Laserfiche WebLink
Request for Council Action continued <br />page 4 of 5 <br />November 23, 1994 <br />Zoning File #1968 <br />- Decreased hardcover in 0-75' zone. <br />- Increased length of sewer connection. <br />- Visual impact transferred to neighbor on east side instead of neighbor on west <br />side. <br />• Safety factors are approximately equivalent in both plans. <br />• Area of the site draining to the driveway entrance is approximately equivalent in <br />both plans. <br />• Both plans have potential for vegetatively screening the upper tiers of retaining <br />wall, but the visual impact of applicants' plan in staff's opinion is significantly <br />greater than staff's plan as viewed from Stubbs Bay, the bulk of which is <br />generally southwest of the property. <br />Staff Recommendation <br />Staff is of the opinion that, while applicants' proposal is feasible "as is", its environmental <br />impact is significantly greater than staff's concept for the following reasons: <br />• More grading in 0-75' zone. <br />• More hardcover in 0-75' zone. <br />• More tree removal in 0-75' zone. <br />• Removal of mature trees across entire lot versus only in eastern 1/3 of lot. <br />• Retaining wall faces more exposed to lake. <br />Staff's plan will require significantly greater expense in retaining wall construction, and this <br />therefore is one of the concerns expressed by Mr. Roelofs. A second concern which may be <br />valid is that the staff plan creates a "canyon" working its way up into the lot, creating as <br />contrived a look as does the applicants' proposal. This is subjective and for the Council to <br />determine. <br />Staff's recommendation is as follows: <br />1. Review the positive and negative impacts of both plans. <br />