SR 06:020 - Laserfiche WebLink

addcd to thc acsthctic al1lbiancc ofthc City and addcd that thcy vvcre con~n~el"cial establishn~ents, Hc notcd that such avvnings I'cceived appl"oval l1'on~ thc Planning Conll1lission 0'" Planning Dcpartn~cnt. Hc notcd that it vvas the I'esponsibility of the purchascl's in an HOA to I'ead. undcl"stand. and sign the CC&Rs thn:Hlgh the escl'ovv pH~cess, THE PUBLIC HEARING "'AS CLOSED. In I"csponsc to an inquil'y by Acting Chail' AI'kin vvhy the Con~nlission should beCOI1lC involved in this n~atter. Ms, Dcckcr replied that thcl'c '\vas an intcq")l'ctation that needed to bc l1lade I'cgarding thc natul"C ofavvnings and patio covers. vvhich could be lookcd at in both fashions. Stafr bel ieved that nlthcl" than n~akc that intcq")l'etation. it could bc Ixought bcfol'c the Con~n~ission as a lnajol' Inodification, COlnlnissionel' Robel'ts believed the Pl"ohibition against avvnings vvas against avvnings OVCI" vvindovvs. vvhich vvould be a dcsign probleln in duets, Shc did not belicvc that a SCI"een avvning should be offensive. except that in looking at these photogl'aphs, this largc avvning bcing that close to thc neighbor vvas a problcln, She did not believc this avvning bclongcd in that duct. Conllnissioncl' Fox noted that vvhen hel" con~plex vvas built. thel'c VVCI"C no satcllitc dishes 01' l"etl'actablc avvnings and that they had to bc addrcsscd altcl" thc technology vvas available, She inquil'cd vvhethel' the cnvning Pl"oduced noisc vvhen it '\vas retnlcted, Ms. IJcckcl' notcd that she vvas unavval'e of any noise ilnpacts vvllen it vvas I'ctractcd and added that the applicant indicatcd that it vvas not alvvays fully opcn, With I'cspect to COlnlnissionel" I3lank's qucstion regal"ding setbacks. she notcd that thc standards shovvn on pagc 3 of the staff repol"t allovved a zel'o setback on one sidc and gl'eatel' than 01" cqual to thl'ee feet on thc othcl' sidc, COlnn~issioncl' Pcal'cc bclicved that the I-lOA ,'elied on the pur::> to lnake its detenllination, and belicved that thc Con~lnission vvas obligated to clal"ify it. Conln~issionel' Blank bel ieved that the hon~eovvnel's had an obi igation to be avval'e of thc CC&Rs. \vhich the HOA '\vas obligatcd to enfol-ce, He added that tlle,"e vvas no entitlcn~entto vievv and believcd that this patio covel" cOIning up to the zel"O lot line vvas n~OI'e than a vievv obstruction, I-Ie addcd that shading. vvind pallen~s. and nlin coverage vvould all be afTectcd by the placelnent. He vvas vel'y conccl'ncd that based on the testilllony. all of the covel'S, avvnings. and eaves in the developl1lent appeal"ed to be opcn. He bclicvcd thc I'cqucst should be denicd, COlnn~issionel' Fox noted that she vvould suppc:)]'t staIrs ,'econ~n~cndation on this I'equest and addcd that this vvas cOlnpm"able to three Ulnbl"ellas placed next to one anotheL Shc pI'efelTcd the aesthetics of the patio covel' to scvcl'al ulnbrellas, She added that Gingel"bl'ead PI'eschool had a detached patio covel' on its playgl'ound to pn~tect the chi Idl'cn fl'on~ the sun. Acting Chail-pcl'son A.-I<in notcd that hc vvould SUPPOI"t should not bc addrcssed by thc Planning Con~n~ission, developn~ent standard 1"0'" one lot in a PUD, the n~otion to dcny but bclieved that this Hc vvas uncon~jol"table n~aking a custon~ EXCERPTS: PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES. Octobcl' 26,2005 Page 301'4