PC 08/27/1990 - Laserfiche WebLink

AP'-90-09 :-Ron Schn~id~r etal Appeal o f a d et er m 3 nation of the P l an n i n g Department that t h e b u i l d i rag permit i ssued t o Sammy Sh r i ma 1 3 f or a s i n g l e f am i l y r es i d en c e t o b e 1 oc at ed at 2853 Victoria R i d g e Gour t < T r ac t 3908 ., Lot 20 > i s i n compliance w i t h t h e approved planned u n i t d eve 1 op m en t _ Mr_ Iser son praw re=nted the staff report recommending denial of Case AF'-9a~-09. Ghai rman Merger asL;ed Mr _ Iser son to comment on tt->e 1 ettcr A r e s erg t e d t o n i g h t b y M s_ S h r i m a 1 i_ M r_ I s e r s on s a i d h e had di sca_assed the contents of the 1 etter ~ the st of f s position i s that al though there was a bui l d i rig per mi t issued i t was i n error _ When the p l a n s were revised t o conform t o t h e requ9. rements of the Coda., that entai 1 ed i ssuancea of a second p ar m i t_ I t i s f r o m t h e second p e r m i t issuance d a t a t h a t appeal s can b e based _ Commi s s i on e r M i c h e l o t t i a s E, ed f o r clarification r e g a r d i n g some o f the custom lots prior t o this case that era still going t o Dezi gn Review Commi zzi on_ She wondered why the S'hri mall app '1 i c a t i o n had n o t been r e q u i r etl t o c o m a b e f ore D e s i g n Ravi ew _ Mr _ Iser son esrpl ai ned t-hat the differ ence i s that the hoa..ases she a^ef erred to, sa_ach a~a Vintage Hei ghts I I ~ that Design Ravi ew has seen era not in F'UD's_ Fie said that a_anl ess tY>r_+ F'UDs cor~di ti or>s of approval requi re Design Revi ew ~ tl-nose tl-aat were approved bawf ore the new ordinance are a>: empt_ Commi szi on er Mahearn asF::ed the depth of the bal conf- es_ G omm i s s i o v e r H o r a n n o ted they a r e s i :c f a c t i n d e p t h _ The_.o ublic-__I~esari no was op era,ad ~_ Ron Sc.hnei der ~ 6°_>C> Or of i no Court ~ represented the application _ He rant ed that tYae eastern part of the site plan shows a 1~> ft_ distance from the hot.ase to the 1 of _ Condition 14 of that PUD states that the house siting plan s F> oa_al d b e d e s i g n e d t o a d h e r e to the site development standards of the R-1-6._>C>r~ Boni ng district _ Ali rear yards shal 1 have a mi n i mt_am f 1 at re~~r yard 2C> feet in deptt~_ He did not see how the Shrirnali yard conf orrn ead to those standards as it is only 1C> feat away with a 2a7 foot r oof_ Mr_ Iserson said the 1C> ft_ that Mr_ Schneider is re-f er-r i ng to i s consi der ed to be a si deyard setbacF=:: the rear yard setbacF: woa_al d be 3C> feet _ The 1 of i s i rrega_al arl y shaped and Mr _ I ser-son showed this to Mr _ Sehneai der the si to plan _ Mr_ ScYanei der still thoa_tyht it waz in vi of ati or> of the F'UD_ Mr _ Sct-anei der stated that one of the main reas~'~ns he i s appeal i nG i s tt>at when he had sent a 1 etter to the F'1 anra :i rig Dap ar-tmer-a t. oe~ Oct ob er 2c. requesting Design Review., Yea recei vend M I NU T E S PLANN I NC-~ COMM I SS I OIV J u n es 2 7 ., 1 9 9 G F•age :~