Laserfiche WebLink
i! <br />] <br />} <br />M <br />Murphy viewed two distinct problems, though nothing should exist in the 0-7S’ zone, the erosion <br />problems seem to warrant their need so as to cause no Anther problems for the neighbor. He asked <br />for the City Engineer’s comments. <br />Engineer Kellogg stated that it was his opinion that all of the hardcover be removed from the 0-7S’ <br />zone except steps. He was unsure whether the mature trees would be removed, but admitted that a <br />great deal of fill would be necessary to obtain the 3:1 slope up to the lake edge. Since the boulders <br />at the top of the path were aesthetic, he recommended they be removed also and that an erosion <br />control plan be submitted. He did not indicate that ail of the boulders must be removed. <br />McMillan asked whether the sloped hillside within the boulder retaining walls is landscaped. <br />(4. 0QS ’3»74 SEAN AND MELISSA WAMBOLD, 1379 PARK DRIVE, Continued) <br />Sigel stated that they contain beds of flowers and hostas, as well as mature trees which aid in <br />erosion control. <br />Wambold stated that he was willing to remove any of the unnecessary boulders and keep those that <br />aid in the erosion control for the yard. <br />Sensevere stated that staff should look at the side retaining wall also and make a recommendation. <br />Attorney Barrett suggested that the Council table the application until staff and the City Engineer <br />has an opportunity to review the side wall. <br />White moved, Sanseverc seconded, to table Application IN)S>3074,1379 Park Drive, for <br />Engineer review of the side retaining waN. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. <br />’ '♦.lOrtV’f r* <br />I <br />4 <br />wCbi ■iliMik jiiU