pf_03554 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

REVIEW 4.1 Steve to construct a 4 32 on to (side yard) of his attached garage; a 6 foot wide by 20 foot long addition on to the west (front yard) of his existing attached garage (total addition 248 sq. ft.); and a small expansion (north side) to the existing driveway. 4.2 The Hanon home was constructed in 1955 and lies on a parcel initially platted in 1954 that is 80 feet wide by 131 feet deep and totaling 10,488 sq. ft. The parcel has a maximum impervious coverage allowance of3,146 sq, ft. 4.3 The parcel includes the home and attached garage with a footprint of2,079 sq. ft, a shed of 125 sq. ft., and concrete surfaces totaling 1,061 sq. ft. (includes driveway, sidewalk, and rear patio) for a total impervious coverage of 3,265 sq. ft. or 31 % See attached site plan). 4.4 The proposal would include a home and attached garage footprint of2,079 sq. ft, the shed of125 sq. ft., concrete of998 sq. ft. (includes driveway reduction/expansion, sidewalk, and rear patio), and a garage addition of248 sq. ft. for a total of3,450 sq. ft. or 33% (see attached site plan). 5.0 CODE REQUIREMENTS & IMPACTS: 5.1 Section 1 004.01A6 reads: "Maximum Total Surface Area: Including detached accessory buildings, principal structures, pavement surfaces (asphalt, concrete and/or brick, stone or other paver), the total impervious surface on a residential lot or parcel shall not exceed 30% of the total lot or parcel size." This particular requirement is impacted by an overage of304 sq. ft. (3,146 sq. ft. allowed versus 3,450 sq. ft. proposed). 5.2 Section 1 004.01E (Exception) reads: "If after May 21, 1959, existing houses on 50% or more of the frontage of any block have a predominant front yard different from that herein 5pec[fied, all buildings hereafter erected shall conform to this predominant front yard depth, provided this regulation shall not be inte7preted so as to require a front yard on more than 40 fret in depth. Staff has determined the regulatory front yard set back for this parcel to be the 40 foot distance from the front yard property line, given the principal structure's existing 45 foot setback. The proposed 6 foot addition will encroach approximately 2 feet into the required setback. 5.3 The City Planner has discussed options with Mr. Hanon, which include reconfiguring the driveway, eliminating the garden shed, and modifYing the patio/arbor/trellis. However, these options all involve removing existing conditions at a cost to the home owner. In the case of reconfiguring the driveway and eliminating a portion ofthe patio/arbor/trellis, they come at a great expense and only a minimal reduction in impervious coverage. PF3554 - RVBA 040704 - Page 2 of 6