03-19-2012 Planning Commission Packet

Home Browse Search

FILE#12-3548 � 14 March 2012 • Page 4 of 4 staff this criterion is met. (9) Not expected to substantially impair the use and enjoyment of the property in the area or have a materially adverse impact on the property values in the area when compared to the impairment or impact of generally permitted uses;the proposal is intended to improve and enhance the applicant's use of the property and does not appear it will adversely impact the adjacent properties or the use of the adjacent properties. In the opinion of staff this criterion is met. (10) Provided with screening and buffering adequate to mitigate undesirable views and activities likely to disturb surrounding uses;the proposed structures will be screened from views from Lake Classen and adjacent properties with the existing vegetation. The applicant is proposing to enhance the existing vegetation as well. In the opinion of staff this criterion is met. (11) Not create a nuisance which generates smoke, noise,glare,vibration, odors, fumes, dust, electrical interFerence,general unsightliness, or other means;in the opinion of staff this criterion is met. 1._ " (12) Not cause excessive non-residential traffic on residential streets, parking needs that cause a demonstrable inconvenience to adjoining properties,traffic congestion,or unsafe access; the structures are proposed to be utilized by the school through environmental education programming. In the opinion of staff this criterion is met. (13) Designed to take into account the natural,scenic, and historic features of the area and to minimize environmental impact;in the opinion of staff this criterion is 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; and (15) Not detrimental to the public health, public safety,or general welfare. In the opinion of staff this criterion is met. � Issues for Consideration 1. Does the Planning Commission find practical difficulties exist which support granting of the requested variances? 2. Are there mitigating measures which will lessen the impacts of the proposed structures on the surrounding landscape or from views off site? 3. Are there any other issues or concerns with this application? Staff Recommendation Planning Staff recommends approval of the variances and the CUP for the existing and future observation platforms. StafF also recommends approval of the variances to allow the pavilion to be constructed as shown. All of the City Engineer and Wetland Specialist's requirements including wetland buffer improvements and erosion control measures will be addressed with the administrative building permit (and land alteration permits) following variance and CUP approval. Submittal of a revised survey and grading plan showing the OWHL of Lake Classen should be required prior to City Council review and approval. Submittal of MCWD approval of the projects should be required for the administrative permit as well.