Laserfiche WebLink
1 <br />Zoning File #1627 <br />January 11, 1993 <br />Page 2 <br />above. Planning Corrmiaaion ahould consider Petersen'a letter as <br />merely an opinion that the wall ia atructurally aound, but <br />certainly it's no guarantee that it ia adequately deaigned and <br />constructed. Similar to the recent Koehnen application in the <br />Minnetonka Bluffs area, note that the building department normally <br />requires an engineered design for any walla or wall system in <br />excess of 4' in height. <br />Aside from the issue of structural stability, the two issues <br />of safety and visual aestheti.'' > remain. <br />From a safety standpoint, staff has requested that the <br />3tairwav be Generally enclosed with railings so that there is no <br />direct walkway access to the terrace areas above the walls. Then, <br />we would suggest that plantings be of a density along the upper <br />edge of each wall to discourage foot traffic on the retaining wall <br />system. <br />The visual aesthetic issue is primarily a matter of screening. <br />We have asked for a planting schedule showing type, height and <br />placement of plantings to help screen the face of the walls (not <br />received as of this writing) . With wall heights ranging from 3 <br />1/2' to 5', prior discussion has suggested that adding intermediate <br />walls may allow for greater wall coverage by plantings, although it <br />can certainly be argued that plantings can be chosen that will <br />provide screening. The visual impact was not apparently as great <br />a concern the hardcover issue with the Planning Commission in <br />March 1991 (see Minutes). <br />Hardcover <br />Please review the hardcover facts in Exhibit I of the 3/12/91 <br />memo. 0-75' hardcover as built is 10.9%, but would reduce to 3.2% <br />under the current proposal. This includes 40 s.f. (0.3%) which is <br />part of the deck attached to the house, which encroaches about 4’ <br />into the 0-75' zone at one corner. <br />Staff Recommendation <br />Given that the City Engineer cannot confirm the adequacy of <br />the existing wall system, if it is to remain and the City is to <br />issue a bu-*lding permit, the applicant must agree to not hold tne <br />City liable if the walls should fail. <br />Under the assumption that a proposed planting schedule will be <br />available for review at the Planning Commission meeting, you should <br />determine whether the proposed plantings are aesthetically adequate <br />so as to screen the wall system as it currently exists, or whether <br />modifications should be required.