Laserfiche WebLink
hey probably do not Maiol/, indicated that is the ainoiint they calculated would be needed to construct a stairway to the lake. <br />Planning <br />toration plan and that <br />i so desire. <br />II looks worse than a <br />c amount of <br />long with the grass <br />[here arc other types <br />•rtion of the wall <br />typically all that is <br />the boulder wall is <br />: lake. <br />l-nginccr would be <br />cet of hardcover <br />d be irciter than <br />Id prefer no stairs. <br />iy due to the slope. <br />are able l»» rnhtcc <br />portion of Lho <br />Kenipf commented Cimctionnlly the boulder wall is probably less disruptive to the whole yard as far as <br />erosion control than to re-grade and Hint the same objective could be achieved by reducing the boulder <br />wall to 168 S(|uarc feet or less, with removal ol the lire pit. Kenipf stated in his view there is nothing <br />particularly offensive with having one boulder wall. <br />Rahil iiu|iiircd how the length of the wall would be shortened. <br />Maiot/. stated down at the bottom ol the wall they would not lie able to leinove any of the boulders but <br />thni they could relocate some of the dirt towards the top and eliminate possibly the first I feet of the <br />wall. <br />Kahn stated in his view there still is the visual affect of the wall from the lake. <br />Curtis noted in past situations where a retaining wall has been allowed to remain the City has re(|uired <br />vegetative screening of the wall. <br />(#05-3074 Sean and Melissa Wainbold, Continued) <br />Ureiner indicated she would be fine with allowing a portion of the wall to remain ns long as it was under <br />168 .sipiare Icet and it is screened with vegetation. Mremer stated there may be some confusion over the <br />City Engineer ’s letter since he indicates that the boulder wall is not ncccs.sary but that due to the <br />steepness of the wall they should be allowed a set of stairs. Hreuier stated in her view it does not appear <br />that this slo|>e would need a stairway in order to access the lake. <br />Uremer stated the Planning (..’ommission typically looks at aner-the-fact variances on what they would <br />have allowed prior to the work being completed and that this work would not have been alloweil had the <br />proper .steps been followed. Itreiner indicated it is difficult to tell from the City l•llgincer ’s letter <br />whether the steps would be allowed all the way from the residence down to the lake. <br />Curtis stated re-grading the jiroperty could result in the recessity for the stairway to be c.xtcndcd <br />.somewhat but that it is not necessary for the property to be re-graded back to its original grade. <br />KmIiii iiioveil, Kenipf .seeunded, to reenniinrnd deniiil of the nfler-lhe-fuct hardcover variance and <br />to reeoinniend approval of u conditional use permit in order to rc-graJe the 0-75 ’ .setback /one, <br />with the npplieant.<i having the option of chousing whether to retain a portion of the boulder wall, <br />subject to the hardcover in the 0-75* /.one not exceeding 168 .si|uure feet and further .subject to <br />appropriate vegetative .screening Iwing provided for the wall, or to construcl u .stairway down to <br />the lake not to exceed 168 .s(|iiare feet. VO I K: Ayes 4, Nays i, Leslie opposed. <br />Leslie Hilled the 168 squaic feel i.s a picsimipliun on the part of ihc applicant and is not what the City <br />luigiiiecr is slating in his letter.