PC 041200 - Laserfiche WebLink

to visuals of the house and that the applicants have addressed the Commissions' concerns. She noted she would be in support of approving the project. Commissioner Kameny expressed his concurrence with Commissioner Arkin's statement relating to a new high school; however, he noted that due to uncertainty relating to whether there will be an additional high school, he would not be in favor of conditioning this project based on a new high school. Further, that he would be in favor of a traffic mitigation fee for a major subdivision; however, due to the size of this development an additional mitigation fee could financially affect the development. Commissioner Arkin noted that the applicant has gone the extra mile in attempting to mitigate the visual impacts. He stated he is supportive of the community being provided an additional high school and with the development providing funding to pay for traffic impacts. He noted that this project will provide an additional nine commuters daily on regional transportation systems and if the high school and traffic impact fees are part of the conditions of approval for the project, he would be in support of the project. Chairperson Roberts expressed agreement with Commissioner Kameny's statement relating to the additional high school. Ms. Sero noted that the community has decided upon the regional traffic fee to charge developments. Chairperson Roberts noted she was concerned about the 50 percent stucco condition and she noted the importance of the project having good architectural articulation around the building. She noted that the stucco should be an additional element but not the main one. She stated she was in agreement with removing the two sentences in Condition No. 27. Chairperson Roberts stated that she would be in favor of this project being less visible if the Preserve development were not in this location. Commissioner Sullivan noted he would not support the motion due to the issues of visibility. In addition, he expressed concern with the public notification process and noted that the 1000 foot noticing requirement should be extended to residents along Foothill Road to West Las Positas due to the visibility of the development. Discussion ensued relating to the public notification process. Commissioner Sullivan added that the notice should be written so the public can understand it. Commissioner Sullivan expressed concern with the home on Lot 7 being built in a twelve foot hole in order to get the project approved and inquired who would purchase this home and noted this is ridiculous.. Commlasinner Kameny moved to approve Case PUD-99-03 by making the f'mding that the proposal PUD Prezoning and PUD Development Plan will not have a significant eaviroamental impact and adopt a resolution recommending approval of Exhibit "C," the draft luitial Study/Negative Declaration for PUD-99-03; make the finding that the proposed PUD Prezoning to the PUD (Planned Unit Developmen0 - 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; PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES April 12, 2000 Page 5