03-21-1988 Planning Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

ise the area of relatively ill rather than allow swift City's philosophy has been zones for increasing the t is significant that the t the ground was saturated led the bank to shear. The 1 that he reduce the anount b into the ground by piping easing the chance for a en that the erosion that act on lake water quality# a normal run-off from the : would seem that we might Lfications of our current this one. lake water quality impact 8 not significantly better because the impacts can be control methods during the er quality standpointr once significant impact on the IS. , the proposed method will in if the bank was merely ay not be as stable as It tural stabilizer (such as the revised proposal will ieep walk-out cut proposal, jss distinct from across the Bed, and depending on the be relatively unobtrusive Ls. \v V % /'.-■•--■■.A 'Afv^*'nmi;;S• V . . • : • • mrnm m:. c : m (■tr '"'“H•■•'V =.V mSoning File «1|2J Karch t, 193Q Page • of • As we have stated before, given that the environmental impacts arm neutral. Council and Planning Cowissien should cxwisider this application based on the visual impact of the project on the character of the neighborhood, remembering that the applicant certainly has a hardship to the property in that soaw degree of excavation work is necessary to restore the lakeshore bank. Planning Commission and Council must determine whether or not it is appropriate based on the restoratim MtlKid proposed to allow additional excavation all the way to the house. Xegardiag the related Issue of e deck on the lakeside of tha house, applicant proposes s 5'x29' deck area located at the exieting grade, which would be 3* above the proposed grade. There would appear to be no significant viaw ancroachment on neighboring properties' views of the lake, howevsr a variance would technically be requircKl for the encroachment in the average lakeshore setback, since the deck would need e railing. The increase in hardcover in the 0-75' tone with this proposed deck would be 19.959 existing to 21.)(t, if the deck near the lakeshore remains In place. The net hardcover Increase In the 0-75* rone would be approximately ^9 s.f. or about 1.41%. Planning Commission previously recommended approval of a ground-level deck for the property, subject to removal of the deck at the lakeshore. Staff would note that applicant does not wish to remove the lakeshore deck because it is still functional, and suggests that the foundation of that deck structure gives the existing bank some added stability, considering that this is one of two areas where erosion did not occur (the other is under the stairway structure). City Engineer Gisnn Cook faela that the stability ij| enchanced due to the depth of the po..ts and the fact that they are structurally tied together as a unit, but the decking itself may be of little consequence. Planning Commission and Council are left to determine whether the advantages of the deck structure outweigh the effects of the hardcover increase of 1.41% (or increase of 0.64% if the deck stays but the concrete half-circle (of questionable value) is removed) Applicant's grading plan would change slightly if the deck was removed. The point applicant makes In his letter regarding decks not being valid hardcover is a concept we have reviewed before but have never accepted for various reasons. ip ' i.- . '/-‘v ■ ^ msmm • V.-.. • -v' ■ • . lO' - '"v.a h ; '\yyZ: rV::-A-m.00i®; ^ ■0. . ’ ■** V* • s* ••• .