16 ATTACHMENTS - Laserfiche WebLink

ATTACHMENT 9 PUD-56, Michael Aminian/Mohsen Sadri Application for PLJD development plan approval to allow three new single-family homes on an approximately 2.45-acre parcel located at 865 Clara Lane, in the Vineyard Avenue Corridor Specific Plan area. Zoning for the property is PUD-LDR and OS (Planned knit Development -Low Density Residential and Open Space) District. Associate Planner Robin Giffin summarized the staff report and detailed the backgiround, scope and layout of the proposed project. Regarding the Hatsushi property, the Vineyard nvenue . Corridor Specific Plan stated that some of the homes could be limited to 2$ feet in height to preserve the privacy and viet~,~s of the homes on Montevino Drive. The Specific Plan does not have such a resh~iction for the proposed home on Lot 1 and set the maxinnim house height limit at 30 feet. 'fhe applicant noted to staff that if he is required to build none-story home on Lot 1, he would prefer to keep the existing one-story house and possibly propose a new one-story house at a later date. If the Commission supported this scenario, staff recommended that a condition of approval he added that a fire truck hammerhead still be required nn the project site if deemed necessary by the Fire Department. Ms. Giffin noted that two existing residents on Clara Lane expressed concern about the extension of Clara Lane. The City was granted land and easements from neighboring property owners for this extension; staff will continue to meet with the neighboring property owners to ensure that all outstanding issues are addressed. A resident on Ingrid Court expressed an initial concern about construction h•afFic on Clara Lane. otter discussions with staff, he appeared to accept the City's standard condition regarding construction hours. However, he would like language to be added to the condition, stating that no trucks can arrive at the site before 8:00 a.m. This resident would also like to modify the Hatsushi property PUD, as noted during the public comment period of this meeting. Staff believed that the applicants had adequately addressed all the standards and guidelines of the Vineyard Avenue Corridor Specific Plan for this area. Staff recommended that the Planning Commission find that there are no new or changed circumstances or information which require additional CEQA review of the project. Staff recommended that the Planning Commission find that the proposed PL1D development plan is consistent with the General Plan, the Vineyard Avenue Corridor Specific Plan, and the purpose of the PUD Ordinance. Staff recommended that the Planning Commission make the Pi 1D tlndings in the staff report, and adopt a resolution recommending approval of Case PUD-56 subject to the conditions of approval, either as shown in Exhibit B or as shown in Exhibit li with a modification requiring the applicant to dig down the grade under the house on Lot 1 by at least two fcet and reduce the roof height by 1.5 feet. Iu the latter scenario, this would be a modification to Condition 7.a.2. Staff displayed a PowerPoint presentation to illustrate the proposed plan. fn response to an inquiry by Commissioner Slank regarding whether the building on Lot 1 as proposed was incompliance with the Specific Plan without any changes, Ms. Giffin confirmed that it was incompliance with the height requirements of the Specific Plan. As conditioned with the darker colors and additional screening trees, it would also he incompliance regarding the design. EXCERPTS: PLANNfNG COMMISSfON MINUTES, January 10, 2007 Page 1 of 8