Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout88-Planning & Building . . . . . ~ . REC'D.-ADMIM. OFF. 1986 MAR 3\ PM 4: 03 C I T Y 0 F SAN B ERN A R DIN 0 INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM 8603-308 TO: FROM: Mayor and Council Frank A. Schuma, Planning Director SUBJECT: Continued Item Variance No. 85-24 Council Meeting of April 7, 1986 Mayor and DATE: March 31, 1986 (6665) COPIES: Variance No. 85-24 was considered by the Mayor and Council at their meeting of March 17, 1986 and was continued until the meeting of April 7, 1986 to allow the applicant's attorney the opportunity to meet with surrounding neighbors to resolve some of the problems identified at the Planning Commission and City Council meetings. The attorney has met with the adjacent property owners and many of the problems identified have been resolved. In a conversation I had with the attorneys representing the Eldorado Bank, they were again requesting a continuance of the item in order for them to complete all necessary legal transactions. They would be requesting a continuance for another 30 days. FRANK A. SCHUMA Planning Director mkf 1/ . ,- elTY OF SAN BE'-ARDINOe- MEMORANDU. Ul To Hon. Evlyn Wilcox Mayor Variance No, 85-24, 1721 N. Conejo Dr. ~ECEIVr.",'! l' '~l ERF From Ralph H. Prince City Attorney March 20, 1986 Subject Date '86 MAR 20 P 4 :24 Approved Date 700.2 Item No. 43 on the Council Agenda of March 17, 1986, was an appeal by Eldorado Bank from the denial by the Planning Commission of a variance to waive Section 19.12.060 which would allow an encroachment into the required ten foot rear yard setback at 1721 North Conejo Drive. The hearing was continued to April 7, 1986. Building B located at the southeasterly corner of the site encroaches into the ten foot setback area and was constructed at an angle ranging from approximately 1.58 feet to approximately 4.2 feet from the south property line. It abuts a substandard 15 foot wide dedicated right-of-way, Seventeenth Strec", Municipal Code Section 19.74.140 requires the appeal to be taken in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 2.64. Section 2.64.080 of the Municipal Code provides that the Council shall review the evidence, findings and record relating to the decision or action and may, in the discretion of the Council, receive new or additional evidence. It is our recommendation that the Council review the evidence, findings and recori from the hearing before the Planning Commission and that new or additional evidence not be received. This r~~ommendation would permit the Council to hear fully the co~tentions of the parties and make an appropriate decislon. However, if the Mayor and Common Council determine it necessary to receive new or additional evidence, then it is our recommendation that all witnesses be sworn prior to presenting testimony. This recommendation is based upon the unofficial order of Superior Court Judge Robert Krug in Hatfield v. City, a pending case in the Superior Court, and is consistent wit" a resolution previously adopted by the Mayor and Common ~~uncil relating to hearings before the legislative body. Apparently, the Judge feels that due process requires ~~at testimony before the appeals body should have the s,~e quality of trustworthiness as testimony elfY' Oil fH..O:v. . . . Hon. Evlyn wilcox March 20, 1986 Page 2 received in judicial proceedings. /~!fIYJ12:;;b RALPH H. PRINCE City Att)rney RHP:lr cc Ci'y Administrator Ci',. Clerk Planning Director Cc ~i1 Office . .