Laserfiche WebLink
Resolution No. PC-2005-14 was entered and adopted as motioned. <br /> <br />b. PUD 43, Paul Berchem/Berchem Trust <br /> Application for: (1) PUD Development Plan approval to demolish the existing <br /> 1,628-square-foot home and construct a new 4,035-square-foot, single-story <br /> residence at 2538 Vineyard Avenue, in the Vineyard Avenue Corridor Specific <br /> Plan Area; and (2) the creation of site development standards for the subject site. <br /> Zoning for the property is PUD-LDR (Planned Unit Development - Low Density <br /> Residential) District. <br /> <br />Ms. Decker summarized the staff report and described the proposed project. She noted <br />that numerous disclosures were tied to this property that must be recorded in the City <br />Attorney's office, specifically that the property is an access point to the East Bay <br />Regional Park District property. <br /> <br />Commissioner Arkin would like to see that disclosure recorded on the deed. <br /> <br />Ms. Nerland confirmed that there would be a disclosure on the deed, in addition to a <br />separate document to be recorded with the title. <br /> <br />Ms. Decker displayed pictures of the eucalyptus screening on the site as well as the site <br />plan regarding the quarry and mining operations. <br /> <br />In response to an inquiry by Conunissioner Blank, Ms. Decker replied that there was a <br />requirement that the eucalyptus grove remain intact and that the plan meet the planting <br />and spacing requirements. The Specific Plan requires that the fencing be open fencing <br />rather than an enclosed wall at the entry. She displayed a photo simulation of what the <br />building would look like and showed stonework enhancements on the buildings. <br /> <br />Commissioner Arkin believed the design would benefit from extending the stonework <br />from the chimney down to the ground. <br /> <br />Ms. Decker noted that staff favored a slate roof over the typical concrete tile roof to <br />match the style of the building better; the applicant accepted that condition. She <br />proposed several amendments to the conditions of approval: <br /> 1. Condition 16.a., a requirement to provide an easement to maintain underground <br /> wells and holding tanks for non-potable irrigation use, should be omitted because <br /> of its erroneous addition. <br /> 2. Condition 16.b., related to dedication of the trail to the City, and Condition 34, <br /> addressing various deed restrictions and covenants, will be combined into one <br /> condition that would state that all recorded documents mentioned in both <br /> conditions will be provided in a form acceptable to the City Attorney's Office <br /> prior to issuance of building permits. <br /> <br />THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED. <br /> <br />PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES April 7, 2005 Page 11 of 16 <br /> <br /> <br />