Laserfiche WebLink
`, 5. UNFINISHED BUSINESS <br />5.1 Request for a Site Development Permit for a new residence, pool and <br />spa, Lands of Viso, 28620 Matadero Creek Court <br />Bob Owen, applicant's contractor, noted that this issue had been discussed at the <br />previous Council Meeting and he believed they had complied with Council's <br />direction of reducing the proposed development area on the project. He noted that <br />his client did not want to reduce the size of the house but had agreed to <br />modifications in the overall development such as reducing the coverage of the <br />parking area and providing for additional planting areas. <br />Dauber believed that more outdoor living area was needed for this lot and proposed <br />two conditions be added to those recommended by the Planning Commission. <br />These conditions were: 1) require a recorded restriction notifying future owners that <br />there was a specific limited amount of development remaining on this lot; and 2) <br />require a landscape plan prior to the building permit being issued. <br />Bob Owen, applicant's contractor, responded that it took time to do a landscaping <br />plan and if there was a break in the weather they would like to proceed with the <br />project. <br />`. Frank Clohan, applicant's attorney, referred to the disclosure laws which were quite <br />specific and had to be complied with and also noted that his client was in <br />conformance with all of the Town's ordinances. He believed this project should be <br />approved. <br />Jim Viso, applicant, gave a brief history of this project and noted how he had spent a <br />lot of time and money on modifying his project to comply with the Town's <br />ordinances. He did not agree with Councilmember Dauber's proposed conditions <br />and believed his application should be treated fairly since it was in conformance <br />with the Town's regulations. <br />Hubbard did not support these proposed conditions and thought they were an <br />attempt to micromanage this project. Regarding the recorded restrictions on the <br />project, he believed there were safeguards built into the system and supported only <br />recording such restrictions in the case of extraordinary circumstances. Siegel <br />supported Dauber's proposed conditions, noting that this project was built out to all <br />limits of development. Johnson commented that he could not find a legal reason to <br />object to this project. The staff recommended approval and he believed the issues <br />had been addressed. <br />January 20, 1993 <br />