2006 07-26 CC PACKET - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

by a 2-foot overhang along that facade, limited to only the door area by the 5-foot cut in the prevailing ground level and hidden from the street by the auto garage on level I. Mr. Hoeschler complemented Mr. Doehrmann on the completeness of the plan set, the orientation of the house and the detailing on the garage door (to keep it from looking like a big, industrial door), but expressed concern that Mrs. Swomley, the nearest neighbor was not present. (He said he had visited the site earlier in the day and was satisfied that the high facade in question was well screened by the topography, the building design and the woods in the NW front of the Swomley lot. Mrs. Swomley then appeared and expressed appreciation for the orientation of the house, but (later) expressed concern about the general size of the house. After further discussion of the fact that our existing and still -in -force ordinance does not require review of a CUP for a walkout fagade of this height, the design was unanimously recommended for approval to the City Council under the CUP provisions of the new ordinance that is likely to be approved by the Council. 4. Final review and public hearing regarding amended and restated Ordinance 43H then took place. The Chairman thanked Mr. McNulty, Mr. Anderson, Mrs. Swomley, Messrs Rafferty and Emeott, and Mr. Rossow and others for their helpful and detailed suggestions that have improved the final product. He also described for the audience the principal changed provisions in the l 04-page document. Since this was a public hearing, questions and comments from the audience were entertained throughout. Members of the audience expressed strong concern about the height of homes and Mr. Hoeschler explained that since our existing ordinance only controlled the front elevation, the new ordinance attempts to force a discussion of the design and impact on neighboring properties of walkout facades up to 10 feet higher than the front elevation limits by requiring a Conditional Use Permit for such facades. He said that Mr. McNulty had objected to any review procedure but that this was felt to be a reasonable compromise between advocates for the same absolute height limit on all facades and the no -control approach of the current ordinance. Mr. Hoeschler also described the new site plan review procedure that is intended to expedite such reviews for the benefit of the owner/developer. He said that this procedure would also involve affective notice to and consultation with impacted neighbors. He explained that this procedure would allow the owner/developer to bypass the Planning Commission and take any affected designs directly to the Council for review and approval. In the course of the discussion Mr. McNulty objected that Mr. Hoeschler was speaking too much and taking too long in his explanation of the ordinance. He said that the existing, operative rules did not require property owners such as the Tanqwells to agree to any additional screening vegetation (though he implied that they had graciously agreed to do so in response to concerns about the massive appearance of their home). Mr. Hoeschler replied that that sort of compromise was exactly what the new CUP and site plan review procedures were intended to foster. In response to the neighbors' complaint that the Hillary Farm model did not fit in with the existing housing in Gem Lake, Mr. McNulty suggested (in an apparent joke) that that was a good thing. The neighbors failed to see the humor in his remark. 2