PC 092805 - Laserfiche WebLink

a 20-foot right-of-way. Since then, RJA Associates the civil engineers, have worked with the Fire Department, and the access off Vineyard has been changed. Mr_ McInnes noted that the owner did not waist to drive into their home at the garage level, then go up to their house. Both Planning and the owners had agreed that would not be a good solution. The. obj cctive was to [-educe the overall view impact from below, so the pad was cut, the house was moved back, and more trees were added_ As a result o£ the cut, the xn:ijority of that cut n-xatcrial will be placed below_ ILe believed that they worked with staff and the owner to design a house that could be screened. Greg Remick, 1680 Vineyard Avenue noted that his property was located across the ravine From the planned project and that it would be heavily impacted by it_ IIc believed that this proposal violated both the letter and the spirit o£the Specific Plan, especially the removal of the 40-foot knoll, which would permanently ctxaxige the feeling o£ open space_ He did nol believe there was any ambiguity in the Specific Plan regarding the height and number o£ stories in this elevation; he believed this proposal violated those restrictions" I Ic believed the overall design did not adapt itself to the overall geography and character of this area. He would like to see this proposal changed to con£o rn-x more closely to the Specific Plan. Mr. 12eznick also mentioned that he was having architects and engineers look. at a development for his property and that they have already told him that the Specific Ylan constraints will limit his development potential. He had replied to follow the constraints in the Specific Plan, but i£this project were approved, then he would look at his project ditferently_ He described his intcre st in how the Planning Con~xn~xission would provide direction with respect to location and height for this proposal because allowing it allowed greater flexibility may enhance the height increase on his own project as well as provide amore opportunities in grading and siting the home sites. Mary Roberts, 1666 Frog Hill Lane (formerly 1666 Vineyard Avenue), spoke in opposition to t]-xis item and noted that all but the last staff report did not support this project and supported the restrictions in the Vineyard Corridor Specific Plan regarding this matter. She noted that the staff report changed considerably between the continuance on August 24, 2005 acid this niecting_ She understood why the applicants were concerned about the staff reports, which previously had not supported this proposed proj cct_ There ware statements, since removed, that the "applicants have presented much the same design since the pretiminary review process was begun in 2002. "Phis proposal would require a Specific Plan An-xendment that would not he site-specific, but rather be the direction from this point forward for all proposals." She pointed. out her Vineyard Avenue property on the overhead screen. She had contacted Wayne Rasmussen, who was primarily responsible for this Specific Plan, who agreed with her that the sites were chosen as the best environmental option and required the least amount of grading and tree removal_ She cited the June 8, 2005 staff report which stated= "All home sites xmust be located within the designated development areas as generally depicted on the land use plan_ Lot lines xmay extend into land designated as open. space. but prixmary residential Y L,ANNING COMM1SS10N MINUTES September 28, 2005 Yage 7 of 14