Laserfiche WebLink
■•4-JM2 <br />OctobM-11.2004 <br />Pa(t4»f4 <br />d. The types, uses and numbers of watercraft that the project will <br />generate are compatible in relation to the suitability of public <br />waters to safely accommodate these watercraft. <br />Not appUcabk <br />Sections 78-966, 78-967, and 78-968 of the Zoning Ordinance outline a number of <br />circumstances where unusual fill or fill in excess of 500 cubic yards requires approval by <br />the Council, usually in the form of a conditional use permit No specific conditions are <br />outlined, however the ordinances states that the site must maintain proper drainage and <br />protection of adjoining property. <br />Staff finds that the amount of fill brought onto the site can functionally work if swales <br />along the north and south sides of the property are corrected. However, the amount of fill <br />does create a change of character not only to the two most impacted neighbors but also <br />along Bohn's Point Road. The Planning Commission should discuss this issue and <br />determine if the visual impacts created by the additional fill are grossly negative where <br />the fill, in excess of the 1,650 c.y. approved with the building permit, should be removed. <br />The most impacted neighbor to the north has submitted written comments, attached as <br />Exhibit G. The Building Official and Building Inspector have indicated that if the excess <br />fill is removed the grading can still work on the property with the improvement suggest <br />by the City Engineer. It should be noted, that the house meets all requiremenu outlined <br />within the Zoning Ordinance in relation to setbacks, hardcover, lot coverage and building <br />height (measured from existing grade) and that this property has received no variances. <br />Imucs for Consideration <br />1. Does the fill in excess of the 1,650 c.y. approved create negative impacts on <br />neighbors? <br />2. Should the fill in excess of 1,650 c.y. be allowed? <br />3. Should the grade be allowed to be substantially altered when all other requirements <br />are met? <br />4. Is the Planning Commission comfortable stipulating the recommendation on <br />submittal and approval of a plan by the City Engineer meeting the City Engineer <br />comments (and possibly additional PC comments) prior to review by the City <br />Council? <br />5. Are there any other issues or concerns with this application? <br />Stair Rccomncadation <br />Staff recommends that the Planning Commission determine if the additional fill creates a <br />negative vistial situation for the directly impacted neighbors and neighborhood, and <br />whether or not the additional fill, above 1,650 c.y., should be permitted. <br />Staff also recommends that the final approval stipulate conformance with the City <br />Engineer's memo, attached as Exhibit F, and that a plan meeting those stipulations is <br />drafted and approved by the City Engineer prior to final approval by the City Council. A <br />final Certificate of Occupancy will be held up until that approved plan is implemented.