5.2. SR 01-20-2009 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

~/ City of Elk -,--, River REQUEST FOR ACTION To Item Number Ci Council 5.2. Agenda Section Meeting Date Prepared by Communi Develo ment anua 20, 2009 Chris Leeseber ,Park Planner-Planner Item Description Reviewed by Request by Fred McCoy (McCoy's Pub) for Conditional Use Jerem Barnhart, Plannin Mana er Permit for Patio Addition, Case No. CU 08-24 -Public Reviewed by Hearing Action Requested Staff and the Planning Commission recommend the City Council deny the conditional use permit request for a building expansion as illustrated on drawings dated 9/29/08 for the following reason: 1. Inconsistency with the shoreland setback regulations (Sec. 30-2022). Encroaches approximately 30 feet past the bluff line. 2. Inconsistency with impervious surface regulations (Sec. 30-2025). Exceeds impervious surface by approximately 33%. 3. Inconsistency with Downtown Design Guideline approved materials (Section 30-1026). Should the City Council approve the conditional use permit, staff would suggest the approval be conditioned on the following: 1. Approval of a formal variance from the shoreland setback regulations and the impervious surface regulations. 2. All requirements of the Building Code shall be met, including egress. 3. City Engineer shall approve, prior to construction, a bluff re-stabilization plan and stormwater retention plan. Summary The applicant is proposing approximately a 1,000 square foot building addition. The proposed addition would be 36 feet from the rear of the existing structure and approximately 30 feet past the bluff line. The existing building and proposed addition will cover approximately 58% of the property. The building is currently a nonconforming structure as approximately 30 feet of the rear (south) end of the building encroaches into the bluff line setback. One issue that complicated the discussion was the presentation of a revised survey by the applicant. This was not included in the original Planning Commission packet, and is included in the Council packet for reference only. Staff and the City Engineer have not analyzed the revised survey, nor has the DNR offered comments relative to this drawing. If the revised drawing reflects a revised application, the applicant should waive the 60 day rule timeline and the revised plan should be reviewed by staff and the DNR, with a recommendation going back to the Planning Commission. S:AYLANNING bIAIN\Case piles\CUP\CU U8-24 McCoy\CU 08-24_CC.doc