ACTION MINUTES #8

TIBURON DESIGN REVIEW BOARD

THURSDAY, MAY 1, 2003

1505 TIBURON BOULEVARD

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

Absent - None

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

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

C. DISCUSSION AND STAFF BRIEFING

D. OLD BUSINESS BEFORE THE BOARD

1. 2280 Mar East Street Flynn Deck/Variance APPROVED

E. NEW BUSINESS BEFORE THE BOARD

2. 330 Karen Way Stolte Fence/Variance APPROVED

3. 19 Old Landing Road Finkle Additions APPROVED

4. 23 Old Landing Road Esperson New Dwelling CONTINUED TO 5/15/03

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

F. MINUTES OF THE 4/17/03 D.R.B. MEETING – APPROVED AS AMENDED

G. ADJOURNMENT – 9:50 P.M.

A. ROLL CALL

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

Absent: None

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

B. PUBLIC COMMENTS:

There was none.

Planning Manager Watrous noted Item 4, 23 Old Landing Road has been continued to the May 15, 2003 meeting. He reminded the Board that the appeal on the sign permit will be heard at the May 7 Town Council meeting; Chair Comstock will represent the Board at the appeal. He also reminded the Board of the upcoming workshop with the Planning Commission and Design Review Board on May 8.

1. 2280 MAR EAST STREET FLYNN, DECK/VARIANCE
On April 17, 2003, the applicant presented to the Design Review Board an application for an extension to an exterior deck on the west side of the residence at 2280 Mar East Street, with a variance for reduced side yard setback. The Board discussed the project and determined that the proposed deck was too large for the proposed use as an access/maintenance catwalk. The Board also felt that there was not enough information for the appropriate decision to be made. The public hearing was continued to this meeting so the applicant could provide additional details on the proposed deck and associated guardrail.

Charles Flynn, owner, discussed changes made since the last meeting. He explained that a portion of the railing would have a height 76 inches, and that the five foot wide access could be reduced to four feet. He stated that the roof manufacturer has indicated that the roof cannot be used for access to clean the windows because this would impair the quality of the roof. He said that the deck is the only fire exit from the lower living area on the west side. He also noted that the glass railing manufacturer recommends a height of 42 inches for the safety railing.

Boardmember Teiser noted at the last meeting it was suggested there not be a railing along the catwalk, and that if the railing was stopped at the end of the building there would be no view blockage of the applicant’s large side window. Mr. Flynn responded that his insurance company requires the deck/catwalk to be a minimum of four feet wide and it cannot be blocked off.

Boardmember Teiser asked how one gets to the street with the fire escape on the west side. Mr. Flynn responded that one would have to scurry up the embankment, which is easier than the vertical concrete wall on the other side of the house.

Boardmember Figour asked about the use and design of the proposed stairway. Mr. Flynn responded that the stairwell would end on the seawall and one must walk along the side of the house to get to the utility room. He stated that the gap between the seawall and the house is 36 inches, which is just wide enough to walk along. He noted that the previous catwalk had rotted out. He explained that the drainage system used to direct water through the center of the house, but the new design has the flow of water going to the side of the house.

Mik Flynn, owner, noted the previous owner had stained glass windows, which did not require as much maintenance as the current windows.

Mr. Flynn distributed railing samples of clear glass and grey glass to the Board, and stated that the railing contractor had assured him that the glass is not reflective. Mrs. Flynn added that a neighbor has a six-foot glass railing and has had no problems with it.

Lawrence Livingston, 2311 Mar East Street, stated his philosophy of the need to balance the objectives of the immediate neighbors, the neighborhood and the community. He said that this issue is specific to the waterside homes, for which the approval process for modifications is extensive. He noted that the Flynns had gone through an extensive BCDC review process already. He felt that the Board must balance the best design with the neighborhood’s wishes.

Boardmember Figour noted the only neighbor objecting to the railing is to the west, who communicated via a letter. Boardmember Figour stated that the glass design of the railing helps, but he is a little concerned about the metal cliff that would be attached to the railing. He thought that there was nothing particularly detrimental about the project.

Boardmember Beales stated that it was impossible to construct anything on this side of the house without a variance. He thought that this was an elaborate deck for maintenance purposes, and he would like to see a solution that involved an as-needed access rather than a permanent deck, perhaps just joists without decking and rails. He noted that the neighbor would not be able to see through the smoked glass. He was also concerned about the creeping height of the railings.

Boardmember Kunzweiler stated a lot of money has been spent on the house and the design should be integrated. He thought that the case has been made for a four foot wide deck. His only concern was with minimizing the visual impact of the windfoil, which perhaps could be eliminated.

Boardmember Teiser stated he would like the glass to end just at the edge of the building, with a short railing for insurance purposes. He would like to make this clearly a maintenance area.

Chair Comstock stated he could make the findings for the variance. He thought that perhaps the best-looking solution would be to continue the same glass rail down the side at a height of 42 inches. He believed that the half-inch thick grey glass would be very dark. He felt that the additional railing height is essentially a product of the more detailed plans submitted by the applicant.

The Board discussed possible alternatives to the proposed railing design with the applicants.

2. 330 KAREN WAY FENCE, VARIANCE

The applicant has submitted an application for the "as-built" review of a fence and retaining wall along the east side of the property at 330 Karen Way. The applicants are the new owners of the subject property, and during the required resale inspection, Building Division Staff noted the installation of the unpermitted fence. The applicant would now like to obtain the appropriate permits for this fence. The subject fence and retaining wall have a maximum combined height of 9’6". According to the Zoning Ordnance, the maximum height for a fence in this location would be six feet; therefore, a variance is requested for excess fence height.

John Stolte, owner, stated the resale inspection noted the fence height does not comply with the Zoning Ordinance, and therefore he is requesting a variance to approve the excess fence height. He noted that his property is at a different level than his neighbor’s lot, and the fence rests upon a two foot tall retaining wall. He said that the fence height provides privacy between the properties. He stated that the neighbor likes the fence and hopes it remains.

Harvey Morris, 332 Karen Way, stated that the retaining wall was part of the original development. He felt that the fence height is appropriate.

Boardmember Kunzweiler stated that he visited the site, and that this is a sturdy fence that he could support.

Boardmember Figour stated he can make findings for variance because of the contour of the land. He also noted that he had spoken with the applicant’s neighbor who favors the fence height.

19 OLD LANDING ROAD FINKLE, ADDITIONS

The applicant is requesting Design Review approval to construct additions to an existing one-story single-family dwelling located at 19 Old Landing Road. Two new bedrooms, one new bathroom, a family room and a new laundry room would be added to the rear of the building. Four new skylights are also proposed to be installed. An existing property line fence would be replaced with a six-foot tall solid redwood fence. A wrought iron driveway entry gate is also proposed to be constructed at the property line. The proposed additions would add 898 square feet of lot coverage to the property, resulting in a lot coverage for the site of 6.2 percent, which is less than the 15.0% maximum lot coverage permitted in the RO-2 Zone. The proposed additions would result in a total floor area for the house of 3,467 square feet, which is less than the maximum floor area permitted for a lot of this size.

Simon Kirby, the new owner of the property, discussed the project and stated he has tried to keep the project low key to conform with the neighborhood

Boardmember Teiser stated he supports the project. He said that the project is appropriate in scale, and fits with the existing house. He said that he also appreciates that the plans are very clear.

Boardmember Beales stated this is a modest project, and he has no problems with the application.

Boardmember Figour commended the applicant on recycling the existing house, and adding on in a sensitive way.

Boardmember Kunzweiler stated the house fits in with the character of the neighborhood. He noted that the location of the driveway gate would be moved. Mr. Kirby stated that he had agreed to move the driveway gate at the recommendation of Staff.

Chair Comstock stated that this was a good example of how to approach projects in this neighborhood.

5. 111 SUGARLOAF DRIVE GRUDNOWSKI, NEW DWELLING

The applicant has submitted a request to construct a new single-family dwelling located at 111 Sugarloaf Drive. The property is located at the end of the "island" on Sugarloaf Drive, and is currently vacant. The property is pie-shaped and the top portion of the property has previously been graded flat. The proposed home would be located on the flat area of the property. The proposed home is a two-story structure with the lower level comprised of a living room, dining room, family room, kitchen, study and a three-car garage. The upper level would consist of the master suite, two additional bedrooms and bathrooms and a laundry room. An exterior deck would be accessed from the master suite over the living room. The floor area of the proposed home is 3,749 square feet in size, and covers approximately fifteen percent of the property. The size of the residence is the maximum allowed per the zoning regulations in respect to lot coverage and floor area.

Mohamad Sadrieh, architect, discussed the project and noted that the proposed building site is the only location that would comply with the required setbacks and would impact views the least.

Joe Sherer, project manager, stated the building envelope is small because of the required setbacks. He said that the house was pushed down fourteen feet to accommodate the neighbors. He stated that the average floor area of homes in the vicinity is larger than that of the proposed home. He said that they have tried to preserve the existing views as much as possible, and stated that they have preserved the major views looking north to the bay from every house in the neighborhood, as well as secondary views to San Francisco. He said that anything built three feet above existing grade would compromise the Sebastians’ Golden Gate Bridge view, so even if the house were dropped nine feet into the hillside, their view from their kitchen and dining room will be eliminated. If the house were dropped to the 52 foot elevation (according to the topographic survey), he said that the proposed house would have no bay view. He stated that the current residents knew there would be a house here, and it is unreasonable to expect a house to be built only three feet above the existing grade.

Alan Lefkof, 131 Sugarloaf Drive, president of the Marinero Homeowners Association, stated the HOA Board of Directors unanimously resolved to ask the Design Review Board to reject the current proposal. He said that every neighbor in the community has observed the Town’s guidelines in construction of homes. He noted that the Bloom’s home was designed by the same architect as the current proposal, and had been part of a process where they worked with the neighbors, and dealt with the same issues as this property. He said that he understood that the owners of the subject property are building a spec house and want to build and sell quickly. He said that the proposed house would entirely block the view of the Golden Gate Bridge for the Sebastians. He noted that there are two homes in this area that have been under construction for years; therefore if a short construction period would be appreciated for this house.

Boardmember Beales noted this is a buildable lot and asked if the homeowners association considered purchasing the property. Mr. Lefkof responded this was a desire of many members but a quick auction of the property resulted in a quick sale.

Martin Bloom, 123 Sugarloaf Drive, stated there is some impact to the view from his infinity pool, but that his view impact pales to that to the Sebastians. He said that neighbors would rather have variances granted than lose the views, noting that homes in the vicinity have received a variance. He said that many homes in the neighborhood have front yards of less than 30 feet because the lots slope significantly. He thought that the buildable area on this lot could double if the required front yard were reduced to fifteen feet by a variance. He said that if the house were built a few feet down the hill, the ridge would not be higher than elevation 74. He also thought that a one-story home could have a larger footprint, although perhaps a lot coverage variance would be needed. If the owners require a two-story home, he felt that they could build a lower level down the slope.

Frank Sebastian, 120 Sugarloaf Drive, stated he wants to preserve his good views and be a good neighbor. He does not object to a house; rather, he objects to this design and what it does to his views. He stated that the Hillside Design Guidelines restrict buildings blocking views. He said that he and the other neighbors have tried to meet with the property owner, but have had no response; he felt that there cannot be a win-win situation if the neighbors cannot speak with owner. He stated that he had hired an outside architect to look at the design and make comments, which were submitted to the Design Review Board. He said the neighbors would prefer a one-story house with variances for lot coverage and reduced setbacks to losing their views. He asked the Design Review Board to ask the applicants to work with the neighbors to design a house that will allow the neighbors to retain their views.

Dr. Lynn Fox, 128 Sugarloaf Drive, stated her primary view of San Francisco from two rooms in her house would be affected by the proposed house. She said that the project would also have impacts to the views of the city and the Golden Gate Bridge for two neighbors below her. She said that the neighbors have not had any interaction with the owner of this property. She said that realtors have told her that the proposed building would lower the value of her property by $500,000. Her concerns include a chimney in her view and the smoke from it; the length of construction of the project; construction hours; noise levels; and parking. She felt that yellow tape should be erected which would connect the story poles. She felt that the applicants should build a single-story house to preserve the neighbors’ views.

Jay Miller, 116 Sugarloaf Drive, stated he would be impacted by the loss of the western sun exposure. He said that the proposed pool would be directly across the street from his deck, and he wanted to know more about the pool fencing. He stated that he had worked with his neighbors on the design of his home, and he has tried to work with the owners of this property. He said that he had made changes to protect his neighbors’ views, and this proposal impacts his view.

Brian Lantier, 141 Sugarloaf Drive, stated he values his views, and he opposes this design because it adversely affects the views of others. He said that the neighbors and the homeowners association are attempting to influence the project team to ask for a variance. He said that the Staff report does not mention the General Plan, which speaks to the obstruction of views. He stated that the neighbors and the homeowners association foresee an inverse condemnation suit possibly being filed as a result of this project. He said that one alternative to building is a conservation easement, in which the owners can give the property to the Town.

Carol Arnold, 104 Sugarloaf Drive, stated that while her view is not impacted, she supports her neighbors. She said that the top story of her house was never built because it would have impacted her upper neighbors’ views. She stated that she has a roof garden rather than a master bedroom on the second story.

Carolyn Bloom, 123 Sugarloaf Drive, stated that the project architect knows how to build within Town guidelines, as she worked very carefully with him and the neighbors to build her home. She said that she built her home knowing there would be a house on the subject property.

Donna Sebastian, 120 Sugarloaf Drive, stated that every room in her home that has a view of the Golden Gate Bridge is used, and she enjoys the view daily.

Bob Dougherty, 108 Sugarloaf Drive, reiterated that this is a neighborhood, not just a collection of houses.

Mr. Sherer stated that tonight was the first time he had heard that the neighbors would support variances to achieve a different design. He said that he had tried to work with the neighbors, and to accommodate the items the neighbors requested. He felt that the current was designed in response to the neighbors’ concerns. He stated that no one appears to be concerned about the property owner’s views.

Mary Grudnowski, owner, stated that she purchased the property through an auction. She said that it is not her intention to build a spec house, but intends to live in the house. She said that she is not interested in donating the property.

Boardmember Teiser stated that he visited the neighbors’ houses whose views from ceremonial rooms would be impacted. He stated that the design needs to be altered, and the architect and owner should consider suggestions from neighbors. He said that variances may be an option to accommodate existing views and comply with the Hillside Guidelines. He thought that the applicants should reconsider the importance of the pool and its location because the building could be stepped down the slope in place of the pool. He said that Mr. Bloom’s suggestions should also be considered. He noted that issues of whether this would be a spec house and possible construction impacts are not within the Design Review Board’s authority, but noted that the Board does look at owners’ property rights, neighbors’ rights and the character of a neighborhood.

Boardmember Beales concurred, and added that the lot has been buildable for several years and the property owner is entitled to build. He said that the neighbors have enjoyed a borrowed view across the subject property in the meantime. However, he felt that the architect needs to take a serious look at a revised design. He said that the Design Review Board will do what it can to protect the neighbors’ views.

Boardmember Kunzweiler noted that everyone has rights, even the owner of this lot. He would welcome a creative design to minimize the impact of a house. Standing in and near the Sebastians’ house, he saw that anything higher than three feet on the lot would impact their view.

Boardmember Figour stated that there are different approaches to mitigate the view problems. He thought that the current approach is a pedestrian design that would be acceptable on many other lots in Tiburon. He stated that the bench was cut into the lot years ago; had the site been left in a natural state, the Sebastians would not currently have a view to the Golden Gate Bridge. He thought that perhaps another design would help some of the neighbors, but it will be difficult to accommodate the Sebastians’ view of the Golden Gate Bridge. He recommended a continuance to allow the applicant to pursue creative ideas. He also said that he would be open to the idea of variances.

Chair Comstock stated he does not think any design can preserve the entire view of the Golden Gate Bridge for the Sebastians. He said that the applicant could do more grading to lower the proposed home, and anything to mitigate the view loss to the Sebastians would be welcome.

Boardmember Beales added that a fence around the pool would have a view impact.

Boardmember Figour stated that one-story house could be built with more excavation and making the building pad a little larger.

Boardmember Teiser noted that concerns about the structural integrity of the homes currently under construction should be addressed to the Town Engineer. He added that there could be a spectacular design on this lot.

M/S, Teiser/Figour, passed 5-0, to continue this item to June 5, 2003.

Changes included:

Page 3, first line, change "Beale" to "Beales."

Page 5, Paragraph 4, 2^nd line, after "hillside," add "under the proposed design."

Page 5, Paragraph 5, last line, change "would" to "may"?

Page 5, Paragraph 6, last line, change "would" to "will."

Page 5, last paragraph , first line to state, "…there is a gap in the trees shown on the plans where there is currently no gap in the trees to the west of the proposed house."

Page 6, Paragraph 4, 6^th line to state, "…property or than an eight-foot retaining wall is required if the existing curb remains. He asked that…"

Page 6, Paragraph 5, last sentence to state, " and that the correct version of the plans show that no…"

Page 7, Paragraph 4, 4^th line to state, "…and he would not want to see the house shoved into the trees."

Page 7, last sentence, second to last sentence, change "engineer" to Town Engineer."

Page 9, Paragraph 3, to read, "Boardmember Figour questioned what the Building Official would approve of the steps to the furnace room at the beach level."

Page 11, Paragraph 2, first line to state, "…small house, but the proposed expansion would be too large a house on a small lot."

G. ADJOURNMENT

The meeting was adjourned at 9:50 p.m.