Laserfiche WebLink
W-L' ‘ ■ <br />it' <br />MiW <br />i:® <br />>-;:Hi'l- <br /><■.4’’ <br />m <br />A:.. <br />p: .:te;..'kM- <br />IS-: <br />?®S'. <br />^;T' <br />- <br />.;, f’i. <br />P <br />pi <br />iiP' <br />ft® <br />'«■ <br />i - <br />■-‘S- <br />• i * -- ' <br />:f' <br />:.i «■,'i'i- <br />-fpih''. <br />a-:--’' . <br />The Planning Cc)fmnission <br />additional information. No <br />point. <br />agreed <br />formal <br />t:-iat <br />action <br />Staff could provide <br />w^s tak-^'* It this <br />(»2)ZOHIIIG FILE *1604 CLAIR ROOD <br />2215 KKHNOOD NAY <br />CONDITIONAL USB PERMIT/VARIANCE-CONTINUATION <br />Clair Rood was present, and at 8; .0 <br />the Public Hearing on this application. <br />p.m • « <br />PUBLIC HEARING <br />Kelley reconvened <br />Gaffron presented the Planning Commission with Mr. <br />Rood's revegetation plan. He noted that the plan does <br />•oy specific retaining walls or berms, aid asked Mr. <br />those items have now been excluded from his proposal. <br />and Mrs. <br />not show <br />Rot^d if <br />Rood replied that it is his intention to incorporate a <br />retaining wall into his l.indscaping proposal, but that his <br />landscape architect had inadvertently omitted the structure from <br />the plans. <br />Kelley suggested tabling the application to give Mr. Rood <br />the opportunity to meet with his landscape architect and have the <br />plans revised to show exactly what M.r. Rood intends to do on the <br />property. <br />Bellows asked Mr. Rnod if he would also be sure to address <br />the existing fence/pillars in his landscape plan. <br />It was m.nved by Cohen, seconded by Bellows, to hold this <br />Public Hearing in abeyance until such time that the applicant has <br />a revised plan showing the retaining wall/oerm and fence/pillars. <br />All voted aye. Motion carried. <br />(#3)BONING FILE #1S45-T0M a MARYLOU LUTZ <br />2S8 CYGNBT PLACE <br />VAE1ANCE8-P0BL1C BEARING <br />Tom Lutz was present, and Kelley opened the Public Hearing <br />at 7:D1 p.m. <br />Gaffron gave a brief summary of the <br />this application, noting that th:.s is a <br />original application filed by Mr. and <br />previously owned the subject property. <br />issues involved with <br />continuation of an <br />Mrs. Rodwell, who <br />Kelley asked what the City's standards <br />the proposed privacy wall. <br />are in relation to <br />Gaffron replied, "Staff's interpretation is that anything <br />extending beyond six feet in height would be considered as part <br />of the principal structure, rather than a fence. The six foot <br />wall will be attached to the house, and to the deck which will be <br />1^ feet above grade level. If Planning Commission wishes to <br />consider this structure as a fence, then a height Variance would <br />be required." <br />- 4 -