15 ATTACHMENT 9 - Laserfiche WebLink

Ms. Roberts stated that the siting and land use objectives were as follows: "... preserve the major ridgeline in the southern plan area, limit development of hilltop areas to homes that can be substantially screened, and accommodate it without disrupting the natural character of the site." Staff stated: "A portion of the existing ridgeline would not be preserved, as it would be cut up to 40 feet deep to construct a large flat pad for the residence. Even if large numbers of evergreen trees were planted around the residence and accessory structures, it would take many years to substantially screen the residence." She noted that she and her husband were appalled when they saw the photo montage. She noted that Steve Otto had taken a picture of the hill, which was extremely steep with a lot of trees; even if the trees were not to be removed, they would be damaged. She noted that on November 20, 2003, when the applicants submitted the plan, Heidi Kline (the project planner of this application at the time) commented that "the location of the new hillside residential lots do not comply with that identified in the Vineyard Corridor Specific Plan land use map that shows the additional lot to be located on the flat bench area, where the existing garage structure is located. The proposed flat-pad grading of the top knoll area is not consistent with the intent or the requirements of the Vineyard Corridor Specific Plan, `grading for buildings, driveways, outdoor use areas, etc. should be compatible with existing topography, and minimized to preserve the natural site topography.' Therefore, rather than create a flat pad at the top of the site by grading the knoll, the house should be constructed in the previously graded flat area, where the existing garage is located," which she believed was the original reason the additional home site was approved for this location. Ms. Roberts noted that when the Vineyard Avenue Corridor Specific Plan was approved in 1999, the previous owner of the applicants' property lobbied extensively before the Planning Commission and the City Council to fit more lots on that property. The applicant also wanted medium-density residential below as well as lots all over the back of the hill. She noted that the March 23, 1999 staff report to the Planning Commission stated that "housing was not proposed by staff in the southwest corner of Lot 27 because of its steep terrain, valuable wildlife habitat characteristics, excessive distance from Vineyard Avenue, and difficulty in achieving vehicular access without significant impacting an existing riparian habitat for approximately 1200 feet in length." She noted that after the applicant spoke before City Council in March 1999, the Specific Plan was not changed, nothing was added, and no lots were moved around. She recalled That Tom Pico was on the City Council at that time. She pointed out the slope map and noted that a significant portion of the lot exceeded a 20 percent slope. She noted that this particular house had a grand entrance and that it did not fit appropriately into the surrounding hills. She believed the house should be redesigned and relocated to a more appropriate place on the site. She noted that it could be stepped into the hill. She believed the architecture was too ornate for the top of a hill and suggested that the structure be placed on the flat bench area where the existing house and garage are located. She was very concerned with this design and siting and added that the property was purchased after the adoption of the Vineyard Corridor Specific Plan, so the owners had notice of the restrictions. Mr. MacDonald noted that the Specific Plan specifically included provisions for flexibility. He noted that the residential development standards stated that "Minor variations may be permitted subject to the PUD development plan approval process where necessary to the physical site conditions." He noted that if the Sariches give up their existing residence to build the proposed 14,510-square-foot house, they will be giving up one potential lot. He noted that was not what they expected. The applicants did not realize that the property line stopped at the edge of the garage, and he did not believe the City could legally require the Sariches to give up their existing EXCERPTS: PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES, September 28, 2005 Page 4 of 6