03-17-2025 Planning Commission Packet

Home Browse Search

FILE # LA24-000007 17 March 2025 Page 3 of 6 it appears that unpermitted grading did occur, resulting in a leveled pathway along the shore above the rip-rap. The additional walls were installed to facilitate this flat path area (see Exhibits H & I). The existing bluff was not well-vegetated before the project began, the disturbances resulting from the materials transport and construction activity have further impacted the vegetation on the slope. The applicant has not demonstrated that non-mechanical solutions such as deep-rooted plants and shrubs are not sufficient to provide the necessary stability. The applicant should consider a more robust vegetation plan to provide additional, long-term erosion control for the slope in addition to the walls. 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 for the 2024 approval. Mr. Vickery’s original opinion (and design) was based on assumptions furnished by the applicant. The engineer’s updated analysis (Exhibit G) states the additional retaining walls improve the stability of the bluff based on information provided to the engineer by the applicant. This criterion has been met; and 3. Designed by a registered engineer or landscape architect, depending on the project scope; the applicant provided a revised retaining wall design from Mr. Vickery, a registered engineer, to match the wall plan as constructed. This criterion has 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 engineer provided a revised slope analysis/opinion indicating the additional walls were necessary. This criterion has been met. 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; Protection and preservation of the natural lake shoreline is a priority outlined within the Comprehensive Plan. Mechanical measures, such as the installation of retaining walls, particularly walls integrated into a vertical continuation of the rip-rap (without an opportunity for screening), should not be the first option for slope stability. Further, the applicant violated the conditional use permit and the administrative building permit by adding unpermitted walls without the opportunity for the City Council consideration of placement, necessity, and screening. 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 were considered under the previous application and were permitted where they were deemed necessary by the applicant’s engineer to protect the integrity of the slope. During construction, the applicant constructed additional (unpermitted) walls to correct, what was perceived as a failing slope, not verified by his engineer. Mr. Vickery provided after-the-fact opinion which appears to correct or supersede his previous analysis. This criterion is not met. 3) Adequately served by police, fire, roads, and stormwater management; The property meets this standard. This criterion has been met. 16