11-15-2004 Planning Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

t Zoning File #2049 i August 14, 1995 Page 2 The existing house is 42’ from the shorchne. 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 cast end of the house. The proposed screen porch would require perimeter footings. Additionally, applicants propose to replace existing lower level wir.dows at the 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 docs 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 adj.iccni 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 scries of low boulder retaining walls between the house and shoreline. Tlierc are a number of manire trees and some underbrush within 15’ of the shoreline, but the slope is not so great that any significant erosion is occurring. The slope is certainly maintainable as it exists without boulder walls, and any excavation or fillmg 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 upgraded. Applicants* survey indicates an 8* gravel driveway that previously led to the lake has been removed, as have a 10* x IT shed and an 8* x 10 ’ shed. (See survey. Exhibit D.) A faint sketch on the 1970 survey apparently used for the original building permit, as well as 1989 City air photos, suggest that a loop 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 revcgcuicd. 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 liardcovcr analysis of the property is as follows: I. 0-75* Zone (Area » 33.050 s.f) Existing Proposed House 770 s.f. Deck (attached)216 s.f. Deck (at lake)120 s.f. 1.106 s.f. House 770 s.f. Att. Deck/Scr. P£h.270 s.f. Deck (at lake)12£LlL 1,160 s.f. (3.35%) ----------di' (3 51%) . - _ ..-.4