City of Brentwood
Home PageContact Us!Back

Calendar of Events |Members | FAQ's | Streaming Video Live

Current Agenda and Past Meeting Informations

City Administration


7:30 p.m. February 15, 2000
City Council Chambers                                                                                                                   734 Third Street, Brentwood


Chairman Lawrence called the regular meeting of the City of Brentwood Planning Commission to order at 7:31 P.M. at the City Council Chambers, 734 Third Street, Brentwood, California. Also present were Planning Commissioners Alves, Cowling, Kerchner, and Shipley, Community Development Director Oshinsky, Chief of Planning Leana, Senior Planning Technician Hill, Associate Planner Lew, Associate Planner Zilm, Police Department Davies and Engineer Grewell. 


Bill Putman, 1220 Tidewater Court, requested a book be provided with the staff reports for each meeting for public viewing. He announced the Community Center would be holding their St. Patrick’s’ Day Celebration on Saturday, March 18. The cost is yet to be determined and tickets would be available at the Community Center and the Chamber of Commerce. 


Commissioner Shipley pulled Item 2, Public Hearing for a Conditional Use Permit at 605 Harvest Park Drive and Item 3, Public Hearing for a Conditional Use Permit at 2191 Empire Avenue. 

M/S/U/C Cowling/Alves Approve the Minutes of February 1, 2000 as submitted. Vote: 5-0

1. The Minutes of February 1, 2000

The following is discussion for Items 2 and 3.

2. Public Hearing for a Conditional Use Permit to Establish a 9,128 Square Foot Church Facility in an Existing Industrial/Commercial Building Located at 605 Harvest Park Drive.
Applicant: Bob Allen for Pathways Church
File No.: CUP 99-13 (Hill)

Senior Planning Technician Hill reviewed the staff report dated February 15, 2000.

Commissioner Alves asked staff whether the wall separating the auditorium and the class room is a solid wall? Ms. Hill said yes, that’s correct.

Commissioner Shipley asked staff how many restrooms would the space have and if the parking was sufficient. Ms. Hill said the number of restrooms would be handled through the building permit. The applicant would need to meet code. The parking fulfills the City’s parking ordinance requirements.

Commissioner Shipley was concerned with the temporary use limitation of five years and asked staff why was five years used? Ms. Hill said five years is used because a precedent of five years had been set in the past but if the Planning Commission wished another time frame to be used it could be changed. Chief of Planning Leana said staff did have a concern on what would be an appropriate number of years. If the Planning Commission wishes to have less than five years the applicant can come back for an extension. Community Development Director Oshinsky said a lot of churches have been going into industrial areas statewide for the past fifteen or more years because of the space and cost. Most communities don’t put time lines on churches. He said timelines are typically placed on a use that might have some problems. In the case of a church he didn’t have those types of concerns. 

Chairman Lawrence said originally the five year period was used to have the applicant calculate about how long they would need the space before they could get their own building and the time line was set on the use of the industrial building.

Chairman Lawrence opened the public hearing.

Bob Allan, Senior Pastor of Pathways Church, gave a brief description of the church and their desire to become part of the community.

Commissioner Alves said the City is trying to promote industrial growth in this area. For most of the week the church would only have four staff members using the 9,000 square feet. He was concerned with locking the applicant in for a five year time period or no time period at all that 9,000 square feet would be lost for a more viable business. He asked the applicant if they had any definite plans to move and how much time would be needed to relocate. Mr. Allan said they are presently looking for property to build their own church. They have signed a two-year lease with the building owner with an option to extend after the two years.

Chairman Lawrence closed the public hearing.

Commissioner Alves said basically he was okay with the use as a temporary use but would like something less than five years.

Commissioner Shipley said his first concerns are the restroom facilities and the lay out of the building. He felt if the plans were going to change then he would like the Commission to look at it again with the changes.

Commissioner Kerchner suggested revising the time frame to three years instead of five.

Vice Chairman Cowling said he was okay with the project.

Chairman Lawrence said she would like to see a more employment generating use and she would like to see some sort of a time line placed on the use since this an industrial use area. 

M/S/U/C Cowling/Shipley Approve Planning Commission Resolution 00-11 Approving Conditional Use Permit 99-13 Filed by Bob Allen for Pathways Church to Establish a Church Facility on a Temporary Basis at 605 Harvest Park Drive, Suites A, B and C With the Provision That the Use be Brought Back to the Planning Commission in Three Years to be Reviewed. Vote: 5-0

3. Public Hearing for a Conditional Use Permit to Allow Secondary Housing Unit for Property Located at 2191 Empire Avenue.
Applicant: Carl Cook
File No.: CUP 99-10 (Hill)

Senior Planning Technician Hill reviewed the staff report dated February 15, 2000.

Commissioner Shipley asked staff about the well and septic tank for the secondary unit. Ms. Hill said the well and septic tank will have to be provided by the applicant. They could obtain City services but they are not anywhere close to the City services. The closest services are on Lone Tree Way. Staff has addressed that in the resolution by requiring that the applicant obtain the necessary County permits for septic and water.

Commissioner Shipley asked staff if the driveway is off a paved road. Ms. Hill said Empire Avenue is paved approximately 800 feet off of Lone Tree. It’s gravel from Lone Tree then approximately 800 feet down it turns into a cement type pavement that ends at the end of the Cook’s residence on the south side of their property. The actual access to the modular unit would be from a gravel drive off of that going west of Empire.

Chairman Lawrence asked staff if this was a lot that didn’t have anything on it would the City approve something that would have to go on septic and well? Ms. Hill yes, if the City services weren’t close enough.

Chairman Lawrence opened the public hearing.

Marguerite Dixon, the occupants of the modular unit, thanked the Commission for their consideration of this unit. 

Chairman Lawrence closed the public hearing.

M/S/U/C Kerchner/Alves Approve Planning Commission Resolution 00-12 Approving Conditional Use Permit 99-10 Filed by Carl Cook to Establish a Secondary Housing Unit on His Property Located at 2191 Empire Avenue. Vote: 5-0


4. Continued from the Meeting of January 4, 2000. Application for a Design Review Approval for Nine Models of Single-Family Houses, With Three Variations of Each, Landscaping Plans, Fencing Plans, and Related Improvements to be Constructed on 115 Parcels Within Subdivision Map No. 8199 and on 81 Parcels Within Subdivision Map No. 8342, Located Generally in the Area of Continente Avenue, West of Walnut Boulevard, and North of ECCID Main Canal.
Applicant: IFS Brentwood Investors, LP/Kaufman and Broad of Northern California Inc.
File No.: DR 99-28 (Lew)

Associate Planner Lew reviewed the staff report dated February 15, 2000. Mr. Lew said staff felt there had been some modifications since the January 4th meeting as wanted by the Commission as far as the elevations, window patterns, Dutch gabling and courtyards in front of homes. He clarified the location of the entry masonry wall as part of Parcel G and not to be located at the intersection of Continente Avenue and Walnut Boulevard.

Jim Schmitt, Consultant and Project Manager for Kaufman & Broad introduced the members of the Kaufman & Broad team working on this project. He said the revised Kaufman & Broad project before the Commission makes substantial improvements and follows the suggestions of the Planning Commission from the January 4th meeting. He said they felt it was imperative for approval tonight because there is major infrastructure that Kaufman & Broad needs to put in before the commercial project next to this property can start and their designs have been submitted to the City.

Kevin Crook, Design Director for Kaufman & Broad, reviewed the revised street schemes with the changes to all the elevations and detailing each elevation, set backs, and garage orientation. He said the exterior colors have been changed to more vibrant colors with three-color schemes per style, which would give eighty-one combinations for the 196 lots.

Jeff Tsuruoka, Tsuruoka Associates, Landscape Architect, said they would be providing landscaping along Walnut Boulevard, Continente and onsite landscaping. They would be providing a 5.5 acre park, connecting parcels to the west of the project, which would allow residents in the adjacent Centex project to access the park. The fountain feature at the roundabout is located at the intersection of Griffin and Continente. He presented three fountain designs from a passive to active styles. They would like to see a more passive style of fountain at this location. They have designed the landscaping around the fountain, which would sit on a two foot high pedestal, in an evergreen garden setting with an orchard theme of flowering trees. Mr. Schmitt said the requirement of the fountain/public art has been estimated to cost approximately $12 – 15,000. If the Planning Commission wishes not to have the fountain in that location then Kaufman & Broad would give the City $15,000 toward a piece of public art. Then when Kaufman & Broad builds Continente, they would include the circle, electrical and water in the roundabout to accommodate the public art.

Commissioner Kerchner asked the applicant if lighting was included in the art scape. Mr. Tsuruoka said at this time they were relying on the adjacent street lighting.

Commissioner Cowling asked the applicant how does the City avoid the staining of the fountain with the hard water that the City has. Mr. Tsuruoka said pursuing a more passive fountain would help minimize that from happening. The fountain would have approximately a 10 foot diameter bowl with a large volume of water. Also, if a lighter material were used instead of a darker material the deposits wouldn’t be as noticeable.

Commissioner Alves asked staff if the maintenance of the fountain would be covered under the lighting and landscaping for this development, which requires a maintenance agreement because it would be in a public right-of-way. Mr. Lew said yes. Mr. Leana said, as mentioned in the staff report, another option could a cascade of rocks with water flowing down where the staining and color change won’t be a problem.

Commissioner Alves asked staff isn’t there another roundabout east of this one? Mr. Schmitt said yes, they would actually build two. The other is smaller in size. Mr. Grewal said it was five feet smaller in size.

Commissioner Alves said regarding bike pathways what he would like to see are some pavement alliterations across the roads to connect trails of the park with the trail along the canal. For example, across Armstrong at the corners or some type of feature. Also the same type of treatment on the east and west side of the park and the same treatment at the two entrances with staff approval. Robert Chen, of CBG, said like a golf cart path? Yes, that is something that could be looked into and incorporated into the plan. 

Chairman Lawrence asked the applicant what is the slope of the roof for the Spanish style homes? Mr. Crook said 5 and 12 as is the Italian and the others are 4 and 12 for single and two story homes.

Commissioner Kerchner said it would be very enhancing for all the elevations to add more windows on the side and rear to the open areas particularly on the two stories. He would not have a problem deferring the addition of windows to staff for their approval. In regards to exterior lighting treatments on the homes on the side, rear and front, none are shown. Mr. Lew said typically there isn’t that level of detail, there would be just the standard. Commissioner Kerchner said he was fine with the plans but would like to see a few more windows on the elevations. 

Commissioner Shipley said he also felt there weren't enough windows on the side and rear of the elevations. 

Vice Chairman Cowling said he had been through a lot of these design reviews and has seen a lot of improvement and sees nothing wrong with these elevations. He felt it was broken up very well and the setbacks are very generous. He liked the side entry garage standard in Plan 7. He would like adding double doors on some of elevations, especially the bigger homes, to make a more dramatic entry statement. 

Commissioner Alves said some of the plans mirror each other and he would like to see them jogged a few feet especially on the two stories. He felt the block wall was okay but would like to see the dark strip along top also placed at the bottom with the treatment on both sides of the fence. He would like to see the detail for the opening on the fencing, which was discussed at the last design review, for the openings at the end of the cul-de-sacs, which opens to the office park. Also as discussed at the last design review, he would like to see some courtyards or low wall treatment on the front of a couple of the elevations, especially on the side entry elevations. He wants some of the elevations, especially a couple of the two stories, to have windows in the garage doors as a standard. He felt the model mix was better before than it is now. Previously, there was a more even distribution of the elevations. He is not in favor of the flexibility of houses on different lots, which was something that was discussed before. The color board is better but some of the two tones are still too close and he would want to see more variation. As for the entry statement he wants to make sure the tree locations are not in front of wall itself but off to the side. He would like the decorative street light style per staff approval.

Chairman Lawrence asked the Commission their views on the landscape area of the entry at Continente and Walnut. Commissioner Alves said that should be part of the design review of the industrial park. Commissioner Kerchner felt the entry should be deferred to staff. Mr. Lew said the enhanced entryway at the intersection of Continente and Walnut was required to be reviewed at the time of residential design review but there is no dead line. It would still need to meet the Condition of Approval for Tentative Map 8199. 

Commissioner Shipley asked if there was lighting at the entry of Continente, which he felt would be important for people to find the development. Mr. Lew said no lighting is proposed. The landscaping statement is what remains since the masonry wall situation had been clarified. Staff felt the idea of the wall was a good solution. 

Chairman Lawrence said she felt the applicant has gone a long way in the elevations and listening to the Commission but she felt they could go a little bit further. For example, more changes in the window treatments to change the sameness of the elevations, having double doors or some door treatment on the larger scale elevations. She had a concern about too many side entry garages on a streetscape, which would cause a lack of green space in the front of the homes. She felt they were real close and getting there but not quite there yet. She said the single stories are pretty much the same floor plans as the two stories and may need a little bit more of a change. Regarding the wall where the PC is she would like to see a wall come back before the Commission with some of the openings like those discussed at the last design review. She would like to see the entryway at Continente and Walnut come back to the Commission with something that would give some height and definition to that entryway. 

Chairman Lawrence asked the Commission their feeling on the fountain issue. Vice Chairman Cowling said he liked the fountain. He was just concerned about the maintenance and its looks in the future. Commissioner Kerchner would like the option of coming back with a revised plan, whether it is the cascading rocks or taking into consideration the applicant's proposal of money for public art. Mr. Oshinsky felt more of an analysis would need to be done of the cost for the fountain versus the public art. In looking at public art it can be complicated and they would be looking at other issues. He suggested looking at some type of fountain that wouldn’t be a maintenance problem like the water cascading over rocks or with a large tree in the middle such as an oak or pepper.

Commissioner Kerchner asked staff what the timing was for the park. Mr. Leana said the park is in conjunction with Phase 1 as approved with the Tentative Map 8199.

Mr. Schmitt said he felt the overall feeling of the Planning Commission is that they are pretty close with a few items yet to be changed. He requested to come back in two weeks with these changes. Mr. Leana said he would prefer it be continued to the March 21st meeting because of the number of items already scheduled for the March 8th agenda. Mr. Schmitt said March 21st is fine but he would like clarification of all the points that the Commission wants them to address.

Ray Panek, Director of Forward Planning for Kaufman & Broad, reviewed the points of concern:

1. Windows both in location and adding more of them to the elevations;
2. Plotting both in corner lots and extremely large side yards; 
3. The issuing of mirroring with the locations of the homes to be off set;
4. Enriching the elevations, especially on the large homes, with double doors by style;
5. Garage door windows as standard on some elevations;
6. Color board and changing some of the closely aligned tones to get a difference;
7. Entry statement, both one that is proposed and providing an additional one at Continente and Walnut;
8. Will look at the issue of too many side entries on street scapes;
9. Bring back a couple of alternatives on the fountain design, perhaps a tree or cascading rocks;
10. Decorative lights in a subdivision are a standard condition of the Tentative Map so that would be a requirement for all except Continente and Walnut;
11. Intersection Treatments around the park and entry ways;
12. Placement of exterior lighting on the homes.

Mr. Schmitt said in regards to the wall they could do two accent lines across the top and bottom. The Commission is also requesting them to do an analysis of what the openings would look like with the steel tubing. Regarding the entry landscaping both of the commercial projects will be brought to the Planning Department by the end of the month and part of that process will be the landscape entry. They would like to work with Ralph Strauss Design and the Planning Department on how they want the entry way landscaped and ensure that the landscaping works with what Mr. Strauss is doing for the commercial on the north and south. 

Chairman Lawrence clarified that the Commission was talking about the landscaping at the wall that goes along the PEC and the landscaping where the yards are along the pathway inside the subdivision and on the outside. Mr. Schmitt said the PEC side of the wall is going to have a thirty-foot landscape strip because inside of that are the sewer and water lines which is an easement that is landscaped already. It will be whatever the PEC property is required to have because it’s not K&B’s property. 

Mr. Lew asked for clarification regarding the pedestrian openings on the east side at the end of the cul-de-sacs. 

Chairman Lawrence said she would like to have at least the two center cul-de-sac openings with gates to give residents access to the commercial area. 

Mr. Schmitt said both the Police Department and Kaufman & Broad didn’t want openings to the east side because it would give people access to the commercial area at night. 

Mr. Leana said he felt it would be trouble to preclude someone living in the subdivision from being able to walk to work with easy access. He felt the intent was to have a couple of accesses with locked gates where the residents could get permission for a key to the gates.

Commissioner Shipley said he felt that kids would be going over into the commercial area.

Chairman Lawrence doesn’t feel it’s going to be misused. She doesn’t feel all four cul-de-sacs should have gates to go into the commercial but does recommend the two center ones with the opening and gates. If it became a problem then the City could permanently close the gates.

Mr. Schmitt asked should they prepare a proposal with the two gates? Chairman Lawrence said yes.

M/S/U/C Alves/Kerchner Continued to March 21, 2000 Planning Commission Resolution No. 00-08 Approving the Design of Nine Models of Single-Family Houses and Related Improvements (DR 99-28) to be Constructed on 196 Parcels Within Subdivision Map Nos. 8199 and 8342, Located Generally South of Continente Avenue, West of Walnut Boulevard, and North of the ECCID Main Canal. Vote: 5-0 

5. Application for a Design Review Approval for Five Models of Single Family Homes, With Three Variations of Each, Landscaping Plans, Fencing Plans, and Related Improvements to be Constructed on 121 Parcels of Subdivision Map No. 7844, Located at the Southwest Corner of the Intersection of Balfour Road and Sellers Avenue.
Applicant: Ryder Brentwood Properties, L.O./Shea Homes
File No.: DR 99-04 (Lew)

Associate Planner Lew reviewed the staff report dated February 15, 2000. He presented an updated color board, which was brought forward this evening. The applicant has agreed to revise the pop-out as an interior issue. He presented the tiered approach to the wood fencing between Lots 48 and 49 and the masonry wall on Lot 41. 

Commissioner Shipley asked staff regarding Parcel A, does the good neighbor fence have to go all the way to the curb or could it stop where the good neighbor fence stops. Mr. Lew said it could stop there.

Commissioner Alves asked staff if the Gerry property was staying there for a long time. Mr. Lew said yes but staff is not aware of how long.

Commissioner Alves said there is an extensive amount of fence along their property, which could be a heavy burden on them as far as repairs. He would like to see an enhanced wood fence bordering their property along the side and rear as well. Mr. Lew said it would be more substandard but because of the trees lining the property a lot of that is not clearly visible.

Don Hofer, Shea Homes, introduced staff and presented a summary of their changes to conform with the Conditions of Approval and also reviewed the re-plotting. He reviewed and requested approval of the architectural thirty-year composition roof shingles for the Craftsman elevations. In regards to the tiered fence issue the original intent may have been misunderstood. The Gerry’s wished that Parcel A be an alternate access to their property and that they maintain access out onto Balfour Road. Shea Homes would propose to build out the improvements on Parcel A with the fencing as presented tonight so if in the future Mr. Gerry decides to move forward with using that as access it's in place.

Chairman Lawrence asked the applicant whether the stucco wall is pre-cast panels or built panels? Mr. Hofer said a pre-cast wall, which is then stuccoed.

Vice Chairman Cowling asked the applicant on Plan 5, regarding the fireplace change, is that offset from the actual fireplace? Mr. Hofer said it is offset a little.

Commissioner Alves asked the applicant if the fireplace was wood burning or a gas insert. Mr. Hofer said they are proposing wood burning fireplaces with gas service to them so if the homeowner wishes to put in a gas log they can. 

Leonard Gerry, owner of the house, said he had plans to sell the house but it’s a little difficult when you can’t get into the house. It’s completely cut off now. He does intend to maintain that driveway from Balfour Road. The Parcel A access was just an alternative. 

Commissioner Kerchner asked Mr. Gerry if any arrangements have been made as far as Parcel A and tying his access through the property itself? Mr. Gerry said no there is no paving or anything provided in there now. Commissioner Kerchner asked if there was any discussion in regards to whether he cared to have this wood fence as far as the up keep. Mr. Gerry said it depends. Most of those fences are going to be on project property. It won’t be on his property. 

Commissioner Alves said regarding the perimeter fence he felt it should be a more substantial fence than a good neighbor fence. In regards to the driveway if the Gerry’s want to have their driveway then they risk having a right turn in or a right turn out at sometime in the future. 

Chairman Lawrence felt in regards to the driveway that the City wants to eliminate as much as possible Balfour having as many entrances and exits from that area. As soon as there can be access for the Gerry’s other than Balfour it should done. She understood that there would be a cost in putting in a new driveway and removing some of the trees. But Mr. Gerry was the original property owner and was involved in the original subdivision map and doesn’t feel that it is unreasonable to expect him to provide a new entry from his lot.

Mr. Oshinsky said typically the City does like to restrict turning movement and driveways onto arterial roads, which Balfour is, but that would be the only driveway there and it is a considerable distance from the Guise Way entrance. 

Vice-Chairman Cowling said he would prefer a concrete path instead of an asphalt path. He was in favor of maintaining access onto Balfour Road for the Gerry property. The masonry wall he would like to see as masonry block. In regards to the tiered fencing on the secondary access along Parcel A he agreed to terminate it at the fence line. 

Commissioner Kerchner said the concrete pathway would be his choice as well. In regards to the 100 foot zone on Sellers he would like to see it in sooner than later.

Commissioner Shipley felt everything had been covered. He questioned how many units would have the composition roof. Mr. Hofer said the Craftsman of all five elevations so it would be approximately a third of the neighborhood.

Commissioner Alves said for the masonry wall on Seller he would prefer block wall. The barrier fence on the Gerry property needs to be upgraded more than a good neighbor fence. In regards to the tier down it doesn’t matter. It could be ended at the fence line. It was fine with him to have the concrete instead of asphalt on the pathway. As far as the roof material he was okay with it because it does match the style of the house. He was also okay with no more than the fourth phase for putting the improvements in. 

Chairman Lawrence asked the Commission about the improvements and when they should be in. Vice Chairman Cowling is saying by the first house built, Commissioner Kerchner is saying by the twenty-fifth house, Commissioner Alves is okay with no more than the sixty-fourth house and Commissioner Shipley is saying soon because it is a amenity which adds to the neighborhood and the homes.

Chairman Lawrence said in regards to the composition roof she felt that it was unfair for the Commission to make a decision tonight without a sample material or staff recommendation. Mr. Oshinsky felt that the project would not need to be continued if that is the only question the Commission had. It would have been helpful to have a sample of the material before them tonight. 

Chairman Lawrence felt if composition roofs were going to start to be accepted then the Commission needs to set very high standards for the composition roofs before applicants start bringing them in for approval.

Commissioner Alves said regarding Plan 1 and 2 he felt they look alot alike even though Plan 2 has an upstairs room but has a one story profile. He doesn’t have a problem with that but the problem is the two plans do look similar.

Chairman Lawrence said she had the same issue. In the past when reviewing this type of a house with a loft the Commission has looked at it as one floor plan with an option. This applicant is presenting it as two separate floor plans. She felt the applicant needs to come in with one more floor plan to meet the requirement for the proper number of floor plans. She felt the applicant is one short in the floor plans. She was in agreement with everything else that has been talked about. 

Commissioner Kerchner said he looked at it as two separate plans.

Vice Chairman Cowling said he felt they were different enough to be two different floor plans.

Commissioner Alves felt the colors look too much the same but liked the styles and felt there needs to be more variation in colors for Elevation A especially. He would also like to have garage door windows in some of the elevations as a standard.

Mr. Hofer said regarding the improvements in the Sellers Avenue strip they understood the tentative map condition to include the landscaping. So they have created some of the mounding that will be required, however, the remainder of the mounding will be completed with spoils that are generated from their lots during construction. Their plea to staff today was to let them get through half of the project so they can get the mounding in place and improvements in place. They certainly want to get the amenity in as early as possible. In regards to the elevation which was discussed at the workshop in June, it was felt that Plan 1 and 2 were different enough as the roofline, entry and color board were different. They asked that the Commission accept them tonight as two separate floor plans and move forward with it. Regarding the upgrade of the fence at the Gerry parcel he has indicated that he is not interested in upgrading the fence. He is fine with it being a good neighbor fence. At the previous workshop regarding the pathway he felt that the Commission had determined that the asphalt was a better material for jogging, recreation use and maintenance. In regards to the composition roof proposal if the project could be approved tonight and continue the roof to another meeting or they would participate in a study session or bring in bring sample to help with that decision.

Chairman Lawrence apologized for not catching the elevations being similar before but she caught it this time. She understands their point and she does recognize it.
Commissioner Alves recommended in terms of the garage door windows that a minimum of two thirds of the models have windows as a standard.

Chairman Lawrence still felt there is no difference between Plan 1 and 2 especially when forty percent of the homes will have those two elevations. She strongly felt the applicant needs to add one more floor plan.

Chairman Lawrence asked for a consensus on the pathway material. There was a consensus for the concrete.

Chairman Lawrence asked for a consensus on the roofing materials to be used. There was a consensus for concrete tile.

Chairman Lawrence asked for a consensus on the fencing in regards to the Gerry property. There was a consensus for a good neighbor fence.

Chairman Lawrence asked for a consensus for the timing of the amenities. There was a consensus for Phase 2.

Chairman Lawrence asked for consensus regarding the wall at Sellers. There was a consensus for concrete block and to bring it back for approval of the design.

Chairman Lawrence asked for consensus regarding the floor plans. There was a consensus to approve the project with an addition of one more floor plan to be brought back for approval.

M/S/U/C Alves/Shipley Approve Planning Commission Resolution No. 00-13 Approving the Design Review of Five Models of Single Family Houses and Related Improvements (DR 99-04) to be Constructed for Subdivision Map No. 7844 Located at the Southwest Corner of the Intersection of Balfour Road and Sellers Avenue With the Addition of Exhibit A With the Modification of the Soundwall Will be of a CMU Design to Come Back to the Planning Commission for Approval; No Upgrading of Fencing Along the Gerry Property; Entries Have Enhanced Treatments With Approval Through Staff; Roofing Material to be Used Throughout be Concrete Title; Another Color Block for A With More Variation; Come Back With an Additional Elevation; Improvements Along Sellers be In Place Before the End of Phase 2 as Stated onThese Plans Which Would be Approximately Thirty Homes; Two Thirds of All Models to Have Garage Door Windows as a Standard; Concrete Pathway Along Sellers and Balfour; CMU Fence on Lot 41; and Fencing on Parcel A to Terminate at the End of the Fence Line With No Tiering Down.


6. Public Hearing for a Tentative Subdivision Map, a Proposed Nine Lot Single Family Subdivision and a Remaining 1.5 Acre Parcel. This 4.46 Acre Project Site is Generally Located at the End of Quiet Gable Court and West of Rosegate Avenue. A Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Project has Been Prepared, Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, to Assess Potential Environmental Impacts.
Applicant: Frank Maggiore
File No.: TSM 8371 and DR 99-30 (Zilm)

Associate Planner Zilm reviewed the staff report dated February 15, 2000. He requested that a portion of a sentence which has been agreed to by City Engineering, Centrex and County Flood Control, be added to Condition #5 on the Resolution approving the Tentative Map with the third line to read “by and to the satisfaction of Contra Costa Flood Control District”. 

Commissioner Kerchner asked staff if the green bonus program had been followed up on. Mr. Zilm said yes, there are some lots that have the front landscaping in and some do not yet as of a week ago. The landscaping that was seen looked very nice with the lawn, shrubs and trees but he didn’t know if it was the homeowner that did it or Centrex. He is not aware of any complaints saying that landscaping has not been put in or any problem.

A Centrex representative stated that they agreed with City staff recommendations. There is an item that has come up within the last week where they have held meetings with the homeowners of adjacent properties and have been successful in working them out. But there is a concern of the owners that live on Lot 101 which is a single story and they are backing up to Lots 5 and 6. The existing owners/residents would prefer to have single stories abutting their existing single story. This would change the site plan but they would be able to put another Plan 3 on Lot 5 and 6. It would mean they would have three elevations per plan to achieve the variation in the community. There would be one Plan 3 with the same elevation because there is a total of four Plan 3’s on Lot 1, 3, 5 and 6. The only other request they had was to install an additional two foot lattice on top of the six foot fence. Centrex is in agreement with that and they would go ahead and process the variance permit along with the installation of their six foot fence.

Mr. Zilm said the addition of the lattice would require a variance. To his knowledge there is only one subdivision in the City that has done that in the past because they had windows on the side yards that matched up to each other and the City allowed them to do the two foot extension. But being that the homes are far enough away from each other there is no finding or reason for it.

Chairman Lawrence opened the public hearing. There were no comments from the audience.

Chairman Lawrence closed the public hearing.

Commissioner Shipley was concerned about having three Plan 3’s lined up in a row. He recognized that the applicant was trying to work with someone. 

Chairman Lawrence suggested that on Lot 6 have a two story which would impact the homeowner on Lot 101 the least of all and Plan 3 on Lot 5.

Vice Chairman Cowling wanted to leave it the way it’s originally stated in the staff report.

Mr. Zilm said the single story is approximately sixteen feet high and the two story is approximately twenty-five feet high so there is only a nine-foot difference. With the distance of the other homes is nine feet really going to cause a problem?

Commissioner Shipley asked the applicant if the homeowner wants both Lot 5 and 6 single story. The Centrex representative said it’s mainly Lot 5 because it abuts their lot more than Lot 6. But their request to them was if the applicant was willing to change both of them and in this case the applicant is. 

Commission Shipley recommended making Lot 6 a two story and Lot 5 a single story. 

Vice Chairman Cowling said he could live with it.

Commissioner Alves said he could live with it.

The Centrex representative suggested on Lot 8 or 9 they could put a Plan 7 instead of the Plan 6 because there are two Plan 6's on Lot 8 and 9. Commission agreed.

Commissioner Kerchner commented in regards to a 4,000 square foot home with only a single entry door. He would like the entries enhanced.

Mr. Leana said on the Condition of Approval #3 third line change word subdivision to parcel division

Commissioner Alves requested garage door windows as a standard.

M/S/U/C Alves/Kerchner Approve Planning Commission Resolution No. 00-09 Approving Tentative Subdivision Map No. 8371 and the Adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Subdivision of 4.46 Acres Into Nine Single Family Residential Lots and a Remaining 1.51 Acre Existing Residence Site, Located West of Rosegate Avenue (APN 010-110-009) With Changing the Wording on Condition of Approval #3 Third Line From Subdivision to Parcel Division and On Condition of Approval #5 Third Line Adding the Wording “And To the Satisfaction Of the Contra Costa Flood Control District”. Vote: 5-0 

M/S/U/C Alves/Shipley Approve Planning Commission Resolution No. 00-10 Approving Design Review No. 99-30, Filed by Centex Homes, for the Design Review of Five Single Family Homes to be Constructed on Nine Lots on Quiet Gable Court Within Subdivision 8371 With the Change of Lot 6 Retain Plan 5, Lot 5 Retain Plan 3 and Lot 9 Retain Plan 7; and Half of the Homes Have Garage Door Windows as a Standard. Vote: 4-0 Commissioner Kerchner abstained. 




There was no report.


Mr. Cowling announced this committee was to be eliminated.


There was no report.


There was no report.


Commissioner Shipley announced the next meeting is scheduled for February 25, 2000.


Chairman Lawrence announced the next meeting would be February 17, 2000.

Commissioner Shipley requested a workshop regarding composition-roofing material that is available.

Chairman Lawrence requested that staff review the possibility of adding garage door windows as a standard in the Conditions of Approval.

Commissioner Alves requested staff contact payroll regarding the possibility of direct deposit for the Commissioner’s checks. 


There being no further business before the City of Brentwood Planning Commission, Chairman Lawrence adjourned the meeting at 12:25 AM to the rescheduled regular meeting of March 8, 2000.

Submitted by,

Lynn Reichard,
Recording Secretary


City of Brentwood Planning Commission
150 City Park Way
Brentwood, CA 94513
(925) 516-5405
Fax (925) 516-5407