15 ATTACHMENT 9 - Laserfiche WebLink

Vineyard Avenue and to work with the Fire Department to see if the old road could be used, using a 20-foot right-of--way. Since then, RJA Associates, the civil engineers, have worked with the Fire Department, and the access off Vineyard has been changed. Mr. McInnes noted that the owner did not want to drive into their home at the garage level, then go up to their house. Both Planning and the owners had agreed that would not be a good solution. The objective was to reduce the overall view impact from below, so the pad was cut, the house was moved back, and more trees were added. As a result of the cut, the majority of that cut material will be placed below. He believed that they worked with staff and the owner to design a house that could be screened. Greg Reznick, 1680 Vineyard Avenue noted that his property was located across the ravine from the planned project and that it would be heavily impacted by it. He believed that this proposal violated both the letter and the spirit of the Specific Plan, especially the removal of the 40-foot knoll, which would permanently change the feeling of open space. He did not believe there was any ambiguity in the Specific Plan regarding the height and number of stories in this elevation; he believed this proposal violated those restrictions. He believed the overall design did not adapt itself to the overall geography and character of this area. He would like to see this proposal changed to conform more closely to the Specific Plan. Mr. Reznick also mentioned that he was having architects and engineers look at a development for his property and that they have already told him that the Specific Plan constraints will limit his development potential. He had replied to follow the constraints in the Specific Plan, but if this project were approved, then he would look at his project differently. He described his interest in how the Planning Commission would provide direction with respect to location and height for this proposal because allowing it allowed greater flexibility may enhance the height increase on his own project as well as provide more opportunities in grading and siting the home sites. Mary Roberts, 1666 Frog Hill Lane (formerly 1666 Vineyard Avenue), spoke in opposition to this item and noted that all but the last staff report did not support this project and supported the restrictions in the Vineyard Corridor Specific Plan regarding this matter. She noted that the staff report changed considerably between the continuance on August 24, 2005 and this meeting. She understood why the applicants were concerned about the staff reports, which previously had not supported this proposed project. There were statements, since removed, that the "applicants have presented much the same design since the preliminary review process was begun in 2002. This proposal would require a Specific Plan Amendment that would not be site-specific, but rather be the direction from this point forward for all proposals." She pointed out her Vineyard Avenue property on the overhead screen. She had contacted Wayne Rasmussen, who was primarily responsible for this Specific Plan, who agreed with her that the sites were chosen as the best environmental option and required the least amount of grading and tree removal. She cited the June 8, 2005 staff report which stated: "All home sites must be located within the designated development areas as generally depicted on the land use plan. Lot lines may extend into land designated as open space, but primary residential buildings and residential accessories may only be sited within the designated development areas. The rest (where the house would be sited] is open space." EXCERPTS: PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES, September 28, 2005 Page 3 of 6