PC 092403 - Laserfiche WebLink

eleva.-tiorl..s arld design_ He noted tl"1at tl'1is vvas the sarne cOl-:tdition as tl"1cy l..1sed 01"1 tl""1e Bern..al property_ In response to aI"1 inquiry by Commissioner Sullivan" 1'v1.r_ .lserson. cOl'1firmed th.ut the Planning Commission had discretion vvith respect to the ITl.odel rl-"1ix on tl'1e property and could revise the applicable condition of" approval goverl'1ing the ITl.ix. If-the de-ve]oper :tailed to l__rleet the condition or approval" then stafr vvould l'1ave discretion as to '-Vhat vvould be approved. DOI""1 I~uthrorf:. project arcl'1itect" Dahlin. Group" 2671 Crovv Cany01"1 I~oad" San l~an:"1on.., noted that he presented the same houses for the Heinz property. He l"1oted that they had spent a year vvith staff in preparing Heinz :tor building permits_ He believed t.hat tl-:te result or that vvork vvas a high quality product vvith a good mix of-elevations and fl.oor plans,. for a total oftvvelve dif-terent houses over 30 lots. He noted that the ITl.ix gave the neighborhood a C1...1.stom look_ Commissioner Sullival'1 n.otedthat the Heinz property had a P'UD 1"1'1odificaticH'1 after the initial approval to cl-:tange tl""l.e roof slopes_ TV1r. Ruthrorr con:tlrrn.ed th..at tl"1ese 1""l.OlT1CS had th..e 1T1odi:fied roo-t- design.s_ 'Vv'ayne Hal'1ner., 2287 Vineyard Avenue., property ovovner., subrnitted a corrln""'lunication into tl""'le record requesting a continuance oftl""1is applicatiol'1. He advised t:hat he vvas not llot:ified of the svveeping changes detailed il"1 PUI~-01-3J\..1f_ He stated that the applicatiol"1 vvas ITl.ade vvithout his kr10vvledge or approval" and that no po,^"er or attorney or prior authorization had been granted to any person or entity to act in. his beh.alr '-Vith respect to this property. He strongly objected to vvhat had occurred in this application" and noted that the relationship vvas betvveen l'1im and 1'v1.ardeL He anticipated future litigation vvith respect to tl"1is case i-rthe current sitl...1.ation continued. H.e noted that he did not l-:tave an agreement vvith Delco,. but did have a contract vvith J"vIardeL He vvas very concerned about the lack of in-rorlT1ation regarding the applications that he initially l"1ad access to,. including the unedited sigl"1ed contract betvveen 1v'1ardel al'1d Greenbriar. He believed this h.ad material legal significance_ I'V1r_ Hahner expressed concern about tl"1e c01"1servatiol""l. easernent ror the vineyard_ lie noted that Doyle Heaton" doing business as l\!lardel LLC,. agreed to purchase tl,e vineyard pro.perty frOI"1-:t Hal'1ner on the condition that he carry tl""l.C :tlrst n,ortgage on the property_ lVtr_ I.Ial'11'1er noted that he had ref:used to Sigl'1 a conservatic:>n easeJ:-:t-:te:n"t bccausc l-:le belicved the proposed eaSCIT1ent '-Vas on..erous and unacceptable. He belicvcd that vvl"lile Doyle 1.leaton vvoul<:l have to sig:l"1 tl"1e eaSel'1'1CI'1t", it vvo"Ldd have no authority again..st Hahner as first rnortgage l-:lolder. Chairperson Arkin advised that appeared to be more of' a business issue than a planning issue. 1'\I1:r. Hahner requested that the Plannil"1g COlTlmission examine this issue,. at-:td requested that this item be continued_ PLANNING CC>J'V1J'V1ISSIC>N lVlINUTES September 24, 2003 Page 6