Laserfiche WebLink
� -�. <br /> FILE#13-3618 <br /> l0 Sept 2013 <br /> Page 3 of 3 <br /> difficuities exist in the property width, topography and proximity of the existing garage and <br /> driveway to the rear property line. The size of the existing garage is not functional. The <br /> applicants are attempting to construct a garage which will accommodate reasonable storage <br /> space for two vehicles. The variances far 27.3�o hardcover and the structural coverage to permit �,�1 � <br /> ±66 square feet of structure o�er 15 may also be reasonable considering the existing � <br /> constraints o t e property an�femaf'e a�ai a e so utions such as extensive filling and b`�� <br /> grading,tree removal,etc which could potentiall alter the character of the immediate area... SQ e <br /> Staff questions the need for the additional new retaining wall "corner" on the southeast side of <br /> the garage. The retaining wall area will be bordered by fencing and appear to be additional <br /> massing. It appears to be an attempt to achieve an out of the way location to store <br /> garbage/recycling receptacles and while they are not proposing to pave this area with hardcover <br /> they are proposing to construct the 11' x 40' parking area on the northwest side of the garage. <br /> Staff would recommend the retaining w� al b nnected directly to the corner of the garage <br /> only if necessary for structural purposes and that no corner niche be created. The southeast <br /> wall face of the garage and the north facing portion of the retaining wall should also be <br /> screened with vegetation. <br /> Other than the retaining wall above, the applicants' request is reasonable; will be consistent <br /> with the character of the neighborhood; and results in minimal negative impact to the <br /> neighboring properties. <br /> Issues for Consideration <br /> 1. Does the Planning Commission find that that the property owner proposes to use the <br /> property in a reasonable manner which is not permitted by an official control? <br /> 2. Does the Planning Commission find that the variances, if granted, will not alter the <br /> essential character of the neighborhood? <br /> 3. Does the Commission find it necessary to impose conditions in order to mitigate the <br /> impacts created by the granting of the requested variances? <br /> 4. Are there any other issues or concerns with this application? <br /> Staff Recommendation <br /> Planning Staff recommends approval of the hardcover, structural coverage and rear setback <br /> variances as proposed. If the Planning Commission is comfortable with the plan as proposed, <br /> the applicants should be asked to provide a revised plan which addresses the City Engineer's <br /> comments prior to issuance of a building permit and a revised landscape plan to screen the <br /> southeast side of the new garage and any retaining wall face as much as feasible. The top and <br /> bottom elevations of the new wall should be shown on the survey for permit. <br /> If the Commission agrees with Staff's recommendation regarding the �etaining wall area on the <br /> southeast side of the garage re�ised plans should be required prior to placement on the City <br /> Council's agenda which reflect removal/revision of the wall. Landscape screening should be <br /> required as stated above. <br /> p ��►,s a�P��-�-s � 9��Q c��S��.�1'�.f�� ✓� -�,, l,�u�r� <br /> . ,� <br /> Co Je�' n� 3�5o C�.� 3�I� c.�l�; �1n �s u.bo�.� 4��.� <br /> �e .�,r.Q�� u.� . <br /> � <br />