10-17-1994 Planning Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

/ ZtHiing File #1974 CXtober 12. 1994 Page 2 Description of Request Applicant seeks approval of alter-the-lact conditional use permit and variance approval for restoration of retaining walls within lakeshore yard, major portions of which are kx:atcd w ithin the 0-75 ’ setback area. The former retaining walls and access stairs were constructed of wood that has rotted aixl deteriorated and required replacement. On your site inspection you will note that erosion has been taking place during the periixl of time that the walls were in disrepair. Applicant has provided silt fencing at the base of the bank to prevent further erosion into ilw lake. Applicant did nc« realize that permits were necessary to replace existing walls and proceeded to install boulder walls in place of timber retaining wall. Review E.xhibit 1. the original plan. The low^r level wall that has already been installed is approximately 3* in height. Upon our site inspection, the Engineer noted that the second wall wxnild be over 4 ’ and the wall along tlw east side would be at approximately 7’. Review E.xhibit F, Gustafson ’s first review of the project. lie advised that if the walls were to exceed 4 ’ in height that engineering plans would have to be provided addressing all concerns noted in his report. He also lecommcnded that any wall that was to exceed 4 ’ in height not only required additional engineering information but should be constructed of modular masonry block rather than boulders. The applicant was given the opportunity to amend his plan, applicant opted to reduce height of proposed walls to 4 ’ bv installing a third wall. There was to be at least a 4 ’ separation between each tier. Review Exhibits J and E. Gustafson has approved the .unended plan show ing three tiered walls not to exceed 4 ’ in lieight. This can be completed with the boulders as originally proposed, l^ke access stairs have also been designated on the amended plan and appear to meet the 4 ’ width standards required. Any coralition of approval must include the requirement that erosion control be maintained on property until all disturbed areas are restored with suitable groundcover. Although not discussed, it would be consistent w ith previous approvals ot retaining walls within lakeshore yards that applicant provide landscaping at each tier to minimize visual impact ol wall unless Planning Commission members feel boulder walls arc natural and acceptable within the lakeshore yard. Staff would strongly recommend that landscaping be provided to minitni/e visual impact of three-tiered boulder walls and if approved, applicant should pn>vide a landscape plan prior to application being scheduled before the Council. Options of Action Approval of amended plan per Gustafson’s recommendation; OR Approval as amended by the Planning Commission. J