PC 051105 - Laserfiche WebLink

Phase 3 was under consideration at this meeting; the concept, building location, and sizing of all three phases were subject to the Commission's approval at this time_ In response to an inquiry by Commissioner Blank regarding whether the phases could be split for the C=ommission's decision, Ms. Decker cont3rmed that it was within the Commission's purview to separate Phase 2 and Phase 3. Stalf urged the Commission to look at the entire package. A discussion of possible future CJommission actions regarding Phases 2 and 3 ensued. Coxrxmissioner Arkin commented that he believed that approvals granted tonight did not provide any legal obligations for the future phases. Commissioner Blank was concerned that any approvals granted would lock in future approvals and tie the future Planning Commissioners' decision-making capabilities_ He expressed a desire to not provide such a broad future guarantee for expansion. Ms. Nerland advised that the conditional use permit would address the three phases but that the design review would only apply to Phase 1 . Commissioner Fox moved to make the conditional use findings as listed in the staff report and to approve PDR-391/PCUP-71.8 as recommended by staff, subject to the conditions of approval listed in Exhibit B as modified by staff_ Commissioner Arkin seconded the motion_ Commissioner Roberts requested an amendment to the motion by adding the following condition. If the Church plans to use the northern parking lot, the landscaping should be started as soon as possible to occlude the headlights Y"rom the view of the neighborhood_ Commissioners Fox and Arkin agreed to amend the motion as proposed_ In response to an inquiry by Commissioner Blank regarding whether a future Planning Commission would be locked into this design, Ms. Decker conl3rmed that would not be the case_ She explained that as with any other conditional use permit, the Commission's decision would be dependent upon the circumstances of the time and would be a review o 1'the layout building location and sizes for conformity to the Master Expansion Plait. Conformity with the use permit and other issues would be factored into the Commission's decision. In response to an inquiry by Commissioner Blank on whether the Commission would be locked into this decision if the applicant were to be 100 percent compliant, Ms. Decker noted that she would confer with Ms. Nerland during the recess. CJhairperson Maas suggested that Item Ei.a__ PDR-446, Hamid Taeb, and Item 6.d._ PDR-448/PCL7P-139 Fairland Investment Inc., be considered for continuance because of the late hour. Item 6.b_, PSDR-223. "trader Joe's. would be heard after this itcn~x_ PLANNING COMMISSION MINLJTF_S May 1 1, 2005 Page 12 of 7 6