03-28-1988 - Agenda Packet City Council - regular meeting

Home Browse Search

Mr. Michael Gaffron March 2, 1988 Re: John and Lynn Waldron Property page 3 1951 Concordia Street Aesthetically, our proposed balcony has no negative effects either. First of all, it does not extend beyond either end of the house. In other words, it does not obstruct any natural areas which are presently unobstructed, as viewed from the lake or either adjoining property. The Planning cu,"mission pieviously recommended approval of a ground level deck. The only difference with our proposed balcony is, aside from being much smaller, is that it has a railing. As you i,ave indicated, the only issue that the railing presents is whether it constitutes a view obstruction from either adjoining property. As the enclosed plate shows, the proposed balcony will fit almost entirely within the average deck setback area. As such, it should not constitute a view encroachment for the adjoining property owners. In any event, during the time of year when the adjoining property owners would be using their lakeside yards, there is thick vegetation on either side of our property which obstructs their view through to our property anyway. The only other difference between our balcony and a ground level balcony or deck is that there is not the absence of sunlight which prevents the growth of soil - retaining vegetation as is the case with ground level decks. The balcony is also in keeping with the surrounding properties since both properties on either side of us have a substantial wooden planked area extending for a distance from the back door of their houses. Thus, there is no rational basis for recommending denial of the balcony itself. Of course, the balcony is necessary to provide a means of exit from the rear of the house and for maintenance of the rear of the house given our proposed reduction in elevation of the lakeside yard. In analyzing the balance of our proposal, we have already pointed out that the proposal is at least as good as the others proposed by the City from an engineering point of view. In other words, it will not have a negative effect on the quality or quantity of runoff into the lake. This criterion is probably the most significant one to examine in deciding whether a given restriction is rational;y related to the City's objective of preserving the lake and lakeshore. One of the other concerns expressed by the City is whether a proposal such as this one is the least intrusive method of resolving the bank erosion problem. The City Engineer has estimated that the quantity of earth to be removed from the site as a result of our proposed plan is 150-200 cubic yards. We would not dispute this estimate. On the other hand, our engineer has estimated that the quantity of earth to be moved for a stabilization fabric reinforced slope system would be approxirately 500 cubic yards or 600 cubic yards for a cribwall system. See Service Engineering letter currently on file. In addition, the stabilization fabric reinforced slope system and the