April 17, 2003 Action and Approved Minutes

ACTION MINUTES #7

TIBURON DESIGN REVIEW BOARD

THURSDAY, APRIL 17, 2003

1505 TIBURON BOULEVARD

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

Absent - None

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

B. ELECTION OF CHAIRMAN AND VICE-CHAIRMAN

Comstock elected Chairman, Teiser elected Vice-Chairman

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

D. DISCUSSION AND STAFF BRIEFING

E. CONSENT CALENDAR

1. 18 Cte. San Fernando Kahn Resolution of Denial ADOPTED

F. OLD BUSINESS BEFORE THE BOARD

2. 4795 Paradise Drive Allen New Dwelling CONTINUED TO 6/19/03

G. NEW BUSINESS BEFORE THE BOARD

3. 83 Round Hill Road Oz, Inc. New Dwelling/Variance APPROVED

4. 2280 Mar East Street Flynn Deck/Variance CONTINUED TO 5/1/03

5. 730 Hilary Drive Ingledew Additions/Var./Floor Area Exception CONTINUED TO 5/15/03

6. 111 Sugarloaf Drive Grudnowski New Dwelling CONTINUED TO 5/1/03

H. MINUTES OF THE 4/3/03 D.R.B. MEETING – APPROVED AS AMENDED

I. ADJOURNMENT – 9:55 P.M.
MINUTES #7

TIBURON DESIGN REVIEW BOARD

MEETING OF APRIL 17, 2003

A. ROLL CALL

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

Absent: None

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

B. ELECTION OF CHAIRMAN AND VICE-CHAIRMAN

M/S, Teiser/Beales, passed 5-0, to elected Bill Comstock as Chair.

M/S, Beales/Kunzweiler, passed 5-0, to elected Bill Teiser as Vice-Chair.

C. PUBLIC COMMENTS:

Herbert Konkoff, 4 Berke Court, stated he is unhappy because the neighbor rebuilding the home at 3 Berke Court had assured him the rebuilt house would look the same as the original house except for a slight increase in the height of the roof. He said that the new house, now in its framing stage, had been misrepresented to him by the neighbor. He said that the house will take away his privacy, with windows looking directly into his house. He was told by a realtor that the new house has reduced the value of his home, and stated that the new house made him feel claustrophobic.

In response to questions, Planning Manager Watrous stated notices were appropriately mailed to Mr. Konkoff’s mailing address in San Francisco. The Building Inspector had confirmed that the construction was consistent with the approved Design Review plans, and an as-built survey is currently being prepared. He stated that if it is determined that the house is being built per plans, the Town can do nothing to address Mr. Konkoff’s concerns.

Mr. Konkoff stated he cannot believe how he was made to believe that the house would be the same. He said that he had not seen story poles for the house, and had he seen them, he would have done something about this before.

Chair Comstock, while sympathetic, urged Mr. Konkoff to discuss the house with the owners to perhaps modify the plans while it is in the construction phase.

D. DISCUSSION AND STAFF BRIEFING

Planning Manager Watrous reminded the Board of an upcoming workshop with the Town Council and Design Review Board at 6:00 p.m. on April 30^th, and a workshop with the Planning Commission and Design Review Board at 6:00 p.m. on May 8^th. He noted that the appeal for the denied sign permit at 1640 Tiburon Boulevard will be heard at the May 7^th Town Council meeting. He reported that the Planning Commission had met on April 9^th regarding amendments to the Zoning Code, and the Commission will recommend making adjustments to the R-2 zone regarding detached duplexes. He said that the Commission recommends that review of these duplexes be left in the hands of the Design Review Board, but additional criteria and guidelines will be added. He added that the Commission will discuss regulations on paved parking within required yard areas at its May 14^th meeting.
E. CONSENT CALENDAR

1. 18 CORTE SAN FERNANDO KAHN, RESOLUTION OF DENIAL

The Design Review Board held a duly-noticed public hearing on April 3, 2003 and heard and considered testimony from interested persons. The Design Review Board found that the subject fence is consistent with the Guiding Principles of Design Review and the Design Guidelines for Hillside Dwellings, and not detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other properties in the vicinity. Therefore, the Board directed Staff to draft a resolution denying the appeal.

Barry Kahn, 22 Corte San Fernando, appellant, stated he distributed a letter at this meeting indicating he reviewed the draft resolution and requests the resolution not be adopted as drafted because of three errors: (1) Section 1A describing the official record as described in the Staff report is inadequate because there were at least five letters from him and other communications from neighbors or residents that should be included in the official record. (2) Section 1B states his appeal was of the Staff approval of the construction of the fence; he felt that this is erroneous, as his appeal was based on the front yard parking, which he said was incorporated into the fence application. (3) Section 1D states that the Board made findings, but he said that his transcript shows findings were not stated on the record at the meeting.

Paul Kaplan, 18 Corte San Fernando, applicant, asked that the Board focus on the application submitted. He said that the Town Building Official had determined that Mr. Kaplan did not violate the permit. Mr. Kaplan asked that the resolution be adopted as written.

In response to questions, Planning Manager Watrous stated the language in the Staff report does not exclude any information received. He said that the resolution could be modified to include other comments and letters received during the review of the application. He stated that the intent is that all communication is considered to be part of the official record.
M/S, Beales/Figour, passed 3-2 (Comstock and Teiser dissented) to adopt the draft resolution, as amended to include the fact that the official record includes all comments and materials during the course of review of the application.

F. OLD BUSINESS BEFORE THE BOARD

2. 4795 PARADISE DRIVE ALLEN, NEW DWELLING: CONTINUED

Associate Planner Lynch stated applicant told him he had hired an outside architect and expected to bring plans to the Town in the next few months.

Boardmember Beales reiterated his concern from the last meeting about the Town’s revised policy regarding Permit Streamlining Act deadlines and categorical exemptions under CEQA.

Boardmember Kunzweiler stated he would like there to be a deadline on the application.

Associate Planner Lynch noted the public hearing is still opened, which gives applicant a sense of reality in that he is required to submit plans for the work. In response to questions, he stated that he generally notifies everyone who attended the first few meetings. Planning Manager Watrous added, closer to a specified date, notices will be mailed.

Boardmember Teiser noted the Board has asked the Planning Division that projects should not come in piecemeal, and when there are major alterations to a property, it should be looked at as a total project, not in individual pieces.
M/S, Beales/Teiser, passed 5-0, to continue this item to the June 19, 2003 meeting.

G. NEW BUSINESS BEFORE THE BOARD

3. 83 ROUND HILL ROAD OZ, INC., NEW DWELLING/VARIANCE

The applicant is requesting Design Review approval for the construction of a new two-story single-family dwelling on property located at 83 Round Hill Road. The subject property is currently vacant. The upper level of the proposed house would include a living room, kitchen, dining room, family room and den. The lower level would include a master bedroom suite, three additional bedrooms and two more bathrooms. An attached two-car garage would be situated adjacent to the proposed project and would also include improvements to the private roadway that provides access to this site, three existing homes and three adjacent vacant lots. A variance is requested for reduced front yard setback.

Carl Weissensee, applicant, discussed his project

Boardmember Teiser asked if the proposed driveway improvements could be modified, as the owners of 75 Round Hill Road are worried the roadway would come closer to their house. Mr. Weissensee replied that the revised driveway curve is best as proposed. He said that widening the outside of the curve would have more impacts, including the construction of a large retaining wall.

Boardmember Kunzweiler stated he sees no need for a retaining wall structure on the hillside under the proposed design. Mr. Weissensee agreed there is no need for such a wall with the currently proposed design. He believed that this design would least alter the existing landscaping.

Boardmember Kunzweiler noted that the subject lot has many of the same characteristics as the three other adjacent vacant lots, and his concern is as other properties are developed, there could be additional easement concerns. He would not want to see the buildings pushed together on the hill. Mr. Weissensee stated that he can locate the houses on all four lots without requesting variances; however, he said that a neighbor may want a variance to pull the house on one of the lots closer to the road.

Boardmember Figour asked if the turnaround can be built at a later date. Mr. Weissensee stated that the Fire District has required such a turnaround for any development. He said that Town Staff also wanted the improvements installed at once to ensure buyers know what they will get.

Chair Comstock stated that there is a gap in the trees to the west of the proposed house shown on the plans where there is currently none. He asked if the applicant will remove the trees. Mr. Weissensee responded that the landscaping plan was completed before the house was redesigned to move into the front yard setback. He said that he does not need to remove any trees, and that the intent is to not remove any oaks except for one ten-inch oak that is unhealthy.

Kyle Thayer, architect, discussed the project. He noted the next-door neighbors would not be able to see the translucent roof materials, and that the exposed metal chimneys would match the exterior stucco color.

Mr. Weissensee stated there is little light on the lower level because the house is pushed into a dense set of trees, which is why 30 feet of translucent roofing is proposed to be installed in the center of the house, along with two light wells. He said that there would be no additional views obtained if the trees were cut down.

Frank Doyle, 85 Round Hill Road, stated the only issue is where the roadway splits and additional parking is proposed. He suggested moving the parking elsewhere so there is not so much paving at that point. He also noted that where the road widens a bit, there is a very old oak tree that is leaning and branches rest near the roadway; he said that cutting the branches of this tree would cause it to fall.

Charles Sofnas, 75 Round Hill Road, stated he does not object to the house, which he cannot see, but his concern is the driveway. He said that he had previously given up land for a roadway easement to allow people to more safely enter from and exit onto Round Hill Road. The curb was designed at that time, and required as improvements to the new Town right-of-way. He did not believe that the road must now be built further onto his property and that an eight-foot retaining wall is required if the existing curb remained. He asked that the current roadway alignment in front of his house be maintained, and the Fire District, Town Engineer and the applicant should be made to figure out how to make it work without retaining walls. He also asked that the oleanders next to the driveway be replanted or replaced with mature planting because they help make a beautiful entrance to his property.

Planning Manager Watrous noted the improvements made on the outside of the curb are within the Town right-of-way and would be reviewed under the encroachment permit process.

Dan Dillon, 95 Round Hill Road, stated that the applicant had agreed that no additional driveway paving would extend onto Mr. Dillon’s property, but the plans still showed such paving. Mr. Thayer responded that Mr. Dillon was correct, in that the current plans shown that no paving would extend onto the adjacent property.

Boardmember Figour stated the siting of the project is good and the house is an elegant design on a difficult site. He thought that if the Fire District requires a hammerhead, it should not be put in now, if possible. He felt that the additional parking might not have to be installed at this time. He said that the roadway should be designed on the easiest part of the right-of-way to minimize retaining walls.

Boardmember Kunzweiler stated his only concern is the location of the house near the trees. He recommended a tree protection plan to respect the closeness of the house to the trees. He asked if there is an alternative for the displacement of the curb into Mr. Sofnas’ driveway because that driveway is short and his house is close to the road. He was not sure whether an eight foot tall retaining wall needs to be built.

Boardmember Teiser stated the siting of the house is good. He is sympathetic to Mr. Sofnas’ situation. He said that the record needs to be straight; if Mr. Sofnas complied with Town and court requirements, he said that the Town must respect that. He said that the Board needs to understand the possible alternatives and the record. He would like to approve the application, with resolution of the entrance drive and roadway made at a later date.

Boardmember Beales stated he would approve the project with the understanding that the curb cannot be moved closer to Mr. Sofnas’ home. He felt that it is inappropriate to worsen Mr. Sofnas’ condition. He has no problems with the design of the proposed house.

Chair Comstock stated that this as nice project, but the driveway should not move closer to Mr. Sofnas’ house. The house is nestled into the hillside, and although it would be confined by the trees, this would make for a nice private area. He said it was easy to make the findings for the variance, and he would not want to see the house shoved into the trees. He would like to set aside the need for the extra parking now unless required by the Fire District.
M/S, Teiser/Beales, passed 5-0, to approve the application based upon the findings and conditions set forth in the Staff report, with the additional condition that it is strongly recommended the engineer not allow that the curb to encroach further into Mr. Sofnas’ property.

4. 2280 MAR EAST STREET FLYNN, DECK/VARIANCE

The applicant has submitted a request to construct an extension to an exterior deck on the west side of the residence at 2280 Mar East Street. The residence on the property is currently undergoing a major remodel. There was no provision for a deck in this location with the Design Review application for the remodel project. The applicant has stated that the deck would act as a catwalk and provide the only reasonable access to the west side of the residence. The applicant is also requesting approval to increase the height of the clear glass guardrail to be located on the southwest corner of the deck from three feet to six feet. The line of the guardrail would be adjusted to enclose the proposed deck. A variance is requested for an encroachment into the required side yard setback.

Charles Flynn, owner, discussed his request. He distributed photographs showing what others have done in the vicinity.

Boardmember Teiser asked why a five foot wide catwalk is required. Mr. Flynn stated that this is the only way to put scaffolding on that side of the house because the house on that side is completely over the water. He said that the floor joists had been extended and scaffolding was placed on the joists when the siding work was completed.

Klaus Meinberg, 2275 Mar East Street, stated that the deck will not cause any problems if it is four or five feet out to the west. He believed that the deck is needed to maintain the house.

Boardmember Kunzweiler stated that the project is fine in concept, but there is precious little in the way of design. He thought that it was hard to approve the project without details.

Boardmember Beales stated that he has problems with all aspects of the application. He said that the increased railing height would not help with the high winds, but could impact neighbors. He thought that a five foot wide catwalk is excessive and would not be needed very often. He said that he could go along with a three foot wide platform with longer joists, but that a five foot wide catwalk invites usage and becomes more of a deck. He would deny the application.

Boardmember Figour stated that there should have been more definitive drawings, and that the project needs to be more thought out with better information. He was not sure what the 6 foot glass railing would look like. He thought that the width of the deck could be reduced.

Boardmember Teiser stated that he had no problem with a six foot tall glass railing. He felt that there is not a need for a five foot wide catwalk; a three or three and one-half foot width would be adequate and would not encroach so much towards the neighbor’s property. He said that the applicant should return with better plans and more details.

Chair Comstock stated that he was skeptical of what was being requested, as the catwalk does not seem to access anything. He felt that the glass railing makes it appear that the intention is that this would be used as a deck. He cannot make the findings for a variance to put this structure so close to the property line. He felt that the need for scaffolding could be addressed in other ways.

Boardmember Beales stated that a maintenance catwalk would not require a railing.

Boardmember Figour questioned what the building official would approve in the way of steps to the furnace room at the beach level.

Boardmember Kunzweiler stated that he thought that the six foot tall glass railing is fine. He said that at a sitting level, it would break the wind; however, is necessary to know how it is installed and designed.

Boardmember Teiser stated the six foot glass railing to the south facing the water is acceptable, but that there should be no railing along the maintenance catwalk.

M/S, Teiser/Figour, passed 5-0, to continue this item to the May 1, 2003 meeting, with the applicant to consider comments at this meeting and to return with more detailing and specifics of a revised project.
5. 730 HILARY DRIVE INGLEDEW, ADDITIONS/VARIANCES/ FLOOR

AREA EXCEPTION

The applicant is requesting Design Review approval to construct additions to an existing two-story single-family dwelling located at 730 Hilary Drive. The ground floor of the house would be expanded toward the front, resulting in a new two-car garage, one additional bedroom, an office, a new laundry room and powder room, and a revised entry. An addition to the upper floor would expand the existing master bedroom suite toward the front of the property as well. Two new skylights are proposed to be installed, and the existing chimney is proposed to be raised to comply with building code requirements. The applicant is requesting variances for reduced side yard setback and excess lot coverage, along with a floor area exception.

Phoebe Holscher, architect, discussed the project.

Steve Ingledew, owner, stated that he would not have submitted this application had his surrounding neighbors not approved the project. He said that he has tried to develop a project that is consistent with the neighborhood and would not impact anyone. He said that he designed the second level addition to respect others’ views, and that this application requires a variance for lot coverage because the lot is small. He noted that a lot coverage variance was approved in 1994, but that project was never built.

Joe Keller, 699 Hilary Drive, stated that at least six second-story applications in Hawthorne Terrace have been denied because of view concerns. He would not like to see this application approved, as he thought that it would set a precedent for other two-story projects.

Chair Comstock noted that the house already has a second story; hence, this is not approving a second story, but an addition to it. He asked Mr. Keller if he felt this would have the same impact on future applications for second stories. Mr. Keller responded that the next Board might use this house as a precedent, not realizing that the approval was for adding to a second story, not adding a second story.

Deborah Bendinelli, 635 Hilary Drive, stated that the homes in the neighborhood are small. She said that the applicants have taken into account the neighbors’ concerns and accommodated the neighbors. She said that she will not lose any water view because there is no increase in height. She would like the applicant to use something to deflect the uphill light from the proposed skylights.

Ms. Holscher noted there are three existing skylights and two new ones will face the side and not toward Ms. Bendinelli’s house. She said that the three existing skylights will be replaced and the applicant will do what is necessary to diminish the uphill light.

Chair Comstock asked if the chimney height was increased. Ms. Holscher responded that the chimney height would be increased by several feet. She said that the chimney is a masonry box and can be diminished at the roofline.

Boardmember Teiser stated he can support the project. He said that he had spoken with the neighbors who support the project. He said that the applicant has worked with the neighbors to insure that there would be no view blockage.

Boardmember Kunzweiler stated that this is a small house, but the proposed expansion would be too large a house on a small lot. He thought that the variances are excessive, and he could not support the project.

Boardmember Beales stated that he appreciates that the applicants worked with the neighbors. However, he noted that the house is already one of the largest in the neighborhood. He said that the Design Review Board has approved lot coverage variances in other neighborhoods as an alternative to a second story design. He said that this house would become the second largest home in the neighborhood. He noted that the house already has four bedrooms downstairs, and the project is about adding an office and a study. He said that he has no problem with the request for a reduced side yard setback, but this is an overdevelopment of the property. He would encourage the applicant to revise the plans so that it would not require either a lot coverage variance or a floor area exception.

Boardmember Figour noted that the only neighbor objections to this project were generic, rather than dealing with the specific aspects of this application. He said that the Board usually balances lot coverage and second story additions, and sometimes the Board grants floor area exceptions when there are no other variances involved. He said that he cannot make the findings for the variance for lot coverage or the floor area exception. He thought that the project had a nice stealth design, but that the lot is too small for a house like this.

Chair Comstock stated that he likes the project, and only hesitates because of the requested variances and exception. He said that the side yard setback is not the real issue. He said that this is an undersized lot, and a lot coverage variance is reasonable to make the house larger. However, coupled with the floor area exception, he found the project more difficult to accept. He could see the reasons for the second story addition, stating that the existing house design is poor. He said that he would continue the request to allow the applicant time to revise the design. He said that he could not accept both a second story addition and a floor area exception. Although there were no real view impacts, he would like to see the chimney profile minimized.
M/S, Beales/Kunzweiler, passed 4-0-1 (Teiser abstained) to continue this item to the May 15, 2003 meeting.

6. 111 SUGARLOAF DRIVE GRUDNOWSKI, NEW DWELLING: CONTINUED TO 5/1/03

H. APPROVAL OF MINUTES #6 OF THE 04/03/03 DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MEETING

Changes include:

Page 3, 2^nd paragraph, delete "door," and add "He stated that the applicants…"

Page 3, 4^th paragraph, delete "The Stop Work Order for parking vehicles."

Page 3, 5^th paragraph, fifth sentence, change "appellants" to "applicants."

Page 3, 5th paragraph, last line, change "site" to "sight."

Page 3, 6^th paragraph, change "Virgina Bernini" to "Virginia Brunini."

Page 4, 5th paragraph, 6^th line to read, "…a fence along the side; things to make it…"

Page 5, 1^st paragraph, amend to "…exempt this project from a permit for the hardscape portion of this project."

Page 5, 3^rd paragraph, second sentence, change to "…fence that is being appealed."

Page 5, 3^rd paragraph, delete "He would consider a partial granting of the appeal."

Page 5, 7^th paragraph, delete "Boardmember Beales recommended allowing the 6’8" fence but requiring an additional section of fence."

Page 5, 10^th paragraph, change to "…the Board could tie a property line fence to the conditions of approval…"

M/S, Figour/Beales, passed 5-0, to approve the minutes as amended.

I. ADJOURNMENT

The meeting was adjourned at 9:55 p.m.