Laserfiche WebLink
Zoning File #2049 <br /> August 14, 1995 <br /> Page 4 <br /> • Although removal of the 8' gravel driveway in the 0-75' is a positive step, the <br /> City has no real "baseline" data on what was there, nor on how extensive (or how <br /> hard-surfaced) the loop driveway was prior to its recent upgrading. Is the loop <br /> driveway in the 0-75' zone necessary? Remember that no permit was obtained <br /> (nor technically required) for spreading additional gravel on an existing driveway, <br /> yet this policy results in perpetuation of non-conforming hardcover. <br /> • Does prior removal of the two sheds out of the 0-75' zone provide adequate <br /> structural mitigation for the proposed screen porch/deck? <br /> • Is there justification for allowing the 12" retaining walls between the house and <br /> the shoreline, even though their visual impact might be minimal? If constructed <br /> as proposed, what is their impact on the existing vegetation and trees? <br /> • If the excavation to create the new walkout/patio door is allowed, is the additional <br /> facade exposure in the 0-75' zone significant enough to warrant the need for <br /> additional screening? <br /> Staff Recommendation <br /> It is recommended that Planning Commission consider this request based on the visual <br /> impacts of the proposed addition as well as the perpetuation and expansion of the existing non- <br /> conformities. Keep in mind the distinction between structural and non-structural hardcover. <br /> Consider whether removal of the 10' x 10' shed near the driveway loop and removal of the 8' <br /> gravel driveway to the lake justifies expanding the bulk of the house lakeward. Also, consider <br /> the non-conforming status of the freestanding deck at the lakeshore. <br /> lsv <br /> II <br />