Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Approved – September 18, 2003 <br />Martell stated that the requested PUD amendment pertains to the rear yard setback requirement <br />only. Of the 102 lots within the subdivision the applicant’s request is for 57 lots, specifically lots <br />1, 12 – 18 and 54 – 102. <br /> <br />Martell reviewed for the Commissioners a few terms: decks, arbors, porch and structure. He also <br />provided information from surrounding communities and their definitions and setback <br />requirements for those structures. During the discussion he reminded them that a structure <br />(deck, etc.) under 30” in height can encroach into the side and rear yard setbacks and the <br />amendment is for structures over 30”. <br /> <br />Martell noted that the average rear yard space for the development equals approximately 34 feet <br />of rear yard length. Because this rear yard space is nearly ‘used’ with the current setback <br />requirement of 25 feet, it is difficult to construct any deck above 30” in a majority of the yards. <br />Staff recognizes that there are lots with southern exposure throughout this development that may <br />be cause for constructing arbors for sun protection. However, the situation at the Meadows at <br />Coal Creek is not necessarily a ‘unique’ circumstance, this situation is fairly common throughout <br />the City. <br /> <br />Finally, Staff noted that approximately 25% of the Meadows at Coal Creek property owners who <br />voted through an HOA meeting were not in favor of this proposal and voted not to adopt the <br />changes proposed. <br /> <br />Martell noted that Staff reviewed the notes provided by the applicant and is recommending <br />approval of the project with 4 PUD notes: <br /> <br />1)Per Resolution #6, Series 2003, the rear yard setback change is for the construction of <br />arbors and decks only and not any other type of construction. <br /> <br />2)An arbor is defines as, “an open structure consisting of posts and a roof for the protection <br />from sunlight over patios and decks.” <br /> <br />3)The rear yard setback alteration to allow for decks and arbors to be constructed in the rear <br />yard is for lots #1, #12 – 18, and #54 – 102 only. <br /> <br />4)The existing PUD rear yard setback established a rear yard setback for 25 feet for all <br />structures. The new rear yard setback for the lots mentioned in note #3 shall permit the <br />location of decks and arbors within the rear yard only; the setback requirement for these <br />arbors shall be a minimum of fifteen (15) feet from the rear property line; the maximum <br />height of said structure shall be no higher than twelve (12) feet higher than the arbor floor; <br />and arbor floors are not be higher than the first floor of the house. <br /> <br />Commission Questions: <br />Lipton asked for any objections by the Commissioners to enter the two emails that Martell <br />referenced in the Staff report into record. None heard. He declared them into record. <br /> <br />McAvinew asked for a clarification on the 25% that voted against the project through the HOA <br />meeting. <br />Martell replied that the Applicant could answer that question during his presentation. <br /> <br /> <br />6 <br /> <br />