PC 08/13/97 - Laserfiche WebLink

. . . to rezone the property to residential. He noted that the neighbors are in agreement that the residential zoning is most appropriate. He commented that the bed and breakfast would be a tinancialloss and the special events center use may not be financially beneficial. He advised that if the residential use is recommended by the Commission, he would like to discuss the proposed conditions of approval. He feels some of the conditions are over-reaching and go beyond what the property owner wants to do. He would like to have the condition prohibiting future subdivision of the site deleted, noting that the owner is not planning to request a lot split, but that a future owner may wish to do so. He requested that requirement to join the homeowners' association be deleted, noting that the site is large enough to allow the construction of a pool on the property, and that if the property owner wants to use the facilitate they can join. He also asked that the semi-circular driveway at the front of the house be retained as the house is oriented to this driveway. He noted that the house could be given rear access without the use of the gate. Chair Barker asked if the property had been advertised for sale. Mr. Currin responded that it has been on the market for about one month. Yetta DeHart, 2173 Inverness Court, stated that she feels the most appropriate use for the structure is a single-family residence. She noted that she had been told by the developer that it would be used as such. She advised that she doesn't feel subdivision of the site is appropriate. Charlotte Anderson, 7823 La Quinta Court, stated that she supports Ms. DeHart's comments regarding the single-family residence use. She encouraged the Planning Commission to make a decision for residential use, and that no subdivision be allowed. She suggested that the homeowners be asked as to whether the property should be annexed to the homeowners' association. Barry Miller, 7880 Cypress Creek Court, President of the Golden Eagle Luxury Homeowners' Association, reported that the 115 homeowners with the Golden Eagle Luxury Homes were in favor of the residential use. When asked if the property should be annexed to the homeowners' association or should not allowed to be annexed, Mr. Miller advised that he had not addressed these variables. Bev Javaheri, 2113 Cascara Court, stated that she applauds the Currin's decision for residential use. She stated that she would have difficulty with the special events center or bed and breakfast uses. She advised that she understands Mr. Currin's position regarding the aesthetic value of the circular driveway, but she feels there is a way to connect the driveway from the side of the property. Katherine Pittenger, 1912 Toyon Court, noted that a neighbor, Dr. Ramsey Araj, had to leave the meeting, but he left his notes with her so that she could bring up his points of concern. She noted that both she and Dr. Araj are in favor of the single-family residential use. She stated that Dr. Araj felt he had been misstated in the staff report, and that he is very fearful of impacts as a result of expansion of hours and the number of users should the Adobe become a conference center or bed and breakfast. Ms. Pittenger stated that she agrees that the front driveway contributes to the aesthetics of the Adobe. She also advised that she can see both pros and cons to requiring that the site be annexed to the homeowners' association. Tom DeWitt, 8012 Golden Eagle Way, advised that he lives next door to the Adobe and that he doesn't want any other use than single-family residential. He also commented that he does not believe it is an historical landmark. Planning Commission MiD utes Page 14 August 13, 1997