06-26-2000 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

r . I. i. :.A•■^ c t> i The project as proposed requires the following City approvals: 1. Variance for land alterations within 75' of the shoreline (10.22, Subd. 2; 10.55, Subd. 8, 10.56, Subd. 16[J]). 2. Hardcover within 75' of the shoreline (10.22, Subd. 2; 10.55, Subd. 8, Subd. 16[L]). 3. Conditional use permit for land aUeration (10.03, Subd. 21,10.56, Subd. 16 [5]). Engineering Review ; The City Engineer has reviewed the proposed retaining wall layout from an engineering standpoint and recommends thai replacing the existing walls is an acceptable solution provided they are the same dimension and in the same location as what currently exists. (City Engineer Letter - Exhibit D). Statement of Hardshin: The applicants have included their statement of hardship in Exhibit B of the May 15 staff memo. The applicants should also be asked for their testimony regarding this issue. Issues for Consideration; 1. Will granting of the variances and condition?\l use permit alter the essential character of the land? 2. Is lengthening the retaining wall behind the tree necessary to halt erosion or prevent tree damage? Applicant ’s designer should be asked to define why these new wall sections arc needed. 3. Other issues raised by the Planning Commission. Staff Discussion; There are two retaining walls currently on the property. The higher (closer to residence) wall is approximately 61 V2 in length and 2' in height. The lower wall is approximately 61 Yi in length and 4' in height. The new retaining walls should meet the existing dimensions. Vegetation should be planted to limit the visible impact from the lakeshore and control possible erosion. The lengthening of the retaining wall behind the tree is inconsistent with the goals and intent of the Comprehensive Plan. Perhaps the wall can be shortened on both ends and still be able to accomplish its purpose. U2584 Andrew/Tracy Rascher 4705 North Shore Drive Variance/CUP 6/19/2000 Page 2