ITEM08 C15-2025-0013 PRESENTATION MAY12 — original pdf

Backup

REQUEST VARIANCES FROM LDC 25-2-492 • IMPERVIOUS COVER (45%) • MAINTAIN EXISTING 54.5% IMPERVIOUS COVER OF SF-2-CO-NP RESIDENCE. • FRONT YARD SETBACK (25 FEET) • MOVE EXISTING CARPORT COLUMN (WITHIN THE ORIGINAL CARPORT SETBACK) REQUIRING A BUILDING SETBACK OF 23 FEET. ITEM08/1-PRESENTATIONSITE PLAN ITEM08/2-PRESENTATIONPROPOSED CHANGES ITEM08/3-PRESENTATIONEXISTING CONDITIONS ITEM08/4-PRESENTATIONHISTORY • LOT WAS CREATED AS PART OF THE RESUBDIVISION OF AN HISTORIC ESTATE • EXISTING DRIVE HAS THE SAME NORTHERN BOUNDARY AS HISTORIC DRIVEWAY FROM BAILEY ESTATE PORTE-COCHERE TO GREENWAY • JOINT USE AGREEMENT AND PERPETUAL DRIVEWAY EASEMENT WAS PUT IN PLACE AT THE TIME OF DEVELOPMENT AND WAS MADE A PART OF THE BUILDER/DEVELOPER REQUIREMENTS FOR 3509 AND 3505 GREENWAY • 1981 CITY CODE (13-2-126) SUBSECTION (f) AND (h) OUTLINED • CONSTRUCTION AND USE OF THE EASEMENT, • HOW THE HOUSE UNBURDENED BY THE EASEMENT HAD TO BE CONSTRUCTED, AND • HOW THE JOINT USE DRIVEWAY SHOULD BE ADDRESSED WHEN INTERPRETING THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE REQUIREMENTS • THE 198O’S CONSTRUCTION OF 3505 AND 3509 WAS DULY PERMITTED AND FOLLOWED ALL REQUIREMENTS OF LAW AND CODE AT THE TIME ITEM08/5-PRESENTATIONISSUES • EXISTING STRUCTURE AND DRIVEWAY EXCEED CURRENTLY ALLOWED IMPERVIOUS COVER THEREFORE NO EXTERIOR ENVELOPE CHANGES ARE ALLOWED UNLESS THE BUILDING OR DRIVEWAY COVERAGE IS REDUCED • THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS BURDENED WITH A JOINT USE DRIVEWAY EASEMENT AND DRAINAGE STRUCTURES THAT BENEFIT OTHERS, WITH NO BURDEN TO THE OTHER LOTS OR EASEMENTS AND ALL NEGATIVE EFFECTS ARE BORNE BY SUBJECT PROPERTY • OWNER IS REMOVING MORE IMPERVIOUS COVER THAN IS BEING ADDED BUT RECEIVES NO BENEFIT FOR DOING SO IF CURRENT MAXIMUM IMPERVIOUS COVER REQUIREMENTS CANNOT BE MET • MAINTENANCE, REMODELING AND ADDITIONS WOULD BE LEGAL ACCORDING TO THE CODE ORIGINALLY GOVERNING THE PROJECT • PROTECTED TREES OFFSITE AFFECT ALLOWABLE CONSTRUCTION ITEM08/6-PRESENTATIONPROPOSED SITE PLAN ORIGINAL BUILDING SETBACK -25 FEET ORIGINAL CARPORT SETBACK LINE -20 FEET SETBACK CARPORT COLUMN AND OVERHANG IMPERVIOUS COVER ADDITIONS PROTECTED TREE COVER AND TREES TO REMAIN ITEM08/7-PRESENTATIONFINDINGS 1. The ZONING REGULATIONS APPLICABLE TO THE PROPERTY DO NOT ALLOW FOR A REASONABLE USE BECAUSE THE SUBJECT PROPERTY PROVIES ACCESS TO THE ADJACENT PROPERTY REDUCING A SIGNIFICANT PORTION OF THE IMPERVIOUS COVER NEEDS OF THE NEIGHBOR AND REDUCES THE RIGHT OF WAY CURB CUTS IN THE SUBDIVISION, WHILE UNDER THE CURRENT LDC INTERPRETATIONS, BEARS 100% OF THE IMPERVIOUS COVER LIMITATION, DUE TO THE TERRAIN AND THE ORIGINAL HISTORIC ESTATE CONSTRUCTIION, DRAINAGE STRUCTURES ( COUNTED AS IMPERVIOUS COVER) ARE REQUIRED TO CONTROL RUNOFF FROM NOT ONLY 3505 GREENWAY, BUT OTHER UTILITY EASEMENTS AND UPHILL LOTS IN THE SUBDIVISION. ITEM08/8-PRESENTATIONFINDINGS 2.(a) THE HARDSHIP FOR WHICH THE VARIANCE IS REQUIRED IS UNIQUE TO THE PROPERTY IN THAT : THE BUILDING AND DRIVEWAY WERE PERMITTED AND CONSTRUCTED i) UNDER THE 1981 CITY CODE AND THE 1983 LDC; ii) ON A LEGAL LOT CREATED AS PART OF A RE-SUBDIVISION OF A HISTORIC ESTATE THAT MEMORIALIZED THE HISTORIC DRIVEWAY CONNECTING THE ESTATE HOME ON HAMPTON WAY GREENWAY. 2.(b) THE HARDSHIP IS NOT GENERAL TO THE AREA IN WHICH THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED BECAUSE: 1) THE HARDSHIP IS THE RESULT OF THE ADDITIVE EFFECT OF COA LDC CHANGES THAT ARE IN CONFLICT WITH THE ORIGINAL DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENTS THAT ARE PARTICULAR TO THE SUBJECT PROPERTY; 2) NATURAL SITE CONDITIONS, DRAINAGE AND PROTECTED TREES IN CLOSE PROXIMITY TO THE HOUSE EXACERBATE THE ABILITY TO REMOVE LANDSCAPE WALLS AND THEIR STABILIZING WALKS AS AN IMPERVIOUS COVER MITIGATION. ITEM08/9-PRESENTATIONFINDINGS 3.(a) THE VARIANCE WILL NOT ALTER THE CHARACTER OF THE AREA ADJACENT TO THE PROPERTY, WILL NOT IMPAIR THE USE OF ADJACENT CONFORMING PROPERTY, AND WILL NOT IMPAIR THE PURPOSE OF THE REGULATIONS OF THE ZONING DISTRICT IN WHICH THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED BECAUSE: (AS PER PAGE ITEM 03/9 – SEE ATTACHMENT) ITEM08/10-PRESENTATIONATTACHMENT With landscape paving added over the years, current impervious is slightly less than 45% when the Easement is omitted (Exhibit 8, Existing Conditions Site Plan). The currently propose plan (Exhibit 9, Current Proposed Site Plan) adds some new impervious cover but it, too, remains below the 45% max when the Easement area is omitted from the calculation. At this time, the Applicant requests, as part of the variance, that the following be allowed: 1. the entire land area associated with the city utility records (10,982 SF – as used to determine Owner’s drainage fee) will be used as the “Size of the lot” for building calculation purposes. 2. The area of the easement as defined in the recorded Perpetual Driveway Easement and confirmed by survey document (1,063.7 SF) NOT be included when calculating the impervious coverage for the proposed maintenance, additions and renovations of the existing residence on the subject property, based on the City Code of 1981, Section 13-2-126 (SHOULD WE INCLUDE THIS LANGUAGE AS AN EXHIBIT?0. 3. Confirm that a portion of the existing carport in the carport setback that is no longer recognized by the LDC may remain, and that a small expansion of the carport into the front setback be allowed. The applicant understands that only the stipulations allowed under the 1981 City Code and the subsequent 1982 amendments governing the joint use driveway and site calculations relating to the driveway are governing, therefore, the removal of some impervious cover installed on other areas of the property over the past 40 years may be required to be configured to be more aligned with the originally permitted building and contemporaneous landscaped site plan. ITEM08/11-PRESENTATIONTHANK YOU QUESTIONS ITEM08/12-PRESENTATION