PC 08/26/1992 - Laserfiche WebLink

Resolution No. PC-92-72 was entered and adopted recommending approval of the PUD findings for Case PUD-86-18-3M as motioned. A motion was made by Commi~~ioner Mahem, seconded by ommi~~ioner McGuirk making the conditional use permit rmdings for the proposed p oject as listed in the staff report, and adopting a resolution approving oC Case UP-92-42 subject to the conditions listed in Exhibit .C". ROLL CALL VOTE A YES: Commissioners Mahern, McGuirk, Michelotti, Wri ht, and Chairman Hovingh NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None Resolution No. PC-92-73 was entered and adopted approving C UP-92-42 as motioned. PUD-92-06. Josenh E. Madden Application Cor development plan approval to construct a co ercial service development consisting of a four-building plan totalling 47,S sq. ft. or a five-building plan totalling 52,500 sq. ft. located on Stanley Boulevard betw n Valley Avenue and California Avenue. Zoning Cor the property is PUD (planned nit Development) - Commercial District. A negative declaration has been prepa Cor this project and will be considered at this meeting. Mr. Swift presented the staff report recommending approval of C se PUD-92-06 subject to the conditions of the staff report. He noted that the only area of taff concern is the on-site parking; however, staff has prepared a condition of approval that ill address the issue. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED. Michael Goldsworthy, 1020 Serpentine Lane, Suite 107, Pleasant n, represented the application. He stated that Mr. Madden is present and will make some comments. He noted they agree with the Conditions of Approval at the Design Review Board level, and generally agree with the conditions at the Planning level. He further noted at they have made a modification on Plan lA in the arched ends to be similar to Plan . Joseph Madden, 1544 Santa Rita Road, also represented the appli ation and passed out copies of his comments to the Commission, staff and secretary. These c mments contained his clarification requests as follows: (1) The first clarification was Co dition 17 on Page 15 which states a "single unit truck". The project is designed for a . ngle trailer truck, and if the word "unit" means "trailer", he was in agreement. (2) He wi hed to delete Condition 23 as it appears to be covered in Condition 25. (3) The third clarifi tion was Condition 26 on Page 16 - Does the underground utility line go above or below th Union Pacific track after it crosses the subject site? Mr. Madden stated that he was in agreement with staffs lists of ses, but would like consideration to allow business machine servicing, commercial p nting, and auto upholstery. He felt these three businesses do not have heavy parking needs, p 'cularly auto upholstery. Planning Commission Minutes Augusl26, 1992 Page 6