04-11-2005 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

<K ,m-2Q\0 August 16,2004 Pagt2of3 reduce hardcover. The applicant has reduced the size of the garage, however increased the size of the house footprint sli^tly. The applicant has also explored moving Ae house towards the road but doesn’t want to give up any lake views. Lastly, the applicant has tried a smaller attached garage as well as a detached garage in an effort to reduce driveway hardcover. All the exercises have led the applicant to the attached revised plan. The applicant is still proposing to remove the shed located at the lake and the detached gAi-age located at the road, as well as retaining walls within 75 ’ of the lake. The new plan consists of 30% hardcover when 33% was previously proposed and 25% is normally allowed. The qn>licant is also still requesting a conditional use permit in order to re-grade the lake yard. The City Engineer has reviewed this plan briefly, however has not provided any written comments at the time this report was drafted. His verbal comments relate specifically to M^ether or not the slope is indeed in need of restoration. He will conduct a site visit and provide written comments, although he maintains that only the portion of the slope between the 934 elevation and the 944 elevation are in need of slight repair and the repair can be done vnthout the need for retaining walls. The applicant should explore replanting the area between the 934 elevation and 944 elevations with prairie grasses and/or wildflowers as those plant types provide much deeper root systems than turf grasses. The Pluming Commission should come to a consensus on whether extensive grading within the lake yud should be permitted given the City Engineer ’s preliminary comments, the conditional use permit standards outlined in the previous staff report, and historically v^t residents have been approved to do within their lake yard. LOT ANALYSIS WORSHEET (ehmgajrom the previoiu plan have been bolded and Italicize^ LR-IC Lot Area Lot Width Requited 21,780 s.f. (0.50 acres)100 ’ Actual 21,929 s.f. (0.50 acres)104 ’ @ Shoreline 101 ’@75 ’ Setback LR-IC Required Existing Proposed Front 30’N/A N/A Reu 30’ 99.6 ’-house 11.5 ’-detached garage 68* (71 ’ was previously proposed) Left Side (north) ■i 10 ’ 23.2’-house 1 1.3 ’ - detached garage 13* (28’ was previously proposed) r-a