Laserfiche WebLink
k <br />5 <br />To:Chair Hawn and Planning Commission Members <br />Ron Moorse, City Administrator <br />From: <br />Date: <br />\ <br />Mike GafFron, Senior Planning Coordinator <br />June 15,2000 <br />Subject: #2564 William Dampier, 3550 Ivy Place - Variance <br />Zoning District: <br />Lot Area: <br />LR-IC One Family Lakeshore Residential District ('/2 Acre) <br />13,030 s.f. (0.29 acre) <br />Lbt of Exhibits <br />A - Revised deck plan submitted, with staff sketch for clarification <br />B - Planning Commission Minutes of April 17,2000 <br />C - Memo and Exhibits of April 13,2000 <br />This item was tabled at your April meeting to allow applicant time to revise his plans. No plan was <br />forthcoming prior to the May meeting, hence the item was continued at {^>plicant’s request to the <br />June 19 meeting. <br />A revised plan was submitted a few days ago which includes lowering the northerly and easterly <br />portions of the existing deck, so that no portions of the deck or its required railings will be more than <br />6' above grade. This is possible because the natural grade under all but the north and west portions <br />of the deck, is only 2-3' or less below the existing deck platform. Building Official Lyle Oman and <br />I inspected the site today and confirmed that the existing grade below the northeast comer of the <br />; deck drops off drastically just out from the base of the embedded tree, so this area will be lowered <br />and provided with handrails to meet all requirements. <br />I As a result, no portions of the proposed deck or railings will be more than 6' above grade, therefore <br />this deck system by definition will not be included in the calculation of lot coverage. Lot coverage <br />including the proposed remodeling and room additions will be at 14.9% (1937.5 s.f) by excluding <br />the deck. This solution also avoids variances that would have been required with the retaining wall <br />system that is no longer proposed. <br />Variances Required <br />The revised proposal brings this review back to where it was in March, absent the problem of <br />structural coverage. On March 20 (see minutes) Planning Commission recommended denial based <br />on excessive lot coverage, which is no longer an issue. The remaining variances include: <br />2. Section 10.22, Subd. 2 and Section 10.56, Subd. 16 (L)(2) - Lakeshore Hardcover - <br />Within 75-250’ of the shoreline there shall be no greater than 25% hardcover. Variance <br />Request: To permit a hardcover variance to allow 4,468.7 s.f (48.9%), where 5,061.7 s.f <br />(55.4%) exists and 2,282.5 s f (25%) is allowed.