Laserfiche WebLink
Zoning File #1806 <br />March 11. 1993 <br />Page 2 <br />List nt Exhibits <br />A • Application <br />B - Plat Map <br />C • Property Owners List <br />D • Hardcover Survey <br />E • 1-2 Hardcover Map/Worksheet <br />F - Topographic Map Lot 9, Farview <br />G - Survey/Proposed Site Plan <br />H - Weckman Memo 3/9/93 <br />i Aerial Map <br />J - Site Evaluation <br />DescripUoo of Request <br />Applicants propose the installation of a 60’xl20' tennis court to be located in the <br />northwest corner of the property. The structure will be set 12’ from the street side lot line,.30* <br />from the west side !o: line, and wUl also be placed in front of the principal structure located ai <br />the requited 50' setback. The tennis court will have a 10’ high fence a^ an asphalt base with <br />acrylic surfacing. Review Exhibit I. The principal structure on Lot 8 to the immediate west is <br />located to the very rear of the property. It is staffs understanding that the owners of IxM 8 have <br />no problem with the proposed location of the accessory structure. Staff has not received any <br />written comments from this property owner The City has received no comments from the <br />leowners ’ association regarding this request.IJ M <br />From a comprehensive review of the aerial of the neighborhood, it wouI<i appear that this <br />would be the first request for a non-lakeshote lot owner or lakeshore lot *ncr to instil an <br />accessory struc tu re within the street yard. The proposed improvement wuu.^j not be consistent <br />with the current pattern of development within the Farview neighborhood. The applkartts were <br />a|y> advised to review the covenants for Farview to determine if the accessory structure is <br />allowed within a street yard. The City’s ordinance would require setback variances for the <br />structure ’s encroachment imo the required front yard and for the placement in front of the front <br />line of the principal structure. <br />Due to the proximity of the proposed tennis court to the alternate drainfield site, the <br />applicant was asked to provide additional soil testing information showing that the 20 required <br />setback could be maintaine d. Soil testing has been supplied by Mark Grooberg confining that <br />a trench system could be installed which would meet the requited 20 from the tennis court if <br />its location is 12’ from the front side lot line. The existing coniferous buffer would rot require <br />removal or trimming in order to achieve this setback, but is necessary to maintain the setback <br />to the alternate drainfield site. The tc^iography of the site will require a retaining wall betwren <br />the t^nnU court and the alternate drainfield site to direct drainage away from tte drainfield site. <br />Staff will require a grading and drainage plan with the alternate drainfield site clearly staked <br />prior to the issuance of a building permit.