3.1 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

v ATTACHMENT Planning Commission Minutes Approved 7/26/00 July 12, 2000 Page 3 3.2 LANDS OF KERNS, 11890 Francemont Court (106-00-ZP-SD-GD); A request for a Site Development Permit for a new residence, and an exception to an existing conservation easement to allow part of the driveway to encroach into the easement. Staff had nothing further to add to the report. Jeff Peterson, City Engineer, discussed the driveway design which is essentially the same as presented a year ago. OPENED PUBLIC HEARING Bill Maston, 384 Castro Street, Mountain View, project architect, suggested focusing on specific questions after Susan Roberts,project engineer, addresses the driveway design. Susan Roberts, Giuliani & Kull, project engineer, noted that the driveway alignment is basically the same as presented a year ago. They have looked at many alternatives to meet Town code, fire department requirements, and the Town grading policy. The criteria given by the former Planning Director and Jeff Peterson was that the maximum slope would be 15% but a slope up to 18 1/i% would be acceptable. They are presenting a driveway which varies in slope between 16.7% to 18 1/z % for small portions. The proposal is for slopes that meet the criteria with some retaining walls that, in most areas, are within the five foot maximum height range with the exception of the area down at the bottom by first turn. The reason being, given the fire department minimum turning radii, they had to cut into the hillside in that location with retaining walls that vary up to nine feet in height but the nine feet is for a very limited section. Chairman Gottlieb asked if it would help with the slope of the driveway in the nine foot area to have brought the driveway through the lower parcel and up? Ms. Roberts responded no due to a grade that would inhibit access of that slope. Chairman Gottlieb asked if there was any geotechnical work done on the proposed steep driveway? Ms. Roberts responded yes. Their geotechnical engineer has reviewed the plans. They will use peers under the retaining walls particularly in areas of oak trees. Mr. Maston continued by discussing the upper and lower retaining walls and where the old road is located which will be re-vegetated providing more screening than currently exists. He further discussed the re-vegetation as shown on the model. As a condition of approval they will eventually return with a complete re-vegetation plan for approval. The goal is to mitigate and hide the retaining walls. Currently you can not see the road. The area of 18% slope was discussed (first and second turnout). They have a 14 foot road section which is quite wide though it is required and with the turnouts, sections 20 feet wide. They are very comfortable with safety margins for pedestrians, etc. Commissioner Clow was concerned with one 16" oak tree. It appears that what would need to be done is removing the trunk when it arches back over because it would probably get in the way of a fire truck. He felt the main trunk was savable and it would be feasible to have more screening from down below by having the oak tree remain. Ms. Roberts noted that it was their goal to save as many oak trees as possible. This tree in particular is at the limits of the work they will be doing. If, during construction, they can move things a little bit away from the tree, they will.