TIBURON DESIGN REVIEW BOARD

MEETING OF JULY 5, 2001

A. ROLL CALL

Present: Chair McLaughlin, Boardmembers Beales, Collins, Figour

Absent: Boardmember Stroub

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

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

C. DISCUSSION AND STAFF BRIEFING

Senior Planner Watrous noted Items D-1, 25 Rolling Hills Road, and E-9, 141 Taylor Road, were continued to July 19, 2001.

D. OLD BUSINESS BEFORE THE BOARD

1. 25 Round Hill Road Rappaport, Additions/Floor Area Exception   CONTINUED TO JULY 19, 2001 

2.     2105 Mar East Street Freeburg, Additions/Variances/Floor Area Exception

The applicant is requesting Design Review approval for the construction of additions to an existing single-family dwelling on property located at 2105 Mar East Street . The proposed project would involve the construction of a two-car garage and driveway at the front of the house, which would be located beneath the main floor of the house. The front façade of the house would be remodeled with an entry porch and revised windows on the upper floor. An extension to the existing dining room would be constructed on the left (west side) of the house. A dormer would also be added to the east side of the existing roof. As part of this application, the applicant is requesting variances for reduced front and side yard setbacks and excess lot coverage, along with a floor area exception. This request has been continued from the June 21, 2001 meeting.

Glenn Storek, architect, discussed the project and noted neighbors Mary Fox and Mrs. Ravenswood residents approved the project. Story poles have been installed. No changes have been made since the Board reviewed the original application. Ms. Fox requested blinds to prevent night glare, which he agreed to.

Fannie Hanson, 1050 Centro East Street, voiced support for the project.

Chair McLaughlin asked about the potential expansion of the basement, which could be used as living space. Senior Planner Watrous responded this area meets the definition of a basement and is exempt from the floor area calculations.

Boardmember Figour stated that he visited the Fox house, and that there are no impacts from the dormer windows. He thought that perhaps the lot coverage could be reduced, and had questions about the size of the dining room extension.

Mr. Storek stated he would not like to decrease the size, as Mr. Freeburg gave up his view to have the dining room. The scale and turret also should be saved.

Mary Fox, 2175 Mar East Street, asked that it be ensured the wall in front of her house is supported so the perpendicular dividing wall between the two properties does not fall down. She also asked that the large trees along the wall between the two properties not be cut down, to ensure the project is screened; and if they are damaged and must be replaced, that trees of equal height be planted.

Mr. Storek stated he certainly wants to keep the privacy between the two houses so would replace the trees if they were injured. All attempts will be made to keep the trees in place.

Boardmember Beales said that the proposed dining room extension complies with the required setbacks. He had no problem with this project.

Boardmember Collins noted that the lot was substandard in size, and the proposed garage would provide more parking. He thought the project would enhance the neighborhood.

Chair McLaughlin thought that the dining room extension was acceptable.

M/S, Figour/Beales, passed 4-0-1, Stroub absent, to approve the application based upon the findings and conditions as set forth in the Staff report, with the added conditions of approval that the applicant do everything possible to maintain shrubbery between this house and the residence at 2175 Mar East Street, with any damaged trees to be replaced as approved by the Town, and to keep the wall that parallels the two homes in a condition such that it will be standing at the end of the project.

3.     10 Main Street Zandvakili, Awnings

The applicant is requesting approval for the installation of awnings on an existing commercial building. The current application requests approval for four awnings to be installed across the entire face of the subject building as it faces Main Street. The applicant has requested the awnings for the purpose of protecting the merchandise displayed on the Main Street side of his retail business.

Lynette Schwartz, applicant with Stephen’s Antiques, stated the awnings that she is requesting mirror those on the second floor of the building. The square, slanted awnings recommended by Staff would not match the existing awnings. She requests the awnings because the sun burns her merchandise and constant air conditioning is necessary to cool the store.

In response to questions, Associate Planner Theriault stated Board action is limited to the awnings; the sign on the building and the color the building are not a part of this application. The Staff report was not meant to suggest that the Board could require a change in building color, but rather to suggest that, if applicants wanted the darker color of awning, they could offer to paint the building a lighter color.

Senior Planner Watrous noted the paint work did not require permits from the Town; hence, was not subject to Design Review.

Boardmember Figour stated that, while Downtown Tiburon guidelines exist, the banner across the main street directing people to Ark Row makes it difficult to take this application seriously. If the banner is considered appropriate, anything could be, including the awnings requested by Ms. Schwartz. The color of the building is acceptable, though it is a bit dark for Main Street. He felt that most of the existing buildings on Main Street do not meet the Downtown Tiburon guidelines.

Boardmember Beales added that the awnings do nothing to hinder the building’s architectural features. Other stores on Main Street have boxed awnings. While the Downtown Tiburon guidelines are trying to head the Board in a direction, these awnings are not out of line with these guidelines.

Chair McLaughlin asked if downtown business tenants were notified of applications in the downtown area. Associate Planner Theriault responded that notices were not sent out to businesses, though a public notice was placed in the newspaper. Senior Planner Watrous added, Staff will try to develop a Main Street tenant list.

Boardmember Figour added that removing the awnings on the upper level is not a good idea if heat gain in the building is a problem.

Boardmember Beales noted, from a pedestrian’s view, the upper awnings are not visible, but they provide overall symmetry for the building.

4.       4903 Ranch Road Bristow, Additions/Variance

The applicant is requesting Design Review approval for modifications to a previously-approved plan which included a garage conversion and additions to an existing single-family home at 4903 Ranch Road. The previous plan included an addition on the northwest side of the property. The addition was designed to follow the limitation of the rear yard setback. The applicant is currently requesting to revise this portion of the design. The revision would involve intrusion of the structure into the rear yard setback by nine feet. The extension requires a variance for reduced rear yard setback (sixteen feet in lieu of the minimum 25 feet). According to a revised data submittal, reconfiguration of the addition would actually slightly reduce the size of the addition on this side of the subject property.

Michael Bristow, owner, discussed the project and noted neighbors have signed off on his requested changes.

In response to questions, Associate Planner Theriault noted front and side yards are determined by the planning director when yards were not clearly established during the development process. That determination remains in perpetuity.

Boardmember Collins noted the change creates no privacy or view issues and neighbors have approved the project.

Boardmember Beales added that the change is an improvement.

Boardmember Figour stated he supports the application; however, this is another home that is in the RO-2 zone and is on a 12,000 square-foot lot, which should be a 20,000 square foot lot, so coverage again becomes proportionately an issue.

Chair McLaughlin indicated that he supported the request.

M/S, Beales/Collins, passed 4-0-1, Stroub absent, to approve the application based upon the findings and conditions as set forth in the Staff report.

5.     2280 Mar East Street Flynn, Additions/Variances/Floor Area Exception

The applicant is requesting Design Review approval for the construction of additions to an existing single-family dwelling on property located at 2280 Mar East Street. The property is currently developed with a two-story residence. The proposed project would involve the expansion of an existing attached garage, as well as an expansion of an existing guest room beneath the garage. New roof extensions are proposed in front of the house entry and garage. A small solarium addition is proposed on the existing rear deck. Seven new skylights are also proposed to be installed. Due to the small bayside configuration of the lot, these additions would require variances for reduced front and side yard setbacks and excess lot coverage, as well as a floor area exception.

Terry Irwin, architect, discussed the project. He noted that neighbors on three sides have signed drawings in approval of the project. In response to questions, he stated resawn Douglas fir will be added onto the siding, with redwood battens and new windows.

M/S, Collins/Beales, passed 4-0-1, Stroub absent, to approve the application based upon the findings and conditions as set forth in the Staff report.

6.     125 Stewart Drive Babikian, Additions/Variances

The applicant is requesting Design Review approval for the construction of additions to an existing two-story single-family dwelling on property located at 125 Stewart Drive. A family room would be added to the main floor of the house. A new entry would be created that would expand the main floor living room, and the existing one-car garage would be expanded into a two-car garage. Two additional bedrooms and bathrooms would be constructed on the second floor of the house. The project would require variances for reduced front and rear yard setbacks.

Jeff Babikian, owner, discussed his project.

Colin Russell, architect, discussed the project and stated he has photos that show Ms. Pellicciarini, the owner of the adjacent home at 544 Comstock Drive, would not experience any view loss.

Kay Pellicciarini, 544 Comstock Drive, stated her house looks down upon this project. She said that the one-story family room and the tall, wide chimney would be in front of her living room, dining room and kitchen views of San Francisco, the Golden Gate bridge, the bay and the tip of the Sausalito peninsula. She read a letter from Lee and Bruce Darby, 543 Comstock Drive, which stated the reductions in the roof and chimney are not sufficient and views in Reed Heights require lower building heights.

Harriette Beardsley Benton, 542 Comstock Drive, stated that her May 18^th letter does not appear to be in the Board’s packet; the letter voiced concern about small- and medium-sized houses in the neighborhood. She said that many houses in the neighborhood have only small attic-type second stories, and do not interfere with other residents’ views. Contrary to the Staff report, she felt that the remodel is not in keeping with the neighborhood. The chimney, at the least, should be reduced.

Frank Holsinger, 525 Comstock Drive, stated the project is a credible job of design; however, the family room and its chimney must be revised. The family room has a cathedral-type ceiling, which is excessive, and he felt that it would impinge on Ms. Pellicciarini’s existing view. The architect could lower the roof three to four feet, which would still allow a cathedral ceiling of twelve feet. The chimney could be lowered by two feet, which would help Ms. Pellicciarini. These minor adjustments would improve the negative impact on Ms. Pellicciarini’s view

Becky Pringle, 530 Comstock Drive, read a letter from Dan and Joellen Ross, 533 Comstock Drive, who are concerned about the remodeling trend in Tiburon. They stated remodeling should stay within the scale of houses on the street and should not block views of this neighborhood. The character of the neighborhood should be preserved. This project should be consistent with homes in the neighborhood. She said that the of the variances discussed by Staff in this area, none resulted in building out of the character of the neighborhood. She thought that this project would devastate the view of 544 Comstock Drive. Only a few houses in the neighborhood could build a second story without affecting views and this is not one of them. The cathedral ceiling destroys the view. The chimney could be put on the other side of the house.

James Ferguson, 551 Virginia Drive, stated his bedrooms look at the project; he supports the project and felt that it would be a nice addition to the neighborhood. The irregularity of the lot should be considered in approving variances for the addition.

Mr. Russell stated the chimneys are no different than those on other houses he designed in the neighborhood. He said that the chimney meets building code requirements and is not in the middle of anyone’s views. This is a truss ceiling, not a cathedral ceiling, and the roof height has been dropped due to neighbors’ concerns. The setbacks of the new garage improve the current building because the mass is reduced and moved to the back of the site. He said that the story poles cannot be seen when looking up from Comstock or Stewart Drives. In response to questions, he stated that the plate height for the family room would be ten feet. The height in the kitchen would probably be nine feet, the same as the rest of the house. The disadvantage to reducing the height of the family room is the encroachment upon the transom windows, which have been reduced to two feet.

Boardmember Figour suggested lowering the plate heights in the family room and dropping the ceiling; with exposed beams, there would still be height. However, there would still be a problem with the chimney height.

Chair McLaughlin noted the code requirement for chimneys would require the ridgeline to be dropped, a gas fireplace utilized or a fireplace completely eliminated.

Mr. Russell stated the roof could be dropped, but the owner wants to keep the windows above the door. The doors are eight feet high.

Tami Babikian stated, if the roof of the family room were dropped, architecturally, it would not be appealing; it would look like an add-on.

Boardmember Beales stated he visited Ms. Pellicciarini’s house. The roofline at a sixteen-foot height does not block a water view and is not a problem. There will be some mass looking at a roof. The chimney is a major view obstruction; changing the roof line will not change it. Either a gas fireplace must be used or the fireplace removed.

Ms. Pellicciarini stated that, looking at the backside of the new garage, if foliage is removed as has been discussed, her view will be of the massive rear of the new garage. The foliage must remain to screen the garage.

Boardmember Figour stated he also visited Ms. Pellicciarini’s house and sat in the living room. The chimney is a problem; lowering the roof would not correct that problem. Lowering the roof a foot would help the uphill neighbor as far as enabling more air space. The house fits with the fabric of the area and the scale of house is articulated. The house is not massive; it is broken up architecturally. The family room should be sited to make the views work.

Boardmember Collins stated that he also visited Ms. Pellicciarini’s house, and the chimney will affect her. He wants the project redrawn and the roof lowered; the fireplace should be gas or be removed.

Chair McLaughlin said that he also visited Ms. Pellicciarini’s house, and felt that the chimney would impact her view. He thought there were other possible designs that could address this concern and would be architecturally pleasing. He suggested that the application could be continued to allow the applicant to explore alternatives, or the project could be approved this evening without the chimney.

Ms. Babikian stated there are no alternatives for the family room; she would like the application approved with no chimney.

M/S, Collins, Figour, passed 4-0-1, Stroub absent, to approve the application based upon the findings and conditions as set forth in the Staff report, with the added condition of approval that the family room chimney be eliminated, but that a gas fireplace in the same location was acceptable.

7.     40 Norman Way    Farrell/Pearson, Additions/Studio/Variance

The applicants have submitted two Design Review applications which Staff is submitting concurrently to the Board for a comprehensive review of development on the subject property. The first application is a request to modify a previously-approved remodel. Staff originally received this request as a Staff-level application and noticed the item to neighbors as an addition including new clerestory windows and chimneys. The applicant told Staff later that the clerestory windows and chimneys shown on the plans had actually already been approved with the original remodel. Staff has confirmed this information. The modification request is limited to a minor addition of 391 square feet, which is well within the floor area allowed for this large parcels.

The second application is a request to build an accessory structure (studio) on stilts. The structure would be 485 square feet in size and would require the removal of six oak trees. The height proposed for the structure would exceed the height for a structure allowed (21.6 feet in lieu of the maximum of 15.0 feet allowed in the RPD zone).

Amy Elliot, architect, discussed the two projects. In response to questions, she stated that there is a roof covering the area outside the vaulted roof on the accessory structure. The roof material will take some two to five years to oxidize.

Chair McLaughlin asked about zoning heights and approvals in a subdivision plan. Associate Planner Theriault stated that if the height is specified in the Zoning Ordinance and not in the precise plan, the Zoning Ordinance rules.

Boardmember Beales stated there is a problem making findings for the variance. He thought that if the rounded room were dropped two feet and the roof flattened, the building could satisfy the height requirements.

Boardmember Figour stated this is interesting architecture, but it is hard to approve the variance. However, the necessity to put the building on piers due to the unusual soil conditions on the site could be seen as an exception to allow the variance.

Boardmember Collins stated that if this building were approved, a precedent would be established for the height. He thought it might be better to amend the precise plan to allow for increased accessory building heights.

Chair McLaughlin stated it is difficult to turn down a good project that, by all other standards works, and have to modify it because of the Zoning Ordinance. He would like to approve this project. The neighbors approve; it is good architecture. He would like to find a way to make it work, without radical changes.

Boardmember Beales suggested the building could be constructed at another place on the site with less slope.

Ms. Elliot stated this location was chosen for the grove of trees; to lower it, trees would have to be pruned to allow a view. The vault roof is more complementary to the tree canopy. There are very few other flat areas on the site with a view condition. This is also an optimal location as to views from neighbors.

Boardmember Collins asked if the application could be bifurcated, to continue the accessory structure for further review. He added that the ordinance discusses variances granted in similar zones and if precedent could be found in other zones, he, perhaps, could make the needed findings.

Chair McLaughlin concurred that the two items should be voted upon separately.

Associate Planner Theriault clarified the purpose of a bifurcation would be to provide the Board with substantiation for a variance findings.

Boardmember Beales stated that applicants desire a view and a building with a variance; the applicants should take another look at the design.

Boardmember Figour stated this is an unusual building and it will not establish a precedent. He would not like the design to be modified.

Chair McLaughlin stated the originating architect could return with changes if he would like.

M/S, Beales/Figour, passed 4-0-1, Stroub absent, to approve the application for modification to the previously-approved remodel, based upon the findings and conditions as set forth in the Staff report; and to continue review of the accessory structure to August 2, 2001.

8. 2108 & 2110 Mar East Street L’Heureux, New Dwellings/Variances/Floor Area Exception

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 Street. The property is currently developed with a two-family home and two detached garages, which are proposed to be demolished. The upper floors of each of the proposed dwellings would include a living room, dining room, kitchen and a half bathroom. The lower floors would include a master bedroom suite, along with two more bedrooms and one more bathroom. A roof deck would extend from the living rooms above the lower master bedroom suites, with a terrace extending from the master bedrooms. Two attached two-car garages would be constructed in front of the proposed dwellings.

The floor area of the proposed dwellings would be 3,210 square feet, which is greater than the 1,794 square foot maximum floor area permitted for a parcel of this size. A floor area exception is therefore requested. Variances for reduced front yard setback, excess lot coverage and reduced lot area per dwelling unit are also requested as part of this application.

Hank Bruce, architect, and long-term Old Tiburon resident, discussed the project. He added he could flatten the garage roof to reduce potential view impacts from across the street.

Sandra L’Heureux, owner, discussed the project and her family’s long history with the property.

Madeleine Wood, 2336 Paradise Drive, member of the Architectural and Environmental Review Committee of the Lyford Cove/Old Tiburon Homeowners Association, stated the Board’s purpose should be to protect the character and ambience of the historic neighborhood. Her major concern is the height of the proposed structures. Views in Tiburon are a part of property value and quality of life. New construction inching higher would affect what everyone has in Old Tiburon. Applicants do not need the high roof on the garage. She felt that the lot coverage is excessive. She said that the Zoning Code is not intended to allow a new home to be larger than the home it replaces. The house could be shrunk. The Town should not allow modifications to the regulations that apply to new homes for historic houses to be replaced by new homes.

Gregory Kleiman, 2101 Mar East Street, stated that the height of his house had been limited; he would prefer a better and higher view. He will have been treated unfairly, as to the positioning of his house, if this application is allowed.

Fannie Hanson, 2050 Centro East Street stated the design is a great improvement; and within the restrictions of the land, the design should be accepted. There is a courtyard; the house slopes down. The height of the story poles indicate there is a small addition compared to what currently exists and the color will blend better than the existing color.

Klaus Aber, 2100 Mar East Street, stated this project would severely impact the views, property values and privacy of the homes at 2100 and 2102 Mar East Street. The large windows of the project will look directly into 2102 Mar East Street and its decks will look directly into 2100 Mar East Street. He thought that the current views and privacy of these adjacent homes should be maintained.

Walt McCarron, 2150 Paradise Drive, stated that this project would impact his view and he wants to keep his current view.

Raymond L’Heureux, owner, stated the neighbors at 2100 and 2102 Mar East Street can step out onto the deck to retain the current view. If someone builds on the empty lot on the other side of his property, Mr. L’Heureux would also lose his view. His garage starts on the street level and builds down from that. Losing a part of a view should not prevent a building from being built.

Mr. Bruce reiterated his flat roof alternative and stated that the Aber property had been developed with the L’Heureuxs’ cooperation. Mr. Aber’s father-in-law had no part of its development but they have been benefited from the development.

Boardmember Collins asked Mr. Bruce if can lower the house. Mr. Bruce responded that it would be difficult to do so.

Boardmember Beales agreed that flattening the roof would help the uphill neighbors. There is a view blockage problem from the upstairs of the next-door neighbor. The neighbors will face a view impact when the empty lot is redeveloped. Regarding privacy, the upper floor rooms of this project are the living, dining and kitchen that look into the same rooms next door. Curtains could be installed to help with any privacy impacts.

Boardmember Figour stated the garages could be changed to carports to reduce their mass and improve views to the water. The flat garage roofs would help views from across the street. He said that the design appears to be somewhat overdeveloped, but is generally compatible with that part of Tiburon. It is unfortunate about the peripheral view impacts for the neighbors, but these impacts may be inevitable.

Chair McLaughlin this building would have uninterrupted views, but minor view impacts to neighbors matter. The garages could be carports, with flat roofs. He noted that the Cook residence nearby was recently required to have only a carport. He concurs there are view impacts on 2100 and 2102 Mar East Street. He noted that other nearby homes are set lower on the property to preserve views. Lowering the house in the back yard will help solve view blockage issues. Roofs and rooms can be lowered and this will not affect the owners’ view and will help the current and future neighbors. The deck can also be dropped.

Mr. Bruce stated he can drop the side facing 2100 and 2102 Mar East Street eighteen inches; however, the setbacks are restrictive and digging into the ground comes into play. Significant redesigns by the Board without considering the site restraints makes him uncomfortable.

Chair McLaughlin added there is another way to design this project, but, as always, there are costs involved.

Boardmember Collins stated the applicant should complete another study to allow the Board to better evaluate different design possibilities.

Boardmember Beales stated that floor elevations are necessary for the Board to fully understand the project.

Boardmember Figour requested the east elevation of the building at 2100 & 2102 Mar East Street and a section looking west of the building at 2108 Mar East Street to compare floor levels and windows between the two properties.

Boardmember Beales noted an alternative could be a study to determine if Chair McLaughlin’s ideas on lowering the structures are feasible.

9. 141 Taylor Road Engel New Single-Family Dwelling  CONTINUED TO JULY 19, 2001

F. APPROVAL OF MINUTES #12 OF THE 6/12/01 DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MEETING

Changes include:

Page 9, last line on the page, add "to get it within the building envelope."

Page 4, last paragraph, third line, change "size" to "mass."

Page 10, 2^nd paragraph from the bottom, first line, to read, "…no true view blockage problems with this…"

G. ADJOURNMENT      The meeting was adjourned at 10:30 p.m.