03-28-2005 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

pc fe& n, zoo^ 2. «05-3074 SEAN AND MELISSA WAMBOLD, 1379 PARK DRIVE - VARIANCE, 6:02 P.M. - 6:35 P.M. Sean and Melissa Wambold, Applicants, and Scott Marolz, Landscape Architect, were present. Curtis noted this application was tabled at the January Planning Commission meeting in order Tor the applicants to have time to hire a landscape professional to design a hardcover removal plan and to determine the areas of hardcover and walls which are critical to remain. The applicants have proposed hardcover removals in both the 0-75’ and the 75’-250 ’ zones. Hardcover removals within the 7S’-2S0 ’ zone would result in a reduction of 1,588 square feet for 25 percent total. Within the 0-75’ zone, the applicants are proposing removals, but have determined that 268 square feet of hardcover is necessary. Staff feels that the removals within the 75’-250 ’ zone are appropriate. However, in following with the City Engineer ’s recommendation. Staff feels that the wall and fire pit located in the 0-75’ zone should be removed ns well. The hardcover within this zone should be removed and re-graded as appropriate. Staff finds that there is no hardship to justify granting a hardcover variance to allow the hardcover within the 0-75’ zone. Staff recommends denial of the afler-thc-fact variance for the 0-75’ setback zone (MI5-3074 Scan and Melissa Wambold, Continued) and approval of a conditional use permit in order to remove e.\isting hardcover and to re-grade the lake yard. Mr. Wambold stated the reason for retaining one wall is that there are areas where it is necessary to hold back ground and that it would be necessary to re-grade and construct steps in the area. Wambold indicated they do have a grandmother that would not be able to use the steps, which is the rea.son for the grassy ramp. Wambold commented there are other property owners around the lake who currently who have boulder and/or wood retaining walls, and requested that one portion of the boulder wall be allowed to remain. Fritz.ler stated the Planning Commission usually docs not address what other property owners have on their property until the properly owner approaches the City for some type of permit but that the City docs typically require property owners to conform to all the regulations. Fritz.ler indicated he is in agreement with denial of the alter-thc-fact variance, but that he would be against leaving any of the hardcover within the 0-75’ zone that is not necessary. Fritzlcr stated he would be in favor of re-grading the urc:i. Kempf stated he is happy that a majority of the boulders have been removed, but noted that the fire pit is not necessary and should be removed in the 0-75’ zone. Kempf indicated in his view the existing boulder wall running down the side of the ramp appears to be functionally good for the lot since it allows for a Halter area above it as well as the ramp that is going down at an angle. Kempt slated the hardcover would not Iw improved if steps were constructed in this area and that re-grading may not