PC 10/14/1998 - Laserfiche WebLink

Commissioner Maas expressed support with the neighbor's concerns relating to a business being located in a residential neighborhood, the affects on home values, safety issues, and parking and traffic issues. - In conclusion, she stated she would not vote in support of approving the application. Commissioner Cooper stated that approval of this application would not significantly affect traffic in the community, such as other downtown events. He expressed support with the neighbor's concerns; however, he spoke in support of an eight-month trial basis for approval of the use permit. He felt this was a classic, low-impact home occupation. He stated he would vote in support of approving the application. Chairperson Kumazan expressed support with residential neighborhoods not having businesses in them. Further, he stated that due to this being a counseling business being conducted in a residential area, the applicant previously operating with an exempt home business permit, traffic and parking issues, and neighbor's concerns, he would not be in support of approving application. A motion was made by Commissioner Maas, seconded by Commissioner Roberts, denying Case Up-98-57. ROLL CALL VOTE AYES: Commissioners Maas, Roberts, Sullivan, and Chairperson Kumazan NOES: Commissioner Cooper ABSENT: None __ ABSTAIN: None Resolution No. PC-98-77 was entered and adopted as motioned. Mr. Iserson informed the applicant that an appeal of the Planning Commission's decision could be made to the City Council within 15 days. c. PUD-98-10. Jerrell M. and Vicki J. Thomas Application for PUD development plan approval to create a buildable single-family residential lot approximately 1.24 acres in size and for construction of one, approximately 5,000 square foot, one and two-story home located at 8093 Bethel Lane. Zoning for the property is PUD (Planned Unit Development) - LDR (Low Density Residential) Foothill Road Overlay District. The Planning Commission will also consider the Negative Declaration prepared for the project. Mr. Iserson referenced a staff report dated October 14, 1998 and highlighted key areas contained in the report including background information, project and site description, project density, access and circulation, architectural plans, existing trees and landscape plans, development standards, and subdivision design. In conclusion, Mr. Iserson stated that staffs recommendation is to make the PUD findings as listed in the staff report; recommend that the project be subject to growth management on a first-come, first-serve basis; and, recommend approval of the project subject to the conditions listed in Exhibit "B." PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 6 October 14, 1998