A. ROLL CALL: Present - Chair Figour, Boardmembers McLaughlin and Teiser

Absent - Boardmember Beales

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

E. NEW BUSINESS BEFORE THE BOARD

1. 334 Karen Way Bell Additions APPROVED

2. 2 Berke Court Berg New Dwelling/Floor Area Exception APPROVED

3. 1970 Centro West Street Miller New Dwelling/Variances CONTINUED TO 7/18/02

4. 22 Seafirth Place Scheetz Fence/Variance APPROVED

5. 3 Palmer Court Kress New Dwelling/Variance CONTINUED TO 7/18/02

6. 39 Main Street N.E.S. Façade Changes APPROVED

7. 1859 & 1865 Mar West Street Bille Parking Deck/Variance APPROVED

F. MINUTES OF THE 5/16/02 D.R.B. MEETING - APPROVED

G. ADJOURNMENT – 11:15 P.M.

A. ROLL CALL

Present: Chair Figour, Boardmembers McLaughlin and Teiser

Absent: Boardmember Beales

Ex-Officio: Senior Planner Watrous, Associate Planner Lynch and Meeting Recorder Flanagan

B. PUBLIC COMMENTS:

No one spoke during this time.

C. DISCUSSION AND STAFF BRIEFING

Senior Planner Watrous reported the Town Council has appointed Bill Comstock to fill the vacancy on the Design Review Board; he will join the Board at the next meeting.

1. 334 KAREN WAY BELL, ADDITIONS

The applicant has submitted a request for a master bedroom, dining room and entryway addition for an existing single-family dwelling on a property located at 334 Karen Way. The subject property is a relatively flat lot in the Bel Aire neighborhood. The existing home is a modestly-sized single-level structure with three bedrooms, a living area and kitchen. There is an existing shed on the rear yard that is proposed to be removed.

The additions would provide a fourth bedroom, a new dining room and a larger living area. The front entryway would be enclosed and a new window would be installed on the enclosure facing the street. The existing structure is approximately 1,288 square feet in size and proposed additions would increase its size by 795 square feet. The structure would still be within the 2,399-square-foot lot coverage limit.

Chuck Ballinger, designer, discussed the project.

Boardmember McLaughlin noted that demolition and construction has already occurred in this house, with a major part of the interior was redone. He asked if the applicant has obtained a building permit for this work. Associate Planner Lynch responded that he visited the site and felt no building permit was required for the work that was underway at that time, but noted that additional work as described by Boardmember McLaughlin would require permits from the Building Division.

Mr. Ballinger responded that a shed in the rear was removed. Interior work included reframing of doors were reframed to seven-foot heights. He said that the applicants are also planning to install a new heating system.

Boardmember McLaughlin asked how the Town deals with remodeling in the interior without a building permit. Associate Planner Lynch stated that the building official would deal with this issue.

Chair Figour asked if the peak and ridge height are the same. Mr. Ballinger responded that they were, and added that he believes neighbors signed off on the plans with the exception of the owner of a long-term rental house, which is vacant.

Boardmember McLaughlin stated he is uncomfortable reviewing a project when work has already begun and without a permit. As to the application, the project does not involve a two-story addition, which neighbors have previously opposed. He said that the application accomplishes a lot without any variances.

Chair Figour added that this application is a solution seen before by the Board and seems to work for neighbors and applicant.

EXCEPTION

The applicant has submitted a request to demolish an existing home and construct a new single-family dwelling on the property. Previous applications for essentially the same project were processed as additions to the existing house. The proposed home would have six bedrooms on two levels and would encompass approximately 5,344 square feet, which is greater than the floor area ratio of 4,902 square feet for a lot of this size. The structure would occupy the footprint of the existing home.

Features of the first floor would include five bedrooms, two bathrooms, exercise room, laundry room and an open playroom. On the second floor there would be a 750-square-foot garage, living room, dining room, family room, kitchen, powder room and master suite. The dining room and master bedroom would open up onto a balcony that runs the full length of the house. A spa also would be located on the rear balcony. The roof would be generally low-sloping, with skylights in various locations.

Bill Holland, architect, discussed the project and noted that the floor area of this project has increased 94 square feet since the previous application was approved.

Norm Johnson, 7 Acela Drive, stated that he initially had a problem with the higher roof proposed by the applicant. However, after discussions with the applicant, they have come to an agreement with compromises on both sides.

Boardmember McLaughlin stated that this was basically the same plan that was previously approved by the Board. With the neighbor’s consent, he had no problem with the project.

Boardmember Teiser stated that he also could support the project.

M/S, Teiser/ McLaughlin, passed 3-0-1, Beales absent, to approve the application based upon the findings and conditions as set forth in the Staff report.

The applicant is requesting Design Review approval for the construction of a new two-story single-family dwelling. The subject property is currently developed with a two-story residence that would be demolished. The main level of the proposed house would include an entry area, two bedrooms and two bathrooms, along with a roof garden. The lower level would include a living room, dining room, kitchen, one additional bedroom, one more bathroom and an office. A 294-square-foot deck would extend off the main level, with a much larger 760-square-foot deck extending off the lower level. The lower level deck also provides access down to a ground level deck area. A two-car garage would be constructed adjacent to the main level. A swimming pool is proposed to be constructed to the rear of the property. A six-foot tall wood and wire fence is proposed along the side and rear property lines.

The proposed dwelling would be situated within 3 feet of the south (left) side property line, and within 3 feet, 10 inches of the north (right) side property line. As 8 foot side yard setbacks are required within the R-2 zone, variances are requested for reduced side yard setbacks.

Ed Blankenship, architect, discussed the project.

Connie Kirwin, 1960 Centro West Street, stated there are a number of decks on the project that would block her views of the Golden Gate Bridge and San Francisco. She feels that the two-car garage and two parking spaces in front of the garage would be inconsistent with the neighborhood, and forces the design of the house to push further into her view. The solid planter box also blocks her view. Her master bedroom is ten feet from a proposed window, and the deck also would impact her privacy. She attempted to prepare a photo simulation of the proposed house, but the story poles did not appear to match up with the submitted plans; she said that the story poles should be certified. She asked that the house be redesigned to conform to plans approved by previous owners.

Maggie McDonogh, 1956 Centro West Street, stated the proposed house is large and tall. The front top deck would obstruct her view and impact privacy from her small deck.

Mr. Blankenship stated he wants to ensure that Ms. Kirwin’s view of the Golden Gate Bridge remains. He said that the proposed dining room window could be downsized or obscure windows installed. He said that the elevation of the proposed lower floor is around four feet lower than that of the adjacent house, so Ms. Kirwin has a down-view to it. He added that intensive landscaping and screening efforts on the component could solve the privacy concern.

Dr. Lou Sellers stated that he prepared the digital photographs submitted by Ms. Kirwin. He said that the photos are based on input from blueprints. The story poles and blueprints do not match and appear to be off by about five feet.

Jim Miller, owner, stated Ms. Kirwin will look over his house when standing, and her views would be limited by her own deck rails when sitting.

Boardmember McLaughlin stated he likes the architecture but he has problems with the house as a whole. He cannot make findings for the variance. He thought that the four-car parking proposed is creating a major part of the problem, as the garage pushes elements of the house into the view corridor of the neighbor. The previous review of this house and the home at 1960 Centro West Street by the Board devoted a lot of effort to maintaining views. He felt that the length of the lot creates many opportunities for views. He thought that the house should be pulled back in line with the other homes. The nine-foot unfinished bottom area raises concerns over the potential for future floor area, and is not what Design Review Board wants to accomplish. The flat roof tends to take away views from the rear. The story poles must be certified to ensure that their heights are correct.

Boardmember Teiser said it is commendable to create more offstreet parking, but this design has forced the house out. While an attractive design, the house is massive, more so than others in the neighborhood. He felt that bringing the house into the hill would help.

Chair Figour stated he does not find the house massive from the street. He said he is wrestling with the parking issue, as this may be creating a design problem. Story poles should be certified if this item is continued. He asked that the scaffolding be left in place on Ms. Kirwin’s lot to view future renditions. There is a lot of volume in the house, including some in the bottom floor that has the potential for additional floor area in the future. He said that the applicant does not have to necessarily duplicate the previously approved plans for this site. The owner needs to deal with the view issue and work with the neighbors.

Boardmember Teiser stated a flat roof is not a problem. The off-street parking creates the problem.

4. 22 SEAFIRTH PLACE SCHEETZ, FENCE/VARIANCE

The applicant has submitted a request to construct a fence and retaining wall along the east side of the property at 22 Seafirth Place. The proposed fence and wall would replace the existing fence and retaining wall located along the east property line. The new fence and retaining wall would have a maximum height of ten feet on the south end, and minimum height of eight feet at the north end near the street. The maximum height for a fence or wall within the required setbacks is six feet; therefore, a variance is requested.

Ned Scheetz, owner, discussed his project and noted he received approval for his project from the owner of 30 Seafirth Place.

Boardmember Teiser stated the fence is consistent with the existing fence and provides privacy for the neighbor and owner.

Chair Figour said that upon initial review, this seemed like a large fence, but this is the right solution for this property.

5. 3 PALMER COURT KRESS, NEW DWELLING/VARIANCE

The applicant is requesting Design Review approval for the construction of a new two-story single-family dwelling on property located at 3 Palmer Court. The subject property is currently developed with a single-story residence. As more than 50 percent of the existing structure would be demolished as part of this project, this application is being reviewed as a new residence. The lower floor of the proposed house would include a living room, dining room, kitchen, family room, study, three bedrooms and one and one-half bathrooms. The upper floor would include a master bedroom suite. A swimming pool is proposed to be constructed to the south side of the property. A detached three-car garage would be constructed in the northeast portion of the site. An entry arbor would lead from the driveway to the front entry of the home.

The proposed dwelling would be situated within 21 feet of the rear (western) property line. As a 25 foot rear yard setback is required within the R-1 zone, a variance is requested for reduced rear yard setback.

Larry Walter, architect, discussed the project. In response to questions, he stated the roof color will use dark earth tones; it will be a genuine clay tile roof and not a bright orange color. He can remove windows to address the uphill neighbor’s privacy concerns, and hipping the roof could address any view impacts.

Boardmember Teiser asked the depth and purpose of the pool. Mr. Walter responded that this was intended as a small, shallow pool.

Boardmember Teiser added that the driveway is very close to Tiburon Boulevard, and appears to be a dangerous hidden entry. He suggested locating the driveway coming out from the circle where there is natural circulation and where drivers anticipate traffic. Mr. Walter replied that the Town Engineer had reviewed the location of driveway and felt the 65-foot distance was more than adequate, and that the reduced number of cars coming into the area where children play would probably outweigh any difficulty.

Senior Planner Watrous confirmed the Town Engineer had no objection to the location of the driveway. He added, after discussion with Mr. Kenney, 654 Tiburon Boulevard, he agreed that the section in the Staff report addressing regarding the fourth variance finding was incorrect.

Doug McVickar, 2 Palmer Court, stated he opposes the swimming pool, which would be virtually in his front yard and face his living area. He felt that the noise from the pool would be substantial, and with a lot this size, the pool could be located elsewhere. He said that noise from the pool would deflect from the neighbor’s house to his property. The second floor addition would overlook his living area, creating potential privacy impacts. He said that the applicants appear to have not contacted any neighbor, which is recommended in the Design Guidelines. He had a limited time to review the plans and story poles, and would like to discuss the project with the owners. He stated that he has trimmed his trees in the past to improve views for the Kresses; however, they have not responded to his concerns regarding flooding.

Nancy McVickar, 2 Palmer Court, stated she is concerned that children playing in the street would be unsafe when the Kresses leave their driveway. She did not want to look across the street to a pool in the front yard, and objected to noise and the loss of privacy in her bedroom and living area from the pool. A privacy screen and sound barrier would satisfy her concerns about the location of the pool. She would like the house to blend with the neighborhood, with appropriate foliage. Because of the height of the lot, she felt that the proposed second story would create the appearance of a three-story house. She said that neighbors were not apprised of the project and are at a bit of a loss with this application.

Mark Lomas, 650 Tiburon Blvd, stated he supports home expansions if accomplished within code and neighborhood standards. He noted that his property is contiguous to the applicants’ property. He said that his privacy would be impacted from the proposed second story windows that look up into his home. He asked for additional time to work with the applicants about items the neighbors learned about only recently. He would like any trees to be removed as part of the garage construction to be identified. He added, there are no story poles for the garage; he would like them erected to understand the full impact of the project. He would like the master bedroom slid to the east to address his privacy concerns and the other neighbors’ view concerns.

Malcolm McVickar questioned the location of the property line and the right-of-way on the submitted plans. He asked about colors and materials, and stated that the proposed landscaping is not described. He said that an earthquake could cause the proposed pool to flood his brother’s house. He also believed that there would be an amphitheater effect from the pool transmitting noise to the McVickars’ property.

Art Kenney, 654 Tiburon Boulevard, stated that he opposes the requested variance. He believed that there is ample space to locate the new home further away from his property. He questioned that there would be hardship from setting the house further back from the property line; if this were a remodel he could understand this reasoning, but this is a new house that can be placed anywhere. He said that the applicant did not discuss his plans until the story poles were erected.

Mr. Kenney stated that the proposed second story area is in front of his ceremonial areas, resulting in view and privacy impacts. He said that the second story French doors and patio would look into his bedrooms, decks and kitchens. If this project were approved, he would have to look at a long stretch of stucco walls with the proposed location of the garage, wall and house. He questioned what is unusual about the lot configuration, since it appears to him to be an almost perfect rectangle. He felt that moving the house into the setback would be injurious to his property. At a minimum, he would like to see the project pushed four feet to the east. He quoted from the Town’s Hillside Guidelines, stating that a one-story design would reduce the height and bulk of the house.

Mr. Kenney asked for reasonable compromises with the applicants. He said that the neighbors are still awaiting story poles for the garage and it appears that some tall trees will have to be removed, which would affect the neighborhood. He felt that there are many alternatives that would give applicants their floor area and preserve his view and privacy. He asked that the Board not approve the second story and the setback variance until the impacts are minimized.

Tom Kress, applicant, stated he feels he has addressed his neighbors’ concerns. He requires more room due to a growing family.

Mr. Walter stated he feels the survey is accurate. He noted that the proposed garage would be buried into the hillside. He felt that a hipped roof for the second story area would minimize the neighbor’s view impact, although he would like the roof approved as it currently proposed. The window looking uphill could be removed; however, the applicants would like French doors with glass to look out onto their children’s’ play area. He can add landscaping to the south side. He said that the applicants would prefer not building under the power line that crosses the site.

Boardmember McLaughlin asked if the power lines can be undergrounded. Mr. Walter said that there is not a PG&E easement across the property.

Mr. Kenney responded that these electrical wires feed the town and can be undergrounded. He said that the easement is shown on his site plans, and is also located on his property.

Boardmember McLaughlin stated that the project would have no impact on Mr. Lomas’ property. He also thought that there is minimal impact on the Kenneys’ home. If the lot was smaller, he would not have a problem with the house as designed, but there is room on the lot to move the house. He felt that a hip roof for the second story area may be necessary. He is unsure he could make the findings needed for the variance, but noted that the variance is not the driving issue. Making a hip roof and/or shifting the structure slightly might be a solution. He has no problem with the garage, but it is unfortunate that there are no story poles. He felt that someone will be impacted from pool noise no matter where the pool is located. A pool in the rear would cause more noise for the uphill neighbor, and he understand the concerns from the McVickars’ property. Regarding the driveway, this falls into the purview of the Town Engineer, but he acknowledges the concerns of parents for their children’s safety in this area. Landscaping is the weakness; he wants more definition of what is proposed. He is concerned with the appearance of the pool fence. He said that he stood at the entrance of 2 Palmer Court, and did not see any major impacts. He thought that the upper floor windows would result in the uphill neighbor looking down into the applicants’ windows. The window in the corner over the staircase can be eliminated or moved to the west, but the design would look odd without windows.

Boardmember Teiser stated he does not object to the second story. He believed there would be more privacy impacts on the applicants than on the neighbors. He is concerned about children leaving the driveway, and thought that the Town Engineer should re-visit the driveway location near Tiburon Boulevard from a practical safety standpoint. He noted that noise rises from the pool, and better screening could be used such as a glass partition or landscaping. He has no issue with the garage.

Chair Figour noted that the Board essentially arbitrates between neighbors, and stressed that the Hillside Design Guidelines are only guidelines, but are not law. He thought that some of the neighbors’ view may have been borrowed views. He felt that this is a dangerous approach from Tiburon Boulevard, but he would go along with the recommendations of the Town Engineer. Story poles for the garage should be erected if the item is continued. He thought that the layout of the house is nice. He cannot make the finding on the setback because the house can be shifted. He needs to know where the power line is and would not want the house under the power line. Shifting the house about four feet and adding a hipped roof would help the uphill neighbors. He also thought that the location of the pool next to the road is too exposed.

6. 39 MAIN STREET N.E.S., FAÇADE CHANGES

The applicant has submitted an application for a minor exterior alteration for a commercial building located at 39 Main Street. The scope of the project includes the modification of the front façade of the building that faces Main Street. The applicant is proposing new architectural articulations, new doors and windows and different materials and colors. The project has been forwarded to this meeting because any exterior modification to structures in the downtown area requires review by the Design Review Board.

Jim Gillam, architect, discussed the project. In response to questions, he stated that there will be a painted wood sash, and signage is not a part of this application. Signage would perhaps include fairly subtle sculpted glass or lettering in the glass on the floor level.

Boardmember Teiser noted the planter overhangs a pedestrian walkway and asked if this is a safety concern to pedestrians. Mr. Gillam explained that the planter box is a sleeve with a liner on the inside, and drainage would go into a drain line then off the building.

Senior Planner Watrous noted portions extending over public rights-of-way require an encroachment permit and the Town Engineer would review this.

Mr. Gillam asked for approval of sculpted glass signage. Senior Planner Watrous stated that since the application did not include a sign permit and public notice was not made for any proposed signage, the Board cannot consider signage at this hearing.

Boardmember Teiser was satisfied that any encroachment issues will be handled by the Town Engineer.

Boardmember McLaughlin thanked the owner for changes to the design and added, this design is in keeping with what is desired to be accomplished downtown and is a 180 degree change in design for the owner.

Chair Figour also thanked the owner for creating a great solution that works within Town guidelines. The building uses conventional materials and does not emulate the Old West style. It is a handsome building, and the architect has done a good job of working with the existing building.

M/S, McLaughlin/Teiser, passed 3-0-1 (Beales absent), to approve the application based upon the findings and conditions as set forth in the Staff report.

Boardmember McLaughlin asked if downtown tenants were notified of this hearing and reiterated that tenants, those who are impacted in the downtown area, are to be so notified.

7. 1859 & 1865 MAR WEST STREET BILLE, PARKING DECK/VARIANCE

The applicant is requesting Design Review approval for the construction of a parking deck on property located at 1859 Mar West Street. Access to the parking deck would be provided via a driveway across the adjacent property at 1865 Mar West Street. The property at 1859 Mar West Street is developed with a single-family dwelling. A duplex is located at 1865 Mar West Street. The proposed parking deck would extend to the left (west) off the existing driveway. The structure would cantilever above the front portion of the site, which slopes sharply down toward the street. Two additional at-grade parking spaces are proposed to be provided in an area between the two homes on these properties.

The proposed parking deck would extend beyond the front property line, into the adjoining Town right-of-way. As a 15 foot front yard setback is required in the R-2 zone, a variance is requested for reduced front yard setback.

Hank Bruce, architect, discussed the project and asked that the attorney be allowed to discuss the historical agreements for the specific parking layout, which he said are vital to understanding this application.

Chair Figour stated that the Design Review Board is to review the architectural design and how it affects the two properties, and the legal history is not relevant.

Jeff Johnson, attorney, stated that the two neighbors previously worked out differences regarding the new home at 1859 Mar West Street by reaching an agreement that is consistent with the plan submitted as part of this application.

Gary Lisk, 1859 Mar West Street, stated he opposes the proposed plan. He said that cars would have to back onto a driveway with a drop of three or four feet. The bottom of the driveway is on a blind corner and is dangerous because of the many cars there. He said that the parking deck would take away views of San Francisco and the water. He said that the Town erred in allowing the applicant to submit this application. He said that he originally agreed to a reasonable parking plan to meet the applicant’s parking needs, but feels that this application is unreasonable. He said that more than three parking spaces is too many. He believed that a structure could be designed lower and back toward the north which would not impact his view. He recommended that the applicant instead construct a garage buried into the hillside adjacent to either the driveway or Mar West Street.

Jeff Kaiser, 1857 Mar West Street, stated his loss of view is a concern as well as a an increase of structural clutter. He stated that his views to Angel Island and the water would be affected. He said that he would look down at cars on the parking deck from his top level and across from his main level. Most homes have one- or two-car garages, and he felt that six parking spaces for one address is quite a bit above normal.

Mr. Bruce stated this house is a duplex structure and three parking spaces are required under the Zoning Ordinance. Landscaping can soften the structure from the road. He said that digging into the hill, is a huge expense, and would create a traffic hazard. He felt that the proposed parking layout is the most valid direction.

Chair Figour noted the building at 1865 Mar West Street is old and wondered whether the owner was planning on constructing a new residence in the future.

Micheala Bille, daughter of the owners, stated that she anticipates that her sister will move in and be the only person who lives there. They do not plan on tearing the building down.

Boardmember Teiser stated he looked down from the Lisks’ property and the cars on their own parking deck create the view blockage. The new structure will not cause any more view deterioration. He said that a structure on the street would be dangerous. From a safety standpoint, the new deck would allow people to exit and enter in a safer manner. He can approve the parking structure.

Boardmember McLaughlin stated that this is a solution he can live with. A design that would come in lower on the driveway would be worse. There are no view impacts on ceremonial rooms. He could support the request.

Chair Figour stated that he has trouble visualizing all the cars on the site. He sat in the guest suite and cars parked on the new deck would take some views away. He said that parking is needed, but sometimes creates problems. If the parking deck is built, he thought perhaps the other parking spaces could be eliminated; five parking spaces may not be necessary. The structure tidies the parking on the site. He suggested dropping the deck several feet.

Mr. Bruce responded that it is not possible to drop the deck two feet.

Boardmember McLaughlin stated that he also had a bit of a problem with five parking spaces, but felt that changing the rear parking spaces was not before the Board.

Senior Planner Watrous stated that the project description submitted with this application included the rear parking spaces. Therefore, the Board could address changes to these spaces as well.

Chair Figour added, aesthetically this would look like a commercial parking lot. He would like to revisit the site, and check the view from 1857 Mar West Street.

Boardmember McLaughlin stated he does not see any feasible options. The topography does not allow the structure to be moved, and landscaping the rear parking spaces does not accomplish much. He added that this is a duplex, which helps explain the need for five parking spaces. He added, if there is a logical alternative that makes sense for everyone, he will look at it; however, he does not see an option.

G. ADJOURNMENT

The meeting was adjourned at 11:15 p.m.