Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES <br />HUGO PLANNING COMMISSION <br />June 13, 2013 <br />Call to Order <br />Chairman Gwynn called the meeting to order at 7:09 pm. <br />PRESENT: Arcand, Gwynn, Kleissler, Lessard, McRoberts <br />ABSENT: Knauss, Rosenquist <br />ALSO PRESENT: Rachel Juba, Planner <br />Anna Wobse, Accounting Clerk <br />Approval of Minutes <br />Kleissler made motion, Arcand seconded, to approve the Planning Commission minutes of <br />May 9, 2013. <br />All Ayes, motion carried. <br />PUD Amendment for Diamond Point East — E&G Development <br />City Planner, Rachel Juba, presented to the Planning Commission a request from E&G <br />Development for a Planned Unit Development (PUD) Amendment for Diamond Point East to <br />allow decks to encroach 10 feet into the required rear yard setback on certain lots on 145" <br />Alcove and 145°i Bay. <br />Juba explained that the PUD General Plan for Diamond Point East that was approved in 2003 <br />included a request from the developer asking for flexibility for smaller lots including a reduced <br />front yard setback and reduced shoreland setback. In return for the flexibility, the developer was <br />to provide a higher level of amenities, preserve natural resources and assist in the construction of <br />Goodview Avenue. Due to the smaller lot size and the lot orientation, the houses built and <br />planned to be built have been set further back towards the rear property line in order to meet the <br />side yard setback requirements. This resulted in the houses being built close to or at the rear <br />yard setback, leaving little or no permitted space to construct a reasonably sized deck. This is <br />the reason for the applicants request of allowing decks on these lots to encroach 10 feet into the <br />rear yard setback. Juba shared with the Commission that the intent of the setback ordinances are <br />to provide green space between buildings. The lots proposed for the PUD Amendment do not <br />back up to residential lots and abut the openspace in the middle of the development. Allowing <br />decks to encroach 10 feet into the rear setback would not noticeably change the character of the <br />area and would provide an adequate amount of gremspace between buildings. Staff feels that <br />the PUD Amendment would be consistent with the overall PUD General Plan for Diamond Point <br />