06 - Laserfiche WebLink

ATTACHMENT 5 PUD-116, Frank Berloqar Application for Planned Unit Development (PUD) Development Plan for the approximately 34.3-acre parcel located at 88 Silver Oaks Court to construct two new single-family residences of approximately 6,117 square feet with a four-car garage and approximately 6,372 square feet with a four-car garage and related improvements on two new lots measuring approximately 3.88 acres and 14.56 acres, respectively; and to retain the existing single-family residence, second unit, and accessary structures on the approximately 15.86-acre remainder parcel. Zoning for the property is Planned Unit Development – Hillside Residential/Open Space (PUD-HR/OS) District. Jenny Soo presented the staff report and described the scope, layout and key elements of the proposal. Larissa Seto: Could I just jump in with one further comment with regard to the email that was received from Ms. Humphrey on Friday, May 6`". One of the questions that were posed was Question #4: Do these homes comply with Measure PP? I just wanted to clarify for the record that that measure only applied to subdivisions of 10 or more lots and because this is a 3 or more lot subdivision, those restrictions on grading and steep slopes and issues don't apply here. That's why the other provisions in the staff report in regard to General Plan conformity, these provisions without Measure PP and General Plan conform with this. Commissioner Allen: May I ask one question regarding that and I'm referring to page 2 of 15. The Vineyard Avenue Specific Plan indicates that a total of 14 new residential units could be developed on Lot 22 in addition to the existing home. We've been seeing some of these applications one-off and this one happens to be 2 homes. My question is, given there could be a total of 14 of which this would be 2 of the 14, does that have implications to PP? Seto: Measure PP's language was for the existing lot of record. If there were subdivisions that went forward for 10 or more lots, part of it would be the timing for the other subdivisions and when they happen in relation to when PP was adopted. So, to the extent earlier lots had been developed first and subdivided first, then they wouldn't be subject to the limit; only the lots of record when PP was adopted would be subject. Commissioner Balch: Can I follow up on that? So for example, if Mr. Berlogar wanted to subdivide out and put 20 homes on the site, then it would come in as required because of the record of this lot. Seto: Correct. Then because this subdivision is happening after PP is adopted you would say he's already had the existing 30 acre lot subdivided so there would technically only be 7 more left if he wanted to be not subject to the PP restrictions. If he wanted a full 20 that would require obviously a specific plan amendment and other changes, then that would have to be in compliance with Measure PP's restrictions. Commissioner Balch: May I follow up on one of the questions—Jenny, could you turn to the slide showing the site location with the lots in red outlined? To Nancy's question, so Lot 2 being as large as it is, I mean it is 2 part. The first question is the building envelope-are those set in the specific plan? Those are locked in? EXCERPT: PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, May 11, 2016 Page 1 of 5