Laserfiche WebLink
Zoning File #1909 <br />March 17, 1994 <br />Page 4 <br />it cumbersome and not meeting our real intent. Review Exhibit K. Staff is hesitant to consider <br />the DNR amendment as it involves staff making judgment calls on site which results in <br />subjective and inconsistent findings. The intent of the Shoreland Regulations must be retained <br />with any amendment of the code. Review Exhibits Ql-2, per the current definition, the top of <br />bluff would be at approximately the 959 elevation. From the point defined as the visual top A <br />at the 950 elevation, the average percentage of slope from the defined toe is 27%. Staff will <br />accept the 950 elevation as the top of the slope. <br />Issues for Consideration <br />1. <br />2. <br />3. <br />4. <br />5. <br />Review Exhibit P, The code strongly suggest that we minimize the filling within the bluff <br />impact zone. Is it necessary to fill beyond the foundation of the house? The foundation <br />may serve as retention wall. Rather than a patio beneath deck, what about a lower deck <br />being installed and allow grades to remain as is? <br />Review Exhibits M, N and O, grading plan shows two 4’ high retaining walls wilhm the <br />bluff impact zone required to sustain the additional fill on the lakeside slope. Applicants <br />propose boulder walls. Review Exhibit O. Gustafson cannot approve as boulder walls <br />cannot be certified by an engineer. He claims they will not work at an 8’ + height. <br />Gustafson asked for specific information on the type of block, type of fill, and type of <br />tie back restraints to be used. His report also notes that 4’ high walls must be separated <br />at least 4’. What is Planning Commission’s position on further filling within the bluff <br />impact zone? How far should fill be allowed at the down or lakeside of the bluff? Is <br />there a hardship? Remember the filling within bluff zone is also part of the variance <br />application. <br />If Planning Commission approves the additional filling within the lakeside of the bluff <br />and retaining walls are to be installed, members should make a recommendation <br />concerning the type of wall to be installed. <br />As structure is to be located on bluff and if additional filling is also proposed, what type <br />of landscaping/screening will be required of applicants? Note the landscape plan does <br />not address the lakeshore yard. Exhibit S. Applicants ’ buUder has advised that no <br />changes are proposed in lower lakeshore yard. The code will allow access paths, picnic <br />areas within the bluff impact zone. Special attention must be given to the removal of <br />plantings on bluff. <br />Staff was pleased to see the proposed roof drains with pipes leading to bottom of slope. <br />Staff sees no problem with this as long as the outlet is located out of the 0-75’ setback <br />area If outlet velocity is of concern rip rapping may be considered. In any event, this <br />is a matter that can be reviewed in more detail with staff and the City Engineer. As far <br />as staff is concerned, it makes good sense to minimize any potential erosion of the steep