Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF T. ANNING COMMISSION MEETING *UGUZTT 17, 1989 <br />7.ONIZIG FILE #1428-j3URGESS 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 />wit'.i the application is grading in the lakeshore area will <br />be necessary to create a walk -out. <br />Mr. Burgess had several sketches depicting the existing <br />avid 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 v? sited the site to determine the various w .ys in which the <br />bank could ti_.3 re6._^red. The City Engineer had recommended to Mr. <br />:urgess that retaining walls not be used if at all possible. An <br />alternative would be to put a geote,_hnical fabric every two feet <br />and rebuild the bank up to a determined slope. Mr. Burgess said <br />that he planned te- rip rap the shoreline approximately 3' above <br />the hi �h watr � Mr. Burgess noted that the existing house <br />encroaches t:ic back line by 351. The proposed house would <br />be located i 2 75' setback. The new house would also be <br />designed to co,. in height with the neighboring residences. <br />Mr. Berg said that t"­ applicants proposal was an ecological <br />improLement due to the eliminaL=on of hardcover in the 0-75' <br />setback zone. There woulc: be no interference with the natural <br />direction of runoff and the rate of runoff will lessened. <br />Chairman Kelley asked about :e particular hardships <br />involved wit~ `I.; s applicatio-,? Mr. Berg replied t;. .`_ carving <br />out, the area :he walkout was part of preserving the lakcsf—re <br />area fron, further erosion. He said that the Burgesses were <br />addre3sing water quality concerns. Mr. Berg also noted that this <br />proposal had no adverse effect on the neighboring property, but <br />rather the opposite. <br />Mr. John Rodgers, a neighbor on the north side of Fir. and <br />Mrs. Burgess, said that the portion of the Burgess's shoreline <br />that ca•ed in altered the water quality of his lakeshore. In his <br />opinion, a steep slope would be detrimental as it would allow <br />su..h eresi:--i to occur again. Mr. Rogers was also in 3vor of t_.:_ <br />re-k-;.-ed el^vation of the applicants' new home. He said tl .,} Lhe <br />ne. .-.;me would be an asset to the community. <br />Plr.. Burgess; said that the neighbor to the south, Mr. =hoc.as <br />Lowe, had indicated tFat he had no opinion, f or or against this <br />proposal. <br />Chai:.inan Kelley said that the excavation of the lakeshore <br />area was the primary issue. Planning Commissioner Cohen <br />concurred. <br />Mr. Burge-; asked why the excavation was such a difficult <br />issue? <br />