13 ATTACHMENTS - Laserfiche WebLink

DRAFT 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 aone-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 ofoff--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. Commissioner Blank moved to find that the project would not have a significant effect on the environment and that the proposed PUD rezoning and development plan are consistent with the General Plan, North Sycamore Specific Plan, and the purposes of the PUD ordinance; to make the PUD findings for the proposed development plan as listed in this staff report; to recommend approval of the Negative Declaration and Case PUD-65, subject to the conditions of approval listed in Exhibit B of the staff report as recommended by staff. Commissioner Olson seconded the motion. DRAFT EXCERPTS: PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, June 27, 2007 Page 2 of 3