PC 09/08/1993 - Laserfiche WebLink

~ ~ PUD-93-l, Richard Parejo Application for Planned Unit Development rezoning and develop ent plan approval!) to rezone an approximately 1.96 acre property from the A (A . ultural) zoning district to the PUD (Planned Unit Development) - IDR (Low Density R idential) District; and 2) for development plan approval for a two-lot single-family resi ential development located at 2884 Foothill Road. Zoning for the property is Agric ltural, West Foothill Road Corridor Overlay District. A negative declaration has bee prepared for this project and will be considered at this hearing. Mr. Iserson presented the staff report recommending approval of th application subject to the conditions listed in the staff report. Commissioner Finch abstained from participating in the discussion 0 this application because of the close proximity of his residence to the subject property. In response to Commissioner Mahern, Mr. Iserson responded that th fIrst story would have a 120' setback and the second-story element would have a 150' setb ck. Commissioner Michelotti suggested grading of the lot may be a solu 'on to maintain the Zuffa view corridor. Mr. Iserson indicated that the slope of the lot s very minimal and grading was being discouraged in order to keep the natural slope in ct. Commissioner Hovingh clarifIed Condition 3k as saying a two-story esidence would have a 35' sideyard setback and a single story would have a 25' sideyard se back. In response to Commissioner Wright, Mr. Beougher indicated that v ew easements and height restrictions have been established in the past. Mr. Iserson stated tha staff hoped the two parties could come to an agreement before the design review so that e Zuffas could maintain their view. PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED. Jon "Mick" Lamb, 147 Old Bernal Ave., Suite 5, represented Mr. P do and the application. The applicant concurs with the staff report, however, h would like Condition 6 to be reworded to include "recorded maintenance agreement" and de ete the reference to "applicable CC&R's." Mr. Lamb feels the applicant is being unfairly restricted in his rights to design and build a home. He feels the applicant should have the same opportunities an rights to build his house as the other property owners have had. He also advised that e proposed residence would not have a large massive roof, the establishment of a frontage driveway along Foothill Rd. is an important safety feature, and the elimination of individual rivate driveways would be benefIcial. Responding to Commissioner Michelotti, Mr. Lamb indicated no dec sion had been made as to where the proposed residence would be built within the building e velope. He indicated there is sufficient leeway since the width of the structure cannot be ore than 80' and the width of the building envelope is 112'. Mr. Lamb believes the appli ant should not be Planning Commission Minutes Page 6 September 8, 1993