Town of Danville - Planning Commision Submittal

[Tim Haley]

Below is a copy of a Previous E-mail Response from David:

David Crompton

 

Principal Planner

Planning Division

Town of Danville

Tel: [phone]

 

From: Tim Haley [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Wednesday, April 02, 2014 2:32 PM
To: David Crompton
Cc: LiwenandVince Cheung; Bob Pohl
Subject: 1621 Lawrence Road

 

David,

 

As we discussed in our meeting a few weeks back regarding 1621 Lawrence Road, we would like to work with you through the process of design (though we won't burden you with a lot of reviews).  As Bob mentioned in his previous phone call with you - Liwen and Vince have a few issues that need to be clarified so they feel comfortable proceeding forward with escrow on the lot.  I have attached two files for your review.

 

The first file (A1.0) shows the previous proposed "approved" project with a 7,200 s.f. house.  The second file (A1.1) shows our desired proposed project with a 5,000 s.f. house.  -- you'll need to open them in a program that allows you to zoom in on them instead of just a viewer ---

 

A couple of items to review with you include:

 

1) Both houses share the same general footprint and location (with our proposal being smaller).

 

2) Our proposal includes the potential of an addition of 2,000 s.f. to be added to the house at a future date (not to be issued or designed with the Permit Set used to construct the house - but intended to add clarity that this additional 2,000 s.f. would not be objectionable by the town but would be subject to its own design review when submitted) ---- we just want to know we can still potentially have a 7,200 s.f. house.

 

If you want approval now so that you may add the 2,000 square feet later, you will need to submit drawing that show the entire project. You can describe it as phase 1 and phase 2. The Town will not just approve a 2,000 square foot future addition (even conceptually) without knowing exactly what is being approved.

 

3) We understand that we can only build a one story structure but would like to have permissions to have some spaces with higher than a 10ft ceiling (I think the previous design had this but the drawings were not clear) and we would like potentially a tower-like structure (not very massive) - just to break up the elevation massing wise - also subject to review.  We feel that the older design lacked character with its uniform massing.

 

We don’t care how the inside is designed as long as the structure does not exceed 24 feet in height.

 

4) We understand why the Berm was added in the back or south side of the property (to reduce the shadow of the house from the sky as seen from down below).  We would like to propose another solution to this so we can maintain 360 degree views.  We propose to add large shade trees to achieve the same effect as the berm (and they would actually be more effective since they would be higher and also reduce the Southern sun's exposure to the house).  These trees would still allow us to see through their trunk level to the views beyond.

 

I don’t like the idea of trees rather than the berm. The berm is more permanent, the trees will take time to grow and then their ongoing health depends on how well future homeowners maintain them. The Town will push for re-approval of the berm.

 

5) We would like to put solar panels toward the southwest side of the property - on the ground and not on the house since the south side of the house will be the "front" of the house.  Similar to the neighbors on the west side.

 

We will have to work together to determine the most appropriate location for the ground mounted solar panels.

 

6) We would also like to have the water tanks (per fire department requirements) toward the southwest side of the property, similar to the neighbors on the west side and most likely just above theirs.  If required by the fire-department we would put them in the location shown on the drawings (to the north side of the road before you arrive at the auto-court).

 

Obviously our goal is to put them in a location that is functional and least visible from below. This can be discussed.

[Tim Haley]

Hi Team,

Just a quick update that we (and Tim) met with the Design Review Board last Thursday, and the meeting went really well. The board has given its approval on the preliminary plan, and we are moving onwards to the Planning Commission! Liwen will work with David Crompton to find out how soon that meeting will happen. Thanks to everyone for your help in making this a success so far. 

A few immediate next steps:

Jim: I understand that you and Mitch are currently working through a couple of issues, including the widening of the road and water tank location. Please let us know by when we can expect to have these resolved, so you can complete the staking where the utility trenches will be and the corner of the building pad?  

Mitch: Accordingly, let us know your estimate for the borings and all roadwork (i.e. Phase 2 of your work) as well as by when you expect to complete the borings and geotechnical report. Geoff Monk is also waiting on a few details from your work in order to complete his study.

Tim: Let's pick up where we left off on utility, lighting, and interior details. Do let us know what needs to happen next. 

Thanks!

I think we should actually hold back on the Architecture and Landscape Design so we can have Jim, Mitch and Brad work on their work (since their work will influence ours - even ceiling and electrical potentially - as well as the landscape).  I'll still be working on some details however this week.

So if Jim, Mitch and Brad have any question - please post them on www.allylocal.com or call me.  I'll check back in with everyone to see how we are progressing a week from now (and coordinate with people along the way this week).

Beyond that we should expect Planning Commission approval but we still need to get past that milestone (and we may want to have a team wide project meeting closer to that future date or shortly there after)

- Thanks.

[Tim Haley]

Danville Design Review Board meeting on Thursday went spectacularly well.  They loved the project and mentioned that there were 4 other projects submitted before this (I wasn't aware of this)... and all of them required multiple submissions.  We will probably get a meeting summary letter from David Crompton but here are some of the suggestions they had (the project was very well received) [don't think any of these - below - are required changes]:

• Suggested upgrading the driveway to concrete or pavers and I mentioned it was a budget call to stick to asphalt + that we are not in a highly traveled neighborhood like Blackhawk.  They agreed and suggested stamped asphalt or colored asphalt.
• Suggested using metal bars for guardrail on roof-top garden instead of cable rails
• Mentioned potential fire concern with roof overhangs (eaves) being wood but they loved the idea - I mention we would look into ways to help fire-proof the wood and we don't know if the Fire Department will have an issue with it yet.
• They were concerned that a metal roof could be shinny but when presented with the manzanita colored sample... they loved it and said that's what they want to see. :)

[Tim Haley]

On Mon, Jul 14, 2014 at 9:42 AM, David Crompton <[e-mail]> wrote:

Hi Liwen and Vince,

 

There is no automatic submit by X date and make X date DRB or Planning Commission agenda. If we find that your architectural plans are complete on the first submittal, we will place it on the next available DRB meeting agenda. When we receive a new application we have to route plans to other departments and agencies for comments. It can take up to 30 days to determine if your application is complete.

 

I look forward to working with you on this application.

[Tim Haley]

On Mon, Jul 14, 2014 at 8:35 AM, David Crompton <[e-mail]> wrote:

Tim,

 

That list looks like everything. Make sure you use the Design Review Board Submittal Checklist so that all of the required details are included on the plans. As far as the Planning Commission schedule, you need to submit the application for review at the staff level. When the application is deemed complete, we will schedule it for the next available DRB meeting, and then on the Planning Commission when it is ready and we are able to get it on an agenda.

 

David Crompton

[Tim Haley]

Below is a copy of the E-mail I just sent to David:

David,

We are moving forward with the new design for 1621 Lawrence Rd.  Yesterday we pulled together the design team adding Mike Murphy as the Contractor and Ross Wells as the Landscape Architect (who did the previous landscape scheme for John Miller).  We will also likely still retain Debolt for Civil Engineering and Engeo for Geotechnical / Soils (they also previously worked on the project with John Miller).

As we discussed before - we wanted to modify the previous design done by Dahlin Group (and John Miller) and we hope to be able to get onto the review schedule for the Planning Commissions next meeting (Vince or Liwen Cheung will try to schedule this with you in a following e-mail).  I wanted to review the items below for submission and wanted to get you input on anything else we will need to complete the submission requirements.

1. Site Plan w/ Old Plan (for context to see previous approved submission by John Miller)
2. Site Plan w/ New Plan
3. Two Site Sections
4. Four Elevations
5. Floor Plan (single story design)
6. Roof Plan
7. Material Sample Board w/ Colors for the House
8. Landscape Plans (per previous submission)

=========

All the drawings will be at 1/4"=1'-0" scale on 30x42 sheets except the Site Plan and Site Sections are at a smaller scale to fit the sheets.

Let us know if you need anything else for the submission (or add any detail requirements we need to be aware of for the drawings provided).

Sincerely,

Tim Haley