Project Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

a portion of the property th r , lacking accessibility, because the pr 7rty south of the creek can be accessed directly from the puulic roads in the immediate vicinity. • Finally, there is a concern that in the unlikety-: yef nof impossible circumstance that .should the creek reach a level that would inundat~ th'e bridge, the bridge could fail and be swept downstream and conceivably contribute to blockage of the culvert under Bayside Road, causing flooding. • For all of these reasons,...staffie-c6m-ffieryds that the proposed bridge not be allowed . -~ Staff Recommeridation In summary;·Planning Staff recommends the following: 1. Dei.nial of the hardcover variance and structural setback variance to allow the foot bridge . / f'ovi ~ l& ""(ffi: . u ' 2. Approval of the conditional ·us~ -permit subject to the MCWD requirements for the stream bank stabilization and the City Engineer's recommendations. 0,y _ \ u~ .... , . .,.,---. ~ 3. Approval of the lot area variance conditioned upon the combination o! 1he. ~ l~ts into one tax parceP prior to the issuance of a building permit and compliance with the wetlanct-Jiu.ffer requirements.~ 4. Denial of the proposed creek, side and street setback variances as proposed. The footprint of the proposed home should be reduced in an attempt to meet some or all of the setback requirements particularly the creek setback. 4'17.V of houu If,,, ~ ~ o ur-o F ~ 4-erf"bc U::.... fr\~ tx (;> IC- 5. Approval of some level of hardcover variances as the Planning Commission deems appropriate in conjunction with the following: j a. Reduction or reorientation of the size of the home to reduce the hardcover within 75' of the creek . ~ ~ b£---revl,u~ b. Reduction of the proposed patios and vehicle courtyard as the Planning Commission deems api:1ropriate. areas between the home and the creek . ~ .,.. Ju ! 1) Provision of mitigation measures includinQ Jain gardens and or native vegetation 2) Patios, sidewalks, courtyard and driveway to be constructed using paverr- Planning mmission should discuss the 5 points and make recommendations specific tp. eac;h' and provide clear direction to the applicants . Staff recommends that Planning Commission table .the application to allow /2,icants lo-make the appropriate chang~ • ~ \\ J-,~,.,, W N . .u 1/71 110 1-r n o /-oitJWCVL'1PJ I {/VU. {,,LlJ .Y ' VV I ... n.,l,· tt]*J !1J,,lra c5 r1 ee,,,.fc;j-t:_d ~ 7-3lf t,A t>;Jr("f?t.J/ott 'c NC</lt() : '5th 1errutf-rep/au bvttt~ u.J/ (UJ v-vu ? /,A.JhCLJ-are ~1 a ~ -Uk& ffLL re. I oact-~ d/2 1 vf? h.J~ r ~ re.duc,h~ of-0()~ tv/r~, 75 of Cree-le ~ ~ Cd>-i~d abotd' h()W.£> ~i-r_(J; t c~~c1ch~ - tfl.~n~-U"Ylu~ {fk?ZJu,t-~ ~1u mii&;e:;? Sth,en~ ---~pY!iYC -~ ~aa-., h~'lf ll5/- /Zt7-e~ HOU~ "&"notdd fl-I-~ Lot-, Ct!2,ud m1:er tJY fr1tJ f-o ~ St;!b~ iCh w ,nff er -l"LUd a cass tD ~-ptVv r O I pm~ '1:1