PC 032807 - Laserfiche WebLink

b. PUD-61, Emil and Marjorie Oxsen Application for a Planned Unit Development (PUD): (1) rezone of an approximately 10,669-square-foot parcel from the R-1-6,500 (Single-Family Residential) District to the PUD-HDR (Planned Unit Development – High Density Residential) District; and (2) Development Plan to allow the existing 1,118-square-foot and 1,200-square-foot single-family detached units and detached garage located at 403 St. Mary Street/730 Peters Avenue. Zoning for the property is R-1-6,500 (Single-Family Residential) District and Core Area Overlay District. This item was continued to April 25, 2007. Chairperson Fox addressed the audience and noted that the next order of business would be to open Item 3 to allow the public to comment on the projects that had been continued or any other matter not on the agenda. She requested the speakers to identify the project they would be commenting on. She requested a show of hands to determine how many were in attendance for either Items 5.b. or 6.b. She noted that the applicant for Item 5.b. was the only person in attendance for that item. The applicant for Item 5.b. did not indicated that he wished to comment at this time. Chairperson Fox continued by noting that the audience consisted of those who wished to comment on Item 6.b. and again apologized to the public that some of the material had not been made available to the public at least 72 hours in advance of the public hearing. Commissioner Blank left the dais, and Commissioner O’Connor joined the other Commissioners at the dais. 3. MEETING OPEN FOR ANY MEMBER OF THE AUDIENCE TO ADDRESS THE PLANNING COMMISSION ON ANY ITEM WHICH IS NOT ALREADY ON THE AGENDA. Jon Harvey, Smallwood Court, noted that he wished to comment on the Oak Grove project and that he was part of the three-member team that met with the developer over the past few years to try to reach a consensus regarding the properties around this project and achieve resolution on the land behind their homes. He supported the project as conditioned and agreed to a solid guarantee that included, but not limited to, no further extension or tie-in of Hearst Street beyond the 51-unit development plan; traffic mitigations specified by the homeowners association and funded by the developer; a conservation easement over the entire remaining portion of the property held by a non-profit conservation organization such as the Tri-Valley Conservancy; and open space accessible to the public. He would like to see a change to Item 25 on page 9, which provisioned buildings for future photovoltaic systems. He noted that for them to be effective, the structures must have a substantial plane that faces in a general southern direction and suggested that the condition include a surface that could accommodate photovoltaics. He noted that Subitem 3 on page 10 regarding inverters should read “to connect to the electrical utility.” He noted that Subitem 33(a) on page 11 should be changed to allow grazing by sheep or goats, instead of only cattle, for fire suppression. He noted that Item 34(b) on page 12 addressed total square footage and believed that PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES March 28, 2007 Page 5 of 16