PC 08/13/97 - Laserfiche WebLink

Ron Jenkins, 7880 La Quinta Court, stated that he feels the building should remain a single-family residence and the site should not be subdivided. He also indicated that the homeowners should vote as to whether the property should be annexed to the association. . Jim Rogers, 1904 T oyon Court, requested that the Planning Commission support the recommendation to maintain the Adobe as a single-family residence. PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED Commissioner Wright stated that he took the same stance last time this item was before the Commission, noting his support for the single-family residential use, because he was told that this would be the use when he visited the sales office for Golden Eagle. He supported the suggestion that the homeowners' vote to determine if the property should be a part of the association. He hoped that the annexation could possibly eliminate the access off of Foothill Road. He agrees that the driveway in front should remain as it is an amenity. He would like to leave the opportunity to subdivide the site, noting that any plan would need to reviewed by the Planning Commission, and, therefore, he recommended deleting Condition #3. Commissioner Cooper stated he would like to see the Adobe maintained as a single-family residence, noting that he feels it necessary to leave the front driveway so as not to lose the architectural beauty of the house. He believes the site should not be required to be annexed to the homeowners' association. He is not in favor of subdividing the site. . Commissioner Kumaran stated that he has no problem supporting the residential use. He would like to leave Condition #3, as well as Condition #5 and #6. Commissioner Lutz advised that he supports the residential use. He does not believe the property should be required to join the association, and, therefore, recommends eliminating Condition #4 and #5. He commented that he believes a day use could have worked out and that the Adobe would have provided a nice conference center for local businesses. Discussion ensued regarding the annexation to the homeowners' association and Condition #4, #5, and #6. Chair Barker stated that she agrees with Commissioner Wright with regard to Condition #3. She does not believe the City should take away the owner's right to subdivide in that this lot is larger than any other lot in the area and an appropriate plan may be developed that would then be subject for review. She supports the single-family residential use and would like to see the property in the homeowners' association, but it should be at the option of the property owner. A motion was made by Commissioner Wright, seconded by Commissioner Lutz, making the PUD findings as listed in the staff report and recommending approval of Case PUD.8S.1S.9M, for single-family residential use, subject to the conditions listed in Exhibit"B.2," with the following modifications: . Delete Conditions 3, 4, and 5. Delete the first paragraph of Condition #6 (changing 6.a. to 6). Planning Commission Minutes Page 15 August 13, 1997