A. ROLL CALL: Present - Chair Figour; Board Members Beales and Teiser

Absent - Board Member Comstock

Ex-Officio - Associate Planner Lynch and Minutes Clerk Flanagan

 B. OATH OF OFFICE FOR NEW BOARDMEMBER – JOHN KUNZWEILER

E. CONSENT CALENDAR

1. 1640 Tiburon Boulevard Siciliano/Zelinsky Resolution of Denial ADOPTED

F. NEW BUSINESS BEFORE THE BOARD

2. 19 Cibrian Drive Arcenal Modifications to New Dwelling APPROVED

3. 3 Park Place Patane New Dwelling APPROVED

H. ADJOURNMENT- 8:30 pm

A. ROLL CALL

Present: Chair Figour, Boardmembers Beales and Teiser

Seated after the Oath of Office: John Kunzweiler

Absent: Boardmember Comstock

Ex-Officio: Associate Planner Lynch and Minutes Clerk Flanagan

B. OATH OF OFFICE FOR NEW BOARDMEMBER JOHN KUNZWEILER

Associate Planner Lynch presented the oath of office to John Kunzweiler, who then took his seat on the Board.

C. PUBLIC COMMENTS:

No one spoke during this time.

D. DISCUSSION AND STAFF BRIEFING

Associate Planner Lynch reported joint meetings to be held with the Town Council and Design Review Board on April 30; the Planning Commission and Design Review Board on May 8; and the Town Council, Planning Commission on May 29.

1. 1640 TIBURON BOULEVARD SICILIANO/ZELILNSKY SIGN PERMIT/EXCEPTION

The Design Review Board held a duly-noticed public hearing on March 6, 2003 and heard and considered testimony from interested persons. The Design Review Board found that the "as built" sign is inconsistent with the Sign Ordinance and the Downtown Design Guidelines. Therefore, the Board directed Staff to draft a resolution of denial for the proposed project.

Cindy Siciliano, Cindy’s Hair Studio, requested the Design Review Board reconsider its decision based upon what she feels is unequal treatment of other signs in town, and specifically the Tiburon Lodge sign across the street, and her sign. She stated a number of businesses do not have permits for signs and many signs are not in compliance with the Sign Ordinance. Some people are not charged penalties for late applications as she was. She read Sign Ordinance Section 16.A.6, Exceptions to Regulations that discusses unnecessary hardship or prohibiting creative design. Removal of her sign would be a financial hardship to her. The Staff report states the tradeoff is consistent with the Sign Ordinance, but she believes she is entitled to the tradeoff because she fronts two streets. She is willing to not illuminate the sign.

Boardmember Beales stated the issue is that her sign was not turned down because of the size of the sign; rather, the Tiburon Design Guidelines adopted last year by the Town Council. These guidelines govern his decision.

Boardmember Kunzweiler stated he notices most new signs comply with the Tiburon Downtown Guidelines.

Chair Figour concurred and added, it is unfortunate the Tiburon Lodge sign was approved. He suggested Ms. Siciliano could appeal the Design Review Board’s decision and noted the new guidelines specifically discourage interior-illuminated box signs.

Boardmember Beales stated the Tiburon Downtown Design Guidelines describe what types of signs are appropriate for downtown. He added, a member of the Chamber of Commerce sat on the committee that fashioned the guidelines and the guidelines have been approved after several public meetings. It is unfortunate Ms. Siciliano purchased and installed the sign prior to its approval.

2. 19 Cibrian drive ARCENAL, MODIFICATIONS TO NEW DWELLING

The applicant has submitted a request to modify a previously-approved plan for a new single-family dwelling located at 19 Cibrian Drive. The property is currently under construction, which is the last property in the Hexan Precise Plan area to be developed. During a survey of the floor and roof elevations of the unfinished home, it was found that the overall height of the structure is 7.5 inches taller than what was approved by the Design Review Board. The applicant has indicated that the interior ceiling and floor elevations are accurate. The discrepancy is caused by the foundation and baseline elevation being higher than what was approved.

Richard Berling, Pacific Design Group, architect, stated the surveyor provided a height, 133.0 finished height but the end floor height was 133.6 not 133.0 and the surveyor stated he made the error. Hence, Mr. Berling is asking that the 7.5 inches in increased height be approved. The highest point is 152.5 feet. He added, Planning Manager Watrous indicated the Town works within a three-inch tolerance. All neighbors have approved the height except for those neighbors to the south. There is a significant landscape plan, existing trees will fill out and neighbors will not see the project. This house is not in their primary view. The error was noted when the surveyor came to the site to certify the floor heights, some two months ago.

Mark Loupe, 15 Cibrian Drive, stated the issue is about fairness. There are three homes in this subdivision that have been limited in regards to height; hence, there is precedent that people adhere to regulations. His ceremonial rooms are somewhat affected because Mr. Arcenal’s house is 7.5 inches higher. There have been sincere negotiations between Mr. Arcenal and neighbors. There was a comment that Mr. Arcenal was concerned about lowering the house because of the expense and the concern about rock, so there is some inconsistency there. Mr. Loupe noted he had to modify the location of his pool because of neighbors’ concerns.

Chair Figour asked what he recommends be done.

Mr. Loupe stated he is not a design professional. However, there were three options indicated.

Boardmember Teiser stated he feels lowering the roofline would not have a significant impact on Mr. Loupe’s view.

Mr. Loupe stated, from the lower ceremonial room, the additional height is an impact. He added, everyone in the neighborhood has complied with various restrictions. His reason for objecting to the increased height is mainly on principle.

Boardmember Beales stated his recollection from the initial hearing was to get the building moved to the east so the view to the San Quentin area would not impact the Loupes’ view. The top of Mr. Arcenal’s building is masked by the existing foliage and there is no material impact on the Loupes; however, it is unfortunate this error occurred.

Boardmember Teiser stated he concurs with Mr. Loupe but in reality, there is no significant material harm, and he can approve the modified plan.

Boardmember Kunzweiler stated the rules are there and are supposed to be enforced. The issue is about the view, however, and from the Loupes’ standpoint, the view is not affected. He sees more impact on 16 Cibrian, which is vacant. From the street level he could see that the line of the roof at 19 Cibrian crosses the view of Mt. Tamalpais, and this he sees as a significant problem.

Mrs. Arcenal stated she has a letter from the owner of 16 Cibrian, who approves of the request to allow the increased height.

Chair Figour stated, while the surveyor’s mistake is a serious one, if the height of this building been brought before the Board originally, it still would have been approved. The impact to 16 Cibrian probably will be from the upstairs bedrooms. There is no easy fix to bring the roof down.

Boardmember Kunzweiler added, there is nothing in the record that owners of 16 Cibrian voiced opposition to the project.

Boardmember Beales added, there was concern that the building envelope be placed strategically so as to not impact the view of 16 Cibrian.

3. 3 PARK PLACE PATANE, NEW DWELLING

The applicant has submitted a request to construct a new single-family dwelling located at 3 Park Place. The property is currently vacant and is bound on either side by developed properties. The property is unusually shaped, but relatively flat. The approved building envelope for the property is located lightly uphill from the street, toward the rear of the property. The proposed home is a three-level structure that is somewhat terraced down the slope, with the main living areas at the driveway level, the bedrooms on the upper level, and a game room and bedroom on the lower level. The main level would consist of a three-car garage, family room, dining room, living room, kitchen and a guest bedroom. An exterior deck would extend off the back of the main level, directly above the lower level. The upper level would consist of the master suite, three additional bedrooms, three additional bathrooms and a laundry room. Shallow decks would be located off the back of the master suite and additional bedrooms. The lower level would consist of an au pair bedroom, a game room and storage areas.

Michael Wilson, architect, discussed placement and height of the house. He stated he cannot lower the building further because of an eight-inch MMWD water main running through the site and the driveway must be 3.5 feet above that. He has done his best to keep the ridge height as low as possible.

Joseph Patane, owner, 6 Park Place, stated he feels he has acted reasonably in considering the concerns of the Hendricksons. His proposed house is not in their main view; rather, a peripheral view.

Boardmember Beales asked who owns the large tree in the southwest corner that impacts the Hendricksons’ view.

Mr. Patane stated it is on his property, it is an oak tree and he plans to daylight it.

Boardmember Beales noted a tradeoff might be to give the Hendricksons a view over the top of the tree.

Pete Pederson, landscape architect, stated the tree is a live oak, one of two oaks on the site, and some crown reduction and windowing is slated for the one that remains. Landscaping will consist of mature olive trees (sixteen-feet high) between the Wilsons and Patanes. There will be deer-tolerant, native grasses, similar to what is there now, and drifts of native shrubs and perennials. Olive trees are slow growing and it would take several years to grow taller than the house. He stated the v-ditch will revert back to its original path and this is where the trees will be planted.

Bill Hendrickson, 5 Park Place, stated the Patanes have been reasonable in negotiations. There have been adjustments to the roof, which allows him to see over to the Richmond Bridge while he is standing. This house would obstruct portions of the bridge when sitting from his living and dining rooms. Three additional inches would block his wife’s view. He would like the roof lowered to 227.5. This one foot, even with a three-inch tolerance, allows him to view the bridge when standing and sitting in the dining and living rooms. He will plant some landscaping in front of his house to block the stark view of the house. The height of 228 is better than nothing but it would create a problem with the views while sitting in the living and dining rooms. He asked for assurance that the 228.5 will be the very most top of the roofline.

Susan Hendrickson, 5 Park Place, stated, regarding the orientation of views and the tree, her use of the living room faces due north, not northeast, and the oak tree has not bothered her that much.

James Wilson, 5 Barner Lane, stated he has had a cordial and productive relationship with the Patanes. He asked for assurance that the letter from the arborist is included, which is not in the plans. The arborist’s letter specifies five olive trees not four. He also wants to be ensured that construction and drainage will not damage the privet hedge. He asked that the olive trees reach the height that the story poles indicate. He asked that there be watering during construction to keep the dust down.

Boardmember Kunzweiler asked about reducing the height of the structure by six inches.

The architect responded this conversation took place after his submittal. He noted the stated roof height is at the top of the roof tile.

Mr. Patane stated the floor height is important to him and he can lower the height six inches internally. His problem is dropping his driveway without reconstruction of the MMWD pipe.

Chair Figour asked about building a concrete vault over the line so building can occur less than 3.5 feet from the pipe.

Mr. Patane responded he would have to dig and get around the pipe. He wants to shave and leave the cover without touching the pipe. He added, from the front, the house is 24.5 feet high.

Chair Figour asked if the whole building could be moved down to the edge of the building envelope.

The architect responded shifting to the front would create drainage problems and the existence of boulders would affect the shift.

Mr. Pederson concurred that five olive trees would be planted and Mr. Wilson can approve the trees and planting locations.

Boardmember Teiser stated he visited the Hendricksons, and sees that the Patanes’ house will be in their view. By dealing with MMWD and lowering the house three feet, applicant would have the latitude to get the roof pitch where he wants and also accommodate the Hendricksons. There is a solution that will satisfy the Hendricksons’ concerns and perhaps alleviate other design problems.

Boardmember Kunzweiler stated the boulders should also be considered. Part of the foundation sits on the rocks. The neighbors would need to understand the disruption involved in blasting the rock, so there might be a compromise with the loss of views. The story poles are on the horizon line to the bridge. Bringing the roof down six inches seems a compromise.

Boardmember Beales stated a six-inch reduction is workable. The ten-foot ceiling height on the first floor could be taken down if it does not work internally. The Hendricksons affected view is not of ships and water; rather, their view is of the bridge’s causeway, which is basically a road. "Daylighting" or trimming the large oak tree would be important.

Chair Figour stated he is concerned about the view. The architect can pull a few inches here and there. A solid six inches would do it for him, in addition to other discussed modifications.

Boardmember Teiser stated there are other options here, and to get the six inches internally and not cause undue cost to Mr. Patane. The Board should consider continuing the public hearing so the building can be redesigned to ensure a six-inch reduction can be accomplished.

Boardmember Beales stated the Board could mandate that the applicant make a six-inch reduction in the building height and as a last resort, possibly by reducing the ceiling height of the lower floor.

Boardmember Teiser asked if Mr. Patane could give up the three-inch allowance.

Associate Planner Lynch responded that there are sometimes discrepancies in building height. The resulting height just as easily could be lower than what was approved.

Mr. Hendrickson stated, when sitting in his dining or living room, with the roof at a height of 228’3" he could not see the bridge. Three inches will make a difference.

Mr. Patane asked that the Design Review Board approve the project and he will reduce the height six inches. He knows he can take out six inches in the floor system, but not nine inches.

M/S, Beales/Kunzweiler, passed 4-0-1 (Comstock absent) to approve the application subject to the conditions as set forth in the Staff report, with the understanding that the peak of the roof will be dropped six inches and a fifth olive tree will be planted following the Wilsons’ direction.

Changes include:

Page 2, 2^nd sentence to state, "…not support a change to the sign size as the original sign and internally illuminated."

Page 4, 1^st paragraph, at the end of the last sentence add, "as shown in the drawings."

Page 4, 2^nd paragraph, 2^nd sentence, change to, "…Raccoon Lane, he would not want to see a vehicle pointing at him."

Page 8, 2^nd paragraph, 1^st line, should read, "…maintain the height of the trees for the Sebastians’ views."

Page 8, last paragraph, last sentence, change "toward" to "towards."

H. ADJOURNMENT

The meeting was adjourned at 8:30 p.m.