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

Absent - Boardmember Beales

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

D. CONSENT CALENDAR

1. 97 Round Hill Road Dibble/Doyle Resolution Granting Appeal ADOPTED

E. OLD BUSINESS BEFORE THE BOARD

2. 4795 Paradise Drive Allen New Dwelling/Variance CONTINUED TO 4/3/03

F. NEW BUSINESS BEFORE THE BOARD

3. Vista Tiburon Vista Tiburon HOA Reforestation Plan APPROVED

4. 87 Via Los Altos Oscodar Retaining Wall APPROVED

5. 3 Francisco Vista Court Faili New Dwelling CONTINUED TO

6. 31 Juno Road Morgan Additions/Variance CONTINUED TO 3/6/03

7. 20 Bayshore Terrace Brady Additions/Var./Floor Area Excpt. APPROVED

G. MINUTES OF THE 1/16/03 D.R.B. MEETING – APPROVED AS AMENDED

H. ADJOURNMENT – 10:15 P.M.

A. ROLL CALL

Present: Chair Figour, Boardmembers Comstock, McLaughlin and Teiser

Absent: Boardmember Beales

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

B. PUBLIC COMMENTS:

No one spoke during this time.

C. DISCUSSION AND STAFF BRIEFING

Planning Manager Watrous stated that the Planning Commission discussed the language in the R-2 zone related to allowing two dwelling units in separate structures on a single lot. He noted that the Commission wants to keep the ability to allow two structures in the R-2 zone, but with some additional limitations. The Commission will likely adopt a resolution recommending to Council the intent to start the Zoning Ordinance amendment process. If the Council agrees, then public hearings will occur to determine the language. He said that the Planning Commission discussed the option of having the Commission review applications for two structures on a site prior to Design Review Board review.

1. 97 ROUND HILL ROAD DIBBLE/DOYLE, RESOLUTION GRANTING APPEAL

On September 19, 2002, the Design Review Board reviewed the initial application filed by the applicant for a new single-family home with a variance for reduced side yard setback. The Board had a number of concerns and made several suggestions to the applicant. The item was continued to allow the applicant to address the concerns of the Board. The proposed structure would cover approximately 2,950 square feet (15% lot coverage), which is the maximum allowable lot coverage for the zoning district. The floor area of the proposed home is 3,800 square feet, which meets the floor area limits for the property. The revised design no longer requests a variance for reduced side yard setback.

Charles Allen, owner, discussed changes to his project since the last Design Review Board hearing. He confirmed the square footage has not been changed.

Hayden Ames, 4785 Paradise Drive, stated he has concerns about safety in that the walls near the garage area will be eight feet high, creating the potential for a child to fall off. He is fearful that the south side of the wall is too steep. He asked that the project be completed quickly, or it be withdrawn.

Gregory Allen, grandson of the owner at 4801 Paradise Drive, asked how high the building will be. He stated that all of the sunlight to his family’s house would be blocked by this project, and stated a single-story house would be preferable.

Boardmember Comstock said he sees the same amount of flat roof as before. He noted that the only changes appear to be the addition of the arcades on the ground floor, some additional mansards, and the reconfiguration to avoid a variance.

Mr. Allen responded to Mr. Ames’ concern about the fence, noting that the top of the wall is at ground level on his side and there will be a six-foot wooden fence, with fencing to enclose the property. He concurred that the project has lasted for too long. He said that the neighboring home to the north is built close to the property line, meaning that anything he builds now would be close to that house. He hoped the neighbor would appreciate the columns and design elements, in contrast to the appearance of the house of a number of years ago. He said that the fence that is falling down will be replaced with a new six-foot tall redwood fence that meets with the neighbor’s approval. Mr. Allen confirmed that the roof overhang and the columns would be in the setback, which he understood to be allowable under the zoning ordinance.

Boardmember Teiser stated the concern of neighbor to the north was not so much the closeness as the height of the second story. He said that the story poles indicate that the southern sun will be blocked to this neighbor. Mr. Allen stated an existing bank takes away some sun now, and he does not know how much sun will be taken away with the second story.

Boardmember Teiser stated that the applicant appears to have addressed the safety concerns regarding the fence. Although the main view of the neighbor to the south is to the south, he felt that the second story will cause concern. He thought that the applicant had not responded to the previous suggestions of the Design Review Board.

Associate Planner Lynch noted that the proposed fences were not addressed in the Staff report because the project description did not mention a new fence. He stated that a six-foot tall fence on top of a varying height wall within the required setbacks would require a variance; since a variance application was not submitted or noticed for an overheight fence, the fence cannot be considered with this application at this hearing.

Boardmember McLaughlin stated he understands the amount of time and energy that went into this submittal; however, he sees no appreciable changes, although there are some minor modifications. He said that the huge retaining walls would not have been approved as part of this application. He thought that this would be a very massive and bulky house for the neighborhood. He had hoped the second story would be stepped back, as this has a major impact on the neighbor. He said that there is enough area on the property that these impacts do not have to happen. He cannot approve this application because no significant changes were made to make this project acceptable.

Boardmember Comstock stated that he concurred. He said that little or nothing had been done to address the concerns from the first meeting. He thought that the arcade moves the house closer to neighbors. He felt that the mass and bulk are the same, and that the flat roof is more akin to that used on a commercial building than a Mediterranean style house. He said that the landscaping needs to be better developed. He stated that the design of a house is an opportunity to alleviate some of the site problems. There are still options to do something nice, since the hill is gone, but working with the existing foundations paints the project into a corner. He would like this application returned with a better approach to the problems now twice identified.

Chair Figour stated that the applicant has made a real effort and eliminated the need for a variance. He noted that the neighbor’s house is closer to the property line than it should be, and will lose some sun in the winter. He said that the applicant improved the entryway and parking apron, which now has some interest. He is uncomfortable with some of the architectural elements. He noted that shallow mansard roofs with Spanish tile are more commonly seen in low-end commercial buildings and do not lend themselves to columns and arches. However, he is close to finding the project to be acceptable.

Boardmember McLaughlin added this is a teardown and Mr. Allen starting clean, so the project should not be a burden to the neighbor. It was the hope to use the building and landscaping to mitigate the eight-foot-high, 90-foot-long retaining walls, but this was not done. He noted that there are still large retaining walls and the mass of the building in the middle of the site. He said that this house would not be acceptable on a hillside lot. He added that the neighbor is bearing the negatives of this project and should not have to.

Boardmember Comstock stated that he believed that landscaping should help the community. He felt that the design is not in keeping with the neighborhood and the only changes made did not solve the problems. He found this to be an overly simplistic and heavy-handed design. He said that the neighbor to the north is an issue, and that those who live on the ridge and below this site are affected by the retaining walls. He felt that this is an unsatisfactory design when reviewed under the Hillside Guidelines. He said that the applicant had an opportunity to make this an attractive property, but if the owner does not want to take advantage of the property, the Design Review Board cannot force him to do so. His concerns are the massiveness and monotony of the house that do not fit in with neighborhood.

Mr. Allen asked for a continuance and stated the rear retaining wall is to prevent landslides from the neighbor to the north. He also noted that the northern neighbor’s house is within the setback. He added that the lot is flat and he has made it flatter.

Boardmember McLaughlin noted the house to the north has been there for some 50 years and is a pre-existing situation.

On November 21, 2002, the Design Review Board considered an appeal of a partially-approved application for a tree permit for the removal and/or substantial alteration of 34 eucalyptus trees on three separate open space parcels located within the Vista Tiburon Subdivision. After considering the application and considering public testimony regarding this request, the Board directed Staff to prepare a resolution granting this appeal. Resolution No. 2002-13 was adopted by the Board on December 19, 2002 and Condition of Approval No. 1 of that resolution required the preparation of a reforestation plan to be reviewed by the Design Review Board. The reforestation plan is to include information on the size, location, number and species of trees to be replanted; irrigation systems; phasing of tree removal and tree planting; efforts to prepare adequate soils conditions; cost estimates for the plan; and funding mechanisms for implementation of all aspects of the plan.

Kip Jones, 50 Tiburon Vista Drive, representing the Vista Tiburon Homeowners Association, stated that he was available to answer questions about the reforestation plan.

Boardmember Comstock suggested the Town require a surety, a landscape bond, for this project. Mr. Jones noted that the Homeowners Association has approved a $185,000 special assessment for the work.

Boardmember McLaughlin noted some of the irrigation system is being left in place for three years, and asked how practical this is in a heavily-trafficked area of wide open spaces and if this is to be policed. Mr. Jones described the watering container that attaches to the trunk of the tree and drips into the root ball.

Boardmember McLaughlin asked if there is a plan that shows what replacement trees and shrubs are going and where. He noted, at the last meeting, it was decided since there will be major tree removal, discussion included replacement trees of 48-inch box trees. While he understands the benefits of planting smaller trees, the California live oak is slow growing and the homeowners association may as well install a large tree. Mr. Jones noted that the arboricultural consultant had said that larger trees sometimes do not survive as well.

Chair Figour stated he does not understand a lot about arboriculture and must take the consultant on faith.

Boardmember Teiser stated Vista Tiburon Homeowners Association has acted responsibly, hired an expert, and approved a special assessment, and he does not feel there should be an additional cost of a surety bond.

M/S, Teiser/McLaughlin, passed 4-0-1 (Beales absent) to approve the Vista Tiburon Reforestation Plan as submitted.

The applicant has submitted a request to construct a retaining wall at the rear of the property located at 87 Via Los Altos. The retaining wall would be located along the side and rear property lines at the southeast corner of the property. The area behind the retaining wall would be backfilled to create a relatively flat lawn area. The maximum height of the wall would be six feet. The total amount of grading for the project exceeds 50 cubic yards, which requires approval from the Design Review Board.

Jeff Oscodar, owner, and Steven Schmidt, civil engineer, discussed the project.

Boardmember Comstock noted a railing on top of the wall does not show on the drawings. He stated that the a railing would require a variance because the railing would result in a nine-foot wall, or the railing must be set back so that the fence is not calculated at a height of nine feet.

Mr. Schmidt noted the railing would be in the play area, and one-half of the wall is six feet high.

Planning Manager Watrous stated that other property owners in similar situations have planted low shrubs to provide a planter edge at the edge of the wall. He added that Staff is comfortable that a railing could be designed that would be in conformance with the height requirements; the applicant can return for a variance for a railing on top of the wall, but the wall itself could be approved at this time.

Boardmember McLaughlin asked if a retaining wall with a six-foot drop-off can be approved. Associate Planner Lynch responded that the Building Official would likely require a railing be installed. Planning Manager Watrous added that the Building Official would make the final determination; at that point, the applicant can design a railing that does not require design review or one that would require a variance.

The applicant has submitted a request to construct a new single-family dwelling located at 3 Francisco Vista Court. The property is currently developed with a single-family residence that is proposed to be demolished. The property is a flag lot accessed down a private driveway from Francisco Vista Court. The property contains some steep slopes, but the area of the existing home and driveway are relatively level. The proposed home is a two-story structure that steps down the slope, with the living areas at the driveway level, and the bedrooms located below. The upper level consists of a three-car garage, family room, dining room, living room, kitchen and a study. An exterior deck extends to the south of the structure directly about the lower level. The lower level consists of the master suite, three additional bedrooms, two additional bathrooms and a laundry closet.

Mohamad Sadrieh, architect, discussed the project. He noted that a neighbor, Mr. Bowden, was concerned that the project did not provide turnaround for guest parking and that guests would use his apron to turn around. He proposed to relocate the garage to provide a 50-foot turning radius and additional parking. He said that a soils engineer took boring samples to determine the soil conditions around the driveway. A retaining wall is proposed to be installed on the uphill side of the driveway that would tie in with the existing wall, and which would provide stability for the uphill property and additional width for the new driveway. He said that neighbors objected to the location of the swimming pool, and while the pool is not near the neighbors, the applicant is willing to eliminate the pool. He said that these are last-minute negotiations but he would like to hear the Board’s comments on them.

Boardmember McLaughlin asked if the applicant is committed to the changes if the Design Review Board agrees. Farzin Faili, owner, stated the neighbor’s concern is the access road to the property and the turnaround. Widening the turnaround and moving the driveway satisfies the neighbor’s concern, and he is willing to do that.

Boardmember Teiser asked if the Board can approve the application so the applicant does not have to return with changes. Planning Manager Watrous replied that the Board cannot approve something with two different designs. The Board would need to have a comfort level with the changes, and if so, could describe the changes and approve the project. Without reviewing the plans, Staff has yet to determine if the plans are in conformance with zoning code requirements.

Rick Rose, 170 Avenida Miraflores, stated it would be a pleasure to see the current house razed. He said that the applicant has been sensitive to his concerns. However, for those houses above this site, he felt that light and noise would be a problem. He said that the proposed house would be roughly five times the size of the existing structure. He said that the project should not impact the creek area and habitat.

Jeff Bowden, 5 Francisco Vista Court, discussed his reasons for wanting a turnaround space on applicant’s property. He stated he supports the revisions; however, the revisions should be reviewed by the neighbors to ensure the owner and architect are sensitive to the neighborhood.

Ed Clock, 150 Avenida Miraflores, stated he is glad to hear that the applicant will improve the stability of the hillside. He noted a January 23rd letter from the Harbinis, previous owners of the property, who opposed construction of a redwood fence because they felt the stability of the hill was so fragile that a redwood fence could cause an avalanche. He noted that this project would require excavation on a hillside that has failed many times.

Boardmember McLaughlin noted soils issues are not in the purview of the Design Review Board. He added that this is a private road.

Craig Herzog, Geotechnical Engineer, stated, while he has not received the complete report, the height of the retaining wall will be determined by the instability of the hill.

Saidi Sadeghi, 2 Miraflores Lane, stated the front of her house faces this property, which has always been an eyesore, and she planted a huge line of trees to block her view of the eyesore. She said that the design is similar to other houses in the neighborhood and if the project is within codes, she fully supports the project.

Mr. Sadrieh stated he feels that providing a properly-engineered wall will add to the stability of the hillside.

Boardmember McLaughlin stated he assumes that there will be recommendations in the soils report of the entire property and if the recommendations call for improvements that require Design Review approval, the project will require further review. He stated that the windows of the neighbor’s house at 5 Francisco Vista Court face San Francisco or the hillside, and that the wall that would face 3 Francisco Vista Court would be a solid wall. He said that the vegetation between the subject property and the neighbors mitigates any potential privacy impact, and that the impact of the new house will not be greater than what is there now. He felt that the solution worked out with the neighbors in terms of the turnaround is legitimate and fair. He would not have made any move to eliminate the pool, which is in a great location, and that the house would not impact the creek.

Boardmember Teiser concurred, and added that he likes the project. He commended Mr. Faili for working with the neighbors and addressing their concerns. He does not object to the pool as long as light pollution issues are properly addressed. He supports the revisions as long as they meet code. He felt that the house is not overly large for the lot.

Boardmember Comstock stated that he is pleased that many issues disappeared with the negotiations. He thought that this is a good project, as the house would nestle in to the hillside, rather than going up. He looked forward to seeing the project revisions.

Chair Figour concurred and stated the architect and applicant have acted in good faith to address neighbors’ concerns. He felt that the property could have a swimming pool, and perhaps it could be relocated. He would like to see story poles for the garage and the revised plans.

Boardmember Comstock stated he will want to see details of the design of the uphill retaining wall, as its appearance will come under the purview of the Board.

The applicant is requesting Design Review approval for the construction of additions to an existing single-family dwelling on the property located at 31 Juno Road. The application also intends to legalize an unpermitted conversion of an attached garage to living space. The property is currently developed with a one-story single-family home. The proposed project would include the construction of a new master bedroom and bathroom to the rear of the house. A new carport would be constructed to the front of the existing building. The proposed construction would cover a total of 2,141 square feet (25.1%) of the site, which is less than the 30% maximum lot coverage permitted in the R-1 Zone. The floor area of the house would increase to 1,781 square feet, which is less than the 2,853-square-foot maximum floor area permitted. The proposed carport would project into the required front yard setback, and the addition would extend into the side yard setback; therefore, variances have been requested for reduced front and side yard setbacks.

Dan Morgan, property owner, discussed the project and the proposed alternatives.

Andy Dresnek, 32 Juno Road, stated he opposes the variance for the reduced front yard, as this would move the carport too close to the street. He felt that a garage is more important to any owner or tenant, and that the family room should be reconverted to a garage. He said that there would be safety issues with the carport in front of the house.

Ellen Rony, 21 Juno Road, noted a variance should be granted only under very compelling conditions. She said that the applicant inherited the setback on the side, which applicant wishes to continue, but that extending the nonconformity exacerbates the problem and affects the neighbor. If the variance is allowed, she said that zoning becomes a moving target which people will try to manipulate. She felt that variances in this neighborhood should be looked at carefully because neighbors are very sensitive. If the garage was built without a permit, she did not feel that the owner should benefit from that action.

Mr. Morgan noted the carport is too close to the street and he was willing to eliminate the carport and reconvert the garage. He would bring the project back with another addition to the rear of the house.

Boardmember Comstock stated there is no reason to put covered parking in the front yard setback, and the original parking should be restored on the property. He did not think that it was an unnecessary hardship to have the project not be in the setback. He sees no special circumstances and cannot approve the variance.

Boardmember McLaughlin stated there should not be a carport in the front yard. He prefers extending the rooms to the back of the lot. He noted that the Board has traditionally approved extensions on pre-existing setbacks in this neighborhood, as long as there is no serious light pollution or windows that impinge on neighbors.

Boardmember Teiser stated he likes Mr. Morgan’s revised proposal. Flipping the project over will could make it comply with the side yard setback. He noted that the Board has often approved setback variances to encourage residents to stay with one-story expansions instead of two stories.

Chair Figour stated he concurs with the extension of the existing setback. He said that many older homes in this neighborhood are sorely in need of remodeling, and this will be an asset to the community. He would not support the carport in front of the house.

Boardmember McLaughlin stated the carport should be cut off and the house approved.

Mr. Morgan agreed it is important to have covered parking. If he were to cut off the carport, he would reconvert the garage. He would like the master bedroom suite flipped to the other side, which would also make for a better kitchen.

7. 20 BAYSHORE TERRACE BRADY, ADDITIONS/ VARIANCE/FLOOR AREA EXCEPTION

The applicant has submitted a request to construct additions to an existing single-family dwelling on a property located at 20 Bayshore Terrace. The property is on the west side of Tiburon Boulevard, located about the Multi-Use Path. The extent of the proposal is a 63-square-foot living room addition located on the left side of the residence in place of an existing deck. The current proposed addition would expand the building toward the left side of the property line. The existing setback from the side property line is twelve feet and the project would reduce the setback to two feet. Since the required side yard setback is eight feet, the applicant is requesting a variance for reduced side yard setback of two feet in lieu of the required eight feet. The project also requires a floor area exception.

Tom Stenberg, architect, stated the addition will be six feet by eleven feet and the project was approved by neighbors who can see it.

Chair Figour asked about Finding 1. Steven Brady, owner, responded that at his entry, he sees the neighbor’s garage and is deprived of privacy that other residents have in the neighborhood. This project will give the Wentzes additional privacy also.

Scot Wentz, 30 Bayshore Terrace, stated he approves the project.

Associate Planner Lynch noted the Staff report should state the room will reduce the setback by five feet.

Boardmember Comstock stated the first finding makes sense in dealing with the neighbors. As the neighbors have no problem with this project, he approves it.

Chair Figour concurred that he supports the project.

Changes include:

Page 9, change "bee" to "be."

Page 11, 2^nd paragraph, add at the end of the paragraph, "The Design Review Board wishes to advise the Council that the guidelines be handled in the same way as other design guidelines are handled similar in approach to the Hillside Guidelines; and that these be general guidelines, not product-specific.

Page 10, 10^th paragraph, last line, change "applicants" to "Board."

H. ADJOURNMENT

The meeting was adjourned at 10:15 p.m.