PC 012401 - Laserfiche WebLink

r r r' 5. MATTERS CONTINUED FOR DECISION a. PUD-OO-Ol, Mardel L.L.C. (Delco Builders) Application for PUD Development Plan approval to allow the construction of 3 8 single- family detached homes, construction of a public sewer "lift" station, realignment of Vineyard Avenue, vineyard cultivation (grape bearing plants), and miscellaneous public infrastructure including streets, utilities, etc., on an overall 41.2 acre site located in the Vineyard Avenue Corridor Specific Plan area at 2503 Vineyard A venue and 2287 Vineyard Avenue. The project site is zoned PUD (Planned Unit Development) - LDR (Low Density Residential) and PUD (Planned Unit Development) - Vineyard/OS/ MDR (Vineyard/Open Space/Medium Density Residential) District. The Planning Commission will also consider the negative declaration prepared for the property located at 2503 Vineyard Avenue. Continued to February 14,2001. 6. PUBLIC HEARINGS a. PPUD-4, South Front Investors, LLC Application for Planned Unit Development (PUD) development plan approval to construct an approximately 17,545 sq. ft., two-story office building to be located at 6088 Sunol Boulevard (southeast corner of Sunol Boulevard and Sycamore Road). Zoning for the property is PUD-O (Office). Mr. Pavan presented the staff report, providing an overview of the proposed project. He noted that several neighborhood meetings have been held and the applicant has worked closely with the neighbors to resolve issues related to the design of the building. He advised that the proposal conforms to the aspects of the North Sycamore Specific Plan, including height and FAR. He noted that staff understands that the consensus of the neighborhood is to support the project. He added that concerns have been expressed by adjacent property owners regarding the visibility of the building from their properties and views from the second-story windows of the office building into adjacent property yards and residences. Mr. Pavan advised that staff is recommending that the pad of the building be reduced by two feet. He noted that the applicant does not concur with this recommendation. Mr. Pavan stated that staff is recommending that the trash enclosure be removed farther from the property line and closer to the building. He advised that the applicant does not concur with this requirement, and staff has received comments from neighbors that they would like the trash enclosure to remain where it is shown on the plan. Mr. Pavan advised that staff would like the Planning Commission to discuss and make a determination on this recommendation. He reported that Mr.Gudaitis (the adjoining neighbor) commented that he would prefer that the portion of the side property line fencing between the proposed masonry wall and his front property line be 30" in height with a wrought iron fence. He suggested that if the Commission concurs the appropriate wording should be added to the Planning Commission's recommendation. Mr. Pavan noted that there is an outstanding issue regarding the type of fencing along the area facing Diamond Court, and that staff understands a petition has been circulated asking the neighbors to determine the appropriate fencing material PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES January 24, 2001 Page 2