PC 061202 - Laserfiche WebLink

,,- Mr. Iserson advised that a petition was submitted in support of the addition, signed by the two neighbors immediately adjacent to the applicant, Gary and Nancy Marks, and Tim and Debbie Sweeney. Staff recommended that the Planning Commission deny the appeal, and approve the original proj ect. Commissioner Arkin inquired whether the original PUD that was approved required that there be a certain percentage of one-story homes. Mr. Iserson replied that this development was not a PUD, and that there was no requirement for a percentage of one- story homes. This area was developed as a tract, as was common at that time. Development of tracts is based on Zoning Ordinance requirements, which allows two story models without a limitation. In response to Chairperson Maas' question whether such a percentage had been required in the past. Mr. Iserson replied that they had not for standard tracts, but that the City has made such requirements with PUDs. Commissioner Arkin noted that the rear elevation did not have a lot of detail, and he was trying to envision it. He inquired whether that was acceptable to the City. --- Mr. Iserson noted that staff was usually more lenient with home additions than with developers in terms of plan detail, because the homeowner often drew their own plans to save on costs. Staff examined the massing, and put design, style, and material conditions on the plans, so that the addition would match the original house. Commissioner Arkin inquired whether there were any City requirements in terms of construction time limits, Mr. Iserson replied that typically, building permits last six months, and that they may be extended. Larissa Seto advised that a contractor, builder, or a homeowner would need to regularly call for an inspection, to keep the permit valid. She noted that a project could theoretically last for many months, or even years, if the requests for inspection were timed in a certain way. She added that the Building Code allowed for a great deal of flexibility, as long as the builder called for regular inspections of foundation, electrical systems, and so on. The six-month clock was restarted every time an inspection was requested and performed. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED Dr. Wilson Myers, appellant, expressed concern that staff was unclear about the appeal period. He noted that in the area where there were five two-story homes in a row, the homes backed up to a drainage ditch. He believed that the photos taken by staff were "ludicrous," in that the angle at which they were taken showed a lot of foliage. He ~ PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES June 12,2002 Page 4