Absent - Boardmember Beales

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

H. ADJOURNMENT – 10:45 P.M.

A. ROLL CALL

Present: Chair Figour, Boardmembers Comstock, McLaughlin and Teiser

Absent: Boardmember Beales

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

B. PUBLIC COMMENTS:   No one spoke during this time.

C. DISCUSSION AND STAFF BRIEFING

Senior Planner Watrous noted that Item 7, the Vista Tiburon tree appeal, was continued to the November 7, 2002 meeting.

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. At the meeting on October 3, 2002, the applicant did not present a modified application to the Board and the Board found that the project was still inconsistent with downtown Tiburon. Therefore, the Board directed Staff to draft a resolution of denial for the proposed project

M/S, McLaughlin/Comstock, passed 4-0-1 (Beales absent), to adopt the resolution of denial.

2. 185 STEWART DRIVE GERSHBEIN, ADDITIONS/FLOOR AREA EXCEPTION

The Design Review Board held a duly-noticed public hearing on October 3, 2002, and heard and considered testimony from interested persons. The Design Review Board found that the proposed addition is inconsistent with the Guiding Principles of Site Plan and Architectural Review, and the magnitude of the floor area exception request is excessive. Therefore, the Board directed Staff to draft a resolution of denial for the proposed project.

The applicant is requesting Design Review approval for the construction of two new-story single-family dwellings on property located at 2355 Paradise Drive. The subject property is currently developed with one two-story single-family dwelling, which would be demolished as part of this project. A variance is requested for a one-foot encroachment into the side yard setback.

This application was first reviewed at the September 19, 2002 Design Review Board meeting. At that time, numerous concerns were raised by nearby property owners, including issues of privacy for nearby homes; adequacy of screening landscaping; potential view impacts; the mass and bulk of the proposed buildings; use of Vista Del Mar for vehicular access; the proposal to construct two buildings on the site instead of one structure; and a property line dispute with a neighboring property owner.

The Board determined that there was a need to revisit neighboring properties to more thoroughly evaluate the proposed project. The applicant was also requested to provide a more detailed landscaping plan, trim trees on the site to allow better views of the story poles, and to submit revised plans to match changes that were verbally presented by the architect at the meeting. The Board then continued the request to the October 17, 2002 meeting to allow the applicant time to address these issues. The applicants have now submitted revised plans for the project which reduced the roof pitch for the proposed upper Unit B from a 6:12 pitch to a 5:12 pitch, resulting in an 8 inch height reduction from the previously submitted plans. The applicants have also prepared a more detailed landscaping plan that includes a number of screening trees proposed to be planted along the side property lines.

Hank Bruce, architect, discussed the project.

Pete Pedersen, landscape architect, discussed the proposed landscaping plan.

Dennis Brewer, representing Robin Moore, 2360 Vista Del Mar, stated he agreed with the statements in the memorandum prepared by Community Development Director Anderson. He disagreed with Mr. Bruce’s statements that four cars would take up the entire 43.5 foot width of the lot. He said that the middle of the site is a jungle and not an exotic garden worth saving. He said that historically the applicant has not maintained his landscaping, and therefore the proposed landscaping that is to obviate privacy issues will not be maintained to preserve views of surrounding property owners. He said that all of the uphill neighbors oppose the project. He felt that the project does not meet the intent of the zoning ordinance and does not fit in with the character of Old Tiburon. He said that requiring the applicant to build only one structure on the site would not preclude the owner’s use of his property.

Shelly Brown, 2300 Vista Del Mar, stated that there is little traffic on the narrow lane, and an increase in traffic is a concern. She was concerned that approving two houses on the site would set a precedent, particularly with the future development of the Marans property.

Bob Harrison, 2370 Vista Del Mar, stated that this project will increase traffic and there does not need to be access on Vista Del Mar. He said the applicant does not need a design that would have four cars parked side by side across the front of the property. He noted that no guest parking is proposed for Unit B. He felt that there is a fire safety issue with vehicles unable to reach his property. He said that the Vista Del Mar and Paradise Drive intersection is unsafe and adding traffic would exacerbate a substandard condition. He noted that the story poles for Unit A project slightly into his water view.

Boardmember McLaughlin asked if Mr. Harrison has similar concerns about parking and cars backing onto Paradise Drive in front of the property. Mr. Harrison responded that all cars do not have to back onto Paradise Drive, as there are design possibilities that would not require backing onto Paradise Drive.

Phil Bartlett, 2360 Vista Del Mar, stated that uphill neighbors want the project at the bottom of the lot on Paradise Drive, and downhill neighbors want the project at the top of the lot. He recommended that the applicant decrease the bulk on Paradise Drive, build two houses, and clean out the jungle at the top of the property. He said that the Town needs to allow good new designs to permit the neighborhood to be improved, which will be a benefit to all the neighbors.

Wally Quinn, 2343 Paradise Drive, stated he opposes the project because it does not comply with the Zoning Code. He said that the upper structure causes visual and privacy impacts to his property. He recommended that two units be located in one building, with access from Paradise Drive only.

Bill Lukens, 160 Los Lomas Lane, stated that in 1994 he received approval for two structures to be built on his R-2 lot, though he only built one structure.

Robin Moore, 2360 Vista Del Mar, stated she backs into Mrs. DeMartini’s driveway when she leaves her house. She said that there are only two parking places on Vista Del Mar. She felt that the proposed Unit B would be massive, and that she will see only a blank wall if the structure is built.

J.J. Wintersteen, 2315 Paradise Drive, stated he would like to see the property improved. He said that from the Quinns’ property, the story poles indicate a big impact, and a single building would mitigate concerns. He felt that the existing rear structure on the Talbot property has visual impacts on the subject property. He thought that the Milosevich property would be undevelopable because a future structure would affect the views from the proposed buildings.

Sue Quinn, 2343 Paradise Drive, stated she completed the study of R-2 zoned properties in Tiburon. She found that since the zoning ordinance was updated in 1990, only two R-2 lots had been developed with two structures. She felt that one property at 160 Solano Avenue was approved in violation of the Town’s ordinance, as findings were not addressed. She could find no justification in the zoning ordinance for approving two structures on this lot. She noted that potential developers were circling the Marans property with the intention of developing two structures on that lot. She said that visually, this looks like two homes, each on a 4,000-square-foot lot.

Anita Milosevich, 2359 Paradise Drive, a co-owner of the property, stated she and her sister do not want to see two cottages on the Aureguy property. She felt that the project’s visual and traffic impacts should be on Paradise Drive

John Moore, Robin Moore’s father, stated that Mrs. DeMartini, the Quinns and another neighbor oppose the project. He said that the people who live above the property, not the Boardmembers, will have to live with the Design Review Board’s decision.

Pam Bartlett, 2360 Paradise Drive, stated she would prefer backing out onto a quiet lane instead of onto a busy Paradise Drive. She noted that there are no on-street parking spaces on Paradise Drive. She thought that the proposed buildings would be visually softer and gentler than the current structure.

Mr. Bruce further described the proposed parking conditions. He said that there is not a lot of traffic on Vista Del Mar and children should not be in danger when playing on the street. He said that if the Marans property is developed with two structures, he would support this. He believed that this project would maintain the character of Old Tiburon. He stated that Mr. DeCourcy does not oppose the project, but has questioned if privacy can be mitigated.

Boardmember Comstock stated that he still has concerns regarding the access from two streets and the suitability of two structures on the site. He felt that the mass and bulk impacts on the Moore property was not addressed, but the privacy impacts have been mitigated. He thought that putting two more cars on Vista Del Mar may be necessary. He believed that there could be a creative one-structure for the property, but that design could result in worse view blockage, mass and bulk. Viewing the 160 Solano Avenue property, it is his opinion that the two buildings on that site create a cluttered effect. He would like the project revisited with a one-structure design. He did not see much leeway in the zoning ordinance to allow two buildings. He thought that a long narrow structure would create more open space and be more consistent with the intent of the zoning ordinance.

Boardmember Teiser stated that a one-structure will increase bulk and height, and he thought that a two building-solution is right for the site. He felt that this design breaks up the mass of buildings on the site and is in keeping with the scale of smaller houses in Old Tiburon. He said that traffic pulling out onto Paradise Drive should be minimized, which is part of this design. He said that there are no problems with pulling in and out of the driveway onto Vista Del Mar without driving onto the neighboring property. He supports the project as it is presented.

Boardmember McLaughlin stated that the zoning issue is not as clear cut as people would like it to be. He does not believe that findings must be made. He felt that this is a creative solution for the property. He believed that smaller units help retain the character of Old Tiburon. He said that two separate small cottages would result in less mass and more open space. He noted that this was a narrow lot, and that other designs would create more hardscape in the front, and would create a harsher aspect to the street. He also felt that the elevation change on the lot encourages a two-building solution. He said that drivers are normally cautious on smaller streets, and the traffic would be overwhelming if directed onto Paradise Drive. He acknowledged that the applicant must deal with two different neighborhoods, on Vista Del Mar and Paradise Drive. He said that there would be no view impacts from the DeMartinis’ main residence, and from the second unit, only a corner of lower water view is removed. He thought that applicant should hip the roofs of Unit B to address some perceived view and massing impacts from neighboring properties. He would accept a restriction to preclude the project being converted to condominiums as offered by the applicant.

Chair Figour stated that in addressing the zoning ordinance requirements for two buildings on a site, this site has issues with its terrain, the access from two streets is another physical consideration. He felt that two structures would spread out the impacts of the project. He said that the character of Tiburon in the past has been similar to this project, and that larger structures elsewhere undermine that character. He felt that this project would create change in the right direction. He was not sure why people have problems with condominiums, as home ownership is a positive. He felt that there is fear and superstition from the uphill neighbors. He said that the project is not massive and does not block views. He noted that the applicant has worked on the privacy issues, but the structure next door also causes privacy concerns for the subject property. He supports the application as it is presented.

Boardmember Teiser said that there are just as many property owners in support of the project as there are opposing the project. He stated that Mrs. DeMartini’s view was opened up when the trees were taken down, and Mr. Bruce removed the window she was concerned about relating to privacy.

Mr. Bruce agreed to hip the roof on Unit B.

4. 23 SONORA COURT PARTOW, ADDITION

On October 3, 2002, the Design Review Board considered a request to construct additions to a single-family residence located at 23 Sonora Court. There were a number of concerns voiced by the public and the Board regarding the project’s impact on surrounding properties. The Board voted to continue the item to the October 17 2002 Board meeting so the applicant could revise the project to address the Board’s concerns. The applicant submitted revised plans that attempt to address the concerns of the neighbors and the Board. The revised plans indicate that the new floor area would add approx 1,050 square feet, bringing the house to approx 2,770 square feet. The project would comply with the limit for floor area of 2,938 square feet.

Michael Partow, owner and architect, discussed changes made since the last meeting.

Boardmember McLaughlin questioned the upper left hand story pole. Mr. Partow stated the overhang would not exceed the existing overhang.

Boardmember Comstock stated there is a screening requirement where the pittosporums were removed from the landscape plan. Mr. Partow stated that once the neighbors decide, he will plant what they want.

John Frank, 11 Sonora Court, stated his and his mother’s issues were not met. He is concerned the story poles were installed where Mr. Partow directed and have not been certified. If the two story poles are accurate, he has no objection to the project.

Associate Planner Lynch stated the story poles were certified on October 16, 2002.

Chair Figour noted the story poles are certified as on the plan, and he asked Mr. Partow to install additional story poles to better describe the project to Mr. Frank.

Mr. Frank asked about the color of the building. Mr. Partow responded that the colors will be earthtone, in grays.

Associate Planner Lynch noted that the applicant indicated the building would match the existing colors and materials. If changes are to be made, a materials and color board is required.

Marlis Miglietta, 557 Silverado Drive, stated she is satisfied with the landscaping. She will not cut her shrubs to control her view, and after building is completed, she will discuss the trees she would like.

Vivian Jacobs, 169 Stewart Drive stated that the story poles were changed only the day before the hearing. She looks at the roof and wonders what the roof material will be. She said that any increase in roof height will impact her. She would like the house to be in character with the neighborhood, and the roof to not go above the height of neighboring chimneys.

Mr. Partow stated that the story poles were revised on Saturday and certified Wednesday. He does not want to have the two new poles certified and assured their accuracy. He said that the new roof will use the same materials as the existing roof and the entry will be seen by no one.

Boardmember McLaughlin stated he does not appreciate this cavalier approach to story poles and the poles need to be certified.

Boardmember Comstock asked applicant if the color would be the same. He added, applicant should get all the materials together and get neighbors’ consensus on them.

Boardmember McLaughlin stated that the modifications seem to have satisfied most of the neighbors and he likes the design. He said that the story poles must be certified. The colors and materials are an issue and if there is much change beyond what is being discussed, he wants to see them. He questioned whether a tar and gravel roof could be installed on the barrel vault. He is unsure whether the color issues should be handled as a Staff-level decision.

Boardmember Comstock stated that the architect is making decisions on colors and materials under time constraints, and these decisions should be formalized. The house has the potential to be attractive or unattractive, and people on Stewart Drive look down on this house. He would like this item continued to see the exact colors and materials.

Boardmember McLaughlin asked if the Board can approve the building to allow the applicant to obtain a building permit, and defer colors and roof materials for applicant to return with them at a public hearing.

Senior Planner Watrous noted the plans approved under a building permit would include the colors and materials and it is preferable to address these issues before a building permit is issued. He added, the Board could condition the approval of the project with a separate Design Review application required for colors and materials.

M/s, McLaughlin/Teiser, passed, 4-0-1 (Beales absent), to approve the findings and application subject to the conditions as set forth in the Staff report, with the additional conditions of approval to require the existing story poles to be certified; and the applicant will submit for Staff-level Design Review approval for the color and materials, with a notice mailed to those within 300 feet of the property to allow neighbors to review the colors and materials, and a torchdown roof discouraged.

Boardmember McLaughlin stated, if the neighbors object to the colors, Staff can refer this to the Board. Staff makes a decision based upon guidelines and the ordinance, and neighbors can appeal this decision.

5. 7 JUNO ROAD ROSE, ADDITION/VARIANCE

The applicant has submitted a request to construct an addition to a single-family residence located at 7 Juno Road. The subject property is a triangularly-shaped property near the corner of Mercury Avenue and Juno Road in the Belveron Neighborhood. The existing home is located toward the front setback line, which is the wider portion of the lot. The proposed addition would be located on the front of the existing house, on the right side. The proposed plan would create a larger master bedroom. The addition would remain on the ground level and the existing height of the structure would be maintained.

David Rose, owner, discussed the variance request.

Boardmember Teiser stated that he could approve the project as submitted.

Chair Figour said that he approves of the project, and that it was great to see such remodeling projects in Belveron.

6. 100 LYFORD DRIVE SOOFER, MODIFICATIONS/VARIANCE/

FLOOR AREA EXCEPTION

The applicant is requesting Design Review approval for the modification of previously approved plans to construct additions to an existing single-family dwelling on property located at 100 Lyford Drive. Four previous applications have previously been approved by the Design Review Board to construct several additions to the existing structure. The applicant now wishes to modify the previously approved project by altering the roof design of the residence. The current proposal would also delete previously approved room additions on the main and lower levels, but would substitute a new room beneath a patio area. A variance is also requested to increase the total building height to 34 feet, 4 inches.

John Lundy, architect, discussed the project.

Boardmember Comstock asked about the colors and materials. Mr. Lundy submitted a photocopy of colors with a tan/brown scheme to the Board.

Boardmember Comstock stated he is comfortable with the color specifications.

Fred Soofer, owner, stated he wanted to truss the building roof and add an interior area and decks. He said that his neighbors have no objections to this request.

Boardmember McLaughlin stated this application is an example of incremental creep in its size and scope, and was unsure whether this would have been approved if all these additions been looked at one time. He stated that this was a visually prominent property.

Boardmember Teiser stated the property is isolated. He said that the scope of the house is not much different that that initially approved, even though the size has crept larger. He felt the impacts are minimal.

Boardmember Comstock concurred. He urged the owner to finish the project and stated the house seems fairly close to that initially designed.

Senior Planner Watrous asked that colors be submitted to Staff.

M/S, Teiser/Comstock, passed 3-1-1 (McLaughlin dissenting, Beales absent), to approve the findings and application subject to the conditions as set forth in the Staff report, with a colors and materials board be submitted to Staff indicating colors to be the same as the color scheme previously submitted and approved.

7. VISTA TIBURON VISTA TIBURON HOA, TREE PERMIT APPEAL

CONTINUED TO NOVEMBER 17, 2002 

G. APPROVAL OF MINUTES #18 OF THE 10/03/02 DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MEETING

Page 4, paragraph 5, to state, Ms. Miglietta stated the letter she and her husband signed…" Also, change to "…applicant stated it is existing steps."

Page 7, paragraph 5, Are to be Area.

Page 3, paragraph 5, change "garage" to "carport." After "windows on it," add, "doors are not part of this application."

Page 4, paragraph 3, change "family room" to "living room…had the primary view." Paragraph 4 to state, "...more time in the dining room and sitting room areas, a southwest view."

Page 6, paragraph 3, 4^th sentence to state, "The corner of the project is imposing around the corner." Paragraph 6, change to "…other than bedrooms, like game rooms."

H. ADJOURNMENT

The meeting was adjourned at 10:45 p.m.