SR 05:259 - Laserfiche WebLink

the Ponderosa homeowners who had not yet moved into their homes be noticed on this item if it came before the Commission again. Mr. Walsh noted that the property was located in the middle of a General Plan-designated industrial section. No action was taken. The Planning Commission recessed for a break at 9:12 p.m. Chairperson Maas reconvened the meeting at 9:25 p.m. Chairperson Maas noted that Item 6.f.. PDR-421. John Lee, would be continued to August 24, 2005. c. PUD-05-1M, Frank and Barbara Berlo2ar/Kenneth and Pamela Chrisman Application for a major modification of the PUD development plan to replace the approved house design plans with design guidelines and to separate the development of the overall project into two phases. The property is a 13.2-acre site located at 1944 and 2200 Vineyard Avenue, in the Vineyard Avenue Corridor Specific Plan Area. Zoning for the property is PUD-LDR (Planned Unit Development - Low Density Residential) District. d Commissioner Roberts noted that she did not have a conflict of interest with respect to this item and that her home was not within 500 feet ofthe Chrisman property or this section of the Berlogar property. ;~t Commissioner Blank noted that he had met Mr. Berlogar approximately six months ago at a school function but did not discuss this project. Ms. Decker presented the staffreport and described the history and scope of this project. She advised that the application would also update previous requirements on green building measures and construction, demolition, and waste recycling to present City standards that were not necessarily incorporated at the time. Staff recommended that the Planning Commission make the findings on pages 6 through 8 (Findings I through 7) of the staff report and make the findings that the proposed modification of PUD-05 is covered by the final environmental impact report, as approved by the City Council under the Vineyard Avenue Corridor Specific Plan; make the findings for the major modification of the approved PUD development plan; and recommend approval of PUD-05-1 M, subject to the Exhibit B, draft conditions of approval. Staff drew the Commission's attention to the standard condition that all of the previous condition of PUD-05 would remain in place as pati of the project. Commissioner Arkin noted that he was concerned about the time of build out and requested clarification of the applicant's intentions regarding buildout. He noted that the Planning Commission looked at the design and materials of the units very carefully and PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES August 10,2005 Page II ofI9