TIBURON DESIGN REVIEW BOARD

MEETING OF DECEMBER 20, 2001

A. ROLL CALL

Present: Chair McLaughlin, Boardmembers Collins, Figour and Stroub

Absent: Boardmember Beales

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

B. PUBLIC COMMENTS:

No one spoke during this time.

C. DISCUSSION AND STAFF BRIEFING

Senior Planner Watrous stated that the January 3^rd meeting will include the review of an application for a new building on the Tiburon Tommie’s site.

D. NEW BUSINESS BEFORE THE BOARD

1. 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 property currently contains a two-story residence and a single-story garage. The applicant proposes to demolish the existing one-car garage and construct a new two-car garage, with additional storage area to the rear of the garage. A home office/guest room, including a bathroom and three skylights, would be constructed above the garage.

The proposed construction would require the following variances:

1.    A reduced front yard setback of 4.5 feet, in lieu of the minimum required setback of 15 feet.

2.    A reduced side yard setback of 3.5 feet, in lieu of the minimum required setback of 8 feet.

3.    Excess lot coverage 2,310 square feet (34.8%), in lieu of the maximum 30.0%.

4.    Excess accessory building height of 21 feet, in lieu of the maximum 15 feet.

The office/guest room would increase the living area for the property by 400 square feet to a total of 2,641 square feet, which is greater than the 2,322 square foot maximum floor area permitted for a lot of this size. Therefore a floor area exception is also requested.

Marion Elliott, architect, discussed the project and added that, in a phone call, the neighbors at 430 Greenwood Beach Road stated that they did not have a problem with the second story addition. She added that she was unaware of the requirement to install story poles.

Boardmember Figour asked Ms. Elliott if she had given any thought as to leaving the front of the garage where it is and, instead, pushing the rear back. Ms. Elliott responded that there is a courtyard between the house and the existing garage, and moving the garage back would crowd the house.

Nicky Wolf, 426 Greenwood Beach Road, stated that the very large heritage tree that would have to be removed is important to her. She said that the story poles would be visible to only herself and another neighbor. Regarding privacy, she noted that neighbors live close to each other on this street. On this street, many structures have a one-story appearance near the street, then cascade down the hill. These three lots are long and narrow, and the lots slope gently. The rear of the lots drop off; hence, there are two-story houses because the owners could not build down a hill. She noted that both potentially affected neighbors approve of this application.

Boardmember Figour stated the zoning ordinance does not fit the lots on Greenwood Beach Road. He is a little uncomfortable with the precedent this application would set, and found it to be a stretch to make the required findings. He noted that there is no neighbors disapproval to the project. He finds the design to be pleasing, but there is too much being requested.

Boardmember Stroub concurred, and stated the applicant is asking for a lot. He asked if the neighbors understand the impact of the addition since there are no story poles

Ms. Elliott responded that the only other place to add would be over the kitchen, which is close to a building, and which would impact the neighbors. She could reduce the height by a foot or two by excavating under the house.

Boardmember Collins asked if the ridgeline on the proposed addition is higher or lower than homes on the street. Ms. Elliott responded that the ridgeline would be between the heights of other homes, due to the elevation changes of this street.

Boardmember Collins stated, even though much is requested, this not a major change given previous approvals in the vicinity. He said that he can make the findings and can support the application.

Chair McLaughlin stated he has difficulty making the findings for the increased accessory building height. If story poles were erected, he could better determine if the findings could be made. He suggested a continuance to erect story poles and recommended the architect further address the required findings for this project.

M/S, Stroub/Collins, passed 4-0-1 (Beales absent), to continue this item to the January 3, 2002 meeting.

2. 35 MARK TERRACE ETH/ROSS, ADDITIONS/VARIANCE

The applicant has submitted a request to remodel the existing residence located at 35 Mark Terrace, to install landscaping throughout the site and to remove one protected tree. The additions to the home include a new kitchen, family room and deck on the east side of the residence, and a new bedroom on the west side of the residence. The floor area of the proposed addition is 1,343 square feet, which would bring the residence to 3,807 total square feet including the garage. Three new skylights are also proposed to be installed.

The proposed additions would increase the lot coverage on the site to 17.6%, which is greater than the 15.0% maximum lot coverage permitted in the RO-2 zone. Therefore a variance is requested for excess lot coverage.

Bonnie Ross, owner, discussed her project.

Boardmember Collins stated that this is a very nice addition. Although there are other ways to design this project, the applicants would have to build up. He noted that the neighbors have not objected, and is well hidden. He supports the project.

Boardmember Stroub stated the lot coverage overage is one of the smaller variance requests in the area, and is only because the addition is proposed to be a horizontal expansion. He appreciates that the applicants discussed this project with neighbors. He is a little concerned with the grading proposed, but noted that there are no major retaining walls to be constructed, and the property will be landscaped properly.

Boardmember Figour concurred. He added that he hopes the additional space under the building does not come back to the Town as additional floor area; he noted, however, since the floor area is below the FAR, this should not be a concern. The requested lot coverage is appropriate since the alternative is building vertically.

Chair McLaughlin stated that he could support the project. The landscape design is well done, and he can make the necessary findings.

M/S, Stroub/Figour, passed 4-0-1 (Beales absent), to approve the application subject to the findings and conditions as set forth in the Staff report.

3. 1870 VISTAZO WEST STREET, BLOGG SHED/SPA/VARIANCES

Boardmember Figour recused himself from this item.

The applicant is requesting Design Review approve for the as-built construction of a storage shed and spa on the property located at 1870 Vistazo West Street. A Stop Work Order was issued by the Building Dept after the subject structures were discovered to have been constructed without first obtaining a building permit or Design Review approval. The property is currently developed with a two-family dwelling and a detached structure originally approved as a garage. The storage shed and spa, along with a surrounding deck, have been constructed above the existing buildings toward the front of the site. The 400 square foot storage shed contains a bathroom and wet bar.

The storage shed and spa are situated within 3 feet of the front property line and within 5.5 feet of the side property line. As a 15 foot front yard setback and an 8 foot side yard setback are required in the R-1 zone, variances are requested for reduced front and side yard setbacks.

Albert Delima, architect, discussed the project and noted the building is intended to support the spa. The spa was placed in this location is to gain views and maintain privacy.

Boardmember Stroub asked why the building is called a storage shed, when a marble counter top has been installed inside. Mr. Delima responded that the owner ‘got a deal on the wet bar unit; he said that the spa could be placed in another location but the existing landscaping and loss of views from the spa are a concern.

Robert Taylor, a tenant on the property, speaking on the owner’s behalf, stated the topography on the site is a factor. He showed photographs showing the topography and how the shed cannot be seen from the street and stated that the spa at any other location on the site would be more visible. The owner of one house, which overlooks Ms. Blogg’s deck, can see the shed. Also, at the bottom of the site there is no view and a neighbor’s tree continually drops leaves and branches, which are not conducive to a spa site. He said that he got the marble countertop from his sister, and gave it to Ms. Blogg. He said that this is a pre-fabricated shed that would not be habitable. The walls are made of thin wood panels and there is a gap between the roof and walls. The shed’s interior dimensions are 11’x19’. He thought that all the required variance findings can be made. He noted that six other sites on the street have structures in the front yard. Ms. Blogg has no intention of renting out the shed, but had originally conceived it as a guest room for out-of-town relatives.

Boardmember Stroub stated that after-the-fact applications are no-win situations for the Board. He cannot make two of the required findings. Had the project followed the correct application process, a variance probably would not have been approved. He thought that the deck and spa might be acceptable at this location, but not the shed.

Boardmember Collins stated he concurred, and added, the spa could be located on the deck of the house and have a view. He cannot make the findings to support the shed.

Chair McLaughlin stated he could not make two of the necessary findings. He concurred with Boardmember Stroub that after-the-fact applications are difficult, and that the variance likely would not have been approved if requested beforehand.

M/S, Collins/Stroub, passed 3-0-2 (Figour recused and Beales absent), to direct Staff to prepare a resolution denying the request.

Boardmember Figour returned to the meeting.

4. 2120 MAR EAST STREET HANSEN, DUPLEX/VARIANCES/FLOOR

AREA EXCEPTION

The applicant is requesting Design Review approval for the construction of a new two-story two-family dwelling located at 2120 Mar East Street. The property is currently developed with a single-family home, which is proposed to be demolished. The two proposed dwellings would each consist of two levels of living area, with the two units stacked on top of each other in a stepped design. Each residence would include two bedrooms and two bathrooms on an upper level, and a living room, dining room, kitchen, bedroom and 1.5 bathrooms on the lower level. A deck would extend from the bedrooms, living rooms and dining rooms for each unit. A pier and dock is proposed to extend into the bay. An attached two-car garage would be constructed in front of the proposed upper dwelling. A detached two-car garage with a roof deck would be situated adjacent to the front property line.

The detached two-car garage would be situated adjacent to the front property line. As a 20 foot front yard setback is required in the R-2 zone, a variance is requested for reduced front yard setback. The proposed additions would cover a total of 3,345 square feet of the 7,210 square feet of dry land on the property, resulting in an increase in the lot coverage on the site by 46.4%, which is greater than the 35.0% maximum lot coverage permitted in the R-2 zone. A variance is therefore also requested for excess lot coverage.

The floor area of the proposed dwellings would be 4,752 square feet, with an additional 712 square feet of garage space. The size of these structures would be 2,340 square feet (92.7%) greater than the 2,524 square foot maximum floor area permitted for a parcel of this size. A floor area exception is therefore requested.

Fani Hanson, architect and owner, discussed the project.

Sam Haddad, 115 Solano Street, stated that his view of the water would be impacted when he sits down in his living room or kitchen.

Roger Freeburg, 2105 Mar East Street, distributed photographs taken from sitting on his porch, and stated the view of Raccoon Straits, from his living and dining rooms, would be obliterated. This project will become part of his view. He said that he cannot tell from the plans what the deck on top of the garage and the house will look like. He asked that the application not be approved.

Tom O’Neill, 2205 Mar East Street, stated that neighboring houses are old and owners should maintain the character of the neighborhood and the integrity of the views. He feels that the proposed structure would not be compatible with the character of the neighborhood, and would impact the views from other homes.

Maxine Coplin, 2044 Paradise Drive, stated that progress brings change. She thinks the design of the proposed building is attractive, and the project would enhance her property value.

Jerome Denz, 2130 Mar East Street, stated the structure is massive and will block light into his home. He also objects to a deep-water dock. The owner would have to build a deck 80 feet into the water to dock a boat, and Mr. Denz would have to look at it. He also noted that historically, storms have destroyed deep water docks in this area. The solar panels above the glass doors and windows on the water side of the house may reflect sun into his house and he thought that they would surely be unattractive. The story poles indicate that the structure would create a wall when seen from his guest room and office.

Greg Kleiman, 2101 Mar East Street stated he will not allow the construction as it is shown. He said that the applicant’s picture taken from his master bedroom is a misrepresentation. The project will block views from his living room to Raccoon Straits and the bay. He objects to the height of the building and the way the structure will look from his living room.

Sandra L’Heureux, 2108-2110 Mar East Street, stated that the story poles seem to indicate that the proposed building will be taller than her new, shorter duplex, and she is afraid she will lose sunlight. She noted that the big tree between the two properties loses leaves during winter and makes a mess; she would like the tree removed. She distributed photographs showing the sites.

Hank Bruce, architect for Ms. L’Heureux, stated he would hope that the Board would note the positive aspects of this project. He thought that the proposed garage interfaces well with the street; hence, the variance should be granted. He stated that a great deal of time and effort has gone into this project.

Mr. O’Neill stated that no one is contesting the variance for the garage; however, the overall design should not be overlooked, including materials, elevation of the building and the rise of the building above the surface of the street.

Mr. Haddad stated that he does not see the house from the water, as shown on the photo simulations presented by the applicant; he would like to see what the building would look like from the street.

Ms. Hansen stated she understands everyone’s concerns. She felt that the duplex can barely be seen from the street. The variances she is requesting have been granted previously to neighbors and she would like equal treatment. In response to questions for the Board, she stated that light will go through the 10’x24’ fiberglass translucent panels on two levels of the roof, but the panels are not reflective.

Boardmember Stroub stated the house is just too large for the lot. There are issues with massing and views. The floor area is excessive for two units. The neighbors have made valid points. The front yard setback is acceptable as is the lot coverage and the proposed dock. He questions how the house will fit in with the character of Old Tiburon. He said the design of the structure needs to be seriously altered. The top of the house is too high. He concurs with the neighbors’ issues of view blocking, massing and privacy impacts.

Boardmember Figour stated Lyford Cove is a chronological study of various architectural styles, and he finds that there is nothing wrong with this design. The building is too tall. He visited the neighbors’ homes, and the structure would take away the foreground views from 2101 and 2105 Mar East Street, which are important views of Raccoon Straits. The applicants should reduce the building in floor area, which would likely reduce the top story, perhaps to a three-story building. The garage is well designed. He cannot support the project as it now stands.

Boardmember Collins complimented Ms. Hansen on her professional presentation, and stated he likes the looks of the building and the materials. He is not sure if the design is particularly consistent with the character with the neighborhood. The view impacts on the Freeburgs are substantial. He requested a redesign that will work for the applicants and the neighbors. He cannot support the request given the neighbors’ concerns.

Chair McLaughlin stated the garage and setbacks are appropriate. The architecture is acceptable as there is a variety of design in the area. However, the units are too large. He believes the view blockage from the neighbors across the street will be significant. The roof is horizontal, resulting in a plane that blocks out views completely. The dock is acceptable as are the materials for the house. He needs to see the translucent roof panels and the solar panels in an application. The light from the roof panels could take away from nighttime views. He has no problem with the variances. The massing and view blockage must be addressed. He confirmed that all Boardmembers had read Ms. Hansen’s comments on the Staff report, and noted that the comments are not, however, germane to the Boardmembers concerns.

Boardmember Stroub stated his concerns are the front yard variances; the dock; lot coverage; the height and view blockage; and the massing on the east side of the building. A fairly substantial reduction of height is necessary.

Boardmember Figour stated the applicants must respect the foreground views of 2101 and 2105 Mar East Street. The ridgeline is too high. The project must also fulfill the neighbors’ requirements. The floor area and the ridgeline should be reduced, and one story may be lost.

Boardmember Collins stated the translucent glass should be eliminated, as the glare at night will impact at least two neighbors and Mr. Haddad’s property.

Chair McLaughlin stated he is not so concerned with the side views of the neighbors, as similar impacts are often found on Mar East Street. His concerns are the massing, bulk and blockage of views. The roofline is a horizontal block.

Page 6, fourth paragraph, fifth line, delete "subsequent."

F. ADJOURNMENT  The meeting was adjourned at 9:30 p.m.