Laserfiche WebLink
FILE # LA25-000036 <br />18 August 2025 <br />Page 6 of 7 <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />13) Designed to take into account the natural, scenic, and historic features of the area and to minimize <br />environmental impact; the applicant has not proposed adequate landscaping to screen the walls to be <br />compatible with the character of the improvements within the surrounding area. This criterion is not met. <br /> <br />14) All exterior lighting shall be so directed so as not to cast glare toward or onto the public right-of-way or <br />neighboring residential uses or districts; the lake yard improvements should not result in any lighting or <br />glare being cast off the property toward the public street, the neighbors, or the lake; and <br /> <br />15) Not detrimental to the public health, public safety, or general welfare. This is true of the project. <br /> <br />A CUP may be granted subject to such conditions as the Council may prescribe. Additionally, a CUP shall remain in <br />effect as long as the conditions imposed by the City Council are observed, but nothing in this section shall prevent <br />the city from enacting or amending official controls to change the status of conditional uses. <br /> <br />Analysis <br />The property owner provided professional opinions from an engineer and an arborist as to the necessity and <br />appropriateness of the retaining wall improvements. Staff finds that the retaining walls within the 75-foot lake <br />yard, although an after-the-fact condition, appear to provide a benefit regarding stormwater runoff, and may be <br />appropriate and necessary to protect the trees and the integrity of the slope. The existing landscaping around/in <br />front of the walls does not adequately screen the walls from the lake. Additional vegetative screening should be <br />implemented. <br /> <br />Refer to Exhibit F, the staff-annotated plans, to review the in-kind and new improvements. Near the home, the <br />improvements (including the patio, landing, stairs, and walls) include both in-kind and new elements. The portions <br />replaced in-kind, or in the area of the previously existing improvements, are able to be replaced or maintained <br />with permits. The new elements, and those that encroach into the 7.5-foot side setback (and across the property <br />line), should be removed or modified so they do not adversely impact the neighboring property, particularly from <br />a drainage standpoint. <br /> <br />Resolution of the encroachments constructed across the shared property line (with 1186 Wildhurst Trail) is a <br />private matter between the two property owners. However, if the private resolution involves a change or removal <br />of the retaining walls, additional City reviews and/or permit requirements may be necessary. <br /> <br />Public Comments <br />The patio and wall improvements encroach on 1186 Wildhurst Trail, the property to the north. The owners of <br />1186 have indicated that they want the encroachments removed from their property and prefer that all <br />improvements meet setbacks and city requirements. No other comments from the public have been received. <br /> <br />Issues for Consideration <br />1. Does the Planning Commission find that the property owner proposes to use the property in a <br />reasonable manner that is not permitted by an official control? <br />2. Does the Planning Commission find that the variance(s), if granted, will not alter the essential <br />character of the neighborhood? <br />3. Does the Commission find it necessary to impose conditions to mitigate the impacts created by the <br />granting of the requested variance(s)? <br />4. Are there any other issues or concerns with this application? <br /> <br /> <br />124