Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES <br />PLANNING COMMISSION <br />February 8, 1984 <br />Page 2 <br />Commissioner Doherty brought up the minor modification concerning case PUD-81-17. He <br />has looked into the matter and has no problem with the changes proposed but questioned whether <br />or not it was a minor modification. Commissioner Lindsey felt that the modification was <br />a minor one. He felt that separate units are moredesirable and does not substantially change <br />the development. In fact he stated it could very well improve it. He concurred with staff. <br />Commissioner Getty agreed with Commissioner Lindsey. She felt the development would <br />be a better one with the change. Chairman Jamieson felt the change was an improvement <br />and a minor one. Mr. Harris stated that in reviewing the proposed change, staff looks at <br />whether or not the impacts of the change would impact surrounding areas. <br />He indicated this change would not cause the number of units to change and it wouldn't effect <br />surrounding property values. <br />Commissioner Lindsey felt that with all of the work required for modifications to go through <br />the entire process on changes such as the aforementioned, they are minor and should be handled <br />through the modification process. Chairman Jamieson reiterated that he felt the change <br />was a minor one. Commissioner Doherty pointed out that any member of the Planning Commission <br />or City Council has 20 days in which to appeal the decision of staff. He had no problems <br />with the project as changed, but was not sure this type of change was minor. If the Planning <br />Commission and City Council agree the change is minor, he would go along with their decision, <br />but did not wish to set a precedent. Commissioner Getty did not feel the change to be precedent <br />setting. <br />OLD BUSINESS -Public Hearine~s <br />PUD-83-16, Val West, Inc. <br />Application of Val West, Inc. for PUD (Planned Unit Development)-development plan approval <br />of a 231 unit residential development project on approximately 35 acres located on the north <br />side of Vineyard Avenue opposite Sauterne Way. Zoning for the property is PUD (Planned <br />Unit Development)-Medium Density Residential District. A negative declaration of environmental <br />impacts will also be considered. <br />This matter was continued to 3/14/84. <br />PUD-83-17, Amador Associates <br />Application of Amador Associates for PUD (Planned Unit Development)-zoning and development <br />plan approval fora 46 unit residential development project on approximately 4.7 acres at <br />3780 Vineyard Avenue. Zoning for the property is R-1-6500 (Single-family Residential) District. <br />The Planning Commission may recommend any zoning for the property consistent with the <br />General Plan. A negative declaration of environmental impacts will also be considered. <br />This matter was continued to 2/22/84. <br />GP-83-16, John and Jocelyn Perasso <br />Application of John and Jocelyn Perasso to amend the General Plan land use designation from <br />Medium Density Residential to High Density Residential on an approximately 1.22 acre site <br />at 123 and 125 Ray Street. The subject property is currently zoned RM-15 (Multi-family Residential) <br />District. The Planning Commission may recommend any action on this matter deemed in <br />the public interest. A negative declaration of environmental impacts will also be considered. <br />This matter was continued to 2/22/84. <br />-2- <br /> <br />