SR 06:159 - Laserfiche WebLink

Mr. Pavan displayed various aspects of the project on the screen. In response to an inquiry by Commissioner Fox regarding construction hours, Ms. Decker noted that the hours were more restrictive than what is allowed in the Vineyard Avenue Corridor Specific Plan, although staff provides the Planning Director the discretion to modify the hours to accommodate various circumstances. In response to an inquiry by Commissioner Fox regarding traffic calming measures, Mr. Pavan noted that the installation of a signal to replace the stop sign to remove the choking point facilitated the freer flow of traffic and eliminated cut -through traffic. He was not aware of other traffic-calming measures at this time, but it could be reviewed by the Traffic and Engineering Departments. In response to an inquiry by Commissioner Fox whether a temporary use permit or other time limit could be placed on the EVA for construction, Ms. Decker noted that page 48 of the Specific Plan states that "construction of housing, roads and other infrastructure and site improvements shall be limited to the hours of8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Monday through Saturday." Staff has conditioned this use to be more restrictive than the Specific Plan. She noted that page I I of the staff report indicates that the EVA is only to be used until the construction of Clara Lane. She noted that there was concern that construction and fire equipment could navigate traffic-calming measures. However, the developer would be responsible for any damage to the road due to construction. Commissioner Roberts wished to add the asphalt batch plant to the list of disclosures. She noted that the project next to Deleo had single-story homes next to Vineyard Avenue, which she believed should be considered. She noted that the split-lot looked good from the street but looked huge from Vineyard Avenue. Commissioner Roberts moved to find that the proposed PUD development plan conforms to the Pleasanton General Plan, the Vineyard Avenue Corridor Specific Plan, and the purposes of the PUD Ordinance; to make the PUD Development Plan Findings as stated in the staff report, and to adopt a resolution recommending approval ofPUD-99-14 as shown in Exhibit A of the staff report and including the changes proposed by staff. Commissioner Pearce seconded the motion. Commissioner Fox proposed an amendment to Condition No. 3.a., Permitted Uses, to modify the definition ofa small family day care as provided by State law. Commissioners Roberts and Pearce accepted the proposed amendment. Commissioner Fox wished to add a second amendment that there be a hard-end date for certain activities in the right-of-way, such as was done for the Valley Humane Society application. Ms. Decker suggested that providing a certain date for the use of the EVA, if forwarded to the City Council, would be in conflict with the language ofthe Specific Plan as noted above. EXCERPTS: PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES, April 26, 2006 Page 4 of 5