PC 071002 - Laserfiche WebLink

r a single story home on Lot 1 or Lot 3 would violate a condition prohibiting two single story homes on adjacent lots. Chairperson Maas expressed concern about the massing and overwhelming visuals of the two story homes. Mr. Costanza noted that part ofthe architectural vernacular included a sense of mass, and added that the roof pitch added to that visual appearance. Chairperson Maas advised that did not like the wood fencing, and believed that the beautiful homes will be marred by them. Mr. Ebrahimi noted that the front elevations included solid wood fences, and that the rear elevations featured open space. He noted that view fencing was provided for the last eight feet of all rear lots, which would provide privacy for the neighbors. Mr. Ebrahimi noted that the five foot high fences would have one foot of latticework on top. Chairperson Maas noted that she liked open fencing with landscaping camouflage. A discussion of roof and trim styles ensued. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. In response to Commissioner Sullivan's question, Mr. Ebrahimi confirmed that the visual simulations were subject to peer review. r- Commissioner Sullivan inquired whether the Specific Plan called for masonry fencing that matched the houses, Mr. Ebrahimi replied that the Specific Plan did not require any particular kind of fencing. He noted that the French vernacular did propose the inclusion of a wing fence from the house to the side property fence, composed of some kind of masonry. Staff believed that all-wood fencing would be appropriate, and that landscaping planted in front ofthe fencing would be desirable. Commissioner Sullivan appreciated staff's effort to provide grading alternatives, and agreed with staffthat neither alternative was particularly good. He requested that a third alternative be developed. He had hoped to see more cut on the hillside, and less fill on the downslope side so that the elevation of the estate house and the homes on Lots 1, 2, and 3 were closer to the existing Vineyard Road elevation. In response to Commissioner Sullivan's question whether that would be possible, Mr. Swift replied that it could be done, but the dirt would have to be offhauled or placed somewhere else on the site. He added that would be a costly process. Commissioner Sullivan did not agree with making the flatlands higher by putting the excess dirt under it. His first choice would be to haul the dirt off the site. He noted that this was a project that the City would have to live with for a long time. He hoped to find a reasonable compromise. He appreciated the applicants' willingness to agree to the green building conditions. He believed it would be important to have a mechanism to tie planting the vineyards to the developer before they're gone. He agreed that Greenbriar ,_ has been a good developer neighbor, and agreed with Commissioner Arkin's point of PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES July 10,2002 Page 16