TIBURON DESIGN REVIEW BOARD

MEETING OF NOVEMBER 1, 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

There was no discussion or briefing.

 D. OLD BUSINESS BEFORE THE BOARD

1. 14 Place Moulin Star Two, LLC, Modifications/Variance

The applicant is requesting Design Review to modify the previously-approved plans to construct a new single-family dwelling on property located at 14 Place Moulin. The floor area and lot coverage of the house would remain unchanged from the previous approvals for this structure. However, the building height of the proposed house would be increased from 30 feet to 32 feet. As the maximum building height for a residence in Tiburon is 30 feet, a variance has been requested for excess building height.

This application was first reviewed at the October 18, 2001 Design Review Board meeting. At that time, concerns were raised by neighboring property owners at 12 and 15 Place Moulin regarding potential view and visual impacts that may be caused by the proposed building height increase. The Board continued the request to the November 1, 2001 meeting to allow Boardmembers the opportunity to evaluate the story poles for the proposed request from these nearby homes.

Michael Heckmann, architect, discussed the project, and added that he walked through Mr. Orvis’ house at 12 Place Moulin yesterday and believes Mr. Orvis’ main view is not impacted by this proposal. He distributed recent photographs to explain the view circumstances. The Kozloffs’ views, at 15 Place Moulin, are oriented to San Francisco, not Sausalito; he also distributed photographs regarding this address.

Boardmember Figour asked where the additional two feet of building height is being added. Mr. Heckmann responded that the lower floor was approved with a ceiling height of 11 feet, and remains at that height.

Boardmember Beales noted that a section drawing from the originally approved plans indicates that the lower floor was raised three feet. Boardmember Figour added that this reminds him of other homes with crawl spaces that are of no consequence now, but in the future, could become a third living level.

John Orvis, 12 Place Moulin, stated he had submitted a letter to the Board, and added that the proposal negatively impacts his property. He felt that the transition from the living areas to the garage can be accommodated without increasing the building height.

Sherry Kozloff, 15 Place Moulin, stated if the house is two feet higher, the impact of the mass will affect the front area and entry of their house. This is not the nice house that fits into the hillside that had been approved.

Mr. Heckmann reiterated that the proposed building height would not affect the nearby residents’ principal views.

Boardmember Beales stated that while he appreciates the residents’ opinions and concerns, their principal views are not toward this house. However, he cannot make the third required finding for the variance of an unnecessary hardship or practical difficulty.

Boardmember Figour concurred and added, if the building height met the code requirement, he would approve the application. However, the stated reasons for the building modifications did not justify the requested variance.

Boardmember Stroub stated there the increased building height would result in only minor view blockage. He thought that the reason for a better connection between the living areas and the garage could be seen as a slight hardship. He said that the proposed modification would give the house better curb appeal.

Boardmember Collins stated he also cannot make the third required variance finding. He felt that there is another way to solve applicant’s problem. He said that the view issues are minor, although important to the neighbors.

Chair McLaughlin stated he concurred there would be only minor impacts on the views from other homes’ primary living areas. He noted that while this would improve the curb appeal of the house, this residence was originally approved without the need for a variance request.

M/S, Beales/Collins, passed 5-0, to direct Staff to prepare resolution denying the request.

E. NEW BUSINESS BEFORE THE BOARD

2. 34 Terrace Court Lowry, Fence/Variance

Boardmember Beales recused himself from this item.

The applicant is requesting Design Review approval to permit the construction of an overheight fence on property located at 34 Terrace Court. The property is developed with a one-single-family dwelling. Construction is currently underway for additions to this house that have previously received Design Review approval. As part of the construction, the property owners now propose to construct a six-foot-tall fence adjacent to a two-foot-tall retaining wall near the southwestern (right) side property line. The fence would use solid wood materials for the first four feet, with a two-foot-tall section of wood lattice on top. As a fence and/or wall may have a maximum height of six feet within a required setback, a variance is requested to permit the construction of this structure.

Eric Layton, architect, discussed the project and stated that 50 feet back from the southwest corner, the fence would be a standard six-foot-high fence, without the retaining wall. He concurs there should not be a big leaf maple tree; however, he said that the tulip magnolia tree does not grow more than seventeen feet tall. He would like an attractive element to provide screening for the front yard area. He would replace the maple tree with the magnolia tree and place it further down the hill.

Ruth Carlson, 38 Terrace Court, distributed photographs and stated she is glad the maple tree will not be planted.

Catherine Servino, 41 Terrace Court, stated she would like landscaping between the retaining walls and the fence in the patio area. Varying the fence height is acceptable.

Mary Defenderfer, 31 Reed Ranch Road, stated that taking out the wide leaf maple is a good idea.

Boardmember Stroub stated he can support the variance for the fence and approves the change to a magnolia tree.

In response to questions, Senior Planner Watrous stated the Town’s View Ordinance deals with the trimming of trees.

Boardmember Collins had questions about trimming trees, but supports the request.

Boardmember Figour said that he had no problem with the project.

Chair McLaughlin stated that he also had no problem with the request. He would modify the fence as stated by the applicant and move the magnolia tree to the location of the maple tree.

M/S, Stroub/Figour, passed 4-0-1 (Beales recused), to approve the application subject to the conditions as set forth in the Staff report, with the additional conditions of approval that the maple tree indicated on the plans not be planted, and the magnolia tree to be moved to the location of the maple tree; and for the first 50 feet back from the front property line, the fence would be six feet high, without the retaining wall.

Boardmember Beales returned to the meeting.

3. 155 Rock Hill Drive Flaherty, Additions/Variance

Boardmember Stroub recused himself from this item.

The applicant is requesting Design Review approval for the construction of additions to an existing single-family dwelling on property located at 155 Rock Hill Drive. The floor area of the existing house would be increased by 942 square feet to 4,512 square feet, which is less than the maximum floor area for a lot of this size. A portion of the proposed upper level addition would extend to within 25 feet, 5 inches of the front property line. As a 30 foot front yard setback is required within the RO-2 zone, a variance is requested for reduced front yard setback.

The application was originally scheduled for the October 18, 2001 Design Review Board meeting. Prior to that meeting, the applicant requested a continuance to the November 1, 2001 meeting in order to meet with several of the neighboring property owners, and attempt to address their concerns regarding the originally-submitted plans.

John Dorr, DomA Design, San Rafael, discussed the project.

Julie Flaherty, applicant, discussed changes that had been made to the project since receiving a letter from neighbors. She added that she has made some large concessions and is making significant improvements to this house.

Boardmember Beales asked for clarification of mass and the seeming increase in roof area. Mr. Dorr stated that the height of the crawl spaces varies; at its highest point, it is eight feet, and it goes down to six feet. He stated that the surface area of the roof would be increased by about 2.7 percent.

Jim Malott, representing several uphill neighbors, stated that there is considerable bulk left in the high roof proposed. The previous design that resembled an English cottage has been changed to a Craftsman architecture and has added six feet in height to the building. He said that none of the view-taking caused by this construction is necessary. There is ten feet of void space in the garage, which adds six feet of view blockage that he thought would affect all of the neighbors. The change of hip roofs to gables creates an eighteen-foot-high face to the neighbors. He stated that a goal in Tiburon has been to keep roof levels low. He said that findings could not be made to support the variance for the previous addition above the garage, and the applicants then reduced the size of the garage. There are no dimensions on the floor plans; however, he calculates that the house is 389 square feet over the floor area ratio for this property. He believes applicants are taking advantage of an technical code interpretation issue as, there is over 200 square feet shown as storage areas with substandard ceiling heights. He felt that the building does not relate to others in the neighborhood that have low slope roofs, warm tone siding or earth tone stucco.

In response to questions, Senior Planner Watrous stated that, if the Board approves the design as presented, it is with the floor areas as indicated on the plans. If during the building plan check process the actual floor area is determined to be larger, the applicant would need to either modify the plans to comply with the floor area approved by the Board or submit another Design Review application to approve the additional floor area.

Chair McLaughlin stated that he visited the neighboring homes and he does not see a blockage of water views from these residences. Mr. Malott replied that views are not just of water; rather, the view is the foreground, middle and background. He said that this project would block all of the middle or foreground views. He said that views of vegetation and the water line are being replaced with views of a roof.

Larry Haman, 27 Mara Vista Court, stated that he owns contiguous property line at one point. He objects to the protrusions on the roof, and stated the applicant should built out, not up. He does not want to look at the roofline, chimneys, antennas, or other things that might be added to the roof. Myoporum grows to fifteen feet, and if planted along the property line, it would screen off any development.

Dave Pelfini, 160 Rock Hill Drive, stated the height and mass of the roof will be seen. He would like the height addressed, and asked if there is a need for it or if it is just for the look of the house. There will be no view impacts from the extra height, but it will impact the neighbors.

Harry Smith, 159 Rock Hill Drive, stated the proposal would impact his view from the main area of his home. He stated that the applicant’s claim that the surface area of the roof would only increase by 2.7 percent is absurd. He has not received accurate dimensions from applicants’ designer. He said that the spirit of the Town’s floor area ratio and design guidelines speak to mass, bulk and height. Following these principles would require that the application be denied. He recommended that the applicant keep the color dark and chimney at its present location.

Mr. Dorr stated that the Craftsman style is very appropriate to Tiburon. Regarding roof heights and pitches, several meetings were held with neighbors and the applicant has attempted to accommodate their requests as to heights. He maintained that his plans are accurate, and stood by his calculations regarding the surface area of the roof. He stated that he extensively consulted the Town’s Hillside Guidelines in designing this project.

Ms. Flaherty stated the design of the house is an English cottage, not a Tudor house. The color of the stucco is an objective decision. The chimney is in front of a large redwood tree, but beyond the tree she does not see the Golden Gate Bridge from the Smith’s house.

Boardmember Collins stated there is no view issue, but rather, a mass issue of major proportions. He noted that all neighbors object to the roof height. He felt that there are other ways to accomplish what applicants want and still maintain the cottage look.

Boardmember Figour stated that the proposed construction would much less massive when viewed from the street than the neighbors’ homes. The proposal does not exceed the Town’s height limit. He noted that he had visited the neighboring homes, and he felt that the view impacts would be minor. If trees on the neighboring property to the south were cut down to open the southern view, they would have to be cut to stumps. He was having difficulty making the required findings for a variance on the addition to the garage.

Boardmember Beales stated he visited all the nearby homes and all the neighbors indicated there would be no major view blockage. He is concerned with the increase in the roof, but noted that the roof dimensions have shrunk and different planes have been created which will break up the roof. There are large buildings in the neighborhood and this house would still look like a one-story structure from the street. He is concerned about the floor area calculations; there should be dimensions on plans.

Chair McLaughlin concurred, and stated the design is attractive. He does not have a problem with the massing issue. If there were impacts on views, he would recommend a change in the design, but he has visited the neighboring homes and the proposed construction is not a view issue. He could approve the variance.

Boardmember Beales added he also has no problem with the variance. However, he thought that the clerestory window on the front, facing the street, should be removed. This could create a light pollution issue.

Chair McLaughlin added, regarding the bulk of the house, that the steepness of the neighbor’s roof is more imposing than this one-story building.

M/S, Beales/McLaughlin, passed 3-1-1 (Collins dissented, Stroub recused), to approve the application subject to the conditions as set forth in the Staff report.

Boardmember Stroub returned to the meeting.

4. 80 Rolling Hills Road, Littman New Dwelling

The applicant is requesting Design Review for the construction of a new three-story single-family dwelling on property located at 80 Rolling Hills Road. The subject property is currently vacant. The main level of the proposed house would include a living room, dining room, family room, kitchen, workroom, and 1.5 bathrooms. The lower level would include four bedrooms, four bathrooms, a media room, laundry room and play room. Upper-level construction would include a master bedroom suite on the north end of the building and a library on the south side of the structure. A detached three-car garage would be constructed adjacent to the main level, with a guest suite constructed above. A swimming pool would be constructed adjacent to the garage and guest suite. The floor area of the proposed house would be 7,617 square feet, which is less than the maximum floor area of 8,000 square feet permitted for a lot of this size.

Alan Littman, owner, discussed the project and stated he had received no objections from anyone. Mr. Odland at 5 Owlswood Road, downhill from him, objected to a story pole, but this issue was resolved. He would agree that landscaping on the southwest side facing 5 Owlswood Road will contain shrubs, etc., that will reach ten feet at mature height to shield the neighboring home from the new residence.

John Haag, architect, discussed the project.

In response to questions, Senior Planner Watrous, described the public access on the lower side of the property, which includes a pedestrian easement to get from Owlswood Road to the nearby open space. The easement has been established to the Town’s satisfaction.

Boardmember Figour stated that this is a very special house on a very special site. The house would have no negative impacts on neighbors.

Boardmember Stroub stated that the house was beautiful. He said that he would normally like clearer plans regarding building heights and trees. However, he felt this project was in good hands, would have not impacts on neighbors, and he supports the request.

Boardmember Collins stated that the house has an interesting design. He noted that the question of the kitchen in the guest suite was addressed in the recommended conditions of approval. He could support the project.

Chair McLaughlin stated, in the future, he would like to see more detailed plan submittals so he can say he fully understood the plans. He asked the number of oaks being removed and the number of heritage trees to be removed. Mr. Littman responded, there are 150 oaks and 30 bays, and two or three oaks will be removed, although not the large oak.

M/S, Beales/Stroub, 5-0, to approve the application subject to the conditions as set forth in the Staff report, and to include the screening landscaping on the southwest side facing 5 Owlswood Road as described at this meeting.

Page 2, paragraph 4 to state, "…without windows in the dining room."

Page 2, 3^rd paragraph, to be clarified.

Ms/, Collins/Stroub, passed 4-0-1, Beales abstained, to approve the Minutes as amended.

 G. CONSIDERATION OF CANCELING THE NOVEMBER 15, 2001 BOARD MEETING

M/S, Beales/Stroub, passed 5-0, to cancel the November 15, 2001 Board meeting.

H. ADJOURNMENT

The meeting was adjourned at 9:20 p.m.