H. ADJOURNMENT- 7:45 pm

A. ROLL CALL

Present: Chair Figour, Boardmembers, Comstock, Beales and Teiser

Absent: Boardmember McLaughlin

Ex-Officio: Associate Planner Lynch and Minutes Clerk Flanagan

B. PUBLIC COMMENTS:

No one spoke during this time.

C. DISCUSSION AND STAFF BRIEFING

Associate Planner Lynch reported the 2355 Paradise Drive appeal will be heard by the Town Council on November 20, 2002, and the 1790 Centro West application is contingent upon that appeal. Discussion will be related to two dwelling units and two separate buildings.

D. CONSENT CALENDAR

1. 5 WARREN COURT ZIPPIN, ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION PARTIALLY GRANTING AN APPEAL: CONTINUED TO NOVEMBER 21, 2002

F. NEW BUSINESS BEFORE THE BOARD

4. 20 CYPRESS HOLLOW WEISS CO., INC., NEW SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING

The applicant has submitted a request to construct a new single-family residence to be located at 20 Cypress Hollow Drive. The subject property is smaller than average for the neighborhood, has a square configuration, and has fairly level topography. The property is one of the remaining undeveloped properties within the Cypress Hollow Precise Plan area. The property directly to the north, 30 Cypress Hollow, is also undeveloped, but a plan for a single-family residence is currently being reviewed by the Town.

Ron Wager, architect, discussed the projects and noted that the two lots are the remaining lots from the Cypress Hollow development. 20 Cypress Hollow Drive is a single level house and 30 Cypress Hollow Drive is a two-story house. In response to questions, he stated that a fence runs parallel between the two houses and is six feet high.

In response to questions, Associate Planner Lynch stated that two off-street parking spaces are required.

Dan Noyes stated he bought his house for the neighborhood. His concerns include: The two houses are not setback as far as his or all the other houses in the neighborhood. No other house in the neighborhood uses brick, is built in the Craftsman architecture or has a front porch. Also, the shapes and colors are different than the existing homes. The shingled roofs and the garages are different. These two houses interrupt the flow and detract from the feel of the neighborhood and adversely impact property values. He asked why the dominant style of the neighborhood was not used on these lots. The two lots were used to maintain a natural buffer by the original property owner after it was subdivided. These houses do not finish the neighborhood as it was meant to be.

Dan Weiss, owner, stated he researched the community and feels the homes fit well. These two houses are lower in height and have less square footage than most of the houses in the community, and are the smaller homes in the neighborhood. The proposed homes are set back from the face of the curb to the first architectural element more than most of the houses in the community. The homes will have shingled siding and have colors that are inspired by existing homes. The grayish color with eggplant and white trim is a color scheme that is typical and similar to the existing homes. The dark natural shingle colors are not a far departure from existing homes. There will be extensive landscaping in the front and the fence detail is the same as existing homes. He felt he balanced the desires of the neighborhood. He wrote to eleven neighbors who could see, or would be impacted by, his project. Concerns about construction and parking were voiced, and he addressed these concerns. Many neighbors approved of the projects.

Boardmember Comstock stated he has a concern about having only 20 feet between the two homes, which appears to be a result of the three-car garage at 30 Cypress Hollow Drive.

Mr. Weiss responded there is popular demand for three-car garages and 30 Cypress Hollow Drive is a larger home where extra storage and the garage area would be valuable. The next door neighbor did not want a home next to his home; hence, the two houses are close together. With appropriate landscaping between the homes, the distance is not atypical.

Boardmember Beales stated it appears the applicant did a good job working with his neighbors and while he understands Mr. Noyes’ concerns, the previously-established setback lines have been honored. The proximity of the houses to the street and neighbors is appropriate. If there were concerns about the building envelopes the Planning Commission would have approved them differently.

Boardmember Comstock stated he likes the architecture; 20 Cypress Hollow Drive more than 30 Cypress Hollow Drive. The 20 feet between the homes seems to be a problem that would be internal for future property owners. He would have preferred a two-car garage at 30 Cypress Hollow. The house colors and finishes are different, but acceptable.

Boardmember Teiser concurred and complimented the architect and property owner on the presentation. He added, this is the most complete and clearest application package he has reviewed. The poles were certified, the drawings are clear, there is a landscaping plan, as well as color boards. He asked that staff use this outstanding application package as an example for future applicants.

Chair Figour concurred and added, the buildings are comfortable looking and to scale, the architecture and materials are good, the one-story is admirable. Regarding a homogeneous look to a neighborhood, variety is preferable.

Mr. Weiss asked that the Board allow a minor floor plan revision, which would affect nothing externally.

Associate Planner Lynch confirmed this revision should not be addressed by the Board, but rather by staff.

M/S, Beales/Comstock, passed 4-0-1, McLaughlin absent, to approve the application subject to the conditions as set forth in the Staff report for 20 Cypress Hollow Drive.

  5. 30 CYPRESS HOLLOW WEISS CO., INC., NEW SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING

The applicant has submitted a request to construct a new single-family residence to be located at 30 Cypress Hollow Drive. The subject property is average in size as compared to others in the immediate vicinity and has fairly level topography. The property is one of the remaining undeveloped properties within the Cypress Hollow Precise Plan area. The property directly to the south, 20 Cypress Hollow, is also undeveloped, but a plan for a single-family residence is currently being reviewed by the Town.

M/S, Comstock/Beales, passed 4-0-1, McLaughlin absent, to approve the application subject to the conditions as set forth in the Staff report for 30 Cypress Hollow Drive.

Changes include:

Page 6, 2^nd paragraph, 6^th line, to state, "…He was not sure why people have…"

Page 6, 3^rd paragraph, 1^st line to state, "…that he hears there are many property owners in support of the project as there are who oppose the project. Several people spoke representing only one property owner."

Page 7, 4^th paragraph, add another sentence, "He also stated the owner would agree to signing a no condominium agreement."

Page 3, 4^th paragraph, add at the end of the paragraph, "He added, the owner did not intend the homes to become condominiums and would accept a restriction to this effect."

Page 6, 2^nd paragraph 2, change "attain" to "retain."

Page 10, last paragraph, last line of the motion to state, "…colors and materials were to be the same…and previously approved."

M/S, Teiser/Comstock, passed 3-0-2, Beales abstained and McLaughlin absent, to approve the minutes as amended.  

 H. ADJOURNMENT

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