PC 10/28/1998 - Laserfiche WebLink

Commissioners Kameny, Maas and Chairperson Kumazan requested that the City Council consider requiring parental consent for minors 18 and under to solicit psychic businesses. A motion was made by Commissioner Sullivan, seconded by Commissioner Roberts, recommending approval of Case RZ-98-06 to the City Council as set forth in Exhibit "A". ROLL CALL VOTE AYES: Commissioners Kameny, Maas, Roberts, Sullivan and Chairperson Kumazan NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Cooper ABSTAIN: None Resolution No. PC-98-81 was entered and approved as motioned. d. PUD-98-06, Braddock and Loean Application for: (1) PUD rezoning of a one-acre parcel located at 1635 Rose Avenue from the A (Agriculture) zoning district to the PUD (Planned Unit Development) -MDR (Medium Density Residential) zoning district; and (2) PUD development plan approval for 34 lots, ranging in size from 7,600 square feet to 13,400 square feet, on 13.3 acres located at 1635, 1777, and 1851 Rose Avenue, generally at the westerly terminus of Rose Avenue. Zoning for the property is A (Agriculture) and PUD (Planned Unit Development) -MDR (Medium Density Residential) District. The Planning Commission will also consider the Negative Declaration prepared for the project. Continued to November 10, 1998. e. AP-98-14, Neil and Pat Nelson Appeal of an administrative determination that the applied color and a portion of the installed drainage system is not consistent with the design review approval for the house currently under construction located at 8088 Bethel Lane. Zoning for the property is R-1/40,000 single-family residential. Mr. Iserson referenced the staff report dated October 28, 1998 and highlighted key azeas contained in the report including background information, design issues, plan check issues, drainage issues, and stucco color. In conclusion, Mr. Iserson stated that staffs recommendation is for the Commission to find that the raised drainage ditch and applied stucco color have not satisfied the conditions of approval. Further, that staff and applicant be directed to take the necessary actions to require that the drainage system be modified and the home be repainted. Discussion ensued relating to the addresses posted on the house, whether the property is part of the Foothill Overlay District, and the design review process for the property. Mr. Iserson clarified that the two addresses reflect that there is an approved second unit on the property. He stated that the property is within the Foothill Road Overlay District, but as an existing lot of record, there is some flexibility in conforming to its regulations. However, the Code states that such lots should meet the intent of the PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 8 October 28, 1998