PC 052307 - Laserfiche WebLink

Martin Lysons, 279 Front Street, Danville, spoke on behalf of the applicants and owners and thanked staff for a thorough and accurate staff report. The applicants agreed with the staff report and the conditions of approval as well as the proposed added conditions that were noted by the Commission regarding communications, prep for photovoltaic panels, and adding the specific recommendation from the Engeo, Inc. review. They would also be willing to look at the nonreflective glass as part of the design. He noted that this site had a long history and that there had been an approval in 2000. He believed the new design was much less obtrusive than the previous design and that it was smaller and had a lower profile. He noted that they had worked with the homeowners association, going back to March 2004, and that they had met on May 23, 2006; they came to an agreement regarding specific criteria by which the homeowners association would approve the project. He noted that the agreement was outlined in the letter and the staff report. A discussion of the homeowners association’s involvement in this application process and noticing ensued. In response to an inquiry by Chairperson Fox regarding the slope of the pad as well as the entire lot, Tim Lorenz, project architect, 526 Clipper Street, displayed the site plan and noted that the last site had been developed 35 years ago. He pointed out the area that had a 45-degree slope and added that the ancient hillside was still intact. He described the existing driveway cut and the slope of the site. He noted that the colors often appear pinker under fluorescent lights and agreed to work with staff on-site to get the colors right. He noted that the black oak tree would be retained and added that Tim Ghirardelli stated that it was in fair-to-poor condition and that they were sensitive to changes in water patterns. He noted that in order to bring the house down, the roof pitch was changed to 3:12; he believed it remained an attractive house. He noted that they were taking advantage of the flattest part of the lot and the best location for the home. Ms. Decker noted that the 1986 General Plan stated that buildings should not be constructed on grades greater than 25 percent; that statement was omitted and struck from the General Plan when it was updated in 1996 and, therefore, not applicable. She added that there had been interest through the General Plan Update process to examine slopes within the area, but the Council has not supported nor directed that language be put back in the current General Plan Update. The General Plan currently did not restrict building on sites where the grades were greater than 25 percent. She noted that that the City Engineer could provide comment as far as these slopes being between 20 percent to 25 percent. She noted that this was the flattest portion of the site and that it was located in the least-sloped area. Commissioner Blank agreed with Ms. Decker’s synopsis of the 25 percent grade and added that while it was not in the 1996 General Plan, the City Council had the opportunity to enact it pending the approval of the current plan and chose not to do so. Chairperson Fox recalled that staff had said that if a slope were 25 percent, it would not be graded, and requested clarification. Ms. Decker noted that was under a great deal of PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES May 23, 2007 Page 12 of 20