Laserfiche WebLink
Date: April 28, 2025 Item: 13 <br />Presenter: Melanie Curtis, Planner <br />Section: Community Development Report <br /> <br />Title: LA25-000007, 4745 North Shore Drive, After-the-Fact Conditional Use <br />Permit Amendment <br /> <br /> <br />1.Purpose: <br />The purpose of this application is to consider new retaining walls within the bluff and lake setback <br />installed beyond the scope of the conditional use permit (CUP) and without City approval. An <br />after-the-fact amendment to the CUP is required. <br />2.MN§15.99 Application Deadline: <br />The application was received on January 30, 2025 and considered to be complete on February <br />14th; the original 60-day review timeline was extended and will now expire on June 14, 2025. <br />3.Background: <br />In the summer of 2024, the applicant received a CUP and building permit approvals to install a <br />new, stone lake access stair (including minimal retaining walls) and a short boulder wall along the <br />base of the slope, in addition to a MCWD-issued permit for riprap, reference the approved plans <br />(link). <br /> <br />Original Application: LA24-000018 History <br />Planning Commission June 2024: PACKET / VIDEO <br />City Council July 2024: PACKET <br /> <br />In bluff and steep slope settings, stairways, lifts, and landings are permitted by a staff-issued <br />building permit provided they are designed and built in a manner that ensures stability and control <br />of soil erosion. Additionally, minimal retaining walls supporting a lake access stair (to provide <br />necessary stability) can also be permitted by a staff-issued building permit. However, new walls, <br />and walls that do not meet the administrative approval threshold outlined in City Code Section 78- <br />1279(5) (link), can only be authorized by the City Council through a conditional use permit <br />process. <br /> <br />Upon completion, the City’s inspector observed additional walls which were not included in the <br />scope of the approved plan, (Image 3 shown in Exhibit D). Although the city-approved plan was <br />designed by the applicant's engineer for the site conditions, the applicant communicated to staff <br />that he believed the approved plan would not work and chose to construct the additional walls <br />(shown on the as-built survey Exhibit A) instead of following the approved plan. The before and <br />after photos (link) provide a side by side comparison of the completed work. For a full analysis of <br />the conditional use permit, reference the Planning Commission staff report attached as Exhibit G. <br /> <br />The applicant applied for an after-the-fact amendment to the CUP to amend the plans to include <br />the additional walls. Upon review, the City Engineer provided the following comment in response <br />to the updated plans (04/15/2025): “neither the justification email (link) from the engineer nor the <br />boulder wall design appear to address the upper wall depicted on the as-built in the southeast <br />AGENDA ITEM <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />111