PC 092204 - Laserfiche WebLink

ROLL CA AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: RECUSED ABSENT: LL VOTE: Commissioners Arkin, Fox, Maas, and Roberts None. Commissioner Sullivan. None. Commissioner Kameny. Resolution No. PC-2004-58 was entered and adopted as motioned. The Planning Commission recessed for a break at 8:38 p.m. Chairperson Roberts reconvened the meeting at 8:47 p.m. 6. PUBLIC HEARINGS AND OTHER MATTERS a. PUD-41, Paul Pllue Application for PUD development plan approval to construct a 1,229-square-foot second-story addition and to remodel an existing 2,133-squaze-foot, one-story single-family home located at 582 Sycamore Road in the North Sycamore Specific Plan area. Zoning for the property is PUD-LDR (Planned Unit Development -Low Density Residential) District. Ms. Kline summarized the staff report and described the history and scope of the project. She noted that the proposed project would be a second story over the existing first floor and that the existing footprint would not be expanded. The existing pool house/second unit would be retained, as well as the detached garage and swimming pool. No changes to the landscaping would be made. The applicants have agreed to incorporate the green building measures from Alameda County Waste Management, and the applicant believes that the 50 points would be achieved. The existing 60s/70s nondescript architectural style would be transformed to an arts and crafts style. She noted that there was one correction to Condition No. 7, stating that a lazge-family day care facility would be a conditionally permitted use. Staff recommended approval of this project. In response to an inquiry by Commissioner Sullivan, Ms. Kline confirmed that the total structure would be 3,362 square feet for the principal structure. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED. Peter Shutts, project architect, noted that this was the first PUD approval he had done for a remodel. He noted that the house and the site are currently landscaped and that the landscaping scheme would be retained throughout the course of the project. He noted that any damage would be rebuilt to its current landscaping configuration. Two areas of the staff report address landscaping plans and irrigation plans, and he requested that Condition Nos. 26 and 27 be removed from the staff report. He noted that because the main house was red-tagged by the City, the applicant, his fiancee and their two large dogs PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, September 22, 2004 Page 10 of 14