Laserfiche WebLink
Councilmember Michelotti noted that the public process did happen then. <br /> <br />Commissioner Roberts noted that the Planning Commission was not used to reviewing a project <br />which was "already approved." She noted concerns over architectural issues, and the lack of a <br />"visual" from Foothill Road. She felt the applicant could address some things - landscaping, etc. <br />- but she and the Planning Commission were not sure how to proceed. She loved the <br />affordability component. Commissioner Arkin agreed that the project was a wonderful idea but <br />was concerned over the Foothill Road view. Commissioners Kameny and Sullivan then <br />reviewed the Planning Commission motion identifying concern over the design of the project <br />and its "age" and asking to discuss this matter with the City Council. <br /> <br />City Attorney Roush described the Council options should it wish to formally review and/or <br />change the development plan: initiating a rezoning coupled with a "study" district would <br />preclude issuing building permits before the review could be completed. <br /> <br />Commissioner Arkin wanted the applicants to be able to be more creative on the western <br />elevation. Commissioner Maas noted that some of her concerns were resolved at the Planning <br />Commission meeting, but not all of them. <br /> <br />Planning Director Swift noted that there were two options for the applicants: (1) build the <br />project as it was approved, for which no public hearing process would be required, or (2) request <br />changes, for which a PUD modification would be required. PUD modifications require notice <br />and a hearing process, the type depending on the extent of the changes. <br /> <br />Mr. Crane noted that if the Planning Commission or City Council wished a formal review, he <br />would have his architects and the rexlulsite exhibits at those reviews. He again noted he was <br />willing to change landscaping, etc. and was willing to put in writing that he would work with the <br />City to make such changes, but he needed to be able to pull permits within 120 days. <br /> <br />Clarifl~tion of the Differences between the Roles of the Plannin~ Commission and the City <br />Council <br /> <br />The Planning Commission/City Council discussed the Planning Commission's role in reviewing <br />projects. Discussion ensued over the Planning Commission's role in interpreting the General <br />Plan and using the testimony of the public at public hearings. Councilmembers expressed their <br />views that the Planning Commission should review projects for their consistency with the <br />Oeneral Plan, but they were encouraged to note how the General Plan should change if public <br />testimony or their own views lead them to opposing a project which is consistent with the <br />General Plan. The Councilmembers noted their appreciation for being able to see the <br />commissioners' comments in the minutes and encouraged the commissioners to continue to <br />express their views concerning all aspects of a project even if they ultimately will not support it. <br /> <br />JOINT MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL/PLANNING COMMISSION <br /> <br />April 27, 2000 Page 2 <br /> <br /> <br />