TIBURON DESIGN REVIEW BOARD

MEETING OF JUNE 7, 2001

A. ROLL CALL

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

Ex-Officio: Town Manager McIntyre, 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 reported the Town Council, at its last meeting, granted the appeal for the fence application at 35 Reed Ranch Road fence, but required the fence to be moved six feet back from the property line and other conditions of approval, including low landscaping and the specific design of the fence.

D. OLD BUSINESS BEFORE THE BOARD

The subject tree permit for the removal of 30 eucalyptus trees, 4 oak trees and one pine tree on property located along Tiburon Boulevard between Ned’s Way and Lyford Drive has been initiated by the developers of the condominium project currently under construction at 2-98 Ned’s Way (Chandlers Gate). The subject trees would block some of the views to the south for these homes, and the developer is proposing to remove these trees to open up the views for the future residents of the condominiums. The trees to be removed are situated on the Reed School property. The school district has agreed to the removal of these trees in order to address potential safety concerns related to the nearby playground, child care center and power lines, as long as replacement landscaping is installed.

This application was first reviewed at the March 15, 2001 Design Review Board meeting. At that time, a number of nearby residents and parents of children at Reed School expressed concerns about the removal of the trees. The concerns centered on the increased visibility of the Chandlers Gate homes and other uphill properties if the trees were removed, safety concerns with the screening of the school playground, the ability of the proposed replacement planting to provide effective visual screening, and the aesthetics of the tree removal in light of other recent vegetation removal along Tiburon Boulevard.

Boardmember McLaughlin noted the Reed Union School District is now the co-applicant for this application.

Mayor Andrew Thompson stated that, with major financial issues, implementation and additional details, he felt that the application has gone beyond the purview of the Design Review Board and should be heard by the Town Council. He informed the audience that some level of discussion would be held at the June 20 Town Council meeting, and suggested the Design Review Board receive public comments at this meeting.

It was the consensus of the Board to open the public hearing to take testimony from the public.

Senior Planner Watrous noted that any continuance beyond this meeting would require a an extension to the Permit Streamlining Act requirements. Representatives for Taylor-Woodrow and the Reed Union School District agreed to grant a 90-day extension, and stated they will provide this in writing tomorrow to the Town.

Chris Carter, superintendent of Reed Union School District, stated she had received new information that nine of the 27 trees surveyed should be removed because of the trees’ structural hazard, which cause the Blue Gum eucalyptus trees to drop branches. The trees are located near the childcare facility. There is a metal fence near the power lines and a concern is failure of the lines. The children’s safety is her number one concern. The developer will pay for removal and replacement of trees.

Bob Glantz, Taylor-Woodrow Homes, stated he will replant adequate-sized trees. He wants to top the existing trees to enhance views of the owners.

Nathaniel Marans stated that removing the trees is a very bad idea. The Tiburon Ark misprinted his letter, which he read. He said that an exception was made for the Ecumenical Housing Authority for this senior housing project and allowing eighteen units was excessive. The development is out of place and is only shielded by the existing trees. The Town should deny the application. Regarding hazards, the trees have been there for a long time and there is little danger. The developer will receive more money if the trees are removed because of the opened views.

Chris Darling, Ned’s Way, distributed photographs of the trees that appear to have been planted some 50 years ago. He stated the trees probably were planted by caterpillar tractor by the Corps of Engineers, hence, will not topple because of their strong root structure. He felt that the Town should be the custodian of the trees. Regarding liability, trees can be pruned away from the utility lines, and maintained on a yearly basis. He said the trees are important to the town.

Stewart Buley, 10 Maybridge, Belvedere, stated that, without the trees, the Chandlers Gate development will look into his home. He feels the issue is money; the new homes will bring more money if there is a view. The project was approved with the trees required as a buffer. Once approved, applicant now wants to remove them. Many in the area did not oppose the project because of the buffer created by the eucalyptus trees. It would follow that the trees north of these trees would have to be removed also because they also would be unhealthy. Infestation, etc., is in the natural course of a tree’s life. He said that the trees are not a danger, and that consultants can be hired to say anything. Removal of the trees should not be allowed in this community.

Tom Schiff, 24 Lyford Drive, president of Monterossa Condominium Association, stated the association objects to the removal of the trees. There is not a safety issue; if it were, the trees would have been addressed during the project’s approval process.

Rolf Eiselin, 1868 Mountain View Drive, stated the line of trees are part of the beautiful greenbelt which is seen when arriving in Tiburon. They are a noise and pollution barrier for the school and houses above them. The utilities should be undergrounded. The Town should save the trees.

Lynette Schwartz, Monterossa Condominiums, Lyford Drive, stated that PG&E should have been trimming the trees over the years. She said that the trees buffer the noise, pollution and wind from Tiburon Boulevard and the bay, and should not be removed.

Hilda Davis, 515 San Rafael Avenue, Belvedere, stated the trees have been there for a long time and asked that they not be removed.

Carol Lind, 18 Lyford Drive, stated developers usually pay for mitigations and are not doing the school district a great favor. The community is united as a group to save the trees, and this feeling should be considered by the Town.

Haig Harris, 46 Lagoon Road, Belvedere, stated this issue has expanded to a townwide issue. The project was approved, in the first place, because the trees shielded the project. The developer has created a pretext to take the trees down. The developers, at a previous hearing, said the eucalyptus trees were a fire hazard and now have a different reason for removing the trees. Experts were found to support the developer’s position. He said that the requirements of the Tiburon Tree Ordinance have never been considered along with the application originally made by the developer. The school district has said for many years it did not want to pay for maintenance of the trees. The trees cannot be replaced. He felt that the 20-foot tall trees, as offered by the developer, will not provide the shielding for many years. He said it is a Town policy to preserve trees. The replacements will never grow as high as those existing. He felt that the Town Council should have looked at this issue from the beginning.

Laurel Wilson, vice president of Reed Union School District, stated she is concerned about the safety of the children. The condition of the trees has been brought to the school district’s attention and that is why the district is concerned. She suggested a neutral person be hired to assess the trees. School district trustees serve the community and the school. She said that the school district is not being offered money. The Town should seek to make a decision based on unbiased information.

Chi Kim, principal of Reed School, stated the children’s, staff’s and parents’ safety is her number one concern. She does not want to wait for a disaster for something to happen to the trees.

Christina Burrell, director of the childcare center, stated branches have fallen onto the playground, one time large enough for the Public Works Department to have to remove it. She is concerned about trees falling onto her center.

Valerie Boyd, on behalf of Leslie Doyle, suggested as many trees as possible be saved to provide screening. The red gum trees could be removed if necessary. The large oaks should be protected. The pines, blue gums should be preserved and repaired. Replantings should be more mature than that offered by the developer and should be planted in a more natural pattern to avoid a boxy hedge look.

Boardmember McLaughlin noted that Ms. Doyle had volunteered to work with developer and landscape architect, and her comments are not uneducated. She has spent many hours on this issue.

Todd Chafey, Belvedere, stated his concern is his three young children at Reed School. He also wants a strong buffer between the school and the road to preclude pollution from Tiburon Boulevard. There should be shade on the school. The children should be able to enjoy the trees that provide a buffer and shade. New landscaping must not be done in a cheap manner; the developer will make a lot of money, and landscaping is not expensive. Larger trees could be planted. He said that maximizing the developer’s profit is not in the interest of the children or the school.

Jeff Winkler, school district trustee, stated that the district has not spent money on the trees; rather, dollars are spent on the children and classrooms. Safety is an issue as is alienating the community. The developer is willing to help Reed School and improve the look of Tiburon Boulevard.

Holly Narajust, Red Hill Circle, asked how many children have been injured by the trees. She thought the school district should ask the Town of Tiburon to help maintain the trees, and stated the loss of trees and their height would never be replaced. It would take some 50 years to muffle the sound that would go up Lyford Drive if the trees were removed. Maintenance could be performed on the trees that would ensure the safety of the school children.

Hilda Davis stated that fear is not a way to take care of children. The trees could be trimmed for safety. This issue consists of news-engendered fear. She said that everyone should love the trees as much as she does.

The public comment period was closed. No Boardmembers wished to address this item at this time.

M/S, Beales/Stroub, passed 5-0, to continue this item to the July 19, 2001 Design Review Board meeting.

Boardmember Beales recused himself from this item.

The applicant is requesting Design Review approval for the construction of additions to an existing single-family dwelling on property located at 11 Greenwood Court. The property is currently developed with a one-story residence. The proposed additions would require variances for reduced side yard setbacks and excess lot coverage.

The application was first reviewed at the May 3, 2001 Design Review Board meeting. At that time, concerns were raised by several nearby property owners regarding potential view impacts and the undesirable mass and bulk, which could be caused by the proposed additions. The Board shared some of these concerns and also indicated that the requested variances could also be problematic.

Gayle Permar, architect, stated she met with neighbors since the last meeting. She noted there is an error on the Staff report, as the proposed lot coverage is now at 29.8 percent. She added that the house on the adjacent property to the east has a nine-foot variance and the house on the other side is five feet from the property line. Apparently several other surrounding homes also exceed the maximum allowable lot coverage. Mr. Houlton cannot get his parking underneath the house, as the Tayers did. Rose Nieda, at 7 Greenwood Court, asked her not to build above the existing ridge and this was done. She noted that there is a drafting error on the drawings; the column that is drawn into the setback will be a pilaster. The walls are out of the setback for the new entry. She looked at the project from the Tayers’ property, and found their view would not be diminished by the proposed addition. The roof line was lowered four feet from the mansard. Ms. Nieda likes the roof color.

Applicant’s designer, Bob Federighi, stated the house is no longer Mediterranean architecture; rather, it is shingled, with white trim, and a beige tar and gravel roof.

Don Tayer, 10 East Terrace, stated the height has been lowered but, from his deck and house, the addition would still be in his view. There has been no change in the setback and lot coverage; these remain excessive. He has previously objected to this. He objects to an approval of setback infringements and excessive lot coverage.

Ms. Permar stated she compared Mr. Houlton’s property and house to Mr. Tayer’s, whose house is out of conformance. If the bushes were trimmed, the Tayers’ view would be bordered by the existing house. Given the neighborhood as it is built, Mr. Houlton does not have a coverage or setback problem. She stated she could bring down the roof height of the bedroom addition by 12 to 18 inches. She felt that this is a view issue, not a lot coverage and variance issue.

Mr. Tayer stated his garage is not under his house; it is adjacent to the house. His house is one-third smaller than the size of the applicant’s house with the proposed additions.

Boardmember Stroub stated he appreciates the changes. He can make findings for the variances. The owner cannot build up on this lot without creating serious view impacts. The view issue is whether the blockage of the Tayers’ view is substantial, and he does not think it is. Lowering the roof another foot would mitigate most of the remaining view problem.

Boardmember Collins stated the roof should be lowered 18 inches. This would resolve the view problem, which is the main issue, and he could then support the project.

Boardmember Figour stated the architect has worked diligently on changes and done the best she can on this lot. He is concerned about lot coverage. The changes to the façade materials are in keeping with the community. Lowering the height of the bedroom would resolve the Tayers’ problem. He could support the lot coverage.

Boardmember McLaughlin stated the lot has problems and, while he is unhappy with the lot coverage, he recognizes that the community’s needs and desires are changing. The placement of the house is as good as can be done. The proposed lot coverage will not affect the Tayers or any other neighbor. He does not care for the roof color. Light colored roofs tend to be more visible.

Rose Nieda, 7 Greenwood Court, stated the roof color should be a little darker.

A neighbor stated she also looks at the roof and she likes the existing gray roof.

Ms. Permar will have the roof color approved by Ms. Nieda and Staff. Roof materials also are to be reviewed by Staff.

M/S, Stroub/Figour, passed 4-0-1, (Beales abstained) to approve the application subject to the conditions as set forth in the Staff report, and with the added conditions that height of the rearmost point of the roof of the rear bedroom be reduced eighteen inches, and the roof color to be approved by Staff.

Boardmember Beales recused himself from this item.

On April 17, 3001, the Town approved a Staff-level Site Plan and Architectural Review application for a fence to be installed on the property located at 40 Reed Ranch Road. Ms. Petri, the property owner of the lot located across the street (44 Reed Ranch Road) from the subject property has appealed this decision to the Design Review Board.

The applicants have requested Design Review approval for replacement and extension of existing wood fences with new wood fences along the front, side and rear property lines; installation of a new trellis, entry gates, planter walls and landscaping along the front of the residence. No variances have been requested as part of this application.

Appellant Farideh Petri, 41 Reed Ranch Road, distributed a letter dated June 7, 2001; she stated this was the letter she submitted when she appealed the project except that the beginning paragraph has been summarized into a shorter version..

Boardmember McLaughlin asked Mr. Brown, the owner of 40 Reed Ranch Road, if he had seen the June 7th letter from Ms. Petri. Mr. Brown stated he had not.

Boardmember McLaughlin stated that, if the existing fence is illegal, the overall effect of the taller proposed fence would be markedly different than if the existing fence was previously approved.

Senior Planner Watrous noted the Town allows for one appeal only. This is an appeal of a Staff’s decision to the Design Review Board, and cannot be subsequently appealed to the Town Council. Had the application been referred to the Design Review Board, the Board’s decision could be appealed to the Council.

Ms. Petri felt that Staff did not follow the appropriate codes in making its decision on the fence. She had been told by Staff that the application could be forwarded to the Design Review Board, but it was not. She feels Staff did this so that she could not appeal any decision to the Town Council.

Associate Planner Theriault clarified that in an appeal hearing, the Design Review Board can make modifications to the plan. She added that she did not receive the six-page letter.

Ms. Petri reiterated that the letter was part of the original documents with her appeal.

Ron Brown, applicant, stated he modeled the home to be consistent with the $1 million homes on his street. This is supposed to be a landscaping plan, not to erect a huge wooden barrier along Reed Ranch Road. The garage was moved a few feet forward and its shape and height were changed to accommodate view concerns. The roofline is the same as before. He did not promise to remove the pine trees and did not promise that the landscaping in front of the house would never change, as Ms. Petri stated. He built a four foot tall fence that was permitted and is in the application. The fence is to screen his property from noise, etc., from the street. Landscaping will screen the fences. The trellis is the length of the garage with a few foot overhang on either side. The intent is to tie the two sides together and remove the feeling that there is a garage with fences on either side.

Boardmember Figour noted a six-foot fence is shown on the plans, which changes to five feet. Mr. Brown responded the intent is to raise the fence height to five feet on both sides of the garage.

Boardmember Figour asked if the fences are on the property line. Mr. Brown stated the fence on the left, facing the garage, is on the property line; on the right, it is not on the property line. The position of the fence was changed. Planting areas comprise the setback from the street. The plants closest to the street would be shrubs, like rosemary.

Boardmember Figour asked what the easement is for. Mr. Brown responded it is the setback from the street. Boardmember Figour noted that it is shown outside the property line.

Boardmember Stroub asked about grading in the front portion of the property. Mr. Brown stated the grading issue has to do with a stairway. The berm will be cut down where the stairway will be put in. There will be no change in grading to the side of the stairway. Planting in front of the fence would be low groundcover. Moving toward the fence, there will be five- to six-foot-tall bushes to screen the fence. Plantings will be shorter than those there now. The junipers will be removed; he cannot build the fence behind them.

Boardmember McLaughlin confirmed the current fence to the left of the garage would be raised one foot to a height of five feet and that the planned planting would cover the fence.

Linda Alber, 39 Reed Ranch Road, stated the roof of Mr. Brown’s house was raised. This will obstruct her view on her walks. There are no sidewalks and Mr. Brown’s cars obstruct children from walking along the side of the street. She objects to misrepresentation about the roof and that the fence will obstruct her views as she walks.

Mr. Brown stated the initial plan was to raise the roof.

Chester Judah, 166 Avenida Miraflores, stated that low, simple fences are the character of Tiburon. Six-foot wooden fences in Tiburon are not in the character of the town.

Ann Solomon, 37 Reed Ranch Road, asked, if the garage is 12 feet high, would not the fence shown in the illustration presented by Ms. Petri also be 12 feet high.

Kathleen Gallagher, 166 Avenida Miraflores, stated she supports Ms. Petri’s concerns and supports the culture of Tiburon. People moved to Tiburon to enjoy the environment, not to hide behind fences. She encouraged lowering the fence down to a 3’6" level.

Ms. Petri stated she asked if the fence would be covered by greenery and was told the whole wall would not be covered, just some small shrubs. This means she will be looking at the big wooden structure. She made agreements with Mr. Brown off the record. She asked that the fence not be approved and stated the same results could be obtained from a green fence five or six feet high, which would enable the Browns to have screening, privacy and noise inhibition. It is planned to plant 60 plants that will grow high to impact her view. She has no problem with planting a five- to six-foot-high green hedge, but not a solid wood fence.

Boardmember Figour stated a fence is not needed. It will be unattractive and the majority of the neighborhood is not fenced. He does not have a problem with the trellis but could not approve a five-foot fence, with no design merit, along the street.

Boardmember Collins stated the fence would be seven or eight feet above street level on the slope. The junipers look good now and should remain. If the fence were lower and it was ensured the planting would obliterate the fence, he could support a fence. Five feet is very high, let alone seven to eight feet.

Boardmember Stroub stated this is an aesthetic issue; the fence depends on landscaping in front of it and the plans do not show enough landscaping. Mr. Brown should lower the fence a foot or make it more attractive. He likes the trellis. It will be down from the street, by the garage, which will be more pleasant to look at than what is there now.

Boardmember McLaughlin stated Mr. Brown’s plans are confusing. The topography by the front berm area is inaccurate and he needs to know what is happening on the western side of the property. He would not have approved the existing fence, which has knocked out a lot of the water view. He stated he does not support raising the fence a foot and stated there should have been story poles installed.

Associate Planner Theriault noted story poles are not usually required for Staff-level applications but the Board could require them.

Boardmember McLaughlin stated there should be color-tipped story poles installed through the vegetation, indicating the fence height. He has issues with both sides. He did not have time to study Ms. Petri’s letter, and felt that Mr. Brown’s plans are unclear. He would like to continue this item to allow the applicant to install story poles, clarify what the fence looks like and what is happening on the west side of property, and prepare a front elevation of the whole lot showing the fence. He wants to see how the fence runs with the topography of the site. He added that if the five-foot fence is in place, he would oppose the trellis. It is up to the applicant to make the case of what the proposal is going to look like. He asked applicant if he could make the plans understandable and would install story poles. Mr. Brown responded that he could.

M/S, Stroub/Collins, passed 4-0-1 (Beales abstained), to continue this item to the July 19, 2001 meeting.

Boardmember Beales returned to the meeting.

E. NEW BUSINESS BEFORE THE BOARD

4. 40 Bond Lane McGhie, Cottage/Variance

The applicants are requesting approval for the construction of a guest house at the location of an existing spa cabana and the installation of a new swimming pool with associated improvements such as landscaping, arbors and retaining wall. The extension would include the addition of 600 square feet new lot coverage and 393 square feet new living area. The RO-1 zone has a setback requirement of 30 feet. The setback is set at the inner edge of a roadway easement on properties where a roadway easement transverses the site; this is the case for the subject property. The applicants are requesting to construct the guesthouse within ten feet of the roadway easement. Therefore, a variance is requested for reduced front yard setback.

Heidi Richardson, architect, stated that it not the intention to remove existing landscaping. She proposes to push the guest house ten feet further away from 90 Bond Lane to provide even greater privacy. Regarding the variance, the location of the cottage is in the most heavily wooded area. The location affords the most privacy and is the least visible.

Boardmember McLaughlin asked the rationale for the adjustments. Ms. Richardson responded that this is a compromise to a perceived problem. She added that three pine trees would be removed, but the trees do not add to the privacy screen. The landscape scheme shows the eucalyptus tree being removed.

Penny Raikes, Raikes Landscape Co., stated the quality of the landscaping would be better without the eucalyptus and pines.

Boardmember Beales asked if there is a lot of new landscaping between the two properties. Ms. Raikes responded that there is a utility easement with no plants on the neighbor’s side of the property line. There will be additional screening over what is already there, using the same species and sizes as existing.

Associate Planner Theriault noted the submitted plans do not correctly show the existing landscaping. On her field investigation, it appeared that a number of plants would be removed. She asked for an existing landscape scenario or survey to show what is there, what will removed and the replacements, with sizes.

Ms. Raikes responded that plants will be removed where the cottage would be situated. There is no advantage to keeping them. The existing pittosporum and fotinia would affect the neighborhood. More plantings will be done.

Associate Planner Theriault added that the applicant had not previously submitted plans showing the alternate location of the guest house. Ms. Richardson responded that she received Staff’s comments only on Monday, and she did not receive copies of letters from neighbors.

Steve Abbott, Mercury Avenue, stated he is the son-in-law of the owners of 90 Bond Lane, who have two main issues: a freestanding guest house, and views and enjoyment of their land. He said that a variance should not be granted because a guest house could be located elsewhere on the site. Approval of the variance would impact 90 Bond Lane, as the street is wooded and open and the lots are large. The privacy issue is the distance to the house. A guest home in the forest is not appropriate. The ten foot increased setback is an improvement. Other houses have structures 100 feet away from the main house. He felt that a building ten or more feet away is not acceptable.

Ms. Richardson stated there is a structure there now and the neighbors have a garage and guest house that is not attached. All the landscaping is on the McGhies’ property. The building on 90 Bond Lane is closer to the property line than the McGhie residence.

Boardmember McLaughlin stated he has no problem with the application with the cottage in its original location. The house next door crowds the property line. There are no impacts to view or privacy. There is significant vegetation growth; he had trouble finding the story poles walking between the house and the garage. It is appropriate to remove two pines and one eucalyptus and the brush behind would be replaced with fast-growing landscaping. The guest house nestles in very well. The proposed enlargement is not significant enough to change the view on that section of the property. Regarding the variance, he felt that it is unlikely that the Town would ever expand the roadway, and there is open space behind the property. All of the screening is on the applicants’ property. If privacy is a problem down the road, more plantings could be installed.

Boardmember Stroub stated that if the house were moved back, it would impact 90 Bond Lane more. If it were moved down the hill, there are other houses nearby. It should be moved ten feet as suggested by the architect, with some of the landscaping retained.

Boardmember Beales concurred and added that moving it ten feet saves shrubbery and provides more space.

Boardmember Figour stated the property is zoned RO-1, which is supposed to be the most open zoning in the town. This application fits a structure between others, so the structures are tightly packed. The cottage could become a second unit. The relocation may have some merit.

Boardmember Collins stated the current location is appropriate. There are no impacts on privacy or views.

M/S, Beales/Figour, passed 5-0, to approve the application subject to the conditions as set forth in the Staff report, amended as reflected on plans submitted at this meeting, with the building relocated approximately ten feet further from the property line. 

The applicant is requesting Design Review for the construction of additions to an existing single-family dwelling on property located at 2105 Mar East Street. The property is currently developed with a two-story residence.

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 off the existing roof.

The applicants are requesting a variance for a reduced front yard setback of 2.5 feet, in lieu of the required setback of 15 feet; a variance for reduced right (east) side yard setback of 6 feet, in lieu of the required setback of 8 feet; and a variance for excess lot coverage for a 364 square foot increase in lot coverage to a total of 1,993 square feet (37.7%), which is in excess of the 35.0% maximum lot coverage permitted in the R-2 zone. A 171 square foot increase in floor area to a total of 2,674 square feet is also proposed , in excess of the 1,849 square foot floor area ratio (35.0%) for this property, necessitating a floor area exception.

Glenn Storek, architect, discussed the project, explaining that extensive deterioration to the un-reinforced foundation directed a major reconstruction of the house. The front façade of the house would be removed and replaced. A garage would provide off-street parking under the house. To his knowledge, all neighbors support the plans. The garage and new staircase will be refaced with new stone. A small portion of the foundation will remain. The existing basement is unfinished.

In response to questions, Senior Planner Watrous stated that the basement requirement is anything that daylights seven feet around the perimeter must be at a separate level. Staff feels the submitted plans comply with this requirement or can be easily modified to comply.

Mary Fox, stated she is the owner of 2175 Mar East Street and heard about this application for the first time only recently, as her house is rented. She asked that story poles be installed so she can learn more about the project, and added that her privacy will be impacted.

Boardmember Collins stated he cannot visualize the impact to Ms. Fox’s property and also would like to see to story poles. He likes the design and the fact that cars will be out of the front. The proposed setbacks are acceptable.

Boardmember Stroub stated he also likes the plan to restore an old house; however, applicant is asking for a lot, which leads to a very large house on a small parcel.

Boardmember Beales stated he likes the project and the setbacks. He noted that the proposed right side yard setback would be a continuation of the existing house. The front yard setback is in the nature of Mar East Street. Regarding a view from the dormer windows, he thought that foliage should block views to neighboring homes.

Boardmember Figour stated the house is nicely designed. He has problems with not knowing about the dormer. He would like to look from Ms. Fox’s home toward this project. He would give Ms. Fox the benefit of the doubt and continue this item to look at the dormer from the neighboring property.

Boardmember McLaughlin stated he likes the design. He has previously requested that story poles be erected and this is another application that would have been greatly clarified with story poles. He would recommend continuance to allow installation of story poles.

M/S, Collins/Beales, passed 5-0, to continue this item to the June 21, 2001 meeting, with the applicant to install story poles.

Changes include:

Page 9, the address should 24 Southridge Drive West.

Pages 8 and 9, show the vote on the motions.

G. ADJOURNMENT

The meeting was adjourned at 11:05 p.m.