04-25-2005 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

L. Hi$irc 4. #05-3074 SEAN AND MELISSA WAMBOLD, 1379 PARK DRIVE - VARIANCE AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT Curtis explained that the applicants recently purchased the property and were notified that the retaining walls and hardcover in the lakeshore yard was installed by the previous owner without proper city permits. As it was their intent to do some remodeling including a small addition in the future, they wished to bring the property into compliance. The applicants have provided a revised proposal with removals resulting in 2SVo hardcover in the 7S-2S0* zone and 268 s.f. of hardcover in the 0-7S* zone. Curtis indicated that the applicants feel that by allowing the current retaining wall, existing vegetation and path to the lake to remain within this zone there would be less impact on the lake and would allow for uninterrupted use of their lake yard. Curtis stated that staff recommends denial of an after-the-fact hardcover variance for the 0-7S* setback zone for hardcover in excess of the square footage that would be allowed for a permitted stair access. Staff would also recommend approval of a conditional use permit in order to re-gradc the lake yard, including an erosion control plan and timeline for implementation. (4. MS-3074 SEAN AND MEUSSA WAMBOLD, 1379 PARK DRiVE, Continued) Mr. Wambold stated that the neighbor next door was present this evening and had voiced his support for maintaining the retaining walls in an effort to control the excessive erosion which was previously caused by their property to his. Wambold pointed out that he had only recently purchased the property to which the landscaping contributed to the parcel, and was unaware of any problems with the yard until he was contacted by the city. He did not anticipate spending an additional $50,000 to remove and relandscape the property when he bought it. Scott Marorz, the landscape architect, interjected that the removal of the retaining wall and boulders would not be a good solution for the lake with regard to erosion and runoff. Steve Sigel. 1399 Park Drive, the next door neighbor stated that if the Wambolds were forced to regrade the slope, a number of large trees would have to be removed, further adding to the erosion problem he faced residing next door to the site. He urged the Council to allow the retaining walls to remain, since they slowed the velocity at which the runoff flowed from their elevation to his property, which was roughly a severe 30-40’ hillside slope. Mayor Peterson asked h«wv long ii;e walls had been in place. Sigel stated that the previous owner had spent two years on the project, with the city inspecting it at various phases. He questioned why the City red tag^d the property now, only after the new owners have taken possession. Attorney Barrett asked if the new owners were aware that the property had been red tagged. Wambold stated that he was unaware of the red tag until three days after he had taken possession when the City called him out of the blue after having been contacted by a realtor down the street. Curtis concurred, stating that the City was not aware that the work had been completed by the previous owner until that same realtor contacted them. Vang, the building inspector, had red lagged the work that it not proceed, therefore, nodiing was on file at the City. Wambold stated that it was their intent to bring the property into as much compliance as possible, but would like some leniency since some of the wails are necessary to control erosion.