PC 042705 - Laserfiche WebLink

Discussion ensued with respect to the displayed plans of the fencing- Chairperson Maas believed the previous Commission could have been more sensitive to the impacted views into the living areas of the homes with respect to the fencing type and the need for privacy. Ms_ Decker believed the previous G'ommission had the visual impacts to the foothills in mind- She continued that the applicant has made a reasonable request to construct solid fencing at the rear and side yards for the nine lots. She noted that there was precedent for the use of both open and solid fencing on some lots to provide privacy- THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED_ Phil Rowe, DeNova Homes, applicant, noted that this application came to pass because of the 150-foot setback and an additional setback due to an earthquake fault. He noted that the close proximity of the homes and the need for privacy fencing had been brought to De Nova's attention- The intention was to have a rural feeling to the homes and as developers, they had tried to confine the fencing to specific areas where there was a clear need for privacy. He noted that eight of the 1 2 homes were already sold- Commissioner Roberts expressed concern that even a solid fence would not block the hammerhead turn and the car lights. Chairperson Maas did not have a problem with the fencing and suggested that more landscaping be planted. She did not think the latticework fencing was the best choice. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Arkin noted that he was on the Planning Commission when this project was approved; he generally had reservations about solid fences west of Foothill- G'ommissioner Blank shared Commissioner Arkin's concerns and noted that this project had a beautiful view- He noted that the dotted fence did not bother him as much as the fence that went I ateral l y. A discussion of the fencing placement ensued, with visual references to the displayed site plan. Commissioner Fox would like to see a landscaping plan to soften the edges from the road- Ms_ Decker stated that staff recommended two conditions that reflect the Commissioners' concerns: 1 . A fifth condition stating that a design for fencing compatible with architectural components and with additional landscaping to sofeen the fencing be submitted to the Planning Director for approval prior to building occupancy permit issuance; and 2. Any request for solid fencing come before Planning Coirimission for determination, rather than being astaff--level review. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES April 27, 2005 Page 6 of 7 3