Laserfiche WebLink
A motion was made by Commissioner Tarver, seconded by <br />Commissioner Hovingh (for discussion purposes) directing staff <br />to look at PUD's in terms of sensitivity of the area and see <br />what can be done to further restrict the placement of lots and a <br />singleltwo-story mix of homes in the PUD. <br />Commissioner Hovingh stated that he felt this would not be <br />prudent in that it would create a paralyzing effect on <br />development in that too many people would be getting involved. <br />Chairman Hoyt agreed with those comments. He felt empathy for <br />the neighbors, but also felt it would be unfair to the applicant <br />who has already spent a great deal of time and money on the <br />project. He could not support that motion. <br />Commissioner Herger also said she could not support that motion. <br />ROLL CALL VOTE <br />AYES: Commissioners Mahern and Tarver <br />NOES: Commissioners Berger, Hovingh and Chairman Hoyt <br />ABSENT: Commissioner Michelotti <br />ABSTAIN: None <br />Resolution No. PC-88-83 was entered and adopted denying that <br />staff should check into the PUD as motioned. <br />PUD-_88-91_Lakeshore Financial <br />Application of Lakeshore Financial for Planned Unit Development <br />rezoning and development plan approval for a three-story, <br />approximately 15,500 square foot office building and related <br />improvements to be located on an approximately 1.2 acre site <br />located at the southwest corner of the intersection of Old <br />Dublin Canyon Road and Foothill Road. Zoning for the property <br />is CC (Central Commercial) - District. <br />Mr. Swift presented the staff report recommending that the <br />Commission find a Negative Declaration appropriate for Case <br />PUD-B8-9; find that the rezoning and development plan are <br />consistent with the General Plan and the purposes of~the PUD <br />Ordinance; and introduce an Ordinance approving the reaghing and <br />development plan, subject to conditions listed in Attachment A. <br />The public hearing was opened. <br />Jack Christian, 2100 Lakeshore Avenue, Oakland, represented the <br />application. He stated that he had acquired the property <br />through a foreclosure. He felt the staff report was accurate <br />and appreciated working with them. However, he noted that in <br />the Project Description of the staff report that the so-called <br />45' retaining wall was actuaily 4~' and that in Building Design <br />the so-called 18' to 35' of the south elevation should have been <br />18' and 27'. He stated he had no problems with the conditions <br />but would like further information as to what his pro-rata costs <br />Page 12 <br />