family Residence District (R-1). 4.2 This variance request is prompted by the fact that the existing garage is in the basement of the home, which presents a significant obstacle to one of the homeowners, and at the bottom of a steeply-sloping driveway from the street that is difficult to navigate in snowy or icy conditions. 5.0 STAFF COMMENT 5.1 Section 1004.016 (Residence Setbacks) of the City Code requires homes (and attached garages to be set back a minimum of 30 feet from a side property line adjacent to a street right-of-way (ROW). Section 1004.O1DSa of a previous codification of the zoning ordinance allowed an attached garage to project 3 feet into the required front yard when no living area exists above the garage. Despite the fact that this provision was inadvertently omitted when the ordinance was more recently re-codified, Community Development staff continues to enforce this provision and believes that it applies to side yards adjacent to public streets, because they are treated as second front yards. Because the proposed garage expansion does not include living area above, a 27-foot side yard setback would be enforced for the attached garage. 5.2 Section 1004.016 (Residential Lot Size) of the City Code requires a minimum width of 110 feet far corner lots, whereas this property is only 94 feet wide; it is a nonconforming parcel created in 1979 apparently without a variance. The proposed garage would stand 18 from the northern property line adjacent to Minnesota Avenue, which would be a 9- foot encroachment into the required setback, although if the properiy were the required size the proposed addition might not need the requested variance. 5.3 Section 1004.O1A(6) (Maximum Total Surface Area) of the City Code limits impervious coverage to 30% of a single-family residential property. On this lot, up to 3,130 square feet of impervious surface area would be allowed. Existing impervious surfaces (1,612 square feet) cover about 15% of the lot, and the proposed 848-square-foot expansion of the house and garage would leave about 670 square feet of additional allowable impervious coverage for a new driveway. 5.4 The applicants originally proposed a driveway of about 1,000 square feet in area, which is about 50% larger than can be accommodated with the remaining impervious coverage allowance. The site plan included with this staff report (Attachment E), however, illustrates a driveway confguration that is functional and does not exceed the coverage limit. Because a driveway can be constructed that complies with all applicable Code requirements, Community Development staff does not support a variance for excess impervious coverage. 5.5 At the time this staff report was prepared, two nearby property owners had called. One caller offered unequivocal support for the proposed improvements, and the other simply asked some questions about the proposal. PF08-007 RVBA 030508 � Page 2 of 4 � �