Laserfiche WebLink
FILE#143664 <br /> May 15,2014 <br /> Page 6 of 7 <br /> City Engineer Comments <br /> Comments from the City Engineer aze attached as Eghibit I. In addition to pointing out the <br /> need for a $3,000 escrow for erosion control and engineering oversight, he spells out a <br /> number of specific erosion control methods necessary due to the nature of this compact <br /> work site. Applicants should be required to adhere to the listed conditions. <br /> Additional Discussion <br /> Applicants indicate they plan to relocate onto the property the small 5'x9' shed that is <br /> partially on the HCRRA right-of-way. Given the slightly larger garage proposed, is this <br /> shed necessary? Are there any other hardcover items that can be eliminated? <br /> Initially there had been some discussion as to whether the existing decorative and functional <br /> retaining walls adjacent to Crystal Bay Road should be removed. Staffls conclusion is that <br /> these wa11s likely provide some measure of stability to the slope and their removal might <br /> cause erosion problems. <br /> Based on the small size of the lot, there does not appear to be sufficient room to provide <br /> mitigation measures for the excess hardcover. It should be noted that the proposed attached <br /> garage is intended to be 1 foot higher than the existing to eliminate the drainage issues noted <br /> by the applicant. <br /> Neighbor Comments <br /> The property owner to the immediate east has submitted comments indicating concerns <br /> which are addressed in Item 12 above. The Planning Commission should take into <br /> consideration the public input when reviewing the application. <br /> Issues for Consideration <br /> 1. Does the Planning Commission find that that the property owner proposes to use <br /> the property in a reasonable manner which is not permitted by an official <br /> control? <br /> 2. Does the Planning Commission find that the variances, if granted, will not alter <br /> the essential character of the neighborhood? <br /> 3. Does the Commission find it necessary to impose conditions in order to mitigate <br /> the impacts created by the granting of the requested variances? <br /> 4. Given the existing nonconforming level of hardcover, are there any areas of <br /> hardcover that can be reduced in size? <br /> 5. Given the proximity to the lake and the topography of the site, is there a need to <br /> establish a requirement that the building height be limited by adhering to the <br /> low-pitched roof design proposed? <br /> 6. Are there any other issues or concerns with this application? <br /> Staff Recommendation <br /> Planning Staff recommends approval of the proposed area, width, setback and hardcover <br />