City Council Minutes
4/20/2016 2:10:19 PM
5/21/2015 3:43:25 PM
Regular Meeting Minutes
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
All rights reserved.
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View plain text
roof and they had discussed this with the applicants and agreed with their plans. In addition the <br />neighbors were also relying on the Town's color board for the roof color. In 9/97 staff approved <br />40 the paint and roof colors for the project. In 9/98 the roof was installed but the neighbors <br />expressed serious concerns about the color and reflectivity of the roof and did not believe they <br />met the approved conditions of approval. The approved condition stated: "Exterior paint colors <br />shall be chosen by the applicant and approved by staff in conformance with the Town's adopted <br />color board, and shall exhibit a light reflectivity value of 50 or less. Roofs shall have a light <br />reflectivity value of 40 or less... Staff stated that the color did have a light reflectivity of less <br />then 40 although the material was highly reflective and there was some ambiguity as to how the <br />color board applied to roofs. In addition there was uncertainty about exactly what was approved <br />as staff had expected some form of coating which was expected to dull the finish of the roof but <br />which was not applied and not intended to be applied according to the applicant's contractor. <br />The Planning Director further noted that staff did not concur with the suggestion that the Town <br />share in the cost of correcting this situation to everyone's satisfaction. Staff believed that this <br />would be spending public money on a private project and would be precedent setting. <br />Mr. Bulfer, applicant, explained their situation to the Council noting that they had hired experts <br />to make recommendations on a roof, had tried to follow the Town's guidelines and had received <br />approved plans from the Town. In good faith they had moved forward toward the completion of <br />their project. However, he also commented that he did not want to be in a situation of arguing <br />with his neighbors and believed there were were different options available toward solving this <br />problem. He hoped it could be resolved and they could all move forward. <br />Mr. Bob Rowe, 12800 Lucero Lane, noted that he had lived in Town for over twenty years and <br />he was appreciative of the time staff and the Council was taking on trying to resolve this <br />problem. Councilmembers had been to the property and/or seen the pictures and he believed <br />(they understood the impact of this roof on their properties. <br />Sarala Rao, 12835 Lucero Lane, concurred with Mr. Rowe's comments. <br />Casey believed a mistake had been made by staff and it should be the Town's responsibility to <br />pay to fix it. She also commented that because very few mistakes were made she did not think <br />this would be precedent setting. Casey further noted that no resident input had been made on the <br />Town's color board and she would like to see this issue agendized for early in 1999. Finn <br />inquired whether any metal roofs should be allowed in Town. Dauber asked why this confusion <br />took place and questioned whether the color of roofs should be controlled by the Town. She was <br />not convinced that it was all staff s mistake. The architect had submitted a statement to the <br />Town regarding the roof, its color, material, etc. The Town should see if this statement matched <br />what was done to the roof. Dauber and Johnson did not agree with the Town paying to correct <br />this project. Siegel stated that the applicant had been told in writing what the reflectivity should <br />be for the roof An independent consultant should be hired to measure the reflectivity. If it met <br />the condition, the roof conformed. If it did not, then the applicant had not met the conditions of <br />approval for the project. He also did not agree with the Town paying for the correction of this <br />problem. <br />The City Attorney recommended that Council continue this item to a Closed Session at the end <br />of this meeting to further discuss this issue. <br />PASSED BY CONSENSUS: To continue this item to a closed session at the end of the meeting <br />on pending litigation pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(c ). <br />December 2, 1998 <br />Regular City Council Meeting <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.