Laserfiche WebLink
hen�#09-CCAgenda-OS/14/07 <br /> File#07-3259[Toml Pcfgips 4IJ �� <br /> • #07-3259 1374 Rest Point Road <br /> MAy 10,2007 <br /> Page 2 • <br /> Planning Commission Recommendation � <br /> . On April 16 Platining Commission reviewed the revised proposal and concluded that the <br /> new pla�ls result in a hardcover level that is acceptable even though tlus has become a re- <br /> � . build situation rather tliaii a remodel. Plannuig Conuiussion had no problein with the 0.9' <br /> setback variailce for the eaistang garage. T11e lot area variance aiid variance to the <br /> accessory structure ordinance were non-controversial. Pl.�cnizi�:g Conrnzissio�a voted 5-0 to <br /> reconznre�2d approvic!of tlae revised p��oposal as p►•esei:ted: <br /> City Engineer's Comments <br /> The City Engineer reviewed the grading and drainage�plan subuutted on 4-9-07 and <br /> provided written con�unents (Exlubit D). In response to tliese comments the applicant <br /> . submitted a revised plan on May 10 (Exhibit A) whicli has been provided to the City <br /> Engineer for review, although his conmlents are not expected to be irnrnediately available. <br /> The potential grading& drainage issues are seen by staff as issues that do not substantially <br /> affect the site layout or hardcover variance review. Any engineering issues need to be <br /> completely resolved before Council adoption of an approval resohition. � <br /> Issues for Consideration <br /> Please carefully review the.PC memo and exhibits of April 11, especially the sections , <br /> � regarding the pool status, and hardcoveT. Staff would offer the same� issues for <br /> coiisideration as were posed to the Planniilg Commission: � <br /> 1. Should the pool be allowed to remain in conjunction with this project that is being <br /> considered as a total rebuild? Is there any justification for a hardcover variance in <br /> either zone? It can be argued that the pool is the sole reason for the hardcover <br /> variances needed. The proposed house 11as been relocated and inodified so that it ' <br /> can be constilicted and attached to the garage without tlie need for any variances <br /> " other than the 9.1�' existing garage setback. With over 4500 s.f of hardcover <br /> allowance, the lot certainly has the abiliiy to contaui the proposed 2250 s.f. of <br /> house and garage and the triple-wide 850 s.f. of existing driveway, plus ae few <br /> other amenities. <br /> 2. Does Plaiuiuig Conuilissioii liave any coiicerns about coi7necting the house to the <br /> garage when tlie garage has a slightly substandard side setback? <br /> 3. Because reinoval of the principal building automatically i�iggers tlie provisions of <br /> , Section 78-1432, requiring removal of non-conforining accessory struct�ires and. <br /> requiring an `agreemeilt' for retentioii of conforuzuig accessory structures, a <br /> - variance to this section is tecluuc�lly required in order to retain t11e garage and/or <br /> the pool. <br />