PC 122706 - Laserfiche WebLink

Ms. Decker re-directed the discussion and proposed that the Commissioners first determine if they aze in support of sports courts in rear yazd, and if so, what development standazds would they want in place for sports courts. She noted that some PUDs have specifically stated that sports court aze not allowed because of noise and other reasons. She cautioned the Commission that development standards should not be so restrictive that it makes it almost impossible to have sports courts, thus making the Code amendment a moot point. Commissioner O'Connor inquired if an applicant could request for a variance should the Commission decide not to allow sports courts. Ms. Decker said yes. She noted that if the Commission desired that there be no exceptions, language could be included that sports courts are not allowed and that no process is available for allowing them; however, for PUDs where this is silent, a PUD modification would be required to allow sports courts. She added that the Code does not have any restriction for pouring pavement, and for that reason, staff is looking for a way to regulate while meeting the needs of the neighborhood. Commissioner Blank inquired if Mr. Frost's property is within a PUD. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS RE-OPENED. Mr. Frost replied that it is within PUD-97-03. He added that although the PUD does not specifically mention fixed sports appazatus, their CC&R's do, which is more restrictive and is to be followed. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. In response to Commissioner Blank's inquiry if the neighbor's sports court has a City permit, Ms. Decker replied that flat work does not require a building permit, regazdless of size. Commissioner Olson noted that the chart allows sports courts in Ruby Hill and inquired if this is because of the lazger lots in the development. He indicated that the basketball court next to Mr. Frost's residence would not have been approved if it came before the Commission and that he wanted to weigh in on the noise. He added that the Commission require a minimum lot size and City approval for sports courts as they may have an impact on the property values of the neighbors and particulazly since these aze required for residential additions. Commissioner Peazce noted that they could be treated like accessory structures and inquired if City approval is required for accessory structures. Ms. Decker replied that it would depend on what is considered accessory structures. She noted that there are significant issues with respect to this matter as evidenced by controversies between neighbors regazding whether play structures or basketball hoops aze accessory structures. Commissioner O'Connor noted that not all neighborhoods have homeowners associations, which leaves these neighborhoods with no protection for violations of against CC&R's. He indicated that the City needs a tighter definition of accessory structures in addition to the pazameters of over ten feet tall and 120 squaze feet in azea. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES December 27, 2006 Page 10 of 19