PC 09/11/1991 - Laserfiche WebLink

~ Mr. Iserson presented the staff report recommending approval of Case PUD-91-8 subject to the conditions of the staff report. For the record, staff would agree that given there are some uncertainties with regard to the specific alignment of Foothill Road, the exact pad location not be tied to 375 ft. at this particular time and that those rather detailed issues could be worked out at the tentative map stage. He also corrected an error in the staff report: Under the corrected figure of a 35 % F .A.R., houses would be able to range between 2,835 and 3,150 sq. ft., not including the garage. He also proposed that anything over a 2- car garage be included within the F.A.R. calculation. He also called attention to a modification to Condition 6 that would eliminate the first sentence regarding the lot elevation. Chairman Mahern noted that the applicant wished to change the front yard setback from 23 to 20 ft. The staff report stated this would be acceptable because of having a row of garage doors. She asked staff if that is the only reason 23 ft. is asked for. Mr. Iserson said 23 ft. is the code requirement; the major reason for that was because of the days when longer cars were driven. With the advent of shorter cars, staff feels that 20 ft. would be appropriate. Commissioners Horan and Michelotti discussed with Mr. Iserson the F.A.R. in connection with a 3-car garage. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED. Russell Schaeffer, 5059 Foothill Road represented the application. He called attention to several items he would like changed in the staff report: Page 2 - Lots 3 and 4 sizes were reversed; Page 3 - Grading issues - he had written revised conditions 3, 5, and 6 and submitted a copy to the staff and Commission. He reviewed the revised conditions as he had written them. He also stated that he would like to work out a fence arrangement with Pan- Cal who is developing property adjacent to his and they have agreed to pay for the fencing. Commissioner Hovingh asked why Pan-Cal had wanted to install an eight foot high fence adjacent to his property. Mr. Schaeffer said Pan-Cal did not wish to see his property and proposed the use of the eight foot fence as a screen. In addition, the elevations and grade changes are substantial between what is in existence and what is proposed on Pan-Cal's side. Commissioner Horan briefly discussed the Pan-Cal fencing situation with the applicant. Mr. Iserson clarified that Mr. Schaeffer is willing to pay for the fencing on the south and east, but since Pan-Cal is already obligated for the fence on the north, Mr. Schaeffer does not want to pay for the north side fence. Mr. Schaeffer called attention to Condition 5 in regard to staff language that said "The use of split pads is strongly encouraged in order to minimize grading". Mr. Schaeffer was not in favor of using split pads and stated that he had an engineer review the site, who has hence said a split pad situation would not work well on this site. Minutes Planning Commission September 11, 1991 Page 4 ,. .