14 ATTACHMENT 04 - Laserfiche WebLink

BACKGROUND On June 18, 2007, the applicant, Steve Spencer, submitted an application for a minor modification to the approved Lemoine Ranch Planned Unit Development (Ord. 1790), to reduce the rear and side yard setbacks of his property from the required 20-feet to 5-feet and to reduce the side yard setback from the require 10-feet to 5-feet for a swimming pool with spa located in the rear right side of his property. The City received a letter from the Architectural Control Committee (ACC) for Lemoine Ranch. The letter was signed by the applicant and staff wished to engage a dialog with the Homeowners Association to determine if the Association would like to move forward with a modification for similar types of lots within the development; there is a prevalence of requests/existing installations that do not adhere to the existing development standard setback requirements. However, consensus was not gained in this effort and the applicant stated that he would like to move forward with his own individual modification for reducing the setbacks. Mr. Spencer also noted that others in the subdivision may not want reductions over the entire PUD and did not wish to be held up further by the HOA not being able to move forward on behalf of the PUD to solve the setback issue. Please see Exhibit C for the HOA's Architectural Control Committee's (ACC) approval letter for the pool. The request to reduce the rear yard setback from 20-feet to 5-feet has been considered by staff. Typically this type of request is supported by staff and as a request to modify the PUD would be processed as a minor modification to a PUD. A minor modification is a staff level approval which appears under `Actions of the Zoning Administrator' to the Planning Commission and to the City Council. Staff has evaluated the request and notes that the homes have been built somewhat larger than anticipated, yet maintaining the maximum FAR, resulting in a reduction of available rear yard area. The request to reduce the setback from 20-feet to 5-feet could impact the enjoyment of the adjacent rear yard neighbor by creating such a close physical location of private open space and use area. In particular, staff evaluated other large lot subdivisions and recognized that similar situations have been required in development standards where setbacks have been required at 20-feet with reductions to 5 or 10-feet. In evaluating this request, staff notes that there is adequate room to modify the plans to provide a 10-foot setback which appears to be more reasonable, thus allowing for additional distance between such uses enjoyed by both the applicant and the neighbor. The Planning Commission is requested to consider and provide a recommendation to the City Council regarding the appropriateness of a significant rear yard setback reduction from 20-feet to 5-feet or if it is preferable to support a reduction from 20-feet to 10-feet since adequate room is available on the large lot to accommodate such a distance. PUD-99-DI-OS, Steven Spencer Planning Commission 2of11