Laserfiche WebLink
' � <br /> ' �G� °o � <br /> REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION <br /> Date: June 22, 2006 <br /> Item No.: <br /> De�artment Approval: Administrator Approval: Agenda Section: <br /> Name: Michael P.Gaffron/�'��f`�; •�L Zonin; <br /> Title: PlanningDirector `� ` �' <br /> Item Description: #OS-3102 Stonewood Design/Build, 920 Brown Rd. S.- <br /> Variance—Review of Revised Site Plan and Building Plans <br /> List of Exhibits <br /> A- Resolution No. 5329 including Approved Building Plans and Site Plan 6-13-OS <br /> B�- Revised Site P1ai15-18-06 <br /> C - Revised Building Plans May 2006 <br /> D - PC Minutes 4-18-05, 5-16-05; Council Minutes 6-13-OS <br /> E- PC Memos 4-14-OS and 5-12-OS <br /> F- Neighbor Conunents, June 2006 <br /> G- 2005-2006 Site Plan Comparisons <br /> Sacm�zary of Issaie: Site plan and building plans submitted for building pei7nit approval do not <br /> match tllose upon which the variance approvals were predicated. Per the conditions of the <br /> Resolution, staff is requesting Council review of the revised proposal for a deteimination of <br /> whether the revisions are still in keeping with the intent of the variance approval. <br /> Applicaiit had a buyer for this property in 2005, submitted plans and worked through the variance <br /> review process,revising plans in response to Planning Commission concerns. Based on a specific <br /> set of building plans and site plan which Planning Coinmission found acceptable,lot area,lot width <br /> and left and right side setback variances for.a house with portions 20' rather than 30' from the side <br /> lot line, were granted in June 2005 to construct a new residence on the property. <br /> The specific site plan and building plans were referenced in the approval resohition. Condition 1 of <br /> the variance approval states: "Coacncil��ppt•oval is based on the sr'te�lan sacbn�itt.ed by the applicc�nt <br /> ancl attccchecl to this �•esolzction �rs Exhibit A. Any ansend»zents to tl�e site plrn� tivlaich czre not z�a <br /> confornzily with Cily codes tinill��eltti�•e fiu,the��Pl�cnning Co»a�nzssion anc�Ciry CouT�cil fAevr'ew". <br /> The original buyer for the property went away, and a new buyer was eventually found. Applicant <br /> had new plans drawn up suiting the new buyer's wishes; however, the extent and location of <br /> encroach.nients of the side setback on both sides does not matclz those upon which the variances were <br /> accepted. The newly submitted plans,while still proposing a house with 20' side setbacks,exhibit a <br /> significantly greater area of encroaclunent of the side setback than the house plan that was approved, <br /> atid a different location for those encroachments. It is staff's conclusion tizat the degree of additional <br /> encroaclunent proposed in 2006 is not in conformity with City codes, and therefore is subject to <br /> fiirther review. <br />