PC 09/11/96 - Laserfiche WebLink

. . . retaining walls. Staff is not supportive of reducing the building separations as applied to this lot. Allowing such a reduction would set a bad precedent for the rest of the development. Further, granting this modification would make it harder to deny other requests whose visual impacts could be much greater. Me. Iserson again noted that this structure does not even meet the normal zoning ordinance of a 3 ft. setback from the roof eaves. Staff further frods that the structure does not complement the design of the existing house. Staff cannot make the findings to support the PUD modification, especially given the fact that the applicant was asked to pursue the appropriate channels and did not do so. Staff recommends denial of this PUD modification request. Mr. Iserson advised that if the Commission approves this modification, it will go to the City Council; otherwise, the application process stops at this stage. The applicant could appeal such a decision to the City Council. Staff also asked that the Commission, if denying the modification, advise the applicant to remove the structure within 30 days. In response to Commissioner Cooper, Me. Iserson advised the applicant may park his truck on the concrete pad without the covering. He was unsure whether the Bonde Ranch PUD would allow for storage of construction material. However, the retaining wall is also in violation because the grading was done without a permit. The applicant would have to pursue another PUD modification for the extended grading and retaining wall. Staff stated that the applicant could remove the retaining wall, replace the grading to its original condition, and that the remaining portion of the concrete pad would be acceptable to leave in place. In response to Chairwoman Barker, Me. Iserson stated the violation on the retaining wall is due to the grading that was done outside of the approved grading envelope and no building permit was issued for the retaining wall construction. Further, Me. Iserson explained that normal PUD's require a 3 ft. setback on sideyards and a 5 ft. setback on rear property lines. PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED Mr. Joe Zuffa, 8028 Jorgenson Lane, represented his PUD modification request. He noted he takes responsibility for the problems created by the carport. He advised that the patio is open on three sides, and he feels he can retain the sideyard three foot setback. He distributed pictures to the Commission for their review. He commented that the carport cover is essentially hidden from the street, he did not think it would be an issue to the adjacent neighbors to look down on the carport roof. The carport cover also provides shade to the side of the house for the children to play in. Commissioner Cooper asked the applicant if he could provide any reason why the Commission should not require the removal of the structure. Me. Zuffa stated he has no problem with removing the structure. Commissioner McGuirk asked if Mr. Zuffa or his son had gotten a copy of the CC&Rs. He advised he did not get them at the time of the pun:base transaction and but has since read them. He had no knowledge of the specific PUD restrictions. Mr. Zuffa stated he had been to the Building Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 September 11, 1996