Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Project topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
ASRB moves 675 Mansfield Way to planning commission, urges controls on glazing and lighting
Summary
The ASRB forwarded the conceptual design for 675 Mansfield Way to the planning commission after praising the design and urging attention to tree removal, fencing and nocturnal light emission from large glazing; staff noted a second‑driveway exception will likely be required.
The Architectural and Site Review Board voted May 4 to forward the conceptual design for 675 Mansfield Way to the planning commission, asking staff and the applicant to address fencing, tree removal and light control from extensive glazing.
Staff introduced the 2.72‑acre rural residential parcel and said the application proposes demolition of an existing single‑family dwelling, three accessory structures and an ADU, with construction of a new main residence, a detached garage and two detached ADUs. "For this conceptual design review project, the applicant is proposing to demolish an existing single family dwelling, 3 existing accessory structures, and an existing ADU, and to construct a new single family dwelling, a new detached garage, 2 new, detached ADUs, and associated site improvements," staff said.
Staff also noted the plan modifies two driveway openings and that a second‑driveway exception will likely be required. Tree removal and the vineyard were discussed: staff said 21 trees are proposed for removal, six are considered significant and two of those are cited for health concerns.
Applicant architect Gary Colset (Colset & Associates Architecture) described the design intent: maintain vineyard areas where feasible, retain perimeter trees, reduce the site's existing impervious coverage substantially and keep the project visually integrated with the landscape. "We're probably about 70% reduction" of the inherited impervious overage, Colset said, adding that the team is amenable to adjusting the entry scale and working with staff on fence and lighting details.
Board members repeatedly raised concerns about nighttime light projection from a glazed bridge element and recommended exploring low‑emission (low‑e) glass or other mitigation. "We often are very concerned about light projection," Chair Lindsey said, urging solutions beyond relying solely on interior shades. Staff suggested low‑e glass as a potential objective standard to reduce light emission.
After discussion the board moved to forward the project to the planning commission for formal review, with direction that lighting and driveway safety be clarified during the next stage. The motion passed unanimously.
The ASRB record indicates the planning commission will take up the formal design and any required second‑driveway exception; staff and the applicant will work on additional details and neighborhood outreach as the project advances.
