Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THB PLANNING COMMI SS ION MEETING HELD S15 , 1986 <br />#1072 WINSTON CONTINUED <br />Eleanor Winston was present for this matter and <br />submitted a letter of non -objection from the most <br />affected property owner Donald Wildman of 745 Spring <br />Hi 11 Road, which Chairman Kelley read into the record. <br />No one was present from the public regarding this matter <br />and the public hearing was closed. <br />It was moved by Bellows, seconded by Goetten, to <br />recommend approval based on staf f's recommendation. <br />Motion, Ayes 6, Nays 0. <br />#1073 JCS DEANOVIC <br />2050 SHORELINE DRIVE <br />CONDITIONAL USE PSRMIT <br />PUBLIC HEARING 9:10-9:33 <br />The Affidavit <br />was noted. <br />of Publication and Certificate of Mailing <br />Jim Deanovic was present for this matter. <br />Assistant Zoning Administrator Gaf.fron explained the <br />request for a conditional use permit for major grade <br />changes to the lot (last buildable lot of the Hartwood <br />Subdivision) to create a suitable flat yard area and <br />space for the proposed house and pool. As noted in his <br />memo, the grading as proposed will not create additional <br />run-off from the property, but will modify the drainage <br />pattern within the property; and in addition does not <br />affect the primary or alternate drainf i e ld sates. He <br />noted that City Engineer Cook has reviewed this <br />application and generally recommends approval with some <br />changes and conditions (listed In memo). <br />Bellows noted that this seems to be a drastic topography <br />change requiring a great dea 1 of f i 11 to be brought in <br />and questioned if this is a good practice for future <br />development. <br />Planning Commission discussed the issue of berming and <br />the maximum allowed height. <br />Zoning Administrator Mabusth stated that based on the <br />findings cited by Council in the Ulrich application <br />which referenced the f e::ce or A i nancc, a 3� feet high <br />berm was considered appropriate for a property on a <br />minor roadway, 6' maximum height on a property on a <br />major thoroughfare would probably be appropriate and <br />deemed consistent with previous action. <br />9 <br />