A. ROLL CALL: Present - Chair McLaughlin, Boardmembers Beales, Collins, Figour and Stroub

Absent - None

Ex-Officio - Senior Planner Watrous, Associate Planner Lynch and  Minutes Clerk Flanagan

D. OLD BUSINESS BEFORE THE BOARD

1. 146 Rock Hill Drive Belman Decks/Variance CONTINUED TO 4/18/02

2. 1765 Vistazo West Street Gaede Additions CONTINUED TO 3/21/02

E. NEW BUSINESS BEFORE THE BOARD

3. 140 Esperanza Street Kuwatani Fence/Variance APPROVED

4. 5 Via Capistrano Shannon Fence/Variance APPROVED

5. 115 Leland Way Horn Additions APPROVED

6. 2 East Terrace Brune Additions/Variances/Floor Area Exception APPROVED

7. 18-24 Linda Vista Avenue Hunt Additions/Floor Area Excpt. CONTINUED TO 3/21/02

G. ADJOURNMENT – 7:40 P.M.

A. ROLL CALL

Present: Chair McLaughlin, Boardmembers Beales, Collins, Figour and Stroub

Absent: None

Ex-Officio: Senior Planner Watrous, Associate Planner Lynch and Minutes Clerk Flanagan

B. PUBLIC COMMENTS:

No one spoke during this time.

C. DISCUSSION AND STAFF BRIEFING

Senior Planner Watrous reported that scheduled items for 146 Rock Hill Drive, 1765 Vistazo West Street, 18-24 Linda Vista Avenue were continued. He informed the Board that the appeal on 2120 Mar East Street would be heard at the March 20 Town Council meeting. Also, interviews for the open position on the Design Review Board would be held at the same meeting with the possibility of an appointment made that evening. He asked that Boardmembers consider specific dates in April for a joint workshop with the Planning Commission, Town Council and the Design Review Board. He stated that there would be a meeting with Reed Union School District and several Town Council members regarding upcoming school development projects, and asked if two Boardmembers would attend the meeting. Chair McLaughlin and Boardmember Beales volunteered to attend that meeting.

The applicant is requesting approval for a fence and retaining wall that are located on the north side of the subject property. On November 5, 2001, the project architect was contacted and informed that a retaining wall and fence were constructed without Design Review approval. The design of the constructed fence and wall were different in style and size than what was on the site previously. The new fence extends along the north property line adjacent to Centro West Street, to the northwest corner of the property at Esperanza Street. The new retaining wall is built along the same line as the fence, but extends approximately one-half the distance of the fence. The new fence is 58" tall, and the new retaining wall varies in height from four to five feet. As the combined height of the fence and wall exceed 6 feet, a variance is requested for excess wall and fence height.

Mitzi Kuwatani discussed the project and requested approval for the fence and retaining wall.

Bill Von Lackum, 133 Esperanza Street, stated he favors the fence, and felt that this meeting is a huge waste of time because this is a good project.

Jim Crowther, 145 Esperanza Street, stated he concurs with Mr. Von Lackum and asked why the Kuwatanis have to go through the paperwork.

Helen Lindqvist, 2 Cazadero Lane, commended the fence, which gives applicants more privacy than the fence originally approved. However, she felt that the two corner panels are high and obtrusive at the corner of Centro West and Esperanza Streets. She asked that the two panels be lowered so traffic coming up the hill is not obstructed and asked that the spreading evergreens that also block views be trimmed.

Ms. Kuwatani stated the panels are not 73 inches high as stated by Ms. Lindqvist; the highest panels are 5’8" and should not inhibit traffic views.

Boardmember Figour stated the lot is small and the house is close to the property line; hence, the fence and wall are needed. The design is pleasant and he can make the findings for the variance.

Boardmember Stroub stated that there are other intersections that are much more dangerous than this corner. He noted that the house is set down on the lot, making the fence and wall necessary.

4. 5 VIA CAPISTRANO SHANNON, FENCE/VARIANCE

The applicant is proposing to construct a fence on the north side of the property located at 5 Via Capistrano. The fence is proposed to be 7’6" high and constructed of Douglas fir. The applicant has indicted that the purpose of the fence is to keep deer out of the rear yard. The main portion of the fence would be comprised of 2"x2"26" panels with 1’ spacing between each panel. The top 1’6" of the fence will be open, and capped with a 2"x10" horizontal member. With the gaps in the main part of the fence and the open top, the fence will be less intrusive and less of a visual impact than most solid wood fences.

Glenn Shannon, owner, discussed the project and noted that the two people who would be impacted had signed off on the drawings. In response to questions, he stated that the fence is a uniform height; the topography slopes to the pool. The fence will bend around trees. Two diseased trees will be removed with permits.

Boardmember Beales stated that he had no problem with the request. There are good sized shrubs on the property and the neighbors do not object to the request.

5, 115 LELAND WAY HORN, ADDITIONS

The applicant is requesting Design Review approval for an addition to an existing single-family home at 115 Leland Way. The proposal includes a dining room and mater bedroom addition. The project would create two "wings" extending into the rear yard. The total amount of square footage increase is approximately 618 square feet. The proposal would bring the total square footage of the house to 1,865 square feet. The project proposal also includes the installation of a trellis on the northwest side (rear yard) of the residence. The existing trellis near the entrance to the residence would be removed. The residence would be repainted a neutral yellow shade, and the existing wood lap siding on the sides of the structure would be converted to stucco.

Rich Horn, owner, discussed the project. He and stated that he has received five approval signatures from neighbors and has heard no opposition to the project.

Boardmember Stroub stated this would be a low impact addition. The neighbors approve of the project, there are no variances requested, and the addition fits the trend of the neighborhood,

Boardmember Collins stated this is a nice addition to the property and will not affect anyone.

AREA EXCEPTION

Boardmembers Beales and Figour recused themselves from this item.

The applicant is requesting Design Review approval for the construction of additions to an existing single-family dwelling on property located at 2 East Terrace. The property is currently developed with a two-story single-family home. The proposed construction would involve the expansion of the existing second floor living room and family room to the rear. Portions of an existing second-story deck on the rear of the house would be removed, with a redesigned deck extending to the rear of the family room. A new entry patio would be constructed at the front of the house.

Both the existing house and the proposed additions are situated within the required front and side yard setbacks. The requested additions would increase the lot coverage beyond that allowed in the RO-2 zone. Variances are therefore requested for reduced front and side yard setbacks and excess lot coverage. A floor area exception is also requested, as the 168 square foot additions would increase the floor area of the house to 2,975 square feet, or 606 square feet above the floor area ratio for a property of this size.

Phoebe Holscher, architect, discussed the project, and added that prior to the meeting, she had met with neighbor Janet Braff. Based upon Ms. Braff’s concerns, they have pulled the deck two feet back to the setback line, away from Ms. Braff’s property; hence, the corner of the deck is moved away from Ms. Braff’s vantage point. The applicants would like to remove the pine tree after the privacy screen is established, which will give more light to Ms. Braff’s property. They are also proposing to plant screening landscaping along the side and rear property lines. Based upon these changes, the deck portion does not require a side yard setback variance.

Ann Ross, 16 Reed Ranch Road, stated she does not object to the application. She asked if the Town can require construction traffic to park on Reed Ranch Road instead of on East Terrace, which is narrow and has many pedestrians.

Chair McLaughlin clarified that Ms. Ross’ request is not under the purview of the Design Review Board, and that the Town Traffic Safety Committee should be addressed.

Janet Braff, 4 East Terrace, asked if the deck is enclosed. Chair McLaughlin responded that the deck was not to be enclosed. He asked Ms. Braff if she understood the project and approved of it. Ms. Braff responded that she understood and approved of the project.

Ms. Holscher stated her clients will request the contractor demand that subcontractors park on Reed Ranch Road.

Boardmember Collins stated his concern with potential privacy impacts has been alleviated since the deck was moved. He felt that this is a nice addition on a small lot, and he can make the findings necessary to approve the project.

Boardmember Stroub noted that the zoning ordinance was adopted after this house was constructed. He stated that the house is already within the required setbacks, and the excess lot coverage is minimal. He noted that most of the additions are under the existing eaves of the house. He thought that the deck might be a privacy issue, but determined that the impacts are minor.

Chair McLaughlin thanked the architect for working with the neighbor. He stated that his concern regarding the privacy impacts of the deck had been resolved.

M/S, Stroub/Collins, passed 3-0-2 (Beales and Figour recused), to approve the application based upon the findings and conditions as set forth in the Staff report, and to amend the conditions to reflect the plans submitted this evening, with landscape plans to be reviewed by Planning Staff.

Boardmembers Beales and Figour returned to the meeting.

Change include:

Page 7, 2^nd paragraph at the end, to state, :,,,move the garage toward the rear of the property.

Page 7, 2^nd paragraph from the bottom, sentence to state, "…and move the rear wall behind the guest room 30 inches."

Page 7 3^rd paragraph, to state, "…architecture and does not solve…"

Page 9, Boardmember Stroub’s paragraph, at the end, should state, "…enjoyment at the neighbor’s expense." And, "…could be moved and/or combined."

Page 9, 1^st paragraph, last sentence should state, "…approving any additional structure on the property."

Page 8, 1^st paragraph, should be "500 square foot."

G. ADJOURNMENT  The meeting was adjourned at 7:40 p.m.