Laserfiche WebLink
. <br /> #05-3146 <br /> Jnnuary 17,2006 <br /> Page 2 of 2 ' <br /> Revised Plan <br /> The applicant submitted a revised survey in early December with revised hardcover <br /> calculations submitted on January 6t�'. The City Engineer has reviewed the revised <br /> survey and his comments are attaciied as Exhibit C. <br /> From staff perspective, the revised plan doesn't address any of the issues noted on the PC <br /> Action Notice, attached as �ahibit F. The only point addressed was moving the garage <br /> closer to the road,however not to the 15' suggested by staf£ All of the staff comments in <br /> the October PC report remain unaddressed, including reducing the size of the garage and <br /> meetulg a 10' setback. Staff finds no hardships to allow an 800 s.f. garage to be located <br /> at a 5' setback. <br /> Staff Recommendation <br /> Staff reconuilends that the application be tabled to allow the applicant to address the <br /> following: <br /> • Revise the dimension of the garage to 22' x 34' (or less than 750 s.f.), <br /> • Meet a 10' side yard setback, <br /> • Provide a revised grading plan for City Engineer review and approval addressing the <br /> issues noted within the letter dated 12-15-05, attached to this inemo as Exlubit C. <br /> However, if the applicant does not agree in writing to an additional 60-day extension the <br /> application should be denied as the current review period expires on Febniary 10, 2006 <br /> (which, falls prior to the next scheduled PC meeting). <br />