Laserfiche WebLink
C � <br /> down to the lake,which essentially has its own ravine or ditch running straight down to the water. The <br /> contour line dips up,the bluff line turns and goes through where the building pad is, and then follows a <br /> different line other than the water line. Colson stated to his understanding it is a15-foot unimproved street <br /> to the lake. <br /> Curtis indicated it might be 30 feet. <br /> Colson stated the unimproved street is causing the bluff line to turn�and go�up and is not actually affecting <br /> the distance to the lake. The proposed residence is very consistent`wi�h�iiatwas approved in 2006. <br /> Colson sta.ted if they were held to those restraints of the b�uff lu�e��he proper�would be basically <br /> ,�,. _,-�, , , <br /> unbuildable and result in an unreasonable small home ons�denng�e establi hed driveway. <br /> { <br /> � �' �' � s_ ' <br /> Levang asked if the driveway will be widened. ' s' ' <br /> ��: <br /> Colson indicated they will be using a shared entrance. e existing driveway for 2�I�TorCh Shore is <br /> already set,which sets the elevations and location of the arage �� <br /> Levang commented the driveway appears to be pretty steep. � <br /> ._ = <br /> Colson noted the driveway is steeper but that it�s a��ncrete drive y that is heated. <br /> £ � <br /> Levang asked what his thoughts are about e engm�g �: � <br /> �}, Y� `� �� issues and that the <br /> Colson stated they will be workmg hand m and wrth�he1 Crty o .the,�engmeenng y <br /> will be addressing as many as possi le befoi�onstr cti n co�ences. Colson indicated they have been <br /> working regularly with Staff and �t�h��have ma eyre�ssions tii`�heir plans to best meet the <br /> recommendations of the Planning�ommission. <br /> �y.� 4 ':. _ .:. <br /> � � iven the bluff failure on the ad'acent ro e . <br /> McIVl�llan mdicated the Crty�Yias.a.caneem g J P P rh' <br /> , <br /> Colson point out:the 1`acation of eb1u�on the subject properiy. Colson indicated this bluff is not <br /> .,,�f. <br /> necessar y a bluf�that could°fa.il into tli� ake`butis located more to the side of the unimproved street. <br /> � � � <br /> Bremer noted the��ack d�offer some�rotection to the residence in the event of a bluff failure. <br /> �B �ine'r�,co�mmented this is an�xa�sipl��of a hardship lot and that the only thing that has really changed is <br /> e surve.y. Bremer indicated s e is okay with proceeding with the project as long as there is a strict eye <br /> kept_on the engineering issues. •:: <br /> :� <br /> Cols�on�sia.ted:�did stick wi fhe:�riginal or as close to the original plan as much as possible. The <br /> � building n�°elope i essentta�l�,y the:ame as what was passed in 2006 for those same reasons. � <br /> . � <br /> McMillan asked l�at�he building encroachment line is. <br /> Curtis indicated that was�ti3e direction given by the Planning Commission and that the building <br /> encroachment line is not a setback but is merely a reference point. The 20-foot bluff impact zone is the <br /> dotted line and the yellow line is the 30-foot setback. <br /> Curtis noted they are at 15 percent structural coverage with the house and deck. <br /> Gaf&on noted the property is over 10,000 square feet, so the City goes with a 15 percent structural <br /> coverage number. <br />