G. ADJOURNMENT – 10:00 P.M.

A. ROLL CALL

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

Absent: None

Ex-Officio: Associate Planner Lynch and Minutes Clerk Flanagan

B. PUBLIC COMMENTS:

No one spoke during this time.

C. DISCUSSION AND STAFF BRIEFING

Associate Planner Lynch reported the appeal of 2120 Mar East was held at last night’s Council meeting and the Council upheld the Design Review Board’s decision.

Boardmember McLaughlin stated he received a phone call regarding a tree on Hawthorne that was preserved in a previous project approval process, but is now being removed. The tree was a major part of the approval. He asked who has authority to remove it, after the Design Review Board requires its existence.

Associate Planner Lynch described the tree removal permit process.

Boardmember McLaughlin stated, at the joint Town Council/Design Review Board meeting, when retaining walls are to be discussed, he hopes the tree removal process will also be reviewed.

Boardmember Teiser asked that the proposed removal of this tree be brought to Planning Director Anderson’s attention.

Boardmember Beales stated a fence also has appeared subsequent to a Design Review Board approval that did not include a fence. He added, there appears to be inadequate review of a project file when a permit is requested.

Boardmember Teiser asked that Planning Director Anderson address the Board on post-approvals. Boardmember McLaughlin will draft a concept paper for review by the Board at the next meeting.

Boardmember Beales noted the Chandler’s Gate project included a row of trees to shield the buildings and those trees have not yet been planted. He asked if a change was made, contrary to the Board’s approval.

1. 55 MAIN STREET GOLDMAN, SIGN PERMIT

At the September 19, 2002 Design Review Board meeting, the application for a business sign at 55 Main Street was reviewed by the Board. At that meeting, the Board considered the request and suggested modifications to the sign that would make it more appropriate for downtown Tiburon. The Board continued the item to the October 3, 2002 meeting so the applicant could present a modified application to the Board. The applicant has not made any modifications to the project at this time.

There was no representation of the applicant. Associate Planner Lynch stated he has not received response from applicant.

2. 23. SONORA COURT PARTOW, ADDITION

The applicant has submitted a request to construct additions to a single-family residence located at 23 Sonora Court. The subject property is at the end of the cul-de-sac and is on the downhill side of the street. The subject property is average in size for the neighborhood and slopes significantly down from the street. The proposed addition would expand the existing structure to the east and west, and partially to the south.

Michael Partow, owner and architect, discussed the project.

Boardmember Beales noted story pole #1 shows about a 30-foot height and the roof overhang is 31’7" so it appears that corner of the building is higher.

Mr. Partow stated he is confident the height is within the 30-foot height and he will confirm this. The story poles were not certified but installed by a contractor. He will lower the corner of the roof if necessary. The height comes from the requirement to install sprinklers. The height impacts no one.

Boardmember Comstock asked what will happen to the old carport. Mr. Partow responded, he will put doors and windows on it, but these changes are not part of this application.

Boardmember Beales stated it appears the roof is being changed.

Associate Planner Lynch explained, with the nonconforming structure, changing the roofline does not exacerbate the existing nonconformity; hence, the roof can be changed. The front of the roof is not being changed.

Boardmember Teiser asked about the carport being enclosed on two sides. Associate Planner Lynch responded the definition of a carport is "open on two sides or more." Mr. Partow stated he will not add the windows and door because a variance is required.

Boardmember Beales asked about lowering the arch entryway to bring it into compliance. Mr. Partow stated the finished floor is under the arch; beneath this is crawl space, not living space.

Associate Planner Lynch stated he discussed this with the applicant because the tail end of the clerestory was too high, and a modification to the plan was made.

Boardmember Teiser stated a clarification is necessary as to neighborhood restrictions. Staff stated it is not in the Board’s purview to enforce neighborhood deed restrictions; rather, the Board works under Zoning Codes…Associate Planner Lynch responded, if there is a decision made tonight, findings cannot be based on deed restrictions.

Boardmember Comstock stated the deed restrictions can be considered if it is found that the building is out of character of the neighborhood.

Boardmember McLaughlin stated this project has been approved at a height in excess of 22 feet. The deed restriction is unclear as to the height measurement. Associate Planner Lynch noted there is a site plan in the archives but nothing that demonstrates the approved height of the existing structure.

John Frank, 11 Sonora Court, stated the bulk and mass of this project will fill the window of the kitchen, family room, and TV room, where his mother spends considerable time. Of major concern is loss of privacy from the balcony and window that would look directly into their windows. Another proposed window would look into his mother’s bedroom. Also, evening views from the kitchen and family rooms would be diminished because applicant’s windows would add light to their night views. This project appears to be in violation of the Town’s goals; to reduce effective bulk, maintain access to views, and minimize view blockage. The addition cuts across his horizon view from Mt. Tam to Strawberry. He was unwilling to sign off on Mr. Partow’s revised plans and requested story poles to demonstrate any alternative plan. Expansion should not be at the expense of neighbors. In response to questions about the vegetation, he stated the cut vegetation was ivy. Before the ivy was cut, there still would have been light pollution and loss of privacy.

Boardmember Teiser noted the living room has the primary view area. The project does not impact Mr. Frank’s south view.

Mr. Frank stated his mother spends more time in the dining room and sitting room areas. The new windows would be sixteen feet away from her windows.

Marlis Miglietta, 557 Silverado Drive, stated the letter she and her husband signed stated she favors the proposal as it impacts her property.

Boardmember Teiser asked if this project has any adverse impact on her property.

Ms. Miglietta stated there was not a lot of time and Mr. Partow tried to work with them. She believes he will remove the trees near her property to provide more light which would mitigate the loss of light from the project. She does not understand if there is a new retaining wall in the rear yard. Mr. Partow responded that this was an existing step.

Jim Rushwick, 14 Sonora Court, discussed the county’s measurement of height, and stated he suspects that is where the original height method of measurement came from, and in 1980 the county grandfathered existing conditions. There is a lot of vegetation in his primary view, and when it grows above the roofs of the downhill neighbors that’s when the vegetation is removed; usually on an annual basis. With this project, he will see more roof and the side of a building, and will forfeit some of his panoramic view. The height of the garden room is very high and will be an obstruction to his existing view. The clerestory structure is higher than the garden roof, is a massive structure, and is not in character with the neighborhood.

David Blaza, 20 Sonora Court, stated Mr. Partow did not speak with him. There have been utility wires through his view for many years until this last June when they were under-grounded, and now he will have the clerestory structure in his view, which is a material impact. A neighborhood characteristic is not high vanity ceilings. The clerestory and skylights will create night pollution to his view where there is none now.

Marcelle Scholl, 29 Sonora Court, stated she removed nineteen trees from her property to accommodate her uphill neighbors. Her last tree was left through the utility under-grounding because it masked the pole and wires. It is her intent to have the tree removed. She is concerned about her night view.

Hatsy Beardsley, 542 Comstock, on behalf of homeowners in the neighborhood; stated they are concerned with negative building trends such as mass, bulk, out-of-character projects, and this project continues that trend.

Mrs. Frank, 11 Sonora Court, stressed how terrible the window in the garden room would be to her. It would be sixteen feet away from her house, it would be lit because it is a stairway and it would be an intrusion in the dark and on dark days.

Nancy Ahern, Marcelle Scholl’s daughter, asked for clarification how Ms. Scholl’s view would be impacted.

Mr. Partow stated the view of the water would be maintained. The roof will still be below the existing trees. The arched windows will not create light pollution to the uphill neighbors. The garden roof is 28 feet high. He can remove the window on the east side of the garden room. A large tree will hide the house. There is not going to be any view impairment from two houses on Sonora because the trees will hide them. Regarding Mr. Frank’s problems, he will redesign to negate the Franks’ loss of view.

Boardmember Beales asked, what the purpose of the clerestory window is if it won’t add light to the house.

Boardmember Comstock noted the side windows on the entry will cause more light pollution than the clerestory window.

Boardmember McLaughlin asked the plate height on the entry. Mr. Partow responded, 8’ or 8’6". Boardmember McLaughlin stated the roof height could be lowered by changing the arch. Mr. Partow agreed.

Boardmember McLaughlin asked about the interior lighting in the entry. Mr. Partow responded, it will be a downlight.

Mr. Partow asked that the existing height be the basis for regulation rather than the deed restrictions.

Boardmember Beales stated his concern is the apparent possibility that the far corner near story pole #1 will exceed 30 feet, and if so, the roof will have to drop some eighteen inches. The recessed glass in the clerestory arch is not going to be visible to the neighbors, but the arch is massive and perhaps it should be flattened a bit. The view from the Franks’ house is an issue. The side view from the Franks’ dining area and sitting/family room area and should be respected. The window on the side of the garden room should be eliminated.

Boardmember Comstock stated applicant appears to be willing to be flexible. Applicant has stated the mass can be shifted. Residents’ view at 11 Sonora Court will be cut off. But it is understandable that the house would be a foot or so higher than the existing structure so it could be brought up to modern standard . Close to the 30-foot height limit is acceptable. As to perpetuating a 30-foot corner, the Miglietta’s would have more access to sky and light if the second floor were stepped back or not have the 30-foot elevation in the corner. The barrel vault is satisfactory; however, it would be better if it were smaller.

Boardmember Teiser stated he concurs. He does not have a concern for the uphill neighbors because it is not a significant portion of their foreground view being impacted. With the proposed tree removals, views will open up. As to the view from Silverado, the corner of the project is imposing on the Migliettas’ sitting and dining room areas. They are showing good will by accepting this if they get more light by having the trees removed, which is an important part of the conditions. The main issue is the view blockage from the Franks’ important rooms. Kitchen, sitting and living rooms are important to be considered as to views. Remove the window in the garden room. The southwest corner is a concern, and the corner should be cut back. The clerestory arch appears large.

Boardmember McLaughlin stated this is a creative solution. There is enough documentation in the record to show that 28 feet is an existing condition and this is an approved structure. The impact to the uphill neighbors should be lessened by lowering the spring line on the barrel. There should not be light pollution to the uphill neighbors. The clerestory window will not receive much light because it is recessed by eight feet. The #1 story pole corner must be clarified. It is appropriate to remove the window on the east side of the garden room, though there will then be a massive wall facing the Franks if the window is removed. The view is taken at a 45 degree angle across the corner of the house, and that is the issue. Issues can be addressed and resolved, which will help the impacts on the neighbors.

Chair Figour agreed this is a creative design and stated it is unfortunate the Board will have to whittle away at it. He recommended getting rid of the extension where the family room is. Cutting at a 45 degree angle may not functionally work. The window on the east side of the garden room is not necessary as there are other windows in the room for light. The height must stay under 30 feet. For the uphill neighbors, buildings are not always intrinsically ugly. This building will be a good addition to the neighborhood and will not take away any character of the neighborhood. Mr. Partow must provide a landscape plan describing what trees will be removed, which is an essential part of the solution.

Boardmember McLaughlin stated Mr. Partow should get independent verification of the height and this should be resolved now. Add height points to the roofs as they relate to finish grade.

3. 185 STEWART DRIVE GERSHBEIN, ADDITIONS/FLOOR AREA EXCEPTION

The applicant has submitted a request for an addition to a single-family home located at 185 Stewart Drive. The property slopes down from the street and the existing home is situated toward the front of the lot. The residence is predominantly two stories but because of the slope of the property, there is a significant amount of under-floor area at the rear of the building. The proposed addition would be located within this existing under-floor area. The addition would be 1,073 square feet in size and include three bedrooms and one bathroom. All of the existing exterior walls would be maintained, besides the installation of doors and windows at the rear of the residence. Because this under-floor area would be utilized, no significant lot coverage would be increased. However the floor area of the residence would increase to 4,619 square feet which exceeds the limit of 3,909 square feet for the property.

Peter Newell, architect, discussed the project.

Boardmember McLaughlin asked what currently exists.

Mr. Newell responded, nothing. The space is all crawl space. The house has currently four bedrooms and a three-car garage. No other remodeling is occurring in the house.

Boardmember McLaughlin stated he has a problem with a Floor Area Exception of this magnitude, particularly when it does not meet the Hillside Guidelines. If this were being built now, he would want it done differently. The unfinished space below pushes the envelope and creates potential impacts from the number of bedrooms, cars and traffic.

Boardmember Teiser stated this project would probably be more acceptable if the space were converted to other than bedrooms, like game or meeting rooms that would not result in a seven-bedroom house.

The applicant stated the purpose of the project is to create one bedroom, one office and one guest room.

Boardmember Beales stated, apparently, the excess height is not a problem. The Board has gone around a number of times with developers later asking for a room in the crawl space after maxing out the square footage on a lot. This application is a bit different in that the owner did not build the house. This is a large exception. However, if the owner bought this house thinking he had the space, and then learned later it was illegally installed; there is some equity in the owner having the space. The space does not affect anyone. With this much space, a second unit could be created.

Boardmember Comstock stated approval of this project is not a good idea. This is a problematic house facing the prospective house downhill. Approving this application stands in the way of a better way of modifying the house in the future.

Chair Figour stated he has more sympathy for what is being requested versus the historical developers’ request to use crawl space, but this is a large floor area exception being requested. It would not impact anyone but is an invitation to bigger and bigger homes. It changes the character. He feels the Board must draw the line on larger and larger structures.

Boardmember Comstock stated the Floor Area Exception should not be allowed.

Boardmember Teiser stated he sees no overwhelming reason to allow the Floor Area Exception. However, if a future project were submitted within the FAR restrictions, it may not come before the Board.

Mr. Newell asked if impacts of an excessive FAR are preferable to expanding beyond the building envelope.

Chair Figour stated the Board’s conclusion is this is too large an exception, and it is the Board’s job to be discriminating on exception requests.

Boardmember McLaughlin stated the Council has allowed the Board and Planning Staff flexibility by allowing exceptions to the FAR rather then variances. He noted that requests for converting under-floor spaces on steep hillside are frequent.

M/S, McLaughlin/Teiser, passed 4-1, Beales dissented, to direct staff to prepare a resolution of denial.

4. 1741 MAR WEST STREET DERINGER, GARAGE/VARIANCES

The applicant has submitted a request for a new single-car garage on a property located at 1741 Mar West. The property is currently developed with a single-family dwelling. There is currently one offstreet parking space and no garage on the property. The garage would be approximately 250 square feet in size and located on the left side of the existing residence. The roof the garage would be used as a deck accessed from the interior of the residence. The proposed garage would encroach on the left side yard setback by approx 4’6"; therefore, a variance is requested for reduced side yard setback. The subject property also currently exceeds the lot coverage limit of 35 percent.

Richard Deringer, owner, discussed the project.

Boardmembers stated the application is acceptable. Boardmember Teiser stated this is a good solution and the neighbor most impacted enthusiastically supports the garage.

M/S, Beales/Comstock, passed 5-0 to approve the application based upon the findings and conditions as set forth in the Staff report.

5. 1805 MAR WEST STREET PAUL, FENCE/VARIANCE: WITHDRAWN

F. APPROVAL OF MINUTES #17 OF THE 9/19/02 DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MEETING

Changes include:

Page 13, 4^th paragraph, last line, change "50 feet" to "50 yards."

Page 7, 4^th sentence to state, "… bad corner on Paradise Drive. It is a dangerous corner because of oncoming traffic pulling in and out and the issue of aesthetics of too much asphalt paving. He thought that…"

Page 9, 2^nd paragraph, 2^nd sentence, correct spelling of "amount."

Page 12, 2^nd paragraph, 2^nd to last sentence, change "There" to "The design is monotonous. 4^th paragraph from the bottom, change "will not" to "may not."

Page 10, 10^th paragraph, 2^nd sentence to state, "There is no major concern as long as the…"

Page 12, 3^rd paragraph, 4^th line, change "mush room" to "much room."

Page 13, 2^nd paragraph, 2^nd sentence to state, "…just because the foundation is there now."

Page 11, third paragraph, 2^nd sentence to state, "Perhaps Mr. Engel should hire an engineer to perform a peer review of the drainage plan."

Page 12, 3^rd paragraph, 5^th line to state, "…entry is not thought out with regard to the series of fenestration." 8^th line to state, "Historically, a mansard roof is to provide …". Next sentence to state, "The large parking apron in front does not work well with the house." 3rd paragraph from the bottom to state, "…site with a wonderful view.""

G. ADJOURNMENT

The meeting was adjourned at 9:55 p.m.