Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Riverbank Planning Commission approves Countryside 3 site-plan for 22 single‑family homes
Summary
The Planning Commission approved architecture and site‑plan review for Countryside 3 (22 single‑family homes) by roll call, adopting Resolution 2024‑004; the developer was not present and one commissioner abstained due to a disclosed conflict.
The Riverbank Planning Commission voted on Aug. 20 to approve the architectural and site‑plan review for Countryside 3, a 22‑lot single‑family subdivision east of Claus Road, adopting the staff conditions laid out in Resolution 2024‑004.
Michael Arroyo, a contract planner with JB Anderson Land Use Planning, described the project as the third phase of Countryside and said the site will contain 22 single‑family units across four model types and 12 color schemes. “This is the Petri. This is the smallest of the 4 models ... this one is 1,742 square feet,” Arroyo said, listing model names and approximate sizes for commissioners.
Arroyo said the property’s general‑plan designation is low‑density residential and the site was previously rezoned to a planned‑development (PD) district. As part of the PD arrangement, the developer offered upgraded garage doors, decorative outdoor lighting and enhanced landscaping as project amenities. Arroyo noted the developer was not present at the hearing to answer questions.
A motion to approve the architectural and site‑plan review per staff recommendation was made and seconded. In roll‑call voting the Commission recorded: Chair Joan Stewart — Yes; Vice Chair Taide Zamora — Yes; Commissioner John Dinan — Yes; (transcript lists "Commissioner Bosso" or "Vasso" in different places) — Yes; Commissioner Sid Alterman — Abstain. The motion carried and the resolution was approved.
Staff and commissioners also noted that Countryside 3 will require a subdivision‑improvement agreement amendment to allow bonding for unfinished improvements; that item was mentioned as part of upcoming council actions tied to the project.
The developer was not present to speak at the Aug. 20 hearing; commissioners approved the architecture and site plan subject to the conditions in Resolution 2024‑004 and the record will reflect the Commission’s vote and the abstention noted on the record.
