Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Approved – September 18, 2003 <br />Kalish agreed that the setbacks are set by a PUD and the PUD amendment process is described in <br />the Municipal Code but is unclear how setbacks can be changed after the project is completely <br />built out. <br />Johnstone discussed and explained Municipal Code Section 17.28.230. <br /> <br />Kalish acknowledged the detail of the Covenants for the Meadows at Coal Creek and questioned <br />if all residents had to agree with them. <br />Lipton stated that the City does not enforce Covenants and the agreement by residents would only <br />be enforceable by that group. <br /> <br />McDermott expressed concern with the 17 residents that voted against the project and requested <br />that the Applicant address that during his presentation. <br /> <br />McDermott requested clarification of the number of lots affected that the proposed PUD <br />amendment. <br />Martell referred the Commissioners to the map included in the packet and that the lots coded <br />yellow are only those that are affected that the amendment. <br /> <br />Kalish asked who could build arbors in this neighborhood. <br />Martell stated that others can still build arbors but they cannot go into the setback. <br /> <br />McAvinew: Is the City or HOA aware of any arbors that have built prior to this application. <br />Martell stated that the City is unaware of any. <br /> <br />Robson asked if the 25’ setback is typical for a rear yard setback. <br />Martell replied that it is. <br /> <br />Applicant Presentation: <br />Michael Reis, 738 Pear Court, Louisville, representing the HOA for Meadows at Coal Creek <br />reviewed the process that the HOA has been through to bring this application before the Planning <br />Commission. He stated that the HOA formed a specific committee, Arbor Committee, to address <br />the need for the requested change. <br /> <br />The applicant reviewed the key elements of the proposed changes as follows: <br /> <br />1)The setback change is for the construction of arbors only and not any other type of <br />structure. <br /> <br />2)The change would apply to any lot with 34 or less feet between the back of the existing <br />house and the end of the lot. <br /> <br />3)Arbors would be limited in height. <br /> <br />4)The arbor must be of an open design. <br /> <br />5)All arbor designs must be approved by the Architecture Control Committee (ACC). They <br />have developed a very specific set of design requirements for an arbor structure and a <br />copy was included in your packet for this meeting. <br /> <br /> <br />7 <br /> <br />