Laserfiche WebLink
~„_ remaining 22 acres as permanent open space conforms to the purposes of the PUD <br />ordinance; and (4) make the PUD development plan findings as stated in the staff <br />report and recommend approval of Case PUD-58, subject to the conditions of <br />approval as shown on Exhibit B of the staff report, as recommended by staff, with <br />the modifications that Condition No. 54 be deleted as it is already included in the <br />design guidelines. <br />Commissioner Fox seconded the motion. <br />ROLL CALL VOTE: <br />AYES: Commissioners Arkin, Blank, Fox, Olson, and Pearce. <br />NOES: None. <br />ABSTAIN: None. <br />RECUSED: None. <br />ABSENT: None. <br />Resolution Nos. PC-2006-43, recommending approval of the Mitigated Negative <br />Declazation; PC-2006-44, recommending approval of the General Plan Amendment; and <br />PC-2006-45, recommending approval of PUD development plan, were entered and <br />adopted as motioned. <br />A recess was called at 8:35 p.m. <br />l"' Chairperson Arkin reconvened the meeting at 8:45 p.m. <br />a. PUD-33 James Tone/Charter Proaerties, Jennifer Lin, Frederic Lin, and <br />Kevin Lin <br />Review of the Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Oak Grove Planned <br />Unit Development fora 98-lot custom home development and to consider a <br />51-developable-lot environmentally preferred alternative on a 562-acre property <br />located near the present terminus of Hearst Drive on the southerly sides of the <br />Vintage Hills II and the Grey Eagle Estates developments. Zoning for the <br />property is PUD-RDR/OS (Planned Unit Development -Rural Density <br />Residential/Open Space) District. <br />Commissioner Blank recused himself from the dais. <br />Ms. Decker summarized the staff report and noted that the City's consultant, Roberta <br />Mundie, would not be able to make her presentation. However, in the staff report, she <br />had provided an overview of the last remaining sections from the previous hearing, <br />including traffic and noise, and a discussion of the differences of Alternatives 1 to 4. She <br />noted that Alternatives 2 and 3 would not be discussed as thoroughly as the preferred <br />Alternative 4. She noted that the public review process would end on August 29, 2006, <br />and any comments received by that time would be forwazded to the consultant and <br />addressed in the Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR). She advised that a transcript <br /> <br />PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES August 23, 2006 Page 10 of 17 <br />