04/04/1990 (2) - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

L Ida Mae Hoover, 13820 La Paloma, asked about the location of the house and the design and also supported the stipulation that it be one story. Regarding the location, her concerns were not necessarily the distance from the road but the impact on them as the neighbors who would be looking down on the property. Ms. Carol Seeds, 13801 La Paloma, commented that she was confused about the process of Site Development, Planning Commission and City Council meetings -- at which point were certain conditions imposed? She also stated her concerns about the development of La Paloma. Ms. Seeds supported the open character and rural quality of La Paloma; she was not a supporter of 'statement' houses. The neighbors at the Planning Commission meeting had stated that they would prefer an 18' height limitation on the house. Unthoughtful, inconsiderate development would be harmful to their quality of life. Ms. Seeds also stated her concerns about fences and trees. Mr. Larry Nelson, applicant, explained that he had purchased the property approximately 40 years ago and had planted a lot of trees on the property. He lived next door and he would do nothing to harmfully impact his neighbors nor himself. In part the many trees would lessen any visual impact on the neighbors. Mr. Nelson also concurred with a one-story house but noted that there was a potential sale of the property and certain deadlines for completion of the sale and he would request Council to approve restrictions that would be considered workable by the potential buyer for the completion of a suitable house for the neighborhood. MOTION SECONDED AND CARRIED: Moved by Siegel, seconded by Tryon and passed unanimously by all members present to amend condition #1 and 2 to allow for the curvalinear driveway as it now exists; to grant a conditional exception that the driveway may encroach into the 160 foot building circle; and that the ingress easement shall encompass the existing curvalinear driveway but will not be required to be centered over the driveway. MOTION SECONDED AND CARRIED: Moved by Johnson, seconded by Siegel and passed unanimously to delete condition #14 which read: "Each lot of this subdivision is to have installed a water meter for irrigation and a separate meter for household use. These meters are to be installed as a portion of the improvements for the subdivision." Council then discussed the issue of a height limitation. Tryon believed Council should deal with the issue at this time as it was a sensitive lot. Johnson, on the other hand, did not believe it was the appropriate time to decide on a height limit. Casey was April 4, 1990 5