SR 06:155 - Laserfiche WebLink

Mr. Reznick pointed out the urgency of considering the road and its specifications as the Purchase Agreement exchanges the road improvements for the land where the water tank would be located. He urged the Commission to approve at least the road in order that the exchange of the land for the services can be effected. Mr. Reznick indicated that he accepted all the conditions as amended by staff, with the exception of Condition No. 7.d., and requested that the first sentence of the Condition be removed to allow development on approximately five feet ofthe slope bank of Lot No.1. He concluded that he believed the plan, as submitted, represents a great collaborative effort between civic and private activities, creates a harmonious balance between nature and development, and would be a project the City will be proud of. He then introduced his project consultant, Mr. Lou Basile. Lou Basil, Sainte Claire Custom Homes, 2021 The Alameda, Suite 275, San Jose, explained the request presented by Mr. Reznick's request to allow the expansion ofthe Designated Development Areas for Lots I and 3. He stated that the lots are limited in area and this additional space would give future owners an option, for example, to put in a garage. He noted that the neighboring house is approximately 300 feet away. The additional five feet would not affect the line of sight and would not create any more impacts to the slopes or the forest. He added that Lot 1 already has an existing three- foot vertical cut that is used as a fire-break. In response to Commissioner O'Connor's inquiry on whether this would require cutting the pad further, Mr. Basile replied that some grading would have to be done. He added that no grading for any building would be done outside the Designated Development Area except for landscaping, which would be minor, or to create a fire protection area. Commissioner Blank expressed concern regarding waiving the condition because he would not want to confine the future owners to building a garage in the additional space, especially since no specific house design has been approved for the site. Mr. Basile replied that the garage was just one option; the intent is to give the future owners the additional building area and the freedom to use it in whatever way they may desire. Commissioner Fox indicated that she did not have a problem with granting the additional space. Mary Roberts, 1666 Frog Hill Lane, noted that page 23 ofthe Vineyard Avenue Corridor Specific Plan indicates that design guidelines are there to assist developers in the preparation of their plans and are intended to be flexible so they do not need to be applied in cases where the City determines that that the implementation of a superior design solution can be achieved. She stated that flexibility did not mean the ability to move lots from the top ofthe property to the bottom or relocating the EVA. She added that allowing building to occur only within the designated development area is superior mitigation, whether the houses be one story or two stories, 25 feet or 27 feet high. She encouraged the Commission to make the superior findings for the project. With respect to the modification of Condition No.9 regarding the relocation of the EVA along the Roberts property and connecting to their driveway, Ms. Roberts noted that while this is not in any Tentative Map or any other existing map, it makes sense to put the EVA there. She DRAFT EXCERPTS: PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, May 24, 2006 Page 5 of9