03-18-1985 Planning Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

resolve the problem that we must enforce the standards of the ordinance. The singled out violator is provided due process by providing a mechanism - the variance application - to present his position. If staff refuses to enforce an ordinance, the complaining neighbor can file an appeals application cha.lenging the City staff's interpretation of an ordinance or refusal to enforce an ordinance. For this review as with the F.ller review, the fact that surrounding neighbors are also in violation of Section 10.60, Subdivision 13 is not relevant. The boat cannot be stored on Johnson's property and meet the standards of the code. If you find the hardships valid ones, and can make the necessary findings as set forth in Section 10.08, Subdivision 3 (A), vote to recommend approval. If it is your position that the hardships claimed by the appli cant are not valid and that no boat no matter what size should be stored less than 10 feet from the side lot line of the lakeshore/frent yard of an adjacent home owner, vote to recommend denial and ask that the boat not be stored at this location in the future. If it is your position that the code needs to be amended, would an amendment help Mr. Johnson's dilema? I have listened to many proposed amendments of this section of the code for the past month but not one proposed amendment recommended storage of mobile material 10 feet from the side lot line of a lakeshore yard. The intent of all the performance standards for lakeshore use is to protect the view of adjacent lakeshore homeowners. b) Violation of Section lO.bS. Subdivision 8 The applicant has placed gravel over existing ground cover - as stated above about 200 square feet of that was original road bed. Mr. Johnson has not placed plastic sheeting underneath the graveled area. Council has made a recent finding that gravel placed on top of exis ting ground cover is not considered ground cover. Portions of the retaining wall are located within 75' of the lakeshore - as noted above an 8 to 10 feet strip 6 inches wide extends lakeward up to approximately 65' fron. the lake. That section of the structure now covered with snow but from memory did not appear to be structurally relevant to major retaining wall that supports the earthern bank on west side of house. I have enclosed a site inspec tion notice from 1982 that would somewhat date the original examina tion of that earthern bank and an attempt on the part of the applicant to use the fill along the shoreline. At that inspection the applicant was advised by both Olson and Jacobs to errect a retaining wall to sustain the eroding bank. Prior to the wall co; struction, Johnson claims the heavy rains would wash mud and sediment down over the now graveled area directly into the lake. If I remember correctly, the gravel w^s placed over the area prior to the wall construction. Johnson stated that he would remove the section of wall within the 75' protected area but I suggested he wait for Council's decision. The location of the wall and bank excavation are out of the 75' protected area. It would appear statf had resolved the fill along the lakeshore in 1982. 2 i !! !i t; Ii si * • C J