PC 012506 - Laserfiche WebLink

~., Staff believed this infill use in ahigh-density zone was appropriate for this site and believed the project was attractively designed and would be compatible with the neighborhood. Staff recommended that the Commission find that the project will not have a significant affect on the environment, that the Negative Declaration is the appropriate document as shown in Exhibit C, that the project has a de minimus impact, and that the proposed PUD development plan is consistent with the General Plan and purposes of the PUD ordinance; make the PUD findings 1 through 7 identified in the staff report; and adopt a resolution recommending approval of PUD-49 to the City Council for a rezoning of 2.76 acres from RM-4,000 to PUD-HDR and for development plan approval fora 45-unit residential condominium development and a common azea located on one pazcel. Ms. Decker stated that Condition No. 34.a. required conduit and cabling for photovoltaic readiness. She stated that there are difference kinds of cabling that could be used and added that pull strings should be provided. The applicant had requested that it be limited to electric conduit, not knowing what kind of panel would be desired or what kind of cabling would be appropriate for that panel. In response to an inquiry by Commissioner Fox regarding CC&Rs and the use of gazages for cars rather than storage space, Ms. Decker replied that the homeowners association would be the enforcement mechanism rather than the City. Mr. Roush stated that the City had the ability but not the obligation to enforce certain (" provisions of the CC&Rs. He envisioned that the homeowners association would have ' that enforcement mechanism, but the City would have the sepazate authority under the CC&Rs to enforce that. A discussion of enforcement options ensued. Mr. Roush advised that permit pazking could be used if pazking became an issue. . Ms. Decker noted that with respect to Condition No. 14, the applicant requested that the Department of Real Estate report be required at the time a certificate of occupancy is granted rather than before the building and grading permit is issued. Staff did not have an issue with this request. Commissioner Blank noted that he would rather have the trees replaced and some fees if possible. In response to an inquiry by Commissioner Peazce regazding whether there was more than one comment regazding the tot lot, Ms. Decker confirmed that was the only comment. In response to an inquiry by Commissioner Fox regazding the purchase of the lots, Mr. Roush confirmed that if the Commission so desired, a condition could be included that Pleasanton residents or some subset thereof would have the first opportunity to PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES January 25, 2006 Page I 1 of 19