12-13-2004 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

^04-3042 October IH. 2004 Fuge 4 of 4 d. The types, uses and numbers of watercraft that the project will generate are compatible in relation to the suitability of public waters to safely accommodate these watercraft. Not applicable Sections 78-966, 1^-961, and 78-968 of the Zoning Ordinance outline a number of circumstances where unusual fill or fill in excess of 500 cubic yards requires approval by the Council, usually in the form of a conditional use permit. No specific conditions are outlined, however the ordinances states that the site must maintain proper drainage and protection of adjoining property. Staff finds that the amount of fill brought onto the site can functionally work if swales along the north and soutli sides of the property are corrected. However, the amount of fill docs create a change of character not only to the two most impacted neighbors but also along Bolin’s Point Road. The Planning Commission should discuss this issue and determine if the visual impacts created by the additional fill are grossly negative where the fill, in excess of the 1,650 c.y. approved with the building permit, should be removed. I'lic most impacted neighbor to the north has submitted written comments, attached as F.xhibit G. The Building Official and Building In.spector have indicated that if the excess fill is removed the grading can still work on the property with the improvement suggest by the City Engineer. It should be noted, that the house meets all requirements outlined within the Zoning Ordinance in relation to setbacks, hardcover, lot coverage and building height (measured from existing grade) and that this property has received no variances. Issues for Consideration 1. Does the fill in excess of the 1,650 c.y. approved create negative impacts on neighbors? 2. Should the fill in excess of 1,650 c.y. be allowed? 3. Should the grade be allowed to be substantially altered when all other requirements are met? 4. Is the Planning Commission comfortable stipulating the recommendation on submittal and approval of a plan by the City Engineer meeting the City I'nginccr comments (and possibly additional PC comments) prior to review by the City Council? 5. Are there any other issues or concerns with this application? Staff Kecommendatioii Staff recommends that the Planning Commission determine if the additional fill creates negative visual situation for the directly impacted neighbors and neighborhood, and whether or not the additional fill, above 1,650 c.y., should be permitted. Staff akso tecommends that the final approval stipulate confonnance with the City Engineer ’s memo, attached as Exhibit F, and that a plan meeting those stipulations is drafted and approved by the City Engineer prior to final approval by the City Council. A final Certificate of Occupancy will be held up until that appro\ cd plan is implemented. >1