10-18-2004 Planning Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Ld4lt< ••*•3059 1335 ToakjMa Koad OclalMr II. 2004 Pit«2 DUcnslioB The City Council rcMCwcd the hciglil issue for this proposed residence in Sepiemher as an appc.il of an adminisuativc decision to deny a building pcmui based on exccssis e hciglit. Counc il cone luded that the height measurement policy using the average of the higlicsi \Miidow and the peak, was \ alid and appropriate. Council also concluded that the lower measuring point should be establislied at 940’, wliich matched the original grade at the west side of the cunent lot before the adjoining home w as ra/ed. Council suggested that the proposed design could be revised to meet the hciglit code, and applicant could make revisions to the peak feature and apply for a CUP for a cupola under Section ?8-1 306 CUP Standards. Section 78-1366 docs not contain any specific standards for approval of a CUP, but does reference the general Conditional Use Permit standards of Arucle V. Di\ ision 2 (Sections 78-911 thru 78- 922). The pertinent e.xcerpt is 78-916(a) which states: (I) Tlic flaiilliNC^9"i'**tul«a ma> rrcommciHl and theCouncil ma> t^anl a rondlllonal u%r |>rrmil at Ihr uvr pcmiil« at applirti for or in modlflrd form, if on the batit of (hr applic allon and ibe rt idrncr tubmiiird. ihc Clly makrt ibc follow in| flndinKt: Thai lh« propntrd location of the conditional utc it in accord with the objcctitn of tbit Chapter and the purpotet of the dittrict in w hich the tite it located and Comprehentlte Municipal Plan; I hat the propoted iocalion of the conditionai ute and the propoted condition under w hich II w ould be operated or maintained w ouid not be detrimental to the public health, tafett or welfare, or materially injuriout to properties or iniprotementt in Ihc ticinil); and. That the propoted conditional utewillcomplt with each of the applicable protitiont of thit Chapter. Staff IS on record as being reluctant to support this application, based on a pa^t history of fielding con^)lainls by residents, Planning Comnussioners and Couixil members about cxccssin c residential building heists in the City. How c\cr, ifPlanning Commission concludes that any negative unpacts of the e.xcess height associated w iih the cupola can be suitably mitigated by attaching reasonable conditions to an approval, or ifPlanmng Commission finds that there are no ncgain c imp Kts associated w iili the proposal, then a recommendation for approval may be in order. Comp Plan Policies. The Conununity .Management Plan (CMP) in P ut 3 A, the Env ironinenial Protection Plan, states the follow ing policy under “Urban Policies for Na'ural Resource .Managemcnf “2.Retentioo ofailural vcgelalion w ill limit the impact of urbaoUatlon as vbible from the lake. Building heights w ill be limned to less Uian tlie typical tree height .Minimum green belts will be provided with prohibitions against clearcutting or excessi%e thinning of vegetation. Natural vegetation w ill be preserv cd on slopes. Retaining walls will be discouraged except when absolutely necessary to prevent erosion, in w hich case they will be screened with natural vegetation.”