PC 062707 - Laserfiche WebLink

flexibility, it also allowed the Commission and City Council to add more stringent requirements than would normally be allowed in the straight Office District. In response to an inquiry by Chairperson Fox regarding the nighttime glare, Mr. Otto replied that the project was located on Sunol Boulevard, which is a main thoroughfare, and that conditions of approval were incorporated stating that the light standards would be 14 feet as required in the North Sycamore Specific Plan. A condition was also included that the parking lot lights be turned off at 9:00 p.m. or 15 minutes after the close of the last business, whichever is later; the City had a security ordinance that required parking lot lights to be on during operation of a business. A condition was also included limiting the lighting levels at the property lines to be no greater than two-tenths of a foot- candle. Shields to reduce glare were also included so there would be no adverse impacts on adjacent properties. Chairperson Fox noted that the development approval plan would lapse in two years unless a building permit was issued; she inquired whether the two-year requirement was customary. Mr. Otto confirmed that two years was a normal requirement for a PUD; design review and variances have a one-year clause. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED. Nick Kavayiotidis, applicant, noted that under the North Sycamore Specific Plan, Sycamore Creek was diverted, and the culvert was put under Sycamore Road, which would eventually extend to the west side of Sunol Boulevard. He did not believe there would be any issues with the creek. Kevin Close, 871 Sycamore Road, noted that there was right-turn ingress and egress and that he understood that some time in the future, the existing median would be extended all the way to Case Avenue and Junipero Street. In the meantime, if someone left the project and wanted to travel south, they would need to make a quick U-turn at MBM (Proficient Food Company) driveway. He was concerned that as a result of this project, more traffic would try to make a turn there. He suggested putting in a U-turn lane or restricting U-turns at that location so that traffic would continue to the stoplight. In response to an inquiry by Chairperson Fox with respect to Mr. Close’s comments, Mr. Otto replied that the City’s traffic engineer reviewed the project and did not see any issues with traffic leaving this site. Staff tried to configure the on-site site plan such that if clients or employees could not find parking spaces in the parking lot, they would be able to turn around on-site and search for more parking to reduce the number of off-site trips. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Chairperson Fox invited comments on the green roof versus the brown roof. It was the consensus of the Planning Commission that the brown roof would be preferable. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES June 27, 2007 Page 7 of 28