08-20-1990 Planning Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Zoning Files #1493 S #1570 August 15/ 1990 Page 4 of 5 3. Section 10.55, Subdivision 8 - No land alterations or structures allowed within the 0~75' setback area requiring variance approval. Required = 75' Proposed = 30' (closjst section of retaining wall) It should be noted that the majority of the retaining wall tiers are located within the lakeshore protected area. Review of Application - The applicant claims that his property sustains ma;]or erosion because of the land alterations approved by the City for the property located to the immediate south. The imfamous Holzer application commenced prior to the hiring of the current zoning staff, but the legal battles pursued through to 19^80-81, resulting in appeals to the Supreme Court. The Holzer "after- the-fact" application involved the installation of retaining walls and major filling in the upper elevations of the property in preparation for a proposed lakeside pool. The work was conducted without the benefit of a building permit or the required conditional use permit review. At that time, accessory structures were not subject to average lakeshore setbacks. The application was denied. Please review Exhibit F, the plan presented by the applicant during the land use review. Exhibit G is an alternate plan presented by the neighbor to the immediate south of the Holzer property as another alternative (referred to hereafter as "Smerling Plan"). The Smerling Plan showed a swale leading from the north lot line to the center of the property draining to the lake. The applicant contends that a swale was to be installed within the Holder property to prevent runoff from reaching his property line. The files do not reveal what final plans were approved for the Holzer property. The retaining walls were removed and ground cover restored. The elevations remain as they were after original fil. ing the land alterations. If the Smerling Plan was to be the fii 2I plan approved by the City, such plan would have been marked as "final approved plan". It is doubtful whether a plan prepared by Smerling's engineer would have been the one accepted by the City. In any event, the City Engineer and staff reviewed ♦■he site noting signs of minimal erosion of the steep lakeshore yard. The yard in its present condition is very difficult to maintain. The tiering of the yard will provide gentler slopes for ease of maintenance. The applicant has not submitted information as to how much fill is to be brought in but he will provide the information to the City at our meeting. The Engineer with his original review of the plan had assigned the cutting of the bank would provide the additional fill as fill is only proposed in the upper southeast corner adjacent to the patio area and in the lower tiered area. The area immediately adjacent to the boat house show exposed sharp cuts into the bank. This area remains unprotected.