PC 031004 - Laserfiche WebLink

- 5. MATTERS CONTINUED FOR DECISION There were none. PUBLIC HEARINGS AND OTHER MATTERS a. PUD-79-02-1M/PADR-916, Steve and Laura Zuni¢a. Application for a major modification to an approved Planned Unit Development development plan to allow construction outside of the building envelope and for design review approval for an approximately 15-foot high, 1,200-square-foot detached second unit at 2350 Gloria Court. Zoning for the property is PUD-LDR (Planned Unit Development- Low Density Residential) District. Mr. Iserson summazized the staff report and described the history and scope of the project. He advised that most of the neighbors supported the project and that a neighbor across the street had raised concerns about the visibility of the structure and whether the second unit would affect the character of the neighborhood. He noted that the homeowners association expressed concern that there may be a spring in the slope bank of that area and wished to ensure that any water encountered during construction would be properly handled from a drainage point of view. Staff held a neighborhood meeting to discuss these issues. In response, the applicant - revised the plans and modified the location of the proposed structure by bringing it away from the rear property line and closer to the house at a lower grade. The applicant also proposed to cut into the area to lower it to the same building pad elevation as the existing house; the new structure would be closer to the house, and the overall height would be lower than the main structure, aone-story house. The applicant also showed proposed landscaping to further screen the house. At staffls request, the applicant put up story poles to show the extent and height of the house. Staff and the Chief Building Official verified the accuracy of the poles and determined the profile of the building. The neighbor found the new location and design of the building to be acceptable. After considering the new construction, the floor area ratio (FAR) of the site would be just under 14 percent. The setbacks from the side yard with the new structure would be ten feet, and the rear yard setback would be 22 feet. The applicant also proposed a V-ditch to carry the drainage to the existing storm drain system. Mr. Iserson advised that significant landscaping exists on the site and that it would be not be disturbed. The landscaping would adequately screen the new structure from off-site. Mr. Iserson advised that the geotechnical analysis was accepted by the City Engineer. The analysis did not find any natural spring water; however, the engineer stated that the location of the water may not coincide with the borings that were taken. Staff included a condition that further investigation should be accomplished before the issuance of a building permit to verify whether a spring existed in that area. If a spring were to be PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES March 10, 2004 Page 3 of 10