15 ATTACHMENT 9 - Laserfiche WebLink

F '... .. - ) _ 2. We were provided an 11" x 17" plan set of the site and architectural information which meant most of the small text on the site plan drawings was unreadable. We suggest "- making the AutoCAD files or full size drawings available for review so grading and tree removal information can be accurately reviewed. 3. The simulations depict two schemes being illustrated. No information was provided describing what each scheme consisted of. The applicant will need to indicate what "Scheme 1" and "Scheme 2" represent on a cover sheet for clarity. 4. No architectural design data was provided for the homes on the lower lots or for the "Barn/Vllinery" structure. The applicant should provide the design drawings used to develop the model and simulations of these structures. The model used in the photomontage should be consistent with the elevations that were submitted to the City. 5. The photomontage shows the existing house and garage to remain. However, they are proposing to remove the house and garage and develop a new house on the site. The proposed development on Lot 7 needs to be included in the photomontage and design drawings provided for review. 6. The house colors do not appear to be accurately portrayed in the photo simulations. The photo simulations show tan/brown tones for the walls and roof while the color/material photograph appears to show peach-colored walls and a mixture of red, orange, and peach-colored roof tiles. This discrepancy could be due to the poor quality of the materials sample color copy we reviewed. Review of the actual materials sample board is suggested to confirm the colors. 7. The proposal calls for the removal of a substantial number of trees (62 on the upper portion and "approximately" 10 trees on the lower portion of development per their narrative). The applicant needs to make sure that all of these trees were removed in the visual simulations. Without AutoCAD files or a full size set of drawings, it was not possible for us to determine if this was the case. However, it appears that not all the trees called for have been removed in the simulation. In addition, if the plan identifies the removal of trees on Lot 7 or the driveway going up to Lots 7 and 8, then these trees need to be removed from the photo simulations. 8. The estate home appears to be set at too low a finished floor elevation in the simulated views from the 1666 and 1680 Vineyard Avenue neighbors. This could not be verified because the topography was unreadable on our plan set. 9. As shown in the application package, there is extensive grading of the estate lot site being proposed. For instance, the hill directly behind the estate home appears undisturbed in the simulated view when the plan shows this hill being completely re- graded. Proposed grading needs to be reflected in the simulations. This is especially true from the 1666 and 1680 Vineyard Avenue neighbors, who may be most impacted by the project. V A L U E R DES 1 G N A S S O C I A 7 E 5 LANDSCAPE ARCH 1 T E C T U R E PLANNING DES 1 G N 2l0 WASH ] N G T O N AVENUE S U I T E G POINT RICHMOND , C A 9 4 8 0 1 T E L E P H O N E 5 1 0. 2 3 7 7 4 5 F A C S] M 1 L E S 1 0 2 3 7. 5 ~ 5 ]