10-10-1988 - Agenda Packet City Council - regular meeting

Home Browse Search

setback. He explained that a portion of the lot was shaped like a deep dish, that would decline and then incline. The proposal is to have a portion of the deck that would be 20' above t.ie runoff area. It seemed to him that the 26' setback would apply to different topography, as there would be no restriction of water running upstream or downstream. Planning Commission member Bellows stated that the retaining wall was the problem, not the deck footing. Mr. Dickey, the applicants' architect explained that there was a necessity to retain the earth. Bellows acknowledged that fact, but added that it should be retained outside of the 26' setback. Mr. Dickey said that the narrow width of the lot was a hardship the planning Commission overlooked. 65' was not a lot of space in which to build the proposed house. Planning Commission member Cohen stated that the applicant should have been aware of the restrictions prior to buying the lot. Mr. McNellis agreed, but said he did not understand all of the variances. The 26' setback from the 10' easement came as a surprise to him. Mr. McNellis reiterated the fact that the house would be virtually invisible. Bellows explained to Mr. McNellis that the Planning Commission's concern was how the land works, not who rzn see the house. It may be true that the proposed house had very little visual impact, however, it does present quite a bit of environmental impact. The applicant requested the Planning Commission table this matter and allow l.im the opportunity to do more study of how to approach the variance problems. It was moved by Planning Commission member Cohen, seconded by Planning Commission member Bellows, to table this itEm. Motion, Ayes=5, Nays=O, Motion passed. #1332 MARCELO GUMUCIO 980 FERNDALE ROAD WEST AFTER -THE -FACT VARIANCES PUBLIC HEARING 11:27 P.M. - 11:30 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing ws e duly noted. The applicant's architect was present in lieu of the al,plicant . Planning Commission member Bellows stated that the architect should be fined for his lack of compliance with the City's variance requirements. She felt that the language setting forth the requirements was perfectly clear. She did not think that the applicant/owner si:ould be perslized for the unprofessionalism of the architect. The architect stated teat he thought_t ridiculous to have to come before the Planning Commission for the type of pillars he was proposing. The guidelines were not specific as to those items. b y P 11 A rtA-€q Rt0Y i14ji }'i 9 A N4&rh $ g rC amin� il,° member °rson prafdommeov f