TIBURON DESIGN REVIEW BOARD

MEETING OF AUGUST 2, 2001

A. ROLL CALL

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

Absent: None

Ex-Officio: Senior Planner Watrous and Minutes Clerk Flanagan

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

C. DISCUSSION AND STAFF BRIEFING

Senior Planner Watrous noted continued items included 40 Reed Ranch Road, 2108/2110 Mar East, 40 Norman Way and 7 Seafirth Place. The application for 141 Taylor Road has been appealed and will be heard at the September 16, 2001 Town Council meeting. The St. Hilary application was not appealed.

D. OLD BUSINESS BEFORE THE BOARD

1. 25 Rolling Hills Road Rappaport, Additions/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 25 Rolling Hills Road. The site is currently developed with a two-story residence. This application has previously been reviewed at the March 15, 2001 and the May 17, 2001 Board meetings, during which concerns were raised by neighboring property owners over potential privacy impacts and inconsistency with the character of the surrounding neighborhood. The Design Review Board also raised concerns regarding the mass of the proposed addition and the inability to make the findings required to approve the requested floor area exception.

Prior to the July 19^th Board meeting, the applicant submitted revised plans to relocate the previously requested second story addition to a ground level location toward the rear of the existing residence. However, the location of the proposed addition on previously undeveloped space on the ground floor would increase the lot coverage of the site by 483 square feet to 3,773 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. Since the revised plans were not submitted to the Town until July 10^th, the Town did not have adequate time to provide legal notice of a variance request for the July 19^th meeting. Therefore, the Design Review Board reviewed the general design of the proposed modifications, and provided the applicant with direction regarding the appropriateness of the submitted plans in terms of overall design and the request for a floor area exception. The variance request was then continued to the August 2, 2001 Board meeting.

Mark Cavagnero, architect, stated he concurs with Staff’s findings. In the interest of improving the project for the neighborhood, the owner, Dr. Rappaport agreed to the request of the neighbor to the south, Mr. Sauer at 35 Rolling Hills Road, to relocate the fireplace. Mr. Sauer stated if this were done, he would not object to the project. Dr. Rappaport agreed to relocate it to the far end of the room.

Boardmember Stroub stated he can support findings for the variance and agrees with moving the fireplace.

Chair McLaughlin stated that for lifestyle reasons, the fireplace should remain as in the original position; the neighbor faces the other direction so the fireplace’s location should not affect him. He added that the applicants often make unnecessary concessions in the later stages of the application process to gain Board approval.

Boardmember Beales stated that if the applicant voluntarily moved the fireplace, it is not a concern.

Mr. Cavagnero stated Dr. Rappaport would like the fireplace to remain in the original position, but to appease the neighbor, Dr. Rappaport agreed to move it. He did not want the neighbor objecting again to the project.

3. 51 Gilmartin Drive Majlessi, New Dwelling

This application to construct a new single-family dwelling was originally reviewed by the Board at the June 21, 2001 meeting. Concerns raised by the public at that time centered on view issues, mass and bulk of the proposed structure, structure height and landscaping installations. The applicant submitted revised design plans at the hearing, which neither the Board nor Staff had had a chance to review prior to the hearing. The story poles that demonstrated the revisions had not been erected ten days prior to the hearing and there was some question whether the revised story poles had been correctly installed and certified. The Board continued the item to the July 19, 2001 meeting, instructing applicant to submit revised plans. Staff continued the item to the August 2, 2001 meeting because requested information had not been submitted in a timely fashion.

Scott Hochstrasser, project planner, discussed revisions to the project. He stated that the ridge height was reduced 2.84 feet. Regarding bulk and mass, the first floor was moved back, the second floor stepped back and the rear building overhangs were eliminated. The east wall was modified and the Landscape Plan revised to replace shrubs on the southeast. Tree lighting was removed. Hardscaped areas were modified, by reducing the surfacing on the rear of house by 600 square feet, reducing the driveway turnaround by 167 square feet, and using turf block rather than concrete for the driveway. There is 300 square feet of additional landscaping. He noted that a good part of the bulk and mass of the house would be below the street elevation. Structures outside the building envelope were reduced to a 3.5-foot height, except for a portion of a retaining wall below the pool. The windows of this house would be 150 to 200 feet from Mr. Liu’s windows at 2 Via Paraiso East and there is a grade change to address privacy.

Ralph Alexander, landscape architect, discussed changes to the plans, and noted trees on the southeast will be lower on the slope of Via Paraiso West. All sightline issues were addressed. All uplights were removed as well as some additional exterior lighting. The view corridor remains open on Via Paraiso West. Trees in the corner that will grow 25 to 30 feet have been pulled ten to twelve feet down the bank.

Boardmember Beales stated that the applicant did most, if not all, of what the Design Review Board asked as far as stepping the house back. The windows that face Mr. Liu are a distance away and just because Mr. Liu’s house is there does not mean the owner cannot have windows. He felt that the two 3.5-foot-high walls near the pool are appropriate.

Boardmember Figour stated that he concurs that the modifications are appropriate, and the design is now softer. He visited Mr. Liu’s site and anything built at 51 Gilmartin Drive will be seen from that house, but the windows are not an issue. He also thought that the house would not impact Mr. Honchariw’s home at 3 Via Paraiso West. He could support the request as presented.

Boardmember Collins stated the applicant has tried to follow the Board’s direction. He thought that the exterior building color should be toned down. The quantity of exterior lights is still excessive (57 in the yard), which will affect uphill neighbors. He would like the building pushed back further.

Boardmember Stroub stated this is not a view issue; rather, the house appears to be on a stage and is still massive.

Chair McLaughlin stated the house has literally been shifted only three feet. There are no view or privacy issues from Mr. Liu’s house; the previously submitted photograph from Mr. Malott is self-serving. The house above will see the roofline of this house and trees. He said that Mr. Honchariw had correctly noted that the building could be moved closer to Via Paraiso West because of the unusual building envelope established for this lot; hence, the second floor could be pushed back even further without triggering variance issues. He said that many recent house down Gilmartin Drive have one-story profiles and are spread on their pad, and this is a two-story massing on the corner. He felt that this house creates bookends on the street.

Boardmember Beales stated he read Mr. Malott’s letter; and this lot, with Via Paraiso West above it, has a natural terrain and from above, the house does not look like two stories.

Boardmember Figour stated there are, indeed, large houses on the street. He thought that the house does not quite fit into the Hillside Guidelines, but many homes along Gilmartin Drive have similar designs.

Senior Planner Watrous suggested that additional conditions of approval could require the color of the house be darker and reviewed by Staff, and that Staff review exterior lighting to determine if it is excessive. Boardmember Stroub stated the wood windows must remain because they add to the character of the house. He concurred that exterior lighting and color should be reviewed by Staff.

Boardmember Beales asked if putting a height limit on landscaping is possible and added, that the Sunset Western Garden Book guidelines do not necessarily apply in Tiburon. He added the tree species should not tower on the hill.

M/S, McLaughlin, Beales, passed 5-0, to approve the application subject to the conditions as set forth in the Staff report, with Staff to ensure the color scheme is more in an earthtone color palette, that the wood windows in the plans are not modified, and that Staff will review the exterior lighting scheme.

6. 465 Ridge Road Posin/Mills, New Dwelling/Variance

Boardmember Figour recused himself from this item.

The applicant is requesting Design Review approval for the construction of a new two-story single-family dwelling on property located at 465 Ridge Road. The property is currently developed with a single-family home, which is proposed to be demolished.

The floor area of the proposed house would be 4,240 square feet, which is 13 square feet less than the maximum floor area permitted for a lot of this size. The proposed house would cover 4,723 square feet (21.0%) of the site, which is greater than the 15.0% maximum lot coverage allowed within the RO-2 zone. A variance is therefore requested for excess lot coverage.

This application was originally scheduled for the June 21, 2001 Board meeting. The applicant requested a continuance in order to attempt to address neighboring property owners' concerns about mass and bulk of the rear of the proposed house, in part due to a raised elevation for the house and yard proposed for the rear of the site.

John Posin, owner, discussed the project and noted thirteen neighbors approve the project.

Ron Sutton, architect, discussed the project. He noted that one of the primary reasons for the requested lot coverage variance was the presence of several large eaves on the house.

Paul Leffingwell, landscape architect, discussed the landscaping.

Paula Little, 420 Ridge Road, stated she supports the project.

Fred Hannahs, 440 Ridge Road, stated he supports the project.

Pat Armitage, 460 Ridge Road, stated he supports the project.

Margaret Mason, 1825 Lagoon View Drive, stated she supports the project.

Larry and Anne Prell, 405 Ridge Road, stated they are still concerned about the home looming over their property. They felt that they would be looking at a home with an excessive floor area from their front yard. Mr. Prell suggested dropping the structure three feet or giving him assurance he can plant landscaping for screening. The six-foot retaining wall along the side property line would be very visible from their front yard. He is concerned that the windows will be reflective. He distributed photographs of the current site with story poles.

Mr. Sutton stated the six-foot tall retaining wall is intended to act as a deer fence. The house was lowered two feet for the Prells. Eighty percent of the house is at the elevation of the existing house.

Senior Planner Watrous noted the middle section roof (the living room) is all that needs to be lowered to address the Prells’ concerns.

Boardmember Beales stated that the Prells’ front entrance is some distance away from the proposed house. The house would not jut into the sky; rather, it would fill in the background up the hill. He thought that there is not a looming issue for the Prells. His concern is the lot coverage variance; the house is within twelve feet of the floor area limitation, which is intended to be a reasonable maximum. However, lot coverage variances have been approved when houses have been built out, not up. He can support the lot coverage variance.

Boardmember Stroub stated he also approves; however, his concern is the retaining wall. He visualizes, from the Prells’ side, the wall would look eight or nine feet high. He would want Staff to revisit the wall. Perhaps a keystone-type wall that slopes back and up should be used.

Senior Planner Watrous noted the height of a wall is measured from the lower elevation of both sides, with a six foot maximum height along the property line. There may be a need for a railing along the wall; however, the Town’s building official may not require one due to the proposed landscaping near the wall.

Boardmember Stroub stated, once the wall is installed, the Prells’ shrubs will die, and there should be included in the conditions a condition that the shrubs will be replaced or preserved. A six-foot retaining wall height, as seen from the downhill side, is acceptable.

Boardmember Collins stated he approves the design and the overhangs.

Chair McLaughlin concurred and stated the overhangs are beneficial. The master bedroom is set back sufficiently for the Prells, and even if the house were dropped two or three feet, the Prells would still see a roofline. He asked about the proposed generator. Mr. Sutton responded that it is an emergency generator surrounded by a six-foot-high wall that will be lined with insulating material.

M/S, Collins/Beales, passed 4-0-1 (Figour recused), to approve the application subject to the conditions as set forth in the Staff report, with the added conditions that the generator be soundproofed as described by the architect, and any of the Prells’ landscaping that is destroyed during construction be replaced.

Boardmember Figour returned to the meeting. 

7. 34 Terrace Court, Lowry Additions/Variance

Boardmember Beales recused himself from this item.

The applicant is requesting Design Review approval for the construction of an addition to an existing single-family home at 34 Terrace Court. The addition would consist of a one-story structure to be extended from the left side of the front of the existing residential building. The garage roofline would be altered from a hip-style roof to a gable roof. The proposed addition to the residential structure would extend 1 foot, 6 inches into the required left side yard setback and would increase lot coverage to 20%. No floor area exceptions are requested or required for the proposed project.

Eric Layton, architect, discussed the project.

Boardmember Figour stated this is a modest addition. Again, in this zone, the lot is less than 20,000 square feet. He can support the variance; there are no view issues. If it is perceived the window in the garage could become a second unit, a condition of approval could be added that it remain a garage.

Boardmember Stroub stated that he had no problems with the project.

Boardmember Collins stated that this was a modest addition and he supports the request.

Chair McLaughlin also supported the project.

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

Boardmember Beales returned to the meeting.

8. 22 Mercury Avenue, Akinyemi Additions

The applicant is requesting Design Review approval for an addition to an existing single-family home at 22 Mercury Avenue, which includes an addition, resulting in a reconfiguration of the roofline. The 679-square-foot, one-story addition would be located entirely within the required yard setbacks. The proposed request approval is for 2,725 square feet living area which is less than the maximum allowed in the R-1 zone. The additions would increase the lot coverage to 2,329 square feet, which is less than the maximum allowed in the R-1 Zone.

Patricia Akinyemi, owner, discussed the project and noted the color was change, a sample of which she distributed to the Board. She added, all neighbors approve her project.

Boardmember Collins noted that the neighbors approve of the request. He thought this was a modest addition, and he supports the project.

Boardmember Stroub stated that the addition was typical of what was happening in this neighborhood, and he could support the project.

Boardmember Beales stated that he supports the request.

Boardmember Figour thought that this was an interesting floor plan, and he supports the request.

Chair McLaughlin also supported the project.

F. APPROVAL OF MINUTES #14 OF THE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MEETING

Changes include:

Page 1, second to last paragraph from the bottom, delete the "l" after "May 17."

Page 8, first paragraph, second line to read, "…he stated the increased height had been accomplished by moving the gymnasium into the hill, per the Conditional Use Permit’s Conditions of Approval."

Page 8, fourth paragraph, move the second and third sentences to the previous paragraph.

Page 15, sixth paragraph to read, "…house lower. The problem is not just mass or looming; 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."

Page 16, second paragraph, first line to read, "…project continued to enable applicant to refine or modify the project, or a vote…"

Page 16, include in the Board’s discussion, "The Board discussed the 66,000-square-foot lot and the small building envelope, which the Planning Commission approved, and which forced the second-story house. If the Design Review Board had flexibility to allow the applicants to build elsewhere on the site, applicants would have a project. With a larger envelope, the applicants would have the ability to spread out the house and move its location."

ADJOURNMENT     The meeting was adjourned at 9:35 p.m.