TIBURON DESIGN REVIEW BOARD

MEETING OF JUNE 21, 2001

A. ROLL CALL

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

Absent: None

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

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

C. DISCUSSION AND STAFF BRIEFING

Senior Planner Watrous noted Item D-1 (2105 Mar East Street) and Item E-6 (465 Ridge Road) were continued to July 5 and July 19, respectively. He added that the application for tree removal on Tiburon Boulevard was withdrawn; the Council and Town Manager determined the eucalyptus trees were in hazardous condition, and therefore were exempt from the Tiburon Tree Ordinance.

D. OLD BUSINESS BEFORE THE BOARD

!.  2105 Mar East, Freeburg Additions/Vacancies/Floor Area Exceptions  CONTINUED TO JULY 5, 2001 

E. NEW BUSINESS BEFORE THE BOARD

2. 145 Porto Marino, Iwanicki Additions, Iwanicki

The applicant is requesting Design Review approval to construct additions to an existing two-story single-family dwelling located at 145 Porto Marino. A new master bedroom suite would be added on the main level to the rear of the existing house. A new upper deck would be constructed on top of the proposed addition. An existing deck to the rear would also be extended. The proposed additions would increase the lot coverage by 563 square feet to 3,047 square feet (12.9%), which is less than the 15.0% maximum permitted lot coverage in the RO-2 zone. The proposed addition would also increase the floor area of the house by 580 square feet, and would result in a total floor area of 3,598 square feet, which is less than the maximum floor area permitted for a lot of this size.

Elizabeth Suzuki, architect, discussed the project. She noted that no neighbors objected to the project.

Boardmember Figour indicated that there were no neighborhood concerns, and he could support the project.

Boardmember Beales stated that he had spoken to the neighbor at 135 Porto Marino, and that he had no problems with the project.

Boardmember Stroub noted that the proposed design followed the contours of the property.

Boardmember Collins thought the design was tucked in to the hillsides well.

M/S, Figour/Collins, passed 5-0, to approve the application based upon the findings and conditions as set forth in the Staff report.

3. 100 Lyford Drive, Soofer Additions/Variances/Floor Area Exception

The applicant is requesting approval for modifications to a previously-approved plan for additions to the existing single-family dwelling located at 100 Lyford Drive. This is the applicant’s fourth application in two years. The original remodel plan (with a request for a variance for excess building height but no floor area exception request) was reviewed and approved in April of 1999. The changes to the most recently-approved plan (July 2000) include: reconfiguring the design to take advantage of space surrounding existing decks and building roofline overhang areas; reducing the addition proposed for the west side of the residence to 100 square feet; construction of additions below existing deck areas on the south and east elevations of the subject building; addition of a mansard roof at the south and east elevations; relocation of the family room addition to the north side of the residence at the location for an existing deck and extension of the existing roof and wall to match existing.

The current proposal would increase the approved floor area from 5,855 square feet to 5,923 square feet, which would require a floor area exception. A variance would be also be required for excess building height, as the proposed construction would have a maximum height of 35 feet.

John Lundy, architect, discussed the project.

Boardmember Beales confirmed that no work has been started.

In response to questions, Associate Planner Theriault stated the square footage requested is not cumulative.

In response to questions, Mr. Lundy stated it would be difficult to erect story poles due to the existing house.

Boardmember Collins stated the property cannot be seen from the road. He supports the application.

Boardmember Stroub stated this is an improvement to reduce the mass and bulk of the additions to the house. Regarding the requested building height, this is a steep lot.

Boardmember Beales stated no work has been done, and this is an evolving design. He approves of this application.

Boardmember Figour stated he also supports the application, which is an improvement to what is there now. The height added is not enough to be a problem. The south elevation would be improved. The mass of the neighbor’s house to the east makes this house look invisible.

M/S, Stroub/Beales, passed 5-0, to approve the application based upon the findings and conditions as set forth in the Staff report, and removing Condition 4.

4. 735 Hawthorne Drive, Glaser Additions/Variances

The applicant is requesting Design Review approval for the construction of additions to an existing single-family dwelling on property located at 735 Hawthorne Drive. The property is currently developed with a one-story residence. The proposed property would involve the construction of several additions to the existing house. A new master bedroom suite and laundry room would be constructed to the rear of the house. A new one-car garage, family room, study and foyer, as well as an expansion to the existing living room, would be added to the front of the residence. A new bay window would be installed for the existing kitchen. One new chimney would be added to the house. Several new fence and/or gate sections would be constructed within both side yards of the property.

The floor area of the existing house would be increased by 1,404 square feet to 2,625 square feet, which is less than the maximum floor area for a lot of this size. The proposed additions would increase the lot coverage on the site by 1,201 square feet to a total of 2,982 square feet (39.5%). As a maximum lot coverage of 35.0% is permitted in the R-1 zone, a variance is requested for excess lot coverage. The proposed master bedroom suite would extend to within 3.5 feet of the southern side property line and within 7 feet of the rear property line. As the R-1 zone requires side and rear yards of 8 and 18 feet, respectively, variances are also requested for reduced side and rear yard setbacks.

Leigh Glaser, owner, discussed the project. She noted the chimneys would be replaced with gas-burning fireplaces, not the originally-planned wood-burning fireplaces.

Boardmember Beales asked Staff if the reduction of the garage size was acceptable. Senior Planner Watrous responded that previous, similar conversions have generally been approved by the Town.

Colleen Mahoney, architect, discussed the project.

Boardmember Collins asked about potential impacts if the master bedroom were pushed forward. Ms. Mahoney responded that the owner wants to landscape the front yard and moving the master bedroom forward would obstruct the owner’s view. She added that the exterior colors and materials have been changed; they will be brown shingles with white trim and neutral-gray asphalt and a shingle roof.

Gus Ezcurra, 757 Hawthorne Drive, stated the side yard setback variance would have no impact on his property, and he supports the project.

Steve Ingledew, 730 Hillary Drive, stated that while the house is a bit closer than he would like, he supports the project.

Boardmember Beales stated the variance should be granted to avoid building vertically.

Boardmember Figour stated the time has come to improve this site. The south and west setbacks were a concern to him, but since the neighbors approve of the request, he will also.

Boardmember Collins stated, given the size of other homes in Tiburon, he supports this upgraded expansion.

Boardmember Stroub asked if this is a typical sized lot. Senior Planner Watrous responded that the lot size is typical for the Hawthorne Terrace subdivision.

Boardmember Stroub stated the plan is nice, it makes sense, and has no impact on neighbors, who are supportive of the project.

Chair McLaughlin commended the project.

M/S, Beales/Collins, passed 5-0, to approve the application based upon the findings and conditions as set forth in the Staff report, as amended to require all new fireplaces to use gas fixtures with no chimneys, and reflecting the revised colors and materials board submitted at the meeting.

5. 51 Gilmartin Drive, Majlessi New Dwelling/Variance

The applicant is requesting Site Plan and Architectural Review approval for a new 4,653 square foot single-family dwelling to be located on the property at 51 Gilmartin Drive. The applicant originally submitted the proposal as a "modification to an approved plan" for review at the Staff level. Staff discovered that the application could not go through Administrative Review, however, because the previous approval for Design Review had expired several years ago. Therefore, Staff referred the item to the Design Review Board and required the applicant to resubmit the application as a "New Single-Family Dwelling" request. The subject property is currently a vacant lot located on the northwest corner of Gilmartin Drive and Via Paraiso West. No variances or floor area ratio exceptions are requested with the current application.

Scott Hochstrasser, applicant, discussed the project. He noted the building height would meet the requirements for this lot and the house would not block views. The proposed house is not a three-story structure. Turf block will be used for parking and the driveway to address any concerns regarding the amount of hardscape proposed to 3,300 square feet. He said the lot is more accurately described as a bowl lot, not a hillside lot. Grading on the site would be balanced. He requested a Design Review Board decision tonight in order to begin building during this construction season. He presented an alternative design to address the neighbors’ concern with height; the revised design is identical to the original application, but the sloped roof was removed, the house set down a bit and the roof lowered six feet to an elevation of 166 feet.

Chair McLaughlin asked about the height of the alternative design. Ali Majlessi, property owner, stated he lowered the roof by eight inches. The elevation is 168 feet at the sidewalk, while most of roof is at elevation 168.3. The flat roof would be tar and gravel, with a parapet around it, with a slight slope for rain.

Mr. Hochstrasser clarified that no views would be blocked from the east.

Boardmember Beales stated that the end of the building looms high, from Mr. Honchariw’s perspective. He asked if some floor area could be moved from the second floor to the first floor. Mr. Hochstrasser replied that the neighbor’s living area is to the other side and changes to the setback and orientation of the house were modified to meet Mr. Honchariw’s concerns.

Mr. Majlessi stated he believes Mr. Honchariw does not think his view is blocked.

Jim Malott, representing Mr. Liu (2 Via Paraiso East) and the Berelsens (5 Via Paraiso East), stated the house, as seen driving up Gilmartin Drive, would look like a three-story house. This house would appear to be five to six feet above the curb height of Via Paraiso West. Compatibility with the site is an issue. Also, east-facing windows would look into the Mr. Liu’s house. The four chimneys would create additional mass. Landscape screening higher than two feet along Via Paraiso East jeopardizes safety when driving down the hill. The building does not terrace into the hill.

Mr. Hochstrasser responded that the building height complies with the Del Mar guidelines and CC&Rs. Regarding visual impact, the Liu house is on a bench; he said that this house is in a bowl and sits down in the property so when driving up Gilmartin Drive, the view of the house disappears. He said the house would only be seen through the driveway. The proposed windows would not create privacy impacts. The proposed screening on the hillside is to create privacy and preclude lights from cars driving downhill from shining into the house. The site was engineered for a house. Retaining walls outside the building envelope are 3.5 feet high, or less.

Ralph Alexander, landscape architect, stated the Landscape Plan is the same as previously approved in 1996. He met with the Honchariws and worked out landscaping with them to address views and privacy, which includes slow, moderate growth, small tree species.

Boardmember Beales noted the ongoing debate as to the height the trees will grow in Tiburon. Mr. Alexander responded the Sunset Western Garden book, which the Town uses as its guide, describes the largest specimen in the west for each species, and what actually grows in Tiburon can be different. He said that in this climate and soil, trees generally do not grow to their identified maximum height. The proposed trees would be five to six feet high by the retaining walls near the pool. He added that 3 foot tall open metal railings are proposed for the pool area.

Associate Planner Theriault stated that Staff does not have elevation drawings for the colonnade around the driveway, the fountain, monuments near the street, the vehicular gate at the street and perimeter fencing.

Mr. Majlessi stated parking is underneath and the house steps up as it moves back on the hill. He felt that the building is quite articulated and is against a steep embankment.

Mr. Malott stated that the applicants contacted neither Mr. Liu nor the Berelsens regarding tree heights. The Berelsens’ front living room is sixteen feet above the curb on a corner. Any tree higher than fifteen feet will cause loss of water view to the Berelsens. He suggested lowering the floor height of the building to that of the Liu house. He counted 28 outdoor lights around the driveway, and 80 to 100 exterior light fixtures in total. He felt that the garage adds another story visually. There is 20 feet of vertical elevation change on the east. He felt that massing is the main problem, but that tree heights on the east will also be a problem.

Pauline Stuber, CSW Stuber-Stroeh, stated the contours show the curb at the corner is at an elevation of 166 feet near the intersection with Gilmartin Drive and rises to an elevation of 180 feet further down Via Paraiso West. The railing by the deck near the pool can be set back from the retaining wall, to get it within the building envelope.

Mr. Alexander added the trees along the east side are on a very steep bank and the trees will be down the bank. They would modify these to ensure views are not impacted. Most of the proposed lights are low voltage downlights, but there are 38 uplights proposed near the trees that could be eliminated.

Mr. Hochstrasser stated he designed everything outside the building envelope to be no higher 3.5 feet.

Chair McLaughlin stated there are many homes on Gilmartin that have structures taller than 3.5 feet outside the building envelopes. Senior Planner Watrous noted that the Del Madera CC&Rs state structures taller than 3.5 feet above grade are not allowed outside the building envelopes. Several properties violate this requirement, due either to inconsistent Staff interpretation over time, unpermitted construction or construction permitted by error. He stated much consideration was given to try to terrace the homes and site the building envelopes to allow view corridors that would not conflict. Via Paraiso West was probably raised up rather than the development carved out in the center.

Boardmember Stroub stated he is torn between approval as submitted or with modifications because a similar house was previously approved and went through variations with changes made at the time to accommodate the Design Review Board. Without that prior approval, he would like the house lowered two feet. One could drive down to the garage. He noted that the maximum floor area is being requested.

Boardmember Collins stated that this is a large house, with massive bulk visible going up Gilmartin Drive.

Boardmember Beales stated the house is a rectangular block. From Via Paraiso West, looking down, the roof is at one’s feet as is the far side of the roof, and one sees a flat plane. He would want to see the house comply with Hillside Guidelines by stepping the structure. The trees could be substituted with shrubs to avoid impacts on neighbors.

Boardmember Figour stated there are no true view blockage problems with this house. The house is inappropriate for the site, but Gilmartin Drive is a theme park of inappropriate houses. There are sight problems looking up the site, yet the applicant is not asking for anything that others do not have. He added that he does not like the house but may not be able to turn it down.

Chair McLaughlin stated that he looked at the house in relation to the Hillside Guidelines and terracing into the hill, initially. He felt that Mr. Malott’s pictures do not totally show the truth. The flat roof of the alternative design would look like a helicopter pad. If the architect could drop the house down and stagger the first and second floors and make the hardscape acceptable, the project could make sense. The manufactured housing pad precludes the use of the Hillside Guidelines on this element. He noted that the house is not much that different than others on Gilmartin Drive.

Boardmember Figour stated that a flat roof is not a solution. He can see the house having one- and two-story elements within the structure to break it up as viewed when walking or driving by.

Senior Planner Watrous stated that Staff is concerned that the proposed changes are only verbal in nature at this time, and Staff needs accurate and consistent plans, sections, detail drawings, etc., for an approval.

Boardmember Figour stated he would like to see another effort put into the design. The architect should not necessarily follow the previously approved application, should instead design something more appropriate.

Chair McLaughlin added that the photographs show the house is set back on the property and there are little impacts, apparently.

Mr. Majlessi stated a controlling factor is the 3.5-foot height limit for structures outside the building envelope. He could drop the driveway down if the retaining walls could be higher outside the envelope. He could lower the house by two or three feet if the retaining walls on the south could be one foot higher.

Chair McLaughlin stated the mass and bulk of the street presence are the issues, not the height. The architect should design the house to step back the second floor following Hillside Guidelines.

Mr. Majlessi responded that the steepness of the hillside is a problem. The house is pulled back to the setback line. The second floor is cantilevered three feet to accommodate the mass in front.

Boardmember Beales suggested that if the first floor elements were brought forward, the space above the garage would not exceed 30 feet in height. Mr. Majlessi responded that he pushed the house back to get out of the view line of the Honchariws. Chair McLaughlin stated the house could be moved forward without affecting the Honchariws’ view.

Boardmember Beales stated the architectural design of a rectangular box is undesirable. This house could have a first floor extending forward and the second pulled back to give more of a flow to the structure that fits in with the contours of the site.

Chair McLaughlin stated that if the original plan had not been approved and this site was not on Gilmartin Drive, the house would not be approved. The house has the appearance of a birthday cake on a table and does not work. The applicant must provide a complete set of plans and clarity to the Board.

It was the consensus of the Board that the flat roof tar and gravel would not be approved.

Boardmember Stroub stated the house has nice lines, but from a massing standpoint, it is flat and high. The applicant should step the house back or push out a wing.

Senior Planner Watrous added that the policy of the Town is to not permit uplights into trees, such purely decorative lights result in additional light pollution.

M/S, Figour/Collins, passed 5-0, to continue this item to July 19, 2001.

6. 465 Ridge Road, Posin/Mills New Single-Family Dwelling/Variance  CONTINUED TO JULY 19, 2001

APPROVAL OF MINUTES #11 OF THE 6/7/01 DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MEETING

Changes include:

Page 3, fifth paragraph, second line, change "object" to "objected."

Page 3, second paragraph, first line, insert "bad" after "very."

Page 7, second line to read, "…owner cannot build up without creating serious…."

Page 10, first paragraph, last sentence, change "green fence" to "hedge."

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