01-11-1988 - Agenda Packet City Council - regular meeting

Home Browse Search

Zoning File #1223 December 9, 1987 Page 2 of 2 The problem appears to boil down to one of philosophy. The wa ikout cut is not consistent with the types of grading the City has allowed in the 0-75' zone since adoption of the Flood Plain and Wetland Management Ordinance in January 1979. The proposed walkout cut would change the natural shape and character of the shoreline. Applicant suggests that because grading must occur in order to repair the storm damage, he might as well grade to create the walkout at the same time, thus reducing the number of potential shoreline disruption events. the erosion concern is valid, but the hardship is only valid if one agrees that the walkout cut is appropriate in and of itself. Staff feels approval of the proposed project based on that hardship would be precedent setting, and would open the door for many similar requests, that if approved would be clearly a reversal of past City policy. The Planning Commission, at their November 16th, 1987 meeting, recommended denial for the reasons that: 1. Other methods for bank stabilization exist. 2. The walkout cut is not related to the bank erosion stabilization needs (i.e. the bank can be stabilized and re -vegetated without creating a walkout cut). 3. The walkout cut would not be in character or in conformity with the majority of the neighborinq residences on Concordia Street. 4. Allowing the walkout cut would set a precedent in conflict with :urrent City philosophy and past denial of similar projects. The Planning Commission recommendation included approval of a ground level deck as proposed subject to concurrent removal of the existing platform structure near the lake. Note that the Planning Commission vote was 4 in favor of denial, 0 against and 1 abstention. The abstention by Planning Commissioner Hanson was based on his wish to further review in depth the exhibits submitted at that meeting. Staff Recap ndatf on - Staff agrees in general w,_th the Planning Commission recommendation. From an engineer' ng standpoint, the proposed project is not necessarily inappropriate anC, would likely result in very similar run-off infiltration characteristics as any of the alternative methods for restoration of the bank. Aesthetically, the proposed project is arguably more attractive than a series of solid retaining walls covering the slope, but will create a visual effect ether than exists now, and such effect is arguably not consistent with the character of the• fisting shoreline and neighboring properties. Finally,because this is only a conditional use permit but also a variance to allow grading wit I lakeshore area, consideration must be given to whether the hardsi tate,i to allow the walkout creation are sufficient to distingL: this particular project from possible similar requests under sim:l.. conditions. Approval of this project would appear in staf f's eyes to set a precedent in conf lie t with current City policy and practice. Staff will draft a resolution based on Couneil's action ror your neat meeting. 5 � f�e - -