TIBURON DESIGN REVIEW BOARD

MEETING OF AUGUST 16, 2001

A. ROLL CALL

Present: Chair McLaughlin, Boardmembers Beales, Collins and Figour

Absent: Boardmember Stroub

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 stated that the appeal for the application at 141 Taylor Road has been scheduled for the September 19, 2001 Town Council meeting. He also noted that there were no appeals from the August 2, 2001 Board meeting.

D. CONSENT CALENDAR

1. 141 Taylor Road, Engel Resolution of Denial

On July 19, 2001, the Design Review Board considered a request for the construction of a new single-family dwelling on property located at 141 Taylor Road. After considering the application and considering public testimony regarding this request, the Board voted to deny this application. Staff has prepared a resolution memorializing this decision. The property owners have appeared the denial of this application and the appeal hearing has been scheduled for the September 19, 2001 Town Council meeting.

Chair McLaughlin requested that the phrase "pushed back further into the hill" be removed from Section H, as this was not possible within the confines of the building envelope.

E. OLD BUSINESS BEFORE THE BOARD

Exception: CONTINUED TO 9/6/01

3. 40 Norman Way Farrell/Pearson, Studio/Variance

On July 5, 2001, the Design Review Board discussed the merits of the site plan and architectural design of the application and determined that the design of the accessory structure would adhere to the Town of Tiburon Design Guidelines and would not adversely impact neighboring property owners. However, the Board concurred with Staff that required findings needed for the approval of the requested variance for excess building height could not be made at that time. The request was continued to further evaluate the potential findings for this variance.

Amy Elliot, architect, discussed the project and the suggested findings proposed by the applicants’ attorneys. She also noted that a similar variance had recently been approved for the property at 6 Tara View Road.

Boardmember Figour stated that this is a wonderful design element, and that the structure is site sensitive and site-specific. He can make findings as the attorneys have indicated.

Boardmember Beales stated he cannot support the findings. There is open land between the proposed site and the main house where the building could be sited; it could be lowered and the design modified. He said that moving the structure is not a hardship. The applicant had not shown why alternate sites would not work. He felt that granting this variance would be a special privilege. He does not agree with Finding 3; it is only a hardship because applicants view it as a hardship. The 6 Tara View Road property was not large and there were not many available choices to relocate that structure.

Boardmember Collins stated he can make the findings. He said that the building could be relocated, but this is a good location for the building from a design standpoint. He felt that Finding 1 should reference the "minimal removal of oak trees," and that Finding 3 should include the 6 Tara View Road comparison.

Chair McLaughlin stated this remains an exceptional design. He thought that the Design Review Board must encourage exceptional design He said that the attorneys gave the Board the ability to address the variances. Introducing modifications to the building just to bring it into compliance is not always consistent with the spirit of the General Plan.

M/S, Collins/Figour, passed 3-1-1 (Beales dissenting, Stroub absent), to approve the application subject to the conditions as set forth in the Staff report and with the modification of the findings.

4. 109 Gilmartin Drive Prusak, New Dwelling: CONTINUED TO 9/6/01

F. NEW BUSINESS BEFORE THE BOARD

5. 528 Silverado Drive White, Additions/Variance

The applicant is requesting Design Review approval for the construction of additions to an existing single-family dwelling. The property is currently developed with a one-story residence. The existing living room and master bedroom would be expanded toward the front of the house. A new two-car garage would replace the existing carport, with a trellis constructed at the front of the garage. A new bathroom, closet and laundry room would be constructed beneath the new garage. Solar panels are proposed to be installed on the roof, along with one new skylight. The proposed additions would increase the lot coverage on the site by 1,200 square feet to a total of 3,329 square feet (32.9%). As a maximum lot coverage of 30% is permitted in the R-1 Zone, a variance is requested for excess lot coverage.

Heidi Hirvonen-White, owner and designer, discussed the project.

Boardmember Beales stated that he thought this was a good project, and he supports the request.

Boardmember Collins stated that he liked the idea of a grass roof. He noted that this was a small variance request, and he liked the design. He could support the project.

Boardmember Figour stated the neighbor across the street supports the project. He thought the solar panels are unattractive but will be relatively invisible. He felt that the building needs upgrading, and he can support the application.

Chair McLaughlin stated he is glad to see creativity in the design of a project. He supported the application.

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

The applicant is requesting Design Review approval for remodeling and additions to an existing single-family dwelling and garage on property located at 390 Greenwood Beach Road. The property currently contains a two-story residence and single-story garage. The house currently has two stories of livable area, and an overall height of 24 feet. The detached garage is situated higher at street level, and contains a recreation room at the lower level beneath. The proposal involves connecting and adding on to the two structures. The garage and room beneath will be connected to the house, with expanded living room area added to each of the existing structures.

A portion of the proposed front entryway would extend to within one foot (1’) of the front property line. As a 15 foot front yard setback is required in the R-1 zone, a variance is requested for reduced front yard setback. The proposed rear deck would extend up to the rear property line. As a 10.5 foot rear yard setback is required for this property, a variance is also requested for reduced rear yard setback. The proposed construction would increase the lot coverage on the site to 1,592 square feet (35.4%). As the maximum lot coverage permitted in the R-1 zone is 30.0%, a variance is requested for excess lot coverage. The floor area for the subject house would be increased by 853 square feet to a total of 2,404 square feet, which is greater than the 1,575 square foot maximum floor area permitted for a lot of this size. Therefore a floor area exception is also requested.

Woody Von Lackum, architect and owner, discussed the project. He added that he wants to remove two trees on the site, as opposed to the one tree indicated in the Staff report.

Boardmember Beales stated this is the same design as that approved in 1997. He could support the request.

Boardmember Figour stated that the request involves a number of variances, but the site is small and does not fit the Zoning Code’s size standards. He likes the rustic design, and could support the request.

Boardmember Collins said that this was an upgrade to the property, and is similar to what had been previously approved for the property. He supported the project.

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

7. 9 Francisco Vista Court Sauro, Additions/Variance

The applicant is requesting Design Review approval for the construction of additions to an existing single-family dwelling on property located at 9 Francisco Vista Court. The property is currently developed with a three –story structure. The proposed project would involve the construction of several additions to the existing house. A third garage space and new office would be constructed adjacent to the existing garage on the upper level. A new master bedroom suite would be constructed on the main level of the house, along with expansions to the living room, kitchen, laundry room, pantry and sewing room; new decks would extend off the master bedroom and kitchen. A new bedroom and bathroom would be added to the east end of the lower level, and a new deck would be constructed adjacent to an existing bedroom on the west end of this level. A new in-ground swimming pool is proposed to be constructed on a separate terrace below the home.

The floor area of the existing house would be increased by 1,790 square feet to 5,767 square feet (including the garage), 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 2,021 square feet to a total of 6,371 square feet (19.7%). As a maximum lot coverage of 15.0% is permitted in the RO-2 zone, a variance is requested for excess lot coverage.

William Sauro, owner, discussed the project and stated that the stepped retaining wall proposed below the pool could be modified to a stepped design.

John Powers, architect, noted he had submitted a sample board in June.

David Heldt, landscape architect, described the proposed landscaping.

Nancy McCray, 7 Francisco Vista Court, stated she approves the project. She likes decorative and floral landscaping, but to preserve her optimum view at all times, she hoped that all new vegetation would not reach a height above her deck level.

Carol Holder, 8 Francisco Vista Court, stated she supports the project. She said that the applicant has made many changes in the roof design to address her potential concerns.

Louise Copozzi, 11 Francisco Vista Court, requested that a tree be planted to provide privacy between her rear yard and the proposed pool area. Mr. Sauro confirmed that he would plant one there.

Boardmember Collins stated that the lower retaining walls should be stepped. He asked why there is no planting proposed on the lower, south to southwest slope; he thought such planting would shield the proposed retaining walls from the view below. Mr. Sauro stated that there is a stand of pampas grass in that area, but he would be willing to add more landscaping.

Boardmember Beales stated that he was also concerned with breaking up the mass of the retaining walls. He said that the neighbor’s view concerns have been resolved, and he supports the request.

Boardmember Figour stated since the neighbors and owner like the Mediterranean design, and the pool wall was resolved, he can approve the project, though he does not like the formal Mediterranean architecture.

Chair McLaughlin questioned how quickly the proposed tree on the east elevation would screen the blank side of the house. Mr. Heldt responded that the tree would be a 15-gallon or 24-inch box, and said that a myoporum will take five years to reach the desired height.

Mr. Powers noted the wall next to the neighbor’s deck is a no-man’s land, and Mr. Sauro will ensure the view of the wall will not be unpleasant.

M/S, Collins/Beales, passed 4-0-1 (Stroub absent), to approve the application subject to the conditions as set forth in the Staff report, with added conditions of approval requiring the plans to be revised to include stepped retaining walls on the lower portion of the site; mature heights of landscaping to be planted along the east side of the property not to exceed the height of the deck of the house at 7 Francisco Vista Court, adding at least one tree to provide privacy between the rear yard areas of this property and the property at 11 Francisco Vista Court; and adding additional trees or landscaping below the lower retaining walls to further screen these walls. 

8. 30 Meadowhill Drive Gibson, Additions/Floor Area Exception

The applicant is requesting Design Review for the construction of additions to an existing single-family dwelling, currently developed with a two-story residence. A new three-car carport would be constructed adjacent to the existing garage on the upper level of the site. A penthouse addition, with a bedroom, sitting area, study and two bathrooms, would be constructed on top of the garage. A terraced area below the proposed construction would include a swimming pool and spa. Trellises are proposed above two separate balconies, in front of a portion of the proposed carport, and around the swimming pool area.

The floor area of the house would be increased by 1,093 square feet, to a total of 7,999 square feet of floor area, which is 642 square feet more than the maximum floor area permitted for a lot of this size. A floor area exception is therefore requested.

Tom Telfer, architect, stated that he disagrees with some of the findings in the Staff report. He listed a number of other houses in the neighborhood which he said are similar to his project, and that are visible from streets and by neighbors living above. Views of other houses are not obstructed. He said that the pool and landscaping will enhance views from above. He felt that the size and scale and physical characteristics of the proposed construction are compatible with the neighborhood.

Boardmember Collins asked about lighting around the pool and noted that , from above, light will be seen from the downlights on the walk and ground area. Mr. Telfer responded that no lighting will be seen from above. He met with some of the neighbors who live above the project and he agreed to make adjustments; he would be happy to address other neighbors’ concerns.

Michael McCann, representing his parents who own the property at 29 Meadowhill Drive, submitted a letter from them. Their concern is not the addition, per se, rather the time to complete construction since there has been unending construction at 28 Meadowhill Drive. They do not want to be held hostage to another open-ended construction period.

Chair McLaughlin suggested he discuss his parents’ concerns with the Building Department.

Boardmember Figour stated he likes the materials and design, and even though the house is massive, others near it are equally massive. He is concerned about the ever-growing size of buildings, which is part of a continuing creep toward bigger and bigger houses.

Boardmember Beales stated that views of homes from the uphill side should be a one-story view; the intent is to minimize the mass of a building from the uphill side. The proposed addition could be put at grade and to the side. There is an alternative to building vertically.

Boardmember Collins stated this is a huge home, but there are other large homes nearby. He noted that the neighbors do not object to the design, and the home fits into the area. He could support the request.

Chair McLaughlin stated that he concurs with Boardmember Beales. He likes the architecture felt that the design was in the spirit of the Town’s guidelines. However, he does not see the need for the penthouse’s location. There is enough land that the addition could be on grade. He also had difficulty with the large floor area exception requested.

Boardmember Figour added that the two-story element breaks the monotony of the structure. However, the floor area is a concern to him. He recognized that the addition would not affect the neighbors, but stated that it is hard to know where to draw the line with such floor area increases.

Boardmember Collins asked if there have been other approvals for floor area exceptions in the area. Senior Planner Watrous responded that he did not know at this time, but that this information can be provided.

Chair McLaughlin stated that the second story element is not compatible with the physical layout of the site.

Boardmember Beales concurred, and noted that the FAR is often a proxy for dealing with mass. He is not sure if mass is an issue for this lot, except that this is a two-story element.

Mr. Telfer stated the applicant would like to have views to see the water. The owner may be willing to consider a modification that would result in no additional floor area, but instead would have a large deck at this location.

9. 1808 Lagoon View Drive Guglielmo, New Dwelling/Variance

The applicant is requesting Design Review approval for the construction of a new three-story single-family dwelling on property, currently developed with a single-family dwelling home, which is proposed to be demolished. The upper floor of the proposed house would include a living room, dining room, family room, kitchen, a master bedroom suite, den and one additional bathroom. The lower level of the house would include three additional bedrooms, two more bathrooms, a recreation room and laundry room. A bedroom and sitting area is proposed at a basement level. A three-car garage would be constructed on a level above the upper floor of the house. Two large retaining walls (six feet and four feet above finished grade) would be constructed below the proposed house to create a large, level rear yard area.

The proposed house would cover 3,124 square feet (14.9%) of the site, which is just under the 15.0% maximum lot coverage allowed within the RO-2 zone. The floor area of the proposed house would be 4,100 square feet, which is 2 square feet less than the maximum floor area permitted for a lot of this size. Portions of the proposed structure would project to within 20 feet of the front property line. As a 30 foot front yard setback is required in the RO-2 zone, a variance is requested for reduced front yard setback.

Kyle Thayer, architect, discussed the project, and noted the 30-foot front yard setback requirement drove the original design of the house and led to a stacking of the upper floor over the lower floor. Once the design was moved closer to the street, the house was dug into the site and the upper floor offset. He discussed a proposal to reduce the size of the proposed rear yard area.

Jasper Rasmussen, representing his parents who own the property at 1765 Vistazo West Street, raised concerns about the proposed rear retaining walls and rear yard area. Their patio is across from this wall, which would loom over them and would affect their property value. The wall would be eleven feet high, or fourteen feet high including the railing on top. He thought that the large back yard is roughly the same size as the proposed house. From below, the house will look like a huge three-story building stuck on a hill.

Mimi Berticevich, 1785 Vistazo West Street, stated she also objects to the wall. She thought that the house would an aberration to the natural hillside and to the neighborhood. The house should blend into the neighborhood. She said that the Town should keep Tiburon looking as beautiful and natural as possible.

Helen Clawson, 1806 Lagoon View Drive, stated she likes the building moved up ten feet because it will not impact her view, which was her concern. However, she is concerned that the building is not stepped and much excavation will occur, which could result in geological instability. This also might affect water and gas lines between their properties. Leveling of the rear yard will require trucks bringing in fill. She also does not want the tall retaining walls.

Chair McLaughlin noted geology and soils report and easements are functions of engineering and the construction plan process; the Building Department reviews and approves these.

George Berticevich, 1785 Vistazo West Street, stated that the Hillhaven neighborhood was built with 2,000- to 2,500- square-foot houses. The lot has been buildable; there is a house on it now. He asked why a variance should be approved.

Mr. Thayer stated the proposed retaining walls would appear to be four feet and six feet above the finished grade after manipulation of the site. He said that some site retaining work will help screen downhill views—landscaping and terraces would help hide the building. He noted that a neighbor has leveled his yard for a pool. To achieve a yard, there will be an attempt to balance cut and fill on the site.

In response to questions, Senior Planner Watrous stated the proposed basement area meets the definition of "basement" within the Zoning Code, and therefore the bedroom and bathroom in the basement would be exempt from the floor area calculations.

Boardmember Collins stated he agrees with the comments in the Staff report regarding the proposal artificially building up the rear yard. The house does not step down the slope as recommended by the Hillside Guidelines. He said that there should be another way to design the house to follow the grade. He felt that this design would be loom over the homes below.

Boardmember Beales stated this building would be roughly the same height as the existing house, but would be longer and wider. From the bottom of the hill, the house is far enough up the hill that he thought that it will not be a massing issue. His issue is the high retaining wall. He has a problem creating a large lawn there. A small terrace would be acceptable, but this is too much. He noted that most hillside homes have deck areas rather than large level yards.

Boardmember Figour stated he agrees with the public comments. The house does not fit into the area. Homes in this neighborhood are hillside houses, with a few exceptions. He thought that the stucco does not fit in. The basement is what is giving the house bulk and makes it appear looming from below. He thought that the whole scheme is ill-founded, and needs a major redesign. He is totally against the project as currently presented.

Chair McLaughlin stated that he concurs with Boardmember Figour. He is bothered by the retaining walls, and without the walls, downhill neighbors would be looking at the mass of the house. The house could be stepped back more and more variation provided, from floor to floor. The design does not work in the neighborhood and on the site.

Chair McLaughlin asked if the owner would like a vote taken on the application or a continuance of the project. Dan Guglielmo, property owner, asked for additional direction from the Board.

Boardmember Beales stated that he thought the rear yard area should be eliminated or severely reduced in size, with more deck area than rear yard. He noted that the proposed house was at the maximum lot coverage and floor area, and the applicant may not be able to have a house that size.

Boardmember Figour stated that the entire basement could be eliminated or reduced. He noted that the lot is nearly half an acre in size, and a the applicant should have no problem designing a hillside house on a hillside lot. He also thought the stucco exterior was inappropriate. He also thought that the size of the house may have to be reduced.

Chair McLaughlin said that the house should be stepped more, to walk down the hillside, with more exterior articulation. He thought that the reduced front yard setback was acceptable.

Mr. Guglielmo stated that he would like the application continued.

M/S, Beales/Collins, passed 4-0-1 (Stroub absent), to continue this item to September 20, 2001.

APPROVAL OF MINUTES #15 OF THE 8/2/01 DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MEETING

Changes include:

Page 1, add a reference that the project has been redesigned.

Page 2, third paragraph, delete "lose in" in the last sentence and substitute, "often make unnecessary concessions at the later stage of…"

Page 5, third paragraph, add, "because of the building envelope established for this lot."

Page 8, third paragraph, third line delete "less."

Page 9, third paragraph, first line, add "from," after "away."

Page 9, third paragraph, fifth line, to state,"…which is intended…"

Page 11, second line, change "driving" to "resulting in."

G. ADJOURNMENT

The meeting was adjourned at 9:25 p.m.