CCMIN120208 - Laserfiche WebLink

this decision was not satisfactory to the Johnston's and the matter was appealed to the Planning Commission. Two hearings were held by the Planning Commission. A decision was rendered which included additional conditions of approval and ultimately, the appeal was filed. Mr. Dolan further presented graphics of the retaining wall, a section of a drainage easement where Mr. Jeffrey proposes to install a retaining wall, a series of photographs taken in the middle of construction, from the Johnston's backyard and the Lam's residence, the V-ditch, the property showing setback lines and the distance from the back property line where the retaining wall has been constructed just outside the 15 foot easement; and other lines that show the potential impact of a backyard restriction, which are part of the conditions. Councilmember McGovern confirmed with Mr. Dolan that at one time, almost 25 feet from the property line was landscaped with large trees and shrubs. Councilmember Sullivan confirmed that the new retaining wall is 15 feet from the property line and outside of the easement. Mr. Dolan continued, stating the Zoning Administrator and the Planning Commission both approved the design review application, but with fairly distinctive conditions of approval. The Zoning Administrator required aone-foot high berm on top of the retaining wall, which would be located exactly where the screen would be planted. The Planning Commission agreed that it should be higher as requested by the Johnston's. The pro's and con's of a berm deals with expense by Mr. Jeffrey. One could also say that the screening process could be duplicated with landscaping, but he feels the berm does attenuate sound better than just vegetation, and it provides immediate height. He noted that Council could approve a berm of any height of up to four feet, and staff agreed with the Planning Commission's recommendation. He said the key issue is the restoration of the landscape screening, which everyone agrees needs to occur. The Planning Commission required the plan be prepared by a landscape architect however, staff believes success could also occur through securing a landscape contractor, which would take less time and cost less without degrading the quality. The Planning Commission also suggested a rear yard restriction not on use but that no structures are built 35 feet from the rear yard, such as those encouraging active use. Staff concluded that 25 feet to the edge of the previous landscaping, and if a 35 foot setback was required, it would further restrict Mr. Jeffrey's property more than in the original condition. Councilmember Cook-Kallio questioned where the infill started, and Mr. Dolan believed it was at about the 35 foot mark on the property, but was not positive. Mr. Dolan said the third major issue relates to the actual planting. The Johnston's were not happy with the location of the retaining wall because they could see it from their backyard and it also created a flat area that could actively be used by the Jeffrey's. However, staff believed this might not be accurate because the landscaping would be planted above the retaining wall which would not be useable for activities. The Johnston's also opposed the looks of the well, and the Planning Commission's solution was to require the landscaping plan include something that softens the look, which staff can verify in their review of the plan. The Commission also added a minor condition regarding lighting, which was not controversial. In summary, staff concurs with the Planning Commission's conclusions with two exceptions. Staff does not believe it is necessary to require that a landscape architect prepare the plan, and City Council Minutes 5 December 2, 2008