10-15-2001 Planning Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

A - The boulder wall starts on the back of the property and follows along the west property line for approximately 104’ and is located 20 -30' from the west property line. The wall starts at grade level and gradually increases in height until at Point B (southwest comer) where it is 8 feet high. At point B. the grade will be raised 8' above the original grade, potentially reducing the lake views of the property to the west (1006 Wildhurst). although the view impacts are mostly behind average setback line. C - The boulder wall is 6 ’ in height, crosses the front of the property for approximately 65 ’. It stops at the comer of the residence. D - The boulder wall continues toward the lake and goes across the front of the property for 133’. The wall starts 8’ in height at the comer and gradually decreases in height until it is at grade level at the east side of the property. The comer where the wall is 8’ high is considered as structure. At this point and for approximately 20’ to the east, the boulder wall encroaches into the average lakeshore setback. The encroachment is 5 ’-8’. The boulder wall is proposed to be behind the 75 ’ setback line. A conditional use pemiit is required because 566 cubic yards of fill is being used to backfill behind the walls. The fill is from the site (digging out the foundation), additional fill is not required to be brought on the property. I'he applicants are proposing to plant five 10* Spruce and three 10’ clump birch trees to screen the boulder wall from lake view. Construction of the boulder walls is as follows: A boulder approximately 3’ w ide will be put dow n and behind it w ill be 1 ’ of rock, fabric mat and then dirt (Exhibit D). The way the walls are being constructed makes it difficult to plant creeping plants in between the boulders, therefore trees are being proposed for screening. In September 1999, the adjacent neighboring property to the east was approved for a similar landscape project. The project approved a conditional use permit to allow 1,300 cubic yards of fill on the property for regrading for a retaining wall that runs the entire lakeside of the property at the 75 ’ setback line and to allow 9,613 s.f (25.7%) hardcover in the 75-250' setback area. That.neighbor, Mr. Zebeck, has submitted a letter opposing this project (Exhibit F). However, it appears to staff that his concerns are unfounded in that 1) the wall will not encroach into the 75 ’ setback; 2) the proposed walls will have absolutely no impact on his views of the lake; and 3) because there is no hardcover variances involved, we fail to see how this sets a negative precedent in terms of lake water quality. We do feel the potential blockage of the opposite neighbors views behind the average setback line is not inconsistent with past approvals, although the orientation of that neighbors house exacerbates the issue. Engineering Review; The City Engi.ieer has visited the site and reviewed the retaining wall layout. His comments are in a letter dated October 8,2001. (E.xhibitE). He feels the wall design is adequate. The boulder walls are designed and signed by a professional engineer. It is felt that the global slope stability of the wall must be further investigated particularly for worst case scenario. Upon completion and if found to be adequate, then he is comfortable that the wall will work. UOI-272-f Michelle.'Da\id Timp 1000 Wildhurst Trail yarianc&'CUP 10/12/2001 Page 2