11-27-2006 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

#OS-3135 November 21,2006 Page 2 , Revised Plans Submitted Buildin�IIei�ht,Avera�e Setback.The applicant h�s submitted a revised survey/site pl�ul,liardcover calculations,grading plan 1nd prelinlinary building plans and elevation views. The concept ora flat roof, 2-story residence h�s not changed, but the footprint now includes a westward jog at the south end to minimize the encroaclul7ent of the average setbacic line. The house elevation views submitted do not show any chimneys, no1�do the floor plans. The p�r�apet height shown is less than 30' above existing grade 1t the high side, b�sed on a high-side existing grade elevation of 938' + at the new extension;the building therefore meets the City's height linlit for flat roof structtires. As belore,the west yard will be rlled so that only the upper level will be above final grade on that side. Grading and Dr�ina�e. The grading plan was received on 11-21-06 and is being forwa��ded to the City Engineer For review and comment. An estimlte of the number of cubic yards of f 11 that will be brought onto the site is pending. Drainage will be directed to a swale along the south side and to the shared lot line (and partially over an easement on the neighboring property) on the north side. The underground garage with loop driveway partially above it is still proposed. Proposed hardcover and structural coverage are both conforming. Council should review the prior discussions with applicaut regarding placement of fill within 5' of the shared lot line to the south;grade on the applicant's side of the existing stone retaining wall will remain lower than existing on Morrie's side, which should keep drainage on applicant's side of the lot line. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends approval of the fill CUP, subject to confirmation by the City Engineer that the grading and drainage plan is acceptable. Cotuicil should review with the applicant the basis for not meeting a 5' fill setback. Staff has no strong reconullendation on the average setback variance; regardless how the Council concludes on this issue, the site is so unique that the end result will not be very precedent-setting. Council should again review the attached memos, docunlents and PC minutes regarding this application. The average lakeshore setUack ordinance was established to protect the lake views enjoyed by adjacent property owners. A variauce can be granted where there are tuzique circtunstances or where hardships are demonstrated. Council must ultimately weigh the negative impacts on the neighbor's lake views against the applicvit's desire to maximize his lake views.As of this writing, stalf has received no conunents on the revised plan fi�om Mr. Wagener or his representatives, who have been provided with the revised pl�ns. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED Review the application,aud detei•mine whether the fill CUP�nd the average setback variance will be granted. A resolution reflecting Council's COIICIL1S10I1S and incorl�orating appropriate CUP conditions will be drlfied for the December 11 Cotuicil meeting.