Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2004-03ge SUMMARY OF ACTIONS: Ao Approval of the Summary of Actions for the Special Planning Commission meeting of December 16, 2003, which was held at 6:30 P.M. prior to the Regular Town Council meeting. Chair Storer had a motion from Commissioner Osbofn and a second from Commissioner Graham to approve the Summary of Actions for the Planning Commission meeting of December 16, 2003, as amended to reflect that Commissioner Jameson had not been present at that time and that Commissioner Condie had voted in the affirmative on each of the items that Commissioner Jameson had been shown as being the voting member. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Combs, Condie, Graham, Jameson, Legg, Osborn, Storer Moran 4. NEW PUBLIC HEARINGS: Ao DEL AMIGO POOL ASSOCIATION (Owner/Applicant) Land Use Permit LUP 2000-16: The Del Amigo Pool Association (DAPA) has requested two amendments to the Conditions of Approval of an existing Land Use Permit, LUP 2000-16. One amended condition of approval relates to placing a six- month time limit on all activities related to the DAPA swim team. This six- month period would float according to the start of the swim team season each year, and would be identified in the annual newsletter mailed to surrounding property owners. The second amendment relates to the parameters of the required Compliance Committee and would limit involvement to the DAPA by appointing a representative to monitor the operational aspect of the swim event and correct any concerns that arise. This would include DAPA creating a procedure for residents to file complaints or comments. This project is located at 622 Glen Road (General Plan: Residential - Single Family - Low Density, 1-3 units per acre) (Zoning: R-20; Single Family Residential District) (APN 201-182-009) (Project Planner: Jill Bergrnan). Associate Planner Jill Bergman identified the proposed amendments to the original conditions of approval, voluntary amendments that DAPA had brought forward to the Town as a result of the November 13, 2003 Commission meeting which was the third year check-in for the Land Use Permit (LUP) for the operation of the facility. Ms. Bergrnan noted that concerns related to the operational aspects of the DAPA Summary of Actions 2 January 20, 2004 Swim Team had been raised at that meeting as to timeframe and timeline, as well as to the make-up of the Compliance Committee. The Commission had not acted on the item in November given its determination that the conditions established under the LUP. are effectively managing the operation of the pool. An appeal had subsequently been filed by some neighbors. To avoid an appeal, Town staff and DAPA members had worked to address the items of concern. Ms. Bergman stated that DAPA had been willing to agree to a condition establishing a six-month timeframe for swim team activities since that would not limit its current activities. The period related to all swim team activities and would float dependent on the start of the season. The second condition that was requested to be changed related to the composition of the Compliance Committee since DAPA had found it difficult to designate a non-biased member to monitor the swim team's activities. Condition Nos. A.16 and A.31 had been recommended for modification to address the concerns, as follows: A.16. The hours of operation for the Del Amigo Pool shall be limited to: · 8:00 A.M. to 9:00 P.M. everyday · Swim team related activities and events shall be limited to a six-month period per each calendar year. · Adult lap swimming may begin at 6:00 A.M. · Swim meets shall not begin prior to 8:00 A.M., this does not preclude set-up time for meet events or related pre-meet activities. · Swim team practice shall not begin prior to 8:00 A.M. Monday through Saturday (no Sunday practices are allowed). A.31. A compliance representative shall be selected by the Del Amigo Pool Association (DAPA). This individual shall oversee the on-going compliance of the facility consistent with the approved Conditions of Approval for the project. The DAPA shall be responsible for creating alternative methods of communication for members and non-members who may have concerns related to the operational aspect of the facility. These methods shall include such resources as establishing e-mail contacts, links on the Association's website, and comment forms at the facility that can be accessed and submitted to the DAPA for action. The compliance representative shall be responsible for resolving comments and complaints filed, by working with the DAPA. STEVE GROTE, the President of the Del Amigo Pool Association explained that at the November 13, 2003 meeting, DAPA had advised that it had achieved successful Summary of Actions 3 January 20, 2004 compliance, with one complaint, during the last DAPA swim season. DAPA had made that complaint itself to the Danville Police Department. Mr. Grote commented that the Commission had acknowledged at that time that there should be no time constraints on the operation of the pool as long as it met the LUP guidelines. After the meeting, he had been informed by Mr. Bergman that the neighbors would be appealing that decision. His interpretation of that appeal was that the neighbors had wanted a limitation on Swim Team activities and not Swim Club activities. He had been happy at that time to accommodate the neighbors' concerns. Mr. Grote stated that limiting all swim team related activities to six months each calendar year would not affect the operation of the swim team since its activities were generally limited to five months or less. He commented that he had learned this date that the neighbors were asking for a six month limit on all swim activities, including lap swimming, which was not be something that DAPA could support. He suggested that lap swimmers would not impact the neighbors. Mr. Grote reiterated that he was in agreement with the modifications to Conditions A.16 and A.31 as recommended by staff, with a floating start/finish date to conform to the Valley Swim Association. While a six month period would cover DAPA's current operations, he would not agree to a six month limitation on all swim activities, which would limit the use of the pool for that period of time for any purpose. With respect to the Compliance Committee, Mr. Grote expressed DAPA's willingness to have the Compliance Committee Chair verify that all the guidelines had been met and that there were no complaints from the neighbors, but if there were complaints that DAPA would respond to those complaints throughout the year. He clarified that DAPA would assign a DAPA member to address compliance issues within the swim team and for the two to three other general events that were held. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED DAWN MARONEY, 608 Camino Amigo, Danville, clarified that it was not the intent of the neighbors to place a six month restriction on the Pool Association. She noted that in 2001 there had been a six-month date for the opening and closing of the pool from May to the end of October, although the Town had asked for a revision of the rules and regulations. When those rules and regulations were revised, Ms. Maroney explained that the period had been changed from May to include April, a seven-month period. In Su .mmary of Actions 4 January 20, 2004 2002, she stated that DAPA had asked for an extension of use into November for adult lap swimming, which had extended the period to eight months. Ms. Maroney explained that she represented a number of neighbors who would accept that situation and would not have asked for a six month limitation since she and the neighbors were aware that compliance with the Valley Swim Association meant that DAPA would operate for only four months. Instead, she stated that the neighbors had proposed an appeal to define the swim season by limiting the number of months of operation in each year. She noted that the DAPA Handbook had been used as the basis for the pool season operation, which was to have been from the first Sunday in April to the last Saturday in October. She clarified that the definitions were different for the Association Handbook and the Swim Team Handbook. Ms. Maroney reiterated that the neighbors had no concerns with the lap swimming in November given that there was no noise associated with that activity. She also had no problem with a floating six-month period as long as it was within the parameters of April through October each year. Where there was an issue, Ms. Maroney stated that the neighbors had become concerned when the six-month period had been extended to seven months with the addition of the month of April. She urged the Commission to clarify the definition of the use to protect the neighborhood. She characterized the situation as a mistake that should have been corrected and should be corrected at this time to protect the neighborhood. Ms. Maroney reiterated that the neighbors were not asking the Planning Commission to determine a swim season for DAPA, it was simply asking the Commission to take what DAPA had already determined and had established for the last three years to verify its chosen season April through October, with a possible extension for lap swimming in November in the conditions of approval. DEBRA PITCHER, 637 Glen Road, Danville, offered copies of an e-mail dated November 6, 2002 which had been sent to the Town Office by the then President of DAPA, which e-mail had addressed the neighbors' concern about the unidentified season of the swim facility. The Town's response to that concern had admitted to an error in the definition of the swim season and the resulting need to have the Commission modify the conditions of approval to limit the pool operation from April to October. Ms. Pitcher emphasized the need to clearly define the months of operation of the pool facility to protect the neighborhood in the future, particularly since Councils, Commissions, Town staff and pool membership would change. She sought the Summary of Actions 5 January 20, 2004 limitations for the pool facility and not just for the swim team. When asked by Commissioner Combs if she would accept an extension of pool activity for lap swimming only, Ms. Pitcher stated that she would have no opposition if the LUP stipulated adult lap swimming only. She also commented that she would accept a definition of "adult" as the age of an individual who could swim at the pool unattended. MEG MUYSKENS, 481 Veda Drive, Danville, had submitted a card and wished not to speak other than to support the position of the surrounding neighbors to limit the use of the Del Amigo Pool. DAWN MARONEY, Danville, referred to the November meeting and the comments from Gary Realy, DAPA's Renovation Coordinator, which comments had referred to the month of March four times. She explained that was the type of red flag that continued to raise the concern of the neighbors. She offered copies of those comments for the Commission's reference. Commissioner Jameson verified with Ms. Maroney that she had no objection to adult lap swimming, even if that was done 12 months out of the year. Ms. Maroney stated that she would have no problem with adult lap swimming, although she would have a concern with the identification of an adult, which she believed was 18 years of age and older. REBUTTAL: Steve Grote expressed his belief that the major impact of the Pool Association on the neighborhood was the DAPA Swim Team activity. He suggested that a start date/stop date was impractical, and he commented that each year DAPA indicated that the pool would open in April and close in October. He stated that the DAPA Board of Directors did not want to limit the use of the pool. If DAPA was able to heat the pool during the winter, he would like DAPA to be able to retain that opportunity for non-noise creating activities for children and for adult members. While he would agree to limit organized events, Mr. Grote did not see how the general membership's use of the pool could be a concern to the neighborhood. He added that would involve minimal people with minimal effect. Commissioner Jameson verified that the start date/end date for swim team activities would be set by the Valley Swim Association. He agreed with DAPA's need for flexibility. He expressed a preference to see the pool heated to allow Summary of Actions 6 January 20, 2004 members and people in the neighborhood the ability to swim year round. Commissioner Graham verified with Mr. Grote that there would still be a lifeguard on duty after the end of the swim team's season for adult lap swimming. He was advised that the lifeguards were normally on duty from 3:00 to 6:00 P.M. during the spring and all day long during the summer when children were present. There were also times when members could bring his/her children to the pool when no lifeguard was present. Mr. Grote added, when asked, that the pool was generally heated in April when it opened. He commented that few children used the pool after the end of the swim team season. The pool was generally not heated after October 31 each year. He commented that while lap swimmers could use the pool all year, it was not economical for those lap swimmers to cover the cost of heating the pool. He otherwise did not support further limitations on the use of the pool and suggested that the Commission would be micro managing if that were done. As a Pool Association and a property owner in the Town of Danville, Mr. Grote stated that DAPA should be able to use its property on a year round basis as long as it complied with the conditions of LUP approval. Ms. Bergman stated that when the LUP had been submitted it had been submitted for the operation of the swim team use as well as a recreational pool. She stated that the staff proposal was associated with swim team-related activity, lap swimming and social events. Water polo or other team events were not covered by the LUP. Any modification in that regard or the addition of any activity not initially evaluated by staff as part of the LUP would require a public hearing and Planning Commission approval. Ms. Bergman reiterated that it was the staff intention that the six-month limitation was intended to address the swim team activity only. Ms. Bergman recommended approval of the modifications to LUP 2000-16 subject to the Findings and Conditions of Approval contained within Resolution No. 2004-02. Commissioner Graham recollected that he had recommended at the time the Commission had previously considered the DAPA application a time limit on the use of the pool. He recalled that it was the consensus of the Commission at that time that there was no need to limit the use of the pool. Commissioner Osborn commented that she had attended most of the swim meets last year. She recalled the Commission's prior discussions related to the Summary of Actions 7 January 20, 2004 management of the Del Amigo Pool, which had become unmanageable from the neighbors' perspective. It was Commissioner Osborn's recollection that the Commission had limited the use of the pool to six meets and a specific number of social events. She noted that no time period had been considered at that time. She did not see a need to change the original conditions of approval which, she suggested, currently offered DAPA needed flexibility. Commissioner Osborn added that the original condition of approval for the Del Amigo Pool was in 1959, and everyone in the neighborhood was aware of the pool. Since she had observed the operation of the pool over a couple of years, she stated that DAPA had made an extraordinary effort to do everything it could pursuant to the conditions imposed upon it. She added that she had not seen egregious efforts over time of not complying with the conditions of approval. Commissioner Osborn did not want to limit lap use or potentially swim lessons to students regardless of the time of year. If that should become a problem in the future, she stated that would be an appealable action that could be addressed, if necessary. She did not want to restrict something that had not been shown to be a problem. Commissioner Osborn emphasized that the Town continued to grow and facilities would have to be provided. She added that there were a limited number of facilities in the community. She did not support a modification to the conditions of approval. Commissioner Condie noted that the operation of the swim team and the pool was a legal non-conforming use in place prior to the incorporation of the Town, and the use of the site could have been continued, without restriction, if physical modifications to the site had not been proposed. Stating that the neighbors previously had a legitimate complaint given the impacts to the neighborhood, Commissioner Condie suggested that the Commission had not addressed the legitimate complaint related to large swim meets which were too large for the site and which he suggested would become problematic in the future. He otherwise did not believe that the other conditions related to the operation of the facility should have been imposed since it was his belief that the nexus was not present to allow that to be done. As a matter of policy, Commissioner Condie did not believe that the Town should be involved in the type of conditions that had been imposed on the use. Commissioner Condie characterized the items addressed by the conditions as Summary of Actions 8 January 20, 2004 annoyances that had previously existed. He suggested that the Town had no good reason to become involved in that case. Since he believed it had been a mistake to include some of the conditions that had been included, Commissioner Condie did not support any modifications to the conditions. He commented that if the parties involved agreed to the time limit proposed by Condition A.16 that should be done between the parties. He did not believe that the Town should impose and enforce that time limit. He did support the modification to Condition A.31 since that would reduce the work required of the City related to the operation of the facility. Commissioner Condie reiterated that DAPA's use of the site was a legal use when it had previously been considered by the Commission and no privilege was being granted that DAPA had not already been granted. He did not support the Commission's continuing involvement in the situation. Commissioner Graham agreed with the proposed modification to Condition A.31 but not the proposed modification to Condition A.16. He commented that DAPA's improvements that had necessitated the Commission's reconsideration of the .site had improved the site and the situation. He did not believe there was a need or a requirement to tighten up DAPA's use of the site any more than currently existed. Commissioner Combs did not support a micro management of the facility. He suggested that DAPA had managed the site quite well. He also commented that the swim season in and of itself was self-limiting. He did not support a limited use of the pool. He therefore did not support the proposed modification to Condition A.16. He also had no issue with Condition A.31. Chair Storer suggested that DAPA had done a credible job during the last three years of improving a difficult situation. He stated that he had also attended a number of the meets. He did not support further restrictions on the use of the pool. While he encouraged DAPA to continue to work with the neighborhood, he suggested that it was time for everyone to try to get along. Chair Storer recommended that the name and number of the compliance representative be printed in the newsletter prior to the commencement of the swim season to apprise neighbors of who to contact should there be a reason to do so. He did not support the proposed modification to Condition A.16. A condition was recommended to name and provide the phone number of the compliance representative in the DAPA Newsletter prior to the beginning of the swim season. Chair Storer had a motion from Commissioner Combs and a second from Commissioner Osborn to approve modifications to Land Use Permit LUP 2000-16 Summary of Actions 9 January 20, 2004 subject to the Findings and Conditions of Approval contained within Resolution No. 2004-02, as follows: A.31. A compliance representative shall be selected by the Del Amigo Pool Association (DAPA). This individual shall oversee the on-going compliance of the facility consistent with the approved Conditions of Approval for the project. The DAPA shall be responsible for creating alternative methods oJ: communication for members and non-members who may have concerns related to the operational aspect of the facility. These methods shall include such resources as establishing e-mail contacts, links on the Association's website, and comment forms at the facility that can be accessed and submitted to the DAPA for action. The compliance representative shall be responsible for resolving comments and complaints filed, by working with the DAPA. To add a condition to name and provide the phone number of the compliance representative in the DAPA Newsletter prior to the beginning of the swim season. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Combs, Condie, Graham, Jameson, Legg, Osborn, Storer Moran Bo ROBERT and SANDRA GALLO (Applicant/Owner) MS 852-03: Minor Subdivision request to subdivide a 3 +/- acre parcel into three single-family residential parcels. The site is located at 256 La Questa Drive. The project has been found to be Categorically Exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Section 15301, Class 15 (General Plan: Residential - Single Family - Low Density, 1-3 units per acre) (Zoning: R-20; Single Family Residential District) (APN 216-041-020) (Project Planner: David Crompton). · Principal Planner David Crompton presented the staff report for the request for a Minor Subdivision to subdivide a 3 acre parcel into three single family residential parcels of approximately one acre each at 256 La Questa Drive. He described La Questa Drive as a uniquely rural neighborhood near the Town's downtown. Mr. Crompton advised that the Planning Commission had held a Study Session in August 2003 when the Commission had discussed the merits of the subdivision. An application had subsequently been submitted. The site was General Planned Single Family, Low Density, which allowed a range of development from one to three units per acre, and was zoned R-20; Single Family Residential allowing a minimum lot size of 20,000 square feet. The proposal would allow three lots of over an acre in size. The smallest lot size was 28,000 square feet net. Summary of Actions 10 January 20, 2004 Mr. Crompton explained that the Commission had been asked to evaluate the proposal in Study Session given staff's concern for setting a precedent for subdivisions in the neighborhood. In addition, the Town's General Plan policy, which called for the preservation of existing neighborhoods, had discouraged subdivisions in the area of existing lots over an acre in size. Mr. Crompton suggested that the proposed Minor Subdivision would not set a precedent for the remainder of the neighborhood given that the majority of the 3 acre parcel was outside of the Rancho San Ramon Heights neighborhood and the subject Homeowners Association (HOA) and CC&R's. Stating that the proposal for one-acre lots would be consistent with the rural character of the neighborhood, Mr. Crompton added that the three lots would be set back off of La Questa Drive and be hidden, with lot screening and buffering that would obscure the homes. Through the approval, the Town would also have some architectural control over the homes that would be built. Mr. Crompton reported that there were a number of trees on the site, approximately 60 in number, most of which were walnut or eucalyptus trees. Many were considered to be Heritage trees since they were over 36 inches in diameter. While the Tentative Map called for the removal of a number of the trees, he stated that the staff recommended conditions proposed that only the trees necessary to allow the subdivision improvements be removed. He stated that would affect four trees; two eucalyptus and two walnut trees. If found to be reasonable based on the health of the trees and the desirability of the lot, Mr. Crompton stated that the removal of additional trees could be considered through the future Development Plan applications for the parcels, He added that the neighbors adjacent to Parcel 1 had enjoyed the shade and buffering created by the existing eucalyptus trees on that parcel. A condition proposed for the development of that parcel, which had the largest trees, would require the retention of as many of those trees as possible Mr. Crompton stated that each of the lots would require review by the Town under separate Development Plan applications that would require staff and Design Review Board (DRB) review and approval. He added that the existing home on Lot 3 would also be subject to review. Conditions of approval would require that generally ranch style homes be constructed with a single story to be constructed on Lot 2 consistent with the homes adjacent to that lot. Another condition would require the applicant to work with the neighbors to the east to create a landscaping plan and to plot the trees to provide appropriate screening. Summary of Actions 11 January 20, 2004 Mr. Crompton recommended approval of the Minor Subdivision request MS 852-03 subject to the Findings and Conditions of Approval contained within Resolution No. 2004-01. Commissioner Condie noted that there was no condition in the staff recommended conditions of approval to require ranch style homes. Mr. Crompton responded to a number of questions, among them the recent lot line adjustment approved by the Town, the establishment of the setback line from the creek and the fact that 36 inch trees were designated as Heritage trees. Commissioner Osborn requested the addition of a condition to impose the Town's Tree Preservation Ordinance to mitigate the viewshed. Given that the zoning allowed the land to be divided at least into three lots, Commissioner Jameson questioned on what basis the Commission would have to deny the request. Mr. Crompton commented that the Commission could deny the proposal if the proposal did not comply with the character of the neighborhood, particularly since the General Plan had a policy to preserve the character of neighborhoods. BOB GALLO, the owner of the site, noted the evolution of the site, and stated that he had been working with all of the neighbors to adjust the CC&R's to accommodate the development. After working with the neighborhood for a year or two he stated that the entire HOA Board had voted to change the CC&R's. He commented that there had been a meeting of the property owners that adjoined the project but were outside of the HOA, which neighbors had some concerns with the proposal. Mr. Gallo stated that he had no problem keeping the homes architecturally consistent with the adjoining homes. He stated that an arborist had evaluated the eucalyptus trees, particularly on Parcel 1, many of which were infected. There was a safety concern associated with some of those trees. Discussions with the neighbors had occurred to plant trees of the neighbors' choice along the back fence to ensure screening in that area. While he did not believe it was necessary considering the size of the lots, Mr. Gallo stated that he wOuld agree to the one story restriction on Lot 2. He supported the staff recommended conditions of approval. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED Summary of Actions 12 January 20, 2004 JIM FREETHY, President of the Rancho San Ramon Heights HOA, 122 La Questa Drive, Danville, representing 70 homes, stated that the HOA had been working with Mr. Gallo for two years and had worked out all of its issues. The HOA Board of Directors supported the proposal for three houses with ranch style homes on one- acre lots. Mr. Freethy commented that the HOA was comprised of primarily single story homes on 80 percent of the lots. BOB LANCE, 479 Old Farm Road, Danville, described his home and the privacy it currently enjoyed. He emphasized that there had been nothing to indicate to him when he had purchased his home ten years ago that there would be any development of the adjoining three-acre parcel. He also rejected the suggestion that the Minor Subdivision would appreciate the value of his property. He suggested that it would do the opposite and depreciate the value of his property. Mr. Lance stated that he did not support the project because of those concerns. JULIE McKINNEY, 704 Old Farm Road, Danville, stated that she had purchased her home in the last year and a half as a result of the backyard and the privacy it offered, which had involved the payment of a large premium because of that backyard. She expressed concern for the potential loss of property values as a result of the proposal, particularly since she had recently learned that the 27-year residents who sold the home to her had sold the home because of the impending development. While she thanked Mr. Gallo for the meeting to show the residents the plan and his intent to cooperate by providing landscaping to protect the residents' privacy, Ms. McKinney stated that she and the other property owners along Old Farm Road were not part of the Rancho San Ramon Heights development and had no vote in the HOA's CC&R's. She sought protection to the greatest extent possible. She also acknowledged that many of the adjacent eucalyptus trees might have to be removed further jeopardizing the privacy of adjacent residents. Ms. McKinney expressed concern for the effects of the new development, including noise, construction impacts, rodents, ants, snakes and other nuisances that would impact adjacent residents. Commissioner Combs verified with Ms. McKinney the location of her home, which he noted was approximately 160 feet from the subject property. Summary of Actions 13 January 20, 2004 Chair Storer emphasized for Ms. McKinney that the applicant would be required to significantly screen the back of the property lines and that Lot 2 would have a single story. Ms. McKinney noted the concessions that were being made but emphasized that the removal of the eucalyptus trees would negatively impact her home. GEORGE CLARKE, 470 Old Farm Road, Danville, a 25-year resident, reiterated some of the concerns of Old Farm Road residents who would lose his/her privacy as a result of the proposed development and the removal of the adjacent trees. REBUTTAL: Mr. Gallo noted his original intent to build a two-story, 14,000 square foot home on the property for his family. He stated that there would have been no restrictions to doing that, which had been his initial purpose in acquiring the property. He stated that the proposal would represent something smaller and less noisy than what could have been developed and there would be input and control that would not have previously occurred. He added that a full size gymnasium had also been proposed. Mr. Gallo emphasized therefore that the proposal represented a lesser impact to adjacent residents than what could occur. He added that he had worked with the neighbors to address his/her concerns. Mr. Gallo added that the distance from Parcel I to the back of the home was 200 feet, which was a significantly larger distance than would be associated with most other homes. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED Mr. Crompton reiterated the zoning for the site, as R-20 Single Family Residential, which zoning had been associated with the property for the last thirty years. Commissioner Osborn advised for the benefit of the neighbors that the Planning Commission was obliged to abide by land use law. When something was zoned and in accordance with the law and unless there was some legally defensible reason to deny that use, the Commission would have to adhere to the proposal. She saw no reason or justification to deny the application. She supported the project based on her obligation as a Planning Commissioner. Summary of Actions 14 January 20, 2004 Commissioner Osborn emphasized that property owners had the obligation to control his/her own property and plant the necessary screening to create his/her own haven and privacy. Commissioner Osborn otherwise sought the preparation of a full arborist report to identify the status of the trees for safety reasons. She sought the replacement of any heritage trees consistent with the Town's Tree Preservation Ordinance to help mitigate and provide screening to the neighbors. Commissioner Combs concurred and agreed that the property owner had the right to develop his property. He stated that the Commission could help mitigate some of those issues by requiring planting and/or replacement planting to screen the site. He supported the proposal as consistent with the requirements. Commissioner Graham noted that the Commission had worked long and hard on the General Plan and theunderlying zoning for the property allowed the proposal. He also noted that the General Plan required the retention of the neighborhood character and the Commission had worked to accomplish that goal. He also emphasized the property owner's right to develop the property with something larger, more obtrusive and more onerous to the adjacent residents which would require no Planning Commission review and approval. Commissioner Graham referred to the General Plan policy to protect existing neighborhoods and stated that he could not support the proposal. He otherwise noted that an arborist report would be advisable to address the health of the existing trees. Commissioner Condie suggested that the proposal would not change the character of the neighborhood, offer only a slight increase in the number of people living in the neighborhood, and that the proposal would allow some control over the appearance of the homes to be developed, which would not likely occur without the proposed development. He therefore suggested that the proposal would, in effect, preserve the character of the neighborhood. Commissioner Condie also did not support a restriction on the style of the home. He recommended that the DRB evaluate the proposals to make certain that they would be consistent with the neighborhood. He supported the recommended conditions of approval to include the requirement of an arborist report and the architectural language as it currently existed in the draft resolution of approval. Commissioner Combs stated that as a member of the DRB, the architecture of any proposal would be carefully considered from the neighboring viewpoints. Summary of Actions 15 January 20, 2004 Chair Storer commented that it was sometimes difficult to balance the rights of the property owner with the concerns of the neighbors. He suggested that the applicant and Town staff had been very sensitive to the neighborhood concerns related to additional screening and single story homes. He did not support a limit to the style of development for a ranch style home. He supported something that would correctly fit within the pad and be consistent with the neighborhood. Chair Storer commented that the process of development in the Town was long and tedious, with the end result creating a product of superior quality taking the needs of the residents into consideration. He also supported a full arborist report in this case, in particular with respect to the larger trees and the preservation of as many trees as possible. Chair Storer supported the proposal and thanked the applicant for being sensitive to the neighborhood. Commissioner Jameson commented that eucalyptus trees did not fare well in the Danville climate. He also noted that the zoning for the subject site would permit two houses per acre, allowing six houses on the property in conformance with the zoning. He suggested that the proposal represented the best proposal for the site in comparison with what could be developed. When noted by Mr. Crompton that the staff report spoke to a single story home requirement for Lot 2 while the conditions did not, Commissioner Combs suggested that be addressed by the DRB process. Commissioner Osborn took this opportunity to thank the applicant and the members of the public for staying so late to participate in the process. Chair Storer had a motion from Commissioner Combs and a second from Commissioner Legg to approve Minor Subdivision MS 852-03 subject to the Findings and Conditions of Approval contained within Resolution No. 2004-01, with the following changes: · To require replacement of the trees consistent with the Town's Tree Preservation Ordinance. To require a full arborist report for each individual Development Plan to identify the health of the eucalyptus trees and the value of retaining the trees. Protected trees to be replaced consistent with the Town's Tree Preservation Ordinance. Summary of Actions 16 January 20, 2004 AYES::~. NOES:. ABSE.lSFr: ABSTAIN: Combs,. Condie, Jameson, Legg, Osborn,. Storer Graham Moran 5.. COMMITTEE REPORTS:. Commissioner Osborn reported that the Planner's Institute would be-held in Monterey at the end of March and the beginning of April. As the President of the League of California Cities (LCC)Planning and Community Development Department, she sought those interested in moderating any of the sessions at the conference. 6.. . CORRESPONDENCE: There was no correspondence. ADJOURNMENT:. Chair Storer adjourned the meeting at 9:45 P.M. KekiB_.~iley, Chief of Planning Brenda Mitchell, Administrative Secretary Summary of Actions 17 January 20, 2004 2 TOWN OF DANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Town Meeting Hall 201 Front Street Danville, CA 94526 January 20, 2004 7:30 P.M. SUMMARY OF ACTIONS Commissioners Present: Combs, Graham, Jameson, Legg, Osborn, Storer Alternate Commissioner Present: Condie Commissioners Absent: Moran PUBLIC COMMENTS: This was an opportunity for members of the public to address the Commission on any planning subject not on the agenda. There were no comments from the public. 2. ELECTION OF NEW CHAIR AND VICE CHAIR Chairperson A motion and a second were made to nominate Robert Storer as Chairperson. There were no other nominations. Robert Storer was unanimously selected as the Chair of the Planning Commission for 2004. Chair Storer chaired the meeting at this time and thanked outgoing Chair Robert Combs for his outstanding leadership. He presented a plaque to former Chair Combs in recognition of his dedicated service from January through December 2003. Vice Chairperson Commissioner Combs nominated Robert Legg as the Vice Chair. Commissioner Graham seconded the nomination. There were no other nominations. Robert Legg was unanimously selected as the Vice-Chair of the Planning Commission. Summary of Actions I January 20, 2004