SR 06:270 - Laserfiche WebLink

3, Introduce the draft ordinance approving Case No. PUD-OI-09M with the recommended conditions of approval listed in Exhibit A. SUMMARY: Staff and the Planning Commission have found that the proposed modification follows the intent of the original PUD and that it is consistent with the goals and policies of the City of Pleasant on General Plan, The proposed house design, as referenced in Attachment No.5, would conform to the Vineyard Avenue Corridor Specific Plan and the approved PUD Design Guidelines. East Bay Regional Park District staff, property owner to the north ofthe subject site, is in agreement with the proposed modification, Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council: BACKGROUND In 2001, the City Council approved a Planned Unit Development Plan (PUD-Ol) for Deleo Builders to subdivide two existing properties located at 2287 Vineyard Avenue and 2503 Vine- yard Avenue, respectively, into a total of thirty-eight residential lots. Six of those lots were lo- cated at 2503 Vineyard Avenue, formerly known as the McCurdy site. In March 2003, the City Council approved a PUD major modification to I) modify the lotting pattern at 2503 Vineyard Avenue, and 2) to create design guidelines for custom homes replacing the production homes building designs, The conditions of approval required that the design of the custom homes be submitted for the review and approval by the Planning Commission. Other modifications to PUD-Ol, except for PUD-OI-06M which involved access to Lot 6, are unrelated to the subject site and modify the remaining thirty-two lots located at 2287 Vineyard Avenue. The approval of PUD-O I incorporated the East Bay Regional Park District's (EBRPD) request that the Yolanda Court homes be limited as to the building height and window types to mini- mize the visual impacts from the Shadow Cliffs Regional Park. The restrictions included: . 23-foot building height . Second floor living areas limited to the building's attic space . Windows designed as dormers facing Yolanda Court The EBRPD reasoned that it did not want to have large homes towering over the scenic, passive, natural park setting which could be considered to be invasive to users of the site. SR:06:270 Page 2