Laserfiche WebLink
Minutes <br />Planning Commission <br />3/2/587 <br />Chairman Lindsey commented on the excellence of the plan. <br />Commissioner Innes spoke to the integrity of the developer in <br />working with the neighbors on this project. <br />A motion was made by Commissioner Innes, seconded by Commissioner <br />Berger to recommend approval of Case PUD-86-12 subject to the <br />conditions of the staff report, adding a condition that all front <br />yards in the development shall be irrigated and landscaped by the <br />developer. <br />ROLL CALL VOTE <br />AYES: Commissioners Berger, Hoyt, Innes, Michelotti and <br />Chairman Lindsey <br />NOES: None <br />ABSENT: None <br />ABSTAIN: None <br />Resolution No. PC-87-34 was entered and adopted recommending <br />approval of Case PUD-86-12 as motioned. <br />PUD-87-4, Ferreri/Matteson <br />Application of Jahn Ferreri and Duncan Matteson for development <br />plan approval for a 264-unit residential condominium complex to <br />be located on an approximately 23 acre site located on the north <br />side of Old Dublin Canyon Road,approximately 4,800 feet west of <br />the intersection of Foothill Road and Old Dublin Canyon Road. <br />zoning for the property is PUD (Planned Unit Development) - High <br />Density Residential District. <br />This matter was continued to April 8, 1987 <br />MATTERS FOR COMMISSIONS REVIEW <br />ort and Recommendations on Violations <br />Commissioner Innes said large fines are needed and felt the <br />staff's draft resolution was inconsistent with this thought. <br />Mr. Swift in order to increase the fines to high degree, <br />violations would have to be declared misdemeanors instead of an <br />infractions. Mr. Swift suggested that what is needed is more <br />coordination between departments to ensure that conditions are <br />followed. This coordination is now developing. <br />Commissioner Innes asked when applicants come in for building <br />permits if anybody sits down with them and reviews the conditions <br />of approval to ensure they a.re all met. Mr. Swift said this <br />process is not done but the developers do know what the <br />conditions are for their projects. Mr. Swift said perhaps the <br />preconstruction meetings could be expanded to include review of <br />planning conditions. <br />A motion was made by Commissioner Innes, seconded by Commissioner <br />Michelotti that a resolution be drafted as stated in the staff <br />report and submitted to City Council for review and adoption. <br />- 15 - <br />