06-26-1972 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

APPEAL #305 - VA 72-5 JERRY M. PATTERSON - (Continued} Councilman Villa stated that the requirements for dedication of the park are 10% and he believed this complies; that he is opposed to the appeal; that when an ordinance is enacted, certain restricitions do not take effect immediately; that this application was submitted last September and was delayed because of the moratorium; that the City has no jurisdiction over schools; and that Sandpointe Park has not been developed because the City does not have the money for it. Councilman Patterson stated he would agree with the "grandfather clause" if the development had been started but that this is bare goun~, that they can build R ls also; that the General Plan indicates R 1; that with regard to the park, the staff has consistently stated 10 acres are needed; and that the staff recommendation was for denial. Mayor Griset and Councilmen Yamamoto and Evans spoke in favor of the appeal, stating they were against high density in the area ,and that the Council should follow its approved policy. Councilman Yamamoto~s motion, seconded by Councilman Villa, to grant Appeal #305 and instruct the City Attorney to prepare a resolution denying Variance Application 7Z-5, carried on the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Yamamoto, Villa, Evans, Griset, Patterson Herrin, Markel None RECESS Councilmen pres ent. At 10:30 PoM., a five-minute recess was declared. The meeting reconvened at 10:35 P.M. with all RES. 72-67 Mayor Grisetmoved to reconsider APPEAL #296 the Council decision of June 5, to SANDPOINTE HOMEOWNERS deny Appeal No. 296, filed by the Sandpointe Homeowners ' As sociation and to grant Variance Application ?Z-10, filed by Robert H. Grant Corporation subject to the conditions in the Planning Commission Finding of Fact. Motion was seconded by Councilman Patterson and carried on the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Griset, Patterson, Evans, Yarnamoto, Markel Villa, Herrin None In response to a question from Councilman Evans, the City Attorney stated that at the time of Council discussion of the Appeal, the usual degree of notice to property owners was not given; that the matter was continued from March 1972, and that normally notices would not be mailed in the case of a continuance. The Mayor stated that Council had received a letter from the Sandpolnte Homeov~ners' Association requesting a new public hearing; that he is not in favor of this. Councilman Villa stated that if the matter is brought back as a public hearing, it has to be discussed again; that not only did the appellant, Tony Filicicchia say he CITY COUNCIL MINUTES -245- JUNE 26, 1972