MINUTES #4

TIBURON DESIGN REVIEW BOARD

MEETING OF FEBRUARY 21, 2002

A. ROLL CALL

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

Absent: None

Ex-Officio: Senior Planner Watrous, Associate Planner Lynch and Minutes Clerk Flanagan

B. PUBLIC COMMENTS:

No one spoke during this time.

C. DISCUSSION AND STAFF BRIEFING

Senior Planner Watrous noted Boardmember Stroub has submitted his resignation from the Board, and thanked him for his years of service to the Town.

D. CONSENT CALENDAR

Consent Calendar Item 1 was removed at the request of the applicant.

2. 705 HILARY DRIVE PARK, RESOLUTION OF DENIAL

On February 7, 2002, the Design Review Board considered an appeal of a denied application for a tree permit for after-the-fact approval of the planting of three Deodar cedar trees and one Coast redwood tree on property located at 705 Hilary Drive. After considering the application and considering public testimony, the Board directed Staff to prepare a resolution denying this request.

3. 26 MAIN STREET ZELINSKY, SIGN PERMIT

The applicant is proposing to install two wall signs for the purpose of advertising the business located at 26 Main Street. The material of the signs is proposed to be premium vinyl and to be adhered to the inside of the storefront windows. The signs are to be comprised of white letters on a black background with a white border on the top and bottom. The sign copy would read "Catherine Finn Gallery." There is no illumination associated with the proposed signs.

1. 2120 MAR EAST STREET HANSEN, NEW DUPLEX/VARIANCES/FLOOR AREA EXCEPTION

On February 7, 2002, the Design Review Board considered a request for Design Review approval for the construction of a new two-story two-family dwelling on property located at 2120 Mar East Street, with variances for reduced front yard setback and excess lot coverage, and a floor area exception. After considering the application and considering public testimony regarding this request, the Board directed Staff to prepare a resolution denying this request.

Fani Hansen asked if Boardmembers had received her February 19th letter to Senior Planner Watrous. The Board indicated that they had just received the letter and had not had the opportunity to read this letter.

The applicant is requesting Design Review approval for the as-built construction of solar panels adjacent to an existing single-family dwelling located at 16 Via Paraiso East. Two racks each containing seven solar panels have been installed on the ground surface on the western portion of the property. This application was first reviewed at the December 6, 2001 Design Review Board meeting. At that time, concerns were raised by the Board regarding the location of the solar panels outside the building envelope established for this property by the Del Madera Precise Plan, and the need to screen the panels from view from properties below the site. The Board continued the request to the February 21, 2002 meeting to allow the applicant time to evaluate other potential locations for the solar panels within the building envelope and to explore screening options.

The applicant has submitted revised plans indicating a potential location for the solar panels to the north of the existing panel site. The revised location would be sited within the approved building envelope for this property.

Michael Heckmann, architect, discussed the project, noting he will incorporate landscaping downslope and to the edges of the panels to provide screening. In response to questions, he stated that installation of lattice screening is not proposed as part of this installation. The Myoporum shrubs can grow to six to eight feet in height. He said that there will be a drip irrigation system and the shrubs will grow quickly.

Boardmember Figour stated he opposes the ground-mounted solar panels that are obliterating what is left of Tiburon’s hillsides. If solar panels are installed, with or without landscaping, he did not think that the general public should have to look at them; rather, the owner of each property should bear the brunt of the solar panels’ appearance. He believed that the panels can be integrated into the area immediately around the residence. He said that it would be a bad precedent to approve these panels.

Boardmember Beales noted that solar panels were approved as part of the original plans for the house on this site in 1990. The issue now before the Board is to minimize the impact of siting the panels. He said that if this were a new application, he would oppose it.

Boardmember Stroub said that the solar panels would be screened and relatively hidden by landscaping. He noted that other solar panels nearby had been similarly concealed over time. He would approve this application as revised.

Boardmember Collins said that in general, solar panels have visually polluted the hillsides in the past. He also noted that the panels were previously approved on this site. He felt that the applicant had done a good job of providing screening, and this was an improvement from the last hearing.

Chair McLaughlin stated that the Town needs a broader policy toward such applications. He concurred that solar panels should affect the owner, not other residents. However, this is a unique situation with a previously approved application.

Senior Planner Watrous noted that the Planning Commission has expressed interest in a joint workshop with the Design Review Board regarding solar panels, and a meeting is being planned for this spring.

The applicant is requesting Design Review approval for the renovation and additions to an existing single-family dwelling located at 60 Mt. Tiburon Road. The proposal would add 735 square feet of additions to the house and remodel portions of the exterior of the house. A new dining room would be added between the residence and the adjacent garage, connecting the two structures. A bedroom and bathroom would be added to the rear portion of the house. Several new windows would be added to two sides of one garage and to the existing kitchen. Three new skylights are also proposed to be installed. A new 6 foot tall wooden fence is proposed to be constructed along the right side (west) and rear property lines.

Mark Becker, designer, discussed the project.

Steven Gold, 50 Mt Tiburon Road, asked that the applicant be required to submit a survey for the fence in order to insure that the fence is constructed along the property line as proposed. He asked that the front and back of the fence look alike, since the fence will be close to his house.

Senior Planner Watrous agreed it would be appropriate to require a survey as a condition of approval.

Boardmember Stroub stated the fence is a low impact on the neighborhood, no variances are requested and there are no view impacts. He would concur that a survey be required and the finish of the fence be the same on both sides.

Chair McLaughlin asked Staff if the Building Department requires a survey with fence applications or with minimized setback applications. Senior Planner Watrous concurred that the Town’s building official has requested that the Board require surveys as a standard condition of approval for such projects.

Boardmember Collins stated the fence causes no impact on anyone and tucks nicely into the property.

Boardmember Beales indicated that he has no problem with the application.

Boardmember Figour concurred and noted the drawing on elevation A2 shows the exterior appearance of the fence, and the Board could require that the fence as shown face the neighboring property.

The applicant is requesting Design Review approval to remodel the residence located at 40 Rowley Circle. The proposed additions would include a fourth bedroom, an expansion to the master bedroom and kitchen, and a new entryway. The addition would increase the floor area of the house by 491 square feet to 2,795 square feet. Five new skylights and a new fence are also proposed, and the exterior siding of the house would be changed from wood to stucco.

One of the proposed additions would extend to within 11 feet of the front property line. As a 15 foot front yard setback is required, a variance is requested for reduced front yard setback.

Michael Heckmann, architect, discussed the project, adding the owners have had communications with their neighbors, and have submitted signatures from several neighbors approving of the project. He requested that the design of the fence as shown on Detail drawing 3 be approved.

Boardmember Beales asked if consideration had been given to moving the guestroom back, to avoid the front setback variance. Mr. Heckmann replied that that had been considered, but if the room were pushed to the back, the long plane of the rear of the house would be increased. The room would also loom over the rear garden area, which is to be used as an entertainment area near the pool level. Boardmember Beales noted that this suggestion would require moving the stairs off the deck but would not impact the rear deck, and would obviate the need for a variance.

In response to questions, Mr. Heckmann stated the depth of the depth of the garage is 21’6", the same size as the current garage. Skylights in the garage are intended to add light to the garage and he said that no uphill neighbors would be impacted. The overhang at the front door is three feet wide and is six feet from the front door to the roof edge.

Boardmember Collins suggested moving the addition back and extending the deck, and added, with the fence, there is additional private space in the rear of the house. Mr. Heckmann responded this would impact some trees in the rear yard.

Boardmember Beales stated the fence design is acceptable as long as the 6 foot height limit is followed. He feels there would be no difficulty in moving the proposed addition back, and therefore there is no hardship that would justify the requested variance.

Boardmember Figour stated the design enhances the building. He felt that the fence goes against the pattern of that stretch of Rowley Circle; however, if this were a concern, there would be neighborhood comment, but the neighbors do not seem to object. He had some difficulty with making the required variance findings, but may be swayed by the neighbors’ acceptance.

Boardmember Stroub stated the addition will be nice looking; however, his concern is the proximity of the garage overhang to the street, although the overhang would be lower than the street. If the garage can be pulled back, it would help the design. The fence is acceptable as long as it meets the height requirement. The neighbors’ approval is important.

Boardmember Collins stated the fence at the sidewalk and the garage pushed into the setback brings everything closer to the street. He finds it hard to make the variance findings when there is an alternative design to move the garage toward the rear of the property.

Chair McLaughlin stated he also has problems making the findings; on the other hand, neighbors have agreed to the project. He would prefer losing some of the overhang of the garage but it affects the architecture and does not solve the setback issue. Moving it back would eliminate some trees. The project works with the neighborhood and he would like to approve it. The fence is acceptable as long as it meets the height requirement.

Mr. Heckmann suggested the garage could be reduced one foot in depth. He added, the overhang is consistent around the house; however, with the roof gables, there could be flexibility. He could reduce the overhang by one foot where there are gables.

Chair McLaughlin asked Mr. Heckmann if he would like this item continued and suggested Mr. Heckmann must be prepared to convince the Board that findings can be made for the variance to be approved.

Sam Coffey, owner of the property, stated that pushing the house to the rear would put the deck closer to the pool, which would provide the opportunity for children to jump into the pool. He felt that this older neighborhood needs help; many neighbors are enthusiastic about upgrading their homes and younger families look forward to changes.

Chair McLaughlin concurred that neighborhood changes would almost certainly occur in the future; however, the design is not the problem, rather the problem is the variance request.

Boardmember Beales noted the Board is suggesting one end of the house be moved back on the lot and that end is not near the pool.

Mr. Heckmann stated he could reduce the depth of the garage eighteen inches and move the rear wall behind the guest room, bedroom and bathroom, 30 inches. This would make the garage comply with the front yard setback, and eliminate the need for the variance.

The applicant is requesting Design Review approval to construct a pool, spa and accessory structure on property located at 8 Tara View Road. The 380 square foot accessory structure would be located adjacent to the proposed pool on the southwest corner of the property. The spa would be situated closer to the house.

The proposed construction would increase the lot coverage on the site to 18%, which is greater than the 15% maximum lot coverage permitted for this property. A variance is therefore requested for excess lot coverage.

Kathy Hallam, owner, discussed the project.

Boardmember Collins asked Ms. Hallam if she had considered locating the cabana and pool to the east. Ms. Hallam responded that this was considered, but she thought locating them to the east would impact the neighbors.

Michael Heckmann, architect, stated he will enclose the pool equipment to muffle noise and an engineer will ensure that site drainage is adequate. The landscaping will be preserved.

Bob Cornman, 150 Round Hill Road, distributed photographs of the site and his property, and said that the requested variance for an eighteen percent lot coverage is not modest. He noted that the applicant must demonstrate special circumstances for a variance to be approved, and he felt that this finding cannot be made. The previously-approved variance and this variance would increase the lot coverage on the site to 20 percent larger than allowed. He said that in order to receive their first variance approved, the applicants had said they would not build a second story to their house. He objects to the proposed hardship finding because the applicants want to locate the pool far away from the house when it could be located near the house; hence, any hardship is created by the applicants. He felt that the design of the cabana will encourage parties, which will generate noise and lack of privacy. He noted that the cabana, with its overhang, is 2.5 feet away from his fence, minimizing any separation from neighbors. He asked that a survey be completed to determine the property lines. He asked that the pool be situated as close as practical to the house, which would reduce noise and remove the need for a cabana.

Reza Khakbaz, 6 Tara View Road, stated he was never contacted by the applicants about this project. He found the story poles to be difficult to understand. The neighbor’s property drains onto his property and he asked that applicant install a sump pump three years ago when they requested approval of an addition. He concurred with their request, but his request for a sump pump was ignored by them.

Erik Carlsson, 120 Round Hill Road, stated he concurred with Mr. Cornman’s concerns, and felt that it is too easy to request a variance. He stated that the Board should require people to communicate with their neighbors.

Boardmember Beales noted in some areas of Tiburon where there are smaller lots, lot coverage variances are approved to allow additional living area. However, this is not a substandard lot, and the cabana would not provide more living space. He said that he would have a problem approving any additional on the property.

Boardmember Figour stated that neighbors have expectations that variances for excess lot coverage are difficult to substantiate. The pool is a potential noise source, and the burden of noise impacts should fall onto the owners of the property. He felt that the applicants have a lot of work to do with their neighbors.

Boardmember Stroub stated he could not make the required finding that the project would not impact properties in the vicinity. He could approve the variance if the pool and cabana were not so close to the neighbors. He felt that the applicants were reaping enjoyment at their neighbors’ expense.

Boardmember Collins stated he cannot make any of the findings needed for the variance. The pool and the cabana could be moved and/or the cabana could be combined with the house. He felt that there were other design options available.

Chair McLaughlin said that he did not want to tell people how to live on their property. He could not make the fourth finding because of the potential noise and privacy impacts the pool and cabana would have on the neighbors.

M/S, Stroub/Beales, passed 5-0, to continue this item to March 21, 2002.

Changes include:

Page 2, 3^rd paragraph, second sentence to state, "He will oppose any solar panels if they can be seen from offsite."

M/S, Beales/Figour, passed 3-0-1 (Collins abstained), to approve the Minutes of 1/17/02 as amended.

Changes include:

Page 4, 4th sentence to read, "He personally favored the building design and materials but the building should not be in this neighborhood with that design."

Page 4, 3^rd paragraph, 2^nd line, delete the word "but." On the 13^th line, add the word "design" after "easily."

Page 5, first paragraph, 8^th line, delete "other than the garage." At the end of the last sentence, add "but believes a solution can be reached."

Senior Planner Watrous noted Ms. Hansen had submitted comments on the draft minutes in her letter of February 19^th. He characterized most of her comments as either attempts to editorialize or disagreements by her with what people said at the meeting, rather than disagreements with the accuracy of the minutes. He stands by the original language. Boardmember Beales noted that the Boardmembers were at the meeting, and if they felt the minutes accurately reflected what happened at the meeting, the Board should approve them.

I. ADJOURNMENT

The meeting was adjourned at 9:00 pm.