15 ATTACHMENT 6 - Laserfiche WebLink

Commissioner Pearce noted that the applicants seemed like nice people and that the home was beautiful; she had been hopeful that the Commission's concerns had been addressed and that the plan would be substantially changed. Apart from muting the colors, which she appreciated, the plan appeared to have been minimally modified and not substantially changed. She was concerned that the topography was still being conformed to fit the house and not the other way around. She could not support this application as presented and believed that it did not conform to the Vineyard Avenue Corridor Specific Plan land use objectives. Specifically, it did not limit hillside development to areas that would physically and visually accommodate it without disrupting the natural character of the site. It does not emphasize the rural character of the area. She believed it would disrupt the physical terrain and did not conform to site topography. Commissioner Pearce moved to find that the proposed PUD development plan is not consistent with the General Plan and the Vineyard Avenue Corridor Specific Plan and to recommend denial of PUD-32. Chairperson Fox seconded the motion. Chairperson Fox noted that she did not want to see a structure silhouetted against the sky but would like to see it lowered so that the roofline would have been below the knoll rather than having the knoll removed, and the structure would have the top of knoll as its background rather than be sitting on top of knoll with the knoll graded. Commissioner Blank noted that he was torn on this project and the article in Time magazine notwithstanding, he appreciated the LEED points and believed they were significant in showing a good faith effort on the applicants' part. He noted that there had been numerous discussion in past about one and two stories. He noted that how it looks in the viewscapes were very important to him and that he leaned toward supporting the application with some changes in the conditions, primarily because the applicant has made substantial enough changes in the application to mitigate the concerns about the view. He noted that if the house could not be seen, the issue of the architectural style would be minimized. Commissioner Olson believed that this was a terrific project and that it was interesting to him that the project has been covered up with trees and foliage; he would actually like to see the home. He agreed with Mr. Pico's point that when up on the property, the water tank could be seen from a distance; he would rather look at this home than at the water tank. He believed the house was appropriate for the area and stated that he would be able to support this application. Commissioner Narum believed the architecture conformed to what was called out and believed that it would fit in with a European village. She could not find any minimum or maximum size requirements and was open to the size of the house. She believed the applicants made an attempt to mitigate the project by putting a substantial amount of the square footage underground. She added that the trees would also help to hide the home. She indicated that she could support the project with some modifications to the conditions of approval. EXCERPTS: PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, November 14, 2007 Page 16 of 19