TIBURON DESIGN REVIEW BOARD

MEETING OF JANUARY 3, 2002

A. ROLL CALL

Present: Chair McLaughlin, Boardmembers Collins and Figour

Absent: Boardmembers Beales and Stroub

Ex-Officio: Senior Planner Watrous and Minutes Clerk Flanagan

B. PUBLIC COMMENTS:   No one spoke during this time.

C. DISCUSSION AND STAFF BRIEFING  There was none

D. CONSENT CALENDAR

1. 1870 VISTAZO WEST STREET BLOGG, RESOLUTION OF DENIAL

On December 20, 2001, the Design Review Board considered a request for the as-built construction of a storage shed and spa, with variances for reduced front and side yard setbacks, on property located at 1870 Vistazo West Street. After considering the application and considering public testimony regarding this request, the Board directed Staff to prepare a resolution denying this application.

M/S, Collins/McLaughlin, passed 2-0-3 (Figour abstained and Stroub and Beales absent), to adopt the resolution as prepared by Staff.

E. OLD BUSINESS BEFORE THE BOARD

2. 428 GREENWOOD BEACH ROAD GERKEN, GARAGE/ACCESSORY BUILDING/VARIANCES/FLOOR AREA EXCEPTION

The applicant is requesting Design Review approval for construction of a garage and accessory structure on property located at 428 Greenwood Beach Road. The proposed building would be located within the required front and rear yard setbacks, and exceed the maximum lot coverage for this property and the maximum building height for an accessory building. The request would also increase the floor area for the property beyond the floor area ratio for this lot. Variances and a floor area exception are therefore requested as part of this application.

This application was first reviewed at the December 20, 2001 Design Review Board meeting. At that time, concerns were raised by the Board regarding the number of variances and the floor area exception requested, and the fact that story poles had not been erected for the proposed building. The Board continued the requested to the January 3, 2002 meeting to allow the applicant time to erect story poles and present additional information regarding the findings needed to approve the requested variances and floor area exception.

Marion Elliott, architect, discussed changes made since the last hearing. She added that removing the tree between the house and the garage is not possible. The height of the building is an average of the height of the adjacent neighbors’ houses. She said it was possible to reduce the height of the proposed structure by two feet.

Boardmember Collins asked if trees behind the garage are heritage trees. Ms. Elliott described the species and sizes of the trees on the site.

Boardmember Figour stated, at this second hearing, the project is still difficult due to the number of variances requested. The properties along Greenwood Beach Road do not fit zoning standards. No neighbors oppose the project. He thought that the building will fit in with the fabric of what is seen on Greenwood Beach Road because this will appear to be the main house when viewed from the front of the site. He was concerned that a decision to approve this project would come back to haunt the Design Review Board. He would like to approve the application, but is unsure about the request.

Boardmember Collins concurred and stated the building would fit in with the character of the neighborhood to the east along Greenwood Beach Road, where houses are two stories. He finds it hard to make the findings regarding similar topographical features and height. He was concerned that approving this application would open the floodgates for future applications.

Senior Planner Watrous suggested the Board focus on the finding related to any practical difficulty or unnecessary hardship in relationship to the requested building height. The Staff report addressed the findings for the setback and lot coverage variances, and the Board’s comments regarding the particular characteristics of the neighborhood address the other variance and floor area exception findings.

Chair McLaughlin stated that the proposed building height leads to the requested floor area exception, but noted that the height of the proposed building is less than that of the neighboring homes. He thought that the elimination of the yard area between the house and garage is not necessarily a bad thing. He added, this is a substandard lot, and the house is no different than others in the neighborhood. Also, the neighbors do not oppose it.

Boardmember Collins noted that Greenwood Beach Road is a dead-end street and there are no homes across the street; hence, this area is unlike any other neighborhood in Tiburon.

F. NEW BUSINESS BEFORE THE BOARD

3. 41 MAIN STREET CACERES, RETAIL BUILDING AND THREE RESIDENCES/VARIANCES

The applicant is requesting Design Review approval for the construction of a new three-story building containing ground floor retail space and three dwelling units on property located at 41 Main Street. The property is currently developed with a vacant restaurant and bar (Tiburon Tommie’s), which is proposed to be demolished.

The 1,996-square-foot first floor of the building would include 1,335 square feet of retail space, along with a bathroom, mechanical room, and a foyer for the upstairs dwelling units. The second story would contain two separate apartments; one apartment would have two bedrooms, two bathrooms and a floor area of 1,178 square feet; the other apartment would contain one bedroom and bathroom and have 821 square feet of floor area. The third level would contain a separate dwelling unit (intended to be occupied by the property owner), with two bedrooms, two bathrooms and a total floor area of 1,817 square feet. All three dwelling units would include decks facing the bay to the rear, and the upper unit would also include a deck facing Main Street to the front. A public access walkway would wrap around the west side and rear of the building on the ground floor. Three rooftop skylights are proposed.

The proposed building would have a maximum height of 32 feet, which would exceed the maximum 30-foot building height in Tiburon. Therefore, a variance is requested for excess building height.

Chair McLaughlin asked if business owners were notified of this project. Senior Planner Watrous stated only property owners within 300 square feet of the project were notified. Chair McLaughlin stated that business owners affected by this project do not oppose it; however, they should be involved in the planning process. Senior Planner Watrous responded that there was additional outreach done when this item went through the Planning Commission for essentially the same building design. Senior Planner Watrous stated he will more formally institute a process for notifying downtown business owners in the future.

Ron Caceres, son of the owner, Doris Caceres, discussed the project, and added that he has been in touch with Sam’s and businesses up and down Main Street. He added that the team is working with BCDC on the waterfront public access, which reduces 30 percent of the ground floor area; the height variance is requested to make up this difference.

Jim Gilliam, architect, extensively discussed the project, including colors and materials.

In response to questions from the Board, Mr. Caceres stated that parking for the dwelling units is being negotiated. He has spoken with Mr. Zelinsky about renting spaces in the Main Street Parking Lot, and is in negotiations with the owner of spaces in another part of town.

Inger Schreiber, general manager of the Corinthian Yacht Club, stated an existing fire escape encroaches onto the Club’s property, as would the proposed cornice. He asked that applicant find a solution to prevent children from jumping into the heavily-used driveway next to the building from the public access walkway. He stated that the design is commendable and the Corinthian Yacht Club supports the request.

Boardmember Collins stated he likes the design; it is in keeping with the downtown design guidelines and he can support the project. Given the restrictions forced upon the applicant by BCDC, the building height is acceptable. He raised a concern regarding the openings between the public access walkway and the adjacent driveway, and thought that a railing might be continued to prevent pedestrians from walking into the driveway.

Boardmember Figour stated that he could not say enough good things about the project. He said that the building would be consistent with the character of downtown, yet would still be a modern structure. The building sets a good example of working with the Downtown Design Guidelines. He felt that the change in building heights adds visual interest to the building. He also thought that this project may give the neighbor to the east ideas on how to handle the façade of his building. He approves of the project wholeheartedly.

Boardmember Collins asked if portions of the building outside the property line can be approved. Senior Planner Watrous responded that the portions that would encroach into the public right-of-way would require an encroachment permit, and that other potential encroachments would be handled through the building permit process.

Chair McLaughlin stated he also approves the project. He felt that the building would bring the end of Main Street alive, and would make a great entrance statement for the Corinthian Yacht Club. The public access is more than the Town could have hoped for. He does not feel strongly about extending the railing next to the driveway because, visually, it is not a problem. He had no problem with the variance request, as the height gives visual relief for the building. Regarding proposed Condition of Approval 17, he suggested that there is a public restroom down the street and this condition may well be unnecessary.

Boardmembers Collins and Figour concurred.

M/S, Collins/Figour, passed 3-0-2 (Beales and Stroub absent), to approve the application, subject to the findings and conditions as set forth in the Staff report, with the exception that Condition of Approval 17 be deleted

Changes include: 

Page 1, second, bullet, delete "of the side property line."

M/S Figour/Collins, passed 3-0-2 (Beales and Stroub absent), to approve the minutes as amended.

H. ADJOURNMENT     The meeting was adjourned at 8:20 p.m.