Loading...
PC 04-14-80 CITY OF CUPERTINO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA 10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, CA 95014 Telephone (408) 252-4505 PC-330 Page 1 MINUTES, APRIL 14, 1980, REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETIN CALL TO ORDER/SALUTE TO THE FLAG 7:30 p.m. ROLL CALL Commissioners Present: Commissioner C1audy Commissioner Adams Commissioner Koenitzer Commissioner B~aine Chairman Gatto's resignation effec- tive. Staff Present: Assistant Planning Director Cowan Associate Planner Piasecki City Attprney Kilian Assistant City Attorney Foley City Engineer Whitten APPROVAL/MINUTES of March 24, 1980 Com. Caudy, Page 3, par. 7, line 3, continue sentence to read" to the Countrywood residents." MOTION: Com. Blaine, Approval as corrected. Second: Com. Claudy. PASSED: UNANIMOUSLY 4-0 POSTPONEMENTS/NEW AGENDA ITEMS Assistant Planning Director Cowan asked that Item #10, Application 5-TM-79 of MAXINE DRUMMOND be removed from the Calendar because of an understanding on her part that the limit was twelve (12) months instead of eighteen (18); and, she fully intended to file within six (6) month's time. MOTION: Com. C1audy, Remove Item #10 from the Calendar. Second: Com. Blaine. PASSED: UNANIMOUSLY 4-0 WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS ORAL COMMUNICATIONS PUBLIC HEARING COM. KOENITZER announced that he would abstain from de- liberations for Item #1 due to personal interest. COM. CLAUDY became Chairman Pro Tem. ITEM #1, Applications 24-Z-79 and 27-TM-79 of WOOLWORTH CONSTRUCTION COMPANY: REZONING approximately 5.3 gross acres from R1-10 (Residential, Single-family, 10,000 sq. PC-330 Page 2 MINUTES/APRIL 14, 1980 REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING ft. minimum lot size to Rl-7.5 (Residential, Single-family, 7,500 sq. ft. minimum lot size) zone or whatever zone may be deemed'appropriate by the Planning Commission; TENTATIVE MAP to subdivide the subject property into 21 parcels equaling a minimum of 7,500 sq. ft. each and ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: The Environmental Review Committee recommends the granting of a Negative Declaration. Said property is lo- cated on the north side of Stevens Creek Boulevard approxi- mately lQO ft. easterly of Phar Lap Drive. First Hearing continued. Tentative City Council hearing date -- May 5, 1980. Assistant Planning Director Cowan reviewed Item #1 from the perspective of the previous meeting of March 10, 1980- and called attention to the revised Tentative Map that was submitted by Mr. Woolworth for 18 lots of 10,000 sq. ft. (or larger) each -- in conformance with minimum R1-10 zoning district already existing in the area. Both zoning designations were introduced with the understanding that Planned Development controls would be implemented. A late report from the City Traffic Engineer, Mr. Gregg, had been placed on the dias for the commissioners just prior to the meeting. The traffic report supported the one en- trance to the area. Acceptable levels of traffic and the possible variables had been discussed at the various meetings, and Mr. Cowan reviewed the schematic diagram of the traffic problem that was posted on the board. COM. CLAUDY asked for clarification on the question of a quorum for conducting business in view of Com. Koenitzer's abstaining from deliberation because of conflict of in- terest and Chairman Gatto's resignation in favor of his position on the City Council. City Attorney Kilian judged that a majority of the members of the Planning Commission present would constitute a quorum. Zoning required a total of three (3) whether there was five, four, or three members present. In this instance, the vote re~ired would have to be a unanimous ote. Use Permit or Tentative Map approval could not be pproved prior to zoning approval. In addition, Mr. Kilian eminded the Commissioners of his statement of March 10, 1980 (Planning Commission Meeting PC-328, page 13, par. 9) in which meeting he advised that Commissioner Adams would e required to read the transcript of the meeting, all ocuments and all of the evidence pertinent to the issue rior to voting on the issues to enable him to be able to ake a reasonable decision and responsible decision. OM. ADAMS acknowledged that he had read the transcript nd felt qualified to vote on the issues. MINUTES/APRIL 14, 1980 REGVLAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING PC-330 Page 3 COM. CLAUDY asked if Mr. Woolworth had withdrawn his re- quest for 10,000 sq. ft. lots legally (other than by phone) City Attorney Kilian advised that the withdrawal had been by phone only; therefore, the request to withdraw was not legal -- not being in writing. Assistant Planning Director Cowan identified two existing maps, one for 7,500 sq. ft. and the other for 10,000 sq. ft lot size, both still. open to determination of the position of the Planning Commission for zoning. City Attorney Kilian advised that his-office had ruled that whatever had been submitted could not be withdrawn; there- fore, the Planning Commission was free to decide on either of the maps. COM. CLAUDY, reminding those present of the considerable amount of time invested 1n the Public Hearing of March 10, 1~80, asked that speakers not be repetitious. He said they wished to hear new information. COM. BLAINE asked about the realignment of fencing behind property on Phar Lap Drive. Mr. A1 Woolworth, developer, 740 Camden Avenue, Campbell, CA and Mr. Gene B. Scothorn, representing the landowner, 127 Second Street, Los Altos, CA, agreed that they were cer tain the fence adjustment was indicated to represent the re mova1 of existing fencing to the true boundary line of thei property -- the reality of property ownership requiring the movement. Assistant City Attorney Foley, in response to a request, stated that the fence would be moved to the proper boundary line unless the sliver of land (7 plus ft. had been ad- versely possessed -- a matter of five years time, a few legal requirements. One condition of adverse possession was that one had to know that the property was not theirs but acting as if it was. Mrs. K. L. CoolidRe, 22115 Clearwood Drive, Cupertino, ex- pressed grave concern about the problems of flooding in the area and the difficulty of evacuating the. area through one exit to Stevens Creek Boulevard. The consequences of a catastrophe occurring because of Stevens Creek Dam f~ilure also bothered her. Assistant Planning Director Cowan described the 100-year flood concept, the excess rainfall emergency; and, he ad- vised that the Stevens Creek Reservoir level had been re- duced to assure its not failing. The Staff felt that the daily difficulty of traffic far outweighed the anticipation of flood or dam failure. PC-330 Page 4 MINUTES/APRIL 14, 1980 REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING COM. BLAINE raised the possibility of a provision for a breakaway.emergency gate installation. City Engineer Whitten confirmed that Woodberry Drive was a throughway into the subdivision from Mann Drive to McFarland Drive, which satisfied requirements for the use of fire equipment and evacuating the area during an emergency. Mr. P. F. Fordner, 21968 Oakde1l Place, Cupertino, located his property, apologized that he had been unable to attend the March 10, 1980 meeting, confirmed that previous plans for the area indicated the continuation of Oakdell Place had always been anticipated with development of the adjacent land. A brief overview of the local history was provided and Mr. Fordner requested that the' Oakde1l dead- lend be extended' to Stevens Creek Boulevard. Mrs. Anne Robertson, 21979 Oakdel1 Place, Cupertino, con- firmed with maps that earlier plans for development in- cluded extension of Oakde11 Place to Steven Creek Boule- vard. Of the two previous plans, Tentative Maps had not been filed for either of them. Mr. William Miller 10100 Phar Lap Drive, Cupertino, who had presented the alternative map on the board, explained that the homeowners wished to solve three problems: 1) Provide for preservation of the Tank House. 2) Provide some degree of access and preservation of a green area in the vicinity of Oakdell Ranch. 3) Provide for as Iowa density (with implied reduction in number of homes and thus numbers in traffic counts) and protection of young children. The conclusion of Mr. Gregg's traffic report surprised him because it said, "the only benefit to the neighborhood would be the reduction of seven vehicles during the peak hours (with 14 houseson,Phar Lap andOakdell Place." , ObviouslLa second ingr;'ss and egr_,ªss wgtlld__have a substantia~ impact, on traff~~i~ ,that cul-de-sac. Mr. Wayne Levenfeld, 10120 Phar Lap Drive, Cupertino, reviewed the points he had made at the previous meeting, and he pointed out that he felt Mr. Miller's alternative map was reasonable. He said he opted for reduction in number of homes to 14 or 15 with planned development. Strict conditions should be imposed with respect to privacy intrusion, landscaping (within the development and also along Stevens Creek Boulevard to ensure con- tinuity in the neighborhood), and guarantees should be outlined by the City as to preservation and maintenance of the Tank House. He continued by saying that he felt the community had enjoyed a certain environment for many years, and he felt that the environment of the new com- munity would intrude with detrimental consequences; so, MINUTES/APRIL 14, 1980 REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING PC-330 Page 5 quoting from Chr. Gatto's comments at the March 10, 1980 meeting, "The density in the new neighborhood should be such that·the effect of traffic on the existing neighbor- hood would be a compromise between the community proposal and the proposal of the developer..," Mr. Levinfeld asked for judicious orientation of homes to avoid privacy in- trusion and reduction in the number of homes built to in- sure less traffic impact. Mr. Mile Tauber, 21959 Oakde1l Place, Cupertino, said he felt that the Minutes of the March 10, 1980 meeting had misrepresented his opinion. He said that the issue before the Commission really should be viewe~ in the context of the General Plan and what the General Plan called for. And, he said he felt the General Plan supported the aims of the residents of Oakde11 Ranch Estate~. He asked for reduction of density by 157. and planned development of 10,000 sq. ft. minimum lot size. The Commissioners agreed that they felt care shóuld be taken to avoid privacy intrusion, orientation of the homes should protect recreation areas of adjoining homes, solar rights protection should be provided, as many large trees of value should be saved as was possible, COM. BLAINE asked City Attorney Kilian if it was possible to impose Planned Development designation and control. City Attorney Kilian said he believed that as long as the exhibits constituted conceptual plans, (and he believed they did), it was possible to decide for R1-l0 with Planned Development and control. Mr. Al Woolworth, the developer, commented that there were many ways to build houses without interfering with the rear yard privacy of neighbors and he said he felt the planned development would not be limiting. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED: Com. Adams. Second: Com. Blaine VOTE: AYES: Commissioners C1audy, Adams & Blaine. ABSTAINED: Commissioner Koenitzer -- conflict of interest. MOTION: Com. Adams, Accept Approval of Negative Declaratio Second: Com. Blaine VOTE: AYES: Commissioners C1audy, Adams & Blaine ABSTAINED: Commissioner Koenitzer -- conflict of interest. Assistant Planning Director Cowan suggested that a pro- vision for the preservation of the Tank House and how it was to be utilized, could be included in the USE PERMIT issue when that came back to the Planning Commission. PC-330 Page 6 MINUTES/APRIL 14, 1980 REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MOTION: Com. Blaine, recommend Approval 24-Z-79, from Rl-10 to R1-10 (Single-family, Planned Develop- ment). Standard Conditions #1 through #14; #15 approval based upon Exhibit A, 1st Revision, con- ceptual plan of 24-Z-79 as per Staff Report and changed to minimum lot size 10,000 sq. ft. (Average lot size to be deleted). Conceptual Plan includes eighteen (18) single-family lots. Condition #16 dwellings constructed adjacent to Trac~,_~6f8 Oiakdell Ranch__ sliall be designed ina mannerto-minimiz~_privacLJntru!!j.-ºtl int~ .djacent yard space, either -by-single story homesthac d-º-notll~ 'iii1dows facing 'on -(¡tIler yards;_ or, - J.n' any - other manner that the ,~E!,,-elciper would like to propose._ Condition 1/17 ~o-iead, "whenever feasible, dwellings should be oriented to maximum sun exposure and south-facing of one roof to be oriented for solar collectors. Condition #17, as per Staff Report, all landscaping shall be compatible with present Stevens Creek Boulevard landscaping and compatible with future plans for widening of Stevens Creek Boulevard. All such plans are to be subject to approval by the Archi- tectural Site Control Committee and the Director of I Public Works. ISecond: Com. Adams IPASSED: AYES: Commissioners C1audy, Adams, Blaine. 3-0 ABSTAINED: Commissioner Koenitzer -- conflict of interest. MOTION: Com. Blaine, Continue 27-TM-79 to the Regular Planning Commission Meeting of May 12, 1980. Second: Com. Adams PASSED: AYES: Commissioners Claudy, Adams & Blaine 3-0 ABSTAINED: Commissioner Koenitzer -- conflict of interest. ITEM #2, Application l-U-80 of SAN JOSE TYPEWRITER COMPANY, INC.: USE PERMIT to construct a 3,400 sq. ft. commercial building. Said property is located on the souteast corner of Orange Avenue and Stevens Creek Boulevard and ENVIRON- MENTAL REVIEW: The Environmental Review Committee recom- mends the granting of a Negative Declaration. First Hearing continued. Tentative City Council hearing date - April 21, 1980. Assistant Planning Director Cowan reminded the Commissioners that Item #2 was continued from the March 10, 1980 Meeting, (PC-328) to provide time for planning a bus turn-out. The planning was dependent upon determination of the center line of Stevens Creek Boulevard. He advised that that engineering chore had been completed consistent with the City of Cupertino General Plan and the Old Monta Vista Specific Plan. MINUTES/APRIL 14, 1980 REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING PC-330 Page 7 COM. KOENITZER asked about the sentence on Page 2, par. 2, line 3, sentence beginning, "However, it would be difficult to argue....." After discussion it was agreed, by consen- sus, to strike the entire sentence. (Ref. to Staff Report of April 10, 1980 by Assistant Planning Director,) Mr. David G. Smith, Associated Design Professionals, 1530 Meridian, San Jose, CA, representing San Jose Typewriter Company, Inc. volunteered to answer questions. There being no questions Mr. Smith withdrew. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED: Com. C1audy. PASSED, UNANIMOUSLY 'Second: Com. Adams 4-0 Second: PASSED: Com. Claudy, recommend support Review Committee of.a Negative project. Com. Blaine UNANIMOUSLY of Environmental Declaration on the MOTION: 4-0 MOTION: Com. C1audy, recommend Approval of Application l-U-80, subject to the Findings and Subconclusions as outlined in the Staff Report. Standard Conditio s #1 through #14; #15 as per Staff Report; #16 as in the Staff Report. Sentence deleted (par. 1 abov ). Second: Com. Adams PASSED: UNANIMOUSLY 4-0 ITEM #3, Application 4-Z-80 of RICHARD CHILDRESS: PRE- ZONING approximately .10 of a gross acre from Santa Clara County Rl-8 (Residential, Single-family, 8,000 sq. ft. mini mum lot size) zone to City of Cupertino Rl-7.5 (Residential Single-family, 7,500 sq. ft. minimum lot size) zone or whatever zone may be deemed appropriate by the Planning Commission and ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: The Environmental Re- view Committee recommends the granting of a Negative Dec- laration. Said property is located on the south side of Lomita Avenue approximately 150 ft. westerly of Orange Avenue. First Hearing. Tentative City Council hearing dat May 5, 1980. ITEM #4, Application 6-Z-80 of RICHARD CHILDRESS: PRE- ZONING approximately .5 of a gross acre from Santa Clara County Rl-8 (Residential, Single-family, 8,000 sa. ft. minimum lot size) zone to City of Cupertino Rl-7.5 (Resi- dential, Single-family, 8,000 sq. ft. minimum lot size) zone or whatever zone may be deemed appropriate by the Planning Commission and ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE: The Environmental Review Committee recommends the granting of a Negative Declaration. Said property is located on the north side of Lomita Avenue approximately 100 ft. westerly of Orange Avenue. First Hearing. Tentative City Council hearing date - May 5, 1980 PC-330 Page 8 MINUTES/APRIL 14, 1980 REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING By CONSEN~US, it was agreed that ITEMS #3 and #4 would be heard together. Associate Planner Piasecki located the properties on the exhibits and advised that Mr. Childress wished to estab- lish a bridge from his property to the City of Cupertino boundary. The bridge would establish a contiguous re- lationship. The applicant mayor may not proceed with annexation. COM. BLAINE asked, for her own information, if it was required that anyone requesting annexation had to be con- tiguous with some boundary of the City of Cupertino. Associate Planner Piasecki advised that until a month previous they had had to be contiguous. A Special Bill had gone through the Legislature allowing Cupertino to Strip Annex (MORGA legislation having taken away that right through the new law.) City Attorney Kilian commented that it applied to the Monta Vista area. (Law peculiar to the City of Cupertino.) Mr. Richard Childress, 22025 Regnart Road, Cupertino, said he felt everyone should have a right to annex one's property. Since they had not annexed previously he said that is what he'd like to do. At the present time he stated that there were no plans for the property. Mr. John Repetti, 21800 Almaden Avenue, Monta Vista, CA, said he was confused on why one parcel had to join another parcel to create a bridge to the Cupertino property line. Locating his property, he said that property owners had been approached by offers of money to people to annex into the City of Cupertino. CHR. KOENITZER explained that the Cupertino General Plan, generally and specifi~al1y called for maintaining the ex- isting neighborhood zoning consistently. The Items under discussion was insurance that Mr. Childress wished to have in case annexation was contingent upon contiguity of property to City of Cupertino boundary line. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED: Com. C1audy. PASSED: UNANIMOUSLY Second: Com. Adams 4-0 Second: PASSE~: Com. Claudy, to Support Negative Declaration of Application 4-Z-80. Com. Blaine UNANIMOUSLY 4-0 MOTION: MOTION: Second: PASSED: Com. C1audy, Approval 4-Z-80. Com. Adams UNANIMOUSLY 4-0 MINUTES/APRIL 14, 1980 REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING PC-330 Page 9 MOTION: Second: PASSED: MOTION: Second: PASSED: Com. Claudy, recommend Negative Declaration, 6-Z-80. ~om. Blaine UNANIMOUSLY 4-0 Com. Claudy, Approval, 6-Z-80 Com. Adams UNANIMOUSLY 4-0 and 7-U-80, ITEM #5, Applications 11~Z-80/and 5-TM-80 of RICHARD CHIL- DRESS: PREZONING approximately 1.0 gross acre from Santa Clara County Rl-8 (Residential, Singl~-family, 8,000 SQ. ft minimum lot size) zone to City of Cupertino P (Planned De- velopment with Single-family, residential intent) zone of whatever zone may be deemed appropriate by the Planning Commission; USE PERMIT to construct five single-family homes; TENTATIVE MAP to subdivide the subject property into five single-family lots and ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: The En- vironmental Review Committee recommends the granting of a Negative Declaration. Said property is located on the north side of Almaden Avenue approximately 100 ft. westerly of Orange Avenue. First Hearing. Tentative City Council hearing date - May 5, 1980. Assistant Planning Director Cowan reviewed the plans posted on the board, commented that the design was consistent with the General Plan and the Old Monta Vista Plan. He sug- gested that the Commissioners provide for Staff approval (in Condition #16) of detailed architectural designs. (See Findings and Subconclusions of Staff Report of April 10, 1980.) The Architectural Site Control had reviewed the ~lans and agreed with Staff recommendation. Additions to the Site Plan (yellow markings) identified porch locatio s and red markings identified limits of fencing protecting the necessary area for turn around of fire fighting equip- ment, and also protecting visual rights of other property owners. The provision of a special trust for funds for sidewalks, gutters, and street improvements was described and explained as being held <along with interest accrued) until such time as decisions were mAde for the street syste of that section and Monta Vista policy in general.____ PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED: Com. Blaine. PASSED: UNANIMOUSLY Second: Com. Adams 4-0 MOTION: Second: PASSED: MOTION: SECOND: PASSED: Com. Adams, Com. Blaine UNANIMOUSLY Accept Approval of Negative Declaratio 4-0 Com. Adams, to Standard Com. Blaine UNANIMOUSLY Recommend Approval ll-Z-80, subject Conditions #1 through #16. 4-0 PC-330 Page 10 MINUTES/APRIL 14, 1980 REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING CHR. KOENITZER stated that he had wanted to drop the last two sentences of Condition #16.C -- shifting one or both of the porches to a minimal setback as per Exhibit A, 2nd Revision, dated April 14, 1980. MOTION: SECOND: PASSED: MOTION: SECOND: PASSED: RECESS: .Com. Adams, Approval 5-TM-80, subject to Conditions #1 through #17 standard as recommended by the Find- ings and Subconc1usions in the Staff Report. ~om. Claudy UNANIMOUSLY 4-0 Com. Adams, Approval 7-U-80, subject to Standard Conditions #1 through #15; #16.A requiring frosted glass; #16.C in accordance with the Findings and Conclusions of the Staff Report; #17 as per Findings and Subconc1usions of the Staff Report. Com. Blaine UNANIMOUSLY 4-0 10:00 p.m. to 10:13 p.m. ITEM #6, Application 6-U-80 of O. LAIRD HUNTSMAN: USE PERMIT to reduce the required side yard setback and re- qùired distance between the main building and an acces- sory building to accommodate solar equipment and ENVIRON- MENTAL REVIEW: The project is categorically exempt, hence no action is required. Said property iq located at 22333 Bah1 Street which is on the north side of Bahl Street approximately mid-block between Vista Knoll Boule- vard and Ainsworth Drive in an Rl-7.5 (Residential, Single-family, 7,500 sq. ft. minimum lot size) zoning district. First hearing. Tentative City Council hearing date - April 21, 1980. Associate Planner Piasecki posted exhibits of the home and the aerial photograph of the site showing the various elements under question. The application was the first one received under the new Rl Ordinance (effective April 16, 1980, Section 13.l) permitting the Planning Commission latitude or the ability to vary setbacks for purposes of solar design. Basic to the variance would be consideration that the proposals did not impinge upon the property rights of others and did not inhibit the access of adjacent property from solar access -- shading of adjoining yards by plantings, buildings, or equipment. Mr. Piasecki advised the Commissioners that the concerns had been brought to the attention of the Staff by neigh- bors' concerns. Fairly significant remodeling and activity pertinent to solar rights and equipment had been commenced. In addition, construction on approved ex- pansion of the house and a gazebo was in progress. MINUTES/APRIL 14, 1980 REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING PC-330 Page 11 Mr. Laird Huntsman, owner of the property and resident of the property at 22333 Bah1 Street, Cupertino, explained his p1ans'for completing the project of construction on the house and on the solar heating system. Slides of the work in progress were exhibited to the mem- bers of the Planning Commission. Slides were exhibited showing the property from the perspective of neighbor's yards. The elevations on the property at 22333 Bahl Steet were discussed at length. A high window (having the ap- pearance of a third storY on the house) was identified as a storage area that wns reachable through pull-down steps. The side yard property line, which contained the water tank storage unit, two heater units, and part of the shed for housing a hot water heater and pool pump, were dis- cussed. It was noted that the water storage tank intruded into the joint fence line and required the removal of the fence for installation and continued in-place storage. The tolerances in feet and inches were provided on the mans and were explained by Associate Planner Piasecki and Mr. Huntsm n. Balcony overhang, roof height of gazebo, and proximity of one to the other (contrary to Cupertino Ordinance regu- lations) was discussed at some length. CHR. KOENITZER interrupted the discussion of Item #6 to note that the time indicated that the Agenda for the night could not be completed. ., .~ BY CONSENSUS the Commissioners agreed to CONTINUE AGENDA, PC-330 over to WEDNESDAY EVENING, APRIL 16, 1980, meeting in the Council Chambers for consideration of Items #7 through #9. Item #10 was removed from Calendar by a previous motion (See page l, under Postponements and New Agenda Items). MOTION: Com. Adams. Second: Com. Blaine Mr. Ray Gabler, 22323 Bah1 Street, Cupertino, side-yard neighbor to Mr. Huntsman, proceeded to clarify points made by Mr. Huntsman and the diSCUSSion.s of the COmmiSSiOnerS,: 1) Technically, the house was three stories. 2) A large go - dola for collecting refuse had been in the area (on the street in front of the house) for months. 3) Sand and gravel, delivered to the street in front of the property, was collected gondola and washed down the street during rain storms. 4) The generous amount of property avail on the garage side of the Huntsman house, could be recommended as being ideal for installing all of the equipment that was shown as being stored in a four-foot wide area on the other si de of the house. 5) Mr. Gabler, using slides, pointed out the dan- ger to his back yard should the steep slope give way and dump the equipment through his landscaping and into the play area for his children. 6) He complimented the owner, Mr. Huntsman, on his thoughtfulness in building the gazebo roof elevation high enough that he cut off the view of the back yard of the neighbor in the rear from sight of those using the balcony of his master bedroom. 6) Although the PC-330 Page 12 MINUTES/APRIL 14, 1980 REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING concerns were many regarding Mr. Huntsman's project, Mr. Gabler said the major concern was the danger of the 450 slope giving way under the water tank and falling into his yard. 7. He also pointed out that he was somewhat de- prived of solar rights by the shading of his property by the Huntsman property. COM. ADAMS stated that his experience with solar in- stallations led him to advise that many methods and eng- ineering principles could be utilized (other than the one exhibited by Mr. Huntsman) for making a solar system work. He suggested the applicant provide to the Planning Commission a better design for their consideration. CHR. KOENITZER advised Mr. Huntsman that the matter could be continued to permit time for redesign and return to the Commission for consideration; or, if he wished, he could ask for a decision. Mr. Huntsman said he would like to take the opportunity to come back and present further information to the Commissioners to convince them of the reasonableness of the plans as submitted. MOTION: Com. Claudy, to Continue Application 6-U-80 to the Regular Planning Commission Meeting of May 12, 1980. Second: Com. Blaine PASSED: UNANIMOUSLY 4-0 MEETING ADJOURNED until Wednesday, April 16, 1980. The balance of the Agenda was rescheduled for consideration at that time. 12:15 p.m. ATTEST: ,,~~ APPROVED: