Laserfiche WebLink
FilE<4.30« <br />9 *«Oy«<nMr ?0C4 <br />P«9l4of4 <br />The prevention of soil erosion or the possible pollution of public waters, both <br />during and after construction; The property ow ners ha\-e taken steps to address <br />possible soil erosion during and after :onstruction Silt fence w ill be provided <br />until all disturbed arcus have been completely le^vegetated. <br />The visibility of structures and other facilities as viewed from public waters is <br />limited; The submitted plan does not propose any screening of the lower boulder <br />wall from the lake. As designed, the lower wall system is too close to the rip-rap <br />to allow for shrubbery screening. <br />The site is adequate for water supply and on-site sewage treatment; Xot <br />applicable. <br />The types, uses and numbers of watercraft that the project will generate are <br />compatible in relation to the suitability of public waters to safely accommodate <br />these wateicraft; Xot applicable. <br />City Engineer, Tom Kellogg, has reviewed the site and has provided staff with a <br />recommendation based on the most recently submitted plan (the letter is attached as <br />Exhibit H). <br />Plaiming Director, Mike Gaffron, has provided a memo suggesting that the upper <br />retaining wall be omitted in favor of a graded slope that will appear more natural (see <br />Exhibit L). <br />Issues for Consldcnition <br />1. Docs the Planning Commission feel that the boulder walls os proposed will ha\ c a <br />minimal impact on views of the property from the lake, or should additional <br />vegetative screening be utilized to shield the boulder w all from the lake? Should the <br />upper wall be eliminated? <br />2. Ate there any other issues or concenu with this application? <br />Suff Rccomnendatlou <br />Planning Department staff recommends conditional approval of the proposal subject to <br />the following: <br />1. Submittal of a plan which shows the elimination of the upper tier of walls to the <br />greatest extent possible; and <br />2. Compliance with the City Engineer’s recommendations; and <br />3. Any additional conditions or revisions Planning Commission may wish to add. <br />r <br />i <br />I ■