06-17-2024 Planning Commission Packet

Home Browse Search

FILE # LA23-000062 17 June 2024 Page 3 of 7 Average Lakeshore Setback and 75-foot OHWL Setback (Section 78-1279) The proposed shed is not an in-kind replacement and exceeds the parameters of a permitted lock box (max 20 square feet and 48 inches tall). The shed location is shown to be located between 2.8 and 3.4 feet from the OHWL and within the average lakeshore setback. Conditional Use Permit (Sections 78-1279 and 78-916 Section 78-1279(3)(c) states that a wall in the shore setback zone, within a defined bluff and bluff setback; and/or a replacement wall 4 feet in height or greater; and/or any new walls shall require a conditional use permit. New walls and replacement walls greater than 4 feet in height must meet the following conditions. The wall must be: 1. Designed to correct an established erosion problem; the applicant indicated that the new walls are necessary to provide stability at the base of the bluff just above the rip rap. They assert that the use of the wall will avoid the need to grade further inland to create stability. As noted by the City’s Engineer, the existing bluff is not well-vegetated. The applicant has not demonstrated that non-mechanical solutions such as deep-rooted plants and shrubs are not sufficient to provide the necessary stability. A landscape plan must be submitted to address the erosion within the bluff. This criterion has not been met; and 2. Suitable given the demonstrated need; A global stability analysis by Ronald W. Vickery, PE was provided, however, Mr. Vickery’s opinion was based on assumptions furnished by the applicant. The analysis notes a retaining wall would improve the stability of the bluff. This criterion has is met; and 3. Designed by a registered engineer or landscape architect, depending on the project scope; the applicant has not provided a revised retaining wall design from a registered engineer to match the submitted plans. This criterion has not been met; and 4. Designed to be the minimum size necessary to control the erosion problem. The engineer’s original analysis indicated that the applicant’s original plan was necessary to stabilize the bluff. The wall plan has been changed/lessened from the original proposal and the engineer’s analysis again states that the wall plan is necessary. The applicant should provide evidence that they have exhausted the less invasive stability solutions instead of new walls within the shore setback. In addition to the conditions listed in Section 78-1279, Section 78-916 provides a list of conditions supporting Conditional Use Permit (CUP) issuance. The Planning Commission may recommend and the Council may grant a CUP as the use permit was applied for or in modified form. Based on the application and the evidence submitted, the city must find that the proposed use at the proposed location is or will be: 1) Consistent with the community management plan; the protection and preservation of the natural lake shoreline is an identified priority of the Comprehensive Plan. Installation of new walls, particularly walls integrated into a continuation of the rip-rap without an opportunity for screening, should not be the first option for slope stability. The applicant should explore adding deep-rooted vegetation to add stability and lessen the visual impact resulting from walls. A landscape plan to create screening of the proposed walls and protect erosion from the bluff must be submitted. This criterion is not met. 2) Compliant with the zoning code, including any conditions imposed on specific uses as required by article V, division 3 of the City Code; retaining walls within the lakeyard are permitted where they are deemed necessary to protect the integrity of the slope. The applicant stated the slope is failing. Further evidence should be provided showing that the installation of walls is the most effective and minimal necessary to achieve the desired stability. Additionally, updated engineering for the new proposed wall layout and a landscape plan must be submitted. This criterion is not met. 3) Adequately served by police, fire, roads, and stormwater management; the property meets this standard. 4) Provided with an adequate water supply and sewage disposal system; the property meets this standard. 5) Not expected to generate excessive demand for public services at public cost; the retaining wall project should not generate an excessive demand for public services at a public cost. 10