Laserfiche WebLink
PLANNING COMMISSION <br />June 22, 1983 <br />Page Three <br />A motion was made by Commissioner Getty, seconded by Commissioner <br />Arrigoni, that Case MS-82-4 be approved subject to the four <br />conditions in the staff report with a change to Condition 1 <br />to indicate Parcel 4 may be approximately 10 acres and including <br />the conditions in the Engineering report with the recommended <br />changes to Conditions 10 and 19 and deleting Condition 20. <br />ROLL CALL VOTE <br />AYES: Commissioners Arrigoni, Getty and Acting Chairman Lindsey <br />NOES: None <br />ABSENT: Commissioners Doherty, Jamieson and Wilson <br />ABSTAIN: None <br />Resolution No. 2319 was then entered and adopted approving Case <br />MS-82-4 as motioned. <br />PUD-83-10, Wa erman, et al. <br />pp ication o Wagerman, Black, Cartlidge, Panganiban and Jennaro <br />for PUD (Planned Unit Development) development plan approval for a <br />residential development project consisting of thirty-six proposed <br />lots ranging in size from approximately 22,000 to 66,000 sq, ft. <br />on approximately 25 acres located in the general vicinity of the <br />northwest corner of Mohr and Martin Avenues. Zoning for the <br />property is PUD (Planned Unit Development) Low Density Residential <br />District. <br />This item was continued to the meeting of July 13, 1983. <br />NEW BUSINESS - Public Hearings <br />PUD-82-1-1D, Re olds & Brown <br />App ication o Reyno s an Brown for development plan approval of <br />seven commercial/industrial buildings, totalling approximately <br />166,000 sq. ft., and related facilities on four parcels totalling <br />approximately 13 acres located at northwest corner of Johnson Drive <br />and Ocaens Drive (southerly portion). Zoning for the property is <br />PUD (Planned Unit Development) Industrial/Commercial and Offices <br />District. <br />Mr. Harris reviewed the staff report recommending approval of <br />this project . <br />The public hearing was opened, <br />Tom. Terrill, representing Reynolds & Brown, briefly reviewed the <br />project and presented models of the proposed buildings. He had <br />no problems with the staff report except that conditions 34 and <br />38 were duplicates along with the duplication of conditions 32 <br />and 39. <br /> <br />