Laserfiche WebLink
Zoning File #1391 <br />June 6, 1989 <br />Page 2 of 2 <br />Planning Commission at their meeting of May 15th voted 6-0 <br />to recommend approval subject to the recommendations of the City <br />Engineer. Planning Commission felt that the wall as modified by <br />the City Engineer wuuld not be visually obstrusive, and that the <br />magnitude of grade change proposed was minimal and necessary to <br />provide for safe maintenance of the property. Planning <br />Commission did not condition approval on any specific screening <br />requirements. Staff would note that with the wall up against the <br />lot line, any screening of the wall would have to occur on the <br />neighbor's property. With Glenn's recommendation, the wall ends <br />very near the neighbor's deck, and vegetative screening would not <br />be necessary. <br />Staff Rerr—enilation - <br />Although applicant has stated he feels the Engineer's <br />proposal does not accomplish applicant's objectives, staff would <br />recommend approval per the Engineer's recommendation as providing <br />the least disruption near the shoreline. However, if Council <br />feels applicant's proposal has merit, Council should consider <br />whether screening is necessary for the lengthened wall, and if so <br />whether the wall should be moved back into the property in order <br />to allow room for shrubs to be planted on the low side. <br />A resolution reflecting the Planning Commission and <br />Engineer's recommendation is attached for Council review. <br />Staff would further recommend that Council visit this site <br />to get a first-hand look at the situation.