07-26-1999 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

• ^ • t #2492 Rick & Gail Liizmch June 17,1999 Page 3 .appUcant's goals for the property; .The City's philosophical goals and policies for its lakeshore are ; '• • statedintheComprehei^ivePlanyeryclearlyohpages3-18thrpu^3"23.GeneralPolicy9pnpage 3-20 ^tes: "9. LAKE SHORELINES WILL BE PROTECTED FROM ALTERATION. Natural vegetation in shorcland areas will be preserved insofar as practical and reasonable in order to retard surface runoff and soil erosion, and to utilize excess nutrients. Clearcutting will be prohibited. In areas of soil or or wave action erosion, natural stone rip rap shoreline protection will be encouraged. Urban Area Policy 2 on Page 3-22 states: • * "2. RETENTION OF NATURAL VEGETATION WUX LIMIT THE IMPACT OF • URBANIZATION AS VISIBLE FROM THE LAKE. Building heights vwll be limited to less than the typical tree hei^t Minimum green belts will be provided with prohibitions against clMrcutting or excessive thinning of vegetation. Natural vegetation will be preyed on slopes. Retainingw^ • will be discouraged except when absolutely necessary to prevent erosion,in which case they will be screened with natural vegetation.” • • . These policies have been in effe^ sihw 1980, andOrbno’s Shoreland or^^c^ and tree protection ordinances as noted in the May 10 staff memo have long been in place to implement these policies. Staff Recommendation The applicants revised plan does not meet the goals set forth in the Comprehensive Plan, and does net come close to matching the recommendations of the City’s forestry consultant for restoration of this site. The revised plan should be rejected. Planning Commisaon should consider the followmg options: 1. Vote to deny the request for a CUP for retaining walls, and recommend to CouncU Aat the . applicant be required to submit a restoration plan that substantially meete the.recommenMtions p the City’s forestry consultant. Staff would forward the applicatipn to Council’s June 28 • unless applicant wishes additional time to generate another plan. This action will send m application forward to Council more speedily, potentially getting restoration stented sooner, bu Planning Commission may lose the chance to review and approve the next plan that genera OR 2. Table the request, and provide applicant with additional direction as to what parte of the plan are deficient, and direct that a further revised plan be submitted for Planning Commission revie at the July 19 meeting. This action will result in an additional month delay before restoration c begin, but allows Planning Commission to review the next plan that is generated. .. * ■ t