TIBURON DESIGN REVIEW BOARD

MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 6, 2001

A. ROLL CALL

Present: Chair McLaughlin, Boardmembers Beales, Figour and Stroub

Absent: Boardmember Collins

Ex-Officio: Senior Planner Watrous and Minutes Clerk Flanagan

B. PUBLIC COMMENTS: There were none.

C. DISCUSSION AND STAFF BRIEFING

Boardmember Figour expressed concerns regarding a series of solar panels that had recently been installed below a house on Straits View Drive. He questioned whether permits had been obtained for this construction, and encouraged the other Boardmembers to view the solar panels. Senior Planner Watrous responded that a Staff-level Design Review application had been approved for these solar panels, and building permits had been issued for this project. He stated that since the application did not involve over 500 square feet of new floor area, the application was eligible for Staff-level review. He noted that no significant concerns were raised during the review of the application, but that Staff had heard from at least one other neighbor complaining about the solar panels once construction started. As the application had already been approved, it could not be placed on a Design Review Board agenda. However, Boardmembers could look at the site and could agendize a discussion in the future on how solar panels should be reviewed.

Senior Planner Watrous noted Agenda Items 1, 2 and 3 were continued: 40 Reed Ranch Road, 2108/2110 Mar East Street and 109 Gilmartin Drive. Also, the appeal of the denial of 141 Taylor Road is scheduled for the September 19, 2001 Town Council meeting.

D. OLD BUSINESS BEFORE THE BOARD

3. 109 Gilmartin Drive Prusak, New Dwelling: CONTINUED TO 10/4/01

4. 6 Tara View Road Khakbaz, Cottage/Variance

The applicant is requesting Design Review approval for the construction of a detached cottage on the property located at 6 Tara View Road. The property is currently developed with a single-family dwelling. The cottage would have one story and a total floor area of 615 square feet. The cottage would include a bedroom, living room and bathroom. A mechanical storage room with substandard ceiling heights would be situated below the habitable area.

A previous variance (File #200043) was approved on November 2, 2000 to construct the cottage with a maximum height of 17 feet. Since that time, the applicant has revised the plans for this structure to include the proposed mechanical and storage room beneath the habitable space, which increased the maximum height of the building to 20 feet. As the previous variance only approved a maximum building height of 17 feet, a second variance was required for this change.

Michael Heckmann, architect, discussed the project and added that the proposed structure includes space for storage, which is not available in the main house. In response to questions, he stated that the neighbor, Mr. Helms, is content with the change since the exterior appearance of the cottage will be same as was approved several months ago. There will be no pool pumps to create noise. He is aware of Staff’s comments regarding a second unit.

Bob Corman, 150 Round Hill Road, stated that since the height is effectively the same, the project meets with his approval. Privacy is his only concern. He asked the Board to note that trees and shrubs are essentials to privacy and that they remain.

Boardmember Stroub stated he sees no problems with the project. He said that the elevations of the cottage are the same as before, and the changes would have no impact.

Boardmember Beales concurred and asked if Mr. Heckmann planned on making landscaping changes. Mr. Heckmann stated that the property owners would be removing no significant trees. One apple tree will be removed, but trees above, to the side and below the site will be retained.

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

5. 7 Seafirth Place Fitzgerald/Hoff, New Dwelling

The applicant is requesting Design Review approval for the construction of a new three-story single-family dwelling on property located at 7 Seafirth Place. The subject property is currently vacant. The lower level of the proposed house would include a living room, dining room, family room, kitchen, study and one half-bathroom. The upper level would include a master bedroom suite three additional bedrooms and bathrooms and a laundry room. A three-car garage would be constructed a level below the lower level. The proposed house would cover 2,600 square feet (22.0%) of the site. The floor area of the proposed house would be 3,900 square feet, which is less than the maximum floor area of 4,287 square feet permitted for a lot of this size.

Mohamad Sadrieh, architect, discussed the project. He added that he did not discuss the proposed house with neighbors and the homeowners association because the homeowners association does not recognize the owner’s ability to develop this property.

Chair McLaughlin asked about the legitimacy of the lot and issues with the driveway.

Rob Fitzgerald, co-owner, stated these are two legal lots. The dispute is whether the lot is a part of the Seafirth homeowners association and he is proceeding with his application with the belief that it is not. He stated that the driveway will come out on Seafirth Place; there are easements for the driveway across the other property he owns at 5 Seafirth Place.

Walter Sanford, 49 Seafirth Place, president of Seafirth Estate Company, reviewed the history of the subject property in relation to the Seafirth homeowners association. He stated that the Seafirth Estate Company is responsible for a pool, beach, dock and sewer district, with the intent of serving only 29 lots. The lot in question was sold as a double lot and is not entitled to membership in the association. The original owner of the property agreed that she wanted the hillside to be open and would not develop the second lot, but the property was sold after she died. He thought that Mr. Fitzgerald’s application should not continue until this issue is resolved.

Senior Planner Watrous noted that, whether the owner can or cannot get a sewer connection with the Seafirth Estate Company is not within the purview of the Design Review Board. Mr. Fitzgerald’s options are deceptively simple: he can obtain sewer access from the Seafirth Estate Company, install a septic system or connect to another sewer line. This issue must be resolved before Building Permits are issued and does not have to be resolved before design review approval of this application. The title report shows this is a separate lot, and it is legally buildable. The Design Review Board does not have the authority to dismiss a Design Review application because sanitary services for the building cannot be handled. The applicant must ensure that basic health and utility services can be provided to the house, and if he cannot, then he cannot build.

Richard Schmotter, 9 Seafirth Place, contiguous neighbor to the north, stated he built the driveway which would serve this property. He bought his property because of the vacant lot, which he assumed would always be vacant. He said that his driveway has a 25 percent grade and with two houses using his driveway, the curve would present a dangerous situation.

Lisa Cohan, 4030 Paradise Drive, stated her deck overlooks Mr. Fitzgerald’s lot. There are story poles in his trees that indicate that these trees would be removed and open up the view of the new house. The three chimneys will be in her water view. She said that houses in Seafirth Estates are nestled in and juxtaposed so no privacy issues are created, contrary to this proposed house.

Larry Gelb, 15 Seafirth Place, stated his driveway is at the lower edge of Mr. Schmotter’s driveway and he has to back out onto Seafirth from his property. More cars coming down the driveway would create a greater safety issue.

Chip Cohan, 4030 Paradise Drive, stated that when he bought his house, the Seafirth Estate Company consisted of only 29 buildable lots. He thought that he bought views and privacy. The story poles are close to his house and he did not think that the proposed house follows the Town’s guidelines. He felt that the proposed house is not reasonable.

Mr. Fitzgerald stated, if necessary, he will annex to the Sanitary Sewer District No. 5 and extend a sewer line to his house. He reiterated that this lot is part of the original Seafirth subdivision and he can build on the lot. He has a sewer lateral on his property at 5 Seafirth Place and he stated that he can hook up to that line at any time. Regarding the Cohans’ deck, their stairs are on his property and their deck is three or four feet from his property line. There are so many trees on his property that the Cohans asked that his trees be topped for their water view. He is open to moving the structure and getting the roof line a bit out of their view, and he would modify the side of the house that faces them. He bought the property as two lots. He said that any statement that this is one lot is a fiction. The proposed driveway is totally on his property and the neighbor has an easement to use Mr. Fitzgerald’s driveway. In response to questions, Mr. Fitzgerald stated that access from Paradise Drive is heavily discouraged, as there is a lot of elevation change; also, if access is provided directly to Paradise Drive, the driveway would go through the grove of trees. No story poles were erected for the chimneys, but he would be willing to modify the chimneys.

Boardmember Figour noted the lower retaining wall appears to be thirteen feet high. Mr. Sadrieh stated it would be six feet high, with a rail of 36 inches.

In response to questions, Mr. Sadrieh stated the height of the southern chimney is 2 to 2.5 feet above the roof ridge, and 32.5 feet from existing grade. Senior Planner Watrous noted the top of the chimney would be ten feet above the eave at the end of the house.

Boardmember Stroub stated that sewerage and access issues will have an effect on the ultimate design of the project and feared that the issue as to whether this is a separate lot or not is fully resolved will affect the outcome of the ultimate design. He thought that the house is attractive and its size is appropriate; however, it is not correctly sited on the lot. The house will present privacy concerns for the owners of 9 Seafirth Place, 4030 Paradise Drive, and the house to be developed on 5 Seafirth Place in the future. He is not remotely prepared to approve this application with the existing issues. The house is intrusive to neighbors on both sides. If the house were moved up the hill and to the center of the lot, more privacy for the neighbors would be created. The applicant should, perhaps, consider access from Paradise Drive.

Boardmember Beales stated he concurred that the proposed house would loom over the house below. The house is not stepped as required by the Hillside Guidelines. If the building were shifted north, or its width reduced, it would benefit both neighbors. The roof would not impact the Cohans’ water views, although the chimneys would. There would be a view impact from the Cohans’ lower yard. He felt that the building should be moved; it is massive and looming. Retaining walls will be needed for driveways but they must not loom on the house below.

Boardmember Figour stated the house is attractive but it does not fit on this site. The Hillside Guidelines do not prescribe large amounts of cut and fill. This large, looming house would only be appropriate on a flat site.

Chair McLaughlin stated the house is attractive; however, it is on the wrong lot. It does not meet any Hillside Guidelines, and does not address the spirit of the land. Putting the house up the hill is a possible solution. While the Cohans’ deck may encroach on the side yard setback, the deck is already there. The design is not consistent with the Seafirth neighborhood. Bulk and mass are issues to be resolved.

Mr. Fitzgerald stated that he would like the application continued rather than denied.

Chair McLaughlin requested applicant include, on the Landscape Plan, a clarification as to what trees would be removed. He noted that removal of the large pine tree would impact the Cohans. He said that the applicant should be sensitive that the Board is not comfortable with the unresolved issue of membership in the Seafirth Estates Company, and hoped that the applicant could bring a resolution to this issue to the next Design Review Board meeting. He asked that clear plans for the driveway also be included in the next revision.

In response to Senior Planner Watrous, the applicant agreed to present a written request to Staff for an extension of the Permit Streamlining Act deadline.

M/S, Beales/Figour, passed 4-0-1, Collins absent, to continue the application to October 4, 2001.

6. Review of Draft Downtown Design Guidelines

Under the guidance of a Steering Committee, the final draft Downtown Tiburon Design Handbook has been prepared and released for public review. The Heritage and Arts Commission reviewed the Handbook on August 15, 2001, and the Planning Commission reviewed the Handbook on August 22, 2001. Both Commissions have recommended that the Town Council formally adopt the Handbook. The Town Council is scheduled to review the Handbook at its October 3, 2001 meeting.

James McLane, design team leader, discussed the review process and handbook.

Boardmember Beales noted that Boardmember Collins stated the commercial portion of Point Tiburon was not addressed. Mr. McLane responded that the commercial portion of Point Tiburon is not included in the target area for this handbook.

There were no public comments.

Boardmember Figour stated the handbook is a success as far as the objective; it is a guideline that will not stifle design latitude for creativity in remodeling and new construction. It is a good document that will be useful for the Design Review Board and for the private sector. He would not want to see the momentum stopped; this is the time when the private sector should be involved and think about how they, as owners, can use the handbook and make headway on some of the ideas. The Tiburon Boulevard portion is the most difficult of the three. He thought that the Beach Road corner should have some schematics to show the private sector what is being discussed. Mr. McLane concurred this would be included. Boardmember Figour added that both public and private land should be identified.

Boardmember Beales noted, when the project started, it began with design issues and development of private property; however, these issues cannot be discussed unless public property is included. The Design Guidelines are for the benefit of the Design Review Board, which reviews private property.

Boardmember Stroub stated the handbook is excellent. The Main Street area is the most important to him. He felt that the illustrative examples and suggested uses of different types of materials for windows, siding, etc would be helpful for him, the Design Review Board and architects. He thought that phasing out existing elements of dressed-up "storybook" design is a good idea, as is phasing out red brick and Victorian streetlights. He thought that the suggested signage criteria are too broad, and plastic and glass sign materials are inappropriate.

Mr. McLane stated he believes the writers of the signage section wanted to get across that good craftsmanship and good materials will result in good signage.

Chair McLaughlin concurred that the handbook is a good document, and added, philosophically, the document should not consist of absolutes; rather, broad stroke guidelines that do not stifle creativity. Regarding distribution of materials, he felt that there was not a lot of public involvement or interest. Senior Planner Watrous noted that Staff used the Chamber of Commerce mailing list to mail project notices and the Chamber of Commerce discussed the design handbook at its recent meeting.

Chair McLaughlin added that since the Design Review Board will use this handbook the most, in future documents, he thought that the Board should have been more involved in providing input during the process. He said the idea that the ferry plaza is a test of the guidelines bothers him because he would have voted against the ferry plaza design, which addresses tourists, not residents. He added that the signage criteria in the handbook are not acceptable to him in regard to the "small town character" of Tiburon.

Boardmember Beales added, regarding the rigidity of the handbook, the Board has already violated these guidelines by approving several awnings on a Main Street building. The Design Review Board decided what made sense in that instance, and will evaluate other applications on a case-by-case basis.

Chair McLaughlin added he would like his statement on record that he does not want the handbook guidelines to become rigid rules.

F. APPROVAL OF MINUTES #16 OF THE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MEETING

Changes include:

Page 3, fourth paragraph, delete the second sentence.

Page 10, last line of the motion, to state, "meeting…to allow applicant to modify the application."

Page 13, third paragraph, second line, delete the word "a" before "the applicant."

Page 12, 7^th paragraph, fourth sentence, delete this sentence.

G. ADJOURNMENT

The meeting was adjourned at 8:40 p.m.