Laserfiche WebLink
iOS-3100 <br />Kny 16.2005 <br />P.igcSofS <br />vehicles and other facilities as viewedfrom the surface of public waters, assuming <br />summer, leef-on vegetation. <br />The Planning Commission should discuss whether screening should be required for any <br />retaining walls and structures in an effort to preserve existing vegetation screening as <br />viewed from the lake. This may entail requiring implementation of new vegetation as the <br />site as been cleared for development. Staff would, at a minimum, reconunend that the <br />City require screening of any proposed retaining walls. The impacts on the immediately <br />adjacent properties should also be considered. <br />lasMs for CoasMcratioa <br />1. Should a retaining wall within S' of the lot line be permitted? <br />2. Are there any negative implications with a wall within S’ of the lot line? <br />3. What level of screening should be required due to the steep slopes? <br />4. Are there any other issues or concerns with this plication? <br />Staff RacMMeadatioa <br />Staff recommends approval be granted for the requested lot area and width variances, <br />however denial of the conditional use permit request The applicant should be directed, <br />as a stipulation of the lot area and width variance approval, to revise the grading plan in <br />accordance with the City Engineer reconunendations, prior to review by the City Council. <br />If the grading plan cannot be revised to meet the City Engineer recommendations without <br />changing the proposed home, the application shall be directed back to the Planning <br />Commission.