10-15-2007 Planning Commission Packet

Home Browse Search

, � 1 � I � '� Exh i bit G ,� , � City Council Meeting 7/23/07 ZONING ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT i � 4. #OS-3143 DAN HESSBURG,774 TONKAWA ROAD—REVIEW UNAPPROVED GRADING j � � Dan Hessburg,Applicant,was present. � . i Curtis stated in 2005,the applicant submitted plans and worked through the variance review process,revising plans in response to Planning Commission concerns. Based on a specific set of building plans and site plan which the Planning Commission and Council found acceptable, lot area and lot width variances for a house were granted+in addition to a hardcover variance within the 75-250 foot zone permitting 27.2 percent hardcover where 25 percent is normally allowed and within the 250-500 foot zone to allow 459 square feet�or 45 percent where 30 percent is normally allowed for the new residence. i � During the inspection process,the City's building inspector noted that the site grading did not match the approved grading plan and the hardcover exceeded approved levels. Additionally,the applicant conducted grading within the 0-75 foot zone�to construct an unpermitted lake access stair. , - The as-built plan reflects excesses in hardcover withi I?the 0-75 foot zone,the 75-250 foot zone, and the 250-500 foot zone. Within the 0-75 foot zorie;�there was an existing wooden staircase, and in its place has been constructed a stone staircase,�which accounts for 360 square feet of hardcover, along with an undetermined amount of eart i movement. � i Within the 75-250 foot zone,there is 30.3 percent hard'cover where 27.2 percent was permitted. Additionally,the applicant constructed a wooden fence along the northern side lot line. This fence meanders across the property line. City Code allows construction of privacy fences without a permit but the fence must be constructed on one prop i rty and may not cross onto another. The applicant altered the approved grading plan by conducting unpermitted grading, installing unpermitted boulder retaining walls,and insta.11ing an unpermitted underground dram-tile system. The City's Engineer has reviewed the plans submitted by the applicant's landscape contractor regarding the drain tile system and those comments are"reflected in Exhibit C of the Staff inemo. ,1� . Planning Staff recommends the applicant be referred back to the Planning Commission for after- the-fact consideration and approval of the excess 380 squaxe feet total site hardcover. ' McMillan inquired whether the 75-250 foot hardcover ei cess is the boulder walls. Curtis stated to her understanding the hardcover excess�Is a result of the boulder walls. I White inquired whether the City Engineer has visited the site and reviewed the drainage. i� I Kellogg stated he has visited the site and that the biggest concern is that the drainage plan does not match what was approved. Kellogg noted Exhibit C outlines his concerns and that the main a ! 'i 1 i �