SR 06:020 - Laserfiche WebLink

EXHIBIT I Pl1 D-85-0 t -4M. Heinrich Fischer Application for a Inajor Inodit'ication to an approved PUD dcveloplnent plan to allcnv a I'ctractahle canvas a~vning; to the rear t"a",ade ot" an existing; residence located at t 576 Poppy hank Court in the Clulrtel' Oaks development. Zoning t"or the property is PUD-MDR (Planned Unit Development - Medium Density Residential) District. Ms, Dcckct' sun~n~arizcd the staff t"CPOI.t and described the scopc and layout or this application. Staff on.linm"ily \Nould have pl-ocessed this application as a Ininor n~odification; hO\Never, opposition \Nas expt"cssed by ncighbot's and the Rose Pa.-l< 1-lon~co\Nnet"s Association (I-lOA), The I-lOA dcnied t\NO t'equests based on its dctennination that the cover \Nas installed \Nithout the app,'opriate appt'ovals; the patio cover \Nas an a\Nning and not allo\Ned pel- the PU D guidelines 01' CC&Rs; the covet' does not add to the aesthetic value or the con~n~unity; and the covel" \Nas n~ounted ct'ossing thc p,'openy line, a condition \Nhich has since been I"cn~edied, StalTtypically SUppOl'tS the position of 1-IOAs reganJing design issucs in thcil" particulm- developlncnts and respects thc Rose Pa.-l< 1-lon~co\Nnel's Association's position that thc a\Nning does not n~cet its aesthetic standm"ds, Stafr found the CC&Rs silcnt on \Nhat constitutes a patio covel". Staff bclieved that thc 10\N height, sctbacks, and I-etractable natut"C of the COVCI' \Nould Initigatc any potcntial ilnpaets, The Planning Depat-tlnent genc,'ally considcrs I'cquests such as thc applicant's in a b,"oadel- contcxt and t.-ies to accolnlnodate thcse pt'oposals that appcat' I'easonable and that seen~ to avoid ilnpaets to thc ncighbo.-l~ood, Starr t"econ~n~ends that the Planning Con~n~ission t'econ~n~end appl'oval of this iten~ and fot'\NanJ it to the City Co unci L subject to the conditions listcd in Exhibit 13, \Nith an additional condition, \Nhich thc applicant has not been ,nadc a\Na,'e of at thc tin~e or thc hcat'ing, that the a\Nning be n~aintained in good repair at all ti n~cs and be ,-eplaccd i I' ton~, faded, at" othet'\Nisc sho\NS \Ncal". Staff noticcd pl'opet'ty O\Nners and t"esidents \Nithin a I,OOO-Ioot nldius of this site" COlnn~cnts havc been receivcd (~"oln both the Rose Park I-lOA and othct, concet'ned ncighbot's expt'cssing opposition to thc pt'oposed pl"Clject. In t'esponsc to Con~lnission inquiries. Ms, Decket" descl'ibed the physical chm'actcl"istics of the il\NI1ing. In t'esponsc to an inquit,y by Cotnn~issioncl" Peat'ee I'egan.ling thc Cotnlnission's autho.-ity to ovcn'ide thc 1-IOA's contnlctual t-clationship bet"veen an I-lOA and the hon~eo"vnet-. Ms, Ne.-land t'cplied that there \Net'C t\NO diffet'ent con~poncnts of t'egulation" The City has J'egulations that need to be n~et. t"egal-dless of \Nhat the I-lOA Inay agt'ce to and bind itscl I' tht'ough the CC&Rs, Ultin~ately, the I-lOA's t"cst.-ictions n~ay bc n~ot'e t"cstt'ictivc than the City's t"cquil"Cn~ents, but not less, Ms, Ne.-land notcd that the Planning COlntnission \Nas not the appt-oPI'iatc body to add,"ess any pCI"Ccived discl-epancics in the CC&Rs \Nhich did not violatc the City's t'cgulations, Con~n~issioner Fox adviscd that she did not livc closc enough to this sitc to t'equit-e rccusal I~-on~ this itetn but that shc "vas IXII-t or an I-lOA that had t'esidcnts olT of Kan~p Dt-ive and Gat-den Ct'cck Cit'cle, This I-lOA \Nas dirfcJ'cnt but had conductcd n~cetings t'cgarding patio covet-S; that I-lOA boal"d has approvcd pcn~~ancnt patio COVCt'S 011 a case by case basis dUI'ing n~cctings that shc has attended, Ms, Decker noted that this I'equest \Nas site-spccific and \Nould not apply to the entire PUD, EXCERPTS: PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES. Octobet' 26.2005 Page I 01'4