PC 052406 - Laserfiche WebLink

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 of the Designated Development Areas for Lots 1 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 afire-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 azea. Commissioner Blank expressed concern regarding waiving the condition because he would not want to confine the future owners to building a gazage in the additional space, especially since no specific house design has been approved for the site. Mr. Basile replied that the gazage was just one option; the intent is to give the future owners the additional building azea 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 of the Vineyard Avenue Corridor Specific Plan indicates that design guidelines aze there to assist developers in the prepazation 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 of the property to the bottom or relocating the EVA. She added that allowing building to occur only within the designated development azea 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 fmdings 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 indicated that she would like to see the exact location of the EVA and the utility easement on the Tentative Map and have the right to approve their location. She requested that language be added giving the Roberts the right to approve the location that would be dependent upon any tree removal and relocation of water and power lines. She added that they are working with Mr. Remick with respect to a lot line adjustment that would need to be done at Final Map and that should any real problems arise, they would work it out at that point. Ms. Roberts then informed the Commission that the property next to the proposed Neal ~-. Elementary School is owned by the Lin family. She stated that the property has a PUD PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, May 24, 2006 Page 15 of 34