Laserfiche WebLink
UR.4�a1.f1 <br />TO: Mayor and City Council ` <br />FROM: Mark Bernhardson, City Administrato4 <br />DATE: August 29, 1986 <br />SUBJECT: Geot.echnical Fabrics 0-75 <br />ordinance 10.22 Subdivision 2 states as follows: <br />Lakeshore Hard Cover Regulations. Within 75 feet of <br />shoreline there shall be no excavating, filling, hard <br />cover, temporary or permanent structures. Within 75 to <br />250 feet of the shoreline there shall be no greater than <br />25% hard cover. Within 250 to 500 feet of the shoreline <br />there shall be no greater than 30% hard cover. Within <br />500 to 1,000 feet of the shoreline there shall be no <br />greater than 35% hard cover. <br />Additionally hard cover is defined as: <br />"Hard Cover" - Any structure, blacktop or other material <br />which interferes to any degree with the direct <br />absorption of rainfall into the ground. <br />While the title of the applicable subdivision is hard cover, the <br />regulation does prohibit things other than hard cover in the 0- <br />75. In other words any excavating or filling (which in intent <br />probably means any disturbance of existing topography) of the <br />terrain in 0-75 constitutes a violation of this ordinance and <br />would require a variance. As such the utilization of landscaping <br />rock and geotechnic fabric would be a violation even if not being <br />hard cover per se. For those areas beyond the 75 feet. <br />Regulation of geotechnic fabric and/or landscaping rock either <br />independently or in con on with it would pivot as +o whether <br />it was determined to ` 3 cover or not. <br />Staff is currently reviewing technical literature on the material <br />to see if in fact geotechnic fabric by itself constitutes hard <br />cover or if the utilization of crushed rock in conjunction with <br />it may constitute hard cover. <br />Staff began working on more comprehensive approach to hard cover <br />last winter and spring but due to the press of activities this <br />summer it has not been completed. Staff will however be working <br />on this during the winter and hopefully have information <br />available for next spring. <br />In the case of Mr. Zumbusch there has not been a dem(.nstrated <br />need to date for the utilization of the patio apart from the <br />stated convenience. As sucn it is probably not appropriate that <br />it be allowed as an alteration to the existing landscape. <br />If there is however a health safety need, a variance might be <br />appropriate. <br />1 <br />