Laserfiche WebLink
<br />SUMMARY: <br /> <br />The proposed modification would allow the Callaits to construct an addition to the <br />existing two-story residence to be located five feet from the side property line where the <br />PUD requires eight feet. The proposed addition meets all other City and PUD <br />requirements and in staffs opinion, it is appropriate to modifY the approved building <br />setbacks. <br /> <br />Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council: <br /> <br />BACKGROUND <br /> <br />In 1977, the City Council approved the Planned Unit Development (PUD) plan for the <br />Northway Downs Development (PUD-77-08). The Northway Downs PUD requires that all <br />habitable additions to the main structure maintain a side yard setback of eight feet, whereas the <br />garage is allowed to be located within five feet of the side yard property line. <br /> <br />On January 11,2006 the applicant, Laurence Callait, submitted a request for administrative <br />design review approval to permit construction of an addition to the main structure and the <br />garage along the north side of the residence (PADR-1490). To accommodate the proposal, the <br />applicant also submitted PUD-77 -08-IM, a minor modification of the PUD, to reduce the <br />minimum side yard setback from eight feet to five feet to allow the proposed addition to <br />continue the wall line of the existing garage. <br /> <br />The City has approved additions to four homes within the development since 1997, but this is <br />the first proposal that requires a PUD modification because of the setback encroachment. <br />Absent the modification, the applicant would have to modifY their design proposal to conform to <br />the existing PUD setback requirements. <br /> <br />During the noticing period for the minor modification request, staff received objection from <br />Mrs. Birtcil, a property owner within the PUD, which changed the application from a PUD <br />minor modification to a PUD major modification. As with all PUD major modifications, this <br />application is now subject to the review and recommendation by the Planning Commission and <br />final decision by the City Council. The Planning Commission reviewed Mrs. Birtcil's concerns, <br />that are outlined in the attached Planning Commission staff report, at the May 10,2006 Planning <br />Commission hearing. After considering the proposal and Mrs. Birtcil's concerns, the Planning <br />Commission approved the administrative design review application (PADR-1490) contingent on <br />the City Council's approval of this PUD major modification request, and recommended <br />approval of the PUD modification. <br /> <br />SR 06:154 <br />Page 2 <br />