A. ROLL CALL:

Present - Chair Figour; Board Members Beales, Comstock, Kunzweiler and Teiser

Absent - None

Ex-Officio - Associate Planner Lynch and Minutes Clerk Flanagan

 B. PUBLIC COMMENTS (FOR ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA)

C. DISCUSSION AND STAFF BRIEFING

D. OLD BUSINESS BEFORE THE BOARD

1. 4795 Paradise Drive Allen New Single Family Dwelling CONTINUED

F. NEW BUSINESS BEFORE THE BOARD

2. 80 Pamela Court Romo Additions / Variances APPROVED

3. 18 Corte San Fernando Kahn Appeal of a Staff Level Decision DENIED

G. MINUTES #5 OF THE 3/20/03 DRB MEETING- APPROVED AS AMENDED

H. ADJOURNMENT- 8:45 pm

A. ROLL CALL

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

Absent: None

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 at next week’s Planning Commission meeting, ordinance changes would be discussed, including key uses allowed in R2 zones, such as two detached units without a special permit and possibly the regulation of parking spaces in front yard areas. The appeal of the DRB decision regarding the business sign located at 1640 Tiburon Boulevard will be heard on May 7, 2003 by the Town Council. Boardmember Comstock will attend this meeting.

4795 PARADISE DRIVE ALLEN, NEW SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING: CONTINUED TO April 17, 2003

Boardmember Teiser stated neighbors have complained that this has been a three-year construction project.

Associate Planner Lynch noted a building permit has not been issued for the house. He added, if the applicant continues to request continuances, Staff may recommend that the application be denied so the applicant would have more time to consider a new project design.

Boardmember Beales asked if the application requires a new CEQA evaluation, and added, at the time the application was initially heard, Permit Streamlining Act determinations were being made by Staff.

Associate Planner Lynch responded, it is a continuance of a public hearing. Since no decision has been made by the Board, the application has not technically been deemed exempt from CEQA, therefore the Permit Streamlining Act deadline has not been initiated. Associate Planner Lynch will put this item on the next agenda.

80 PAMELA COURT ROMO, ADDITIONS TO A SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING/VARIANCES

The applicant has submitted a request to construct additions to an existing single-family dwelling on a property located at 80 Pamela Court. The topography of the subject property is relatively flat but is located on an acute angled corner, bounded by Pamela Court and Blackfield Drive, which confines development to some degree. The proposal includes the construction of a garage, entryway addition, and an extensive interior remodel. An existing accessory structure on the left side of the residence would be demolished to accommodate the new garage.

Michael Romo, owner, discussed the project.

Boardmember Teiser stated this is reasonable request and neighbors do not object to the application.

Boardmember Kunzweiler concurred, stated it will be a good addition to the neighborhood and the architecture is consistent with the neighbors’.

Boardmember Comstock stated he supports the application and noted one of the findings prevents the house from being a two-story house.

Chair Figour stated Staff’s findings make sense and it will be a nice addition.

18 CORTE SAN FERNANDO KAHN, APPEAL OF A STAFF-LEVEL DECISION

On February 18, 2003, the applicants submitted a Staff-level design review application to construct a 6’8" tall redwood fence in front of an existing residence. The fence would enclose a courtyard area by the front entryway. There is an existing fence, approximately the same height but enclosing a smaller area, that would be removed. The application was reviewed for completeness and the courtesy notices were sent to the adjacent neighbors on February 24, 2003.

Rubin Becker, attorney for appellants, distributed a document of five photographs showing existing and simulated versions of a number of scenarios he believes are relevant to the matter at hand. Of concern is the parking area, and paving of the yard and the use of the paved-over yard, which the Town must regulate. Photographs are illustrative of the kinds of impacts the appellants oppose. He stated the Design Review Guidelines initiate the review site plans, privacy and light, neighborhood character and landscaping to protect and mitigate noise, privacy, and lighting impacts. The Town has a policy for garage conversions, which he distributed. The Board must look at use when a front yard is paved over. The use is his concern. One can pave over a yard but one cannot park there. One cannot store vehicles in a front yard. Parking has been regulated at 103 Reed Ranch Road. This property has adequate parking. He stated that the applicants have five vehicles that are parked in the front yard. The Design Review Board should determine if parking should be prohibited on the newly-paved area, or require the paving be removed. People cannot park in the front yard setback. It is an abuse of discretion by Planning Staff to not consider the regulation of parking spaces.

Barry Kahn, appellant, expressed his frustration with the application because he believes, although the application refers to a fence and privacy gate, that is not what the application is about. He stated, any changes to parking are to be stated on the application, which applicant did not state. The fence has no meaning without the parking. The gate is to allow driving in and unloading passengers. As a compromise, he would like the applicants to remove one-half of the parking area to the east of the new entry gate and extend the entry gate to allow guests to be dropped off at the entry gate.

Paul Kaplan, applicant, stated the fence is to create privacy. Staff has not asked him to address anything other than the fence.

Dennis Jaffey, Corte San Fernando resident, stated the appellants told him a parking area would be installed. Planting grows through the cement-paved area so it does not look like concrete. Storing vehicles there would lessen property values, to which he would not approve. He would not approve using the paved area for parking. The applicants have given their word that this would not be used as a parking area. Vegetation was removed between the two properties, which allows a line of sight to the area.

Virginia Brunini, 267 Karen Way, stated automobiles parked in front yards lower property values. Her homeowners association agreed there would be no paving in the front beyond a limited amount, certainly not over 50 percent of front yard, and there would not be vehicles parked in the front yard. A casual reference to a 6’8" fence is not appropriate. It is improper to have a paved front yard. She understands the privacy issue though applicants do not have a lot of traffic. The principle that will affect all the neighborhoods in the community is if the Design Review Board does not restore this application to what the intent of Zoning Ordinance requires.

Mr. Kahn stated the paved space is far too large to back vehicles into it. To have a car pull into the driveway, unload, then pull over, allows headlights to shine into his property. He has no control if the next property owner wants to park a large vehicle or work on his car in the front yard. It is not appropriate to have a 6’8" fence in the front yard. He asked why he would have to install landscaping to provide screening for something the applicants created.

Boardmember Beales stated the Staff report makes clear the height of the fence. The fence is acceptable. Regarding parking, he has never heard anything about restrictions on parking. He would assume the Police Department would ticket any violator. Noise will not be different than from a car passing. Headlights are intermittent. The landscaping will spread out to screen the impact of headlights. The fence is the item being reviewed.

Boardmember Comstock stated one could say the fence conforms to zoning requirements and there is no reason to deny it. In the future, when a neighbor is going to be affected to such a degree, the application should go to the Design Review Board. The applicants said they would build a fence between the two properties, which should be done. Cars can park in the setback. His neighbors would have issues if he parked four rather than two cars. Landscaping across the front, from a town’s quality point of view, does not screen cars.

Boardmember Kunzweiler stated the character of the neighborhood is double garages and there is room on the street so people do not have to park in front of houses. The fence is not the issue. The applicants say this is not going to be a parking area; however, the property could be sold and used differently by another owner. There is no reason to outright deny the changes the applicants made to their property, but as citizens of the community, they could provide more vegetation, a fence along the side; things to make it blend in would be fair.

Boardmember Teiser stated there is a solution to the problem. The fence is not an issue; it is in compliance. The problem and issue is privacy relating to parking, and if a six-foot fence were built on the property line to screen the offensive parking area, that would solve many of the problems. Mature vegetation to screen the front and between the two parties is appropriate. There should be some sort of screening and it should be a condition put on the applicant. If applicant finds this is not appropriate, he can take it to the Town Council.

Chair Figour stated the Design Review Board is only empowered to review the fence. Planning Staff was correct and the UBC and California Building Code exempt this project from permit for the hardscape portion of this project. The appeal has no merit as to the fence application.

Boardmember Teiser stated privacy is important to all residents. Impacts should be mitigated for neighbors.

Boardmember Beales stated, regarding solving a privacy issue with a small fence, the problem is that it does not mitigate the project that was reviewed. The Board cannot attach a condition of approval to add a property line fence to a 6’8" fence that is being appealed. The Board would consider landscaping and site improvements in the review of new homes.

Chair Figour stated a fence taller than 3.5 feet on the property line would only require a building permit. The Design Review Board cannot consider the property-line fence tonight because it is not related to the appeal. He added, it is very important that the Design Review Board has discretion particularly when applying guidelines. The Design Review Board does not have sweeping powers. If the Design Review Board wings it, the Design Review Board could be in danger of making a bad decision. The Board must only address the appeal.

Boardmember Teiser stated he can vote to grant the appeal with the condition that a privacy fence be provided as a continuation of the privacy fence the applicants have proposed. This is appropriate to this situation and if someone wants to object, they have recourse.

Associate Planner Lynch noted if there is any condition added to the project, there must be a nexus to the application for the proposed fence. The condition must have a relation to the fence. The Board might find language to describe how the inclusion of the property-line fence mitigates the fence that is being proposed.

Boardmember Kunzweiler stated the privacy fence in the front is not the issue. Unfortunately, the fence drives this appeal. He would vote against the appeal and hope both neighbors can work this out in the form of a property-line fence and try to get it remedied to their satisfaction.

Boardmember Teiser stated he could not deny the proposed fence based on the appellant’s concerns. He would recommend an extension from the proposed fence. A privacy fence also should be permitted up to six feet, at the applicants’ cost.

Boardmember Beales stated, if this were an original application, the Board could tie in a property line fence to the conditions of approval, but not through this appeal.

F. APPROVAL OF MINUTES #4 OF THE 03/20/03 DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MEETING

Changes include:

Page 1, to state May 29 is a meeting of the Town Council and Planning Commission.

Page 2, last paragraph, to state, "…types of signs are appropriate."

Page 5, second paragraph, third line to state, "…and the driveway must be 3.5 feet above that."

Page 7, 4th paragraph from the bottom, "…applicant could take it out of the ceiling height."

G. ADJOURNMENT

The meeting was adjourned at 8:30 p.m.