01-11-1988 - Agenda Packet City Council - regular meeting

Home Browse Search

#910 Hoff Page 2 June 4, 1985 From a maintenance stand::)oint, the applicant is correct it that the flatter grades will make maintenance easier. The "safer access:" concern may be valid, but with a minimum slope of 25% after the proposed grading, a stairway wilt_ likely still be the preferred method of getting to the lake. When you review this site, it may be helpful in your visualizing of the proposal that the final grade at the point where the steep slope starts downward will be 6' belo— that point in the area midway between the side property 1_nes. During the Planning Commission review it became clear that the originally proposed contours do not ref lect what the applicant wants to do because at the time they were proposed he had not discussed this pro=ect with his neighbors. He has sir.ce then approached the neighbors and he plans to submit a revised grading plan for the City Engineer's review, shorting a blending in with the neighboring properties, possibly soma removal of retaining walls by the neighbor to the north. These revised plans have not yet been Gubmitted for review. Please review the May 20, 1985, Planning Commission minutes. Planning Commission recommended approval of the conditional use permit application for r-sgradirg of the lakeshore yard, based on the following f'ndings: i. Applicant s lakeshore yard will conform better to the neighbors yards and will lock more aesthetica'ly pleasing. 2. Proposal ,rill reduce degree of hazardous condition existing can the property because of the slope of the land and will improve the he.lth, safety and welf..re of the applicant's yard and neighborhood. 3. Applicant's lakeshore yard previously existed as the proposal now shows and previous owner built hill backup again, thEreby creating extra hardship (in current owner for maint?nance of yard. Appro,,al would be subject to the following conditions: 1 . Regrading to be done under close supervision with staff and City-igineer to assure that proposed contours will bend wit the rcighbors yards. Z. City to r#?quire t>»t the applicant have this grading done professionally and not by the applicant. 3. Proper erosion c ,u•_rols to be approved and supervised by staff.