Laserfiche WebLink
ROLL CA <br />AYES: <br />NOES: <br />ABSTAIN: <br />RECUSED <br />ABSENT: <br />LL VOTE: <br />Commissioners Arkin, Blank, Fox, Maas, and Pearce <br />None. <br />None. <br />None. <br />Commissioner Roberts. <br />Resolution No. PC-2006-OS was entered and adopted as motioned. <br />The Planning Commission recessed for a break at 8:26 p.m. <br />Chairperson Arkin reconvened the meeting at 9:13 p.m. <br />e. PUD-49, Silverstone Communities <br />Application for rezoning from RM-4,000 (Multiple-Family Residential) District <br />to PUD-HDR (Planned Unit Development -High Density Residential) District <br />and for PUD development plan approval fora 45-unit residential condominium <br />development on a vacant lot located at 3909 Vineyazd Avenue. <br />Also consider the Negative Declazation prepazed for the project. <br />Commissioner Blank disclosed that he met with the applicant's representative on this <br />project. <br />Commissioners Maas and Fox and Chairperson Arkin disclosed that they had met with <br />the applicant before the last heazing. <br />Ms. Decker presented the staff report and provided the background and scope of the <br />project. Neighborhood residents have expressed concern about traffic impacts; parking <br />impacts were not as much of a concern. The Initial Study and Negative Declazation <br />provide mitigation by payment of fees and rely on the previous Bernal retail traffic study. <br />Staff had anticipated doing a traffic study for this specific site, but the same intersections <br />were included in the previous traffic study. Staff concluded that payment of traffic fees <br />would be adequate for this situation. Two neighborhood meetings had been hosted by <br />staff. The project had been peer reviewed by Mr. Larry Cannon, the City's peer review <br />consultant, whose comments were incorporated into the design, with the exception of a <br />request to have the exposed rafter tails incorporated into the project. Staff believed that <br />would be too busy and that they could be added for interest along the eave ends for <br />character. Condition No. 17 was added in relation to this design element. <br />Ms. Decker stated that staff would like to deleted Conditions 6, 15, 19, 24, 70-72, 79, and <br />82 because there were duplicate conditions. She described the contents of those <br />conditions in detail for the Commission. <br />(" <br />PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES January 25, 2006 Page 10 of 19 <br />