15 ATTACHMENT 6 - Laserfiche WebLink

THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Chairperson Fox noted that in a November 20, 2003 memo, Attachment 6, staff project comments were sent to the applicant. She stated that when this application was first submitted, Mary Roberts had expressed concern that the grading of the top knoll was not consistent with the intent or the requirements of the Vineyard Avenue Corridor Specific Plan. She noted that the memo stated that dark, earth-tone colors were to be used and that the design guidelines for Hillside Residential District homes provided that homes were to be traditional style and have a form adjusted to the natural character of the site. It was recommended that the home be re-designed to conform to the Vineyard Avenue Corridor Specific Plan. Chairperson Fox inquired who wrote the memo; Mr. Otto replied that the staff planner at that time was Heidi Kline, and he assumed that she had the involvement of either Brian Swift or Jerry Iserson in writing the memo. Chairperson Fox continued that the memo talks about the "purpose of this designation, Hillside Residential, is to allow the clustering of homes in well-defined areas of hills in order to preserve significant natural features such as rdgelines, hilltops, oak woodland, creeks, and steep slopes" She inquired why staff's recommendation had changed from its original recommendation four years ago when the house has not changed all that much. Mr. Otto replied that Commissioner Pearce had asked the same question earlier, and he had responded that the project has changed from the time of original submittal to the City as far as the placement of additional square footage of the home in the basement as well as additional reduction of the square footage of home; the grading had also been changed. He indicated that there were changes made to the project that allowed staff to re-evaluate and now support it. Commissioner Narum noted that the accessory structures to be done in the future for both lots seemed like a lot and inquired if this was normal. Ms. Decker clarified that the PUD process allows staff to look at requests for accessory structures and determine if they are reasonable. She stated that the 19-acre estate lot has been defined by the development area rather than the actual parcel or FAR. She noted that the request is reasonable as far as desiring to add accessory structures. She pointed out that Golden Eagle and Oak Tree Farm homeowners have requested to put large accessory structures such as fire pits, entertainment areas, trellises, arbors, and patios. With regard to the one-acre lot, the proposed accessory structures are not atypical; there are smaller homes citywide that have made the same or greater requests as part of the PUD process. Staff's recommendation is that accessory structures be considered by the Zoning Administrator rather than the Planning Commission; the action would then be brought before the Commission, who can appeal the decision if desired. Additionally, a longer appeal period of 20-days could be required, as in the Mariposa Ranch homes. Commissioner Blank pointed out the condition prohibiting sports courts and inquired whether there was language regarding accessory structures in the front of the future houses. Ms. Decker noted that the front of the home in this case was along the private drive. Ms. Decker noted that with respect to the Sariches' responsibility for the payment of fees, Condition No. 18 states: "Prior to the recordation of the final parcel snap, the applicant shall pay the applicable Vineyard Avenue Corridor Specific Plan fees for the development as specified by the Plan Infrastructure Financing Program." She clarified that they would be obligated to pay all of the fees for all of the lots, whether or not they are developing those lots. EXCERPTS: PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, November 14, 2007 Page 15 of 19