Laserfiche WebLink
<br />ATTACHMENT 5 <br /> <br />. PUD-99-14, Kazuo Hatsushi <br />Application for PUD development plan approval of a new development consisting of <br />13 new and one existing single-family homes on an approximately IS-acre site located at <br />2756,2770, and 2798 Vineyard Avenue, in the Vineyard Avenue Corridor Specific Plan <br />Area. Zoning for the property is PUD-LDR and OS (Planned Unit Development - Low <br />Density Residential and Open Space) District. <br /> <br />Chairperson Arkin advised that he would recuse himself because he had received a campaign <br />contribution from a neighbor of the applicant, who has a financial interest in this project. <br /> <br />Commissioner Fox would act as Chairperson for this item. <br /> <br />Mr. Pavan summarized the staff report and described the background and scope of the project. <br />Considerable neighborhood comments had been made about building heights and Emergency <br />Vehicle Access (EVA). To facilitate the construction of Clara Lane, staff, the applicant, and <br />Mr. Michael Aminian had met to secure the early dedication ofthe right-of-way to the City per <br />the Specific Plan and the approved PUD Development Plan for Clara Lane and to construct it <br />with the first phase ofthis project. Once Clara Lane is extended to Road A, the EVA reverts to <br />use for emergency vehicles only. Staff anticipates having more detail for the Planning <br />Commission with respect to the Tentative Map Subdivision. The impacts of building heights <br />would be addressed by the neighbors. A maximum height of 25 feet would be conditioned, as <br />reflected in the Specific Plan; setbacks were also addressed by the Specific Plan. Accessory <br />structures would have a maximum height of 15 feet, more restrictive than detailed in the Specific <br />Plan. Staffbe!ieved the guidelines had progressed, but a condition was added with more detail to <br />further refine the guidelines. View analyses of the individual houses would be done with each <br />house application. Approved or proposed surrounding houses would also be included in the <br />view analyses. <br /> <br />Staff believed the project reflects the directions provided by the Planning Commission and meets <br />the applicable standards ofthe Specific Plan. Staff recommended the Commission make the <br />PUD findings as listed in the staff report and recommend approval of this project; the two <br />additional conditions would be included regarding the EVA setback and the view analyses. <br /> <br />Commissioner Fox disclosed that she had met with the applicant before the application's first <br />appearance before the Commission. <br /> <br />Commissioners Pearce and Roberts disclosed that they had also met with the applicant before the <br />first Planning Commission appearance. <br /> <br />THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED. <br /> <br />Mori Hatsushi, applicant, 80 S. Buchanan Circle, Pacheco, thanked the Commissioners for their <br />input and looked forward to fulfilling his father's dream. <br /> <br />EXCERPTS: PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES, April 26, 2006 <br /> <br />Page I of5 <br />