G. ADJOURNMENT

A. ROLL CALL

Present: Chair Figour, Boardmembers Beales and McLaughlin

Absent: Boardmembers Comstock and Teiser

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 reported the appeal for the 1859-65 Mar West parking deck was denied at the August 7, 2002 Town Council meeting. He noted that the appeal for 3 Palmer Court was continued to September 4^th because of an issue with story poles.

D. OLD BUSINESS BEFORE THE BOARD

1. 2120 MAR EAST STREET HANSEN, NEW DUPLEX/ VARIANCE/ 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 property is currently developed with a single-family home, which is proposed to be demolished. This application was previously reviewed at the December 20, 2001 and February 7, 2002 Design Review Board meetings. On February 21, 2001, the Tiburon Design Review Board adopted Resolution No. 2002-02 denying the application due to potential view blockage and visual mass and bulk impacts associated with the proposed structure. The Town Council reviewed an appeal of this decision on May 1, 2002, and voted unanimously to remand the application back to the Design Review Board, with the applicant directed to address concerns that the proposed design would result in view impacts on at least one nearby home, was too massive, too tall, and had unnecessary decks and glass facing the street. The applicants have again submitted revised plans for the proposed duplex for review by the Design Review Board.

Fani Hansen, property owner and applicant, discussed the history of the application, the modifications that have been made during the review process, and the current request.

Janet Freeburg, 2105 Mar East Street, stated she is confused by photographs described by Ms. Hansen as being taken from Ms. Freeburg’s home. She said that the Hillside Guidelines provide for view protection from main rooms, and noted that the proposed top floor would consist of bedrooms and bathrooms. She presented a picture that indicates that the proposed construction would block the water view from her living room window, and the flat roof that would extend twelve feet beyond the story poles would block her view even more. She stated that her living room view is a slot, rather than panoramic, view that would be impacted. She said that the full height glass windows and balconies facing the front are a concern. She feels that the wraparound deck around the bathroom on one side should be eliminated and the windows reduced drastically. She stated that if the applicant followed the recommendations contained within the Staff report, Ms. Freeburg would no longer object to this project.

Nancy Denz, 2130 Mar East Street, stated that, in December, she told the applicant how to gain the neighbors’ approval. Five nearby families met with the applicant and prioritized their concerns and objectives; all at the meeting felt a compromise could be reached. She stated that the height and bulk concerns were not addressed at the next Town meeting, and that the two-foot height reduction currently proposed was not satisfactory. She stated that the neighbors would be satisfied with a five foot height reduction.

Maxine Coplin, 2044 Paradise Drive, stated her house and the applicant’s house are at an angle such that they will look at each other. She said that this project would increase her property value and she supports the application.

Roger Freeburg, 2105 Mar East Street, clarified the roof height for the approved duplex at 2108 & 2110 Mar East Street was established in relation to the finished floor height for the new house at 2101 Mar East Street. He stated that he has the right to see over the proposed building, as do his neighbors.

Boardmember Beales clarified that the height as discussed with the owners of the home at 2101 Mar East Street was in relation to the approved duplex at 2108 & 2110 Mar East Street and has nothing to do with the Freeburgs, which the Design Review Board understands.

Jerome Denz, 2130 Mar East Street, stated that his main concern at this time is the dock. He said that the Planning Commission gave guidelines for the dock to be at least 8 feet from the side property line. He feels that the dock should be moved twelve feet from the property line so he can get his boat to the bay. He also questioned the four pivoting appurtenances on the side of the dock.

In response to questions, Senior Planner Watrous stated the Design Review Board has the final say on the design of the dock. He confirmed that the Planning Commission indicated the deck had to be at least eight feet from the side property line.

In response to questions, Mr. Denz stated to get into the water, he must go onto the Hansen’s property.

Boardmember McLaughlin asked if his staircase to the beach exits at the property line. Mr. Denz responded that it does. Boardmember McLaughlin noted wherever the deck is located, Mr. Denz still uses the Hansens’ property.

Marion Hinman, 2074 Paradise Drive, stated she opposes the project, which she said does not respect the environmental feel of Lyford Cove and would be overpowering with its height and bulk. She said that it appears that applicants plan to use commercial metal siding for the building, which she does not believe is appropriate. She said that since the applicants are architects, they can find many ways for the building to fit into the Lyford Cove environment. She also opposes a metal roof.

Ms. Hansen stated that the photographs she presented were taken from the Freeburgs’ living room. Regarding the dock location, she stated that she has an approval from the Planning Commission and wonders why the dock is at issue. She said that from a distance of further than two to three feet, one cannot tell what the siding material is because it looks like typical wood siding. The colors would be a greenish-blue to match the color of the water and vegetation. She showed a sample of siding.

Boardmember Beales stated that the applicant has made some cosmetic changes, but no substantive changes. He said that the building is still massive, and has additional mass due to the interior design. He stated that the height reduction is nominal. He appreciates that the windows were reduced and the translucent roof panels removed. There is too much of a visual impact caused by the bedrooms, and trying to get views from all rooms. He noted that the adjacent duplex approved at 2108 & 2110 Mar East Street was designed with 2-story side-by-side dwelling units, rather than stacking two 2-story dwellings on top of each other. He said that the overall volume and mass of the building is excessive, and he cannot support the project as currently designed.

Boardmember McLaughlin stated that the problem is the power of the building in relation to the site and other nearby homes. He said that the site will continue to have unimpeded views no matter what is designed for this property. He said that any impact on uphill neighbors is unnecessary. He believed that the impacts are minimal on 2108-10 Mar East Street, and he is not sure if there is a problem for the home at 2130 Mar East Street. He noted that the building is front-loaded to the bay and if it were stepped back into the hillside it would pull down the roofline. He has a problem with the view impacts on 2105 Mar East Street. He noted that the neighbors are willing to accept the project with a 5 foot height reduction. The proposed front windows would directly face houses across the street and any night light will wash out the neighbors’ views to the bay. He has no problem with the style of the house, and that the palette of colors and materials is interesting.

Chair Figour stated he feels significant changes have been made. The roofline was lowered, and the translucent roof panels and solar panels were removed. The idea that no variance is now requested for excess lot coverage on a lot on Mar East Street is admirable. The concept of leaving open space on this lot is very admirable. He sees a tightening of screws on the applicants by the neighbors. He feels the scale of justice is pretty well balanced with this design. He noted that the top of the building would only be 1.5 stories above the street level. He would also attempt to capture the views if he designed for this site. He felt that eliminating the windows on the north side of the building is ludicrous, as north light is the most valuable light source. The houses across the street will be subjected to some sort of windows with any building constructed on the site. He sees no give by the neighbors, all who have had variances and exceptions approved for their properties. He said that a disservice has been done to the applicants in requiring multiple redesigns, and that the Design Review Board is also tightening the screws. The dock issue baffles him in that the Denzes believe they have a right to put their boat in the water using the Hansens’ property. He believes that this is a good project.

Boardmember McLaughlin stated he agrees that the application has gone through tough dialogue with significant changes. From the first meeting, his biggest problem has been the view blockage for the Freeburgs. He noted that most of the roofs on the coastline here are turned sideways to the bay, that no roofs stretch totally horizontal across the entire property, which is a function of this design. If the roof were turned sideways, with views through it, there would be a different impact.

Chair Figour stated Ms. Hansen has mitigated this design by setting the building back far from the side property lines, which also gives light and air to the neighbors on both sides.

Boardmember McLaughlin stated he feels Ms. Hansen gave too much away on that side of the property, and that she has given some things that are not necessary. His key concern is the horizontal, 50-foot-long view blockage from across the street. He stated that the neighbors have said most of the project is acceptable to them, but not the view blockage.

Chair Figour noted, at street level it is not near the 30-foot height that is allowed by the Town.

Boardmember McLaughlin stated Ms. Hansen can accomplish what she wants and still reduce the impact to the residents across the street. With the views from Ms. Hansen’s proposed house, he has problem that views across the street are impacted.

Boardmember Beales stated that the view blockage is bad, and that the floor area exception requested is massive. He said that the insistence on views from every room results in bedrooms that take views away from neighbors.

Chair Figour stated there should be architectural expression allowed.

Boardmember McLaughlin stated if this item is returned, he would like to see more clarity in the plans. He also requested that the old story poles be removed and only the new story poles to be in place.

Boardmember Beales stated the edge of the roof nearest the bay is also a concern because it will detract from the view. He requested that story poles be erected for this part of the roof.

Chair Figour asked if Boardmembers McLaughlin and Beales would recommend a three-story design, or four stories with the fourth story pulled back into the property.

Boardmember McLaughlin replied that he does not care how a four- to five-foot reduction in the ridgeline height is accomplished. He thought that pulling the building back could address the issues for 2130 Mar East Street and 2108 & 2110 Mar East Street, and could solve the horizon problem. He said that a four- to five-foot height reduction of the ridgeline is necessary.

Boardmember Beales stated the building would have to be pulled almost across the street to the Freeburgs to get five foot height reduction. He said that the applicants must remove the top story, but otherwise he does not care how they redesign the building.

Ms. Hansen stated she is surprised to hear Boardmember Beales' comments because at the previous meeting, she said that he said that the issues of views had been mitigated. Boardmember Beales responded that he did not agree with this statement.

Ms. Hansen stated she is concerned that, if the house is moved up on the lot, the L’Heureuxes and Denzes will not like it. She said that her house would have two-thirds of the volume of the house next door.

Chair Figour asked if she would accept a continuance. Ms. Hansen replied that she would like the Board to make its decision.

2. 124 LELAND WAY HOUSTON/LEE, NEW 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 application was first reviewed at the April 4, 2002 Design Review Board meeting. At that time, concerns were raised by numerous property owners in the surrounding Bel Aire neighborhood regarding aspects of the proposed two-story house design. Issues raised included potential sunlight and privacy impacts on adjacent homes; the height, mass and bulk of the proposed design; and the compatibility of a two-story home in this predominantly one-story residential neighborhood. The applicant has now presented a revised two-story design for this house.

Jeff Houston, owner, discussed his project.

Ken Berman, architect, discussed the plans and drawings, and presented a model of the proposed house.

Chair Figour asked if the garage’s lowered floor level resulted from excavation. Mr. Berman responded that it would. He said that the nine-foot plate height on the first floor was pushing up the overall building height too much, so they decided to excavate. He added that not all of the second-floor master suite windows would be obscure, but only those facing the back yard and side neighbor.

Boardmember McLaughlin asked if the applicant is wed to the raised foundation for part of the house, and asked if it could be dropped one foot to be at slab on grade. Mr. Berman responded that he is not comfortable with slab on grade. He said that there will be a radiant heating system to maintain energy compliance in the back portion of the house.

Leonor Noguez, 346 Karen Way, stated that she thinks the plan is wonderful. She said it has a neighborhood feel, and she is not enamored by rundown homes in the neighborhood. She believed that this structure is what is needed to raise a family, and it provides security. She said that there appears to be selective zoning with massive homes on the perimeter with her neighborhood limited to smaller home sizes. She thought that a family should not have to convert its garage into a family room. If she were to expand, she said would have to do so horizontally if two-story homes were not permitted.

Fred Starr, 160 Leland Way, stated he remodeled his home to the rear with a one-story design, which is a common expansion method in Bel Aire because it causes minimal impact to neighbors. He said that only two houses in the neighborhood have second floors. He noted that Bel Aire homes have views to their back yards where the primary living areas are, and the views are possible because the homes are one-story homes. He believed that two-story homes would affect views and sunlight of neighbors. He said that this project would impact many residents’ privacy, and the end result would be a reduction in the quality of life of the neighbors without their consent; hence, he opposes the application.

Caroline Shadan, 279 Cecilia Way, said that this is a wonderful design for the neighborhood. The homes on Leland Way already have homes on the hill looking at them and there is also a walkway behind the houses that allow views into back yards. She believed that this area could support a two-story home. She said that the house would not be massive, would be in character with the neighborhood and would only have a one-car garage. She felt that the project is well done.

Werner Schneider, 90 Claire Way, stated he opposes two-story buildings in his neighborhood because they impact privacy. He hoped the wishes of the immediate neighbors of this project would prevail.

Peter Brooks, 54 Claire Way, stated that privacy is a concern. He was concerned with the applicants’ statement that "it is inevitable we go to two stories." He said the neighborhood is not run down. He has doubled his square footage to raise his four children, and said that it is possible to add square footage without intruding on others’ properties. He asked the Design Review Board to deny the request.

Richard Park, 261 Karen Way, spoke in opposition to the proposed project.

Larry Reese, 350 Karen Way, stated he supports this type of two-story home. A home on Rancho Drive nearby with a similar design was recently designed with a second floor and limited windows; in that case, the neighbors on both sides felt no invasion of privacy because of the way the house was designed. He said that Staff and the Design Review Board have done a great job in making recommendations as to what is possible and what is within the rules of Tiburon to enhance the beauty of the house. He is happy the home will improve the neighborhood, and thought that it will not destroy the neighborhood.

Andrew Rustin, 263 Cecilia Way, stated the garage appears to be larger than 400 square feet and felt that this is a definitive monster home. He said that the other people who look into the existing windows are from the houses on the hill, not six feet away. He believed that the scale of the model is inaccurate, which makes the model not useful. He said that the shade issues on the house next door are significant and should be reviewed. He said that from December 1 through January 15, there is no late afternoon sun, and the sunset will be at 4:30 p.m.

Eckhard Evers, 281 Karen Way, stated he supports the house because the building is not spread out. He said that families are moving in to this neighborhood and it is right to accommodate two-story homes.

Thomas Simoniak, 282 Karen Way, stated he supports the plan as it is. He thought that the neighborhood has not changed and should move into the future. He said that the existing trees cast shadows, and shadow from the house should not be a problem. He thinks that the neighborhood is friendly. He also thought that two-story homes can work next to one-story homes. He felt that the neighborhood could use more variety.

Evelyn Woo, 263 Cecilia Way, stated that ten years ago, when she was a member of the Design Review Board, character of the neighborhood was very important. At that time, a six-foot fence was not approved in Bel Aire because it was not considered to be in character with the neighborhood. She noted that Bel Aire is a predominantly one-story neighborhood. She opposes the project because of potential privacy impacts.

Priscilla Wanat, 86 Claire Way, stated that while this is a better design, it is still quite massive.

Jerry Thayer, 158 Blackfield Drive, said that the character of a neighborhood is very important. He noted that these houses were designed with the idea of providing back yard privacy. He said that this house would open the door to many changes in the neighborhood. He said that there are two second-story houses in the neighborhood, built before the area was annexed into Tiburon, which are set back on the lots. He noted that the applicant has other design choices. He felt that many one-story additions make good use of property and are well designed. He did not believe that there are compelling reasons to allow a two-story home.

Cissy Twiggs, 301 Karen Way, stated that she supports the project. She did not think that there is much privacy right now in this neighborhood, as there are people around everyone. She said that a number of other houses around her look down on her back yard.

Bruce Seavers, 79 Claire Way, stated that the character of the neighborhood is critical, and he thought that a decision on this house would set a precedent. Given economic realities of the homes in this neighborhood, he believed that many more applications will be made for two-story homes. He said that people chose to live in Bel Aire because of the one-story character of the neighborhood. Many houses could be demolished and the owners could make more money, but he believed that many homeowners do not want to see that happen.

Cynthia Perry, 79 Claire Way, stated that she had previously considered constructing a two-story addition to her house, but, after speaking with neighbors and Staff, it became clear to her the project would negatively impact her neighbors. She said that her one-story addition is acceptable to neighbors with a private big yard. She said that opening the floodgates to change is a real concern. She asked what would happen to privacy if the opaque windows were replaced with clear glass. She believed that two-story houses should not be approved and if so, the neighborhood should be surveyed to determine what Bel Aire residents want.

Virginia Brunini, 267 Karen Way, stated that up to two-thirds of the homes in Bel Aire have been successfully expanded without two-story additions. She felt that the applicants should have discussed this project with their neighbors. She said that this home is massive in appearance even though the second story area is set back. She thought that some two-story homes in Belveron are well designed, but some are not. She said that two-story homes are not acceptable everywhere, as a two-story home could look down on others and take away sunlight. She appreciated living in a neighborhood that cannot be duplicated. She said that the applicant has stated he made efforts to inform neighbors of the project, but she did not receive a phone call about this project. She spoke on behalf of Mr. Peter Mason, the neighbor next to the applicant’s home, stating that he opposes this project. Mr. Mason’s tenants left because of the future construction of the house next door, and now he cannot find tenants who want to live there.

Jennifer Carter, 130 Leland Way, read a letter from her brother, an architect, who stated this project will create an environmental impact to the Bel Aire community because this will set a precedent of large two-story homes that are inconsistent with the architecture of the neighborhood. His letter stated that the loss of streetscape integrity and the loss of historical character would be environmental impacts. She said that a two-story house on this site will impact views and privacy, which would be inconsistent with the Town’s guiding principles for new homes. She said that the bulk and height of the proposed house would be dissimilar to that of other homes in the vicinity. She felt that the application does not begin to adequately minimize visual impacts on the street or impacts on neighbors. She said that the design is not compatible with the neighborhood, as the massing is out of character and the architecture is out of context. Ms. Carter also read a letter from her mother, Janet Carter, the owner of 130 Leland Way, who opposes the two-story home even with the increased setbacks. She said that the "50-foot line of trees" mentioned by the applicants consists of two elms that lose leaves in the winter. Her master bedroom would be in shadow. She felt that the applicants can build back on the site, instead of up, and that the building should be redesigned with a single story.

Ann Allen, 87 Claire Way, stated there is only fourteen feet between the houses. She felt that a two-story house is imposing. She hopes the immediate neighbor’s concerns receive consideration because they are the most impacted.

Mr. Houston stated that the setbacks on both sides and opaque glass in windows should address privacy concerns. From his roof, he can see into 118 and 130 Leland Way, and this is addressed by eliminating some windows and making some windows opaque. He stated that at the winter solstice, only ten percent of Ms. Carter’s sunlight would be blocked. He said that there is no wet bar proposed in the garage, but rather, the area is a laundry. He also said that there is no attic in this design.

Mr. Berman stated that although he may not have met with all the neighbors, he did make significant efforts to increase the setbacks. He said that single-family homes are categorically exempt under CEQA. He said that there are not enough compatible buildings in the vicinity to create a historical character for neighborhood.

Senior Planner Watrous noted the Permit Streamlining Act requires action on this application at this meeting.

Boardmember McLaughlin stated he is totally conflicted about this project. He believes change is coming to this neighborhood. He has heard from young families who have moved into the neighborhood and who want change. He said that the 50-year architecture is obsolete and not in keeping with the 21st century lifestyle and with what is coming in the future. He said that other two-story applications will be made whether or not this project is approved. He noted that no matter what action is taken on this project, there will likely be an appeal to the Council. The question is if this is the right two-story house for this site. He said that the house has come an incredible distance from its beginnings and it is someone’s house and someone’s dream and this is their compromise. He said that the second story does not create sunlight impacts on nearby houses, as the trees create more of an impact. Eliminating windows on one side and pulling the second story back eliminated privacy issues. He would make a compromise in the master bedroom because of the privacy and night light issue by eliminating some of the windows. He would like to lower the eave line of the first story. He said that the people in the neighborhood are the most important part of its character. He could support the project as designed.

Boardmember Beales stated that the design has changed considerably for the better. He noted that the Design Review Board routinely approves variances to avoid second story additions. He said that the rear property line is on the other side of the creek, and other properties in the vicinity have more useable area. He said that there are no privacy issues, and the trees block the sunlight to the side and rear. He felt that the house should not be held captive to the trees. If the application were continued, he would consider moving another bedroom downstairs, but he supports the request as submitted.

Chair Figour stated that he concurs that this two-story solution is very good and addresses most of the problems of the previous concept. He said that this design would not be eye shattering from the street. He said that if there was a reluctance for two-story homes, the neighborhood should have petitioned the Town to change the zoning codes. This has not occurred and it is the expectation of one who buys property in Bel Aire to be allowed to build a second-story home. He said that this is a good two-story building for the site, and he could support the request.

3. 1860 VISTAZO WEST STREET PETERSON, NEW DWELLINGS/ VARIANCE

The applicant is requesting Design Review approval for the construction of a new single-family dwelling and a secondary dwelling unit on property located at 1860 Vistazo West Street. A single-family dwelling and shed currently on the site would be demolished. The parking ramp leading to a proposed rooftop parking deck would be situated within the required front yard setback, extending to the front property line. As a fifteen-foot front yard setback is required in the R-1 Zone, a variance for reduced front yard setback is required. This application was first reviewed at the August 1, 2002 Design Review Board meeting. At that time, concerns were raised by the owner of the nearby property at 1874 Vistazo West Street regarding potential view impacts that would result from the proposed structures. Questions were also raised regarding the completeness and accuracy of the story poles for the project. The Design Review Board therefore continued this request to the August 15, 2002 meeting to allow the applicant time to correct the story poles for the project and allow the Boardmembers the opportunity to view the story poles from the neighboring house.

Tim Peterson, owner, stated he feels Mr. Ross’ concerns in the late mail letter are unrelated to this project. Regarding Mr. Ross’ statement that this is an ambitious project, Mr. Peterson noted that the building would be in the middle of the site, and the house would be smaller than the floor area ratio for this property. He stated that the most significant view impact from Mr. Ross’ home is from a window facing the side yard. He said it would be difficult to design a home without somewhat impacting Mr. Ross’ views. He stated that the courtyard area could be eliminated, but that would impact the quality of the house.

Bill Ross, 1874 Vistazo West Street, stated the project still negatively impacts him. He said that his primary views are to the west, to the front of his house, and that this project would move into his view or block it. His kitchen and dining room are the main rooms looking west. He understood nothing would be allowed to block his view of the water and his slot view, and the applicant is saying his slot and water views are not important. Contrary to Mr. Peterson’s opinion, Mr. Ross stated that there would be blockage of Richardson Bay views from his dining room, which is a ceremonial room. He said that the placement of the house, not its design, is the issue. He said that there should be a way to move the top level out of his view, with the onus placed on the applicant, not him.

Boardmember Beales stated that he visited Mr. Ross’ home and there is definitely a view blockage from the kitchen. He thought that it would be possible to move the upper level of the left side of the house (the easterly wing) back to eliminate the view blockage.

Boardmember McLaughlin stated he is concerned about the view issue. He would not consider this to be a significant view, but it is from a ceremonial room. From the kitchen, standing at the sink, the house would be intrusive, but elsewhere in the kitchen, it would be less intrusive. He said that the design is fabulous architecture, considering the Planning Commission’s constraints. He is unsure if mitigating a partially-interrupted view from kitchen windows should result in a revision of the project.

Chair Figour stated that he also visited Mr. Ross’ house, and from the dining room, it is a mass issue. He said that this was a nice design but could be tweaked to move the master bedroom back to mitigate this impact.

Boardmember Beales suggested that part of the building could be slid back six feet, which would leave space for the car.

Senior Planner Watrous noted, with a second unit, six parking spaces have been required by the Planning Commission.

Mr. Peterson suggested a compromise that would allow him to move the upper portion back four feet.

4. 19 PLACE MOULIN AMADEI, NEW DWELLING

The applicant is requesting Design Review approval for the construction of a new single-family dwelling on property located at 19 Place Moulin. The house would have three stories of livable area, and an overall height of 30 feet. The main level would include a living room, kitchen, dining room, great room, library, one bedroom and 1.5 bathrooms. The upper level would include a master bedroom suite, two additional bedrooms and one more bathroom. The basement level would include a game room, media room, wine cellar and one bathroom. As swimming pool and spa are proposed to the rear of the site. Wood arbors are proposed to be constructed adjacent to patio areas to the front and rear of the residence. A three-car garage would be adjacent to the basement level of the house.

Eric Amadei, applicant, discussed the project, as did Bob McBain, architect,

Boardmember Beales noted that the previous design for a house on this site cut the garage into the side of the hill, and now the driveway comes up the right side of the property. He asked how the trees would be protected. Mr. McBain responded that one tree will be removed and the others will be next to the driveway. The landscape architect proposed installing blocks on gravel for the driveway so the roots will be protected.

David Moyne, 16 Place Moulin, stated there are many homes of this size in the neighborhood, but these other homes are below the hill or blocked by mature trees. His concern is that the bulk of the house will change the nature of the neighborhood. He recommended lowering the house and moving the house back away from the street. He said that the tree proposed to be removed is the largest on the site and there would be impacts if it were removed. He said that the visual impacts of this large house are most noticeable on the cul-de-sac and street. He noted that views or privacy are not affected.

Mr. Amadei stated he disagrees with Mr. Moyne’s concerns. He said that along the street, there are other houses with garages against the street, but the proposed house would not have a visible garage façade. He stated that this is a unique lot, and that the proposed house would be smaller than the previously approved house.

Boardmember McLaughlin stated that he has no problems with this application. He said that other homes do not face this house, and the impacts would be minimal to the house above. He noted that this lot has an unusual topography and relationship to the street, and that other homes along Place Moulin have a similar strong street presence.

Boardmember Beales concurred, and stated this is a difficult lot. He said that the house was a little close to the edge of the Ridge Trail, but people pass through and do not sit, so the trail will not be damaged. He supported the application.

Chair Figour stated he met with Mr. Kozloff, the neighbor to the side of this lot. He stated that there is only a little impact to his view, and is supportive of the project. The house is massive, but he could not say that it does not fit the neighborhood.

5. 1731 CENTRO WEST STREET MCCOMISH/GREEN, REMODEL/ APPEAL

On June 13, 2002, the applicant submitted a Staff Level Design Review application for the remodel and conversion of a duplex structure to a single-family dwelling on the property at 1731 Centro West Street. The remodel proposal includes the removal of the overhanging windows on the west side of the structure, several new windows would be located throughout the residence, a new stairway, landing and tabled entryway on the east side of the structure, and new stone pilasters in the front of the structure. There would be various interior improvements including the removal of a second unit on the lower level of the structure.

Staff approved this application on July 12, 2002. The neighboring property owners at 1705 Centro West Street have appealed this decision to the Design Review Board.

Ann Green McComish, appellant, discussed her concerns with the approved project.

Andrew Slucky, applicant, presented photographs and illustrations explaining why he thought his project would not impact his neighbors.

Michael Heckmann, architect, further described the proposed project. He felt that the proposed improvements are positive and provide basic light and air. He also noted that the distance between the two home was 40 feet, which he felt provided a large buffer zone.

Boardmember Beales stated he tried to visit the appellants’ home. He noted that there is dense foliage between the two homes. He said that there has been a noise problem in the past, but the remodeling with double-glazed windows and improved insulation, as well as the conversion from a duplex to a single-family home will improve the situation. He sees no logical reason to make changes to the design.

Boardmember McLaughlin concurred, and stated the proposed windows are normal and help to maximize the light. He cannot find a reason to redesign the project. He noted the amount of foliage between the two houses. He said that a single-family residence will generate less noise than a duplex.

Chair Figour stated that he went on the appellants’ lot. He said that this is a product of Old Tiburon where homes are close to property lines. He sees this project as an overall improvement, with increased setback, and improved windows and insulation. He said that the fact that the house is distant from the neighbor and has quite dense foliage, gives credence to the amount of windows because the Sluckys get little light along that property line.

6. 7 WARREN COURT ZIPPIN, FENCE/APPEAL

On June 18, 2002, the applicant submitted a Staff Level Design Review application for an "as-built" fence located on the property at 5 Warren Court. The fence was built without prior Design Review approval; subsequently, the appropriate fees for work without the proper permits were charged to the applicant. The application was reviewed for completeness and the courtesy notices were sent to the adjacent neighbors.

Staff approved this application on July 11, 2002. The neighboring property owners at 4 Warren Court have appealed this decision to the Design Review Board.

Patricia Zippin, 4 Warren Court, appellant, stated that construction plans were approved for the house on this site, and, at that time, her view and the ridgelines were protected. However, a fence was built across the property creating an enclosed area in which the children can play. She stated that there are two fences in front of her fence, which is outside of her dining room, and e the bulk of the new house and three fences are in the only view left to her of the Richmond Bridge. She asked that the fence be moved to open her view and provide a play space for the children. She said that a view corridor to the bay was agreed upon during an arbitration process with the applicants, which the fence violates. She would like the fence shortened and the view widened.

Dan Weiss, representing the applicant, stated the fence complies with the arbitration agreement. He said that the fence is 42 inches above grade; some areas are higher but they are not part of the fence in her view corridor.

Boardmember Beales asked if the fence was shown on the original landscaping plan for this house. Mr. Weiss responded, that it was not, and that a fence was not under consideration at the time the project was built.

Brian Lipschultz, applicant, stated the reason for the fence is for the safety of people in his yard. The area below the mow strip where the fence is located is a steep drop-off. He said that the fence is in compliance with the agreed upon view corridor. He said that appellant’s proposed compromise is not acceptable. He said that if 30 feet of the fence is removed as the appellant requests, his children would exposed to the drop-off .

Chair Figour asked if one can walk around the fence ends. Mr. Lipschultz replied that the fence ends into the hill. If a child wanted to make the effort to get around the impediment, he could, but Mr. Lipschultz has attempted to protect against the unintentional actions of a child. Chair Figour stated there appears to be a big boulder by the fence that would allow a child to hop over the fence and it seems odd the area is not totally contained for children.

Ms. Zippin stated the view corridor was decided in arbitration. She said that a 3.5 foot tall fence on top of a four-foot bulkhead creates a 7.5 foot tall fence, above the six foot height limit for walls and fences. She disagreed with Staff’s determination of the natural or finished grade in determining the height of the fence and wall.

Boardmember Beales stated the issues contained within arbitration and lawsuits are outside the purview of the Design Review Board. He stated that during the original review of the house on this site there was much concern about the Zippins’ views. He said that if a fence had been presented in this location at the time the house was first reviewed, the fence probably would not have been approved. He said that this is a view blockage issue, and that sitting in Ms. Zippin’s living room, there is view blockage.

Boardmember McLaughlin stated he is sensitive to safety issues regarding children. He understood why this fence was located where it was. He remembered that there was quite a struggle about views when this house was first approved, and that this view was very important. If the fence had been part of the original house application, he is not sure it would have been approved. On its face, he did not think that this fence is that disturbing, but this specific view is an issue. He does not know what the solution is, but the fence feels wrong to him.

Chair Figour stated that he concurs with Boardmember Beales. He said that the solution is to put the fence parallel to the edge of the house and get rid of the portion that impacts Ms. Zippin. He said that this fence did not have to be installed in this manner, and the fence emasculates the neighbors’ views. He supports the appeal.

Boardmember Beales stated the Lipschultzes are innocent victims; he felt that the Weiss Company created the problem and should be responsible for it. He added that the issue seems to be that the Zippin’s line of sight is parallel to the surface of the building; hence, the fence could be realigned with that end of the building.

7. 136 AVENIDA MIRAFLORES KUNTZ, NEW DWELLING

The applicant is requesting Design Review approval for construction of a two-story single-family dwelling located at 136 Avenida Miraflores. A two-story residence is currently located on the site. A previous Site Plan and Architectural Review application (File #799116) was approved by the Design Review Board on September 16, 1999 to expand the existing house on the property. Those plans indicated that less than 50 percent of the floor area of the existing house would be demolished as part of this construction project. However, the applicant has now demolished more than 50 percent of the original floor area, and an application is now required for the approval of a new single-family dwelling.

Steve Thompson, architect, noted this application is for the same design as that approved in 1999 and asked that it be approved. He noted that all the siding was changed to stucco with a slatelike roof.

Boardmember McLaughlin stated he has no issues with this application. He said that the neighbors above cannot see anything as hedges and fences are in the way. From the first floor of this project, one looks into the rear yard below. He noted that there were no issues with the previous application.

Boardmember Beales stated the letter received from Mr. Goldberg does not understand why the project is back before the Board. He said that the notice was perhaps not quite clear, and that Staff informed him that a clarifying e-mail was sent to Mr. Goldberg, and that there had been no response.

M/S, Beales/McLaughlin, passed 3-0-2 (Comstock and Teiser absent), to approve the application based upon the findings and conditions as set forth in the Staff report.

Page 7, 4th and 5^th paragraphs, change "bails" to "bales."

Page 10, last line, change to, "….but there would be no impact on the Richardson Bay view."

Page 11, 2^nd paragraph, third line to state, "Mr. Peterson can pull back the second floor…" Last line, change "up" to "back."

G. ADJOURNMENT

The meeting was adjourned at 12:20 a.m.