TIBURON DESIGN REVIEW BOARD

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 reported that the Town Council had held a hearing on the Downtown Design Guidelines; Councilmember Gram had concerns he wished more clearly identified and the item was continued to November 7^th. In response to questions, Senior Planner Watrous stated that, since the last meeting two other properties with unpermitted hillside solar panels were found in the Via Paraiso area; both of these installations are being addressed as code enforcement issues. Staff has now established a policy that applications for ground-mounted solar panels require Board-level review, including a 300-foot radius public notice.

1. 21 Juno Road Costa/Rony, Resolution Denying Appeal

On September 20, 2001, the Design Review Board considered an appeal of the approval of a Site Plan and Architectural Review application for the construction of additions to an existing single-family dwelling on property located at 21 Juno Road. After considering the appeal and considering public testimony regarding this request, the Board directed Staff to prepare a resolution denying the appeal.

It was noted that the last word on Page 1 of the resolution should be "appeal."

M/S, Beales/Stroub, passed 5-0, to approve the resolution, as amended.

E. OLD BUSINESS BEFORE THE BOARD

2. 109 Gilmartin Drive Prusak, New Dwelling

The applicant is requesting Design Review approval for the construction of a new two-story single-family dwelling on property located at 109 Gilmartin Drive. The property is currently developed with a single-family home, much of which is proposed to be demolished. As more than 50 percent of the existing structure would be demolished as part of the proposed project, the subject application is being processed as a new dwelling.

This application was originally reviewed at the July 19, 2001 Design Review Board meeting. At that meeting, concerns were raised regarding potential view impacts of the proposed construction on the adjacent uphill residence at 111 Gilmartin Drive; the applicant indicated a willingness to modify the proposed plans to address these concerns with this neighbor. The Board also indicated significant concerns over the floor area requested for this project, and whether findings could be made to approve the requested floor area exception. The request was continued to allow the applicant time to address these concerns.

Revised plans have now been submitted for the project. The primary changes include reducing the floor area by approximately 2,476 square feet, to a proposed total of 6,589 square feet; pulling back both ends of the northern section of the house; moving the eastern end of the upper level of this area back further from the street, with a deck proposed above the main floor level; adding a covered entry court with glass panels for wind protection to the north side of the house; and narrowing other areas of the central portion of the house somewhat. Additional floor area that had been previously proposed in the main or upper levels has been relocated to a larger proposed basement area.

Anthony Tobias, architect, discussed the project and stated he redesigned the house to remedy adverse impacts. He disagreed with Staff’s calculations on the floor area of the house, and stated that he has followed Town guidelines for these calculations.

Boardmember Figour asked if the architect had visited the upper neighbor’s property to see the view. Mr. Tobias responded that he had not been inside the neighbor’s house. In response to questions, Mr. Tobias stated that he is asking for 555 square feet more floor area than currently exists.

Boardmember Beales noted the glass curtain wall is a change and lighting in the entryway should not be obnoxious. Mr. Tobias responded that this is part of the current entry court. Lighting would conform to outside lighting regulations. The channel glass curtain is intended to create a windscreen.

Senior Planner Watrous explained that the Town does not count basement area toward the floor area ratio for a house. There is one lower level, part of which the applicant has indicated as basement space. The Town’s definition of a basement states that it must be a separate level in and of itself. As a portion of the currently proposed lower level daylights out, technically all the basement footage should count as a non-basement and toward the floor area ratio. Staff believes that most of this level could be easily redesigned to comply with this basement requirement. Staff’s interpretation is that revised plan is 1,226 square feet over the allowed floor area ratio.

Mr. Prusak, applicant, read the Town’s definition of a basement. He stated that his intent was to conform to this definition, to the letter. He could make a level change but does not understand where the interpretation applies.

Senior Planner Watrous noted the difference in the interpretation is not necessarily germane; the additional footage is not in the overall bulk of the house. If the Board feels a 836 square foot floor area exception is justified, the same findings can likely be made for a 1,226 square foot exception.

Dan Grossman, 111 Gilmartin Drive, stated that the proposed modifications do not significantly address their view concerns. The unchanged height of the second floor creates a significant impact to their view of Richardson Bay from their living room. Also, exposure at night to the lighted entryway may represent a diminishment of their night view. Overall, he feels that the project will enhance the neighborhood and everyone will live through the construction process, but they do not want to lose their view of Richardson Bay.

Mr. Tobias responded, regarding light pollution, a roof covers the entry court and lighting will not be seen from the Grossmans’ house. He would be willing to minimize the windows on the second floor. Regarding the Grossmans’ view, the dramatic view of Richardson Bay will not be reduced by the second floor any more than that reduced by a mature oak tree. In response to questions, he stated he has seen photographs of the lighting in the entry court but has not actually seen a similar installation.

Boardmember Stroub stated the issue is loss of view. Cutting back the roof helped but a severe blockage of view of the waterfront remains. Since, 1990, most homes have been about 800 square feet under the floor area ratio; before 1990, there were floor areas approved in the vicinity that were some 1,500 feet over the Town’s current codes; this may be why the floor area ratio was established in the first place. He would be more apt to go along with the floor area exception; however, with the loss of view to the Grossmans, a major change in the design is necessary.

Boardmember Beales stated the extra floor area would not be so much of an issue if there were no other problems. A second floor is being constructed to capture views from a bedroom at the expense of a neighbor’s view from a ceremonial room. He has seen the story poles from Mr. Grossman’s house. He is not satisfied the glass wall would not be a problem. Light will be transmitted out through the glass. He noted that square footage was not reduced, but rather moved into the basement. The Town’s floor area ratio was established in part because some homes on Gilmartin Drive, prior to 1990, were very large. He is concerned about loss of view and the lighting. Also, the fence is proposed to be outside the building envelope, and a solid fence would not be acceptable.

Boardmember Figour stated the building is nicely designed; however, the Grossmans’ view is impacted. He is disappointed Mr. Tobias did not visit the Grossmans’ house to observe the view. The floor area exception is a secondary issue. He felt that this house does not work at this location.

Boardmember Collins stated he also likes the unique design, but he also shares the concern of substantial view blockage from the Grossmans’ house. He noted that the existing oak tree may not be allowed to grow to an excessive height, per the View Ordinance.

Chair McLaughlin stated that he concurs with most of the Board’s comments. The floor area exception is significant; either 800 square feet or 1200 square feet is a large figure over the floor area ratio. The house would have an incredible impact on the Grossmans’ view. While the house is exceptional, the design is out of synch with what needs to happen. He concurs that light may glare from the entry. He felt that the fence is a non-issue among the other issues.

Senior Planner Watrous noted the Permit Streamlining Act deadline for this project has been extended to December 10, 2001.

Mr. Tobias asked if removing the vaulted area, but leaving an eight-foot ceiling, on the second floor would solve the view issue.

Chair McLaughlin recommended Mr. Tobias tie in new architecture with the Grossmans’ concerns and determine if it works architecturally and for his client. He asked that story poles be installed to show the new architecture.

M/S, Stroub/Beales, passed 5-0, to continue this item continue to December 6, 2001.

 3. 7 Seafirth Place Fitzgerald/Hoff, New Dwelling

The applicant is requesting Design Review approval for the construction of a new three-story single-family dwelling on property located at 7 Seafirth Place. The subject property is currently vacant.

This application was originally reviewed at the September 6, 2001 Design Review Board meeting. At that meeting, concerns were raised regarding potential privacy impacts of the proposed house on the adjacent residences at 5 and 9 Seafirth Place and 4030 Paradise Drive. The Board also expressed concerns about the massive appearance of the proposed house and how the structure would loom above the existing house below the site; the consensus of the Board was the design of the proposed house was inappropriate for the subject site. The request was continued to the October 4, 2001 Board meeting to allow the applicant time to address these concerns.

Revised plans have now been submitted for the project. The primary changes include narrowing the upper floor and stepped back the building into the hillside; narrowing the overall width of the house and increasing the side yard setback facing 4030 Paradise Drive; and reducing the overall height of the roofline. As a result, the floor area of the proposed house has been reduced by 20 square feet to 3,880 square feet. The lot coverage of the proposed house has increased from 2,600 square feet (11.4%) to 3,394 square feet (14.8%).

Mohamed Sadrieh, architect, discussed the project and described the revisions made to the design.

Boardmember Stroub asked about the stoned terrace and if it is changing grade substantially from that existing. Mr. Sadrieh responded that this is a slightly descending lawn area. Trees will be removed because he did not want to guarantee they would survive construction.

Boardmember Collins asked if the very large pine tree would be removed. Mr. Sadrieh responded that the tree would be removed, as well as another tree near story pole 13.

Jack McLean, 45 Seafirth, secretary of Seafirth Estates Company, stated he learned late today the president transmitted a letter to Senior Planner Watrous. He read the letter, which stated that the position of the Seafirth Estates Company remains that it will not extend sewer services to the owners of this property. He said that the lack of viable sewer service provides a reason for not approving an application. He asked that the application be denied until the sewer issue is resolved, and added that the Design Review process includes a provision for protecting the public health; if this issue is not addressed, a public health issue could be created.

Chair McLaughlin noted all Town requirements, including those of the Town Engineer for sanitary sewer or septic services, would have to be met, if this is approved by Design Review Board. However, the Design Review Board does not address sewer issues.

Lisa Cohan, 4030 Paradise Drive, adjacent neighbor, stated the story poles have moved from between the trees but the large pine tree would be removed. The tree provides screening cover that would hide this house from hers. Also, there is a nearby retaining wall that will be seen. With the new plan, several mature trees will be cut, which should be addressed. The owner is not talking about a second house on the adjacent lot at 5 Seafirth Place, which is a concern to her. She added that she wants to know, as a neighbor, how it would fit within the neighborhood.

Larry Gelb, 15 Seafirth Place, asked if his concern about additional vehicles using the driveway was addressed.

Richard Schmotter, 9 Seafirth Place, the neighbor to the north, stated he is concerned because he has children. Mr. Fitzgerald assured him there would be only one car using the driveway, not two or three. He also would like to see a total plan for the second lot. He has not seen the plans and he feels that the project affects his house the most.

Chip Cohan, 4030 Paradise, stated the residents in the neighborhood are a community and many attending this meeting may not speak. Both parties are far apart on the issues of providing sewer services and whether the lot is a buildable lot, As a neighborhood, the vast majority opposes the process the applicant is going through. The Design Review Board made it clear the trees were to have been protected, which was not done. Aspects of the close community should be considered as well as the one tree that screens the project.

Rob Fitzgerald, owner, stated the house has been redesigned with a lower profile, so it does not matter that the pine tree will be removed. Since the redesign, he could address the Cohans’ concerns with plantings. He believes he is entitled to sewer with the Seafirth Estates Company, and if not, he will annex to Sanitary District 5.

Mr. Sadrieh stated he would like to hear from the neighbors as to what would solve their concerns.

Chair McLaughlin suggested removal of the retaining wall near the Cohans would solve a concern. Mr. Sadrieh responded that removing the retaining walls will not allow light into the guest room.

Boardmember Figour stated he concurred that some issues cannot be discussed because they are not in the Board’s purview. The architect followed the Board’s directions from the last meeting. There has been a lot of give by the applicant. Moving the house 30 feet from the Cohans’ property line is generous.

Boardmember Beales stated he concurred. However, removal of the pine tree is unacceptable; this tree is important to the Cohans, in that it that provides screening for them.

Boardmember Collins stated the changes are significant, but he also has a concern about the tree removal. It would be an unnecessary, dramatic change to the Cohans’ view, from green landscaping to a view of a house. He suggested moving the house in some direction to allow the tree to remain.

Boardmember Stroub stated he concurred with most of the Board’s comments, and added that it is difficult to approve this house when there is no neighborhood backing; however, the house does follow design guidelines. He would like applicant to keep the single pine tree in addition to the trees to the north of the house. Four or five trees could be saved that would help with screening. He also thought that the driveway is an issue.

Chair McLaughlin stated the driveway is a huge problem area as is removal of the pine tree. Without it, the privacy of the Cohans will be destroyed. The architect has resolved most of the Board’s issues, though the house still looks bulky for the neighborhood. He concurred that the lone pine and several other trees should not be removed.

Mr. Fitzgerald stated he would like to address the tree. He could replace it and plant a new tree in that spot that would grow to a limited height, to screen the Cohans’ property.

Chair McLaughlin stated it is not just the height issue; the tree creates a landscape corridor above the ground—a horizontal effect. Removing the tree would leave a gaping hole, which would take at least ten years to grow the current tree spread.

It was agreed that moving the guest room ten feet forward would solve the tree issue.

M/S, Collins/Beales, passed 5-0, to continue this item to the October 24, 2001 meeting to allow the applicant time to address the Board’s concerns. 

4.. 30 Meadowhill Drive Gibson, Additions/Floor Area Exception: CONTINUED TO 12/6/01

5. 12 Place Moulin, Orvis Additions/Variance/Floor Area Exception

The applicant is requesting Design Review for the construction of additions to an existing single-family dwelling on property located at 12 Place Moulin. The property is currently developed with a three-story single-family dwelling.

Additions are proposed at the west (left) and east (right) sides of the existing house. The western addition would include a one-gar garage adjacent to the existing two-car garage on the main level of the house, and the construction of a new bedroom and bathroom on the lower level. A new library would be added to the east side of the existing main level, and a new master bathroom would be added to the lower level on this side. Separate storage rooms would be added beneath both additions. A new deck would also be added in front of the existing loft level of the house.

The proposed additions would have a maximum height of 36 feet, which is greater than the 30 foot maximum building height in Tiburon. A variance is therefore requested for excess building height.

John Orvis, owner, and Colleen Mahoney, architect, discussed the project.

Boardmember Collins asked about the trees along the north of the house. Ms. Mahoney responded that construction will be far enough away from the drip line, they will not be affected.

Regarding the height of the proposed storage rooms, Senior Planner Watrous noted a room at a 7’6" height becomes a livable space and it is recommended the height be kept at 6’11" so if construction is off a couple inches, it does not create a problem.

Mr. Orvis stated he would like as much height in the storage rooms as possible; there will be pipes, etc., in the ceiling of the basement. Below the garage is a storage area for garden-related equipment. Storage space is their concern.

Boardmember Stroub stated the building height is acceptable on this lot. He would not want to see the storage areas converted to bedrooms.

Boardmember Collins stated there will be future owners and that the height overage is di minimus.

Boardmember Beales concurred and stated he also would not want the basement becoming a living space.

Changes include:

Page 11, third paragraph from the bottom to read, "…she feels it inappropriate to ask about increasing the height of the fence."

Page 8, last paragraph, to state, "…both neighbors affected liked the project."

Page 10, paragraph 7, should be "RO-2 zoning."

Page 12, first paragraph to state, "…Belvedere, Tiburon and in surrounding areas. A number of neighbors have no garages."

Page 5, last sentence, to read, "…which could be considered a ceremonial room."

Page 10, add "Boardmember Stroub supports the project also."

ADJOURNMENT       The meeting was adjourned at 8:40 p.m.