TIBURON DESIGN REVIEW BOARD

MEETING OF JULY 19, 2001

A. ROLL CALL

Present: Chair McLaughlin, Boardmembers Collins, Figour and Stroub

Absent: Boardmember Beales

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

B. PUBLIC COMMENTS:

Chair McLaughlin noted that, previous to the withdrawal of the 1886 Centro West Street application, Boardmembers had spoken with neighbors; these neighbors asked to be heard at this meeting.

Richard Weinstein, 1884 Centro West Street, representing neighbors to his west, the Azaravich family to the south and the Datris family to the east, wanted to put on the record that there has been illegal building at 1886 Centro West Street and requested the Planning Department to look into this matter.

C. DISCUSSION AND STAFF BRIEFING

Senior Planner Watrous noted items continued at this hearing were 40 Reed Ranch Road, 51 Gilmartin Drive and 465 Ridge Road, and 1886 Centro West Street was withdrawn.

The applicant is requesting Design Review approval for the construction of additions to an existing single-family dwelling on property located at 25 Rolling Hills Road. The site is currently developed with a two-story residence.

This application was first reviewed at the March 15, 2001 Design Review Board Meeting. At that time, concerns were raised by several neighboring property owners regarding the mass and size of the proposed addition. The Board expressed the same concerns, noting the overall height of the proposed addition and the excess floor area requested. The Board continued the request, with direction to modify the submitted plans to address these concerns. The request was then continued to the May 17, 2001 meeting.

The applicant has submitted revised plans for this project which have relocated and further reduced the overall size of the proposed addition. The proposed addition has been moved from the previous second story location to a adjacent to the existing dining room on the main level of the house. The requested addition would be reduced in size from the originally requested 930 square feet and the previously requested 530 square feet to 430 square feet. A proposed deck adjacent to the new addition has been reduced in size from 115 square feet to 105 square feet, but would not exceed 3 feet in height above grade.

However, the location of the proposed addition on previously undeveloped space on the ground floor would increase the lot coverage of the site by 430 square feet to 3,330 square feet (22.1%). As a 15.0% maximum lot coverage is permitted in the RO-2 zone, a variance would be necessary to approve this application. As the revised plans were not submitted to the Town until July 10^th, the Town has not had adequate time to provide legal notice of a variance request for this property. Therefore, no action can be taken on this application until the August 2, 2001 Design Review Board meeting.

Mark Cavagnero, architect, discussed the project. He noted the project is compatible with neighboring houses. The floor area exception should be granted, because the property is a unique corner lot. No views are blocked by the project.

Boardmember Figour stated the solution has fallen into line following Board directives. The project is invisible from the street, and he could support the project.

Boardmember Stroub concurred a major change has been made since the last review. He felt that the lot configuration presents a hardship.

Boardmember Collins noted that Mr. Littman, a neighbor who previously had indicated a concern about privacy, supports the changes.

E. NEW BUSINESS BEFORE THE BOARD

4. 761 Hilary Drive St. Hilary Church, Gymnasium/Classrooms/Parish Hall

The applicant is requesting Design Review approval for the construction of a new gymnasium, classrooms and parish hall on property located at 761 Hilary Drive. The property is currently developed with a church and school (St. Hilary Church and School).

The proposed gymnasium would be a detached structure containing 10,262 square feet of floor area, with a maximum height of 30 feet, and would include restrooms, equipment storage, a lobby and mechanical and janitor’s rooms. The proposed classrooms would also be housed in a detached structure, with a maximum height of 25.4 feet, and containing 4,706 square feet of floor area. The proposed parish hall would be attached to the existing church building, with a maximum height of 21.1 feet and 4,741 square feet of floor area. The proposed construction would result in a total lot coverage of 48, 289 square feet (13.1%), which is less than the 15.0% maximum lot coverage permitted in the RO-1 zone.

Chair McLaughlin noted that he had been involved in this project for a number of months, and recused himself.

David Holscher, a representative of the church, discussed the project.

Mary Griffin, architect, discussed the project.

Ralph Alexander, landscape architect, discussed the landscaping, and noted only diseased and dying trees will be removed. All lighting will be low and downlit.

Father James Tarantino, pastor of the church, voiced his support for the project.

Boardmember Stroub asked how the Board is to deal with variations from the Conditions of Approval for the Conditional Use Permit (CUP). Senior Planner Watrous responded that the majority of conditions were phrased to encourage the Design Review Board to consider certain modifications to the project. It is up to the Board to determine if the overall design is consistent with Town Council’s approval. No special findings or variances are required to approve the project in its current configuration.

Boardmember Collins asked about the trees at the north end of the project. Mr. Alexander stated that eight existing trees will be removed. A total of 237 new trees would be planted, consisting of four to five species, primarily live oak and Italian cypress.

Boardmember Stroub asked why the eucalyptus are to be removed. Mr. Alexander responded that these trees are sprouted stumps. He discussed the location of light standards and noted the lights are adjustable and baffles can be added to ensure a definite hard cutoff; there will be inside refractors for the same purpose. The intent is there will be no spillover from the lamps.

Boardmember Figour asked if the gymnasium’s height is sufficient for first-class volleyball and basketball. Ms. Griffin responded that the lower height compromises the cross-court play; however, this is an elementary school. The gym’s height is definitely below standards for volleyball. She noted that there is more parking in this scheme—128 spaces including five handicap spaces. Moving the gym back allows the uphill neighbors, the Garretts’, to look down onto trees, rather than the building.

Byron Park, 705 Hilary Drive, stated all neighbors did not approve removal of the eucalyptus trees. The six trees directly above his property provide him with screening and aesthetic value. He said that other neighbors want the trees removed to increase their views and property values. He had hired two arborists who stated that the trees are not diseased. He has trimmed the height of the trees, over the years, to satisfy St. Hilary and his neighbors. He said he will do everything legally possible to insure that the trees are not removed.

June Lawwill, 148 Rockhill Drive, stated the removal of eight of the sixteen trees will be devastating to her family’s entire view. She said that all her property will look upon this huge development. She felt that she will not be alive when the replacement trees grow to a sufficient height to screen the project from her sight.

Jane Ring, 725 Hilary Drive, stated she objects to the three-foot sound wall. She felt that the wall should be a minimum of five feet in height to provide adequate sound prevention, and topped with a three-foot wire fence. She thought that the sound wall should be extended to the north, toward Rock Hill Drive, past her house, to provide noise control from classrooms and CYO activities.

Deborah Bendinelli, 735 Hilary Drive, complimented the architects on a nicer design. She asked if the expansive lawn along Hilary Drive that is dying will be a parking lot. She supports lengthening and raising the sound wall.

Wayne Howard, 750 Hilary Drive, concurred that the current design is better. He asked for clarification regarding the location of trash collection and hours of collection. He asked about the timeline for construction and the location of the staging area. He supports raising and lengthening the sound wall because noise from the buildings will spill out; he thought that there should be a north and south extension of the sound wall. Currently, there is noise on his deck from the parking lot. He asked if the CUP provides guidance as to whether the facility can be used for other than CYO activities.

It was noted that the Building Department would clarify questions about construction timelines. The location of the trash collection area was pointed out to Mr. Howard. Senior Planner Watrous stated that use of the gymnasium is not a part of this application, but was regulated by the approved CUP. The only extended hours for CYO activities are those allowed in the CUP approval.

Gus Ezcurra, 757 Hilary Drive, stated this design is one that everyone can live with. He recommended the Design Review Board approve the project.

Joe Keller, 699 Hilary Drive, stated that the eucalyptus trees are 70 feet high and are a fire safety hazard. Also, the high voltage lines, if damaged, would fall on the buildings.

Mr. Park added that he is willing to hire more arborists to evaluate the eucalyptus trees and advise if they are a hazard. He will continue to pay to have the trees topped every year, to ensure they do not become a hazard.

John Knoerr, 26 Upper Cecilia Way, suggested the fire department should determine if the eucalyptus trees are a hazard.

Fernando Cruz, 19 Cecilia Court, stated he concurs with Mr. Keller. He removed the eucalyptus trees around his house. He thought that it would benefit the neighbors if St. Hilary pays for the removal of the eucalyptus trees. He supports the St. Hilary project, which benefits the county, not just the community.

Rich Illingworth, Illingworth & Rodkin, acoustical consultant for the church, stated that the three-foot sound wall was required in the CUP approval. The height was meant to be neighborly; he thought that a taller fence would imprison the campus. He said that the eucalyptus trees are on the church’s property and the applicant desires the trees’ removal.

Mr. Alexander noted this type of eucalyptus is flammable and is one of Tiburon’s undesirable species. He said that topping weakens the structure and the vitality of a tree’s natural form. It is the church’s desire to remove them. The trees are also a liability issue for the church.

Mayor Andrew Thompson noted that the sound wall was his idea to create a privacy and sound buffer for the neighbors. He added that there is no noise monitoring required in the conditions of approval for the CUP.

Rich Illingworth stated that after mitigations to the gym, he felt that the sound wall is not necessary. He said that noise from the gymnasium will not be an issue to the neighbors.

Ms. Bendinelli said that if two feet were added to the three-foot wall, she thought that it would not imprison the project. She said that the church should expand its good neighbor policy and lengthen and raise the height of the fence.

Boardmember Figour stated he supports the project. The submittal is clear and understandable. He thought that the project will be an asset to the community. A concern is that the gymnasium has the proper height for athletic events. He thought that not having adequate height would be a waste of money for the facility. He disagrees with the neighbor’s objection to the removal of the trees. He felt that the buildings will add to the ambience of the neighborhood. He thought that Staff and the applicant can review the sound wall.

Boardmember Collins concurred with Boardmember Figour regarding the height of the gymnasium; he stated that the height of the gymnasium was effectively reduced by moving the building into the hill. He thought that the sound fence is superfluous, and its horizontal extension would not make a difference. He said the trees should be removed if they are a safety hazard. He concurs that the designers listened to the neighbors. This design is consistent with the Town’s village character, and the applicant has complied with the CUP’s conditions of approval.

Senior Planner Watrous noted the Board could add a condition that an independent acoustic consultant evaluate whether the sound wall is adequate to meet the Conditions of Approval.

Boardmember Stroub stated it appears the church is willing to work with the neighbors, so this should not be a condition. He thought that this was a great project, and the applicant has complied with the pertinent conditions of approval of the CUP. Senior Planner Watrous noted the gymnasium is at a maximum height; raising the roof would require a variance; however, its sides could be raised. Boardmember Stroub thought that removing the eucalyptus trees and replanting is logical. The uphill neighbor should not be affected because the building is pushed back.

M/S, Figour/Collins, passed 3-0-2, Beales absent and McLaughlin recused, to approve the application subject to the conditions as set forth in the Staff report, and to modify Condition 14 to satisfy the late mail request from the Town Attorney.

Chair McLaughlin returned to the meeting. 

5. One Stevens Court, Barnes Additions

The applicant is requesting Design Review approval to construct additions to an existing single-family dwelling at One Stevens Court. An addition to the lower level of the existing house would include a new office and an au pair suite. This addition would be contained within undeveloped space within the mass and bulk of the existing house. The only exterior changes proposed would be the installation of windows on either side of the lower level of the house. The proposed additions would increase the floor area of the house by 856 square feet, and would result in a total floor area of 4,441 square feet, which is permitted for this lot under the Kuhns Precise Development Plan. The proposed addition would result in no change to the lot coverage on the site.

Ted Wray, designer for the house, discussed the project, noting the only exterior change would be windows on two sides of the house, the office and the suite. In response to questions, he stated that the area is undeveloped; it is a large space, which will require little excavation.

Boardmember Stroub indicated that he had no problem with the request, and that a similar application had been previously approved in the vicinity. He thought the application was consistent with the precise development plan.

Boardmember Collins noted that no variances were needed, and that the new construction would be underneath the existing house. He could support the request.

Boardmember Figour stated that the new windows were not a problem, and he supports the application.

M/S, Figour/Collins, passed 4-0-1, Beales absent, to approve the application subject to the conditions as set forth in the Staff report, 

The applicants are requesting approval for modifications to a previous design review approval for a remodel of their existing residence located at 412 Greenwood Beach Road. The original remodel design necessitated that the applicants submit request for variances for reduced front yard setback, excess building height, excess lot coverage and a floor area exception. The modifications to the plan for additions to the existing single-family residence include the deletion of the previously-approved construction of living space in an excavated area below the existing residence, the retention of a two-story portion of the house, which was intended to be removed, an increase in the excess lot coverage request and a decrease in the floor area originally requested.

Elizabeth Suzuki, architect, discussed the project.

Boardmember Figour voiced his support for the project, which does not seem to affect any neighbors. Garages on the property line present the same condition as on Mar East Street.

Boardmember Collins stated the lot is smaller than the minimum zoning limit and he can make findings for the variance.

Boardmember Stroub added that it appears there are a lot of requests for variances; however, this works with the neighborhood and is similar to applications previously approved.

M/S, Boardmember Collins/Stroub, passed 4-0-1, Beales absent, to approve the application subject to the conditions as set forth in the Staff report, 

7. 1886 Centro West Street Brehnan, Addition/Variance/Floor Area Exception WITHDRAWN

8. 109 Gilmartin Drive Prusak, New Single-Family Dwelling/Floor Area Exception

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 in accordance with the provisions of Section 4.01.10 and the Tiburon Zoning Ordinance.

The main level of the proposed house would include a living room, dining room, family room, kitchen, recreation room, gallery, play room, laundry room, storage, two bedrooms and three bathrooms. An upper level on the north side of the house would include a master bedroom suite, along with a gymnasium, sitting room and an office. A lower level on the south side of the house would include a guest room, sitting room, library, home theater and one bathroom. A three-car garage and mechanical room would be constructed on the main level. An existing swimming pool is proposed to be expanded to the east, and a new spa is proposed along the eastern side of the property. A series of five-foot tall wooden fences are proposed, primarily along the front of the property. Coverage would be 7,384 square feet (22 percent of the site) The floor area would be 9,065 square feet, which would be 3,702 square feet more than the maximum permitted for a lot this size. A floor area exceptions is therefore requested.

Anthony Tobias, architect, discussed the project. He stated that he met with Dan Grossman, their neighbor at 111 Gilmartin Drive, and it was agreed to make modifications to eliminate a potential view impact, which established a basis to proceed. The second-floor portion would be reduced by about 700 square feet and the ground floor reduced by about 100 to 150 square feet. He will try to press the house even further into the grade, some four to six inches extra. He would minimize the amount of vault on the second floor.

Senior Planner Watrous noted that these reduction would still leave the proposed house some 2,900 square feet over the maximum allowed.

Conrad Prusak, property owner, discussed the project.

Boardmember Stroub noted the applicant is addressing the view issue, however, the FAR is excessive.

Boardmember Figour concurred and stated the design is good, and is an improvement over the existing house; it blends into the hillside. He hopes the heart is not taken out of the house when reducing the square footage. The neighbor’s view issue is being discussed. The square footage remains excessive.

Boardmember Collins stated the application is 45 percent over the maximum permitted square footage. The design could be damaged when square footage is reduced.

Chair McLaughlin concurred that the project’s design is excellent; however, the neighbor’s view and the floor area exception are substantive issues. It is necessary to address construction outside the building envelope, as this is becoming a consistent problem in this subdivision. He thought that any new fencing should be open, except for a living fence; the fence should not be solid wood. He asked for clarification of the staircase.

Mr. Tobias responded there is channel glass on a portion of the building, which is nestled down. The existing driveway was lowered about five feet.

Chair McLaughlin noted that people using the open space will see, and comment on, the size of the house and its size in relation to the lot.

Dan Grossman, 111 Gilmartin Drive, stated he, Mr. Prusak and the architect have been working on his concerns. His view of Richardson Bay is important to his family. It appears that he will be able to keep the right side of the view.

Chair McLaughlin asked that the story poles be string-lined to better illustrate the ridgelines.

The applicant is requesting Design Review approval for the construction of a new single-family dwelling on property located at 141 Taylor Road. The proposed house would be located immediately adjacent to another new single-family dwelling that was recently approved and an established single-family residence that has been located on the site since the 1960s. The house would have two stories of livable area with the garage sited beneath a portion of the house, and an overall height of 28.5 feet.

Mohamed Sadrieh, architect, discussed the project. He added that the design was modified by requests from the neighbor, Jeff Walter, including a lowered deck and living room and changes to landscaping as appropriate between the two homes. In response to questions, he stated that the ceiling height in the entry is about 13 feet. This is high because the building is set back and if the building were lowered, the views from the windows would be blocked.

Boardmember Stroub recommended that the house be pushed back further into the hill.

Mr. Sadrieh responded that the house cannot go back any further because of the restrictive building envelope.

Associate Planner Theriault noted the discussion of the size of the house on the lot in the Staff report was a quote from the Planning Commission’s Conditions of Approval. The placement of the envelope had to do with views from uphill neighbors, wetlands, and an effort to prevent a house from looming over the lower neighbor. The subdivision approval accepts that this is the last house in the subdivision and could impact the downhill neighbor but an attempt was made to minimize that impact. The maximum floor area should not be an assumed guarantee. Landscaping is very important in softening the impact on the downhill neighbor.

Jeff Walter, 131 Taylor Road, stated that whatever is built above him will be daunting. Screening will be very important. He asked how the irrigation, drainage and retaining walls will impact his property. He said that it is important to shield his view of the house and not lose sunlight. He asked that the building adhere to the required building height. The landscaping is difficult for him to envision; he would like the downhill neighbors to have a say in landscaping and its effect on sunlight and view. Shielding most of the house behind him would be ideal.

Chair McLaughlin asked if the porch around the living room is an issue. Mr. Walter responded, that it is the biggest and closest part of the house, but with a natural screen might be satisfactory. He asked if screening would cover the retaining wall in the driveway.

Doug Engel, owner, discussed efforts made to orient the building envelope such that a house would affect no one. He noted that Mr. Walter’s house sits within the required setback and looks up the hill so his objections should not be allowed. The site is 1.5 acres and it is not fair to require his house to be wedged into a small envelope. He felt that he has gone out of his way to modify landscaping. He said the house is not in Mr. Walter’s view.

Associate Planner Theriault noted the building envelope was determined at the time of the subdivision.

Boardmember Stroub stated the story poles, particularly from the downhill site, indicate this is one of the worst cases he has seen of a looming structure. Moving the house three feet helps but is not enough. The problem is the restrictions of the building envelope, and with the restrictions, the house should be cut into the hillside to reduce building heights and to reduce the height of the retaining wall. The design needs additional work to minimize the looming.

Mr. Sadrieh noted the retaining wall referred to is for the garage.

Boardmember Collins asked what would happen to views if the entire house were lowered three or four feet, in terms of retaining walls. Mr. Sadrieh responded that the house is already dug into the ground, and no matter what is done, the wall would be at least nine feet high. He thought that it would not make that much difference, looking up. Screening will modify the impact on the Walters.

Boardmember Collins noted everyone surrounding the site has a wonderful view. The dilemma is whether to address the size of the building envelope or require a smaller house.

Boardmember Figour stated it would be wonderful to make the house lower. The problem is not just mass or looming; rather, the architecture is out of place on the hillside and the materials are wrong. The building is formal and that is what makes it appear looming and massive. It will negatively affect the neighbors below. The potential 80-foot live oaks in the landscaping plan would block the sun from the Walters’ property.

Chair McLaughlin concurred and stated, if the envelope were larger, the house could be spread out. As difficult as the site and property is, he thought that this building is too much. The house is a formal statement for the surrounding area and is massive. He thought that the downhill neighbor is being incredibly generous in his description of the project; the looming would be overwhelming to him. Landscaping will not solve his screening problem or mitigate the overall impacts of a house this size.

Associate Planner Theriault noted the applicant could request an amendment to the precise development plan, which would be reviewed by the Planning Commission and Town Council.

The Board discussed the parameters of the subject property, noting that a small building envelope was established by the Planning Commission for this 66,000 square foot lot, and questioning the Commission’s reasons for establishing such an envelope. The consensus of the Board was that a larger building envelope would allow some flexibility to move the house around on the lot. The mechanics of amending the building envelope were discussed. It was noted that the Board had faced a similar situation in its previous review of the new house at 51 Via Los Altos, and that such envelope amendments were discussed at the joint Design Review Board/Planning Commission/Town Council workshop earlier this year.

Mr. Sadrieh asked the Design Review Board for specific direction.

Chair McLaughlin stated the house should be spread out, breaking up the mass and bulk. Elements of the house should be staggered. He added that there is not consensus on the Board that the current design would be approved. If the envelope is to be changed, the applicant must make this effort. He still felt that there is too much house on the site. The maximum allowed in the envelope would not be approved by the Design Review Board. The size of neighbors’ houses does not affect the building envelope.

Chair McLaughlin asked Mr. Engel if he would like the project continued to refine or modify the project or would like a vote taken on the application. Mr. Engel requested a vote.

F. APPROVAL OF MINUTES #13 OF THE 7/5/01 DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MEETING

Amendments:

Page 4, item #2, in the vote at the end, add, "… any damaged trees to be replaced as approved by the Town."

Page 5, 5^th paragraph, last sentence, to state, "…he felt that most of the existing buildings on Main Street…"

Page 5, bottom of the page, change to, "…if heat gain in the building is a problem."

Page 7, 6^th paragraph, change to "…becomes proportionally an issue."

Page 10, 4^th paragraph, change to, "…would still be adequate height in the family room"

Page 10, 2^nd sentence on the last paragraph, change to, "…Lowering the roof would not correct that problem..."

Page 16, 5^th paragraph, change to, "…requested the east elevation of the building at 2100 and 2102 and a section looking west of 2108."

G. ADJOURNMENT   The meeting was adjourned at 10:40 p.m.