15 ATTACHMENT 6 - Laserfiche WebLink

PUD-32, Daniel and Belinda Sarich Application for Planned Unit Development (PUD) development plan approval to subdivide an approximately 20-acre site into two single-family residential lots: (1) an approximately one-acre parcel which would include the existing residence and a new detached two-car garage; and (2) an approximately 19-acre parcel which would include: (a) an approximately 9,990-square-foot, two-story home with a 3,150-square-foot habitable basement with second unit; (b) a 1,785-square-foot five-car attached garage; (c) a 660-square-foot cabana; (d) a 165-square-foot pool bathroom; (e) and a 165-square-foot greenhouse would be located on the one-acre lot. The property is located at 5 Tuscany Place (formerly 1630 Vineyard Avenue), in the Vineyard Avenue Corridor Specific Plan Area, and is zoned PUD-LDR/HR/OS (Planned Unit Development -Low Density ResidentiaVHillside ResidentiaVOpen Space) District. Mr. Otto presented the staff report and detailed the background, scope, and layout of the proposed project, including the improvements. Commissioner Pearce noted that at the last two workshops, staff had detailed why it believed the plan did not conform to the Specific Plan. With the exception of the more muted colors, she inquired how staff felt that had materially changed to modify its recommendation with respect to conformity to the Specific Plan. Mr. Otto replied that the applicants modified the grading to help screen the house. In addition, the applicants had reduced the first- and second-floor area and place a significant portion of the home in the basement area to minimize the visual massing of the house. The landscape plan had been modified which would provide additional screening for the home. He believed those changes enabled staff to support he proposal of the house and met the intent of the Specific Plan. Commissioner Blank posed several questions regarding the Green Building checklist on Exhibit A, to which Mr. Otto provided answers. He clarified that the conditions of approval require the applicant to comply with this checklist as part of Exhibit A. In regard to Mr. Reedy's concern regarding the easement at the bottom of the road, Commissioner Olson inquired why the bottom of the road accessing the property cuts the corner of the adjacent property instead of turning at a 90-degree angle so the exit is on the subject property itself. Mr. Otto explained that when the Heinz property was being proposed for development, the appropriate access point to the Sarich property was determined opposite Safreno Way so there would be no conflicts with cars and pedestrians with respect to the future trail. He added that when the neighboring project was approved, it included the easement at the corner with the proposed road located at the easement. Chairperson Fox noted that on page 19 of the September 28, 2005 staff report, it is stated that there was "general consensus that the Tuscan farmhouse/villa architectural style of the house was acceptable." She noted that on page 18 of the Minutes and transcript of that Planning Commission meeting at which Commissioner Roberts recused herself and Commissioner Arkin was absent, leaving Commissioners Maas, Fox, Pearce, and Blank, it reflected Chairperson Maas' disagreement regarding the Tuscan architecture and that she felt it was out of place; on EXCERPTS: PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, November 14, 2007 Page 1 of 19