09-21-1998 Planning Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Page 2 August 18, 1998 We did not like the look of hea\ily terraced walls that you see as you drive along the lake. We wanted to retain the “period" look and keep it as natural as possible. The selection of boulder outcroppings was made based on the following criteria. We needed to stabilize the hill. We wanted to plant low maintenance bushes and flowers to give a natural look without letting it go wild. We wanted to comply with the hardcover restrictions to create an environment w here runoff could percolate and filter through the hill before entering the lake. My contractor called to check with the city and was told that outcroppings, as opposed to walls, were not considered hardcover. In discussion with the city inspector he said “this is the type of material we should be encouraging residents to use because of the natural look and the ability to absorb water under the boulders ”. We have received no complaints from any of our neighbors regarding any of this construction. The neighbor to our north said. “This is the best investment I didn’t have to make”. On our south side, the neighbor said “you have done the most beautiful job with your landscaping 1 could imagine, it is breathtaking”. Request We are seeking variances in three areas as follows: Line of.site. The main part of the deck is well within the line of site regulations. There is a lower portion of the deck tliat e.xtends out on the North side of the main deck at or near ground level. The front portions e.vtend about 4 feet in front of the line created betw een my neighbors on either side, but within the line of site if we look two houses down on either side. The area in question provides a seating area totally out of view from tlte neighbors to the North due to dense tree cover between the houses. Both neighbors have elev ated decks and our near ground level deck doesn ’t infringe on their line of site in any way. This area was put in because the main part of the deck is too narrow to accommodate a table. Hardcover 75-250 ran^e. We have designed our landscaping plan to accomplish as much reduction of hardcover as is physically possible. We have reduced the overall hardcover from 42.55% to 39.82% as a result of those efforts. The efforts included; eliminating 133 sq. ft. of driveway space, removing plastic under all rocked and landscaped areas and replacing them with natural mulch, eliminating one wall of railroad ties and replacing other walls with more ironmeni friendly boulders, breaking out a concrete ramp that led to a basement walkout, and replaci’’ much smaller cellar door under the main deck and looking for further reductions with c . v jn«^i*.cation w e make. Much of our hardcover in this range is made up of slotted deck, which at least allows indirect absorption of water. Our hardcover challenge is preserving an older home with a detached garage and driveway within the 250-foot mark. We seriously considered tearing down this old landmark and constructing a new. modem home with all the conveniences of an attached garage and a real basement. Had we done so we could have easily met hardcover requirements within our 120 ’ .\ 350’ lot. We decided that we would “put up with’’ some inconveniences to retain the charm and beauty of this old place and we did not have the heart to let our home be one more casualty on the lake. It does however, present us an impossible task of getting within the prescribed hardcover limits. fr ^ /it JL.E