02-13-1996 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Request for Council Action continued Page 3 February 2, 1995 #1981 Todd R. Coumeya, 4620 Tonkaview Lane reduced to approximately 30’ x 60 ’ with a 15’ x 15 patio to the east side of the residence, all located out of the bluff impact zone. The three stall garage has been reduced to two stalls. The front line of the structure will be located 46 ’ from the existing travelled road. Staff asked Gustafson to consider a potential upgrade of Tonkaview Lane and he advised that because of the limited right-of-way and placement of existing residence that the road would be installed as an urban section at a 28’ maximum width measured to the inside of the curb with 10’ grassed boulevard. The front line of the proposed strucnire would be located now 42’ from the improved road and 32’ from the north side of the 10’ wide grassed boulevard area, refer to Exhibit O. The Planning Commission appeared to have no problem with the street setback variance of 10’ but was concerned with the potential impact from the development of this site if grading and drainage plans were not carefully supervised by the City Engineer. Members specifically asked that roof drainage be directed away from the north and east sides of the residence and directed to the road. The Engineer asked that lot grading be extended into the unimproved right-of-way of Tonkaview Lane so that retaining walls and tree removal would be minimized because of a 4-6 ’ high embankment at the proposed location of the curb cut. The Planmng Commission was also concerned that erosion control be shown on all grading plans and that control measures be implemented as soon as the upper elevations are disnirbed. It was also noted that applicant should provide a landscape stabilization plan. Grading and drainage plans were to be completed by a licensed engineer. If retaining walls were to be used, they wanted them to not only be located on the plan but to provide the engineering specs to ensure adequacy of structure. The minority opinion of one felt that the structure should be further reduced to minimize any impact on the severely limited site. The majority of the Planning Commission felt that as long as the bluff and bluff impact zones were not encroached and that attention was paid to the grading and drainage detail that the proposal was satisfactory. Planning Commission Recommendation The Planning Commission recommended approval of the street setback variance of 10’ adopting the original findings and hardships set forth in Resolution No. 3449 and, hardships as set forth by a, Meant on Exhibit A and as developed during review of the application as follows: 1.The location of travelled road at 46 ’ from front line of proposed residence. Even if road was upgraded, structure would still be 42’ from actual travelled road. The code would require a 35’ setback. The building envelope has been severely impacted by the required setbacks from the bluff and bluff impact zone.