PC report/encroachment issue - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

� V �! r Iv Item Description: Casey&Jill Hoehn—2325 Glendale Cove Ln—Encroachment Issue Summary: A permit for the new home was issued in September 2013; a temporary Certificate of Occupancy to allow the property owners to move into the finished structure was issued in January 2014. The City- approved site plan (09/12/13) associated with the permit included one proposed retaining wall near the west side of the home. When the final as-built survey was submitted in August it was noted that additional walls were constructed around the home. • One wall exceeding 4- feet in height was constructed on the west side of the home which requires a separate building permit and submittal of engineered design. This wall was initially proposed to be less than 4-feet tall; • One wall approximately 100 feet in length was constructed within the wetland buffer and the drainage & utility easement without City review or approval. There is also a recreational fire area within the buffer. • Two additional walls on either side of the home less than 4-feet in height were also constructed. Typically landscape features which vary from the permit-approved landscape plan should have City approval and a Zoning Permit prior to construction; in this case a Zoning Permit was not requested. The wetland buffer area is covered by a City conservation &flowage easement and a MCWD wetland buffer declaration which prohibit construction of structures within the wetland buffer. Upon review of the as-built survey staff notified that property owners that one wall was located within the easement area and should be removed. I met with the property owners and MCWD staff on November 7th to discuss resolution to the encroachment violation and the issuance of the final Certificate of Occupancy, which continues to be withheld until the issues are resolved. The MCWD was willing to offer a compromise solution within involved removing turf and planting native vegetation in the required bufFer area. Following that meeting the property owners chose to made a formal request for an encroachment agreement with the City. Based on the MCWD's decision, Staff is agreeable to allowing all or some of the retaining wall to remain within the easement area to remain subject to the requirement that the property owners enter into an encroachment agreement with the City. The encroachment agreement would allow the City to require the property owner to remove the encroachments if the encroachments become an issue in the future. If the wall remains, the property owners should comply with the requirements of the MCWD regarding establishment of native buffer vegetation and maintain wetland buffer signage. The property owners have provided a statement from a structural engineer regarding the wall exceeding 4-feet in height on the west side of the home which was included in the packet. The property owners should apply for zoning and building permits, and pay the after-the-fact fees to address the walls constructed that were not shown on the approved building permit survey. If the Council determines it to be appropriate, the City Attorney can draft an encroachment agreement for consideration at a subsequent meeting to address the wall within the easement. Tonight, Council should provide direction to staff regarding an encroachment agreement for the retaining wall within the easement area.