TIBURON DESIGN REVIEW BOARD

MEETING OF FEBRUARY 7, 2002

A. ROLL CALL

Present: Boardmembers Beales, Collins, Figour and Stroub

Absent: Chair McLaughlin

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 the continuance of 1765 Vistazo West Street to the March 7th meeting.

D. OLD BUSINESS BEFORE THE BOARD

2. 2120 MAR EAST STREET HANSEN, DUPLEX/VARIANCES/FLOOR AREA EXCEPTION

The applicant is requesting Design Review approval for the construction of a new two-story two-family dwelling on property located at 2120 Mar East Street. The proposed construction would extend to the front property line and exceed the maximum lot coverage for the site, necessitating two variance requests. The size of the proposed duplex would also exceed the maximum floor area ratio for this property, with a floor area exception also requested.

The application was first reviewed at the December 20, 2001 Design Review Board meeting. At that time, the Board received testimony from several neighboring property owners regarding potential view blockage and visual mass and bulk impacts associated with the proposed structures. The Board echoed many of these concerns, finding that the proposed structure was too large in comparison with other homes in the vicinity, and that its design would significantly impact views from several nearby homes. The Board continued the request to the February 7, 2002 meeting and gave direction to the applicants to significantly reduce the floor area and building height of the proposed structure in order to reduce the mass and bulk and view impacts on neighboring residences.

Vice-Chair Stroub asked that applicant address only changes made to the project since the last meeting..

Fani Hansen, architect and owner, discussed the project and distributed samples of the proposed building materials.

Boardmember Beales stated he assumes the front hedge will survive but asked Ms. Hansen if she would replace the hedge if it were destroyed. Ms. Hansen responded she would replace the hedge, and added, she did not submit a landscape plan because all landscaping is intended to remain.

Vice-Chair Stroub noted the space underneath the open space areas has not been counted as floor space and asked if the space could be utilized. Ms. Hansen responded she cannot go below an eleven foot elevation because otherwise the building would be damaged by wave action.

Jerome Denz, 2130 Mar East Street, stated five families wrote a letter regarding views. He read the letter, which stated there has not been enough reduction of the height and mass of the house. He said that the residents at 2130 Mar East Street will lose light. The residents at 2101 and 2105 Mar East Street are not satisfied with the modifications, as their views would still be impacted. He felt that the rights of neighbors should be honored. He said that a zero setback for the garage should not be approved, and reflective building materials should not be allowed. The dock, catwalk and platform remain close to his property and impact his view. He stated that his floor level is less than eight feet above the dock level, not thirteen feet as stated by applicant. He felt that anything on the dock will cause view impacts, and that launching the boat will cause disturbance and intrusion of his privacy. He said that the upper roof panel would be seen by the uphill neighbors and the lower two roof levels would be seen by him. The new bathroom windows on the east side can be seen from his guest and dining room windows and would create a privacy issue. He submitted photographs that compared the proposed siding material to that of a shipping container. He suggested that the applicant perhaps take off one level, move the dock out of his view, and restore his privacy. He also would move the house back on the lot, remove the translucent panels, and use conventional siding.

Janet Freeburg, 2105 Mar East Street, stated her concerns are privacy and view impacts. The front of the building would be mostly glass and she does not want to see into the new homes. The hedge and trees may screen the view from the street level but from her view up the hill, she can see directly into the rooms from her front porch and living and dining rooms. One existing tree in front of the bathrooms will not have leaves in the winter; hence, a view into the bathrooms will be inescapable for four to five months. She was also concerned that trees may die because of construction. She opposes a zero setback variance to build a garage next to the street, as the wall of the garage will be clearly visible. The deck on Ms. Hansen’s garage will look into her living room. Contrary to Ms. Hansen’s statement, she does open her living room blinds. She was concerned that light will come out of the translucent panels at night and disturb her night view. Also, glare and heat will be given off by the panels. Because of its mass and height, she believed that the house would not be compatible with the Old Tiburon neighborhood. She asked what landscaping is planned if the trees die. She asked that the mulberry tree on the west be cut down to restore her view. The proposed house is too tall. The structure, with so many windows and decks facing Raccoon Straits, will cut off her main views while the new homes would have views from bathrooms and bedrooms.

Sandra L’Heureux, 2108 & 2110 Mar East Street, stated she had flattened the roof of her garage roof so the story poles shown in pictures of her property are deceiving. She said that the applicant’s trees are taller than her structure, and the trees are messy and may fall on her building. She asked that these trees be removed. She stated that the proposed pier would be longer than hers.

Bob Placak, 10 Tower Point, stated he looks down on applicant’s property, and he felt that the design would add creativity to the neighborhood.

Rick Jones, 2129 Paradise Drive, who lives uphill and across the street, stated there are many skylights in the neighborhood that are bright and this duplex would have a large area of translucent roof panels. He agreed that all homes in Old Tiburon should not look the same; however, he felt that the proposed corrugated metal siding does not work in the neighborhood. The siding makes too much of a statement and would be too dramatic.

Tom Young, 2060 Centro East Street, stated that a property owner should be able to do what he wants to do under the eye of Planning staff and neighbors. The Design Review Board must review applications with fairness and balance. He noted that the applicant had responded to complaints and comments by Staff, and he counted 31 differences between applicant and staff in understanding the "facts". He felt that if the applicant is in error, she should have been turned around and told to fix or change what was in error. But if applicant is right, he felt the Staff should be ashamed.

Maxine Coplin, 2044 Paradise Drive, stated the neighborhood is tightly developed and she supports the proposed design.

Sam Haddad stated that Ms. Coplin’s house looks at the east bay and has only one window that looks at the project. He felt that Mr. Young does not live close enough to be affected by the mass and height of the proposed building. He said that the applicant was standing when she photographed the view of her site from his house; however, he sits in his house most of the time. His concern is the massiveness of the building. He thought that the siding material belongs to an industrial building, not on a home in a nice neighborhood in Tiburon.

Carol McCarron, 2150 Paradise Drive, stated the translucent panels would have an adverse effect on her night views from her living and dining rooms. She also felt that the siding material should not be used in a residential neighborhood.

Marjorie Nevers, 2308 Mar East Street, felt that people should be able to build something splendid and supported the proposed design.

Lawrence Livingston, 2309 Mar East Street, stated that the applicant is in a difficult position because her site is the last developable property in the vicinity. He thought that if the applicant is required to address all of the objections, the project would be pared down, and perhaps would be financially unfeasible. He said that a compromise is required. The Design Review Board should find a balance between the neighbors and the owner; otherwise, the situation is unfair. He thought that those who built first would never be permitted to build today.

Ms. Hansen stated that Ms. L’Heureux had previously said that she had no problem with the proposed design. She does not understand how the Freeburgs can oppose her request for a variance when they and the L’Heureuxs’ have also received variances. She did not believe that the proposed dock would not take away privacy from the residents at 2130 Mar East Street; rather, she felt that their deck is taking away her privacy. She moved the building ten feet back to give neighbors a view of the garden. She stated there are many variances in the area, she felt that she has accommodated the neighbors’ concerns, and asked that her project be approved.

Boardmember Beales stated the applicant has made progress. Although there were some view impacts on the neighbors, he felt that the impacts had been mitigated. If such a large floor exception were not requested, he would approve the project with minor design changes. His concern is the size. He noted that the Town’s floor area ratio is a proxy for mass. The volume of the proposed open interior spaces creates more mass, and the building is more massive than its floor area would suggest. He felt that the lot coverage and front setback are appropriate. The glass in the building facing the street would create nighttime light pollution, and he thought the glass area should be reduced. The translucent panels on the roof may also create light pollution and this large flat roof would create a substantial glow. He felt that a deck on the garage and the balconies on the street side of the building are superfluous. He noted that the approved plans for the duplex at 2108 & 2100 Mar East Street contains two units with one floor each. He believed that the applicant could easily design a two or three story project. He reiterated that he has a serious problem with the size of the duplex.

Boardmember Collins stated he concurred, and added that the dock could be relocated elsewhere on the site. There is a privacy concern with the dock’s location, with people on the dock and boats near the Denzs’ bedroom and ceremonial rooms. He likes the design; however, the mass is excessive. He personally favors the building design and materials could be acceptable, but this building should not be in this neighborhood. He felt that the building height is also an issue. The building could be lower, which would allow the applicant to have an appropriate home and also satisfy the neighbors’ concerns.

Boardmember Figour said that he knows this area well, and the building design is not out of character with the neighborhood. He noted that there are other four and five story buildings along this coastline. He said that the L’ Heureuxs’ had indicated that they were aware of the proposed project during the review of their duplex, and that they had no problem with the proposed design. He noted that the property owners at 2101 and 2105 Mar East Street have recently received variances, and the house at 2130 Mar East Street is on the side property line. He said that it is difficult and emotional to see something being built on a lot that has been empty for a long time. The foreground views of the neighbors are cut off; however, perhaps these have just been borrowed views. He thought that the dock could be moved over so the platform is in front of the dining area. He visited a home in San Anselmo with similar translucent roof panels; while the panels are muted, there is a glow that is disconcerting. He felt that the vertical steel panels made for a slightly unusual design. He thought that the building is not as bulky and massive as is being perceived. He felt that there is more work to be done on this project, but believes a solution can be reached.

Vice-Chair Stroub stated he was a little disappointed about not seeing more of a change to the project. The applicant has tried to make changes but they are not enough. The Board must balance the rights of property owners but this project would be at the expense of some of the neighbors. He still has an issue with the view impacts, particularly from 2101 & 2105 Mar East Street and 115 Solano Street. The front yard variances and lot coverage are acceptable, though a little excessive. He cannot make the last two findings for variances. He thought that the duplex needs a pretty serious redesign. He would remove the top floor and move the dock over a bit. He felt that the translucent panels are beautiful, but would cause light pollution.

Ms. Hansen asked why the there were objections to the bulk of the building, since from Mar East Street, one cannot see her building and there other buildings of similar bulk in the area. Boardmember Beales responded that each project is reviewed separately and there is no entitlement to a floor area exception.

Vice-Chair Stroub asked Ms. Hansen if she would like a continuance or a vote on application. Ms. Hansen stated she would prefer a vote on the project rather than a continuance.

3. 705 HILARY DRIVE PARK, TREE PERMIT APPEAL

On October 1, 2001, an application for a tree was filed for after-the-fact approval of the panting of three Deodar Cedar trees and one Coast Redwood tree on property located at 705 Hilary Drive. On October 30, 2001, Staff denied this permit. This decision has now been appealed to the Design Review Board.

Byron Park, owner and appellant, stated that the Redwood tree has been returned to a container and he will give it away. He would be willing to sign a contract that the trees will be trimmed to a maximum height of 15 or 25 feet, to not impact neighbors’ views. He stated that he was hoping to create a forest ambience on his property.

Louie Brunn, arborist, stated the height of Deodar Cedars can be controlled. He distributed photographs and stated that pruning the trees every two years will maintain the fifteen- to 20-foot height.

Boardmember Beales asked, since privacy was the issue raised by the written appeal rather than creating a forest ambience, if a hedge would be more suitable. Mr. Brunn responded that when the trees are trimmed, the limbs will fill out the lower area and create both privacy and a forest ambiance.

Mr. Park added that the Cedars fit in with the existing Conifer trees. He offered to record a deed restriction or put up a bond to assure the neighbors that the trees would not block views, but he has not received a response from the neighbors to this proposal. He stated that the Cedar trees have also been placed in containers; he would like permission to plant them.

Bonnie Austin, 715 Hilary Drive, provided a character reference for Mr. Park and assured the Board that the Parks will do what they say. She felt that the trees give a stateliness to the property.

Noel Isaac, 20 Delmar Drive, stated he offered to pay for removal of several Eucalyptus trees that were believed to be on the Parks’ property. Even if a bond were put in place, there could be continuing problems, because the trees would have to be monitored to ensure they are trimmed. There are other trees that could meet the Parks’ needs. He objected to trees that would grow higher than the rooftop, when privacy has been assured, because views can be blocked by the tall trees. His issue is not with planting in general, but rather with the undesired species.

Abraham Valentino, 30 Delmar Drive, stated that the Parks’ tall trees would impact his views, which he does not want to happen.

Deborah Diaz, 95 Rock Hill Drive, stated that trees should not be planted that would impact the neighbors.

Jeanne Park, owner and appellant, stated the person who last lived in the Diaz’ home asked if some trees could be trimmed, which was done, and then that person put her house up for sale. Also, Ms. Park told Mr. Isaac that the Eucalyptus trees were not hers, and that he could pay to trim the trees. She feels Mr. Valentino’s house is so large that it overpowers everyone else in the neighborhood.

Boardmember Collins stated that he is concerned with setting precedents regarding tree maintenance agreements. Such agreements often require lawsuits to enforce, and the Town should not be involved in this enforcement. He noted that the neighbors do not want to sign an agreement anyway. There are other trees that will serve the Parks’ purposes.

Boardmember Figour stated that views are important, and undesirable trees cause problems. He felt that approving these trees would be a disservice to future residents. He could not support the appeal.

Boardmember Beales concurred. He added that screening can be completed with other trees, and it is unrealistic to try to expect a forest look on the property.

Vice-Chair Stroub stated that if Mr. Park could reach an agreement with his neighbors, without involvement of the Town, the tree might be acceptable. There should be another type of tree that Mr. Park would like. He noted that the Board is bound by the Tree Ordinance.

4. 141 TAYLOR ROAD ENGEL, NEW DWELLING/PRELIMINARY REVIEW

The applicant is requesting Design Review approval for the construction of a new single-family dwelling on property located at 141 Taylor Road. A Site Plan and Architectural Review application to construct a dwelling on this lot was reviewed by the Design Review Board at the July 19, 2001 meeting. At that time, the Board determined that the design of the proposed house was too massive and did not appropriately utilize the approved building envelope for this property. The applicants indicated a reluctance to redesign the proposed residence, and requested action by the Board; the application was then unanimously denied by the Board. The applicants subsequently appealed the Board’s decision to the Town Council. At the September 10, 2001 meeting, the Council unanimously voted to remand the application back to the Design Review Board, with the stated goal of designing the house to mitigate the impacts previously stated by the Design Review Board and Planning Commission, and to grant the applicants the latitude to go back to the Planning Commission to amend the building envelope, if so desired.

The applicants have now submitted revised plans for the proposed house on the site. However, the proposed house would be located outside the approved building envelope for this property, and cannot be approved without first obtaining Planning Commission approval of an amendment to the parcel map for this subdivision. The applicants are aware of this fact, but have requested a preliminary review of the revised plans by the Design Review Board before requesting the parcel map amendment. If the Board indicates support of the revised plans, the applicant will then apply to amend the building envelope. The final building design would be reviewed by the Board once the envelope has been amended.

Mohamad Sadrieh, architect, discussed the project and noted the building was pulled back into the hillside at the same building height and the floor area was reduced by 465 square feet. There is more stepping between the levels and more separation between this house and the neighbor’s. No part of the second floor sits on the first floor except the stairs. He had asked the adjacent neighbor, Mr. Walter, if he had any recommendations as to screening and Mr. Walter responded that he would accept the Board’s decision. Mr. Sadrieh said that he would landscape the site to Mr. Walter’s desires.

Bob Thull, 210 Taylor Road, stated the Engels have gone to great lengths to accommodate the Design Review Board to make the house suitable to the neighborhood. He felt that this is a good design and he supports the project.

Jeff Walter, 131 Taylor Road, stated that the impacts to him stem from the fact that there are now two new homes where there were none. He would hope the applicant will consider the neighbors below and that any potential impacts would be minimized.

Joel Levine, 201 Taylor Road, chair of the Architecture Review Committee of the Ring Mountain Homeowners Association, stated that he and the committee feel the home is consistent with others in the neighborhood.

Boardmember Figour stated that the property was saddled by a poor building envelope, and the applicant has made tremendous changes. The house follows the guidelines and is as well hidden as a house this size could be.

Boardmember Beales agreed, and supported the request for a building envelope amendment.

Boardmember Collins said that the applicant needs to consider additional landscaper screening. He felt that the applicant had done a very good job, and noted that the bulk of the house had been pushed back on the site. He supports the request.

Boardmember Figour asked if the large tree close to the story poles will be saved. Mr. Engel responded that the giant oak will have to be trimmed but he hopes to save it.

Vice-Chair Stroub said that he would encourage the Planning Commission to approve the building envelope change. He said that the house nestles nicely into the hillside, and that this would be a much more attractive house than first presented.

The minutes were continued to the next meeting.

G. ADJOURNMENT   The meeting was adjourned at 9:50 p.m.