10-27-1997 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Zoning File #2301 October 17, 1997 Page 2 Review of Proposal In 1989-90 applicant did major ren.odeling to the existing residence. Hardcover variances were granted at that time, and a graveled shoulder in front of applicant's residence was required to be removed. As part of that remodeling, applicant planted arborvitae approximately 10’ from the paved road. Applicant was also approved for a 6' high fence along the street lot line where only a 3 1/2' high fence would normally be allowed. That fence was required to be within the property boundaries. *' j Applicant has recently acquired a portion of the adjacent Skarp property and has removed the existing residence from that property. As part of the house demolition applicant regraded the site (with staff approval) which involved the removal of certain distressed trees (including a 36" willow for which a separate removal permit was issued) and the temporary removal of others. A tree replacement plan has been provided which is acceptable to staff. Applicant proposes to continue the arborvitae eastward from his driveway at a 15' setback from the paved road but still within the right- of-way. Further, he proposes to expand the driveway apron within the right-of-way approximately 130 s.f., flaring it out to the east for easier approach to the site and to match the opposite side of the driveway. Finally, he proposes to construct a gate within the right-of-way but approximately 23' from the paved road, for access for yard maintenance. Placernent of trees or shrubs in the right-of-way, and expansion of the driveway approach is pnmanly under the pur view of Municipal Code Chapter 6 regarding streets and private roads, and IS not normally subject to Planning Commission review. However, the driveway expansion involves additional hardcover serving the property over and above the allowed hardcover limits, and the proposed gateway at the east end of the property definitely is a zoning code matter since it is functionally a fence structure located within 75' of the lake. Staff is approaching this comprehensive request from the standpoint that the driveway approach and gateway are zoning variances, and the request for placement of trees 15' from the paved roadway but within the right-of-way will require Council action. On October 13th the City Council on a vote of 3-2 allowed the adjacent owner of the east half of the Skarp prof^rty, Conley Brooks, Jr., to replace the existing dilapidated fence with a 3 1/2' high fence located 15' from the paved roadway, which is still within the right-of-way. Staff interprets this as suggesting that screening plantings should also be no closer than 15' from the right-of-way for the McCo^ney property. We are advised since that action that Brooks is now also planning to plant arborvitae at a 15' setback from the pavement and eliminate the fence altogether. Hardship Statement Please review the applicant's brief hardship statement on the application form. He notes that the