PC 072308 - Laserfiche WebLink

clarified that the language specify that there be no material modifications that would encourage storage. Chair Blank inquired of staff how the condition could be written to accomplish trellising and vines. Ms. Decker suggested clarification on Lot 5 to have an enclosed garage versus a carport, which was not part of the motion and which the Commission indicated was not supported. With respect to modifications to the carports, she noted that the applicant had indicated that the carports were constructed in order to allow them to be enclosed as garages in the future. She pointed out that adding this particular condition would preclude anyone from enclosing it without modification to the PUD, which could be determined to be minor by the Director of Planning and Community Development unless there were related controversies or issues that would make them a major modification. Chair Blank noted that if someone wanted to convert his or her carport to a full-fledged garage, he would like this to return to the Planning Commission because of the visual impact. Commissioner Fox clarified that she was not opposed to conversions but was concerned about homeowners putting up temporary structures to try and enclose carport space in order to hide storage. Chair Blank inquired if material changes allow this flexibility, and Ms. Decker replied that this would be subjective. She indicated that staff would need additional clarification in terms of the kinds of limits. She noted that staff may or may not have a design review process for apre-existing accessory structure that is less than ten feet in height; however, if the Commission desires to restrict any modifications, including the installation of lattice work, staff can provide that condition. Chair Blank confirmed that someone putting up lattice would not necessarily require a building permit. He therefore suggested that it be for any construction that would require a building permit. Ms. Harryman noted that there is already a condition that prohibits storage in the carport area and that Code Enforcement Officer would monitor this. Commissioner Narum agreed but indicated that someone wanting his or her carport enclosed should have that option. She also agreed to have this come before the Planning Commission. Ms. Decker stated that the Planning Commission could consider as a condition the requirement for any modifications to the carport to be reviewed as a PUD modification and that the Director of Planning and Community Development would then evaluate whether it is major or minor and whether or not it should be PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, July 23, 2008 Page 12 of 25