Laserfiche WebLink
FILE # LA23-000062 <br />15 April 2024 <br />Page 4 of 5 <br /> <br /> <br />not impact the neighboring property values or the enjoyment of the neighboring property <br />owners. <br />10) Provided with screening and buffering adequate to mitigate undesirable views and activities <br />likely to disturb surrounding uses; the applicant has provided a landscape plan which, once <br />matured, should provide adequate natural screening and buffering of the retaining wall <br />improvements when viewed from the lake. <br />11) Not create a nuisance which generates smoke, noise, glare, vibration, odors, fumes, dust, <br />electrical interference, general unsightliness, or other means; the proposed walls should not <br />create a nuisance situation. <br />12) Not cause excessive non-residential traffic on residential streets, parking needs that cause a <br />demonstrable inconvenience to adjoining properties, traffic congestion, or unsafe access; <br />during the construction timelines for the home and the lake slope improvements, there will <br />be additional nonresidential traffic on Cherry Avenue. The applicant and home builder are <br />responsible for repairing any damage to the public improvements and shall keep the streets <br />clear of sediment and debris at all times. <br />13) Designed to take into account the natural, scenic, and historic features of the area and to <br />minimize environmental impact; the applicant has opted to install replacement walls using <br />boulder materials and has proposed landscaping that will screen the walls and will be <br />compatible with the character of the improvements within the surrounding area. <br />14) All exterior lighting shall be so directed so as not to cast glare toward or onto the public <br />right-of-way or neighboring residential uses or districts; the lake yard improvements should <br />not result in any lighting or glare being cast off the property toward the public street, the <br />neighbors, or the lake; and <br />15) Not detrimental to the public health, public safety, or general welfare. This is true of the <br />project. <br />A CUP may be granted subject to such conditions as the Council may prescribe. Additionally, a CUP <br />shall remain in effect as long as the conditions imposed by the City Council are observed, but <br />nothing in this section shall prevent the city from enacting or amending official controls to change <br />the status of conditional uses. <br /> <br />Conditional Use Permit Analysis: <br />Analysis of an after-the-fact condition is challenging as some of the factors for evaluation can be <br />missing or altered. In this situation, the applicant has provided photos and a survey showing some <br />detail about the slope and pre-existing walls before their removal. According to their engineer, the <br />proposed new walls in the proposed configuration are necessary and are placed similarly to the <br />previously existing walls which were failing. The applicant has demonstrated that the proposed plan <br />is necessary to replace an aging wall system. The new walls and proposed landscape plan should <br />sufficiently stabilize the slope. <br /> <br />Public Comments <br />Staff fielded several phone calls from neighbors inquiring about the status and details of the project, <br />but none have provided formal feedback. <br /> <br />Issues for Consideration <br />1. Does the Planning Commission find that the property owner proposes to use the <br />property in a reasonable manner which is not permitted by an official control? <br />2. Does the Commission find it necessary to impose conditions to mitigate the impacts <br />created by the granting of the requested CUP? <br />3. Are there any other issues or concerns with this application? <br />136