PC 092805 - Laserfiche WebLink

Mr. MacDonald noted that the SpcciFe Ylati spccilically included provisions for llaxibi hty_ Ha noted that the residential development standards stated that "Minor variations nay be permitted subject to the YUD development plan approval process where necessary to the physical site conditions." He noted that if the Sarichcs give up ilzeir existing residence to build the proposed 14,510-square-£oot house, they will be giving up one potential lot_ He noted that was not what they expected. The applicants did not realize that the property line stopped at the edge o£the garage, and he did not believe the City could legally require the Sariches to give up their existing residence, garage, and barn under the Specitic 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 ~r~inimwr~ lot size 0£40,000 square feet, he. added that there was not 40,000 square feet there. "fhe 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-£oot house could be built there, but that was not the intent He believed it was unreasonable to ask the Sariches to remove ati 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 approxitriately 18,000 square feet; the barn and garage were located adjacent to it and located within the 20-foot setback. Ile suggested enlarging the pad by rno ving 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 soy whether that would be included in the building height, Ms_ Ncrland replied that sta££would he 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 ansuad_ THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSFD_ Chairperson Maas believed the trio st pressing issues ware the location siting, the architecture, and the visual impacts. She believed the asterisk is positioned where the existing houses is located acid that the proposed residence should be located wham the existing garage is_ Con-imissioncr Blarilc noted that he visited the property that afternoon and that he would likes soma legal guidances regarding the n~aaning o£tha dot. 1£it warn 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 poor review comments that the photo montages and drawings ware not accurate and that he purposely did not read the report until otter he visited the site_ PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES September 28, 2005 Page 9 of 14