PC 022702 - Laserfiche WebLink

r- Discussion ensued regarding the impacts and implications of the motion. Chairperson Maas advised that she does not agree with the concept that the Planning Commission could add conditions to the approved project, just because the developer cannot build now due to the unfortunate financial climate. ROLL CALL VOTE AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Commissioners Arkin and Sullivan Commissioners Kameny, Maas, and Roberts None None The motion did not pass. Commissioner Kameny withdrew his original motion. He noted that he concurs with Commissioner Maas regarding her reluctance to add additional requirements on a project that has already been approved, but he also concurs with Commissioners Harvey and Sullivan that if something new is available that would better the project and provide better energy efficiency they owe it to the community to look at it. Discussion ensued regarding language for other possible motions to accomplish the direction of the Planning Commission. r- Commissioner Roberts moved to make the finding that the proposed modification to the previously approved PUD Development Plan is consistent with the Bernal A venue Specific Plan and, therefore, with the Pleasanton General Plan; and recommend approval of the modification to the PUD Development Plan subject to the conditions of approval stated in Exhibit "A," with the additional requirement that the site be hydro seeded or other options considered to address visual aspects of the vacant site, and that if there are new City programs reflected as policy, but not yet codified through ordinances, and which would not effect any major design modifications to the project, these should be considered for these buildings and presented to the Planning Commission for review at the appropriate time prior to the issuance of the building permits; and that staff would keep the developer apprised of any new policies. Commissioner Arkin seconded the motion. Chairperson Maas stated that her only concern with the motion is regarding the major design modifications, as she is concerned about the word "design." Discussion ensued concerning appropriate wording to express the intent of the Commission. Chairperson Maas suggested that the wording be changed to read "major modification." Commissioner Roberts amended the motion to make the finding that the proposed modification to the previously approved PUD Development Plan is consistent with the Bernal Avenue Specific Plan and, therefore, with the Pleasanton General Plan; and recommend approval of the modification to the PUD Development Plan subject to the conditions of approval stated in Exhibit" A," with the additional requirements that: ,-- PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES February 27, 2002 Page 14