PC 041316 - Laserfiche WebLink

the split pad that was supposed to blend this into the hillside. Actually bring the 470 foot pad up and bringing it forward does not blend into the hillside. It actually makes it steeper, makes it more sphered and more impactful to me. I don't think it blocks the view other than having a sheer cliff behind me. It doesn't block the view of the home especially if we continue with the landscaping. So 36 feet, again, it's not a couple of feet. It nearly doubles what's allowed in this area. It's contrary to the purpose of this pad and it's not necessitated by the building. Mr. Berlogar could have designed around the building. If you could flip— again, this just shows at the other angle that's coming right on me. Could you flip to the last view? And this is my living room, my kitchen, my dining room. This development is severe in my backyard and bringing it 36 feet forward is unnecessary. Its magnitude is severe and it immediately impacts me more than anybody else so I don't think it's necessary for this development. Chair Ritter: Thank you for your comments. The next speaker is Adam Gardner, Architect. Adam Gardner, Architect: I just wanted to touch on a couple of points that Frank mentioned and then clarify a couple of things that were brought up. It's not so much a grading issue as was just discussed. It is more of a visual issue it sounds like. Granted we are asking for additional grading which is allowable within this development at the discretion of the Board and Planning. So what we're proposing is extending a portion of the buildable area through additional grading and a secured system of walls. We're actually allowed up to five -foot retaining walls and we're asking for a staggered two- and three -foot wall system with a slope bank between. It wasn't really strongly discussed tonight, but there will be a very robust landscape plan, conditional Live Oak trees, Myrtle trees and a transitional planting palette that will effectively screen these walls. The walls will also be required to be faced in stone so they are attractive walls too which complement the house. We did the calculation and depending on where you measure, but from the property line of the nearest neighbor to the center of the auto court as proposed which is 25 feet from the front of the garage, is 270 feet, so the garage is an additional 25 feet or 295 feet to the property line of the adjacent closest neighbor. An additional 20 feet from what we are requesting, staff is requesting a 20 -foot reduction of this auto court. 20 feet or a 300 -foot distance is less than 10 percent so it's really a nominal change from a visual aspect. The sight line is not affected, the walls are screened, they are planted and they are also attractive walls. The other thing that we have to stress that the client brought up is staff's contention that we only need 25 feet to make this work. The fact that that requires every car to be in the garage at all times in case a guest comes up is not reasonable or practical on a hillside lot like this, particularly with a long driveway. 16 feet is really not adequate for off - street parking. There is potential for blockage, particularly if there's a fire or something like that. There's a fire truck turnaround at the end of Lot 2 that needs to be clear and maintained at all times. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, April 13, 2016 Page 16 of 33