SR 06:201 - Laserfiche WebLink

In response to an inquiry by Commissioner Pearce regarding the color of the chain-link fence, Mr. Cusenza did not have the specific information but stated that they were generally painted oxy-coated green or black. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED. Greg Reznick, applicant, complimented staff on its efforts during this long-term collaborative project. He noted that efforts were being made to meet the intent and the spirit of the Specific Plan, especially with respect to the realignment of the road at the base and the grading of the Neal School site. A more complete plan would be presented in the near future. He noted that this water tank was in the Specific Plan when he bought the property. He took slight issue with the placement of the "blobs" in the Specific Plan and noted that they had modified the lot configuration due to the tank location, however, meeting the intent of the locations provided in the Specific Plan. He noted that they placed the pads on the areas that were most level. In response to an inquiry by Commissioner Maas regarding whether he had an opinion on the elevation of 540 feet on Lots 3 through 7, Mr. Reznick replied that the Specific Plan identified single-story homes above 540 feet. The only exception to that was an existing two-story home, and he noted that it might make sense to replace it rather than remodel it. He noted that it was difficult to find that house on the hillside, and the City had assured him that the single- or two-story issue was not locked in stone; the intent was to make the houses hard to see. He stated that with sensitive architecture, a two-story structure would be possible and not be a visual impact. Mary Roberts, 1666 Frog Hill Lane, thanked Mr. Reznick for the time he spent with her and her husband explaining the project. She also thanked Wes Jost and Phil Grubstick, as well as Steve Otto, for explaining the engineering on the road. She wished to alert them to the fact that there was an e1ectrica11ine going through the site along the easterly boundary. She noted that this was not as specific as the Sarich property and pointed out the proposed lot placements on the overhead screen. She noted that house placements on the ridge were not possible and was concerned that one of the houses had been moved closer to her house. She believed that she could work with the City's Engineering Department regarding that issue. She expressed concern about Lot I, where the house was proposed to be moved closer to Vineyard A venue, especially regarding the proposal to fill and raise up the lot in preparation for building a two-story house. She asked the Commission to consider how it would relate to the trail. She acknowledged that off-hauling would be very expensive but did not see any alternative. She suggested talking with Mr. Brozosky. She noted that an architect that was skilled in working with the environment could design a house without a flat pad. She did not object to the water tank. She noted that when building in a rural area on a private road, the front and the back of the house make no difference, and to have a setback from the road did not make any sense. She noted that the existing two-story house was actually a partial two-story house; she added that it was difficult to see because the exterior was weathered cedar. With respect to the proposed road alignment being acceptable, Commissioner Maas noted that she relied on Mr. lost's description of the steepness of the road. She recalled that it would be twice the steepness of Monte vi no Drive. EXCERPTS: PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES, March 8, 2006 Page 2 of 4