|
FILE#05-3136
<br /> 17 February 2006
<br /> Page 2 of 5 �
<br /> � Background
<br /> This application was before the Planning Commission in September, at which time PC "
<br /> voted 4-3 on a motion to reconunend approval of a lot width variance but deny a CUP for
<br /> grading in excess of 500 cubic yards to create a walkout situation. Tliat recommenclation
<br /> went forward to the Council on September 26. Discussion ensued regarding the impact
<br /> of the house on the si.u-rounding neighborhood �s currently designed and located, and the
<br /> application was tabled by Council.
<br /> A revised pla�.i with a srnaller liouse, relocated fiirther forward on the lot in line with the
<br /> neighboring home to the east, was submitted and subsequently reviewed by Coiuicil on
<br /> October 10. Council heard froin neighbors who generally supported the concept of
<br /> moviiig the house forward, where it would not�ov�iwhelmtthe rieighbois' open space.
<br /> � l`4 L:�:;r F F��iw .
<br /> Council then refemed the revised plans to the'Plaruung Coiiimission for reyiew at the -
<br /> ->- ,e,;.t . �.._�. _.
<br /> November PC meeting. Applicant concluded�he neecled�addrtiorial tinie to �refine_lus ,.
<br /> �- � - �,..��.>.�.:-�_r.,� . -.
<br /> plans and extended the review period by 6�noiiths�He has'"iiow pioyided a sef of plans � �
<br /> �. . ,;;�
<br /> with the following characteristics: _F�s_J�,`��,�;�� -�--1n -`` - '��
<br /> - House footprint..................................4,635 s.f.
<br /> - West side setback. ....:: :.: :...::...:..:30'- . -
<br /> ....
<br /> , v.,.-� .. _
<br /> - East side setback...... � �` ..:30' `
<br /> - West side driveway setback�'� }� �' .:20' � - __
<br /> i r .y -.r
<br /> . . ." r,Z S - � :� '_. � y.>,.s�''�",a«>. �-�� � - .-� ,.,.-n
<br /> - Driveway access...... ....... � � ��; Hefitage Drive only�� - � �-� ' `"""�"='`
<br /> - �
<br /> - -
<br /> � �� �,�
<br /> - Cut/fill balance...............:_ �:W 36`5 cubic yards to be�exported �
<br /> ., y 3 w:c- «.�, - �
<br /> - Relocation forward allows walkout witli cuts/fills gener`ally ui the` ' - �` ' �
<br /> - range of 1'-4' deptli � i-1,£�;;� � � .
<br /> - City Engineer has approved grading arid,drainage plans- , .
<br /> { -+'t 5" .s�i
<br /> - Retaining wall along west side�of driveway ranges from 0'-4' high, �:- ;;-�
<br /> C'�'�
<br /> 100' long, 20' from side lot line � ,;� � =¢ � �'� �;,'� . � -r
<br /> � ��-- - �€
<br /> - House plans indicate height��meets'30�.lunrt �-�r � . `' '`-'
<br /> � �� -� ����-_ � �< <..� R..
<br /> J' a�-,,,,..'�"!^..� . r `,t.��• �a. ;r'`r' aa �-K, - �, r.
<br /> . T x.t'� s, kw .t -�i.. :
<br /> .
<br /> - �,• �.,.��y.�'�r�F,�' .. � s T. L Y _ ... . - � .. _S':
<br /> . �,L„ -�'r �.�=L[ 'Sp-. '?* '� -� �� - � . . . .
<br /> Site Grading Analysis _ �6. ,,,y,... _ ` '
<br /> The proposal now calls for cuts of 1,983_ cubic��yarcls and�fills of 1,626 cubic yards,
<br /> resulting in a balance that requires exportatiori of only 356 cubic yards from the site.
<br /> This is being accomplished in pai�t by fillirig�a 70' x 90' a�ea duectly northwest of the
<br /> � attached garage 0'-2' deep, comprising around 250 cubic yards wliich would not
<br /> necessarily be required to protect the garage and house fouiidation, but which does not
<br /> appea.r to create any new drainage issues aild does not appear to be a inismatch with the
<br /> neighboring property to the east.
<br /> Staff would conchide that the proposed grading plan does not have the negative impacts
<br /> on the neighborhood that earlier plans created, and the ot�rrent plan could be construed as
<br /> not rising to the tluesholds in Sections 78-967 and 78-1286 that would require a land
<br /> alteration CUP. The fact tliat the City Engineer has reviewed the various proposals and
<br /> fiiids this one acceptable gives staff a comfot�t level that the plan is neither tuireasonable
<br /> nor inappropriate.
<br /> . 2
<br />
|