15 - Laserfiche WebLink

Please refer to the attached Planning Commission staff report, dated November 14, 2007, for additional project information, including a table comparing the previous and current house plans. Building Height Correction In the VACSP, building height is measured vertically from the lowest elevation of the building to the highest elevation of the building, excluding chimneys. Staff had originally calculated the lowest grade adjacent to the wall of the house (at the nook) at approximately 628 feet. Since the writing of the Planning Commission staff report, the applicants' architect clarified that the lowest grade adjacent to the house (at the great room and nook) is 628.42 feet. Based on this information, the house measures approximately 28.7-feet tall to the top of the main roof ridge and approximately 33.7-feet tall at the top of the cupola, excluding the finial. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION The Planning Commission held a public hearing on November 14, 2007, to review the subject application. Detailed information on this meeting is provided by the attached excerpts of the Planning Commission minutes. Adjacent property owners Mary Roberts, Greg Reznick, and Steve Brozosky spoke in opposition to the project, stating their belief that the proposed project does not conform to the Vineyard Avenue Corridor Specific Plan nor the intent of the Specific Plan. Mary Roberts and Steve Brozosky also requested that the applicants find a reliable water source to irrigate the proposed vineyards that doesn't include the use of the shared well between the Roberts and Sariches. After receiving public testimony, the Commission approved the application on a 3-2 vote (Commissioners Pearce and Fox dissenting), with the following modifications to staff's recommended conditions: • Modified the construction hours to also prohibit construction during State holidays and to only allow the Planning Director to approve earlier construction "start times" if the nearby residents don't object. • Specified the Agricultural Mitigation Fee as an example of one of the development fees. • Added a condition requiring the applicants to create all applicable open space easements and any other applicable easements required by the Specific Plan. • Eliminated the entitlement for a future 2,900-square-foot addition to the existing house on the one-acre lot and required that future additions to this house come back for separate review and approval. • Required that the retaining walls facing the Roberts' property be "softened" to reduce their visibility. Page 4 of 9