PC 030800 - Laserfiche WebLink

Commissioner Arkin noted he voted no due to the length of time that is necessary for landscaping to reduce visibility. Commissioner Maas moved to make the finding that the proposed PUD Prezoning to the PUD (Planned Unit Development) - LDR, C, and PHS/WO (Low Density Residential, Commercial, and Public Health and Safety/Wildlands Overlay) district and the PUD Development Plan are consistent with the Pleasanton General Plan; make the PUD Development Plan findings as stated in the staff report; and adopt a resolution recommending approval of the PUD Prezoning to the PUD (Planned Unit Development) - LDR, C, and PHS/WO (Low Density Residential, Commercial, and Public Health and Safety/Wildlands Overlay) district, and recommending approval of the PUD Development Plan subject to the revised draft conditions of approval stated in Exhibit "B." Ms. Sero advised the Commission that due to the Commission not reaching a consensus on the Negative Declaration, that an alternate motion would be required. Commissioner Sullivan moved that Case PUD-99-03 be denied. Commissioner Arkin seconded the motion. A motima was made by Commissioner Sullivan, seconded by Commissioner Arkin, to deny Case PUD-~9-03. ROLL CALL VOTE AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Commissioners Arkin and Sullivan Commissioner Maas and Chairperson Roberts Commissioner Kameny None The motion did not pass. Chairperson Roberts noted that due to the tie vote, and one commissioner being absent, this issue will be agendized at the March 22, 2000 meeting. The Planning Commission Meeting was adjourned at 9:05 p.m. by Chairperson Roberts. Respectfully Submitted, BRIAN SWIFT, Secretary PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES March 8, 2000 Page 10