PC 121300 - Laserfiche WebLink

all of the conditions of approval. He further advised that the approvals for parcel "A" could be done in conjunction with the tentative map, and, therefore, allows the Planning Commission the opportultity to withhold approval on the tentative map until the issues for parcel "A" have been resolved. Commisioner Al'kin ~ommented that he believes that one of the strong requests made by the Plmmin$ Commission at the prior meeting was that it wanted to see a comprehensive PUD that included the vineyards along with the homes. He noted that the Commission did not receive this, and that the request should be made again. Chalrp~son Sullivan noted that he was hoping to get a presentation from a representative of the South Livermore Valley Land Trust. He noted that he would like to have an understanding of how the trust works. He fuxther noted that he is especially concerned in that the way the eunditions are written 75% of the houses can be constructed without the development of the vineyard. Commisioner Arkin stated that he would like the Planning Commission to send the application b~ck with comments from each of the Commissioners regarding the issues they see as problems, in an att~npt to get a project that the Commission wants to approve. He noted that he feels there are too many open issues and that the project is not complete enough to receive approval. Iv~. Heaton queffioned whether as the applicant he has the right to ask for a decision of the Piarmin8 Commission this evening. Ms. Sero advised that it is the prerogative of the Planning Commi~ion to make that decision. Mr. Heaton requcstad that the Planning Commission vote on the PUD and refer it to the City Council in order to allow the applicant to work on the issues for re~olufion by the tentative map stage. He expressed the need to begin the engineering for the road to allow the construction of the school. PIIBLIC HEARING CLOSED Chairpe~on Sullivan advised that he has other issues related to the project and that he is leaning to the sugg~ion made by Commissioner Arkin. He stated that he would like to hear the issues of concern from the other Commissioners. Discussion ensued regarding the possibility of denying the project and allowing it to go forward to the City Council. Commissioner M~_~ stated that her issues relate to the tree removal. She further stated that she is not happy about the project as a whole, as it is not what she envisioned. She feels that there is a problem with the elevations being similar to those proposed for the adjacent property, and while sbe feels fids can be resolved, it was not resolved as a result of the earlier request. She advised ~ she is also concerned about the discrepancy regarding the lots on the Costas property. Chairpe~on Sullivan noted that they have received a lot of new material that the Commission has not had an opportunity to review. Commissioner Roberts stated that she believes by co~tinuing the application or continuing the items that need to be resolved to the tentative map stye, the Planning Commission would have more control over the project. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES December 13, 2000 Page 7