Laserfiche WebLink
1INUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING *HGBS-T 17, 1989 <br />ZONING FILE #1428-BURGESS CONTINUED <br />duly noted. <br />Assistant Planning and Zoning Administrator Gaffron <br />explained that the applicants intend to remove the existing <br />residence and replace it with a new home. The key issue involved <br />with the application is that gradinq in the lakeshore area will <br />be necessary to create a walk -out. <br />Mr. Burgess had several sketches depicting the existing <br />and proposed house, as well as a model of the proposed house. <br />Mr. Burgess said that 35' of shoreline washed away in the 1987 <br />"super -storm". He said that the City Engineer and Mr. Gaffron <br />had visited the site to determine the various ways ir which the <br />bank could he restored. The City Engineer had recommerded to Mr. <br />Burgess that retaining walls not be used if at all possible. An <br />alternative would be to put a geotechnical fabric every two feet <br />and rebuild the bank up to a determined slope. Mr. Burgess said <br />that he planned to rip rap the shoreline approximately 3' above <br />the hic;h water mark. Mr. Burgess noted that the existing house <br />encroaches the 75' setback line by 35'. The proposed house would <br />be :_ocated behind the 75' setback. The new house would also be <br />de:iignr•d to conform in height with th3 neighboring residences. <br />Mr. Berg said that the applicants proposal was an ecological <br />improvement due to the elimination of hardcover in the 0-75' <br />setback zone. There would be no interference with the natural <br />direction of runoff and the rate of runoff will lessened. <br />Chairman Kelley asked about the particular hardships <br />involved with this application? Mr. Berg replied that carving <br />out the area for the walkout was part of preserving the lakeshore <br />area from further erosion. He said that the Burgesses were <br />addressing water quality concerns. Mr. Berg also noted that this <br />proposal had no adveise ef`ert on the neighboring property, but <br />rather the opposite. <br />Mr. John Rodgers, a neighbor on the nor`.b side o- and <br />Mrs. Burgess, said that the portion of the B izgess's sh,: .ine <br />that caved in altered the water quality of his lakeshore. la his <br />opinion, a steep slope would be detrimental as it would allow <br />such erosion to occur again. Mr. Rogers was also in favor of the <br />reduced elevation of the applicants' new home. He said that the <br />new home would be an asset to the community. <br />Mr. Burgess said that the neighbor to the south, Mr. Thomas <br />Lowe, had indicated that he had no opinion, for or against this <br />proposal. <br />Chairman Kelley said that the excavation of the lakeshore <br />area was the primary issue. Planning Commissioner Cohen <br />concurred. <br />Mr. Burgess asked why the excavation was such a difficult <br />issue? <br />