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