Laserfiche WebLink
#OS-3100 <br /> - May 16,2005 <br /> Page 5 of 5 <br /> vehicles czncl othe�°facilities as vze�-ned fi�om the su�fccce ofpzcblic�-vcrter•s, assun�zng <br /> • sir»an�e�•, leaf-o�z vegelatio��. <br /> The Plaruiing Commission should discuss whetlier screening should be required for any <br /> retaining walls and structures in an effort to preserve existing vegetation screening as <br /> viewed from the lake. This tnay entail requiring implementation of new vegetation as the <br /> site as been cleared for developinent. Staff would, at a minimum, recommend that the <br /> City require screening of�ny proposed retaining walls. The impacts on the inunediately <br /> adjacent properties should also be considered. <br /> _._ _Issues for Consideration _ . . __ _ _ <br /> 1. Should a retaining wall within 5' of the lot line be perulitted? <br /> 2. Are there any negative implications with a wall within 5' of ihe lot line? <br /> 3. What level of screening should be required due to the steep slopes? <br /> 4. Are there any other issues or concerns with this application? <br /> Staff Recommendation <br /> Staff recoiiunends approval be granted for the requested lot area and width variances, <br /> however denial of the conditional use permit request. The applicant should be directed, <br /> as a stipulation of the lot area and width variance approval, to revise the grad'ulg plan in <br /> accordance with the City Engineer reconunendations, prior to review by the City Council. <br /> If the grading plan cannot be revised to meet the City Engineer recommendations without <br /> changing the proposed home, the application shall be directed back to the Planning <br /> Comniission. <br />