15 ATTACHMENT 6 - Laserfiche WebLink

the applicants to circumvent the Specific Plan, that the house is inappropriate for location and was in violation of the Specific Plan, requiring the removal of an entire hill to the great detriment of the surrounding area and property owners. He stated that the Sariches need to understand the constraints and that these would be enforced. He believed that the property should be developed in conformance to the Specific Plan and requested the Commission to insist on the consistency as it did with his project. Steve Brozosky was concerned that the packet became available to the public on a Friday afternoon before athree-day weekend and that the packet did not contain the photomontages, copies of the plan, current grading, IPM report, open space management/fire protection plan, landscaping, and green building checklist. He believed that made it difficult for the public to get a real view of the entire project. He noted that Wayne Rasmussen was one of the original architects of the Vineyard Avenue Corridor Specific Plan. Mr. Brozosky added that from the community, it would be Mary Roberts and himself who were extremely familiar with the Specific Plan and EIR. He noted that the Specific Plan broke down the residential components into different categories and provided spots in the Plan with respect to where the houses would go, the Vineyard Districts, and open space, and how they all co-exist. Mr. Brozosky did not believe that Land Use Objective No. 7 had been met with respect to preserving the major ridgeline in southern plan area, limiting development of hilltop areas to homes that could be substantially screened from offsite areas, and limiting hillside development to areas that can physically and visually accommodate it without disrupting the natural character of the site. He did not believe that the plan met the criteria of Land Use Objective No. 8 to "ensure that future development of the hilly areas located south of Vineyard Avenue is designed to emphasize the rural character through a careful siting of buildings, and minimal disruption to the physical terrain, and sensitive architectural and landscape treatments." With regard to the physical planning concept, the Specific Plan provides that residential development in Subarea 3 is to be sited to preserve the significant natural features, major ridgelines, hilltop areas, woodland and riparian areas, with cluster of homes reflecting the rural character and natural features of the lolly terrain. He noted that the proposed house is not rural in character and does not complement what is already existing in the area. He added that the Rural Density District design guidelines state that house designs should be limited to architectural styles and forms adjusted to conform to the natural character of site, emphasize blending of building into natural surroundings, and limiting primary buildings on existing elevations exceeding 540 feet to 25 feet in height and one story. Mr. Brozosky agreed that this was a beautiful home but believed that it was more of a 15,000-square-foot palace and did not have rural character and was not appropriate as a hillside residential home. He noted that the applicant's earlier statement indicated that an estate home cannot fit on the lower portion is true because an estate home should not be built in the area ad there is no mention of estate homes in the design guidelines. He noted that page 19 of the Specific Plan lays out the different types of residential areas, including estate homes on the 66 acres of vineyards, not on the hillsides. He added that page 31 of the Specific Plan prohibits entries exceeding 1'/2 stories, and the entryway of the proposed home is more than 1'/z stories. He noted that environmental issues were numerous and believed that the removal of 67 trees was excessive for a single house, to which Mr. Otto noted that the number included the removal of trees required for the road construction. EXCERPTS: PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, November 14, 2007 Page 12 of 19