Laserfiche WebLink
site to allow for an increase in height of the building structure up to thirty (30) feet; the <br /> proposed four (4)parking spaces including the two to be located in the bunker garage; the <br /> • required pathway.easement for the property that is currently shown on the master pathway <br /> map; the applicant's Grading Policy exceptions that would require a total cut for the <br /> house of twenty (20) feet at the highest point, including the basement; the proposed <br /> elevations of the new residence; and photos of the site with the story poles. Pedro noted <br /> that without the Grading Policy exception, portions of the basement would count as <br /> approximately 1,000 square feet of floor area and the proposed height of the house would <br /> exceed thirty(30) feet. Pedro exhibited several slides that illustrated previously approved <br /> projects with grading exceptions. <br /> Pedro advised Council that the applicant had submitted a packet of information subsequent <br /> to the agenda packet's preparation. The supplemental information had been provided to <br /> Council in their agenda packet as an attachment to the staff report. Recently submitted <br /> correspondence from neighbors was available to the Council on the dais. <br /> Councilmember Mordo outlined his concerns regarding the application and his reasons for <br /> appealing the Planning Commission's approval of the project. Mordo commented that he <br /> did not have an issue with the removal of the single oak tree or the height of the proposed <br /> building. His primary concern with the application was the extensive cut that was <br /> proposed for the project that was approximately 2.5 times the Town's Grading Policy. <br /> Mordo commented that rules remove subjectivity from the review process and provide <br /> direction to applicants. He believed it was important for the process to work, for there to <br /> be consistency in the determinations. Mordo added that with certain findings or hardships <br /> • to validate an exception to the Grading Policy, it would be appropriate to grant the <br /> exception. However, he did not believe that the applicant had provided findings that <br /> proved a hardship existed that would warrant granting the policy exception. <br /> OPENED PUBLIC HEARING <br /> Applicant's Representative: <br /> Chip Nilsen, project architect, addressed the City Council. He thanked the <br /> Councifinembers for visiting the site, offering that he was hopeful that it would help them <br /> understand the building constraints of the property. <br /> Nilsen proceeded with a PowerPoint presentation. The original non-conforming residence <br /> had been demolished for an earlier project that had been proposed for the site. He offered <br /> that the site constraints had guided the design of the new residence with an ultimate goal <br /> of providing access to the site structure and to protect the privacy of the inhabitants and <br /> neighbors. Nilsen shared several photos of the oak trees on the site and spoke of their <br /> efforts to save the trees. <br /> Nilsen reviewed the site plan with the new driveway alignment, fire truck turnaround, <br /> parking, landscaped areas and the proposed pathway. Additionally, his presentation <br /> included an aerial of the site and Quarry Lake; photos of the surrounding properties; and a <br /> three dimensional model of the proposed residence, retaining walls and elevations. <br /> • <br /> 6 City Council Special Meeting Minutes <br /> February 18,2010 <br />