Laserfiche WebLink
Request for Council Action continued <br />page 3 of 5 <br />November 9,1995 <br />Zoning File #2074 <br />List of Exhibits <br />A - Application <br />B - Applicants Addendum <br />C - Plat Map <br />D - Property Owners List <br />E - Elevation - Retaining Wall <br />F - Elevation - Garage <br />G - Photos - Current Shoreline and Example of Similar Retaining Wall <br />H - Sui^ev <br />IT <br />I - Gustafson Report 10/9/95 <br />Jl-3 - Haidcover Inventory <br />K - Hardcover Map - Proposed <br />L - Letters from Adjacent Neighbors <br />M - Topographic Map - Watershccl'Drainage Area <br />N - Future Hardcover Proposal for the Year 2000 <br />01-3 - Hardcover Inventory' Year 2000 <br />P - Topographic Detail of Property to North 1685, Tom Palm Property <br />Q - Grading/Drainage Plan - Plan Prepared for Watershed District Review Providing <br />Compcnsatoiy Excavations to Offset Filling of Floodplain <br />R - MCWD Staff Memo Recommending Approval <br />Discussion <br />Conditional Use Pcrmit/Variancc - Timber Retaining Wall <br />The eastern shoreline of West Ami is se\ erely impacted by ice mo\ ement in the early spring. A <br />ridge has been created adjacent to the shoreline of several properties along this stretch of shoreline. <br />The bank is at a 1:1 slope and unable to retain ground cover and is subject to sei ere erosion. The <br />neighbor to the immediate north has installed a similar 2' timber retaining wall, review Exhibits E <br />and G. The City has no record of issuing a conditional use pcmiit for the wall. As Gustafson's <br />report advises (Exhibit 1) this is merely a temporary solution to the problem as the ice movement <br />may damage this wall in any given year. Gustafson also asks that the wood used in the construction <br />be treated wood. <br />1 he owners along this section of shoreline have attempted to solve this problem by either installing <br />riprap or as in another application reviewed this evening (Application #2075), the alteration of a <br />lakeside bank is proposed at a 3:1 slope, fhe more graduated slope allows for ice to ride up over <br />the more graduated elcvatitms rather than against the vertical bank at the shoreline. Riprap also <br />placed at a minimum 3:1 slope provides less of an obstacle to the movement of ice at the shore. The