15 ATTACHMENT 9 - Laserfiche WebLink

is not the development envelope, and it was never intended to be such. The little round star, or the dot that has the asterisk shows the existing location. The existing house was never intended to actually encompass the limits of that particular property. The General Plan, or the Specific Plan, clearly indicates that the location should be as generally depicted. And we believe that the site that has been chosen by the Sariches is within those guidelines. We also feel very strongly that the site that is the actual dot with the number one, which would mean the elimination of the existing garage facility, is in a site that is not conducive to development. It's right against the property line. We have exhibits that would indicate that if we put a 20-foot setback from the property line and tore down the garage and tried to build a house, the biggest house we could build there on a 40,000-square-foot lot would be a 2,700-square-foot house, and that's just not what everybody intended. We have 19 of these hillside residential lots that we spread out- throughout this Plan. And they were meant to be real estate-type homes. They're not intended to be 2,000- or 3,000-square-foot houses -you would not do that on a minimum 40,000- square-foot lot, which is what the hillside residential development plan standards call for. Tonight, we really are looking for direction from you in two specific areas. The first issue is if the location that has been chosen at the top of this knoll acceptable. Is it generally close enough to the:dot on the map to qualify as an acceptable site that we should continue to proceed the planning for? .. The second issue that we need to' look at is the nature and type of structure that we are .. going to put there. And part of the problem I think we have is that there are some conflicting guidelines, unfortunately, in thus Vineyard Corridor Specific.Plan. There. is _ _ ~ ~ :. '. Table 4-2 in the Specific Plan-that talks about building aone-story limited height flat=pad structure at this elevation. And: then in the original report, we had a comment from staff that aflat-planned home would not be consistent with the guideline, that the building form should conform to the site topography by stepping buildings up or down hillsides instead of designing flatland homes for hillside settings. Clearly, we have a situation where we have some conflicting type guidelines. The Sariches are extremely flexible in this area. They have looked at flat pads; they-have looked at stepped-up houses. We have looked at a flatland home and actually have a proposed flatland home design for you. The property as graded and as developed would have the top of the house probably 10 or 20 feet below the existing height of the ridge, so it would actually be lower than the existing ridge itself. The house as designed is a two-story house, but this two-story house has been designed to have a very low profile, lots of articulation, and the architect will talk about that. But the height limit in the Specific Plan talks about a 25-foot height limit for asingle-family home, and talks about a 30-foot height limit step-pad for another type of home. This particular house, with the exception of the cupola, which occupies just a very small portion of the house, is about 28 feet tall, and we feel that that is consistent with the flexibility of the guidelines to allow minor variations. We believe that this house would 5