Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Item S.c. Tract 6S93 CChu/Gab....hmat) <br />Application to subdivide an approximately 77.8 acre site into 295 residential lots (single- <br />family detached and townhomes) and 18 common parcels, inelu' a five acre public <br />park site, a five acre elementary school site, and a remainder pa I, located generally <br />at Martin Avenue south of the Arroyo Mocho and east of the ern terminus of <br />Stoneridge Drive. Zoning for the property is PUD (planned Uni Development) - IDR, <br />MDR, and PI (Low Density Residential, Medium Density Reside tial, and Public and <br />Institutional) District. <br /> <br />Continued to 1/27/93. <br /> <br />Item S.d. PUD-90-12. David C. .Tones <br />Application for Planned Unit Development (PUD) approval to re one a one-acre parcel <br />from the Agricultural zoning district to the PUD - Medium Dens y Residential District <br />and for PUD development plan approval for 3 +/- acres (2 ex' . g parcels) of land for <br />a 9-unit single-family residential development located at 160S R Avenue. Zoning for <br />the property is · A. (Agricultural) District. A negative declarati n has been prepared <br />for this project and will be considered at this hearing. <br /> <br />Mr. Swift presented the staff report recommending approval of Case PUD-90-12 subject to <br />the conditions of the staff report. <br /> <br />Chairman Hovingh called staffs attention to Condition 33 on page I ,second to the last <br />sentence which referred to the method and manner for the provision of funds, and felt that it <br />was confusing. Mr. Swift replied that it can be reworded for clarity <br /> <br />Commissioner McGuirk questioned Mr. Swift in regard to the "rem ant" lots. Staff feels <br />these lots can be used more effectively by adding them onto the no erly acreage as opposed <br />to widening the nine lots under discussion. Mr. Swift went into so e detail in explaining the <br />situation. <br /> <br />Commissioner Michelotti expressed concern that with continued AI <br />Fairgrounds development that infrastructure in that area will not be <br />stated that this has been looked at very carefully and staff feels this <br />General Plan. <br /> <br /> <br />eda County <br />ufficient. Mr. Swift <br />s consistent with the <br /> <br />Commissioner Michelotti also expressed concern that the project lot are narrower than she <br />would have desired, and that she will be looking carefully at the set acks. <br /> <br />Commissioner Mahern noted that her questions about the remnant 1 ts had been answered by <br />Mr. Swift. <br /> <br />Chairman Hovingh noted for the record that he had met with the ap licant. <br /> <br />Planning Commission Minutes January 13, 1993 <br /> <br />Page 7 <br />