Laserfiche WebLink
� 1 <br /> The Planning Commission's direction at the January meeting was to move the patio out of the 20-foot <br /> bluff impact zone and reorient the deck to encroach no more than the house based on the location of the <br /> top of bluff shown on the 1/18/13 survey. The applicant has provided a plan responding to the direction <br /> on both the patio and deck. The bluff location has also been revised based on the cunent topographic <br /> .information. Staff has reviewed and agrees with the top of bluff as shown on the most recent survey <br /> dated 2/1/13. � <br /> The revised top of bluff location results in an even more restricted tiu�l�nvelop than previously <br /> � realized. The applicant's proposed home is generally co�isten���h�he�0�6 plans and reflects only an <br /> additional four feet of depth added on to the garage to�xnak'it more.functioi�al�This results in the 10'x <br /> 13' side proposed setback from the alley. To further ush:the house awa��from tt�e bluff results in an <br /> unreasonably small house considering the establishe�driv,ew�ay,�oc�ion. ; <br /> ��� � <br /> The proposed location will result in minor grading witti��thej bluffiand bluff impact zane fio'accommodate <br /> drainage. �"`� <br /> � <br /> Planning Staff has reviewed the revised plans and recommends app��oval�of�e,�variances as requested <br /> consistent with the 2/1/13 survey and revised house��showing the'�r oriented�deck. <br /> � �� � � <br /> Levang asked if the Planning Commission re�asewed�he es�s eys. <br /> Curtis indicated they had not but that they ere given�u��ate.at�their;work session. Curtis stated the <br /> Planning Commission has not revisited this�since�the�new7surveys ���� <br /> ,�y <br /> Levang asked if the DNR has evaluat��liis applic�tion <br /> � <br /> Curtis indicated they have no . `; <br /> rtx <br /> Levang asked if the City Enginee .has re'viewed the plans. <br /> �.�.,,�.,4,,,�, . <br /> Curtis indicatedthey havs revi_wed the ans.�� �°�� <br /> ���4�P�,. , sY'u.-:'. . <br /> Lev y. g not�d those comments,aLeynot include ��ii the packet. <br /> , <br /> �truv�Yndicated he does not have.h�.c��ecific comments available but that they related mainly to the <br /> c�rainage. , �_ <br /> " Le�C '��yk,��e,d:i�he�*was aware �the change in the bluff to 50 percent. <br /> . t;�� . `r .�����l��._1�x~ <br /> Struve indicated h��not. <br /> d ., <br /> Levang stated those are.�e�r�� ,�vo main concerns. Levang asked to see the average setback. <br /> Curtis stated the City owns the adjacent property so Staff would use the home on the east side. Curtis <br /> indicated this house is even with or slightly behind the average lakeshore setback. The home to the east is <br /> at 98.5 feet and this home is at 99.5 feet from the lake,which is what Staff would use for their point of <br /> reference. <br /> Levang asked if the patio has been pushed back. <br />