Project Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION Date: June 22, 2006 Item No.: Department Approval: Administrator Approval: N~me: Mich~el P. ?affronjJ1 ,ylJ"\ Title: Plannmg Director fl //If~~ Agenda Section: Zoning Item Description: #05-3102 Stonewood Design/Build, 920 Brown Rd. S.- Variance -Review of Revised Site Plan and Building Plans List of Exhibits A -Resolution No. 5329 including Approved Building Plans and Site Plan 6-1 B -Revised Site Plan 5-18-06 C -Revised Building Plans May 2006 D -PC Minutes 4-18-05, 5-16-05; Council Minutes 6-13-05 E -PC Memos 4-14-05 and 5-12-05 F -Neighbor Comments, Jm1e 2006 G -2005-2006 Site Plan Comparisons SummlllJ' of Issue: Site plan and building plans submitted for building permit approval do not match those upon which the variance approvals were predicated. Per the conditions of the Resolution, staff is requesting Council review of the revised proposal for a determination of whether the revisions are still in keeping with the intent of the variance approval. Applicant had a buyer for this property in 2005, submitted plans and worked through the variance review process, revising plans in response to Planning Commission concerns. Based on a specific set of building plans and site plan which Planning Commission found acceptable, lot area, lot width and left and right side setback variances for a house with portions 20' rather than 30' from the side lot line, were granted in June 2005 to construct a new residence on the property. The specific site plan and building plans were referenced in the approval resolution. Condition 1 of the variance approval states: "Council approval is based on the site plan submitted by the applicant and attached to this resolution as Exhibit A. Any amendments to the site plan which are not in conformity with City codes will require fitrther Planning Commission and City Council review". The original buyer for the property went away, and a new buyer was eventually found. Applicant had new plans drawn up suiting the new buyer's wishes; however, the extent and location of encroachments of the side setback on both sides does not match those upon which the variances were accepted. The newly submitted plans, while still proposing a house with 20' side setbacks, exhibit a significantly greater area of encroachment of the side setback than the house plan that was approved, and a different location for those encroachments. It is staffs conclusion that the degree of additional encroachment proposed in 2006 is not in conformity with City codes, and therefore is subject to further review.