PC 111407 - Laserfiche WebLink

of a number of issues. She disagreed with Mr. Pico that this project was compatible with the land use objectives in the Specific Plan. She noted that the Specific Plan provides that development be limited to areas that can physically and visually accommodate it without disrupting the natural character of the site. She believed that removing 40 feet off the top of the hill would disrupt the natural character of the site. She believed that the design of the house was graceful and European, but it did not emphasize the rural character and is not characteristic of the area. Ms. Roberts noted that with respect to Subarea 3 where the Sarich property is located, the Specific Plan states that “the large majority of land within this area is to be preserved as permanent open space.” She noted that while open space was discussed in this application, it did not discuss the permanent preservation of the hilltop. She stated that the hilltop was to be open space, and people have made plans around the assumption that no house would be built on top of the hill. She noted that the former owner had wanted 17 houses on the hillside, and Wayne Rasmussen allowed one hillside residential lot. Ms. Roberts expressed concern with the lot position. She noted that the house design did not fit with the land and that the land was being made to fit the house rather than the other way around. She added that the size and the height of the building did not conform to the Specific Plan. She noted that the Commission had discussed this with the Reznick proposal, who wanted two-story houses above the 570-foot elevation that they would tuck in, and the Commission allowed no more than 27 feet high and only 20 percent of the first floor. She stated that the Sarich home is much large than this, and much bigger than the Oak Grove development houses, where the size and number of the houses were balanced by an amenity of 497 acres of open space. She added that there is no amenity provided in the Sarich project and that if she and Mr. Berlogar developed, they would provide a trail. Ms. Roberts also expressed concern about the subdivision of the site and was unsure whether it met the intent of the Specific Plan. She noted that the subdivision is intended to go along with financial plan, that “the original parcel shares are due at subdivision of the first map, creating a new buildable site.” She noted that the Council never amended this item, and several developments that have gone in, including the Berlogar development, which had approval for nine low-density lots, had to come up with the money for his five hillside residential lots. The Specific Plan fees for 198 units are supposed to be paid to fit all the financial obligations in the Specific Plan. Ms. Roberts expressed other concerns that were not related to the Specific Plan. She noted that the Specific Plan is silent about shared wells. She indicated that there are only two wells left in the area and added that shared wells were not set up for new development. Ms Roberts cited an article in the April 9, 2007 Time magazine which noted that one way to prevent or slow down global warming is to “ditch the mansion.” The article continued that “oversized houses aren’t just architecturally offensive. They also generally require more energy to heat and cool than smaller ones even with efficient appliances. And in the US, bigger houses are becoming the norm, even though a relatively inefficient small house consumes less energy than a greener large house and uses fewer building materials which expand the carbon footprint.” PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, November 14, 2007 Page 23 of 34