Agenda - Council - 08/08/2016 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

provide a better view for his neighbors. It was noted the proposed location would only require the removal of two smaller trees. Commissioner VanScoy inquired if another location could be selected to eliminate the need for a variance. Mr. Binfet reported the area to the left of the garage site was heavily wooded with oak trees. Commissioner VanScoy appreciated the tree preservations efforts of the applicant, but he did not believe that trees alone were a reason to approve a variance. Mr. Binfet discussed the elevation issues on his property noting how the high water mark was impacting the garage location. Community Development Director Gladhill explained the proposed garage location was 29 feet from the ordinary high watermark. He reviewed the contour lines for the property in further detail. He recommended the Resolution for approval reference an ordinary high watermark of 858, along with the unusual grade change for the parcel. Commissioner Brauer requested further information on the EPB's recommendation. Community Development Intern Meyers explained the EPB expressed concern with the potential of flooding with the proximity to the ordinary high watermark and requested another location for the garage be pursued given the fact the property was one acre in size. The EPB would be in support of a variance to the ordinary high watermark, as long as it was further away than originally proposed. She reported the second proposal moved away from the ordinary high watermark. It was noted the EPB had not reviewed the second proposal. Community Development Director Gladhill reviewed the history of this request noting there had been two different site locations for the garage. The first request had the garage 18 feet from the ordinary high watermark and the second request was 29 feet from the ordinary high watermark. Commissioner Brauer asked if the EPB contours, setbacks and elevations could be more closely defined. Community Development Intern Meyers stated this was a key concern for staff. There was a lack of information provided by the applicant regarding elevations and distances. She noted staff had used the information provided by a registered land surveyor from the original request, however this became somewhat distorted for the second request. Community Development Director Gladhill explained given the complexity of the request, this was the reason staff was recommending a new survey be completed. He recommended the Commission approve the request as is and that any deviations from the setbacks, after the survey was completed, be brought back to the Commission as an amendment to the variance. Planning Commission/June 2, 2016 Page 4 of 7