03-17-2025 Planning Commission Packet

Home Browse Search

FILE # LA24-000007 17 March 2025 Page 5 of 6 The property is situated on a severe curve along a busy County roadway. The amount of traffic, proximity, and location of the driveway, and the topography pose challenges for access and construction. This is an after-the-fact review of constructed improvements, impacts to traffic and residential streets are not anticipated. This criterion has been met. 13) Designed to take into account the natural, scenic, and historic features of the area and to minimize environmental impact; The applicant installed boulder walls to be consistent with the aesthetic of the stone slab stairway and installed rip-rap. The applicant has not provided a revised landscape plan to screen the additional, unpermitted walls. Compatibility with the character of the surrounding area has not been verified. This criterion is not met. 14) All exterior lighting shall be so directed so as not to cast glare toward or onto the public right-of-way or neighboring residential uses or districts; The lake yard improvements should not result in any lighting or glare being cast off the property toward the public street, the neighbors, or the lake; this criterion has been met. 15) Not detrimental to the public health, public safety, or general welfare. This is true of the project. This criterion has been met. A CUP may be granted subject to such conditions as the Council may prescribe. Additionally, a CUP shall remain in effect as long as the conditions imposed by the City Council are observed, but nothing in this section shall prevent the city from enacting or amending official controls to change the status of conditional uses. Section 78-1680 and 78-1700 – Hardcover Calculations: Stormwater Overlay District Tier Total Area in Zone Allowed Hardcover Existing Hardcover Proposed Hardcover Tier 1 25,288 s.f. 6,322 s.f. (25 %) 3,291.8 s.f. (13%) 3,579 s.f. (14.1%) Public Comments To date, no public comments have been received. Issues for Consideration 1. The construction of the additional, unpermitted walls was a violation of the terms of the CUP authorized by Resolution 7486, and the administrative building permit. Should the owner be required to remove the additional walls and restore the site following Resolution 7486? 2. Does the Commission find it necessary to impose conditions to mitigate the impacts created by the granting of the requested CUP? 3. Are there any other issues or concerns with this application? Planning Commission Consideration Options for Motion: 1. Deny the application as applied. The applicant should be directed to correct the site following the approved plan, which was designed by the applicant’s engineer; or 2. Move to table the application and direct the applicant to provide additional information as determined by the Planning Commission review on the April agenda; or 18