PC 072705 - Laserfiche WebLink

noise meter readings at the project site and report the results back to the Commission and to provide the opportunity for the Commissioners to visit the site due to the testimony received at the July 27, 2005 hearing. She added that staff had received a request that the public hearing be re-opened For additional testimony. She informed the Commissioners that a copy of the staff report prepared for the June 22, 2005 meeting and a memo dated July 21, 2005 were included in their packets. Ms. Decker then briefly reviewed the conditional use permit Findings for the prof ect_ She reported that with respect to the noise meter readings, staff went to the site with the sound-reading equipment but was unable to measure any noise over the ambient noise of the neighborhood. She added staff had also received letters and comments from the public since the first hearing, including a letter from David J. Larsen, an attorney for the neighbors who oppose the project, as well as letters and messages of support for the application. She noted that while no changes were made to the original conditions of approval, Mr_ Larsen had requested that certain conditions he modified should the Commission approve the application. Ms. Decker recommended that the Commission make the conditional use permit findings as stated in the staff report and to approve the project. Commissioner Roberts stated that she was not present at the Frst public hearing but that she had listened to the entire taped proceedings prior to the irieeting and felt sufficiently informed to consider the matter. Commissioner Blank asked Ms. Lyr~n Tracy Nerland who enforces CC8cRs. Ms. Nerland replied that CC8cRs are a private agreement among the property owners typically enforced by the homeowners association or property manager_ Acting Chairperson Arkin inquired if the Commission needs to be concerned about CCBcRs and to make conditional use findings that are consistent with the CC: BcRs. He further inquired if finding the application to be inconsistent with the CCBcRs would be grounds to deny the application or if the City could approve an application that would be in conflict with the CCBcRs. Ms. Nerland replied that CCBcRs and conditional use permit applications are independent o£ each other and are separate sources of the law. It is not the Planning Commissioners' role to ensure that the conditional use permit Endings are consistent with the CC8c.Rs_ She stated that there have been cases where prohibitions in CC8cRs go beyond City requirements. She added that violations of provisions in the CCBcRs are determined by the homeowners association or the property manager. Commissioner Roberts noted that based on Of£ccr Roy Ficken's comments in the staff memo regarding kennels, chickens are considered to be fowl and not animals such as dogs or cats_ PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Tuly 27, 2005 Page 3 of 31 ___--.__ _ _...... __T _.._ ___._.._.. ___ ... _._