07-12-1993 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Zoning File /S'1823 June 15. 1993 Page 2 The applicant failed to designate a 4’ wide catwalk/deck providing access from the upper level bedroom with the original proposal. The additional deck will be located 26’ from the rear lot line. The e.xisting deck to the north side is 11’ 4". Review of Landscaping The applicant asks that e.xisting plantings along the south and east side of the property be considered as part of the final landscaping plan. In addition she proposes the installation of a 6’ high solid wood privacy fence along the south side of the existing garage and the installation of gravel along the perimeters of the garage along the north, east and south sides. Note privacy fencing has not been shown enclosing the entire gravel area. Applicant suggests that ladders and scaffolding will be stored within the gravel area. It would seem this would be completely against the intent of the Planning Commission’s recommendation to have all of the son’s work related equipment stored within the interior of structures. If Planning Commission approves the gravel yard expansion for exterior storage, staff would recommend that either manire evergreen plantings or fencing be continued along the gravel area. It is still not clear how parking and drive areas are to be physically designated. Applicant should provide additional inform^ition. The applicant may be asked to consider boulders for defining the drive and parking areas. In earlier discussions during the review, the applicant had considered the installation of a berm from the materials excavated from the foundation for the addition. Applicant has been advised that the majority of the existing berm is located within the road right-of-way and that berm could not be expanded within the right-of-way. Issues for Consideration A. Will the deck to the northeast side of the new addition present new concerns? B. Has applicant ’s landscape plan addressed concerns expressed by the Planning Commission at your May 17th meeting? C.As applicant has not noted that the gravel area would be underlain with plastic or geotechnic fabnc, hardcover facts have not been amended, although hardcover is not an issue for this property now proposed at 13+ %. D. Privacy fence will be located 60 ’ from the street lot line meeting the minimum required setback for fences in e.xcess of 3'/i’. Applicant may install privacy fence without City ’s approval. Plea.se refer to staff memo and minutes of the Planning Commission meeting of May 17th in making your final recommendation. Isv