F. ADJOURNMENT – 10:00 P.M.

A. ROLL CALL

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

Absent: None

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

B. PUBLIC COMMENTS:

No one spoke during this time.

Planning Manager Watrous noted Items 2 and 6, 97 Round Hill Road and 320 Blackfield Drive, were continued to the December 19, 2002 meeting.

D. NEW BUSINESS BEFORE THE BOARD

1. 1790 CENTRO WEST STREET BRISKE, TWO-FAMILY DWELLING/ VARIANCE

The applicant has submitted a request to construct a detached garage and additions to a detached two-family dwelling on a property located at 1790 Centro West Street. The property is currently developed with an attached two-family residence (Building A) and a detached garage with a studio underneath (Building B). The applicant is proposing to demolish Building B and construct a new garage with a dwelling unit underneath. Building A would be converted into one dwelling unit, resulting in a total of two units on the property. The applicant is requesting a variance for reduced front yard setback to construct the garage adjacent to the front property line, and a variance for reduced parking to provide only two off-street parking spaces for the two dwelling units.

Jerry Briske, owner, discussed his project.

Dan Archer, architect, reviewed the project plan, including some recent revisions to the previously submitted plans.

Boardmember McLaughlin asked about the plate and peak elevations of the new garage. Mr. Archer described the specific height reductions and how they related to the story poles on the site.

Boardmember Beales noted the height of the entry was reduced. Mr. Archer stated that the entry was reduced 1.5 feet in height.

In response to questions, Associate Planner Lynch stated that the gated entry is not part of a main structure and typically does not require story poles.

Miles Berger, 14 Raccoon Lane, stated he sees many things in the way the team approached this design to recommend the project. High-speed traffic down Centro West and the proliferation of cars parking on the street are problems that have historically plagued the neighborhood. He noted that while the current owner may not plan on having many cars, a future owner could. He said that historically the site’s owners have had multiple cars and constructed illegal dwelling units. He recommended building a parking deck next to the existing garage. He felt that the garage could move over a couple feet to the east as it only bordered Raccoon Lane. He urged the Board to require the owner to return with a design that solves the off-street parking requirements of the property.

Bruce Ross, 1807 Centro West Street, concurred with Mr. Berger, and added that there is enough land to support the development, and the owner can fit the required parking on the site. He did not understand how it could be a hardship to provide three parking spaces for two units. He said that the Town must consider future owners of this site. By moving the garage to the east and building a parking deck next to the garage, the deck would become an entry deck. He felt that the parking deck should not be covered, to avoid impacting the account neighbors’ views.

Mary Musalo, 1785 Centro West Street, stated she wants her view to remain intact.

Rick Cattell, 8 Raccoon Lane, stated that he agrees with Mr. Berger’s idea of moving the garage to the east, which would help the existing view corridor.

Richard Musalo, 1785 Centro West Street, stated his concern is the solid gate for which he has not seen story poles; he does not know how it will affect his view. He asked that the poles be revised to allow neighbors to see the modified roofline.

Wally Quinn, 2343 Paradise Drive, stated the project should be developed within the envelope of the current buildings. He also raised concerns over the development of the two dwelling units in separate structures, referring to a recent Town Council decision regarding a detached two-family dwelling on Paradise Drive.

Mr. Briske stated that moving the garage to the east would destroy the entrance to the lower unit and impact trees on the site. He thought that it would be unfair to deny the parking variance, because the reasons the variance was granted in 1991 still exist. He said that the impacts would be lessened by the reduced size of the rental unit. Since the current garage has been condemned, he felt that he is adding two parking spaces to what is there today. He stated that the two spaces created in 1991 are empty 85 to 90 percent of the time, and that contractors park there now because of the nearby construction project. He felt that there is no parking problem on this portion of Centro West Street.

Boardmember McLaughlin said that if there is a requirement for a third parking space, he does not understand Mr. Briske’s concern about moving the building. Mr. Briske responded that he thought it was recommended that the deck should be on the east.

Mr. Archer stated that they must work with the existing conditions of the site. He noted that some neighbors want parking and some want views. He does not believe that there is a parking problem. He stated that he could put up story poles for the 6’8" gate, and that there is no problem in lowering it. He said he can also remove the trellis if desired. He felt that a three-car garage is out of character with a Victorian-character building, and would create view impacts. With a parking deck, he said that the neighbors will look at cars. He said that the new construction would match the existing colors and materials.

Boardmember McLaughlin stated the design is close to where it should be. He said that the houses have existed for 50 years, and the neighborhood is used to this layout. The two issues are the height of the garage and parking. He said that the house should not be shifted downhill, as this would add bulk and mass when viewed from downhill. He said that they need to see new story poles. He said that shifting the house to the side would require a variance, but would not affect the uphill neighbors. He said that this would also widen the view corridor across the site and create room for the additional parking space.

Boardmember Comstock concurred. He said that the third off-street parking space should not affect the two on-street parking spaces. He added that there may be a need to modify the stairways.

Boardmember Teiser stated this application provides an opportunity to improve the whole property. The current application is trying to use the existing footprint. He would revise the design to move the structure downhill, with access from Raccoon Lane.

Senior Planner Watrous noted there is only pedestrian access at this point on Raccoon Lane and the slope is steep.

Boardmember Beales stated that his concern was the height of the garage, but dropping the peak of the roof will solve the problem for the neighbor across the street. He said that modification of the design does not guarantee approval of the parking variance. Although he had no problems with the parking situation, he would go along with the majority of the Board. He felt that the existence of two structures on the property is a factor in approving a detached two-family dwelling.

Chair Figour recommended lowering the garage and entry of the main house, but added that perhaps there should not be two units on the property. If there was only one unit, many of the problems would be resolved. He said that the pattern of the site has been set, but is now changing. He thought there should at least be a preliminary investigation into the possibility of joining the two buildings, possibly by means of a breezeway or common entry. He noted that this property does not have two separate access points, like the previously approved project on Paradise Drive. He felt that parking needs to be addressed; he thought that Centro West Street was a substandard and very narrow street, and that the more parking available, the better.

Boardmember McLaughlin noted the two-building scenario, as discussed in the Staff report, did not require that findings be made. Factors that could be used in such a decision include the location of the existing buildings, and view corridors that have already been established that would be damaged by merging the structures.

Chair Figour stated that story poles need to be erected for the entry; revised plans should be submitted for the modified entry for the main home and the garage roof; and parking should be redesigned to provide three spaces.

Associate Planner Lynch stated he will ask that applicants request an extension to the Permit Streamlining Act.

M/S, McLaughlin/Teiser, passed 5-0, to continue this item to the January 16, 2003 meeting.

2. 97 ROUND HILL ROAD DOYLE/DIBBLE, APPEAL CONTINUED TO 12/19/02

3. 280 ROUND HILL ROAD ANOLIK, CABANA/POOL

The applicant is requesting Design Review approval for construction of miscellaneous improvements to the property located at 280 Round Hill Road. A single-family residence is currently located on the site. A lot line adjustment (File #60005) was approved by the Town on February 6, 2002 that added a 0.66-acre portion of the adjacent parcel to the east to the property at 280 Round Hill Road. Much of the proposed project would be situated on the area added by this lot line adjustment, including a swimming pool, cabaña, and spa.

Michael Heckmann, architect, discussed the project. In response to Staff’s concerns, he believed that the landscaping restrictions within the precise development plan are sufficient to control the future landscape plan. He noted corrections to the story pole plan. He said that he had met with the Fitzgeralds at 270 Round Hill Road regarding the proposed walls at the corner of the existing carport, and distributed a sketch that moves the columns and wall four feet further from the Fitzgeralds. The railing will be moved as Staff recommended. He disagreed with Staff’s opinion regarding wall improvements within the secondary landscape envelope.

Planning Manager Watrous replied that the language in the precise development plan is clear; no maximum structure heights are specified for the secondary landscape envelope, indicating that the secondary landscape envelope remain for landscaping only, not for structures.

Mr. Heckmann stated that the two northern skylights are for natural light in the darkest interior of the building and the owner would like to keep them; the skylights would be tinted per the Town’s standards. He feels the chimney flue is better as designed, as it has more visual interest for the uphill neighbors than a single flue projecting up. He described his discussions with the Town Engineer regarding the improvements on the drainage easement, indicating the Town Engineer felt the proposed uses on this easement were excessive. He has not examined all possible alternatives, but he could move the barbecue area, trellis and a section of the access that encroaches on the easement. He can comply with restrictions or reroute the drainage easement so there is no conflict with what is proposed. He said that the exterior materials and colors will match the existing house. No exterior lighting plan has been provided, but only downlights will be used from the house to the cabana and other lighting will be recessed. He will hire a landscape architect to prepare a landscaping plan using the landscaping palette approved by the Planning Commission.

Alexander Anolik, owner, stated the landscaping issues have been resolved by the Planning Commission and Town Council. He is concerned with his privacy. He has been through a lot with this site. He is interviewing landscape architects. He wants the landscaping around him to prevent people looking down into his site.

Len Yaffe, 10 Gilmartin Court, stated his concern is his view corridor. He felt that tall plantings within the primary landscaping envelope could affect his Golden Gate Bridge view. He proposed landscaping in the area be limited to fifteen feet in height. He said that this would still provide privacy for the Anoliks. He said that there are trees in the approved landscape palette that could grow in excess of 25 feet. He felt that the Design Review Board should approve a landscape plan for this project.

Boardmember Comstock asked Mr. Yaffe about his objection to the chimney. Mr. Yaffe stated he felt the size of the chimney might be excessive but it is not a significant objection. He said it is difficult to visualize the structure with just the stakes and story poles. Mr. Yaffe stated his view from his living room and family room will be blocked if the trees grow to 30 feet, and trees that grow to a maximum height of fifteen feet should only be planted.

Mr. Anolik replied that he looks into Mr. Yaffe’s house. He did not object to the development of Mr. Yaffe’s site because there was to be screening; however, Mr. Yaffe has not planted anything for screening and Mr. Anolik wants his privacy.

Boardmember Beales stated the project will be fine. He visited the Yaffes’ house, and thought that their concerns are minor and can be addressed by a lighting and landscape plan. He felt that the applicant can work out the drainage issues with the Town Engineer. The north-facing skylights are acceptable because this is not a regularly-occupied space and the skylights will mostly be for daylight. He appreciates the architect making the chimney attractive and it will be silhouetted against the houses below.

Boardmember Teiser stated he supports the application and Boardmember Beales’ recommendations.

Boardmember McLaughlin concurred, and added that this project has been in the pipeline for a long time. He viewed the project from the Yaffes’ residence, and said that the trees could be 100 feet tall and the Yaffes could still see the Golden Gate Bridge. He felt that the skylights are needed and they would not affect the Yaffes. He said that the chimney would only block views of another structure. He felt that the landscape plan approved by the Planning Commission and Town Council is adequate. He thought that the lighting and landscape plans can be reviewed by either the Board or Staff.

Boardmember Comstock asked about paving materials for the terrace. Mr. Heckmann replied the tile will be similar to the terra cotta tile in the entry. The color will be earthtone and the tile will be kept to a standard configuration.

Boardmember Comstock stated that Staff can review the landscape plan. He said that tall trees would have to be 30 or 40 high before they would get to the height of the trees down the hill. He asked if the large trees will be removed. Planning Manager Watrous stated, if the trees are shown on the plan to be removed, the applicant is not required to get an additional tree permit.

Chair Figour stated that he went onto the site, and concurs with the direction of the Board.

Planning Manager Watrous stated Condition 12 would be expanded to state that all requirements of the Town Engineer will be met including any modifications for the drainage easement. Condition 16 will state that landscaping and exterior lighting plans shall be reviewed by Staff prior to issuance of a building permit. The Board should accept the modification of the wall as on the drawings submitted at this meeting.

Boardmember Comstock asked again about the retaining walls within the secondary landscape envelope. Planning Manager Watrous noted the Board cannot approve a change to the Precise Development Plan and if there is a question on interpretation, the Planning Commission and Town Council would decide.

Chair Figour asked if there is any way the applicant can modify this. Planning Manager Watrous stated he will talk to applicant, and Staff will help them through the process, and if it is approved that the wall can be in that envelope, the walls would be considered approved as part of this application.

M/S, Beales/Comstock, passed 5-0, to approve the application based upon the findings and conditions as set forth in the Staff report, with Condition No. 12 modified to state that improvements in the drainage easement be modified as required by the Town Engineer, and Condition No. 16 added to require that a landscaping plan and an exterior lighting plan be reviewed and approved by Planning Division Staff prior to issuance of a building permit for this project.

4. 95 HARRIET WAY GELLERT, NEW DWELLING/VARIANCES

The applicant has submitted a request to construct a new single-family dwelling with a detached garage on a property located at 95 Harriet Way. The property is currently developed with a single-family residence that is proposed to be demolished. The property is a corner lot at the intersection of Harriet Way and Cecilia Way and is also bound by a ten-foot public access easement on the west side of the property, which leads to the Cove Shopping Center. The property is very flat and is located within Flood Zone A, according to FIRM map, panel #060173-0465-A. The applicant has stated that a major reason for the project is to eliminate the flooding problems associated with the existing structure.

Jim Malott, architect, distributed a color board and site plan with additional information, and noted a letter was received at this meeting from a Mrs. Sheland, on Cecilia Way. He discussed the site and the fact that the neighbors do not want a second-story houses drives this application. If the Bel Aire community wants one-story homes as a building preference, then zoning must be addressed. Making the garage deep where no one sees it reduces the visual mass of this project. Staff discounted the atypical lot conditions in its recommendation. A large garage is necessary to the owner. All neighbors approve the variance for the garage. He distributed photographs taken from the neighborhood.

Boardmember Beales stated this is the first time he has seen coverage of a rear yard and excessive building heights. He suggested attaching the garage to the building, which would result in only a setback variance being required.

Mr. Malott responded, detaching the garage from the house would make less of a continuous building and the building appears to be smaller in its detached design.

Fred Gellert, owner, stated his project would help improve the neighborhood. He could attach the garage. A larger garage was motivation for building a new home; he originally was going to build two stories to minimize the footprint. Parking on the site is better than parking on the street. The garage does not affect the neighbors. Because of the unusual characteristics of the site, this project would not be precedent-setting.

Jim Fitzgerald, 277 Cecilia Way, stated the design is good. The neighborhood does not want second-story homes. For this site, it is a unique lot; hence, there is no neighborhood objection. The neighbor across the street is not impacted by the project. It is a concern that this might set a precedent for the neighborhood; make sure that this is a standalone project. The garage is for Mr. Gellert’s boat. A future owner could consider converting the large garage into living space. He recommended a deed restriction on the garage to preclude its future use for a second dwelling unit.

Mr. Malott stated the neighborhood would oppose the garage used as a second unit. Part of the garage could be used as an office or something other than a dwelling unit.

Boardmember Comstock asked who owns the nonconforming fence.

Mr. Gellert stated he and his neighbor own it. He will build a new fence. He will work on his vehicles in the garage and would at least like a toilet and sink in the garage.

In response to questions, Associate Planner Lynch stated the heights of accessory structures are generally limited to 15 feet, but when located on a required rear yard, accessory structures can only be 12 feet high. Part of the garage would sit on the required rear yard.

Boardmember Comstock stated he likes the project. He has no issues with the house. The garage is a big "thing." It could be cut in size and set anywhere on the site but then a large boat would sit in the driveway and the neighborhood does not benefit from this. Architecturally, the form of the garage is too basic for the size of the building. Perhaps adding a gable on the end that matches the gables on Cecilia Way would be beneficial; at least something to break up the structure from the street.

Boardmember Beales stated he understands the reason for wanting the structure. His problem is that the Design Review Board must make findings and it is hard to make variance finding #3. He agrees the neighbors would rather have a boat in the garage than in the driveway.

Boardmember McLaughlin stated he likes the project but understands Boardmember Beales’ concerns. The lot is unique. In this area, raising the building is wise. This is a creative solution to the situation. We need to deal with finding #3.

Boardmember Teiser stated he likes the project. The garage is no worse than others on the street and the architectural treatment would enhance the neighborhood. Finding #3 can be made because it is a hardship to restrict people from improving and expanding their homes to a 2003 lifestyle. Homes in Bel Aire were originally built small and people want to upgrade. The Bel Aire community discourages second stories; hence, flexibility in lot coverage should be allowed. The structure’s height and rear yard coverage do not impact anyone.

Boardmember Beales noted if the garage were attached, they would still be discussing a variance for reduced rear yard setback. Height would be acceptable because it would be part of the structure.

Boardmember Teiser stated a side yard could be next to a public right-of-way and the Town could consider the south border as the rear yard, with an entrance to the site on Cecilia Way.

Associate Planner Lynch explained Staff had trouble with Findings 1, 2 and 3. The accessory structure’s height and rear yard coverage issues would go away if the garage were attached. There would still be a variance for overall lot coverage and reduced rear yard setback, but it appears as though the Board can make the associated findings because they are more directly related to the one-story solution.

Boardmember Beales noted if variances were switched, there would be a noticing problem. Associate Planner Lynch concurred.

Boardmember McLaughlin stated if the language about the boat and trailer were eliminated, the issue goes away. The code does not state there has to be a two-car garage.

Boardmember Teiser added, if there were a conventional-sized garage, then the option would be to park the boat and trailer in the driveway, which the neighbors would not like.

Associate Planner Lynch stated there is a Town ordinance that does not allow boats and trailers on driveways. He added, clearly there are irregularities about the lot, such as three street frontages and being in a flood zone. The question is how do these irregularities provoke the requested variances.

Boardmember Beales noted this raises the point that the rear yard is defined arbitrarily as coming off Harriet Way. He asked, if language indicates there is not a rear lot and only side lots, whether rear lot coverage issues remain.

Associate Planner Lynch stated code requires there must be a front and rear yard.

Boardmember Teiser asked if, on a corner lot, the rear lot could be on both frontages.

Associate Planner Lynch clarified the front lot line was predetermined based on the existing structure and the narrow frontage on Harriet Way, but there is some discretion as to defining the front or rear yard.

Mr. Malott stated the hardship is the neighborhood does not want a second story and he is trying to accommodate the neighborhood.

Boardmember Comstock stated, because of the hardship that the house be a single story and the owner can still get less than the allowable floor area on one story whether with a garage or studio, the only option would be to have no yard. With 2,800 square feet of building, the owner would only be able to have a little rear yard somewhere, either in the back corner where it would be unusable, or in the center of the house as proposed.

Applicant stated he could put less roof slope on the garage but the house would be less, architecturally. The height is for the boat and is a function of the width of the garage.

It was the consensus of the Board that variance findings #1, #2, and #3 can be made based on the following conditions of the site; it is located in a flood zone, it has effectively three different frontages, and it is undesirable to construct a two-story dwelling in the neighborhood. The variance finding for the excess garage roof height is based upon the need for architectural consistency on the site and the ability to accommodate the size of modern vehicles. In addition, the design of the project is appropriate to accommodate a modern lifestyle.

M/S, Teiser/Comstock, passed 5-0, to approve the application with the conditions set forth by Staff.

Boardmember McLaughlin left the meeting at this point.

5. 98 MAIN STREET MAIN STREET PROPERTIES, ATM

The applicant has submitted a request to install an Automated Teller Machine (ATM) in the wall of an existing business located at 98 Main Street. The existing business is Tiburon Mail Services, which has frontage on the Main Street parking lot behind Ark Row. The ATM would be located in an existing window frame on the right side of the building façade. The machine itself is 31 inches tall and 19.5 inches wide. The replacement of the existing window with the machine is considered a minor alteration in the downtown area; therefore, the project requires review by the Design Review Board.

Steve Wear, applicant, discussed his project. In response to questions, he stated that security lighting would consist of lighting along all the buildings; a 24-hour light shines from the inside of his establishment, and most surrounding business will be open during the day and evening. The ATM will be accessible 24 hours. An ATM was placed at Sam’s Restaurant by the same company who will install his.

In response to questions, Associate Planner Lynch stated there are state laws as to the amount of required security lighting. Any new lighting would require at least Staff-level approval. He added the Police Department suggested a security camera be installed and the area be well lighted.

E. APPROVAL OF MINUTES #19 OF THE 10/03/02 DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MEETING

Changes include:

Page 2, the motion should state, "…passed 4-0-1, Comstock abstained."

Page 3, 6^th paragraph to state, "Chair Figour expressed his concern regarding approval of the floor area exception but stated that this is similar…"

Page 4, last paragraph, 2^nd line to state, "… viewed the neighbors’ property from a ladder."

Page 4, 10th paragraph, 2^nd line to state, "…while he did not look at the site from the Andrews’ property…"

Page 7, 2^nd paragraph, 4^th line, change title to "tree law specialist."

Page 7, 5^th paragraph, 2^nd line to state, "might fall."

Page 7, 5th paragraph, last sentence, change "His described" to "He described."

Page 9, 3^rd paragraph, 2^nd line to state, "…Mr. Moritz responded no and that there are other trees in the grove…"

Page 10, 2^nd paragraph, change "Corty" to "Forest."

Page 10, 3^rd paragraph, delete the second "should."

Page 11, 3^rd paragraph, change "if the groves" to "whether the groves."

Page 11, 2^nd paragraph, last line, to state "…happy to approve the removal of all the eucalyptus…"

F. ADJOURNMENT

The meeting was adjourned at 10:05 p.m.