15 ATTACHMENT 9 - Laserfiche WebLink

In response to an inquiry by Commissioner Fox regarding the definition of an estate lot, Ms. Decker replied that there was not an actual definition that had been incorporated. She noted that it was indicative of a larger lot with a larger home that was associated with it. Mary Roberts, 1666 Frog Hill Lane, thanked staff for compiling the historical documentation of this project, which she believed was extremely important. She believed this iteration was better than the first one, but she did not support the second iteration. She believed this property was constrained from the very beginning and added that the Sarich property sold for half of what the Reznick property sold for. She noted that the 2003 staff report written by Heidi Kline stated that it did not conform to the Specific Plan; the 2005 staff report reflected that opinion as well. She noted that the staff report had since changed, stating that the Sariches had the right to keep the house rather than demolish it. She agreed that the applicants had the right to keep the house, but she did not believe they had the right to chop off the top of the hill. She believed the house design was controlling the property, not the reverse; she did not believe this design was an environmental superior solution. She noted that Page 16 of the land use section of the Specific Plan stated, "preserve the major ridgeline in the southern plan area." She opposed moving the house to that area as well as removing the top of the hill. Mr. Pico believed that the comparison of house prices was not relevant to this discussion and noted that the Reznick property had one hillside residential lot. He added that Mr. Sarich also had six low-density residential houses at the bottom of the hill. John McGinnis wished to respond to Ms. Roberts' comments and noted that the original house was 13,000 square feet, rather than 16,000 square feet. He emphasized that he had designed the house with the present site in mind; he believed the current site was a superior site. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. At Commissioner Olson's request, Ms. Decker defined the "blob" as stated in Lynn Tracy Nerland's memo; she displayed the changes to the site on the overhead screen. Acting Chairperson Fox wished to address each question and take a straw vote on each: Whether the Specific Plan means build at the blob, or whether there was flexibility with respect to interpretation of the Specific Plan. Commissioner Pearce was comfortable with having some flexibility with the blob, given the Commission's actions with Mr. Reznick's property. She did not believe the Specific Plan should be changed every time the blob was moved. She believed the blob should conform to the intent of the Specific Plan, which discussed "preserving natural features of ridgelines, hilltops, oak woodland creeks and steep slopes." She believed that if the blob could conform to that intent, she would support it. Commissioner Blank noted that he had changed his mind on this item and noted that when he visited the property, he had misidentified the property line. He believed the blob was a general concept piece with some flexibility built into it and that moving it with some flexibility was appropriate. EXCERPTS: PLAI~TNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES, October 25, 2006 Page 3 of 6