07-08-2002 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

what was shown on the original sur\ cy, and the retaining walls were not shown. The retaining walls were constructed to aid the change in grade for the driveway. Also, a small retaining wall was constructed on the lake side of the residence. When the retaining walls were constructed the applicant did not know they were considered hardcover. Additionally, the second driveway on the property has not been converted to grass as required. With regards to the house, the approved building plans indicated 2 windows and a patio door where the 3 patio doors are now located. This change in plans by the applicant apparently occurred during construction. Planning Commission: The Planning Commission recommended by a 4 to 2 vote to allow the two decks and walkway w ith the following conditions to bring down the amount of hardcover on the property: 1. Remove south driveway and replace with grass. 2. Remove shed located in 0-75 ’. 3. Remove all stone borders. 4. Remove all unnecessar>' boulder walls. The minority opinion did not support the two decks and walkway for the following reasons: 1. Two of the patio doors were not on the approved building plans. 2. The driveway is larger than needed to enable driving out onto Shady-wood Road, allowing room for parking miscellaneous items. 3. The new residence is appro.ximately 1 year old and considered new construction. 4. There is no inherent hardship. Engineer Discussion: The applicant agrees the south driveway will be removed and replaced with grass and the shed and all stone borders will be removed. The last condition of Planning Commission approval states all unnecessary' boulder walls be removed. The applicant feels the other retaining walls on the property are necessary and needed for erosion control. City Engineer, Tom Kellogg, did visit the site to view the retaining walls and determine there necessity for erosion control. Exhibit A in this report indicates the hardcover being removed. Also, indicated on the plan are three small areas the engineer thought were not necessary for erosion control. These three areas arc: A- the loop around the tree (20 s.f.), B - retaining wall by arborv itae (20 s.f.) and C - small portion of wall by walkout (10 s.f.) for a total 50 s.f. (.29%). Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval following the majority opinion of the Planning Commission plus the three areas indicated on Exhibit A. The applicant shall remove the shed, south driveway, rock borders and the three areas (A, B, C). to reduce the hardcover on the property. Total hardcover in 0- 75 ’setback area will be 88 s.f. (.46%) and hardcover in 75-250 ’ settmek area will be 4,872 s.f. (28.08%). ♦Staff would like City Council to consider a 2’ x 60 ’ sidewalk be constructed from the driveway to the front door. A sidewalk does not exist at this time. A sidewalk of this size would increase the