Laserfiche WebLink
Zoning File il'1981 <br />January 9, 1995 <br />Page 2 <br />Status of Application <br />At the November 21st meeting of the Planning Comraission, the three members in <br />attendance advised applicant to request tabling application until the January meeting providing <br />applicant additional time to develop an amended plan that would address the following concerns <br />of the members: <br />1. Need to reduce the footprint of residence noting that three-car garage appeared <br />excessive. <br />Members preferred a street setback variance rather than encroachment of the bluff <br />areas of the property. Members did not specifically specify how much of a street <br />setback variance would be acceptable. They also encouraged applicant to relocate <br />decks and staircases out of the bluff area and bluff impact zones (30’ from top of <br />blufO. <br />Review of Revised Plan <br />Applicant has reduced footprint of residence to approximately 30’ x 60 ’. The attached <br />garage has been reduced from 3 to 2 stalls and has been relocated to the west side of the <br />residence. The principal .and accessory strucuires will be located out of the bluff impact zone <br />and the principal structure will be located 25’ from the street lot line. The structure will be <br />located 46 ’ from the existing travelled road. Review Exhibit I, Gustafson notes in his report that <br />if Tonkaview Road is upgraded, it will be installed as an urban section at a 28’ width measured <br />to the inside of the curb with 10’ grassed boulevard areas. The proposed structure will be <br />located 42’ from the improved road and 32’ from the grassed boulevard area (refer to Exhibit <br />H). <br />In his report, Gustafson goes on to ask that upon application for a building permit the <br />applicant provide detailed grading and drainage plans for his review. He also notes that there <br />may be retaining walls along the north property lines because of the steep topographies. <br />The Engineer ’s report does not note the need to redirect drainage from roof away from <br />the steep bank elevations. Staff suggests that all or the majority of roof drainage be directed <br />towards the roadway. Applicant ’s building plans must provide information on how roof drainage <br />is to be directed towards road and away from the north and east lot lines. <br />Issues for Consideration <br />1. Has applicant addressed the concerns of the three-member Planning Commission?