05-09-2005 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Zoning File #2049 August 14, 1995 Page 2 eating house is 42’ from the shoreline. The existing deck is 34’ from the shoreline. The proposal would increase the bulk of physical structure encroachment in the 0-75’ zone. In order to construct the screen porch, applicants will be excavating under the existing deck, which may result in the need to replace footings under the east end of the house. The proposed screen porch would require perimeter footings. Additionally, applicants propose to replace existing lower level windows at tlie southeast front of the house with a glass door, requiring excavation to create the ability for a walkout. While this excavation is minimal in the number of cubic yards to be removed, it does expose a larger portion of the facade to the lake within 50’ of the shoreline. Although applicants have suggested that this excavation plus a boulder wall adjacent to the main entry are to prevent erosion, there is no existing erosion problem, and the grading is merely to create the ability for a walkout door on the south facade. Applicant additionally proposes a series of low boulder retaining walls between the house and shoreline. There are a number of mature trees and some underbrush within ^5’ of the shoreline, but the slope is not so great that any significant erosion is occurring. Tlie slope is certainly maintainable as it exists without boulder walls, and any excavation or filling to establish the proposed walls might have a negative impact on the existing trees and vegetation. Hardcover Issues There is some accessory hardcover in the 0-75’ zone, including a 10’ x 14* deck adjacent to the lake, sidewalks adjacent to the house, and a gravel driveway loop which appears recently t'pgraded. Applicants* survey indicates an 8’ gravel driveway that previously led to the lake has been removed, as have a 10* x 11* shed and an 8* x 10’ shed. (See survey, Fjchibit D.) A faint sketch on the 1970 survey apparently used 'or the original building permit, as well as 1989 City air photos, suggest that a loq> driveway and access drive to the lake has existed for many years. 'The portion leading to the lake (noted by surveyor as 800 s.f.) has recently been removed, but is not revegetated. The loop driveway has new gravel and sod boundaries and is clearly defined. Most of the loop is within the 0-75’ setback zone. A hardcover analysis of the property is as follows: 0-75’ Zone (Area = 33,050 s.f.) Structural Hardcover: Existing House Deck (attached) Deck (at lake) 770 s.f. 216 s.f. 120 s.f. 1,106 s.f.(3.35%) •*. ijr\ House Att. Deck/Scr. PAh, Deck (at lake) 770 s.f. 270 s.f. IZQlL 1,160 s.f. ^ O ‘' ♦ I- i (3.51%) limiiMah