01-11-1988 - Agenda Packet City Council - regular meeting

Home Browse Search

Zoning File #1223 November 11, 1987 Page 3 2. The applicant notes that the Busse application was denied primarily because there was no hardship demonstrated. Staff does not agree that the circumstance the lakeshore bank erosion is related to the need for ex-dvation to cre to a walkout. As previously stated, there are methods to suitably repair the storm damage without creating the walkout cut. 3. Staff does not agree that the direct transportation of roof runoff to the lake via a non --perforated pipe is in keeping with the current City philosophy that all runoff from hard surface areas should be filtered through the ground h-afore reaching the lake. While the method proposed may serve to decrease saturatic.n of the ground near the applicants house and perhaps reduce potential foz future major erosion events, it does does serve to transport any debris, dirt, dust, and other roof runoff impurities directly to the lake with no c.vi3 ice for filtration. I appears there is a conflict in goals between what applicant is proposing and the current City philosophy. 4. The issue of the deck ext, r-I beyond the averagL lakeshore setback is an issue ited to the grading proposed. This is proposed to F ound level deck and wcu ld not cause an obstruction t jhbor ing properties' views of the lake. The main issu: _n with the deck should be the ex-:ent of additional hardcover created by the deck. 5. 1.pplicant also notes that with the use of retaining walls the area Df f lat surface wi 11 be maintained. There wi 11 not be as much sloped surface on the property. However, in staff's opinion, that adlitional flat area does not justify the walko•at excavation proposed. To summarize, staff feels that significant physical hardship tt. the property, namely, the natural erosion that occured, is not related to the request for a deck or for a walkout excavation. Staff feels there will not be a significant reduction of hardcover but there will be an increase in hardcover. Staff feels that there are other methods to prevent further erosior into the lake instead of the applicants proposal and sta`.i suggests that the walkout -.ut will not be consist.,nt with neighboring properties,. -lie majority of which are cons*_cucted with a basement totally below ground level on the lakes:yore side and which do not have walkout cuts centered on the property. Staff Recommendation - Staf: recommends denial of the proposed grading cuts to create a walkout and recommends that applicant submit a revised proposal for grading in order to repair and maintain his lakeshore bank. Staff would recommend approval of the lakeshore deck proposal near the house as shown conditioned upon concurrent removal of the 9'x 14' deck at the edge of the slope, resulting in a net increaseof 37 s.f. 0-75' hardcover, or from 19.7% to 10.3%.