B.    PUBLIC COMMENTS (FOR ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA)

C.    DISCUSSION AND STAFF BRIEFING

D. CONSENT CALENDAR

1. 1640 Tiburon Boulevard Siciliano/Zelinsky Sign Permit/Exception DENIED

E. OLD BUSINESS BEFORE THE BOARD

2. 1790 Centro West Street Briske Two-Family Dwelling/Variances APPROVED

3. 3 Francisco Vista Court Faili New Dwelling APPROVED

4. 31 Juno Road Morgan Additions/Variance APPROVED

F. NEW BUSINESS BEFORE THE BOARD

5. 90 Bond Lane Miller Addition APPROVED

6. 116 Sugarloaf Drive Miller Additions/Var./Floor Area Exception APPROVED

G. MINUTES OF THE 2/20/03 D.R.B. MEETING – APPROVED AS AMENDED

H. ADJOURNMENT – 8:40 P.M.

A. ROLL CALL

Present: Chair Figour, Boardmembers Beales, Comstock 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.

C. DISCUSSION AND STAFF BRIEFING

Planning Manager Watrous reported that Boardmember Beales was reappointed at the last Town Council meeting, while Boardmember McLaughlin was not. He stated that John Kunzweiler was appointed as a new Boardmember, and would be sworn in at the next Board meeting.

1. 1640 TIBURON BOULEVARD SICILIANO/ZELINSKY SIGN PERMIT

The applicant is requesting approval of one "as built" sign for the purpose of advertising a business located at 1640 Tiburon Boulevard. The subject sign is located on the wall above the entrance to the building. The sign is comprised of plastic with an aluminum frame and is internally illuminated. The sign copy reads, "Cindy’s Hair Studio." The color of the sign is white letters on a green background.

Cindy Siciliano, Cindy’s Hair Studio, discussed her sign and its purpose for her business. She stated that this sign is similar to the sign for the Tiburon Lodge Motel. She submitted petitions in support of her sign. In response to questions, she stated she did not discuss the sign with her landlord.

Boardmember Comstock stated the sign is not in conformance with the Town’s sign guidelines. He noted that the Downtown Design Guidelines discourages internally-illuminated box signs. He stated that the sign is overly large, and does not match other signs on the building.

Boardmember Teiser agreed that the sign is out of character with other signs on the building, but the size of the sign would be acceptable if it were the same size as the previous sign. He said that he could not support the change to an internally illuminated sign with different materials.

Boardmember Beales stated the size of the sign is acceptable; however, he said that the intent of the Downtown Design Guidelines is to improve the appearance of the downtown, and citing signs that have existed for many years is not appropriate, as some old signs would not be approved under the current Downtown Design Guidelines.

Chair Figour stated that it is difficult for the Town when a sign is already manufactured and installed. He felt that other signs in the area are not particularly great, and there is little no consistency with other signs, but this sign does not follow the Downtown Design Guidelines.

Boardmember Comstock noted that there have been other recent sign applications to permit signs after they have been installed. He said that the property owner, who owns a number of properties in town, including this tenant’s building, should better educate his tenants.

Chair Figour stated businesses must be educated that signs are reviewed by the Design Review Board and signs should be submitted for review prior to design and manufacture.

2. 1790 CENTRO WEST STREET BRISKE, TWO-FAMILY DWELLING/VARIANCES

On December 5, 2002, the Design Review Board held a public hearing and reviewed a request to construct a detached garage and additions to a detached two-family dwelling on a property located at 1790 Centro West Street. There were several concerns voiced by the public and the Board; therefore, the public hearing was continued until February 20, 2003, so the applicant could make changes to address the concerns.

At the February 20, 2003 Board meeting, the applicant submitted a revised project design and there was again much public comment regarding the application. Most of the comments were regarding the fact that the project would necessitate the relocation of a row of mailboxes that are currently located adjacent to the existing garage on the subject site. The Board was unable to respond to those comments because it is not within the Board’s purview to discuss the installation of mailboxes. This issue will be referred to the U.S. Postal Service and the Tiburon Public Works Dept to ensure an appropriate location for the mailboxes is found.

The applicant has now submitted a further revised design for the carport. The application no longer requires a variance for reduced parking, but still requires variances for reduced front and side yard setbacks.

Jerry Briske, owner, stated he discussed the new plan with neighbors. This new plan allows the mailboxes to remain where they are and the parking pad to abut the garage, with a staircase between Raccoon Lane to the pad, which is a better visual effect

Dan Archer, architect, discussed changes to the application. He asked that he be allowed to install a gate or removable fence panel to facilitate moving furniture at Raccoon Lane, where it is difficult to turn the corner.

Miles Berger, 14 Raccoon Lane, applauded the Briskes for their sensitivity to balance the needs of all the neighbors.

Richard Musalo, 1785 Centro West Street, stated that the parking platform has not been lowered as requested by several neighbors at the last Design Review Board meeting. This is a new structure, and he felt that the grade could be lowered two feet to allow the structure to visually nestle into the shrubbery more than it does standing on the hill.

Pat Montag, 7 Raccoon Lane, stated she lives across the street from the parking deck. At the last meeting, she asked that the deck slope down rather than up. She asked what the 36-inch high railing would look like, and asked that the deck be lowered two feet.

Helen Lindqvist, Old Tiburon/Lyford Cove Homeowners Association, questioned how the new second unit could be approved within the required setback.

Mr. Archer had previously stated the carport surface would be sloped two percent, not two feet, for drainage. Regarding lowering the carport, the unit below would have an eight-foot ceiling and the carport is also at the same level as the garage. He said that the railing would be the same as that on the deck of the residence, with redwood and vertical pickets as shown on the plan.

Mr. Briske stated that if the car deck were sloped, he would be concerned that a car could break through the railing. He also felt that walking up Raccoon Lane, he would rather see the side of an vehicle than a vehicle pointing at him.

Boardmember Beales stated the building is existing and would infill beneath the structure. He felt that people would not be able to tell that the units are in two different buildings. He noted that the deck is backdropped by a garage when viewed from the side. He said that the applicant has had to come up with this design because the Zoning Code requires additional parking. He also felt that the existing and proposed plantings would help screen the deck. He supports the application as presented.

Boardmember Teiser stated he supports the project.

Boardmember Comstock stated he concurred and added, if the deck were to slope, the height of the unit below would be reduced. He commended the applicant for working with the neighbors.

Chair Figour stated this project has evolved into a very good design. He said that the applicant and architect have answered all concerns voiced at the three Design Review Board meetings. He noted that this is a difficult site with existing buildings. The mass of the buildings is already there, and hidden behind trees. Regarding the application to have two dwelling units in separate structures, he noted that the fabric of the neighborhood would not be changed by this design, and that both units within a single duplex structure would impact other neighbors. He could support this application.

Mohammed Sadrieh, architect, discussed changes to the project, including the modified parking and the driveway widened with an uphill retaining wall to be no taller than three feet in height. The retaining wall will match the existing wall, concrete with tile capped on top. He will comply with the primary additional request in Herzog’s report regarding the slide of 1966 needing additional review and strengthening of the wall.

Farzin Faili, owner, stated he would like to start work on the retaining walls and widening the road prior to construction. Chair Figour directed him to the Building Department with this concern.

Jeff Bowden, 5 Francisco Vista Court, thanked Mr. Faili for satisfying his concerns about the project.

Boardmember Teiser expressed appreciation for the owner and architect working with the neighbors to address their concerns.

Boardmember Comstock concurred, and noted that past discussions regarding soils conditions offsite are not at issue with the Board. He felt that the project has come along nicely.

Chair Figour stated that he supports the project.

The applicant is requesting Design Review approval for the construction of additions to an existing single-family dwelling on 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.

This application was first reviewed at the Design Review Board at the February 8, 2003 meeting. At that time, the application included the construction of a new master bedroom and bathroom to the rear of the house and a new carport to the front of the existing building. The revised project design eliminates the carport, but would still project into the required side yard setback for this property. A variance is now only requested for reduced side yard setback.

Dan Morgan, owner, discussed changes to his project.

Boardmember Comstock stated that the applicant has done well. He concurs with Staff’s comments about the variance findings, and thought that this was a good way of keeping the house to a one-story design.

Boardmember Beales stated that he supports the project.

Boardmember Teiser stated that he supports the project, and expressed appreciation for the owner and architect working with the neighbors to address their concerns.

Chair Figour stated that this was a good floor plan, and that he supports the project.

The applicant is requesting Design Review approval to construct an addition to an existing single-family dwelling located at 90 Bond Lane. The existing master bedroom suite would be expanded to include an exercise room, walk-in closet and a second bathroom. The proposed additions would add 538 square feet of floor area and lot coverage to the existing single-story structure. The lot coverage for the site would be increased to 8.2 percent, which is less than the 15.0 percent maximum lot coverage permitted in the RO-1 zone. The proposed additions would result in a total floor area for the house of 3,368 square feet, which is less than the maximum floor area permitted for a lot of this size.

Sam Miller, owner, discussed his application, and stated all neighbors approve of his project.

Boardmember Teiser stated that the property slopes quite a bit, and the house is set down slope. He said that the proposed construction would not be located in any major view corridors. He supports the project.

Boardmember Beales stated there is no impact on neighbors, and he supports the project.

Boardmember Comstock stated that he supports the project.

In response to questions, Planning Manager Watrous stated the deck will add one percent to the lot coverage.

Chair Figour stated the project is nicely designed.

M/S, Comstock/Teiser, passed 4-0, to approve the application based upon the conditions as set forth in the Staff report.

6. 116 SUGARLOAF DRIVE MILLER, ADDITIONS/VARIANCES/ FLOOR AREA EXCEPTION

The applicant has submitted a request to remodel and construct additions to an existing single-family residence located at 116 Sugarloaf Drive. The subject parcel is located on the east side of Sugarloaf Drive, which slopes steeply toward Paradise Drive. The existing home is considered a legal nonconforming structure, which does not conform to the following zoning regulations: front and side yard setback requirements, lot coverage requirements, floor area requirements and height requirements. According to Town records, variances were not previously granted for excess building height and excess lot coverage. The house was constructed in this manner mainly because of the topographical constraints of the site. The structure is located in close proximity to the street to utilize as much of the flat area of the site as possible. The rear of the building is comprised of a very tall wall and there is a series of decks off the rear of the building. There is also unpermitted work including the creation of floor area at the basement level and bedroom level.

Anthony Tobias, architect, stated the applicant will trim and maintain the trees for the Sebastians’ views and will minimize the height of the clerestory windows. He said that the trash enclosure wall will be pulled back to ten feet from the curb.

Boardmember Beales asked why only one story pole was installed. Mr. Tobias responded it would be intimidating for an installer to install a pole on the steep side of the house. He said that the net result for the Sebastians is they would get more sky view.

Janet Pearson, 112 Sugarloaf Drive, stated she had concerns with this project, which the applicants have now addressed.

Boardmember Comstock stated he approves of most of the project; he said that the setbacks and building height are not a problem. However, his concern is potential view impacts, and who will maintain the applicants’ trees adjacent to the neighbor’s property. He is not confident that the neighbors have had an adequate demonstration of what the height of the new construction would be. It appears this would block the neighbor’s view of Angel Island, and he felt that the center of the building should be lowered a few feet.

Boardmember Beales concurred and stated the central area in profile does not seem worse than the existing height, but a fifteen-foot ceiling height is generous when it has the potential to impact a view. He felt that one story pole is not adequate to define this construction. He noted that the adjacent living room has a proposed twelve-foot ceiling height, and felt that the center area could be reduced a foot or two in height.

Boardmember Teiser stated he visited with the Sebastians who pointed out that the trees would be trimmed and seemed to be aware of the impact to this peripheral view. He noted that their main view is towards Richmond.

Mr. Tobias stated a large fir tree will be removed, which will enhance the Sebastians’ view. He said that the tree on the north elevation will be trimmed, which will give the Sebastians a more direct view of downtown Oakland. He also said that the clerestory windows would be only twelve inches high.

Boardmember Comstock stated the Board does not know that the trees will be trimmed as described.

Boardmember Beales stated the building is excessively high in the center, even with modifications. He said that it is not unreasonable to lower the central area because its height will have a larger impact on the neighbors than they think.

Chair Figour stated he sees some positive gains in views, because much of the existing roof is going away. He felt that the design is attractive.

Boardmember Comstock stated if the trees are trimmed, the tall central area will impact the Sebastians even more. He wanted to see more story poles.

After discussion with the owners, Mr. Tobias stated he would lower the roof over the central area two feet, which would bring it just above the living room, which will also lower the mass of the existing roof.

Frank Sebastian, 120 Sugarloaf Drive, stated the applicants have addressed his concerns. He would suggest lowering the roof one foot so the applicants could keep their clerestories.

M/S, Beales/Teiser, passed 4-0, to approve the findings and application subject to the conditions as set forth in the Staff report, and with the added conditions that the highest portion of the roof be lowered two feet and the trash enclosure wall be moved back to be no closer than ten feet from the curb.

Changes include:

Page 3, 6^th paragraph, 1^st line, delete "asked."

Page 4, 5^th paragraph, 2^nd line to state, "…applicant could have proposed construction that fits within the building envelope, but that might block views…"

Page 6, 5^th paragraph, 1^st line to state, "Boardmember Beales stated he stood in the front of the nearby house..."

Page 7, 1^st paragraph to state, "…over a portion of the house."

H. ADJOURNMENT

The meeting was adjourned at 8:40 p.m.