Laserfiche WebLink
Commissioner Wilson then withdrew his motion to deny the project <br />without prejudice. <br />Mr. Orloff requested that the matter be continued for an additional <br />traffic study. <br />Commissioner Wilson then made a motion that a traffic study be made <br />and the matter be continued indefinitely for completion of the traffic <br />report. Commissioner Lindsey seconded this motion. <br />Commissioner Doherty said that perhaps with a new traffic study, done <br />by different traffic engineers, a mitigated negative declaration might <br />be appropriate and asked if the report couldn't be done by a traffic <br />engineering company that had not worked on this project. <br />ROLL CALL VOTE <br />Ayes: Commissioners Doherty, Jamieson, Lindsey, Wilson and <br />Chairperson Getty <br />Noes: None <br />Absent: None <br />Resolution No. 2101 was then entered and adopted requesting that a <br />second traffic study be done and case PUD-81-23 be continued indefi- <br />nitely for the results of this study. <br />PUD-81-29, CPK Associates <br />Application of CPK Associates and Walter Panganiban for Planned Unit <br />Development zoning and development plan approval for a medium density <br />residential project consisting of 113 single-family homes and 83 town- <br />houses on an approximately 21 acre site located at the northwest corner <br />of Rheem Drive and Oakland Avenue. Zoning for the property is "A" <br />(Agricultural) District. The Planning Commission may consider any <br />zoning for the property consistent with the General Plan. A negative <br />declaration of environmental impacts was also considered. <br />Mr. Harris presented the staff report and recommendation of approval. <br />He stated the applicant will be seeking to take part in the Mortgage <br />Revenue Bond program. He said the staff has attached a number of <br />conditions having to do with providing road improvements in the area <br />and that they have been attached just as they have been on any resi- <br />dential project and indicated he didn't know whether or not the <br />applicant would take issue with these. He further stated that con- <br />dition #28 was inadvertently put in by staff and should be removed <br />as it related to a design review case. <br />The public hearing was opened. <br />Steven Tyler, 344 Division Street, TY-CAL, represented CPK Associates, <br />the property owner. He gave a presentation explaining the plan. He <br />said the staff report is a positive one and concurs with the recommen- <br />dations of staff with a few exceptions as follows: <br />-7- <br />- _ - _ r. ~. ~..._ _ .. , <br />