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

Absent - None

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

D. CONSENT CALENDAR

1. 2000 Paradise Drive Davis Resolution Granting Appeal ADOPTED

2. 13 Main Street Purdy Sign Permit APPROVED

E. NEW BUSINESS BEFORE THE BOARD

3. 177 Stewart Drive Halsey Additions/Variance APPROVED

4. 205 Taylor Road Nirenstein Garage/Pool APPROVED

5. 1828 Vistazo West Street Ginalski Additions/Fence/Variance WITHDRAWN

6. Discussion Regarding Town Story Pole Policies

G. ADJOURNMENT – 8:45 P.M.

A. ROLL CALL

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

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Senior Planner Watrous reported Item 5, the variance for 1828 Vistazo West Street, had been withdrawn. The appeal for the 2120 Mar East Street was heard by the Town Council last night, and was remanded to the Design Review Board with the recommendation to address previous concerns by the neighbors and the Board as to size and potential impacts on neighboring properties. The May 15 Council meeting will include appeals of 1870 Vistazo West Street and 8 Tara View Road. He answered questions from the Board regarding the Municipal Code’s regulations on remand issues.

M/S, McLaughlin/Beales, passed 5-0, to approve Resolution No. 2002-05.

 2. 13 MAIN STREET PURDY, SIGN PERMIT

The applicant is proposing to install a new window sign, a projecting blade sign and two awning signs at the property located at 13 Main Street. All the proposed signs have the same copy of "Citrus" on them, which is the name of the business. The total sign area would be approximately 10.4 square feet.

Boardmember Figour noted the blade sign will have to be hung lower because of the nearby street lamp.

Eve Hudson, co-owner of Citrus, discussed the signs. Her only requirement is that people walking by can see the signs. The awnings will be painted and since the sun will bleach them, she made the color brighter.

Boardmember Teiser stated the current color of the awnings does not fit in the area.

Boardmember McLaughlin stated he has no problem with applicant’s signage. His issue is that the awning colors may not be consistent with the Downtown Design Guidelines.

Boardmember Figour noted the color becomes a logotype with the sign.

Ms. Hudson stated that she can tone down the awning color.

Councilmember Miles Berger, member of the Downtown Design Guidelines Committee, stated the range of approved colors is extremely wide. He encourages awnings that do not dominate the façade. Staff presented a collection of color samples approved under the Downtown Design Guidelines; the awning color was found to match at least one of the approved colors.

E. NEW BUSINESS BEFORE THE BOARD

The applicant has submitted a request to construct a bedroom/bathroom addition, replace an existing rear deck with a new reconfigured deck, and install bay windows for the residence located at 177 Stewart Drive. The existing home is located slightly below street level on an irregularly-shaped lot. The existing home has two stories and a linear floor plan encompassing approximately 3,135 square feet. The total floor area of the additions would be approximately 750 square feet, bringing the residence to 3,886 square feet, which meets the floor area regulations for the property. The proposed bedroom would be located on the north end of the residence, and bay windows would be installed on the west side of the residence, on both the lower level and upper levels. The existing deck on the west side of the residence will be replaced with a smaller deck and spiral staircase. Other work proposed for the residence includes a new skylight above the kitchen, a new entry door and upgraded windows throughout. The addition would extend to within 11 feet, 11 inches of the side property line; as a 15 foot side yard setback is required, a variance is requested for reduced side yard setback.

Bill Halsey, applicant, discussed the project. In response to questions, he stated that the neighbors on the north side have no concerns with the project, which they cannot see.

Boardmember Teiser stated he talked with the neighbor to the north and a resident there was enthusiastic about the project. The site is downslope and is screened with vegetation. He could not see the story poles from the outside and inside of the neighbor’s house. He said the project has no impact on neighbors.

Boardmember McLaughlin said that he has no problem with the application. The design works, and fits the property, and he can make the necessary findings for the variance.

Boardmember Figour stated that he can make the variance findings based upon the unusual shape of the property. Regarding staff’s concern of the unexcavated area below, this is a natural situation and would take a lot of work to make this space livable.

Boardmember Beales voiced a concern about a future request for increased floor area within the unexcavated area, and added that if this application included developing the floor space, the application would have been rejected. He would like to have notice put on the property and for future Design Review Boards that subsequent owners are not allowed to increase the floor area.

It was the consensus of the Board that in the case of an application for a future floor area exception, the current Design Review Board wanted the record to reflect that if this area had been part of the original application, such an exception would not have been approved.

4. 205 TAYLOR ROAD NIRENSTEIN, GARAGE/POOL

The applicant has submitted a request to construct a detached garage and swimming pool on the property located at 205 Taylor Road. The existing home is located near the top of Taylor Road, and the property slopes significantly from east to west. The existing home is a two-story residence that is 4,185 square feet in size, in addition to a 600-square-foot attached garage. The proposed garage would be located on the lower portion of the property, accessed by a new driveway across a neighboring lot. The swimming pool would be situated close to the existing house.

John Nirenstein, applicant, discussed his project. He stated he spoke with all nearby Taylor Road neighbors and only one neighbor, the Levines, had an issue with noise. As a result, he pulled the pool within the primary building envelope. The pool is 100 feet from the Levines’ house, as is the pool equipment, which would be centrally located between his two neighbors. In response to questions, he stated that he is proposing one car lift in the garage, and could install and second lift to stack four cars in the two-car space, but does not anticipate the second lift. The additional wing is for more space, and designed to stay within the secondary building envelope. He added that the driveway easement is subject to approval of the neighbor and if the Design Review Board approves the project, he will pursue approval with the neighbor.

In response to questions, Mohamed Sadrieh, architect, stated there is a landscape wall in front of the taller retaining wall adjacent to the garage.

Joel Levine, downhill neighbor, stated he is pleased with the changes. He asked about the underground drainage and the driveway over it, and if there is anything on the north side of the pool for sound insulation.

Mr. Nirenstein responded that a utility easement straddles the property. He will ensure the sewer is not disrupted and drainage issues will be addressed. An acoustical engineer indicated a solution to mitigating sound would be to break the line of sight, which means a sound wall would have to be fourteen to sixteen feet high and of stone or masonry. He decided to pull the pool further away rather than build the large wall.

Boardmember McLaughlin asked about the concrete apron from Taylor Road to the driveway. Mr. Sadrieh responded, the apron would perhaps be concrete, stained a brown color, to reduce gravel going onto the street. A great deal of traffic into this garage is not anticipated, as the main family cars will be in the first garage.

Boardmember Teiser suggested the drain have a tie into the sewer, which would cut any gravel washed off before it got to the concrete transition.

Boardmember McLaughlin stated he would like the driveway to visually disappear. Mr. Sadrieh responded, he could use gravel for the driveway, and concrete colored the same as the gravel for the apron.

In response to questions, Mr. Nirenstein stated he envisions the pool equipment to be on a slab carved into the hill with walls around it. Mr. Sadrieh added that the hill would surround the pool equipment on two sides.

Ann Thull, 210 Taylor Road, stated she will look down onto the pool and garage, and she supports the project. She felt that the garage with storage space would add value to the neighborhood.

Boardmember McLaughlin added his concern is the pool equipment because it will be higher than envisioned. The number of garages on the property also is an issue; there is a concern that more cars equate to more trips.

Boardmember Figour stated, at this location with this large sized lot, it is good to put cars into a garage. He also thought that future use of this structure as living space might be acceptable under the zoning ordinance.

Boardmember Teiser stated there is no easy access to the garage and the garage is for storage, not for cars that are used daily by the family.

Chair Collins stated available space for parking is limited on this site. His only concern was that the driveway easement is properly established.

M/S, Teiser/Beales, passed 5-0, to approve the application based upon the findings and conditions as set forth in the Staff report and to require that the driveway easement be recorded prior to the issuance of the Building Permit.

5. 1828 VISTAZO WEST STREET GINALSKI, ADDITIONS/FENCES/

6. DISCUSSION REGARDING TOWN STORY POLE POLICIES

Senior Planner Watrous discussed the current policy.

Boardmember Teiser asked the consequence if an applicant does not comply with a story pole requirement. Senior Planner Watrous responded that sometimes the Board will move forward without story poles if the project and impacts are understood. Usually the application hearing is continued with the Board listening to comments and the applicant understanding that the application will be continued.

Boardmember McLaughlin stated he sees the issue is whether all applicants should be required to use string line or tape on the ridge lines of a house to provide definition.

Miles Berger noted that tape lines are required on appeal items before the Council. The Council is currently reviewing a policy that would formalize these requirements. He has suggested an amendment to this policy to require applicants to state which ridge lines they wished to connect, with staff to determine if this were adequate. Senior Planner Watrous added that this Council policy would also state that if story poles and connections are not installed, there is an automatic continuance for one month.

Boardmember McLaughlin stated that story poles are more an issue for neighbors, not so much for the Design Review Board. Story poles alert neighbors that something is happening.

Senior Planner Watrous added new homes and large additions could be treated differently than smaller applications. For some minor applications, story poles are not required. He recommended the Board define a threshold that would require story poles and/or connections between the poles.

Boardmember Beales suggested Staff should look at this from the perspective of a neighbor and determine whether story poles are necessary in individual cases. Senior Planner Watrous replied that Staff would prefer something more clear cut. In many cases, Staff has not seen the site fourteen days in advance of the hearing, and neighbors have not received notice of a project until ten days prior to the hearing.

Boardmember Figour added, if the Design Review Board does not feel story poles accurately define the project, the Board can continue the application. Senior Planner Watrous added that Boardmembers can ask for mesh or more detailed story poles or connections, or anything else they require to enable them to make an informed decision.

Senior Planner Watrous stated that it is difficult for Staff to determine all of the appropriate story pole and connection locations until there is feedback from neighbors. He added, netting between story poles is often required for the review of Precise Development Plan applications to evaluate mass and bulk on the site. In design review situations, homes are closer together and do not call for netting.

Mr. Berger noted mesh is used to evaluate long distance views. Most homeowners do not build story poles that would support the mesh, making the poles more likely to be blown down by winds.

Boardmember McLaughlin stated that the Board has not had that many story pole problems. Any policy should be in a printed format to enable applicants to understand general parameters. Senior Planner Watrous noted there is not a separate handout available to applicants for story poles. He would anticipate a policy from the Board; which, after adoption, would be given to applicants.

Mr. Berger stated he will recommend to the Town Council that the policy be passed along to the Design Review Board so that the Board’s policy would be consistent with the Council’s policy.

Boardmember Beales noted, if Councilmembers need to see story poles, neighbors will, also.

Senior Planner Watrous agreed that the policies should be consistent. If poles are installed for the Design Review Board, they would remain for an appeal to the Council.

Chair Collins recommended that the Board’s policy include language that failure to comply is subject to continuance.

F. APPROVAL OF MINUTES #8 OF THE 4/18/02 DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MEETING

Changes include:

Page 1, in the Roll Call, change Boardmember McLaughlin to Chair McLaughlin.

Page 7, in the motion, add "passed 5-0."

Page 3, paragraph 2, language should be "…building has three viewable sides."

Page 5 last line, language should be, "…he cannot approve this.

Page 9, paragraph 5, 1^st line, language should be, "…similar to lots in the Reedlands."

G. ADJOURNMENT

The meeting was adjourned at 8:45 p.m.