Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04/26/1995Minutes of a Regular Meeting Appmvad 5/10/95 Town of Los Altos Hills PLANNING COMMISSION Wednesday, April 26,1995, 6:30 p.m. Council Chambers, 26379 Fremont Road cc: Cassettes M09-95 (4 ) 1, am r CALL AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE EGIANCE 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 12:00), 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. PPFSFNTATIONS 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 item was on the agenda for discussion (6.2 'Discussion on possible changes in review process for Site Development Permits"). 3. CONSENT CALEND R None. 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 L provided to the Planning Commission, staff and the applicant for review. Planning Commission Minutes Approved 5/10/95 April 26,1995 Page 2 OPENED PUBLIC HEARING Mike Stortz, 21885 Almaden Avenue, Cupertino, president of Friends of Westwind, Inc. discussed the following issues: alternate site by the pump house for the storage water tank, however less functional; and the status of ADA requirements. Nancy Couparas,13680 Page Mill Road, Westwind Barn associate, commented on ADA requirements for Westwind Barn as discussed at previous ADA subcommittee meetings. At that time, it was thought that Westwind Barn requirements were low on 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 the City Attorney regarding Westwind Barn ADA requirements noting it was incumbent upon Westwind to satisfy itself that it is in compliance with all federal, state and local laws. The City Attorney recommended, with regard to the new arena, Westwind seek independent advice as to meeting the requirements of the ADA. Commissioner Doran felt they should remove Westwind from the list of Town property as so noted in the City Attorney's letter. Hill Reiser, 27640 Red Rock Road, questioned why they do not use a pressurized water system. Jean Struthers suggested the color of paint for the water tank blend in with the surroundings. Les Earnest, Pathway Committee Chairman, discussed an alternative to their original request to build a path with no more the 15% grade, they noted an existing path through Byrne Preserve with a reasonable grade on it. It was therefore possible to connect 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). Currently the path coming from Central Drive drops into a swamp below the arena area. The path should stay on solid ground somehow. There are two alternative ways to getting over to the gate: turn toward the arena following the contour of the hill and loop around to get to the Preserve; the other is to simply turn right along the grade and go over that way. Either way is acceptable to the Pathway Committee as long as there is a solid pathway connecting to Byrne Preserve. This will involve minimal expense. He noted that the gate into Byrne Preserve was originally self closing which it is not now. This needs to be addressed. Susie Holic, secretary for the Friends of Westwind, noted that if the objective was to get from Central Drive to Byrne Preserve there is already an existing way 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. Planning Commission Minutes Approved 5/10/95 April 26,1995 v Page 3 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 up 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 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 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 of a 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 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 onsite 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 Montgomery's landscaping..." with water running to them for the first two years to guarantee growth." Commissioner Doran noted in the City Attorney's letter noted there was an exception and did not want this overlooked. (If the cost and scope of furnishing an accessible path of travel is not proportionate to the overall cost of the alteration. "Not proportionate' is set forth in the ADA as 20% or more of the cost of the original alteration. If Westwind determines 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 estimated cost of refurbishing the Planning Commission Minutes Approved 5/10/95 April 26,1995 Page 4 arena, then Westwind falls within the exception. This determination should be made by J Westwind and not the Town. ) Discussion ensued regarding the pathway. Les Earnest noted that the Emergency Access Committee at their next meeting will consider a proposal to build a fire road through Byrne Preserve adjacent to Westwind Barn which will also provide access at a reasonable grade into the lower area. A suggested wording for the pathway condition would state that the applicant shall improve and reposition the existing path to a reasonable level contouring the pathway either southward along the hill or northward along the hill to avoid the lower swampy area. The Pathway Committee will ask the City Council if they would consider constructing the rest of the path up to Central Drive. MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED: Motion by Commissioner Gottlieb and seconded by Commissioner Finn to approve the conditional use permit and site development permit for Westwind Bard with the following changes to the conditions of approval: #4, insert "5 gallon redwood trees on the Westwind property to fill in the gaps of the Montgomery's landscaping... with water running to them for the first two years to guarantee growth." #6, changed to read "paint color for the Judge's booth, pump house, water tank, roofing and fencing (if proposed) shall be chosen by the applicant in conformance with the Town's adopted color board. The color shall blend in with surroundings (earthtones/brown)." #10, Westwind Barn shall comply with the Americans with Disabilities Acts as per consultant's recommendation, not to exceed 20% as stated in the City Attorney's letter dated April 17,1995. Adding a condition (#11) stating that the applicant, working with the pathway committee and Commissioner Gottlieb, shall provide a plan improving the native path and possibly repositioning the existing path to a reasonable level by 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 be noticed for public hearing for the June 7th City Council meeting Planning Commission Minutes Approved 5/10/95 April 26,1995 Page 5 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 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 scrapping the hillsides and cleaning out the little hill on lot 11. The EIR does not address what happened to the area prior to the application Concerns involved: 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. Elyne Dauber, 27920 Roble Alto expressed concerns with the following: if the cost of maintaining the lake was reasonable; addressing the potential access to Juan Prado Mesa sewer line from the subdivision itself and any environmental effects; environmental impacts of extending the sewer line down Stonebrook Avenue; and investigating and discussion regarding any environmental impacts of the sewer line being pumped up. CLOSED PUBLIC TESTIMONY Discussion ensued regarding a retaining wall going up around the quarry which does not appear to be a part of the reclamation plan which does have an impact on the environment. Questioned were raised as to why it was being installed and who Planning Commission Minutes Approved 5/10/95 April 26, 1995 Page 6 authorized it. Mr. Porto reported that staff was not aware of the construction until yesterday when they saw it under construction. A staff member from the Santa Clara County building department went with the City Manager to view the construction. They are also in the process of obtaining more information from the applicant. No information is known regarding the retaining wall. A "Stop Notice" is being investigated by the County. Mrs. Pollart discussed the environmental impact and a letter sent to the applicant regarding the retaining wall. The concern was that this represents significant new information that was not available at the time that the Draft EIR was prepared. Under these circumstances, the lead agency (the Town) has the discretion to re -circulate the EIR so that the new information can be discussed from an environmental standpoint and mitigation measures addressed. Staff is in the process of making a determination as to what the environmental process will be, given this development. This could greatly extend the time frame for the review of the EIR Staff is still gathering information and has not made a determination as to whether or not the EIR would have to be changed and re -circulated. Another route to take would be to proceed with the draft EIR with recommendations, and certifying it, then immediately prepare a supplemental EIR with the additional information 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 the Commission. Commissioner Doran and Finn suggested asking the applicant's representative to clarify J the construction of the retaining wall. Staff indicated that the request was inappropriate at this time. Commissioner Gottlieb noted concerns and questions regarding the fencing of the lake and will the native animals have access to the lake; lake water flow into Hale Creek and will it be able to hold the water without flooding the down hill neighbors; the water diversion from Prospect and will there be any mechanism to be shut off if there is downhill flooding of Hale Creek; limiting swimming pools and tennis courts to a public area; need to address open space in areas 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: traffic and safety on Stonebrook; and not sufficient information regarding lake management plan as it should be expanded. 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 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 Planning Commission Minutes Approved 5/10/95 April 26,1995 L Page 7 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 to 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 lines in 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. A request was made to hear Lands of Ward, 11881 Francemont Avenue, parcel 3, before parcels 1 and 2. Everyone was in agreement with the request. Commissioner McMahon stepped down from the hearing as she has a personal (business) relationship with the applicant. 4.5 LANDS OF WARD, 11881 Francemont Avenue (205-94-ZP-SD-GD); A request for a Site Development Permit for a new residence and pool. Mrs. Davis introduced this item noting that the applicant had provided the Commission with a map showing the layout of all three parcels. There was a memo from the City Engineer indicating modifications to conditions of approval for parcels 1, 2 and 3. There was also a letter from Santa Clara County regarding materials to be removed from the site which are not hazardous materials. Ms. Kolf discussed the conditions of approval on the original subdivision: eight lots in the Bellucci portion, and the three lots off of Francemont. Some of the conditions of approval included a general.condition relating to the conditions from William Cotton Planning Commission Minutes Approved 5/10/95 April 26, 1995 Page 8 needing to be met. When additional studies where done, there was an old landslide that was mapped which needed to be investigated. The landslide has no indication of movement at this point, however there is a monitoring program being installed in order to watch this. The CC&R's and the Landslide Maintenance Program are the same which will be recorded with each property. The Commission asked if pools were allowed in a flood plain area and if the installation of Adobe Creek takes away the flood plain designation to these lots (correcting the map). Ms. Kolf indicated the statement was accurate. The designation shown on the plans currently is the designation from the FEMA map. When the channel was widened, the flood plain or the flood elevation will be contained within that channel. The FEMA map will eventually be amended to reflect these changes. This situation is similar to the Lands of Wayman which required a FEMA map revision. It was noted that all conditions of approval of the subdivision also needs to be met. The Bellucci subdivision improvements were discussed. OPENED PUBLIC HEARING John Barksdale, project architect, 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 adjacent to a creek. The assets have also created some constraints; all three sites E have been filled as part of the subdivision, out of the flood plain so the flood plain is readjusted. The sites can be built on as if the flood plain did not exist, however they are having to establish the building 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 j 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 1'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 a 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 Planning Commission Minutes Approved 5/10/95 April 26,1995 Page 9 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 on 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 the red tile colors, preferring more neutral organic colors in both the stucco colors and the file 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 some on 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. Commissioner Gottlieb discussed rotating the house and pool to get much more sun in the pool area. Mr. Barksdale commented that they looked at many different options before developing this design. Commissioner Finn did not feel the issue of the pool being in the sun was significant. Commissioner Cheng asked if the applicant had started the study of the ground water monitoring and mitigating program as noted in William Cotton's letter. Mr. Barksdale noted as part of the subdivision, the hillside was studied by about every geotechnical engineer in the area. There has been three monitoring wells that are approximately 110 feet deep that are in place that have been drilled. There has been a main shaft that has been 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 if the water table were to rise to a certain level, it might effect the stability of the hill. The purpose of the monitoring wells is to make sure that this does not happen. If it does happen, there are plans devised for mitigation. Commissioner Gottlieb also asked if the eaves on the second floor could be extended. Mr. Barksdale indicated that the proposed siding and roofing material does not lend itself to large roof overhangs. Les Earnest, Pathways Committee Chair, noted that the pathway recommendation should be as noted in their request of January 25,1995 which is included in the packet. In addition to granting a pathway easement, the native path should be cleared. Condition #16 will include wording stating "to the satisfaction of the pathway committee and the City Engineer." Further discussion ensued. Mr. Barksdale noted that the geologist did not want anything that would impact the steep slope or cause E erosion problems. For clarification, it was noted that it would be an easement at the cul- Planning Commission Minutes Approved 5/10/95 ' April 26,1995 Page 10 de -sac just for a section to access the path. Other requirements would be staying five feet way with landscaping, sprinkler water, etc. Chairman Schreiner discussed excessive pavement in the setback. Commissioner Gottlieb noted that the fourth car space could be eliminated. Staff pointed out that the applicant is required to have four onsite parking spaces that are not within setbacks. Commissioner Finn liked the house and the elevation His only issue was the driveway design. Commissioner Stutz agreed. She did not have a problem with the amount of paving in setback, although the driveway cuts itself off from the house and it could be redesigned. The placement of the house and design are fine. Commissioner Gottlieb could not approve the house without asking for a driveway redesign She asked if there was any way to extend the eaves on the second floor to help soften the look. She also felt the pool should be in a sunny area and the driveway should be redesigned. Chairman Schreiner had a 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 400). 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. J Planning Commission Minutes Approved 5/10/95 April 26,1995 L Page 11 �r 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 dr Gottlieb NOES: None ABSTAIN: Chairman Schreiner k 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-SDGD); A request for a Site Development Permit for a new residence and pool. OPENED PUBLIC HEARING John Barksdale, project architect, discussed the design of parcel 1. The exhibit shows minimum paving needed on the driveway to maneuver vehicles. He discussed architectural features noting the circulation inside the house is such that all of the areas E will access the outdoor space. The house is immediately adjacent to the conservation � easement because there is no need for a sidewalk on the north side. There was a problem with the site with providing the required 10 foot distance from 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 easement which staff suggested being back five feet in the event a future home owner wanted to put a sidewalk around the house. Instead, they have designed the house to bisect the property, providing a private family living area on the western side away from the street. He felt no one would want or need to 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 allowing them to provide an easier, more elegant turnaround and access to the house with the circular element shown on the drawings. They have attempted to keep the house low, keeping areas on the site usable and keeping out of the setbacks. He noted that they were aware of the requirements for darker colors and will comply. The materials for the homes are similar but architectural detailing varies for the three homes; one is single story, one is essentially two stories, and this house is a partial two story. The plan does not indicate pool equipment placement although it could be placed adjacent to the garage. Chairman Schreiner asked about accessing from Lot 2. Mr. Barksdale noted that it was C their original idea, however they did not pursue it since it has been a concern of the Planning Commission Minutes Approved 5/10/95 ' April 26,1995 Page 12 Town to have two driveways. Commissioner Finn felt access onto someone else's flag lot driveway was not desirable. Chairman Schreiner read the Environmental Design Committee's comments on lots 1 and 2 noting the 25 foot conservation easement does not preclude 30 foot setback and should be in addition to the 30 feet. Another comment was that the creek bank and easement should be re -vegetated with native riparian plants (no roses or lawns). CLOSED PUBLIC HEARING There was a concern with allowing the applicant to build up to the conservation easement as there would be grading beyond that point. The house should be at least five feet from the edge of the conservation easement. There was a concern 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 on the plans. Chairman Schreiner suggested moving the house away from the conservation easement, J { changing the driveway design, and she would request a color requirement. Commissioner Finn was impressed that the development area and floor area 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 close to the flag lot as the previous application 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 Platining Commission Minutes Approved 5/10/95 April 26,1995 t Page 13 � y 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 LI, 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 the roof and exterior shall be in darker reflective colors (reflective value of 40%); deleting the last sentence in #9; and making changes to #16 per City Engineer's memo deleting "Francemont Subdivision" and deleting "acceptance of plans for building plan check" and substituting "final inspection and issuance of occupancy certificate. No temporary certificates of occupancy shall be permitted." 4.4 LANDS OF WARD, 11841 Francemont Avenue (203-94-ZP-SD-GD); A request for a Site Development Permit for a new residence and pool. Staff had nothing further to add to the staff report. OPENED PUBLIC HEARING John Barksdale explained the architectural details and discussed the driveway design. This is a flag lot and there is a need for over -flow parking requiring very little pavement in the setback. The design of the driveway reflects the need for maneuvering. There was a concern that all lots do not have the same configurations and the houses do not look alike. Mr. Barksdale commented that they intended to make each house as different as possible. Suggestions included using stucco on two houses and possibly wood siding on lot 3. Commissioner Doran felt the applicant has done a good job designing the driveway and that it would not be as livable, if changed. Commissioner Stutz asked if the columns on lots 1 and 2 will be painted white. Mr. Barksdale noted that the columns on lot 1 will be the same color as the walls. Columns on lot 2 are intended to be a different color from the siding but not white. Gray or brown are likely choices. It was noted that the pool equipment was not shown on the plan. CLOSED PUBLIC HEARING Ms. Kolf noted changes to condition #10 as noted in the City Engineer's memo; a change i to #17 removing "Francemont Subdivision" and adding "no temporary certificates of 6+ occupancy shall be permitted. Planning Commission Minutes Approved 5/10/95 April 26,1995 Page 14 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`Yo 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 not to 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 Cheng & Finn ABSENT: Commissioner Doran MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED: Motion by Commissioner McMahon and seconded by Chairman Schreiner to approve 40% reflective value for roofs. K plane ng Commission Minutes Approved S/10/95 April 26,1995 L Page 15 �r AYES: Chairman Schreiner, Commissioners Stutz, McMahon & Gottlieb NOES: Commissioners Cheng & Finn ABSENT: Commissioner Doran M071ON SECONDED AND PASSED: Motion by Commissioner Finn and seconded by Commissioner Cheng to approve 1001/6 reflective value for 10% of trim excluding major features such as trellis, columns, garage doors and railings. AYES: Commissioners Stutz, McMahon, Finn, Cheng & Gottlieb NOES: Chairman Schreiner ABSENT: Commissioner Doran The Planning Commission shall review the reflective values six months after approval under the new policy. The color value recommendations will be agendized for City Council review and approval. u� 5.2 Planning Commission representative for April 19th meeting - Commissioner Gottlieb. 6.1 Discussion of Council policy on circular driveways. This item will be continued to the next meeting (May 10, 1995). 6.2 Discussion on possible changes in review process for Site Development permits. This item will be continued to the next meeting (May 10, 1995). OLD BUSINESS 7.1 Report from subcommittees. None. 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. Planning Commission Minutes Approved 5/10/95 April 26,1995 Page 16 9. REPORT FROM THE SITE DEVET.OPMENT COMMrrrEF MEETlh 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. I : a e l' \1u17\I The meeting was adjourned by consensus at 12:15 a. in. Respectfully submitted, Lani Lonberger Planning Secretary