TIBURON DESIGN REVIEW BOARD

MEETING OF APRIL 19, 2001

A. ROLL CALL

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

Absent: None

Ex-Officio: Senior Planner Watrous and Minutes Clerk Flanagan

B. PUBLIC COMMENTS:

No one spoke during this time.

C. DISCUSSION AND STAFF BRIEFING

Senior Planner Watrous welcomed Richard Collins to the Board, and noted the appeal of 757 Hawthorne Drive, was denied by the Town Council, which upheld the Design Review Board decision to approve the application. Also, on May 2 an appeal of 2090 Centro East Street will be heard by the Council.

D. CONSENT CALENDAR

1. 35 Reed Ranch Road Ware, Resolution Of Denial

On April 5, 2001, the Design Review Board considered a request for the construction of a fence on property located at 35 Reed Ranch Road. After considering the application and considering public testimony regarding this request, the Board directed Staff to prepare a resolution denying this application. The requested resolution has been prepared and is attached.

M/S, Beales/Stroub, passed 4-0-1, Collins abstained, to approve Resolution of Denial No. 2001-01.

2. 30 Warren’s Way Shaver, Resolution Of Denial

On April 5, 2001, the Design Review Board considered an appeal of a denied application for a tree permit was filed for removal of 4 Eucalyptus trees and one pine tree on property located at 30 Warren’s Way. After considering the application and considering public testimony regarding this request, the Board directed Staff to prepare a resolution denying this appeal. The requested resolution has been prepared and is attached.

E. OLD BUSINESS BEFORE THE BOARD

CONTINUED TO 5/3/31

The offices for a construction company (the Tarom Group) currently occupy the upper floor of a commercial building located at 46A Main Street. The building has two frontages, facing both Main Street and the Main Street parking lot. The business wishes to install three new signs on the building identifying the proposed business. This sign permit has been referred for review, as is customary for most signs in Downtown Tiburon.

The three proposed signs would include a 2.5 foot by 3.5 foot (8.7 square foot) hanging steel sign perpendicular to the Main Street frontage of the building; a 3.5 diameter (9.6 square foot) painted business logo on the side of the building facing the Main Street parking lot; and a 0.8 square foot plaque at the lower level of the building facing the Main Street parking lot. The total sign area would be 19.1 square feet. The subject building has two frontages of 32 feet each, with a total sign allowance of 16.0 square feet. Therefore a sign area exception would be required for this request.

Senior Planner Watrous reported the applicant was not present; no neighboring properties have voiced concerns. The applicant had indicated that he would reduce the size of the sign as necessary.

Boardmember Beales stated he would prefer a wood sign to the proposed metal sign facing Main Street.

Boardmember Stroub stated this is on the larger size compared to other signs downtown.

Chair McLaughlin agreed this is a lot of signage in a small area and added, under the sign ordinance, a maximum of two signs is allowed, "if necessary." He concurred that the metal sign should be made of wood.

5. 2 Tara Hill Road Parker, Addition/Variance/Floor Area Exception

The applicant is requesting Design Review approval for the construction of an addition to an existing single-family dwelling on property located at 2 Tara Hill Road. The proposed addition would expand an existing library area on the lower level of the house, and would be constructed under a portion of the upper floor which currently cantilevers above the location of the proposed expansion.

The proposed addition would extend to within 27 feet of the front property line. As a 30 foot front yard setback is required in the RO-2 zone, a variance is requested for reduced front yard setback. The floor area on the property would increase by 36 square feet to a total of 4,286 square feet, which is greater than the 4,022 square foot maximum permitted floor area for a parcel of this size. A floor area exception is therefore also requested.

Harold Parker, owner, noted his presence.

There was no further discussion by the Board.

On February 12, 2001, a Site Plan and Architectural Review application for modifications to a driveway and landscape plan was filed for a single-family residence currently under construction at 94 Via Los Altos. On March 13, 2001, Staff approved this application with conditions. The property owners have appealed the conditions of approval of the Staff decision to the Design Review Board. The applicants have requested design review approval for modifications to the configuration of the lower (easternmost) driveway that provides access to the garage. The requested modifications would increase the width of the driveway from the approved 12 feet to a width ranging from 19 feet at the driveway entrance to 24 feet where the driveway splits around an existing oak tree, tapering down to 14 feet before widening again at the garage apron. The applicant has cited safety and ease of use as the reasons for wanting to widen the driveway.

Leonard Gray, appellant, stated the driveway connects to an access easement across the neighboring property at 92 Via Los Altos, and the mouth of the driveway at the easement would increase in width from the 12 foot width originally approved to 19 feet. The easement for egress/ingress construction/access, utilities, etc., has always been in existence. His neighbor has use of more than 45 feet of the 50 foot wide easement. It does not seem fair for him to be only able to access a 12 foot portion of the easement, when the neighbor can use 45 feet. He felt that the driveway on his own property would not interfere with parking on the neighbor’s property. The neighbor often parks vehicles in a manner that allows only eight feet of access to this driveway. He would like an additional seven feet to allow easier access and egress. He saved a tree to build this driveway. A number of family members use the driveway and swerving when meeting an approaching car is not acceptable. He said that he spoke to both the Tiburon and the Southern Marin Fire Protection Districts, and they have said they prefer the wider driveway. He thought that following the contours of the site and eliminating a bottleneck at the entrance would be more aesthetically attractive. He added this is an easement, not a parking pad, and is not for a single individual’s use, but for all residents who have use of this easement. Regarding the Staff report, he feels it inappropriate for Staff, who are not architects or landscape architects, to have sketched out a recommended driveway. He added the driveway has no effect on anyone and there are no retaining walls.

Boardmember Stroub asked why twelve foot driveway width was initially required. Senior Planner Watrous responded that this driveway design was part of the original plans for the house, but was not a specific condition of approval. Although improvements less than 42 inches in height generally do not require Design Review approval, the circulation concern raised by the neighboring property owner necessitated additional Design Review approval for the driveway modification.

Lisa Gray, appellant, stated she wrote many letters as to why they want this driveway. Initially, there was Design Review Board concern about removing the oak tree, which she did not want to remove. The issue is seven feet of additional entrance to her own property. She does not want increased speed on her driveway because family members will be using the driveway. The neighbor does not park in his garage but at the 12 foot width point of her driveway. She could not find any other twelve foot wide driveways in her neighborhood.

Robert Tremelling, 92 Via Los Altos, stated the appellants agreed they would build a twelve foot wide driveway and this agreement should be maintained. They have an easement across the pad on his private property. There is a serious safety issue present with outsiders driving in and turning around on the easement. He felt the appellants should follow the original plans.

Stephanie Gray, daughter, stated her family is always up at the lot on the construction site and they care about the house and a safe driveway.

Mrs. Gray stated this driveway design is necessary for safety, for two cars to pass on the driveway and it would not affect Mr. Tremelling’s property.

Boardmember Stroub asked if there was a regulation or limitation on impervious surfaces or an amount of property that can be covered with this surface; Senior Planner Watrous responded that the Town had no such requirements. He opposed the amount of impervious paving on the site, but had no design issues with a driveway width of twelve or eighteen feet. An eighteen foot width would allow two cars to pass each other. The driveway is more natural in this location.

Boardmember Beales stated the requested alignment is a good idea. Only a few cars park on the easement. Safety is not an issue and convenience is not an issue. Under normal circumstances, he could approve an eighteen foot wide driveway. The neighbor has paving near his own garages and has sufficient parking well clear of the easement. However, the twelve feet was approved and the Grays agreed to it.

Boardmember Figour noted that the house on this lot has a lot of access to it and there is a lot of paving on the site. Perhaps the twelve-foot driveway was approved to reduce the amount of paving. The Hillside Design Guidelines discourage excessive curb cuts and overly large driveways, but also say that access for fire trucks should be 20 feet wide. This driveway is a better approach, and he would grant the appeal.

Boardmember Collins stated he sees this as a safety issue. If a car is parked and people parked along the curb, an emergency vehicle could not get up the driveway. Backing out onto a street is not good. He can approve the proposed alignment even though he sees the concerns of the neighbor.

Chair McLaughlin stated he measured driveways in the area and all greatly exceed eighteen feet. This is a far superior driveway: it is removed from the hills; there are no retaining walls; and traffic flow is greatly improved with splitting the driveway around the tree. If this were twelve feet wide and a car parked across the street, it would be difficult for the Grays to get out of their driveway. The would have to recut and regrade if the driveway were modified to twelve feet. He noted that the Fire District approved the original twelve foot driveway. He would support the appeal.

Changes include:

Page 2, paragraph 4, delete "was reduced." In the last sentence, delete the second "not."

Page 3, paragraph 3, second line, should be "clarified that."

Page 4, paragraph 2, line 3, to read, "…mesh size and spacing of fence posts…"

Page 6, paragraph 2, last sentence, change to, "the Design Review Board approved…".

Page 7, paragraph 3, last sentence to read, "Even with the two trees removed, there would be enough trees to provide screening."

Page 7, paragraph 5, last sentence, add, after "common," "in Tiburon..."

Page 8, paragraph 5, line 3, insert "now" before "exceeds."

G. ADJOURNMENT

The meeting was adjourned at 8:05 p.m.