Laserfiche WebLink
Zoning File #1773 <br />October 15, 1992 <br />Page 2 <br />List of Exhibits <br />A <br />B <br />C <br />D <br />E <br />F <br />Applicatio’* <br />Plat Map <br />Property Owners List <br />Neighbors Acknowledgement Form <br />Gustafson Report 10/14/92 <br />Survey <br />Description of Request <br />In early September the Building Inspector discovered the <br />applicant in the process of making major structural repairs to <br />the existing detached garage and installing a boulder retaining <br />wall. The section of the wall that extends south and east <br />replaced an existing masonry block wall. The new section of wall <br />was placed at the north lot line to the immediate rear of <br />detached arage. Photos will be available of both the detached <br />garage and boulder wall at your meeting. <br />In 1986 the applicant filed for a setback variance for the <br />1,000 s.f. accessory structure to the south of the detached <br />garage. Monies were refunded to applicant as it was determined <br />that alley was not a street and only a 10' setback would be <br />required from the rear lot line. In 1987 applicant applied for a <br />setback variance for major additions to the existing residence <br />and in 1990 applicant applied for a variance for a deck and <br />gazebo structure requiring both setback and lot coverage <br />variances. <br />The applicant now files a setback variance for major <br />structural repairs to the e::ioting detached garage. In addition, <br />applicant has replaced a two-tiered masonry block retaining wall <br />with a boulder wall. The masonry wall of the former garage had <br />provided retention of the steep earthen bank to the north side. <br />Mr. Koehnen reports that it was the pressure of the earthen wall <br />behind the garage that weakened and eventually crushed the north <br />wall of the garage. <br />At the time of the inspection with the City Engineer, it was <br />determined that any further disruption of the steep banks along <br />the north side of the property would be detrimental. The City <br />will not assume any responsibility for the review or approval of <br />the wall. It is staff's understanding that Mr. Koehnen has <br />written confirmation and approval of the wall from the most <br />Impacted neighbor on the north side. As Mr. Gustafson has noted, <br />this kind of wall may last for years without any sign of <br />deterioration and the next year it may collapse. As for the <br />wall, the City will grant merely a variance for the land <br />alterations and 8* >!,igh retaining wall at the north lot line. <br />i <br />J1