PC 042606 - Laserfiche WebLink

A recess was called at 8:52 p.m. Commissioner Maas left the meeting at this point. Chairperson Arkin reconvened the meeting at 9:05 p.m. b. PUD-99-14. Kazuo Hatsushi Application for PUD development plan approval of a new development consisting of 13 new and one existing single-family homes on an approximately 15-acre site located at 2756, 2770, and 2798 Vineyard Avenue, in the Vineyard Avenue Corridor Specific Plan Area. Zoning for the property is PUD-LDR and OS (Planned Unit Development -Low Density Residential and Open Space) District. Chairperson Arkin advised that he would recuse himself because he had received a campaign contribution from a neighbor of the applicant, who has a financial interest in this project. Commissioner Fox would act as Chairperson for this item. Mr. Pavan summarized the staff report and described the background and scope of the project. Considerable neighborhood comments had been made about building heights and Emergency Vehicle Access (EVA). To facilitate the construction of Claza Lane, staff, the applicant, and Mr. Michael Aminian had met to secure the eazly dedication of the right-of--way to the City per the Specific Plan and the approved PUD Development Plan for Clara Lane and to construct it with the first phase of this project. Once Clara Lane is extended to Road A, the EVA reverts to use for emergency vehicles only. Staff anticipates having more detail for the Planning Commission with respect to the Tentative Map Subdivision. The impacts of building heights would be addressed by the neighbors. A maximum height of 25 feet would be conditioned, as reflected in the Specific Plan; setbacks were also addressed by the Specific Plan. Accessory structures would have a maximum height of 15 feet, more restrictive than detailed in the Specific Plan. Staff believed the guidelines had progressed, but a condition was added with more detail to further refine the guidelines. View analyses of the individual houses would be done with each house application. Approved or proposed surrounding houses would also be included in the view analyses. Staff believed the project reflects the directions provided by the Planning Commission and meets the applicable standazds of the Specific Plan. Staff recommended the Commission make the PUD findings as listed in the staff report and recommend approval of this project; the two additional conditions would be included regarding the EVA setback and the view analyses. Commissioner Fox disclosed that she had met with the applicant before the application's first appearance before the Commission. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Apri126, 2006 Page 12 of 22