15 ATTACHMENT 6 - Laserfiche WebLink

between two-foot wide walls, different shaped roofs and different materials. She further expressed concern about the use of the existing house as an accessory structure, which also enlarges footprint. She noted that this is a PUD with a right to build and was concerned that someone could eventually purchase that lot and build an enormous house that would stretch out over the building pad. She expressed concern about the driveway and retaining walls and that a large number of trees than necessary are being taken out. She noted that she proposed that the driveway go up another way or be located on the other side to take up less land, and she felt that the only reason for not doing that is because the applicants would not have a grand entrance. She stated that she had requested the addition of other conditions, and some of them had been included. She indicated that she did not want her property to be used for access during construction. Ms. Roberts expressed her concern about how staff has changed its recommendation with regard to the project's conformity to the Specific Plan, when in 2003, staff comments were quite negative. She concluded that she did not believe the finding that this application is consistent with the intent of the Specific Plan can be made because of land use issues, lot position, subdivision, and the enormity of house have to be dealt with. She indicated that the project may have to be continued to find answers to all these questions. Greg Remick spoke in opposition to this project and noted that the commluuty's commitment to planning contributed to the City's quality and character. He believed the City took the time and effort to develop a Vineyard Avenue Corridor Specific Plan that was thoughtful and comprehensive. The residents of Pleasanton in general, the property owners, and the planner have come to rely on this Plan for a clear commitment to a specific vision for the development of the Vineyard Corridor. He stated that continued commitment to this plan is important to ensure a high quality outcome because property values have been established based on the confidence that the Plan would be followed. He indicated that the proposed PUD does not conform to the spirit or the letter of the Specific Plan. He noted that while the "blobs" appeared to be imprecise on paper, there was no ambiguity on the ground. He noted that the "blob" was on a flat spot that was big enough and suited to build a reasonably sized house without disturbing the topography or the oak forest. He stated that moving the house to the top of the knoll clearly violates the Specific Plan; it affects the subject property and other properties for which the Specific Plan promised an open space view because this PUD is an oversized and conspicuous development. Mr. Remick noted that the Sariches were aware of the Specific Plan when they purchased the property, and he believed that the suitability of the site should have influenced their purchase decision from the beginning. He added that since they bought the land, they have been going around the constraints of the Specific Plan, and they claim that the Specific Plan allows for two houses of any arbitrary size, with an entitlement to move to any area in the property to accommodate their house. He noted that the adjacent property owners are likewise entitled to the benefits promised by the Specific Plan of an tuispoiled view of the hills to the east. He felt that changing the rules is unfair. Mr. Remick stated that project development in the Vineyard Corridor should honor the open space that is treasured by all. He did not believe this project was suitable for the site and, at 35 feet tall and two stories, was too tall and had too many stories. He believed that the PUD was an effort by EXCERPTS: PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, November 14, 2007 Page 11 of 19