CC Min 1986-05-12 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

Item No. 3 (continued) Vice Mayor Chandler declared the public hearing open at 8:40 p.m. Stephen Nolf, 1022 Valota Road, requested that the public hearing be continued and photographs shown again for the benefit of neighbors, stating they had not received sufficient notice. In response to question regarding notice requirements City Attorney Schricker said that notice is required to be mailed to neighbors of the property not less than five days before the public hearing and that both properties must be posted within three days of the date application for the house move is made. It was noted for the record that application was made on April 10, 1986, and both properties have been posted since April 13 and that mailing of notice was made on May 6, 1986. (Affidavits on file, see above) Dennis Pantano, applicant, presented his landscape plan for the new site and confirmed that both properties have been posted since April 13. Mr. Pantano suggested that his proposed exterior colors, the landscaping and the two -car garage with breezeway will be attractive and will be compatible with the neighborhood. In response to question with regard to the scope of Council authority, Mr. Schricker said that the Council may make conditions deemed necessary to protect the public health, safety and general welfare which includes making the property compatible with the other buildings in the neighborhood. John Cooper 609 Lancaster, suggested the building as proposed would be compatible with the neighborhood. Mayor Claire invited anyone else present who wished to speak to do so. No one wished to speak. M /S: Bury /Britschgi to close the public hearing. Carried unanimously by voice vote and public hearing closed at 9:05 p.m. M /S: Bury /Britschgi to deny the application of Dennis J. Pantano for Building Move Permit to relocate one -story single family dwelling from San Carlos to 1040 Valota Road, based on findings that under the circumstances of the particular case, granting the permit would be detrimental to the public welfare and injurious to the property in the vicinity of the lot where the building is proposed to be moved in that: 1) the size and design of the structure proposed to be moved does not have a balance and unity among its external features so that it will have an harmonious appearance with structures in the vicinity of the lot; 2) that the structure does not conform to the general character of other structures in the vicinity in that the design is essentially rustic in appearance as opposed to the design of other structures; and MINUTE BOOK NO. 46 Page NO. 260 Reg.Mtg. 5/12/86 Page 4