Laserfiche WebLink
Zoning File #2104 <br />January 9, 1996 <br />Page 3 <br />Decks - <br />Driveway/sidewalk/tumaround <br />House/garage - <br />Total <br />322 s.f. <br />2,742 s.f. <br />3.380 s.f <br />6.444 s.f (26.2%) <br />Minor adjustments to decks and driveway will be necessary’ to reduce by 300 s.f to the 25% <br />level. <br />Items for Discussion <br />1.Does Planninc Commission ha%e any conceptual or specific problems with the requested <br />lot area and vddth variances (which are inherent in this sewered property) or the a\erage <br />setback encroachment? <br />Does Planning Commission wish to review the grading and drainage plans once they <br />are received? Is it necessaiy or appropriate to table the application until the drainage <br />plans are submitted, or is Planning Commission comfortable with a recommendation of <br />conceptual approval subject to those plans being submitted and accepted by staff prior <br />to re^'iew of this application by the City Council? <br />3. Does Planning Commission have any other issues regarding this proposal? <br />Staff Recommendation <br />If Planning Commission feels that the requested lot area, lot width and average setback <br />variances are justified and supported by adequate hardship, and it Planning Commission js <br />comfortable conceptually with the hardcover plan subject to minor adjustments to meet die 25% <br />limit, then a recommendation for approval would be appropriate, subject to staff review and <br />approval of the final hardcover proposal and site grading plans, prior to final Council action. <br />Options for .Action <br />1. Approve as proposed, subject to staff review and approval of grading^'drainage plan prior <br />to finai Council action. <br />Table pending receipt of gradinii'drainage plan, <br />3. Denial (specify reasons). <br />4.Other. <br />.-y <br />C, !<■- <br />f / i j <br />f , <br />/ <br />i <br />\ <br />#• <br />- f <br />Ll-O <br />I