08-18-2025 - Agenda Packet Planning Commission - PC packet

Home Browse Search

FILE # LA25-000036 18 August 2025 Page 4 of 7 10. The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant. The variances in this situation are not necessary and would serve as a convenience to the owners. This criterion is not met. 11. The granting of the proposed variance will not in any way impair health, safety, comfort, or morals, or in any other respect be contrary to the intent of this chapter. This criterion is met. 12. The granting of such variance will not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate demonstrable difficulty. The variances in this situation are not necessary and would serve as a convenience to the owners. This criterion is not met. The Commission may recommend, or the Council may impose conditions in granting variances. Any conditions imposed must be directly related to and must bear a rough proportionality to the impact created by the variance. No variance shall be granted or changed beyond the use permitted in this chapter in the district where such land is located. Conditional Use Permit (Sections 6.12.4090 & 6.12.6240) Section 6.12.6240 (5)(c) states that walls in the shore setback zone, 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 provided an opinion from Kenneth W. Horns, a professional engineer, that states the retaining walls eliminated a steeply sloped eroded area that was difficult to maintain and provides some additional storm runoff retention with flatter planted areas they created. The walls were also designed to preserve mature trees. This criterion has not been met, and 2. Suitable given the demonstrated need; Mr. Horn’s letter further states that the walls provide stability to the slope, the trees, and help to reduce erosion. Mr. Horns also indicates that the construction of the walls and associated grading improves stormwater runoff and increases opportunities for infiltration. This criterion has been met, and 3. Designed by a registered engineer or landscape architect, depending on the project scope; Mr. Horn provided a cross-section of the constructed walls and an analysis of the installation based on his site observations and conversations with the contractor who installed the walls. This criterion has been met, and 4. Designed to be the minimum size necessary to control the erosion problem. The engineer’s analysis indicates that the walls were necessary to stabilize the slope, improve stormwater infiltration, and correct an erosion control condition. This criterion has been met. The Planning Commission may recommend, and the Council may grant a Conditional Use Permit (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. The installation of new walls should not be the first option for slope stability. According to the applicant’s engineer, the applicant converted much of the lakeyard area from an unmaintained slope to a manicured lawn and installed the retaining walls in the steeper hillside area of the slope. Ideally, the applicant should have explored adding deep-rooted vegetation to add stability. However, responding to the existing condition, to lessen the visual impact 122