Laserfiche WebLink
e <br /> � clt o� oR,oNo <br /> � <br /> • RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL <br /> • NO. ��.� <br /> • - • • <br /> 5. The City Engir_eer ' s review of the subsurface proposal <br /> stated tnat "it would anpear that the construction proposed <br /> in Mr. Kelly' s letter would have minimal benefit in preventing <br /> erosion" . The Council ' s approval of this design on 8-14-79 <br /> was made in fu11 knowledge of this caution but was in hopes <br /> that the subsurface design would be sufficient. <br /> " 6 . A building permit was issued on the basis ot t:"�e above <br /> approval . <br /> 7 . A site visit by the City Inspector on May 15, 1980 - <br /> revealed an exposed wooden retaining wall in place not in <br /> accordance with the approved conditional use permit. A <br /> stop work order was placed on the premises. <br /> 8 . Smerling thereafter reapplied for a variance and amendment <br /> to the original application to allow keeping of the wood walls <br /> • stating that upon actual construction his contractor had <br /> reverted to tne design originally recommended by the City <br /> Engineer in his 1979 plan review. <br /> 9 . On September 22 , 1980 Planning Commission reviewed the <br /> inplace work and the engineer' s recommendations and recommended <br /> approval or a variance to Section 31. 830 and 34 . 201 finding <br /> that the actual ban:� slippage and steepness of the grade <br /> constituted a hardship such that an exposed retaining wall <br /> was necessary to properly stabilize the bank from erosion. <br /> l� . The Council finds tnat the inplace wood retaining walls <br /> are the minim�:.^� necessar_y to acccmplis�� erosion and slippage <br /> control on the subject 'r�ar.'.�. <br /> 11 . The Council finds that wood plank retaining walls such <br /> as erected on this property do not constitute "hardcover" as <br /> regulated by Section 34 . 202 because there is effectively no <br /> width or thickness to the wall as there would be with flat <br /> (railroad tie) timbers or masonry walls . <br /> 12 . The applicant should have reapplied for a variance and <br /> amended t�1an revie�� prior to accomplishing the wor;c, but that <br /> the work has been completed ard al1 veqetation has been <br /> restored thereby reducing the time o= exposed soii and reducing <br /> � _��� ,�y;v i --,n r!dZdrC. . <br /> PAG E °2 O F� q <br />