Laserfiche WebLink
page 20, Commissioner Blank questioned its compliance with the Specific Plan; and on page 19 <br />she [Chairperson Fox] indicated that the architecture did not conform to the hillside residential <br />guidelines. She noted that there is no indication that any of the Commissioners stated that the <br />architectural style of the house was acceptable. <br />Commissioner Blank believed that at the time, he was concerned about the mass and the height <br />of the cupola and felt the house was not a good fit on the hill. Mr. Otto recalled that the <br />Commission felt that the architecture was acceptable. He added that on page 20 of the Minutes, <br />Chairperson Maas stated that the architecture was great, but not on a hilltop. He noted that the <br />actual style was acceptable to the Commission; the concerns were about the height, mass, size, <br />and colors. <br />Chairperson Fox inquired what the Specific Plan and the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) <br />state with respect to watering vineyards with well water versus what was proposed at this point. <br />Ms. Decker replied that the EIR and the Vineyard Avenue Corridor Specific Plan acknowledged <br />that the use of well water shall be for agricultural purposes, which could include vineyards, <br />grazing, livestock, and so forth. The "shall" language referenced the Vineyard District, which is <br />the flat area of the Bordeaux developments where vineyards were going in. She clarified that the <br />Sarich home site is not located within the Vineyard District. She noted that an email from the <br />Roberts stated that intent of wells is for the existing rather than new vineyards or agricultural <br />uses. She added that the City has taken a policy position that the wells can be used for the <br />irrigation of new vineyards, as shown in the Avignon, Bordeaux, the estate lots and other sites, <br />which would encompass pre-existing and proposed uses. She noted that the City water tanks, <br />including that on the Reznick property, were sized for domestic and home uses and, from an <br />engineering or demand standpoint, were never sized for consideration to provide irrigation water <br />for agricultural uses. <br />In response to an inquiry by Chairperson Fox regarding the water source for the vineyards <br />provided in the Vineyard Avenue Corridor Specific Plan, Ms. Decker replied that the water came <br />from wells. Chairperson Fox inquired if these were shared wells; Ms. Decker replied that there <br />were shared wells on some properties but not in the Vineyard District. She added that as far as <br />she can recall, the wells were mostly on the estate lots. <br />Chairperson Fox noted that in the October 23, 2006 memo from Jerry Iserson and the <br />November 30, 2003 memo from Heidi Kline, there was discussion regarding whether the "blob" <br />was meant to be the exact location or if it was open to interpretation, whether the house should <br />be where the accessory structure is or could be located on top of the hill. She inquired what the <br />final word from staff was with respect to whether the "blob" was a location for the second <br />residence. Ms. Decker replied that the memos provided historical information. She indicated <br />that there were some internal discussions on whether the "blob" was conceptual or actual before <br />the project before the Commission on June 8, 2005. She noted that in the September 28, 2005 <br />workshop, the discussion included a memo from then Assistant City Attorney Lynn Tracy <br />Nerland and herself that the "blobs" in the Specific Plan documents were conceptual as far as the <br />intent of where the buildings were generally desired and what would make most sense <br />environmentally. She noted that the "blobs" were not tied to topography or the distance from <br />property lines; these would be examined when a project actually came forward. The Minutes <br />EXCERPTS: PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, November 14, 2007 Page 2 of 19 <br />