Laserfiche WebLink
Secretary Harris reviewed the staff report recommending approval of <br />UP-78-23, stating the 15 conditions were typical. <br />The Public Hearing was opened. <br />Applicant, Bob Miller, was present and stated he had no objections to the <br />conditions, except he stated re: Paragraph 2 of the staff report their <br />plans do not show that driveways would be installed in the sales office <br />and model home complex. This exception was so noted. <br />The Public Hearing was closed. <br />Resolution No. 1691 approving UP-78-23 was entered and adopted approving <br />the application for use permit subject to conditions 1-15 subject to <br />modification of condition 3 and 9 which will now read as follows: <br />3. That the developer post a cash bond or letter of credit in an <br />amount satisfactory to the Chief Building Inspector to provide <br />for the conversion of the sales office into a garage and for <br />the installation of the driveways and that this action be taken <br />prior to final building inspection of the models. <br />9. That the developer post an aerial photo in the sales office <br />showing the types of facilities and land uses surrounding the <br />complex. That signs be posted in all model homes advising <br />prospective buyers of those features, including landscaping, <br />which are optional and not included as part of the purchase <br />price. <br />Roll Call Vote <br />Resolution: Doherty <br />Seconded: Geppert <br />Ayes: Geppert, Wilson and Acting Chairman Doherty <br />Noes: None <br />Absent: Getty and Chairman Getty <br />Abstain: None <br />GP-78-7, McManus <br />Application for a General Plan Amendment to change the land use designation <br />of all but the eastern 5 acres of the approximately 66 acre parcel of <br />land located between the Recreation and Sports Park and the Arroyo <br />Mocho immediately east of Hopyard Road from "Open Space -- Parks and <br />Recreation" to "Medium Density Residential." An environmental impact <br />report was also considered. <br />Mr. Harris described the staff report stating the applicant did not <br />ask for a General Plan Amendment on the eastern most five acres (rear <br />500 ft. of the property). On the remaining 61 acres it is requested that <br />a General Plan Amendment be made for future development of single-family <br />or perhaps multiple residential use. Mr. Harris indicated that while <br />the applicant may present several plans, these were not currently before <br />the Planning Commission. Only the issue of the appropriate land use <br />was being considered. <br />-7- <br /> <br />