1505 TIBURON BOULEVARD

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

D. CONSENT CALENDAR

1. 18-24 Linda Vista Avenue Hunt, Et. Al. Resolution for denial ADOPTED

E. NEW BUSINESS BEFORE THE BOARD

1. 2000 Paradise Drive Davis Rooftop HVAC/Appeal CONTINUED TO 4/18/02

2. 428 Greenwood Beach Road Gerkin Garage/Addition/Var./Floor Area Excpt. APPROVED

3. 124 Leland Way Houston/Lee New Single Family Dwelling CONTINUED TO 5/16/02

F. MINUTES OF THE 3/21/02 D.R.B. MEETING – CONTINUED TO 4/18/02

G. ADJOURNMENT – 9:15 P.M.

MINUTES #7

TIBURON DESIGN REVIEW BOARD

MEETING OF APRIL 4, 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 an appeal of 8 Tara View Drive is tentatively scheduled for the May 1, 2002 Town Council meeting. The Town Council appointed Bill Teiser to fill retiring Boardmember Stroub’s vacancy. There will be a workshop April 10^th for the Town Council, Planning Commission and Design Review Board. He thanked Boardmember Stroub for his contributions to the community through serving on the Design Review Board.

D. CONSENT CALENDAR

1. 18-24 LINDA VISTA AVENUE HUNT, ET AL, RESOLUTION OF DENIAL

At the March 21, 2002 Design Review Board meeting, the Board requested Staff to draft a resolution for denial of this project.

Boardmember Stroub noted the mass of the proposed project was not an issue, but the potential privacy impacts were deemed to be significant. The consensus of the Board was to change the text to include the privacy impacts, and to state that the exception requested was more than 50 percent above the floor area ratio, and was deemed to be grossly excessive.

2002-04, as amended.

 E. NEW BUSINESS BEFORE THE BOARD

1. 2000 PARADISE DRIVE DAVIS, ROOFTOP HVAC/APPEAL

On February 8, 2001, the Building Department issued a stop work order at 2000 Paradise Drive (Caprice Restaurant) for all unpermitted electrical, mechanical, plumbing and structure work. The property owners were informed that design review would be required for the exterior changes, including rooftop equipment installed without permits. The property owners submitted a Site Plan and Architectural Review application for the as-built installation of the rooftop HVAC equipment on August 3, 2001. Staff reviewed and conditionally approved this application. The affected neighboring property owner has appealed this decision to the Design Review Board.

Agnes Davis, appellant, discussed her concern of the growing amount of unsightly equipment installed over the years on the roof of the Caprice. She lives next to and above the restaurant. She distributed photographs of the site.

Mogens Bach, 1640 Tiburon Boulevard, representing the Caprice, asked that the roof equipment be approved. He also distributed photographs and stated that the roof openings have been there, but some equipment is new. He could screen Units A, B and C, but noted that a view of a box that would hide the units might be worse than a view of the equipment. However, he agreed that the equipment should be painted. He asked that the Staff decision be upheld, with Units A and B screened with a box as existing on the roof. He is open to a lattice screening toward the neighbor’s house.

Boardmember Beales asked why Unit A could not be rotated 180 degrees to help solve the neighbor’s concern. Mr. Bach responded that it is possible to make this rotation.

Boardmember Beales noted the grease running down Unit F is a potential fire hazard and is concerned about putting a box around it with all the grease there. Karl Peschlow, owner, Caprice Restaurant, 2000 Paradise Drive, stated Unit F is required to be cleaned twice a year. The grease runoff is a normal occurrence. The Fire Department inspected it six weeks ago.

Boardmember Collins asked for his comments regarding a lattice-screening fence. Mr. Peschlow responded that the boxes would be quite costly and he would like to install a screen along the building fronting the neighbor’s property to mitigate the view impact. The height would be negotiable. He said that he did not know he needed a permit to replace the equipment.

Boardmember Stroub noted the view impact is from Ms. Davis’ entryway and a four foot tall lattice wall on the roof to screen the side should work. The equipment cannot be screened from Ms. Davis’ second floor view without a roof covering the equipment.

Ms. Davis reiterated that the unpermitted equipment on the roof has steadily increased. She added that Tiburon’s businesses have done well economically during the recent recession months and the cost of screening should not be a concern for the Caprice.

Boardmember Figour stated the Caprice has been insensitive in its approach to the neighbor. When there is a commercial establishment next to a residential area, normally there would have been more care in siting the roof equipment. He recommended turning Unit A 180 degrees, which will provide a slot view for the neighbor. The foyer is the entrance to all the units next door; even though it is not a ceremonial room, the view is quite negatively impacted. He would not recommend a lattice across the whole length of the roof, but rather, individual shielding of each unit. The overhead fan that faces the neighborhood will always be dirty and it should be covered. It is possible to cover it and build an access door in the enclosure. All items not screened should be painted uniformly. He felt that the Caprice should not be allowed to impose this view of the equipment on its neighbor and the restaurant needs now to be held accountable.

Boardmember Beales concurred and added that the concept of a single barricade to screen the equipment would destroy the view from Ms. Davis’ foyer. He recommended rotating Unit A and added that there would be no structural or mechanical problem in doing this. Even with screening, the equipment should be painted.

Boardmember Stroub thought that a low wall across the one portion of the roof would be a cleaner approach. He believed that interval screening would increase the mass of each unit. He did not think rotating Unit A will help.

Boardmember Collins stated he feels rotating Unit A, in addition to a screen, would help to satisfy Ms. Davis’ concerns.

Chair McLaughlin stated that while the equipment is essential to the business, consideration must be given to neighboring residents. Rotating Unit A 180 degrees would pull it out of the view line and drop it behind the fence. He concurs with screening but believes individual screening would create a look like military pillboxes and would not be palatable. He would recommend using a continuous screening, perhaps with a weaving pattern. Screening should not be higher than the units because a higher screen will impact views. There should be a continuity of the paint color on the roof.

Boardmember Figour stated the applicant should be able to work with Ms. Davis to determine her desired screening.

Boardmember Beales recommended installing story poles and a tape to show where screening would be.

Boardmember Stroub reiterated he recommends a four-foot straight screen or a fence at an angle to Units F to B.

Boardmember Figour stated he disagreed and reiterated that there is a slot view from the foyer.

Mr. Peschlow reiterated his concern about the expense of improvements to the roof and stated he sees other restaurants have not been required to cover their roof equipment.

ADDITION/VARIANCE/FLOOR AREA EXCEPTION

The applicant is requesting Design Review approval for construction of a garage and accessory structure on property located at 428 Greenwood Beach Road. The property currently contains a two-story residence and a single-story garage. The applicant proposes to demolish the existing one-car garage and construct a new two-car garage, with an additional home office and bathroom to the rear of the garage. The following variances would be required: a reduced front yard setback of 3.5 feet, in lieu of the minimum required setback of 15 feet; a reduced side yard setback of three feet, in lieu of the minimum required setback of eight feet of the side property line; and excess lot coverage of 2,284 square feet (34.4 percent), in lieu of the maximum 30 percent. A floor area exception would also be required.

Marion Elliott, 1150 Filbert, San Francisco, architect, discussed the project and noted her original application did not work on the site and she has reduced the size of the project.

In response to questions, Senior Planner Watrous stated that this footprint is slightly smaller than the original design.

Boardmember Beales stated he sees no problem and the neighbors find the project acceptable.

Boardmember Stroub stated this project is what the Design Review Board wanted on the first application, and is a big improvement.

Boardmember Figour stated the project has been downscaled and variances are similar.

3. 124 LELAND WAY HOUSTON/LEE, NEW SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING

The applicant is requesting Design Review approval for the construction of a new two-story single-family dwelling on property located at 124 Leland Way. The subject property is currently developed with a one-story residence that would be demolished.

The main level of the proposed house would include a living room, dining room, kitchen, breakfast nook, den and one half-bathroom. The upper level would include a master bedroom suite, two additional bedrooms, one more bathroom, and a laundry room. A deck would extend to the rear of the master bedroom suite. A one-car garage would be constructed adjacent to the main level.

The proposed house would cover 2,174 square feet (27.2%) of the site, which is less than the 30% maximum lot coverage permitted in this zone. The floor area of the proposed house would be 2,768 square feet of living space and 270 square feet of garage space, which is less than the maximum floor area of 2,780 square feet (plus garage) permitted for a lot of this size.

Chair McLaughlin asked that comments be confined to issues regarding the application and that speakers not discuss personal issues.

Ken Berman, 101 H Street, Petaluma, architect, discussed the project.

Neal Moran, attorney representing the Schneiders on 90 Claire Way, stated the proposed two-story house is not in keeping with the neighborhood character. Other neighbors have expanded into the rear of their lots. They are concerned a two-story trend will be started in the neighborhood.

Priscilla Wanat, 86 Claire Way, stated privacy will be lost due to the second story. She has ultimate privacy in her back yard and living areas because her house faces the back of her lot.

Peter Mason, 118 Leland Way, stated the houses in this community are built for outdoor living with large patios and windows from one end of the house to the other that look out onto the patio, all at the rear of houses. The privacy of the back yards will be impacted. He said that the proposed balcony would look down on everyone on his and Ms. Carter’s side. He felt that the tall structure will blot out all his sun.

Alex Steinleitner, 91 Claire Way, stated the character of the neighborhood is changing. Regarding privacy in this neighborhood, it is in a valley surrounded by hills, and people on the hills can look down on the residents. There are many two-story homes in Tiburon where people look down onto neighbors’ property. Requiring horizontal expansions takes away from the use of the back yards.

John Duncan, 313 Karen Way, stated he supports the concept of a second story and the designs are fine. He felt that as long as an addition is within the zoning requirements, owners should be allowed to build out or up.

Marion Fitzgerald, 287 Cecilia Way, stated that while two stories are appropriate on Gilmartin Drive, they are not appropriate in Bel Aire.

Jennifer Carter, 134 Leland Way, stated she opposes the project. She felt that the house is too tall, and only twelve feet would separate the foundations of this house and her home. She is very concerned about the possibility that she would lose her sunlight. She asked that applicants look at other neighbors’ expansions and design their house accordingly. She concurs with the Staff report.

Ted London, 164 Blackfield Drive, stated he does not oppose second-story houses and there are ways to build two-story houses that look like a one-story building. It is expensive to remodel homes and would be less expensive to demolish and build. He would not want two-story houses prohibited, but opposes the proposed design.

Diane Smitz, 125 Blackfield Drive, stated she does not like demolishing houses. She felt that the homes in this neighborhood are serviceable. The proposed house is massive and would use many resources; she felt that the environmental impact of such a home is great. She said that those who live in the neighborhood do not use a lot of resources.

Cynthia Perry, 79 Claire Way, president of the Bel Aire Homeowners Association, stated that when she wanted to expand her house, her neighbors convinced her to not build up, so she built back on her lot. The homes in this neighborhood are modest. The very private large yards are the number one feature of the neighborhood and a two-story house next door to her would eliminate her privacy. Her concern is establishing a precedent of two stories in a neighborhood that should not have them.

Terrence Andrews, 317 Karen Way, stated he supports the application. He said that privacy is not a right, but a part of the property one buys. The project suits the owners’ lifestyle. Many people do not care what is built in the area.

Virginia Sullivan, 283 Cecilia Way, stated she does not like the project. Her back yard is her domain and she does not want anyone looking into her back yard.

Virginia Brunini, 267 Karen Way, stated that many people in Bel Aire do care what is built there. She said that there are two two-story homes in the neighborhood that were built before annexation into Tiburon. She believed that the character of the neighborhood should not be jeopardized by taking away sunlight and privacy. Two-thirds of the properties in the neighborhood have been expanded to varying degrees. This hearing gives a chance for the neighborhood to confirm what it wants preserved, which occurred during the writing of the current Zoning Ordinance.

Ann Allen, 87 Claire Way, stated that many neighbors oppose the project and she submitted a petition with 72 signatures opposing this project to Staff.

Jerry Thayer, 158 Blackfield Drive, stated he concurs with Staff’s recommendation that the project should not be approved as currently designed. There is language within the Zoning Ordinance that discourages second stories, but states that if they are built, there must not be substantial intrusion to the neighbors. Privacy is a major issue in their back yards. He noted that many other expansions in the vicinity have required minor variances.

Dr. Leo Martinez, 2 Claire Way, stated he does not oppose two-story houses but the front elevation of this application is not appropriate. He thought that the proposed Mediterranean design theme does not fit in this neighborhood.

Bruce Seavers, 79 Claire Way, stated that the applicant is a trailblazer. He believed that two-story homes should be discouraged in this neighborhood. If this project is approved, he felt that it would be impossible to retain the character of the neighborhood that is created by single story homes.

Mr. Berman commended the neighbors for coming out to this public hearing. He stated that his job is to abide by the Zoning codes and ordinances and meet his clients’ needs. Regarding privacy, there was effort to setting the second story back from the side property lines. He stated that Mr. Mason’s sunlight would not be affected by the building’s height because of the sun orientation. He said that the large buildings on the hillside above this subdivision are part of the context of the neighborhood. He likes to see different styles in a neighborhood. He noted that the Zoning Ordinance has a 30-foot height limit and said that the lot coverage allowed requires building up. By building up, privacy is lost, but the use of the lot is maintained.

Boardmember Stroub stated that the architect has complied with the basic zoning regulations, but the design of the house is inappropriate. The height, size and bulk of the house do not fit into the neighborhood. Loss of privacy is an issue and should be considered. He is not against second story construction, if done properly. This house is almost 2.5 stories high, and he cannot support the design as it stands.

Boardmember Collins stated that he has concerns with the mass, bulk, size, height, privacy and sunlight of the proposed house. The design includes what looks like a 29 foot, 7 inch tall bell tower. The design does not minimize intrusion into the neighborhood. He commended the architect’s attitude for hearing the neighbors’ concerns, but he cannot support this design.

Boardmember Figour stated it is admirable that many residents have come to this meeting to voice issues that concern them. If this type of building were built, neighbors’ property values would be increased, and it is commendable that neighbors put their property values second to their concerns for privacy. He believed that two story homes will come eventually to the neighborhood, but will be lower and set back on the site; privacy issues will have to be addressed for each application. The neighborhood is in transition. Other remodels and expansions have added floor area in unobtrusive ways. He thought that the proposed house is too much for this lot, and it is too soon for this neighborhood. The building is attractive, with nice floor plans, but is wrong for the lot and wrong for the neighborhood.

Boardmember Beales concurred, and noted the other homes in the neighborhood that have two stories are modest, with second story portions set to the rear. The proposed house has all three bedrooms on the second floor with large spaces on the ground floor. He recommended extending back onto the lot, putting some bedrooms on the first floor and pushing the second story to the rear. This could create privacy issues but there would be less of a wall to the neighbors. He said that the current design needs major work.

Chair McLaughlin stated he categorically opposes this particular application. This is a unique neighborhood. The design of the homes is unique, with patio homes where living occurs, to the rear as well as ceremonial areas to the back. He concurs that second stories are coming to the neighborhood because new, larger families are moving in. Second stories can be built correctly, by pulling upper floor elements away from the sides and to the rear. He recommended the architect visit 31 Mercury where second-story elements were pulled back. The storage area at the top of the building adds height. He noted the Design Review Board has granted variances for excess lot coverage to help designs in this neighborhood. He asked if applicant would like the Design Review Board to vote on the project or request a continuance.

Mr. Berman asked for input from the Board.

Boardmember Beales stated that lot coverage variances and rear yard setback variances are often alternatives to building vertically. The architect should not be deterred by asking for a variance, if he has a good design.

Boardmember Figour added the current design would radically change the scale of the streetscape. To fit a two story home in this neighborhood, one could reduce the scale, perhaps lower the house, perhaps pull it back, and use fenestration to reach the goal.

Boardmember Beales noted second-story homes are typically on the perimeter of developments. He suggested Mr. Berman look at the Belveron neighborhood.

Boardmember Stroub noted privacy must be strongly considered because the lots in this neighborhood are small and close together.

Chair McLaughlin reiterated that the home at 31 Mercury Avenue is larger than this proposal but reads smaller visually.

Boardmember Collins recommended the architect meet with neighbors to discuss his project. Chair McLaughlin also emphasized the importance of meeting with neighbors and noted the neighborhood is very cohesive. It appears the neighbors welcome the opportunity to work with the architect.

M/S, Stroub/Beales, passed 5-0, to continue this item to May 16, 2002.

The minutes were continued to the next meeting.

G. ADJOURNMENT

The meeting was adjourned at 9:15 p.m.