02-21-2006 Planning Commission Packet

Home Browse Search

i - #05-3135 3165 North Shore Drive � February 15,2006 Page 2 �� . ' Update Applica.nt has not changed his proposal since your January review. The building plans and site plan(Exliibit A of 1-12-06 memo) are still the applicant's proposed plans. The City Engineer reviewed the submitted drainage calculations and indicated that there is a slight increase in rtuioff rates to the lake, that could be mitigated by the provision of raingardens or other water biofiltration systems, most likely between the house and the lake. Applicant notes that the natural rise at the shoreline currently acts to pond water in the lakeshore yard during large raiiifall events. That rise is not evident from the topography map provided. Staff would recomrnend that a more formal system such as a raingarden be . established lakeward of the home to enhance stormwater management on the site. Applicant has erected a 30' high pole at the corner of the proposed house that would most encroach the average setback line. The pole has 2' height increments. Planning Comnzission members slzould attempt to view t/tis from Morrie's Izouse to gain first-Jzand knowdedge of /iow tlze propose�l house will impact views. Call or email if you need directions... Please again review the materials from the January meeting: I have heard from Peter Johnson on Morrie's behalf, and also Jonathan Aanestad who lives to the northwest of the site, both of whom may be providing additional commentary at the February meeting. Issues for Consideration 1. Does the proposed plan for filling create any negative impacts? Is there a basis to � reduce the amount of filling because tlus is on a private driveway system? Should the house be re-designed or relocated, either to reduce fill impacts or eliminate average setback concerns? - 2. Is there sufficient hardship or mitigation available to justify granting the average - , setback variance given the objection by the neighbor? 3. Are there other issues or concerns with tlus application? Staff Recommendation Planning Commission should review the applicable Zoning Code Sections aiid evaluation criteria in Section 78-1250 and determine if any negative impacts will result. Planning Coinmission should recomniend that stormwater maiiagement practices be applied that will reduce the impacts of the slight increase in runoff rates. Planning Coiru�zission should consider whether an average setback variance is appropriate, given the coizlments of the adjacent property owner, and make a recommendation to Council or provide applicant with direction as to what changes might be appropriate.