Laserfiche WebLink
♦ <br /> #OS-3135 3165 North Shore Drive <br /> January 12,2006 <br /> Page 6 � <br /> The affected adjacent property owner, Morrie Wagener, via Peter Johnson's letter, is objecting to <br /> any new encroaclunent of the average setback. The proposed residence does create new vertical <br /> encroachments; in the area of the 22' encroachment past the average setback line, the existing <br /> house is only one level, perhaps no more than 12-15' above ground, where the proposed house <br /> will be 30' in height. Plamling Commission should carefiilly review Johnson's comments in <br /> deterniining whether an average setback variance is appropriate. Also see the site photos taken <br /> from the lake last summer. <br /> Additionally, Plaiuzing Commission should note that the proposed flat-roof home has two <br /> chimneys extending as much as 10' above the roofline. There is no building or fire code <br /> requirement that they extend this high. Their height is primarily for ornainental and aesthetic <br /> purposes. Yot�r recoinmendation as to whether they are obtrusive enough to warrant a CUP <br /> review under Section 78-1366 is requested. 78-1366 states: <br /> "Sec. 78-1366. Height of structures. <br /> (a) The height limitations imposed by other provisions of this chapter may be <br /> increased by conditional use permit by 50 percent when applied to the following structures: <br /> (1) Church spires. <br /> (2) Belfries. <br /> (3) Cupolas and domes which do not contain useable space. <br /> (4) Monuments. <br /> (5) Water towers. <br /> (6) Fire and hose towers. <br /> (7) Observation towers. <br /> (8) Flagpoles. <br /> (9) Chimneys. <br /> (10) Smokestacks. <br /> (11) Parapet walls extending not more than three feet above height of the building. <br /> (12) Cooling towers. <br /> (13) Elevator penthouses. <br /> (b) Heights in excess of those allowed under subsection(a) of this section for the uses <br /> enumerated in that subsection may be permitted only by conditional use permit granted pursuant <br /> to the procedures as set forth in article V, division 2, of this chapter." <br /> Issues for Consideration <br /> 1. Does the proposed plan for filling create any negative impacts? Is there a basis to reduce <br /> the amount of filling because this is on a private driveway system? Is there a basis to <br /> require that the house be inoved back, either to reduce fill impacts or eliminate average <br /> setback concerns? <br /> 2. Is there sufficient hardship or mitigation available to justify granting the average setback <br /> variance given the objection by the neighbar? <br /> 3. Are there any other issues ar concerns with this application? <br />