15 ATTACHMENT 9 - Laserfiche WebLink

residence, garage, and barn under the Specific Plan, in order to build an additional new residence. He noted that Table 4-2 and the Standards for Hillside Residential (p. 25) mention a minimum lot size of 40,000 square feet; he added that there was not 40,000 square feet there. The architect had examined whether it was feasible to build a site where the dot was and still keep the existing residence in place. He believed that a 2,700-square-foot house could be built there, but that was not the intent. He believed it was unreasonable to ask the Sariches to remove an existing residence and to give up an existing hillside residential property right because the dot was inserted slightly off. Tom Pico noted that he had shown the existing one-story 2,885-square-foot residence that sat on a pad that was approximately 18,000 square feet; the barn and garage were located adjacent to it and located within the 20-foot setback. He suggested enlarging the pad by moving a retaining wall. In response to an inquiry by Commissioner Fox whether the cupola was also defined as a turret in the Municipal Code and, if so, whether that would be included in the building height, Ms. Nerland replied that staff would be able to provide that information at a later date. Mr. MacDonald noted that the photo montages were high-quality, accurate montages. A discussion of the photo montages and the peer reviewer ensued. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Chairperson Maas believed the most pressing issues were the location siting, the architecture, and the visual impacts. She believed the asterisk is positioned where the existing house is located and that the proposed residence should be located where the existing garage is. Commissioner Blank noted that he visited the property that afternoon and that he would like some legal guidance regarding the meaning of the dot. If it were to be discovered that the dot was not meaningful and that it was just a general indication, he could be more accommodating to a variation in the site location. He noted that he was shocked by the peer review comments that the photo montages and drawings were not accurate and that he purposely did not read the report until after he visited the site. Chairperson Maas noted that she did not like the placement of the house on top of the hill and believed the architecture was out of place there. She stated that the house had been designed for a flat pad which is not available on the proposed site except at the location of the existing house. Commissioner Fox did not believe the dot meant the existing garage would be demolished in order to build the new residential unit; she believed it was similar to the dots on the North Sycamore Specific Plan, with respect to the alignment of the trail. She could support the house being built higher on the hill and that it would not be feasible to build in the garage space. She noted that the barbed wire for the property line was located at the back of the building. She could not fathom placing a residence there, and that the dot's location was not meant to be the exact location. However, she believed that because the elevation exceeded 540 feet, the residence should be limited to 25 feet in height, however that is calculated via the Municipal Code, and be one story. She believed that from the architectural perspective, the visual prominence should be minimized; she did not see that occurring at this point. The architecture EXCERPTS: PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES, September 28, 2005 Page 5 of 6