Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Direction Property Owner Address Vineyard Avenue Corridor Specific Plan Land <br /> Use Designation(s) <br />Westerly Anthony L. Pietro- 2500 Vineyard Low Density Residential (< 2.0 du/ac), Hillside Residen- <br /> nave Avenue tial, and Open Space land uses. <br />Easterly Steve and Anabelle I Brozosky Hillside Residential and Open Space land uses. <br /> Brozosky Lane <br />Southerly Frank Berlogar, 2200 Vineyard Hillside Residential and Open Space land uses. <br /> Trustee Avenue <br />Northeasterly Greenbriar Homes 2287 Vineyard Medium Density Residential (2 - 8 dulac), Low Density <br /> (formerly Wayne Avenue Residential (< 2.0 dulac), Vineyard, and Open Space land <br /> and Betty Hahner) uses. <br /> <br />III. PROJECT DESCRIPTION <br /> <br />The applicants propose the following changes: <br /> <br />1. Design guidelines would be used for the individual custom home designs only on the <br />Berlogar lots in place of the previously approved house designs. The Chrisman lots <br />would still use the approved house designs ofPUD-05. <br /> <br />2. The modification would enable the Berlogar and Chrisman portions of this development <br />to proceed separately from each other. As an interim measure, "A" Street would termi- <br />nate in a hammerhead turnaround constructed on the Chrisman property until the Chris- <br />man property develops and completes the street per the development plan approval. This <br />would be the only work done on Chrisman. <br /> <br />3. The application would also update previous requirements on green building measures and <br />construction/demolition waste recycling to present City standards. All other aspects of <br />the City Council's approval ofPUD-05 would remain effective. <br /> <br />IV. PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING <br /> <br />The Planning Commission heard the proposed project at its August 10, 2005 public hearing. <br />The Planning Commission staff report and minutes of the meeting are attached. Mr. Frank Ber- <br />logar was present to answer questions and to speak in favor of the proposal. There was no other <br />public testimony. <br /> <br />The Commission's discussion focused on the design guidelines and the probable build-out time <br />for the development, discussing means by which the build-out time could be reduced. The <br />Planning Commission voted 5-0 to forward the proposal to the City Council with a recommen- <br />dation of approval. With its recommendation, the Planning Commission added a condition re- <br />quiring that the revised design guidelines be submitted for review and approval by the Planning <br />Commission before the application is made for the first lot. Staff and the applicant concur with <br />this condition, which is incorporated in Exhibit "B". <br /> <br />SR:05:259 <br />Page 3 of7 <br />