Laserfiche WebLink
<br />7A <br />Page 58 <br /> <br />3. That the Mitigated Negative Declaration reflects the City's independent judgment and <br />analysis. <br />4. Other Planning Commission recommendations for inclusion in the Mitigation. <br />5. The Mitigation Measures contained in the IS/MND are hereby adopted by the <br />Planning Commission and shall be made conditions of approval in the Planned <br />Development Permit. <br />MM: to require tenting or other abatement of potential termite infestation of the <br />existing structures before they are removed. <br />MM: designated construction route. <br />MM: adding a contractor staging area and worker parking areas on-site, no <br />construction workers are allowed to park on Kentfield Avenue. <br />MM: Reduce the construction hours as already shown in the document. Start time <br />8:00am and end time 5:00pm (for the noise). <br />Motion Passed 6-0 <br /> <br />MIS (Seybert/Holt) Approve the Tentative Map subject to the following findings: <br />1. The map, design or improvements of the proposed subdivision are consistent with <br />the general or specific plans, the Zoning Ordinance, or subdivision improvement <br />requirements. <br />2. The site is physically suited for the proposed type or density of development. <br />3. The design or proposed improvements are not likely to cause substantial <br />environmental damage, or substantially and avoidably injure fish, wildlife or their <br />habitat, or cause serious public health problems. <br />4. The design or improvements of the proposed subdivision will not conflict with <br />essential public easements for access through, or use of, property within the <br />proposed subdivision. <br />5. Implementation of the additional on-site parking. <br />6. Paving curb to curb of any areas on Kentfield Avenue that are trenched and the <br />posting of both contractor and City contact numbers visible from public areas <br />surrounding the project site. <br />The project is aesthetically appealing and fits the context and character of the existing <br />surrounding neighborhood. It conforms to the intent of the Planned Development <br />Permit. Staff recommends that the PO should be approved by the Planning <br />Commission. <br />Motion Passed 6-0 <br /> <br />Commissioner Seybert stated that in regards to the balcony change suggests that it be <br />considered by the developer in conjunction with the neighborhood to work out mitigation. <br /> <br />Commissioner Smith stated that the balconies need to be addressed somewhere in the <br />recommendation. Where does that jurisdiction lie? <br /> <br />Mrs. Ekas replied that it is the Planning Commission's decision. <br /> <br />Commissioner Seybert asked if the balconies are an architectural feature or do they <br />usually consider setbacks. <br /> <br />Mrs. Ekas replied that it is a land use question because you are talking about the use of <br />the structure and a balcony is a potentially habited space from time to time. <br /> <br />Mr. Jany stated that balconies are an architectural feature and are not the setback line. <br />If you heard some concerns about the neighbors and proximately to their units, the <br />architectural review process involves primarily the street visible portions of the building <br />Page 11 of 13 <br />