Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout8.1 8. 1 DRAFT Minutes of a Regular Meeting Town of Los Altos Hills PLANNING COMMISSION Wednesday,April 26, 1995,6:30 p.m. Council Chambers,26379 Fremont Road cc: Cassettes#09-95 (4 ) 1. ROLL CALL AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANC1 The Planning Commission meeting was called to order at 6:35 p.m. in the Council Chambers at Town Hall. Present: Chairman Schreiner,Commissioners Cheng(arrived at 6:45), Doran(left at 12:13),Finn,Gottlieb,McMahon&Stutz Staff: Mike.Porto and Debra Pollart,Acting Town Planners;Sheryl Kolf, Assistant Engineer;Suzanne Davis,Planner;Susan Manca, Planner;Lani Lonberger,Planning Secretary 2. PRESENTATIONS FROM THE FLOOR Jean Struthers,Environmental Protection and Design Committee commented on a gap in the Site Development process that allows minor changes to building to be handled at staff level noting some of the changes have an impact on the neighbors. It was noted that this subject was on the agenda for discussion(6.2 Discussion on possible changes in review process for Site Development Permits). 3. CONSENT CALENDAR None. 4. PUBLIC HEARINGS 4.1 LANDS OF WESTWIND BARN,27210 Altamont Road (11-95- CUP); A request for an amendment to the Conditional Use Permit for arena refurbishment(continued from March 22, 1995). Staff had nothing further to add to the staff report. A letter from Mr. Reiser was provided to the Planning Commission,staff and the applicant for review. Planning Commission nutes DRAFT ' April 26, 19, 5 • Page 2 OPENED PUBLIC A 'ii G Mike Stortz,21885 Alma•en Avenue,Cupertino,president of Friends of Westwind,Inc. discussed the following issues: alternate site by the pump house for the storage water to i,however less functional;and the status of ADA requirements. Nancy Couparas, 13680 P.ge Mill Road,Westwind Barn associate, commented on ADA reqluirements fo Westwind Barn as discussed at previous ADA subcommittee meetings. • t that time,it was thought that Westwind Barn requirements were low o the priority list for Town facilities to be updated. Bathrooms (portable) and marked parking areas for the handicapped could be accomplished. A letter was provided by e City Attorney regarding Westwind Barn ADA requirements noting it wa. incumbent upon Westward to satisfy itself that it is in compliance with all fed•ral,state and local laws. The City Attorney recommended,with rega • to the new arena,Westind seek independent advice as to meeting the r,•quirements of ADA. Commissioner Doran felt they should rem ve Westwind from the list of Town property as so noted in the City Attorney's 1 tter. Hill Reiser, 7640 Red Ro. Road, questioned why they do not use a pressurized water syste . Jean Struth-rs suggested the color of paint for the water tank blend in wit the-surroun•'ngs. Les Earnest, athway Co 1 'ttee Chairman,discussed an alternative to their original request to build a path with no more the 15°.:. grade,they noted an existing path through By i e Preserve with a reasonable grade on it. It was therefore possible to conn-ct the pathway coming from Central Drive through a gate to the Byrne Preserve path and drop the path leading up the hill from the pathway system (omit). C rently the path coming from Central Drive drops into a swamp below the a •na area. The path should stay on solid ground somehow. There are two .lternative ways to getting over to the gate: turn toward the arena followin; the contour of the hill and loop around to get to the Preserve;the other is to si ply turn right along the grade and go over that way. Either way is acceptable t. the Pathway Committee as long as there is a solid pathway connecting to By i e Preserve. This will involve minimal expense. He noted that the gate into By ne Preserve was originally self closing which it is not now. This needs to be ad.ressed. Susie Holic, secretary for t i e Friends of Westwind,noted that if the objective was to get from Central D I've to Byrne Preserve there is already an existing way Planning Commission Minutes DRAFT April 26, 1995 Page 3 which is a little longer without ever coming on Westwind property. Mr. Reiser had difficulty with the path mentioned noting that Central Drive is a private road and he suggested looking at this pathway as he felt it was very steep and almost impossible to use currently except on horseback. This path is currently being used as a channel for drainage. CLOSED PUBLIC TESTIMONY Discussion ensued regarding the response to requests at the previous meeting(1 through 11). All items appear to be addressed. Commissioner Stutz noted that the two items required for ADA compliance were addressed (portable bathroom and marked parking). She further discussed pathway requests suggesting leaving it to the applicant,staff,and pathway committee as to the best solution. She did not feel the site plan was as complete as it could have been but the applicant had attempted to bring a completed plan. Other comments included: the water storage tank and pump house alternate plan was acceptable;the spectator area needs to comply with ADA requirements;and#10,trench not needed with the new pump location. The pump location should be red lined on the plan. Commissioner Doran felt the applicant had addressed all of the concerns. She was satisfied with the ADA compliance as suggested without. requiring anything further. She felt strongly that the Planning Commission was not the governing body for ADA requirements and should be left to the building official. Commissioner McMahon addressed item#1 in that the fire department does not use the access road and does not have any requirements. She still felt the access road at 22% slope does not meet the reasonable level of safety for the activity taking place in the arena which she considered semi- hazardous. She further discussed the City Attorney's recommendation regarding ADA requirements and the assistance of a consultant. She requested they review the consultant's requirements. She suggested leaving the pathway requirements up to the pathway committee and the applicant. The spectator area should comply with ADA requirements. Chairman Schreiner made several comments: the applicant's request to have the access road grandfathered in;the conditional use permit is not being expanded; and ADA compliance. Mrs..Pollart, after discussing this with the City Attorney, suggested changes to condition#10, "Westwind Barn shall comply with the Americans with Disabilities Acts as per consultant's recommendation." Chairman Schreiner further discussed the on-site pathways suggesting the applicant work with the pathway committee and the City Engineer. The water tank location by the pump house needs to be red lined on the plan and the color should be specified (condition#6) so the tank will blend into the surroundings (earthtones/brown). Commissioner Stutz suggested replacing 'burls"in#4 with " 5 gallon redwood trees on the Westwind property to fill in the gaps of the Planning Commission Minutes DRAFT April 26, 1995 Page 4 Montgomery's landscapin " ... "with water running to them for the first two years to guarantee growth " Commissioner Doran note that in the City Attorney's letter there was an exception and did not wart this overlooked. (If the cost and scope of furnishing an accessible pat of travel is no proportionate to the overall cost of the alteration. "Not proportionate'l is set forth in the ADA as 20% or more of the cost of the original alteration. If Westwind det fines that providing an "accessible path of travel"in accordance with ADA guidelines to the area is either "virtually impossible" to comply with or exceeds 20% of the es imated cost of refurbishing the arena, then Westwind falls within the exception. This determination should be made by Westwind and not the Town. ) Discussion ensued regarding the pathway. Les Earnest noted that the Emergency Access Committee at their next meeting+ill consider a proposal to build a fire road through B, me Preserve adjacent to Westwind Barn which will also provide access at a rea.onable grade into the lower area. A suggested wording for the pathway c.ndition would state that the applicant shall improve and reposition the existing'.ath to a reasonable level, contouring the pathway either southward along the hill or northward along the hill to avoid the lower swampy area. The Pathwa, Committee will ask the City Council if they would consider constructing the r?st of the path up to Central Drive. MOTION SECONDED i I PASSED: Motion by Commissioner Gottlieb and seconded by Commissione Finn to approve the conditional use permit and site development ipermit for W stwind Barn with the following changes to the conditions of approval: #4,insert"5 gallon redwoo. trees on the Westwind property to fill in the gaps of the Montgomery's landsca.ing...with water running do them for the first two years to_guarantee growth.' #6, changed to read "paint dor for the Judge's booth,pump house,water tank, roofing and fencing (if pro•osed) shall be chosen by the applicant in conformance With the Tow 's adopted color board. The color shall blend in with surroundings (earthto es/brown)." #10,Westwind Barn shall c•mply with the Americans with Disabilities Acts as per consultan 's recommen.ation,not to exceed 20%as stated in the City . Attorney's letter dated Apri 17, 1995 Adding a conbtion (#11) st.ting that the applicant,working with the pathway committee and Commissio er Gottlieb,shall provide a plan improving the native path and possibly re a'ositioning the existing path to a reasonable level by Planning Commission Minutes DRAFT April 26, 1995 Page 5 either contouring the pathway southward along the hill or northward along the hill to avoid the lower swampy area to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. AYES: Chairman Schreiner,Commissioners Cheng,Stutz, Doran,Finn& Gottlieb NOES: Commissioner McMahon This item will appear on the City Council consent calendar May 17,1995. 4.2 LANDS OF VIDOVICH, 11920 Stonebrook Drive (254-93-TM and 257-93-EIR); Review of Draft Environmental Impact Report and preliminary Tentative Map for a proposed 23 lot subdivision (continued from April 12, 1995). Continued discussion ensued regarding EIR issues. Mr. Porto noted that all input will be directed to the consultant for finalization of the Environmental Impact Report after the May 1st deadline for comments. A letter was sent to De Anza Properties requesting additional information with a requested response by May 5th. The next scheduled meeting date is May 24th for discussion of the tentative map with possible conditions of approval formulated relating to the map. The final EIR(response to comments)will be brought back at the June 14th meeting. At that time,the Commission can make their recommendations of certification of the EIR and proceed in depth with map issues. At the May 24th meeting,the Commission will have the response from the applicant. At that time they will be able to determine if the issues have been adequately discussed,if they have enough information, or if additional information is required to determine what direction they would like to provide the applicant at that time. Chairman Schreiner asked what was the schedule for the May 31st meeting? Mrs. Pollart noted that the meetings of May 10th and 31st would be to catch up on other numerous projects. OPENED PUBLIC HEARING Jean Struthers, 13690 Robleda Road,noted concern with the existing impact asking if the Town can require some restoration of what was existing prior to Mr. Vidovich scrapped the hillsides and cleaned out the little hill on lot 11. The EIR does not address what happened to the area prior to the application. Concerns involved the restoring of a quarry; the amphitheater effect;planting of natural (native)plantings,water quality of the lake (dirty water and runoffs from streets and properties containing fertilizers,pesticides,etc.);landslides occurring on old Stonebrook off of Magdalena;wildlife having access to the lake; and the gathering of all the water into the lake,never to come out again. Planning Commission Mi utes DRAFT April 26, 1995 Page 6 . Elyne Dauber,27920 Robl Alto,expressed concerns with the following: if the cost of maintaining the la e was reasonable;addressing the potential access to Juan Prado sa sewer 1' a from the subdivision itself and any environmental effects;environmental imioacts of extending the sewer line down Stonebrook Avenue;and investigatin: and discussion regarding any environmental impacts of the sewer line being p ped up. CLOSED PUBLIC TES I ONY Discussion ensued regard g a retaining wall going up around the quarry which does not appear to be a pa t of the reclamation plan which does have an impact on the environment. Que tions were raised as to why it was being installed and who authorized it. Mr. Po to reported that staff was not aware of the construction until yesterd.y when they saw it under construction. A staff member from the Santa Cl:ra County building department went with the City Manager to'iew the cons uction. They are also in the process of obtaining more information from thapplicant. No informatidn is known regarding the retaining wail. A "Stop N lice"is being investigated by the County. Mrs. Pollart discussed the nvironmental impact an a letter sent to the applicant regarding the re gaining wall. The concern was that this represents significant new informatio that was not available at the time the Draft EIR was prepared. Under these cir'umstances,the lead agency (the Town)has the discretion to re-circulate t e EIR so that the new information can be discussed from an environmental sta dpoint and mitigation measures addressed. Staff is in the process of making a •etermination as to what the environmental process will be,giver.this develop ent. This could greatly extend the time frame for the review of the EIR. Staf is still gathering information and has not made a determination as to wheth:•r or not the EIR would have to be changed and re- circulated. Another route o take would be to proceed with the draft EIR with recommendations,and ce ifying it,then immediately prepare a supplemental EIR with the additional inf•rmation added which was not included in the draft. This needs to be discussed further with the City Attorney. The options will be reviewed and reported to e Commission. Commissioner Doran and inn suggested asking the applicant's representative to clarify the construction •f the retaining wall. Commission r Gottlieb no'-d concerns and questions regarding the fencing of the lake and will the nativ- animals have access to the lake;lake water flow into Hale Creek and will it be a ile to hold the water without flooding the down hill neighbors; the water diver ion from Prospect and will there be any mechanism to be shut off if there is do nhill flooding of Hale Creek;limiting swimming pools and tennis courts to . public area;need to address open space in areas Planning Commission Minutes DRAFT April 26, 1995 Page 7 . over 30% slope;and how the lake water could be best utilized in case of fire. Commissioner Stutz noted that the use of the lake for fire fighting was mentioned in the first EIR,however not in the current EIR. Chairman Schreiner's concerns were: the traffic and safety on Stonebrook,and not sufficient information regarding lake management plan as it should be expanded. f Commissioner Stutz made comments on the following pages of the EIR: page 5, no 24 acre lots;page 8,paragraph 3, asking if they needed to make changes before approved or could they ask that the original conditions be required;page 9, address the labeling of the creeks coming through this property(i.e. the La Loma drainage as Hale Creek);page 9,paragraph above the "Table"noting the unnamed drainage swale to the west was Hale Creek and the unnamed drainage swale to the northwest was the drainage off of La Loma;Table 2 on page 9,the approximate drainage area being 271 acres was incorrect according to page 64 which states Hale Creek drains approximately 1,677 acres in size; page 11,under "landscaping/plantings",requesting the addition of a statement that all pampas grass needs be removed and requesting a copy of the landscaping plan when the reclamation was originally approved by the County; page 26,4th paragraph,the sewer line should be embedded.in gravel as any change in the Preserve for putting in lines of any kind will effect the Hale Creek flow;page 27, "alterations to Hale Creek flows or diversion of stream flows are not proposed as part of the project"is not accurate;page 31,second paragraph from the bottom, suggesting deletion of the first two sentences;page 34,under "Quarry Area" noting in a previous report it noted that when grading of lots 1 and 2 an archeologist should be present, asking what can be done after they have already been grading without an archeologist present;does not approve of one large lot above several smaller lots below;page 44,first full paragraph from the bottom,conflicting statements regarding"20 foot width" and "a minimum of 22 feet"; and pages 45,46,50 and 51 were discussed. Staff noted all comments. Commissioner Stutz will give Mrs. Pollart the remaining comments and provide a copy to the Planning Commission. Commissioner Stutz felt the EIR consultant has not adequately addressed the options of an alternate placement of the sewer. CLOSED PUBLIC TESTIMONY MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED BY CONSENSUS: Motion by Commissioner Doran, seconded by Commissioner Cheng and passed by consensus to continue the application to the May 24th meeting. Brief break at 9:00 p.m. . Planning Commission nutes DRAFT April 26, 1995 Page 8 A request was made to h a ar Lands of Ward, 11881 Francemont Avenue,parcel 3,before parcels 1 and 2. Everyone was in agreement with the request. Commissioner McMaho stepped down from the hearing as she has a personal (business)r lationship w th the applicant. 4.5 LANDS OF ARD, 11881 Francemont Avenue (205-94-ZP-SD- GD); A req est for a Site Development Permit for a new residence and pool. Mrs. Davis introduced ', item noting that the applicant had provided the Commission with a map -hown the layout of all three parcels. There was also a memo from the City Engi eer indicating modifications to conditions of approval for parcels 1,2 and 3. Th:re was also a letter from the Santa Clara County regarding materials to be emoved from the site which are not hazardous materials. Ms. Kolf discussed the co ditions of approval on the original subdivision: eight lots in the Bellucci portio , and the three lots off of Francemont. Some of the conditions of approval included a general condition relating to the conditions from William Cotton nee•ing to be met.When additional studies where done, there was an old landslid: that was mapped which needed to be investigated. The is no inciication of mo ement at this point,however there is a monitoring program being installed ' order to watch this. The CR's and the Landslide Maintenanc Program are the same which will be recorded with each property. The Commission asked if •ools were allowed in a flood plain area and if the installation of Abode Cree takes away the flood plain designation to these lots (correcting the map). Ms. olf indicated the statement was accurate. The designation shown on the clans currently is the designation from the FEMA map. When the channel as widened,the flood plain or the flood elevation will be contained within that c annel. The FEMA map will eventually be amended __ to reflect these changes. 's situation is similar to the Lands of Wayman which required a FEMA map rev sion. It was noted that all conditions of approval of the subdivision also need .• be met. The Bellucci subdivision improvements were discussd. OPENED PUBLIC HE • I G John Barksd0e,project arc 'tect, discussed the constraints on all three lots. • Some of the assets of the lots included the building areas being flat,adjacent to a wooded hillside, and adjac-nt to a creek. The assets have also created some constraints; al three sites ave been filled as part of the subdivision,out of the flood plain so the flood pla' is readjusted. The sites can be built on as if the flood plain did not exist,however they are having to establish the building Planning Commission Minutes DRAFT April 26, 1995 Page 9 height from the existing grade prior to the subdivision. This has severely constrained the heights of the building because they are measuring not from what they see now but in some cases two,three or four feet from below what you see. The creek has a storm drain and conservation easement attached to it that is approximately 25 feet from the creek. This supersedes the normal setback requirement. The hillside which involves two of the sites creates its own new setback due to the fact that they are very limited to height. They cannot even consider starting up the hillside with any construction. Lot l's buildable area has been reduced to about 68%of what they otherwise could have built on had the lot been flat and without the creek. Lot 2-has been reduced to 60%of what would have been normal and lot 3,25%. This along with the height constraints has made for an interesting design problem. Lot 1 height restriction is the least of all three. He noted that they liked placing the garages so you cannot see them from the street. They have provided a pool area on the southwest side of the house to maximize the sunlight. They have also provided a separation of the house from the hill so they could have views from the house out to the hill. The family areas will be facing the pool and the more private areas will be facing the cul-de-sac Francemont side of the property). Mr. Barksdale provided an exhibit showing the proposed driveways versus alternative driveways with minimum required back-up area. He noted staffs concern with the apparent parking in the setback between the house and Francemont Drive. This is actually the turnaround space from the garage. The alternate design does not really save any pavement and is not as desirable. Tile has been chosen for the roofs with stucco siding. Currently the colors for the exterior of the residences have not been decided but they will comply with the Town color board. They will probably go with a darker stucco color and medium tone tiles. They do try to stay away from thered tile colors,preferring more neutral organic colors in both the stucco colors and the tile roofs. It was noted that the landscape plan would not be a part of this approval. Commissioner Finn asked what,if any, compromises were reached with staff when putting the design together. Mr. Barksdale noted there were someon lots - 1 and 2. On lot 1,the first surprise was the understanding that they needed to measure from the existing grade prior to the subdivision fill which has been a major driving factor in the design. Commissioner Doran asked if he felt he could have a better driveway design on lots 1 and 3 with a circular driveway. Mr. Barksdale commented that on lot 1 they could,however,on lot 3,it would not matter. Mrs. Davis noted that the applicant is showing on his exhibit the area that would be required for maneuvering vehicles. Mrs. Davis discussed Town policy regarding circular driveways. This subject is on the agenda for discussion. Planning Commission Mi Utes DRAFT April 26, 1995 Page 10 Commissioner Gottlieb d' cussed rotating the house and pool to get much more sun in the pool area. Mr. B rksdale commented that they looked at many different options before d eloping this design. Commissioner Finn did not feel the issue of t.ie pool being in the sun was significant J Commissioner Cheng asked if the applicant had tarted the study of the ground water monitoring and mitigating program as not d in William Cotton's letter. Mr. Barksdale noted as part of the sibdivision,th hillside was studied by about every geotechnical engineer in the area. Ther has been three monitoring wells that are approximately 110 feet de p that are in place that have been drilled. There has been a main shaft that haseen drilled looking for any signs of sliding. The engineers feel that the hillside is stable which they call an ancient dormant landslide. They do feel ifa water table were to rise to a certain level,it might effect the stability of the ' 1. The purpose of the monitoring wells is to make sure that this does not hap en. If it does happen, there are plans devised for mitigation. Commissioner Gottlieb also asked if the eaves on the second floor could be exteded. Mr. Ba ksdale indicated that the proposed siding and roofing materials does not end itself to large roof overhangs. Les Earnest,PI recommendation should b as noted in their request of January 25, 1995 whichathways Co ittee Chair,noted that the pathway has been incl ded in the p ket. In addition to granting a pathway easement, the native pa h should be eared. Condition 16 will include wording stating "to the satisfactio of the path ay committee and the City Engineer." Further discussion a ued. Mr. Baitksdale noted that the geologist did not want anything that would impa. the steep slope or cause erosion problems. For clarification,it was noted at it would be an easement at the cul-de-sac just for a section to access the path Other pathway requirements would be staying five feet way with landscaping,sprinkler water,etc. CLOSED PUBLIC TESTIM o NY Chairman Schreiner discus•ed excessive pavement in the setback. Commissioner Gottlieb not-d that the fourth car space could be eliminated. Staff pointed out that the a plicant is required to have four on-site parking spaces that are not within s-tbacks. Commissioner Finn liked e house and the elevation. His only issue was the driveway design. Commis ioner Stutz agreed. She did not have a problem with the amount of paving setback,although the driveway cuts itself off from the house and it could be re•esigned. The placement hof the house and design are fine. Commissioner Go tlieb could not approve the house without asking for a drivewaredesign. S e asked if there was any way to extend the eaves on the second floor to help sof •n the look. She also felt the pool should be in a sunny area and the drivew y should be redesigned. Chairman Schreiner had a Planning Commission Minutes DRAFT April 26, 1995 Page 11 problem with the design as this area is a very rural area. She suggested using the darker colors on the color board so the house would blend in. She was also concerned with the amount of paving in the setback. Commissioner Cheng noted that a redesign for a circular driveway actually increases the amount of pavement. However,it would make the design look better and more usable. Commissioner Doran suggested a continuance for a driveway redesign and pathway dedication only and not open up any other conditions (items). All Commissioners agreed with the request. Chairman Schreiner asked that the pathway committee accompany the applicant to show them the exact placement of the proposed pathway. Mr. Barksdale noted that they would be happy to grant an easement for the trails as long as it did not include improving of the trails with header boards. It has been a very long process and they would like to at least,start with building construction. The requirement for certain conditions of approval to be signed off by the Planning and Engineering Department prior to acceptance of plans for building plan check was discussed. Conditions of approval were discussed including changes made by the City Engineer for#10 and#17. An additional change to#17 included the deletion of "and for the Francemont Subdivision" and adding"no temporary occupancy will be permitted." Condition#6, adding that the roof and exterior shall be in darker reflective colors (reflective value of 40%).. Condition 16 will return with the redesign. The condition should be changed to reflect the recommendation of the pathway committee dated January 25, 1995 including wording that the native path will be cleared. MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED: Motion by Commissioner Finn and seconded by Commissioner Stutz for a consensus vote accepting the conditions of approval as amended,excluding#16 which will return with new wording along with the redesign of the driveway at the May 24th meeting at 6:30 p.m. AYES: Commissioners Finn,Stutz, Doran&Gottlieb NOES: None . ABSTAIN: Chairman Schreiner&Commissioner Cheng MOTION PASSED BY CONSENSUS: To continue past 11:30 p.m. to complete the public hearings 4.3,4.4 and 4.6. 4.3 LANDS OF WARD, 11801 Francemont Avenue (202-94-ZP-SD- GD); A request for a Site Development Permit for a new residence and pool. Planning Commission 'nutes DRAFT April 26, 19 5 Page 12 OPENED PUBLIC HE G John Barksdale,project a chitect,discussed the design of parcel 1. The exhibit shows minimum paving eeded on the driveway to maneuver vehicles. He discussed architectural fe tures noting the circulation inside the house is such that all of the areas will a cess the outdoor space. The house is immediately adjacent to the conservati n easement because there is no need for a sidewalk on the north side. There as a problem with the site with providing the required 10 foot distance om the property line even though it is on the south side of the flag portion of the flag lot. They have a problem with being up against the conservation asement which staff suggested being back five feet in the event a future home o ner wanted to put a sidewalk around the house. Instead,they have design d the house to bisect the property,providing a private family living are on the western side away from the street. He felt no one would Want or need t put any kind of improvement around the north edge of the house that is against the conservation easement. It was his understanding that the conservation easement was to be a setback line for structures but there was no intent to keep people from using that space. He asked that this requirement be waived al owing them to provide a9 easier,more elegant turnaround and access to e house with the circular element shown of the drawings. They have atte pted to keep the house low,keep areas on the site usable and seeping out of the setbacks. He noted that they were aware of the requirements for darker calors and will comply. The materials for the homes are similar but architectur:1 detailing varies for the three homes;one is single story,one is essentially o stories,and this house is a partial two story. The plan does not indicate po•1 equipment placement although it could be placed adjacent to the garage. Chairman Schreiner aske• about accessing from Lot 2. Mr. Barksdale noted that it was their original idea, owever they did not pursue it since it has been a concern of the Town to ha e two driveways. Commissioner Finn did not feel access onto someone else' flag lot was not desirable Chairman S einer read e Environmental Design Committee's comments on lots 1 and 2 rioting the 25 f-et conservation easement does not preclude the 30 foot setback and should b: in addition to the 30 feet. Another comment was that the creek bank and ea.ement should be re-vegetated with native riparian plants (no roses or lawns). CLOSED PUBLIC HE a I G There was a concern with .lowing the applicant to build up to the conservation easement as there would b- grading beyond that point. The house should be at least five feet]from the edg- of the conservation easement. There was a concern Planning Commission Minutes DRAFT April 26, 1995 Page 13 with fencing in the conservation easement. Commissioner Doran agreed with not sharing a driveway. She liked the house design,suggesting a redesign of the driveway and staying five feet from the conservation easement. Commissioner Stutz would go along with the driveway if done as shown on the landscape plan. She did like the design of the house. Commissioner Gottlieb noted that the house should be at least five feet from the conservation easement. She would like the driveway cut down,perhaps a smaller radius on the circular area and the location of the pool equipment shown on the plans. Chairman Schreiner suggested moving the house away from the conservation easement, changing the driveway design,and she would request a color requirement. Commissioner Finn was impressed that the MDA and MFA have not been maxed out. He did not want the three houses to look as if they were built together,at the same time,by the same contractor and designed by the same architect. He suggested they do anything they can to make them look different from one another. Commissioner Cheng did not have any problems with the driveway. She did agree that they needed five feet from the conservation easement. She suggested using grasscrete for parking. Commissioner Stutz was concerned with the number of lights,requesting the applicant to provide samples of the outdoor lights to be used. Lights should be pointed down. Mr. Barksdale noted that all lights are down shielded. There will be no additional lights beyond what is needed for safety. He suggested all lights that are shown on columns be put on the inside of the columns,use recess spotlights, and they were willing to reduce the number of lights. It was suggested leaving this to the satisfaction of staff. He noted that he discussed grading in the conservation easement with the civil engineer and she has designed the grading so there would not be any grading in the easement (piers will be drilled and grade beams used so they do not have to encroach into the easement). They will keep the existing grade. They have already reduced the house in width when they found out they could not be as dose to the flag lot as the previous application was. He agreed with moving the driveway 10 feet,changing it from a circle to more of a "bulge" so people can maneuver and park. He suggested making all items conditions of approval so the application could go forward. Commissioner Doran had no problem with this request. CONSENSUS MOTION: Consensus vote accepting the conditions of approval as amended with only the following items continued to the May 24th meeting: the redesign of the driveway by modifying the driveway and turnaround to reduce some of the paving within the setback (instead of circular area,would be more egg shaped),moving the driveway in a 45 degree direction towards the house 10 feet as demonstrated on plan Ll,pool equipment location shown on site plan;house pulled in five feet from the conservation easement;revise the lighting plan;and provide samples of the outdoor lights to be used. The changes to the conditions of approval are as follows: Condition#6, adding that Planning Commission Mi tes DRAFT April 26, 1995 Page 14 the roof and exterior shall •e in darker reflective colors (reflective value of 40%); deleting the last sentence ' #9;and making changes to#16 per City Engineer's memo deleting"Francemo t Subdivision"and deleting"acceptance of plans for building plan check" and s bstituting"final inspection and issuance of occupancy certificate. No •mporary certificates of occupancy shall be permitted." 4.4 DS OF ARD, 11841 Francemont Avenue (203-94-ZP-SD- GD); A requ-st for a Site Development Permit for a new residence and pool. Staff had nothing further t• add to the staff report. OPENED PUBLIC HE G John Barksdale explained e architectural details and discussed the driveway design. This a flag lot an. there is a need for over-flow parking requiring very little pavement in the •etback. The design of the driveway reflects the need for man uvering. There was a concern that a lots do not have the same configurations and the houses do not look alike. r. Barksdale commented that they intended to make each house as different as p•ssible. Suggestions included using stucco on two houses and possibly wood •ided on lot 3. Commissioner Doran felt the applicant has done a good j.b designing the driveway, and that it would not be as livable,if changed. Co 'ssioner Stutz asked if tl}e columns on lots 1 and 2 will be painted white. Mr. r►arksdale noted that the columns on lot 1 will be the same color as the walls. Co umns on lot 2 are intended to be a different color from the siding but not whi e. Gray or brown are likely choices. It was noted that the pool lquipment wa. not shown on the plan. CLOSED PUBIC HEARIN Ms. Kolf note4 changes to c•ndition#10 as noted in the City Engineer's memo; change to#17 removing "Fr.;ncemont Subdivision" and adding "no temporary certificates of occupancy sh.11 be permitted. Planning Commission Minutes DRAFT April 26, 1995 Page 15 MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED: Motion by Commissioner Doran and seconded by Commissioner Finn to approve the Land of Ward, 11841 Francemont Drive with the amendments to the conditions as stated. AYES: Chairman Schreiner,Commissioners Stutz,Gottlieb,Cheng,Finn &Doran NOES: None This item will appear on the City Council consent calendar May 17, 1995. 4.6 REVISION TO THE TOWN'S COLOR BOARD; A discussion on utilizing a reflectivity value to approve exterior colors for new construction,and adoption of a new set of colors. Discussion ensued regarding choosing low reflective value colors. Commissioner Doran felt the values were too low on the color board requesting taking the values up a little. Chairman Schreiner noted that the code and the policy states that they are to choose low reflective values for earthtone colors asking for agreement that 50%is the mid-range;anything below 50% is low, anything above 50%is high. Commissioner Cheng noted that you cannot look at the exterior colors alone. It is a combination of all the colors (materials, roofing, accent such as brick,siding and trim). Commissioner McMahon suggested setting values on roofs at(30%),walls (at 50%) and trims at (70%). Chairman Schreiner noted that Town policy was to not let buildings dominate the landscape. MOTION SECONDED AND FAILED: Motion by Commissioner McMahon, • seconded by Chairman Schreiner and failed by the following vote to approve 40%reflective value for exterior walls. AYES: Chairman Schreiner,Commissioner McMahon NOES: Commissioners Cheng,Finn,Stutz &Gottlieb ABSENT: Commissioner Doran MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED: Motion by Commissioner Gottlieb and seconded by Chairman Schreiner to approve 50%reflective value for exterior walls. AYES: Chairman Schreiner,Commissioners Stutz,McMahon&Gottlieb NOES: Commissioners Finn&Cheng ABSENT: Commissioner Doran Planning Commission Mi utes DRAFT April 26, 1995 • Page 16 MOTION SECONDED • D PASSED: Motion by Commissioner McMahon and seconded by Chairman Schreiner to approve 40%reflective value for roofs. AYES: Chairman S• einer,Commissioners S utz,McMahon&Gottlieb NOES: Commission-rs Finn&Cheng ABSENT: Commission-r Doran MOTION SECONDED • D PASSED: Motion by Commissioner Finn and seconded by Commission:r Cheng to approve 100%reflective value for 10%of trim excluding major fea res such as trellis,columns,garage doors and railings. AYES: Commission-rs Stutz,McMahon,Finn,Cheng&Gottlieb NOES: Chairman S einer ABSENT: Commission•r Doran The PlanningCommission shall review the reflective values six months after approval uner the new policy. The color value recommendations will be agendized for City Counc' review and approval. 5. REPORT FROM CITY COUN IL MEETIN 5.2 Planning Co ission representative for April 19th meeting- Commission:r Gottlieb. 6. NEW BUSINESS 6.1 Discussion o'Council policy on circular driveways. This item will be continued o the next meeting. Continued to May 10, 1995. 6.2 Discussion o possible changes in review process for Site Developmen.permits. This item will be continued to the next eeting. Co tinued to May 10, 1995. 7. LD B'. E 7.1 Report from ubcommittees. None. Planning Commission Minutes DRAFT April 26, 1995 Page 17 8. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 8.1 Approval of the April 12, 1995 Minutes. MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED BY CONSENSUS: Motion by Commissioner McMahon,seconded by Commissioner Finn and passed by consensus to approve the April 12 minutes. 9. REPORT FROM THE SITE DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MEETING 9.1 LANDS OF YUNG, 13880 Campo Vista Lane; A request for a Site Development Permit for a landscape plan(continued from the April 26th meeting). Approved April 26th with conditions. 9.2 LANDS OF LIN, 12380 Priscilla Lane; A request for a Site Development Permit for a tennis court. Approved with conditions April 26, 1995. 10. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned by consensus at 12:15 a. m. Respectfully submitted, Lani Lonberger Planning Secretary