PC 102506 - Laserfiche WebLink

be considered by staff and the Commission in the same kind of specific detail as this application. Mr. McGinnis noted that they had created interiors that were authentic to Italian villas and noted that he has collected over 2,000 books on European azchitecture. Greg Remick, 1680 Vineyazd Avenue, wished to discuss the Specific Plan, which he believed was well thought-out and respected the area. He noted that not every spot on the property was large enough for a house or a big house. He noted that he considered building a big house on his property and assumed that he would have to use several of the "blobs" on his property. He was unsure whether the Specific Plan guaranteed an estate home in each case, except that the lots themselves had to be lazge, as opposed to the building itself. Another expectation that he believed was established in the Specific Plan was the question of where the open space was, particularly the water tank. He noted that this project really involved the removal of a hill that was in the plan as open space. He believed this siting violated the intent of the Specific Plan with regazd to the fundamental characteristics of the topography and chazacter of the Vineyard Avenue Corridor. Therefore, the blob locations had moved to other sites that were environmentally superior. In response to an inquiry by Commissioner Fox regazding 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 lazger lot with a lazger home that was associated with it. Mazy 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 Sazich property sold for half of what the Remick 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 Remick property had one hillside residential lot. He added that Mr. Sazich also had six low-density residential houses at the bottom of the hill. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES October 25, 2006 Page 15 of 21