Laserfiche WebLink
159 <br /> <br /> Mr. Butler considered that if the applicant would move the RV <br />parking area inside and away from the Arroyo where it would annoy <br />no one, there would be no need to prohibit the residents from <br />having a few spaces to park their RVs. <br /> <br /> Ms. Mohr proposed that since the problem was primarily an <br />aesthetic issue, this could be solved by some modification that <br />would make it acceptable within the neighborhood, like keeping it <br />essentially within the project and properly screening it. <br /> <br /> Mr. Brandes stated that while the RV parking issue will keep <br />coming up, it was explicitly prohibited in this project. The <br />project should remain as it was originally applied for and <br />approved. <br /> <br /> There being no further testimony, Mr. Mercer declared the <br />public hearing closed. <br /> <br /> It was moved by Mr. Brandes, and seconded by Mr. Mercer, that <br />Ordinance No. 1424 be introduced, to be read by title only and <br />waiving further reading thereof, approving PUD-83-9-3M, <br />Application of Gatewood Associates for a major modification to an <br />approved development plan for a 200-unit apartment complex, to <br />permit the relocation of the tot lot and to permit carwash areas <br />on the site so long as said sites are located in the interior <br />areas and monitored by the property managers, but not to permit <br />any recreational vehicle/boat parking on site, and subject to the <br />conditions set forth on Exhibit "A" of the staff report but <br />deleting therefrom conditions no. 1, 9, 10, 11, 12, and 13 and all <br />other references to the RV storage/parking area. <br />The roll call vote was as follows: <br />AYES: Councilmembers Brandes, Tarver, and Mayor Mercer <br />NOES: Councilmemnbers Butler and Mohr <br />ABSENT: None <br />ABSTAIN: None <br /> <br />Item 6d <br />AP-89-7, Appeal of a decision of the Board of Adjustment approving <br />Case V-89-6, Application of William C. Lawson for a variance to <br />allow retention of a carport which encroaches into the required <br />side yard setback at 3866 Mammoth Cave Court <br /> Mr. Swift presented his report (SR 89:330) regarding this <br />matter. <br /> <br /> Mr. Mercer declared the public hearing open on the <br />application. <br /> <br /> Mr. William C. Lawson, 3866 Mammoth Cave Court, recounted the <br />history of his purchase of the property and the visit made by Code <br />Enforcement Officer Joe Detata a few days later, informing him <br />that the breezeway was in violation of the required setback. He <br />further recounted that on May 24, 1989, the Planning Commission <br />voted two to three in favor of keeping the breezeway, after which <br /> <br /> -9- <br /> <br /> <br />