Project Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Chair Kang opened the public hearing at 7: 12 p.m. There were no public comments regarding this application. Chair Kang closed the public hearing at 7: 12 p .m. Schoenzeit stated the fact that the existing neighbor to the north is selling his property , there is no one that is speaking for or against this project that might reside in that residence. Schoenzeit noted that that residence is also close to the property line. Rice commented the applicants have made significant changes to their plans, which is a definite improvement, and that the least desired change was relocating the house further into the setback. Rice noted she does not have a problem with the bridge. Kang commented she is sensitive to the cost of pavers, but recommended the applicants consider installing impervious pavers in some of the smaller hardcover areas . Leskinen stated the size of the house has not been reduced substantially and instead moved further back into a different setback. Leskinen expressed concerns that the size of the residence is too large for the lot. Kang noted the applicant did follow most of the direction given by the Planning Commission by reducing the amount of hardcover near the creek, which was a major concern at the last meeting. Leskinen stated she is in agreement with the reductions but that she has a concern with relocating the house further back toward the creek. Schoenzeit indicated he also does not have a problem with the bridge. Schoenzeit noted the residence to the north is located 11. l feet from the property line and that this one is proposed to be at 11 feet. Rahn stated the intent of the 30-foot setbacks is to lessen crowding on the adjoining property and that the house to the north is older than IO or 15 years old . Rahn expressed concern with the considerable encroachment into the setback. Rick Hendel, Builder, stated they did look at the option of flipping the house , which would result in a further encroachment toward the neighbor. Hendel noted a three-car garage does not fit given the building envelope and the topography of the lot . Additional fill would also be required for the driveway if the house were flipped . Curtis noted this is 2-acre zoning but that one could argue that this neighborhood is more like a I to 1-1 /2 acre zoning. Curtis indicated the I-acre lots require a 10-foot side setback. Huthwaite indicated the cost of the pavers is an issue but that he is not opposed to looking at putting more pavers in. As it relates to the 11-foot setback, the neighbor also has an 11-foot setback, with a tall hedge in between the two. The lot is approximately 3/4s of an acre rather than two acres. Schoenzeit asked what the Planning Commission feels about the argument that this is really a one acre lot rather than two acres . Kang commented that she would be willing to accept that argument and that she is not opposed to the I ]-foot setback. The only other option would to reduce the size of the house even further.