06-27-2005 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

M5-3IOO JttM20,2005 Page 2 Of3 Exhibit D - Memo from Building Inspector Bruce Vang dated 6-17-05 Exhibit E - Applicants Proposed Maintenance Plan for Wall Encroachment Exhibit F - PC Memo and Exhibits of 5-6-05 Background The applicant appeared before the Planning Conunission at the May meeting requesting variances and a conditional use permit to permit construction of a new residence on an existing lot. The consensus at that time was the majority of the Commission was receptive to approval of the lot area and lot width variances based on past approvals of similar {qrplications; however a grading plan acceptable to the City Engineer would have to be sulmitted prior to any recommendation to the City Council. The Planning Commission discussed at lengtli the retaining walls needed to develop the lot and determined that a wall on the lot line would be acceptable, but concern over the materials of the walls and how they would be screened needed further refinement. Also, there was positive reception to a poured wall with a textured finish. Ultimately, the application was tabled pending City Engineer approval of a grading plan. The City Engineer and Building Inspector Bruce Vang met out on the site to discuss an ai^ffopriate grading plan that would benefit the neighbors, protect the interests of the City, and be some^at of a compromise of the four different plans submitted by the applicant. Exhibit D discusses the conclusions made by the City Engineer and Building Inspector following their site visit and how the grading plan should be revised in order for it to be acceptable to the City. From stafTi perspective the follow concerns have yet to be addressed: The current plan shows the two swales converging on the lake side of the walls. The concern with the current plan is that something needs to be physically done to the land in this area that will ^low the water to spread out over a wider area rather than concentrated into a single point - having the potential to create a gully. This is unique to this lot due to the steep grades and the narrowness and steepness of the swales needed to accommodate he extraordinary amount of water running downhill. Protection of the lake from erosion is staffs intent with the rain garden proposal. If a method for spreading the water out to prevent the creation of a gully cannot be done, staff believes the proposed house should narrow up by approximately 5’ so that the swales can be wider and shallower and have less potentid to erode. The current plan shows a wall extending along the lot line for 21 ’ but never does the wall go over the line. The actual wall design needs to be further refined whereby the tail end of the wall crosses the line. The piece of the wall over the line should be the minimum length needed. The City Council has been unreceptive to allow retaining walls within 5’ of a lot line, even for homes on extremely steep slopes (most recently a similar request Lk,*i J