TIBURON DESIGN REVIEW BOARD

MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 20, 2001

A. ROLL CALL

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

Absent: None

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

B.    PUBLIC COMMENTS:

There were none.

Senior Planner Watrous reported the Town Council heard the Engel appeal, 141 Taylor Road, on September 19, and a decision was made to remand the application back to the Design Review Board with direction to applicant to revise plans to address the Board’s concerns from the original hearing and the Planning Commission’s concerns with regard to the original subdivision.

He added that this is Associate Planner Theriault’s last meeting as a Tiburon planner, as she has accepted a position with the City of San Rafael. He thanked her for her work and wished her well in her new position.

D. OLD BUSINESS BEFORE THE BOARD

1. 40 Reed Ranch Road Petri, Fence Appeal

Boardmember Beales recused himself from the hearing.

On June 7, 2001, the Design Review Board reviewed an appeal of a Staff approval of a Site Plan and Architectural Review for landscaping improvements on the property located at 40 Reed Ranch Road. The Board reviewed Staff’s comments on the appeal, heard comments from the applicant and the appellant, and took public testimony on the item. The Board continued the item at that time to the July 19, 2001 meeting in order to give the applicant time to erect story poles and ribbon demarcating the outline of the proposed fence at the street. The item was subsequently scheduled for review on August 2, August 16 and September 10, but had been continued as the applicant and appellant attempted to work out a compromise solution.

Farideh Petri, appellant, stated she and Mr. Brown began to work out a compromise; however, they could not reach a final agreement. Ms. Petri said that she does not want a tall, long wooden structure obstructing her view and she does not want future confrontations with neighbors regarding her entitled view. She does not like the proposed landscaping, including the magnolia trees, because she thought that maintenance will be required to maintain her view, which often does not occur. She was told that "maintenance of vegetation" could not be included as a condition of approval; rather, a condition could require a certain species of tree, or, in this case, a tree that would reach only a certain height. She would like a five-foot-high fence with screening vegetation that does not exceed seven feet at maturity. She felt that the fence on the east side should not be five feet high; landscaping in front of the fence should not exceed four feet in height at maturity; and the landscaping behind the fence should not reach the top of the fence. She thought that the magnolia trees should be eliminated and the trellis on the east of the garage should not be allowed.

Applicant, Ronald Brown, read his letter dated September 13, 2001. He stated that in light of the recent tragedies, he was angry to have to deal with issues as mundane as a fence and landscaping.

Boardmember Stroub asked Mr. Brown if he had made changes to the original application. Mr. Brown responded that he had not made any changes.

Boardmember Figour asked if the fence would be solid, similar to that on the left hand side. Diane Licht, landscape architect for the project, replied, that the fence would be solid. She indicated that she had researched magnolias and, to the best of her knowledge, this tree will reach a maximum height of ten feet and perhaps twelve feet. The shrubs may grow eight feet high, and will not exceed the height of the existing junipers, which are as high as twelve feet.

Thomas Riley, 43 Reed Ranch Road, next door to Ms. Petri, stated he is pleased the Browns’ property is being improved.

Steve Kern, 2175 Centro East, stated the Board should require trees that grow to a specific height, to ensure views are preserved. Plants often grow higher than specified in trade books.

Linda Oliver, 39 Reed Ranch Road, stated the fences are not necessary but acceptable if the height of vegetation is limited to four feet to the east of the garage and seven feet to the west. She felt that the Board should only allow plants that do grow so high.

Ann Solomon, 37 Reed Ranch Road, asked how close the landscaping is to the fence.

Paul Grothe, 2 Hacienda Drive, stated that he thought that the Town has a 3.5-foot-high fence limit. Landscaping had replaced the fencing here. He said that if the Browns can hide the fence, it is acceptable, but since this is a massive solid wood fence, the applicant must hide the fence with screening. Plantings should not affect neighbors’ views. He said that Reed Ranch Road is a major thoroughfare in town and exposed fences do not help the scenic beauty of this street. He thought that it is possible for the Browns to achieve what they want and maintain the integrity of the town.

Terri Keith Torrente, 2175 Centro East Street, noted that some new residents want to build without giving consideration to the Tiburon natives. She felt that all residents should adhere to ordinances when an action will affect a neighbor. She said that the Browns can utilize appropriate vegetation in place of the fence, and thought that there should be limits to the growth of the landscaping to not exceed a current existing view of a neighbor. She added some trees die when they are topped, which could happen to the magnolias.

Ms. Petri stated that she has consistently requested Mr. Brown to assist in preserving her view. She usually has asked that she be allowed to trim the junipers, which she pays for; however, the junipers are overgrown since she has not been able to have them trimmed for the last 2.5 years. She would support the fence if the Design Review Board would require a maturity height limit of landscaping.

Boardmember Stroub stated he does not see Ms. Petri’s complaints as valid. The Browns’ house is downslope and it is not uncommon to install a fence and landscaping for privacy. Proposed plantings in front of the fence will conceal it, and the view will open on the right side. He thought that perhaps the magnolia on the east could be moved down the slope. He felt that this project will be a plus to the neighborhood.

Boardmember Figour stated the solid wooden fence is incredibly ugly; it will take a while for landscaping to grow and cover it. He noted that views have often been taken away because trees grew taller than they were not supposed to. He thought that the applicants have not compromised, as the appellant has. He thought that there should be height conditions in the approval. Maximum tree heights from the Sunset book are often wrong.

Boardmember Collins stated he does not see this as a view issue. On the same street there are many fences higher than five feet. Without vegetation, neighbors from Ms. Petri’s level would look into her property. He said that if the vegetation is removed, the applicant would have no privacy.

Chair McLaughlin stated that he had stood on Ms. Petri’s porch and that there were no view impacts. Landscaping should be selected that will provide rapid coverage of the fence. The height of the magnolia trees are a potential problem.

M/S, Stroub/Collins, passed 3-1-1 (Figour dissenting and Beales recused), to state that the Board reviewed this item in accordance with Municipal Code Section 4.02.06 and Section 4.02.07, and to partially grant the appeal, adding conditions of approval to move the magnolia tree on the left side of the garage behind the fence or eliminate the tree; and the vibernium tinus to be increased to a 15-gallon size.

Boardmember Beales returned to the meeting. 

The applicant is requesting Design Review approval for the construction of a new two-story, two-family dwelling on property located at 2108 and 2110 Mar East. The property is currently developed with a two-family home and two detached garages, which are proposed to be demolished. The proposed construction would require variances for reduced front yard setback, excess lot coverage and reduced area per dwelling unit, and a floor area exception.

This application was first reviewed at the July 5, 2001 Design Review Board meeting. At that time, concerns were expressed by several neighboring property owners regarding potential view impacts that would be caused by the proposed construction. The Board concurred with some of these concerns, noting that the proposed garages could be slightly reduced in height to address potential view impacts from across the street. The Board was also concerned regarding the visual impacts on the neighboring duplex at 2100 & 2102 Mar East Street. The application was continued to allow the applicant to address these concerns, with specific direction to study the location of the building to the west in relation to this project; to complete a study determining if this design is the only alternative; to redesign the project including a flat roof on the garage; and to include floor elevations of the project.

Since that time, the applicant has been meeting with the neighbors of the adjacent property and has submitted revised plans with the upper floor of the proposed Unit A stepped back at the rear corner to improve the view of Angel Island from the adjacent homes at 2100 & 2102 Mar East Street. The configuration of Unit B was also slightly modified, resulting in a floor area 10 square feet larger than previously proposed. In addition, the garage roofs have been changed from a pitched roof design to flat roofs, and a new boat dock is now proposed at the rear of the site.

Hank Bruce, architect, discussed the project and the current revisions. The property to the left of the L’Heureux property has a new owner, with whom he has contacted. The L’Heureuxs will keep a privacy screen, during construction, equal to what is there now. Some of the existing fence may be retained, and they could build a metal fence, to which plants could attach to provide screening.

Fannie Hansen, 2120 Mar East Street, stated she supports the proposed changes.

Gregory Kleiman, 2101 Mar East Street, stated the house will block his view. When he built his house, he was directed to keep the height lower, and he felt that this applicant should be required to do the same.

Klaus Aber, 2100 Mar East Street, stated that his family’s view of the East Bay from the living room will be blocked. Items on the L’Heureuxs’ deck would block views of Ayala Cove. Regarding privacy, the deck would look into his house, although this has been mitigated somewhat by removal of a window. The proposed deck is seven feet from his front entrance and is now larger. He does not like the proposed fence. The quality of the fence is very important because it is by his front door. He is still concerned about the project.

Mr. Bruce stated Mr. Kleiman’s concerns were considered and Mr. Bruce feels he dealt with Mr. Kleiman’s issues. The view corridor will be opened. Regarding the Abers’ concerns, and their plantings on the fence, the applicant would replace the fence in its current location, thereby allowing their plants and the ambience to continue. He could make the railing solid, which would increase the Abers’ privacy. Regarding the deck size, he learned he could project into the rear yard with a deck; this enlargement does not affect the Abers’ views.

Chair McLaughlin noted if the current fence stays during construction, it will be better for noise, dust, etc., because it is fully planted. Mr. Bruce stated this is his first choice, also.

Boardmember Figour stated that applicant should consider not wrapping the deck around; rather, terminating it at the popout. Mr. Bruce responded that they would consider this.

Boardmember Collins stated the lots are tight. If the L’Heureuxs built first, the Abers would have the same problem. He viewed the story poles from Mr. Kleiman’s house, and said that this project has a de minimis effect. Eliminating part of the deck would solve part of the privacy problem. Regarding the fence, he felt that a solid material should be used, because screening plants sometimes die.

Boardmember Beales stated that he visited the Kleimans’ home, and there is no view impact at window sill height. Notching the corner of the upper unit has improved the view toward Angel Island. He thought that the applicant should try to maintain the existing fence. The Design Review Board cannot approve a new overheight fence tonight.

Senior Planner Watrous noted that, if the fence were at the same height, in the same location and the previous fence was built with permits, the new fence would not need a variance.

Boardmember Beales recommended adding a condition of approval that if the fence must be removed, an application for a replacement fence be submitted in a timely fashion.

Boardmember Figour concurred. He added that he likes the building and design; it will be an asset to the cove. He went into the Kleimans’ house and there is not a significant view impact. However, the Abers will lose some of their borrowed view.

Boardmember Stroub stated that the applicant is asking for a lot in addition to view blockage; however, the house fits in with the area. He approves of the dock. There is view blockage from the kitchen and den of the Abers, which could be considered a ceremonial room. The deck wrapping around creates a privacy issue. The building’s height is acceptable. He felt that lowering the house will not help.

Chair McLaughlin stated he visited the house across the street, and the reduction of the roof height results in minimal impacts to Mr. Kleiman. This property is lower than the one next door, but the unit is higher than the house next door; hence, the interruption of views. He asked why the building cannot be lowered into the ground. The property to the east is lower; there are similar floors, but they are settled into the land. Clipping the corner and pulling back the wall would help, though this might make the interior space unacceptable. Borrowed view or not, views of the water are very important and should not be impeded. A different design will solve the interference of view.

Boardmember Figour noted a house will be built on the other side of this house. Chair McLaughlin agreed but added. it will be lowered significantly. Boardmember Figour responded, if the house is dropped, this would create a problem in the other direction.

Chair McLaughlin stated the decks create a privacy issue; the owner should lower the house and decks will be at the same level.

Boardmember Figour added the units are not large; if space were taken away, design and use would be lost.

The applicant is requesting Design Review approval for the construction of a new three-story single-family dwelling on property located at 1808 Lagoon View Drive. The property is currently developed with a single-family home, which is proposed to be demolished. Portions of the proposed structure would project to within 20 feet of the front property line; as a 30-foot front setback is required in the RO-2 zone, a variance is requested for reduced front yard setback.

This application was first reviewed at the August 16, 2001 Design Review Board meeting. At that time, concerns were raised by several neighboring property owners regarding the mass and bulk of the proposed house, and the retaining walls proposed in the rear yard. The Board shared these concerns, adding that the design of the house did not seem appropriate for this hillside lot. The request was continued to the September 20, 2001 meeting to allow the applicant time to address these concerns.

Since that time, the applicant has submitted revised plans for the project. The primary changes include reducing the floor area of the proposed house from 4,093 square feet to 3,995 square feet; eliminating the basement floor, helping lower the upper and lower floor level elevations by 2 feet; reducing the building width by 7 feet, 2 inches, from 87 feet, 1 inch to 79 feet, 11 inches; eliminating the rear yard retaining walls, replaced with a single 4 foot tall retaining wall much closer to the rear of the house; eliminating the lower level deck; and adding an elevator to the side of the proposed house, serving both floor levels of the house and the garage.

Kyle Thayer, architect, discussed changes to the project. Boardmember Stroub asked if any story poles are missing. Mr. Thayer stated he understands some are mounted on the house. The owner is renting the current house and the tenant may have taken some down. He added, the proposed house orients within a couple degrees of the existing house.

Boardmember Beales asked about the Landscaping Plan. Mr. Thayer stated the planting is as originally designed.

Boardmember Figour stated it is gratifying to see a great job resulting from the Board’s directions. The architect has built a hillside house and done a great job of redesigning as requested by the Design Review Board.

Boardmember Beales stated he concurs; the removal of the walls is a tremendous improvement.

Boardmembers Stroub, Collins and McLaughlin concurred.

4. 6 Round Hill Terrace Hersch, Fence/Variance

The applicant is requesting Design Review approval to permit the as-built construction of an overheight fence and arbor on property located at 6 Round Hill Terrace. The property is developed with a two-story single-family dwelling. An arbor and a portion of the fence were constructed that have a maximum height of 9 feet. As a fence may have a maximum height of 6 feet within a required setback, a variance is requested to permit the as-built construction of this structure.

Senior Planner Watrous noted a correction to the Staff report: the fence is between the homes at 6 and 2 Round Hill Terrace.

In response to questions, Stan Urban, developer, stated he built the fence in response to privacy concerns of the homeowners at 2 and 6 Round Hill Terrace.

Boardmember Beales stated he can understand the arbor at that height.

Boardmember Figour stated both affected neighbors like the project.

5. 38 Claire Way Schwager/Zaczek, Additions/Variance

On August 3,2001, the Design Review Board granted design review approval for a remodel to the existing residence at 38 Claire Way. Although the remodel request was substantial (an addition of 1,368 square feet living area to the residence’s existing 978 square feet of floor area), the remodel request did not require variances or a floor area exception.

The applicants have subsequently determined that they would like to make some modest revisions to the approved remodel plan. The changes would add 101 square feet of living area and lot coverage, 69 square feet to the garage area and 32 square feet in storage area. The garage modification would push the south wall of the garage beyond the setback limit there by reducing the left side yard setback to five feet in lieu of the minimum of six feet required in the R-1-BA zone.

Stephanie Zaczek, owner, discussed her request.

Boardmember Figour stated the Zoning Ordinance was not put in place to force property owners to have a substandard garage; he can accept the proposal.

6. 38 Reed Ranch Road Wingate, Additions/Variance

Boardmember Beales recused himself from this hearing.

The applicant is requesting Design Review approval to construct a deck and an addition to an existing two-story single-family dwelling located at 38 Reed Ranch Road. A new deck would be constructed to the rear of the house, connecting to the living room on the upper floor. An existing crawl space on the lower floor of the building would be converted into a bedroom and bathroom.

The proposed deck would increase the calculated lot coverage for this property by 119 square feet to 2,049 square feet (16.6%), which is the greater than the 15.0% maximum permitted lot coverage in the RO-2 zone. Therefore, a variance is requested for excess lot coverage.

Mohamad Sadrieh, architect, discussed the project and added he met with Ms. Carlson, the downhill neighbor, who had three requests, which he agreed to meet: (1) the first two feet of the deck railing shall be solid; (2) any exterior lighting on the deck shall be placed behind the solid railing; and (3) leaking from a drain on the property would be addressed.

Boardmember Figour noted a neighbor, Colonel Oliver, stated that the lights on the front of the house shine on his home. Mr. Sadrieh said that he will bring this to the attention of the owner.

Boardmember Collins stated he supports the project, including the additional conditions of approval.

Boardmember Figour stated he also supports the project and reiterated that the Reedlands’ RO-2 zoning makes no sense because the lots are nowhere near the size they should be.

Boardmember Stroub supported the project.

M/S, Collins/Stroub, passed 4-0-1, Beales recused, to approve the findings and application subject to the conditions as set forth in the Staff report, with the additional conditions of approval that the first two feet of the deck railing be solid, and that all exterior lighting on the deck be placed behind the solid railing.

Boardmember Beales returned to the meeting. 

7. 21 Juno Road Rony, Additions/Appeal

On August 15,2001, Staff granted Site Plan and Architectural Review approval for a new carport and an addition to the single-family dwelling located at 21 Juno Road. Mr. and Mrs. Costa, the property owners of the lot located to the rear (north) of the subject property, have now appealed this decision to the Design Review Board

Senior Planner Watrous noted the appellant is not present but wishes the hearing to proceed.

Chair McLaughlin clarified with Staff that this is a de novo hearing.

Ellen Rony, owner, stated the carport would be shielded on two sides. The carport would mirror the design of the house, and would add minimal bulk and mass. Those signing the petition opposing the carport have standard-sized garages. Her house is not standard; it is smaller, with a one-car garage. There are actually two carports on Juno Road and two others have been enclosed. Her garage is small; it would not be used as a living space. She felt that the inference that her carport would accumulate garbage is insulting. People on the street will see only a fascia. She does not want to build bulk and mass toward the street. A professional architect designed the carport to make it attractive. The appellant does not oppose the carport. The addition creates no privacy issues and the appellants’ property is 2.5 feet higher than hers, so it is less likely that there are view concerns. The bedroom does not intrude into the 20-foot setback. She distributed a photograph of the neighbor’s view; noting the addition is below the existing roof ridgeline and the neighbor’s house is 2.5 feet higher. She distributed proposed colors, stating that contrary to the Staff report, she is not changing the color of the house. The appellants are attempting to get a previously-built fence approved and have two feet added to its height, which would result in her looking at an eleven foot fence.

Dana Thor, 27 Juno Road, speaking on behalf of those signing the petition opposing the carport, stated the carport is not in keeping with the neighborhood. They felt that it would lower property values and diminish the streetscape.

Ms. Rony stated she feels it is totally inappropriate to ask about increasing the height of the fence. Regarding the carport, she is not substituting the carport for the garage. The neighbors will see very little of the carport.

Boardmember Stroub stated he sees no problem with the rear addition and felt that the bases of the appeal are not legitimate. The carport creates no problems. He noted that this neighborhood is often on the same page in its opposition to various issues. This carport would not set a precedent. This house is set back on the lot more than others nearby. There are fences and structures closer to the street than this carport will be.

Chair McLaughlin clarified whether the fence could be discussed at this appeal hearing. Senior Planner Watrous responded, that the fence could be discussed; however, the Board cannot grant an approval for a variance without an applicant going through the variance process. He also noted that the fence is currently being handled as a code enforcement matter.

Boardmember Collins stated that these are the worst appeal grounds he has ever seen. Regarding the carport, there are carports in Belvedere and in Tiburon. In the surrounding area, a number of neighbors have no garages.

Boardmember Beales stated the appeal was made by a neighbor as a way to get his fence approved; he hopes the enforcement proceeds. He felt the carport is appropriate.

Boardmember Figour stated the appeal is totally bogus. He said that carports are not intrinsically bad. Open garages on the street are often filled with stuff; it is a neighborhood issue to keep doors closed and the neighborhood neat.

Chair McLaughlin concurred and stated that it has been a long process to get code enforcement started. The wooden fence should be removed. A carport is not precedent-setting; the Board looks individually at requests. The vegetation is significant; a two-car tandem garage would be less attractive.

F. APPROVAL OF MINUTES #17 OF THE 9/6/01 DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MEETING

Changes include:

Page 8, 5^th paragraph, last sentence, change "included" to "identified."

Page 6, 2^nd to last sentence, change "storage" to "sewage."

Page 6, 2^nd sentence, last line, after "lot," add "or not." After "resolved," add "will affect the outcome of the ultimate design."

Page 8, 2^nd to last paragraph , add "to him" after "important."

M/S Beales/Figour, passed 4-0- (Collins abstained), to approve the Minutes as amended.

G. ADJOURNMENT

The meeting was adjourned at 10:20 p.m.