Laserfiche WebLink
> <br />i : <br />h <br />n <br />Iii <br />Marotz indicated that is the amount they calculated would be needed to construct a stairway to the lake. <br />Kempf commented functionally the boulder wall is probably less disruptive to the whole yard as far as <br />erosion control than to re-grade and that the same objective could be achieved by reducing the boulder <br />wall to 168 square feet or less, with removal of the fire pit. Kempf stated in his view there is nothing <br />particularly offensive with having one boulder wall. <br />Rahn inquired how the length of the wall would be shortened. <br />Marotz stated down at the bottom of the wall they would not be able to remove any of the boulders but <br />that they could relocate some of the dirt towards the top and eliminate possibly the first IS feet of the <br />wall. <br />Rahn stated in his view there still is the visual affect of the wall from the lake. <br />Curtis noted in past situations where a retaining wall has been allowed to remain the City has required <br />vegetative screening of the wall. <br />(fl0S>3074 Scan and Melissa Wambold, Continued) <br />Bremer indicated she would be fine with allowing a portion of the wall to remain as long as it was under <br />168 square feet and it is screened with vegetation. Bremer stated there may be some confusion over the <br />City Engineer’s letter since he indicates that the boulder wall is not necessary but that due to the <br />steepness of the wall they should be allowed a set of stairs. Bremer stated in her view it does not appear <br />that this slope would ne^ a stairway in order to access the lake. <br />Bremer stated the Planning Commission typically looks at after-the-fact variances on what they would <br />have allowed prior to the work being completed and that this work would not have been allowed had the <br />proper steps been followed. Bremer indicated it is difficult to tell from the City Engineer’s letter <br />whether the steps would be allowed all the way from the residence down to the lake. <br />Curtis stated re-grading the property could result in the necessity for the stairway to be extended <br />somewhat but that it is not necessary for the property to be re-graded back to its original grade. <br />Raliu moved, Kempf seconded, to recommend denial of the after-the-fact hardcover variance and <br />to recommend approval of a conditional use permit in order to re-grade the 0-75’ setback zone, <br />with the appUcants having the option of choosing whether to retain a portion of the boulder wall, <br />subject to the hardcover in the 0^75* zone not exceeding 168 square feet and further subject to <br />appropriate vegetative screening being provided for the wall, or to construct a stairway down to <br />the tohe not to exceed 168 sqnare feet. VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 1, Leslie opposed. <br />Leslie noted the 168 square feet is a presumption on the part of the applicant and is not what the City <br />Engineer is stating in his letter.