Laserfiche WebLink
Metadata
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015 Laserfiche. All rights reserved.
r.i <br />Hmms or to pukamn ooHUssioa MBmc Mieosf* ii, Xflt <br />SOOIK PILE fl43t>PILL8BimT COmaOKD <br />high retaining vail to the drivevay only. Beyond the driveway* <br />ti'o val? vaa required to be 3.5*. However* applicant chose not <br />to pr'^ceed with this application because she preferred to have <br />the wall at one continuous height. <br />There were no cossnents froei the public regarding this natter <br />and the public hearing was closed. <br />It was Boved by Chairnan Kelley* seconded by Planning <br />CoBBissioner Johnson* to recosMnd approval of application I143S* <br />for a C* height variance for a serpentine brick wall. Motion* <br />Ayes»5* Hays»0* Notion passed. <br />•1439 lAWlWWB B. <br />ipj«lSS~SSrCoSpiTlOMkL USE PBENITAEEIAECB <br />POELIC BBBBIEC St50 P.M. TO 9153 P.M. <br />The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Nailing were <br />duly noted. <br />The applicant was present for this public hearing <br />Assistant Planning and Zoning Adninistrator Gaffron informed <br />the Planning Cosnoission that the applicant was seeking after-the** <br />fact approval for a deck and retaining walls in the 0-75* setback <br />zone. Gaffron said that at one time thtre was a boathouse* but <br />in the 1987 storms the boathouse was dat.aged beyond repair. The <br />applicant removed the damaged structure* but left a portion of <br />the concrete walls to act as a retaining wall for the bank. Mr. <br />Langhans then built a deck using the pre-existing foundation as <br />partial footing. The applicant is «lso constructing another <br />Section of retaining wall adjacent to the deck. Re said that it <br />was staff's recommendaticn that the foundation should remain <br />because it is helping to stabilise the bank. Staff also believes <br />iCithat the retaining walls are also necessary. Gaffron noted that <br />there were several letters supporting^Phis application. <br />There were no comments from the public regarding this matter <br />and the public hearing was closed. <br />Planning Commissioner Johnson stated that if this <br />application were not after-the-fact* the Planning Cosimission <br />would not have recommended approval to build the deck. He felt <br />that they were now forced to act and thr.t Mr. Langhans should <br />have been aware of the City's codes and ordinances due to his <br />profession as a realtor. <br />Mr. Langhans explained that he had done what was necessary <br />to prevent further erosion. Johnson noted that the City was <br />issuing emergency permits for bank stabilization after the July* <br />1987 storm. Mr. Langhans also mentioned that he had reduced <br />hardcover . <br />Gaffron said that removing the concrete wall would provide