PC 060904 - Laserfiche WebLink

_ measured from the approved Vine Street right-of-way. The applicant will be required to submit a revised site plan to provide for that setback. Mr. Iserson described the site and the proposed project. Staff believed that the house was attractively designed and that the materials and colors would be compatible with the eclectic neighborhood. The applicant has agreed to decrease the width of the driveway to provide a wider landscaping strip along the side property line. Conditions were included to protect the existing tree that hangs over the side property line. Staff believed that with the proposed conditions, the design of the house would be attractive and compatible with the existing neighborhood. Commissioner Kameny noted that the County requires a 30-foot setback and that the applicants had not received that variance yet. In response to an inquiry by Commissioner Sullivan, Mr. Iserson replied that green building conditions were not included but that the Commission would be able to add those conditions if desired. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED. Linda Swartz, applicant, 230 Rose Avenue #B, noted that the variance heazing for the County would be held on June 10, 2004 and added that the County staff report recommended approval of the additional setback. She noted that they were not - requesting any benefits that other neighbors did not enjoy. She displayed the site plan for the Commission. A discussion of City setbacks versus County setbacks ensued. Commissioner Kameny noted that the homes in that area varied with respect to the setbacks and added that it was a fairly rural area with an unimproved road. Ms. Swartz noted that the City suggested that they move the shop back to regain the eight feet for the setback, but that would create other problems with meeting County requirements Mr. Iserson noted that was one of staff's suggestions and added that the lot is very deep at over 200 feet. Staff believed that the separation between the house and the pool and between the pool and the workshop may be used to make some minor adjustments. In response to an inquiry by Commissioner Sullivan, Mr. Iserson confirmed that the practical result would be that the most restrictive setback requirement between the City's requirement and the County's requirement would apply in this situation. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES June 9, 2004 Page 4 of 19