K. ADJOURNMENT – 8:45 P.M.

MINUTES #8

TIBURON DESIGN REVIEW BOARD

MEETING OF APRIL 18, 2002

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

Absent: None

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

Clerk Flanagan

Senior Planner Watrous presented the oath of Office to incoming Boardmember William Teiser.

C.    PUBLIC COMMENTS   There were none

Senior Planner Watrous reported that Item 3, 146 Rock Hill Drive has been withdrawn. Item 9, 21 Gilmartin Drive was continued to the May 16^th meeting. The 2120 Mar East Street appeal will be heard by Council on May 1, and the 8 Tara View Road and 1870 Vistazo West Street appeals on May 15.

The applicant is proposing to install one freestanding sign for the purpose of advertising the business located at 116 Main Street. The material of the sign is proposed to be wood, and the sign would be suspended over a portion of the sidewalk from a wood post. The sign would be comprised of red and black letters on an off-white background. The sign copy would read "Anna’s-Wake Forest, San Francisco." An exterior spotlight is proposed for sign illumination to approximately match the spotlight on the "Café Liaison" sign.

Boardmember Beales stated the Café Liaison sign is not identical to the proposed sign. It does not hang out over the sidewalk and the Café Liaison sign is six square feet while applicant’s sign would project over the sidewalk and is close to ten square feet.

Boardmember Figour recommended moving the sign back.

Boardmember Teiser stated, if this sign were allowed, others may want to increase the size of their signs, particularly the business next door, whose sign would almost be obliterated with this sign.

Boardmember McLaughlin stated he concurs with the problem of the sign hanging over the sidewalk. He felt that the applicant’s sign should be the same size as that of Café Liaison, and should hang over the property instead of the sidewalk.

2. 9 MAIN STREET SERVINO, SIGN PERMIT

The applicant is requesting modifications to a previously-approved sign permit for the commercial property located at 9 Main Street. The proposal includes a change in colors of the existing awnings and the additional signs on the rear deck of the property. The original sign permit was approved in March 22, 1999.

Kathryn Servino, applicant, stated her request is different from that originally approved in that she would like the awning only on the water side, not the two sides of the building. She also wants to change its color to brown and golden with stripes, the same as that existing. The signage on the awning will be the same.

Boardmember Figour stated this is a fairly big exception as to the amount of signage because the building has three viewable sides. However, the signage has been in good taste and he supports the request.

Boardmember Beales noted there are some signs that were approved but not erected and this new application supersedes the old application; hence, those signs not previously erected are not part of the application, which reduces the square footage from 55 to 40. This is a smaller exception than previously approved.

Senior Planner Watrous again noted that this application has been withdrawn, and that the parties involved will attempt to come to an agreement regarding the decks. Staff has indicated that fees would be waived when the applicants reapply for this project.

On April 4, 2002, the Design Review Board reviewed the appeal of a Staff level decision to approve the as-built installation of rooftop HVAC equipment on the property located at 2000 Paradise Drive. The Board heard public testimony and directed the applicant to resolve the design of the screening materials for the HVAC equipment. The applicant has subsequently submitted a revised roof plan and detail for the screening materials.

Associate Planner Lynch noted that the appellant has submitted a letter in lieu of her appearance at this meeting.

Mogens Bach, representing the Caprice Restaurant, stated that turning Unit A is acceptable and the L-shaped screening also is acceptable. He said that Unit B on the ridge is more visible from Paradise Drive, but he would move the Unit if required. His proposal had a four-foot screen on Unit B and he would not like a longer screen if he were a tenant next door.

Boardmember McLaughlin asked if the Unit B was already there. Mr. Bach responded that it was; the unit is slightly larger, but is a comparable unit.

Boardmember Teiser asked if it would be simpler to put a covered three-sided box with the west side open on both boxes and not move the units. Mr. Bach responded that this approach had been discussed at the previous Board meeting, and he did not want to reopen the discussion on that option.

Boardmember Figour stated the roof is unsightly for the neighbor. He agreed that the Board should not start redesigning the screening because there is already a solution that the neighbor and applicant agree upon.

Karl Peschlow, owner of the Caprice Restaurant, stated he is willing to work with the neighbors but his building is in a semi-industrial situation. The restaurant has been there for decades and he has remodeled it immaculately inside and out and received compliments for the appearance of the restaurant.

Mr. Bach stated the blue color of the building walls is better suited for the color of the roof screening. The roof changes color and the screening will not match the color of the roof next year.

Boardmember McLaughlin stated the screening and flipping of Unit A works. He has a problem with the solution of Unit B being moved toward Paradise Drive. He felt that the small screen wall initially proposed solves the problems. The blue-gray color of the building is fine as long as it is uniform and done correctly.

Boardmember Figour stated that moving Unit B is going too far. He thought that some screening is necessary, but not a big box. He also approves of the blue-gray color.

Boardmember Beales stated that the solution for Unit A works. He thought that the main issue with Unit B is the color, but noted that a unit had been there for some time. He is not sure whether this unit would need a screen. He suggested that the conduits on the roof be rerouted and painted.

Mr. Bach responded he will paint everything, even the wood.

The applicant is requesting Design Review approval for construction of additions to an existing single-family dwelling on property located at 1960 Centro West Street. The property currently contains a two-story residence. The previous plans were approved to increase the floor area of the house from 1,028 square feet to 1,754 square feet. The proposed sitting room would increase the floor area by an additional 48 square feet, resulting in a total floor area of 1,802 square feet, which is less than the 2,415 square-foot maximum floor area permitted for a lot of this size. The proposed revisions would place additional floor area within the required side yard setback; therefore, a variance is requested for reduced side yard setback.

Connie Kirwin, applicant, stated the revision is on the lower level and she is enclosing a portion of the deck. All other materials and colors remain the same. She has received no objections from neighbors.

Boardmember Teiser stated this application appears to be consistent with neighbors’ buildings and what others have done in the area.

Boardmember McLaughlin that the application is similar to what was approved before, and the changes would have no material effect on the neighbors.

Boardmember Beales concurred and added that the architect should have submitted drawings that more clearly indicated the new and previously approved portions of the building.

Chair Collins indicated that this was a good use of space for this house.

6. 27 APOLLO ROAD PEREZ, ADDITIONS/VARIANCE

The applicant has submitted a request to construct a master bedroom addition on a property located at 27 Apollo Road. The floor area of the proposed addition is approximately 295 square feet and would be located on the southwest side of the property. The total square footage of the house would increase to approximately 2,235 square feet.

The proposed additions would extend to within 6 feet, 11 inches of the side property line, which is less than the 8 foot side yard setback required in this zone. The additions would also increase the lot coverage on the site to 31.9%, which would be greater than the 30% maximum lot coverage. Variances are therefore requested for reduced side yard setback and excess lot coverage.

Brent Russell, Petaluma, architect, discussed the project.

Boardmember Beales stated this is a typical project for the neighborhood, where variances have been granted instead of building a second story. He noted that the addition would continue the existing setback, and would be modest in scope.

Boardmember Figour stated the changes to the house add to the neighborhood. Mature landscaping on the side helps to screen the addition. He said that the addition would help to improve that part of the elevation.

Boardmember Teiser stated this is a minimal expansion; other nearby houses have lesser setbacks, and the side setback is a continuation of the building.

Boardmember McLaughlin stated the trading off lot coverage for floor area is appropriate. This is a substandard lots, and the additions are not offensive to neighbors.

Chair Collins concurred and added that it would be awkward not to follow the same side yard setback for this house.

Boardmember Beales stated that the standard skylight condition of approval should be added for the tube skylight.

7. 22 SEAFIRTH PLACE SCHEETZ, ADDITIONS/VARIANCES/FLOOR AREA EXCEPTION

The applicant has submitted a request to construct a new garage, dining room addition and various landscape improvements on a property located at 22 Seafirth Place. The existing home is located on a corner lot, with three of the four sides fronting a street. The floor area of the proposed garage is approximately 600 square and would be located on the southwest side of the property. The dining room addition is approximately 100 square feet in size and is located on the southeast side of the residence. There would be a new storage area created below the garage, which is proposed to be 170 square feet in size. The total square footage of the house would increase to approximately 3,780 square feet, which is greater than the floor area ratio of 3,422 square feet for a lot of this size. A floor area exception is therefore requested.

The proposed garage would be situated within 20 feet, 11 inches of the rear property line, which is less than the 25 foot required rear yard setback. The additions would increase the lot coverage on the site to 23.5%, which is greater than the 15% maximum lot coverage. Variances are therefore requested for reduced rear yard setback and excess lot coverage.

David Holscher, architect, discussed the project.

Ned Scheetz, owner, noted that he wants to rebuild a wall and fence on the east side of the property, for which he will submit an application for a variance at a later date.

Boardmember Figour stated that this lot is similar to lots in the Reedlands. This is an undersized lot in the RO-2 zone, with standards intended to apply to 20,000 square foot lots. He felt that the design is attractive and does not impact the neighbors

Boardmember Teiser stated that the architect and owner did a good job. The additions would improve the appearance of the residence, help balance the massive structure above, and also help screen the structure above.

Boardmember McLaughlin stated the architecture is great, and offsetting the garage is a fair compromise.

Chair Collins stated that parking cars in garages is appropriate. He noted that Finding 2 for the variance should include the fact that this is a corner lot with three street sides.

8. 8 RACCOON LANE ROONEY/CATTELL, NEW DWELLING/ FLOOR AREA EXCEPTION

The applicant has submitted a request to build a new single-family dwelling on a property located at 8 Raccoon Lane. The property is currently developed with a single-family dwelling, which is proposed to be demolished. The proposed structure would cover approximately 2,378 square feet (29.6% lot coverage), which is less than the maximum allowable lot coverage for the site. The proposed home is a multi-level design with the upper level comprised of the master suite, and integrated roof terraces. The main level is comprised of the living area, kitchen, breakfast room, dining room, bedroom and bathroom. The lower level consists of two bedrooms, a bathroom, family room and three garaged parking spaces.

The floor area for the proposed house would be 3,074 square feet, which is greater than the 2,816 square floor area ratio for a lot of this size. A floor area exception is therefore requested.

Rick Cattell, applicant, discussed the project.

Miles Berger, architect, further discussed the project and noted it has support from all the neighbors. He stated that the proposed plans show a second kitchen to be installed at a later date, but the home is not proposed to be a duplex at this time. He noted that several neighbors have duplexes and all concur with this plan. In response to questions, he stated the metal roof material remains dark and gets softer and darker over time, and will not become reflective. There will be a gas fireplace with only a vent and no chimney.

Boardmember McLaughlin noted the height of several trees on the site is an issue with a neighbor who told him she paid to have them trimmed. He asked if this could be addressed to ensure the heights are maintained. Mr. Berger responded the applicants will keep the trees trimmed.

Boardmember McLaughlin stated this is a special house and he loves the architecture. He had some initial concern with the roof orientation, but the roof would not have a major impact. The project works well with the topography and would be an asset to the neighborhood.

Boardmember Figour stated he likes how the design is set into hillside and stepped back. The excellent articulation works well in Old Tiburon. The floor area exception is mitigated by placing some of the volume of the structure below grade. He enthusiastically supports the request.

Boardmember Beales stated this is a textbook example of stepping the house into the hillside, and concurred with Boardmember Figour as to the floor area exception.

Chair Collins stated the project is very well done and pleasing.

Senior Planner Watrous stated this application was not noticed as a duplex and cannot be approved as a duplex at this hearing. He said that Boardmembers cannot discuss merits of a duplex per se, but eliminating Condition of Approval 7 (requiring the second kitchen to be removed) would indicate the Design Review Board has no problem with the house being a duplex. A staff-level application would be required to change from a single-family home to a duplex.

Changes include the following:

Page 2, third paragraph, , delete "and noted noise from the existing play structure goes to the lower property," and replace with "evaluated the specific site conditions of the property".

Page 2, next to last paragraph, add, "He asked for a response regarding variances." Also add "All lots are different, with various lot sizes, topography and other characteristics." Also add to last sentence, "…but instead considers all the findings, which can make a difference when reviewing applications on a property by property basis."

Page 3, last paragraph, line 4, to read "privacy as a visual matter". Next line should be, "Recommended reducing the cabana size..."

Page 4, delete, "Move the pool back where it was." Also, change fourth sentence to "more significant than that coming from a pool." Add "to address the noise issue" to the end of third-to-last sentence.

Page 4, paragraph 2, last line should be "…will not change the privacy or acoustical situation of the Corman’s."

Closing summation, the last sentence should read "…and using Paul Smith’s letter as a justification to make Finding #4."

Page 8, paragraph 2 to state, "It does not fit with the predominant scale of Mar East."

Page 11, paragraph 2, 2^nd line, "…the open pool area and patio to the west makes the building more massive to the east..." Next sentence to be, " .open space will probably need…"

Para 4, second sentence to be, "To be more effective…"

Changes include:

Page 3, paragraph 2, line 5, delete the "and" at the end of the line. Last sentence should state, "view of the equipment."

Page 3, second paragraph from the bottom should be "story poles and a tape."

Page 4, top, should be "slot" view.

The meeting was adjourned at 8:45 p.m.