Item 7.1 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Planning Commission Minutes DRAFT February 16, 2006 Page 2 would now face west; the existing doors faced north- This is an intensification of a non- conforming driveway in the setback. Staff has recommended that the non -conforming driveway be reduced to the minimum required. Also, the fire department has required widening a portion of the access driveway; parcel A, which is not part of the subject property. Parcel A property owner has contacted the planning department voicing some concerns. Both property owners would have to be in agreement before permits were issued. He referred to Section 10-2.1102, "driveways shall not be located within 10 feet of my property line except as necessary for sight access or common driveways." This existing driveway was approved in 1979 by the Site Development authority. Because it was approved, staff only recommended removal of the non required portions of the driveway. If this was a major addition or new construction, staff would have required the driveway to be brought into full conformance with this Section. He indicated that the Commission has the discretion to allow the paving to stay as the applicant has requested. Discussion ensued regarding the open space easement versus the storin drain easement as they pertain to usage. The storm drain easement as described in the subdivision map does not speak of wildlife protection or vegetation; the open space easement language would refer to wildlife or vegetation protection. The deck and the request to reduce it by one foot were reviewed as well as the top of bank location. It was clarified that the footprint of the residence is not actually being expanded but enclosed. The 9 foot deck will be the only new piece of footprint to be constructed. OPENED PUBLIC HEARING Daryl Harris, project archilect, requested a lesser setback from the creek. He provided an overview of the property illustrating the constraints of the lot with the creek going right through it, The proposed additions were reviewed. He requested using the storm drain easement as the setback line as it was used when this house was originally built. This would reduce further constraints. Another issue of concern was the request to relocate the AC unit. He would be willing to relocate it; staying on the same sides using the storm drain easement as a definition of setback. He further discussed the request for an open space easement as it would further encumber an already constrained property. He also discussed the driveway reduction as they would prefer not removing the turning area as it would make it extremely difficult to maneuver into the side entry garage. They would be willing to reduce some development area to the rem, returning it to vegetation. The fire department bad two requirements; sprinkling and widening the driveway to the bridge with some discussion regarding tapering back so someone does not run off the bridge. Am Graham, property owner since 1984 stated the sole purpose for the remodeling was to rehab the building, improve the landscaping, bringing it up to date, and adding a bedroom and bath downstairs for their older days. When they developed the plan, they thought they were within all of the conformance features. She voiced issues with the pavement which would makes backing out difficult (tight space). She wanted to keep the pavement they have for turnaround possibilities and improved visibility getting in and out of the driveway (safety issues). They were also trying to understand what the City wants out of the added open space easement request. It was their understanding when they bought the lot that they had the storin drain easement and nothing could be built or done to that side of the property. Also, that whole area is