15 ATTACHMENT 9 - Laserfiche WebLink

ATTACHMENT 4 PUD-32, Daniel and Belinda Sarich Work session to review and receive comment on an application for Planned Unit Development (PUD) development plan to construct an approximately 13,015-square-foot single-family residence and an approximately 130-square-foot poolhouse on the approximately 20-acre site located at 5 Tuscany Place (formerly 1630 Vineyard Avenue), in the Vineyard Avenue Specific Plan Area. Zoning for the property is PUD-LDR/HR-OS (Planned Unit Development -Low Density Residential/Hillside ResidentiaVOpen Space) District. Ms. Decker summarized the staffreport, and described in detail the background and scope of this proposed project. She indicated that the Planning Commission should examine this proposal and determine if the siting is appropriate or not, if it falls within the Specific Plan flexibility or not, and to examine the height restrictions within the context of a site visit. Acting Chairperson Fox noted a memo received from Planning Director Jerry Iserson addressing the "blob." Acting Chairperson Fox disclosed that she met with the applicant, Mr. Pico, and the architect that afternoon as well as in the past; she has also walked the site. Commissioners Blank and Pearce disclosed that they had previously walked the site with the applicant's representative. Commissioners Olson and O'Connor disclosed that they had met with the applicant at the site earlier in the day. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED. Daniel Sarich, applicant, introduced the project consultant, Tom Pico. Tom Pico, representing the applicant, noted that a workshop had been held in September 2005 and that they wished to come to a general understanding of how this project should proceed. He noted that several key decisions must be made before the formal application may be presented, especially whether they would be required to build only where the "blob" was located. He noted that they had listened very carefully to the comments and concerns and tried to respond to them. He noted that when the Vineyard Corridor Specific Plan was developed, many compromises were incorporated; he was especially proud of being associated with its development and how it was moving forward. He noted that they tried to build in some flexibility wherever possible. Mr. Pico took exception to some of the wording in Mr. Iserson's memo, which he believed had the effect of amending the Specific Plan unilaterally. He noted that the word "precise" was not part of the Specific Plan and quoted page 25 with respect to hillside residential areas: "In hillside residential areas, all home sites must be located within the designated development areas as generally depicted on the Specific Plan." He noted that the language did not say "precisely depicted," and he did not believe it should be portrayed as such. He noted that there was nothing within the Specific Plan that addressed the plan being "environmentally superior" and believed that to rely on the staff memo that says "precisely at the location of the blob" and that any variance may only be approved if it was an "environmentally superior plan" would be inappropriate and not what the Specific Plan says. He believed that if the changed language EXCERPTS: PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES, October 25, 2006 Page 1 of 6