ACTION MINUTES #9

TOWN OF TIBURON DESIGN REVIEW BOARD

THURSDAY MAY 15, 2003

1505 TIBURON BOULEVARD

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

Absent - None

Ex-Officio - 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. 730 Hilary Drive Ingledew Additions/Variances/Floor Area Exception  CONTINUED TO 6/5/03

E. NEW BUSINESS BEFORE THE BOARD

2. 23 Old Landing Road Esperson New Dwelling- CONTINUED TO 6/19/03

3. 131 Blackfield Drive Barskey Addition/Garage Conversion- APPROVED

4. 524 Virginia Drive Gavros Additions/Variances- CONTINUED TO 6/19/03

5. 485 Irving Court Burns/Nogueiro New Dwelling- APPROVED

F. MINUTES #8 OF THE 5/1/03 DRB MEETING- APPROVED AS AMENDED

G. ADJOURNMENT- 10:15

A. ROLL CALL

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

Absent: None

Ex-Officio: Associate Planner Lynch and Minutes Clerk Flanagan

B. PUBLIC COMMENTS:

No one spoke during this time.

C. DISCUSSION AND STAFF BRIEFING

Associate Planner Lynch noted the Council upheld the Board’s decision on the appeal of the sign for the business at 1640 Tiburon Boulevard. He also noted that the Planning Commission discussed parking and front yards, and secondary dwelling unit ordinance changes at its last meeting. He will include a summary report of that meeting for the next Board meeting.

1. 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 original request was to add 1,000 square feet of floor area to the existing house, with additions to both the ground floor and the second floor of the house. The application included requests for a variance for reduced side yard setback; a variance for excess lot coverage; and a floor area exception. The application was first reviewed at the April 17, 2003 Design Review Board meeting. At that time, the Board raised concerns regarding the overall size of the house that would result from the proposed additions. The Board noted that few homes in Tiburon have been granted both a floor area exception and a variance for excess lot coverage for a home with a two-story design. The Board also noted that the proposed project would result in the second largest house in the neighborhood on the second smallest lot in the vicinity. The Board generally indicated no objections to the request for a reduced side yard setback to continue the line of the existing house.

Phoebe Holscher, architect, discussed changes to the project since the last meeting. She added, 7,382 square feet is the lot size, which is 118 square feet less than the next category in the Zoning Ordinance, which allows a larger house. The lot that the house sits on is relevant to scale and massing. She felt that the lot appears larger because of the right-of-way. The neighbors like the proposed project.

Steve Ingledew, owner, stated he is asking for two variances and an exception but is also creating a project that is suitable and compatible with the neighborhood. He distributed two photographs showing his property from a neighbor’s property across the street and from another house located at an intersection 40 yards away. He pointed out that the other property has a larger impact on the neighborhood than his planned project. He said that he did not want to impact neighbors and believes his project enhances the property and does not set a precedent because the house would blend in with the topography.

Donald Ray, 725 Hilary Drive, who lives across the street, recommended the project be approved. He stated that the applicants had met with neighbors and designed the house to meet the neighbors’ requests.

Boardmember Figour stated the design works well with the neighborhood; is fairly invisible from the street; meets the family’s needs; and the neighbors support it. However, he cannot make findings for the variance for excess lot coverage. While this project is smaller than the original submittal, he still felt that the lot coverage and floor area were still excessive. If there were only a floor area exception requested, he thought that the project would be acceptable.

Boardmember Beales stated the house would still be the second largest house on the second smallest lot in the neighborhood.

Boardmember Kunzweiler stated that while trying to be sympathetic to the family, he felt that there are too many variances requested and too many precedents that would be set. He noted that one bedroom had been eliminated, but still believed that the house would be too large for the property.

Boardmember Teiser stated that he believed that the applicant has tried to follow the Design Review Board’s suggestions in good faith. He said that the applicants could have met the lot coverage criteria if they had expanded the second floor, but to avoid impacting their neighbors, they are asking for this additional variance. He said that they could not expand into the small back yard. He felt that the lot coverage would be visually negligible because the house cannot be seen from the street, and therefore there would be no adverse impact to the neighborhood. As this is a slightly undersized lot, he thought that there would be a practical difficulty in complying with the zoning requirements, and that the project would not adversely impact the neighbors.

Chair Comstock stated he cannot make the required findings for the variances. He said that the applicant has come part of the way toward complying with the Board’s requests; however, the Board had indicated that few applications have been approved for two-story homes that included both a floor area exception and a lot coverage variance, which seemed to indicate that the house is too large for the lot. He asked that applicants find a way to eliminate either the floor area exception or the lot coverage variance.

Ms. Holscher stated that it is difficult to come up with a design that would either not have neighbors in a fury or not have excess lot coverage. She understood that the floor area must be reduced by 200 square feet, yet building on the upstairs would impact neighbors.

Chair Comstock stated there may be other options to redesign the project, in response to a question from Ms. Holscher regarding her options.

2. 23 OLD LANDING ROAD ESPERSON, NEW DWELLING

The applicant is requesting Design Review approval for the construction of a new two-story single-family dwelling on the property located at 23 Old Landing Road. An existing one-story single-family dwelling on the site is proposed to be demolished. The hearing for this application was originally scheduled for the May 1, 2003 Design Review Board meeting, but was continued to the May 15, 2003 meeting due to an illness in the applicant’s family. The first floor of the proposed house would include three bedrooms, two bathrooms, study, media room, play room and laundry room. The second floor would include a master bedroom suite, living room, kitchen, dining room, family room and a powder room. An attached three-car garage would be situated adjacent to the first floor. A swimming pool would be installed in the rear yard. New wood fencing and concrete walls are proposed to be constructed along the property lines, along with an entry arbor and decorative iron pedestrian gate close to the front property line.

Albert Esperson, discussed the project and noted that his architect was not present. In response to questions, he stated that a gas fireplace is proposed in the center of the house. He noted that copper gutters and downspouts are proposed, and the downlights would be shielded.

Diane McEwen, 12 Old Landing Road, stated that during the annexation of Old Landing Road into Tiburon, residents presumed that there would be respect for the existing character of their neighborhood in the review of new development. She asked that a transparent kind of fence with many trees should be approved along the front property line instead of the requested thick wall. She thought that the proposed fruit trees should be replaced with other greenery. She said that the neighborhood wants to keep its character and this house would not fit in.

Francine Hallberg, 24 Old Landing Road, stated she also understood that her neighborhood would be preserved by the Town. She was concerned about neighborhood character, mass and bulk, and loss of privacy on her property. She felt that the second story would affect her privacy and quality of life. She noted that at the last meeting, the Design Review Board approved an addition to the adjacent house at 19 Old Landing Road which cannot be seen from the street. She requested that the applicants design a two-story home that is not so imposing and more consistent with the character of the neighborhood.

Peter Maync, 4350 Paradise Drive, stated that he had been Co-Chair of the Paradise Visioning group, and that the consensus of the group was that Old Landing Road is part of a rural community. He asked that the Design Review Board respect the will of the community and ensure that the character of the neighborhood be maintained. He stated that three neighbors have view easements that allow them to top the trees on Old Landing Road to ensure their views, and that the story poles for this project are taller than those trees. He felt that the proposed house would be too big and too tall.

Patricia Atkinson, 31 Old Landing Road, stated she opposes the proposed house, but felt that this would be a gorgeous home if located in Blackhawk. She said that the neighbors would welcome a new home, landscaping and a pool on this site, but the applicants have not sought any input from the neighbors about the project. She said that the builder must make considerations for heavy, large vehicles, which should not block or drive on neighbors’ properties.

Paul Hantzsche, 4320 Paradise Drive, described the sizes of existing homes in the vicinity, all of which are smaller than the proposed home.

Wendy Sanfilippo-Keihi, 26 Old Landing Road, stated that she concurs with other speakers opposing the project. She felt that the proposed house would be inappropriate for the neighborhood, and that the style and size are not quite right.

Terry Kessler, 24 Old Landing Road, stated that he concurred with the other speakers. He said that the neighbors do not want a precedent set by this house. He felt that many house designs would work in the setting, such as a single-story house. He noted that the applicants did not ask neighbors for their opinions.

Karen Lovdahl, 28 Old Landing Road, stated that while the neighbors welcome a new house, this design is not appropriate. She said that the house would impact the entire neighborhood, and is not an organic fit with the neighborhood. She said that when the sewer was installed in 1994, neighbors hoped they could preserve the bucolic neighborhood character after the sewer connection process. She looks forward to providing input to the applicant’s next proposal.

Pedro Reyes, real estate broker, stated he favors the project, which he felt would enhance the entire neighborhood.

Erminio Petrini, 4366 Paradise Drive, stated that he opposes this project because the house would block his view.

Margaret Billings, 25 Old Landing Road, stated she is unhappy about the proposed house. She felt that there should not be a two-story house on this lot, and that many rooms of the house would look down on her property.

Robert Atkinson, 31 Old Landing Road, urged the Board to respect the residents and send the project back for a change. He stated that all of the houses on the west side of the street are one story.

Marshall Foster, 34 Old Landing Road, stated he opposes the project.

John Kricensky, 27 Old Landing Road, concurred with his neighbors, and stated that there are nice residences and new houses that are in keeping with the style of the neighborhood.

Mr. Esperson stated that he builds homes and is not a "developer." He said that it was his understanding that the screening wall was a requirement, but he does not want the wall. He noted that the proposed lot coverage for the house would be only twelve percent, and that the house is 75 feet from the edge of the street. He did not feel that the house is overwhelming on the site. He said that his design team had reviewed and met the Town’s guidelines for new homes. He said that his work is well received in many neighborhoods. In response to questions, he stated that there is currently not a buyer for the house.

Boardmember Beales stated that although change is inevitable, the Mediterranean style architecture of the proposed house does not fit in this neighborhood. He said that the same house design with wood siding would still feel just as big. He said that much of the second story floor area could be brought to the first floor without exceeding lot coverage, and that the house could be stepped down the hill.

Boardmember Kunzweiler stated that the proposed house flunks the neighborhood character aspect of design review. He said that the house is inappropriate in every way, shape or form and is insensitive to the area. He believed that the applicants can build an appropriate house that would have a much higher sensitivity to the neighborhood.

Boardmember Teiser stated that the house is inappropriate for the neighborhood both in mass and style, and the applicant should take another look at the project. He said that this is a bucolic, rural neighborhood; most houses are secluded and houses on that side of the street are one story and do not impose on neighbors across the street or to the side. He felt that the whole concept is inappropriate for this neighborhood.

Boardmember Figour stated that the architect and the home builder should have spent more time at the site, as neighborhoods in Tiburon vary quite a bit. He also thought that the applicants should have studied the Town’s Hillside Design guidelines more carefully, as the applicants apparently assumed that the ordinances on setbacks, floor area and lot coverage were all there is to consider. He felt that this could be construed as a hillside lot, and therefore the hillside guidelines should be followed. He did not think that this house was right for this neighborhood.

Chair Comstock concurred and stated that the Board must consider neighborhood character, and also respect owners’ property rights. Having said that, he believed that this project should fit with other houses in the vicinity, and the applicant should be sensitive to the neighborhood. He said that the architect must study the Town’s Hillside Guidelines. He said that had the second story been set back into the hill, it would not look down on neighbors across the street. He noted that the neighbors are open to a new house, but it should fit with existing neighborhood.

Boardmember Teiser stated the application is so far off the mark, it should not be continued.

The consensus of the Design Review Board was that:

The Hillside Guidelines must be considered.

The house looms over the street and neighborhood where it is set on the site.

The second story should not destroy the privacy of homes in the neighborhood.

A two-story house could be built with a smaller second-story element while maintaining views from the second floor.

The house could be terraced into the hillside.

Exterior building materials should not be plaster or stucco.

Screening landscaping must be considered.

The front wall was inappropriate for screening.

3. 131 BLACKFIELD DRIVE BARSKEY, ADDITION/GARAGE CONVERSION

The applicant has submitted a request to construct additions to a single-family dwelling and convert the existing garage to living space on the property located at 131 Blackfield Drive. The existing home is 1,889 square feet in size and the new addition would increase the size of the home by 271 square feet. The addition would be for a new master suite at the rear of the existing building. The existing garage is approximately 228 square feet and is proposed to be converted to a laundry room and office.

Lara Conte, architect, discussed the project, and noted that seven of seventeen owners in the vicinity have converted their garages and many of these residents park in the setbacks. She stated that there would be screening of the parking in the front. She corrected the figures for the project, stating that they would only add 221 square feet, with a total of 2,159 square feet.

Boardmember Kunzweiler stated that he observed many houses in the immediate area do not have garage conversions. He said that the space is very narrow for two cars. He felt that this would not be an enhancement to the neighborhood. He does not support another garage conversion in the neighborhood.

Boardmember Teiser stated there is adequate parking on the street for guests to park.

Boardmember Beales stated that he can support the application. He noted that homes in Bel Aire are small and there have been many garage conversions in this neighborhood. He felt that there is ample parking on the site.

Boardmember Figour stated that many people park in the front of their homes in this area. However, the houses are very small and he noted that this is one method many people have used to expand the houses. He also noted that the living spaces of these Bel Aire homes face the back yard and people do not see the parked cars from their living rooms.

Chair Comstock stated that he concurs with Boardmember Kunzweiler. He noted that this house is closer to the street than others in the vicinity, and that the proposed improvements force cars to be in front. He stated that the applicant could develop the office space elsewhere on the site, in particular to the rear of the house.

Boardmember Beales stated that the adjacent homes appear to be at the same setback as this one.

Boardmember Figour stated that back yards in Bel Aire are the positive attributes of these houses. He said that it is not nice for the public to see cars in front of houses, but to the residents of these homes, the back yards are important.
M/S, Teiser/Beale, passed 3-2 (Comstock and Kunzweiler dissenting) to approve the application and the conditions as set forth in the Staff report.

4. 524 VIRGINIA DRIVE GAVROS, ADDITIONS/VARIANCES/FLOOR AREA EXCEPTION

Boardmember Teiser recused himself from this item.

The applicant has submitted an application for the construction of additions, with variances for reduced side yard setback and reduced front yard setback, and a floor area exception, on the property located at 524 Virginia Drive. The subject property is located at the end of the cul-de-sac on the west end of Virginia Drive. The property is below the street level of Virginia Drive, and the rear of the property slopes down to Tiburon Boulevard. The existing home is located on the narrow flat area of the lot and is relatively small as compared to others in the vicinity. The home has a simple rectangular floor plan consisting of two bedrooms and two bathrooms. The flat roofline extends over an attached carport. The application requests variances for reduced front and side yard setbacks, along with a floor area exception.

Roger Hartley, civil engineer and designer, discussed the project.

Associate Planner Lynch noted there is a plan in the file indicating that less than 50 percent of the existing structure would be demolished as a result of this project.

Chair Comstock stated that the proposed retaining wall would be high, but that Plan C-1 does not have spot elevations to identify the heights at the top and bottom of the wall. Mr. Hartley responded that a topographical survey was completed for the project, and that the retaining wall would be no higher than six feet, and most of the wall would be four feet in height.

Associate Planner Lynch clarified that a new six-foot redwood fence is also proposed along the rear and north property line, which was not in the Staff report analysis. He stated that he does not have enough information to evaluate the fence because there are no details submitted, and that the fence height could be a concern.

Francois Varney, owner of 525 Virginia Drive, stated that the second story design would impact his property. He felt that the project would be inconsistent with the Tiburon guidelines regarding views to be considered with new buildings or additions. He said that the design would not fit the character of the neighborhood. He felt that the building design would be too imposing, and would include twenty windows looking into his property. He also felt that the proposed chimney is very high and the entire house is very tall. He stated that the applicant did not discuss the project with him. He felt that the applicant’s desire for a pool and jacuzzi would come at the expense of his view, as he would no longer be able to see Mt. Tamalpais.

Wayne Snow, 100 Jefferson Drive, distributed photographs of the location of the proposed retaining wall viewed from his house. He stated that the house is prominent situated at the entrance to the town. He felt that the front yard setback variance request, thirteen feet is a significant variance request. He noted that the Staff report stated that the house is inconsistent with the Tiburon Hillside Guidelines as to view preservation. He felt that the proposed project would not fit with the predominant pattern in the neighborhood. He believed that the proposed structure would be far too large and can be better designed. He said that something other than a pool should be built on the flat area of the lot, and that the roofline should be lowered.

Ingo Schrieber, 525 Virginia Drive, stated that the project would create a massive invasion of his privacy.

Jack Gaines, 526 Comstock Drive, stated that the proposed construction would erode a large portion of the water view from Mr. Schrieber’s house, and he would like that view preserved.

Eleanor Becker, 567 Virginia Drive, stated that her view would be blocked by similar construction in front of her property. She said that the Design Review Board should uphold the Hillside Guidelines. Although she is not directly impacted by this project, she wanted to say that existing views should be preserved.

George Gavros, owner, distributed photographs and stated that he had made an effort to meet neighbors. He said that he did not know that the neighbors’ views were as important because trees have previously blocked the view. He said that he would revise the roof elevation and possibly reduce the overhang. He said that he does not want to impact views. He did not believe that the chimney would impact views. He said that he had tried to not align the proposed windows with the neighbor’s to avoid impacts to Mr. Schrieber’s privacy. He stated that some neighbors approve of the project. He proposed to construct a trellis to break up the visual mass. He sought guidance on this project from the Board. He stated that this is a small, narrow property, and that he needs to expand the house because of his growing family. He reiterated his desire to work with the neighbors.

Boardmember Kunzweiler asked about the plans for the retaining wall facing Tiburon Boulevard. Mr. Hartley responded that the house would have the appearance of a one-story building, with landscaping below.

Boardmember Figour stated that the design is interesting and could fit nicely into the neighborhood. He said that the house appears to be a two-story building all the way across the rear elevation. He found the second story element of the structure to be acceptable, but said that the clerestory windows above the one-story element would block the views to Blackie’s Pasture and the cove from 525 Virginia Drive. He said that he could make the findings for the setback variances. He wanted more information on landscaping. Regarding the view from below, he noted that there has always been a house on this site, and the surrounding hills are built out.

Boardmember Beales concurred that dropping the outboard section on the roof would help 525 Virginia Drive. He felt that the two-story portion of the house would be tucked under the trees and does not need to be lowered. He noted that the existing side yard setback would simply be carried forward, and that the existing house is situated within the front setback. He said that the fence on top of the wall on the north property line should be addressed. Overall, he stated that he likes the design. He said that the length of the building will be no longer than it is now. He said that the height of the edge of the roof of the one story should be reduced to lessen the impact on 525 Virginia Drive.

Boardmember Kunzweiler stated that the first story roof area is too tall. He said that his concern is with the house at an entry to Tiburon. He said that landscaping is important, and that the colors and geometry of the house are a concern, as it does stand out a lot. He said that the applicant should seek ways to tone down the design to minimize prominence above Tiburon Boulevard.

Chair Comstock stated that the one issue is blocking the views of 525 Virginia Drive and applicant has said he is willing to work on that. He said that the project should be reevaluated with revised story poles. He thought that the second floor element would not result in much view blockage, but there is the ability to adjust that. He said that a high ceiling room is nice but not if it comes at the expense of the neighbor. He said that the retaining wall height of 4.5 feet would be acceptable, but it seems like the wall would be taller than represented. He stated that this house is in a row of homes that appear to have colors similar to the ones presented, and that the body color of the house should not be white. He said that he does not have a problem with setbacks, noting that the applicants are giving themselves a small yard. He said that the applicant should resolve the neighbor’s issues and return with the revisions.

M/S, Beales/Figour (passed 4-0-1, Teiser recused) to continue this item to the June 19, 2003 meeting.

Boardmember Teiser returned to the meeting.

 5. 485 IRVING COURT BURNS/NOGUEIRO NEW DWELLING

Boardmember Beales recused himself from this item.

The applicant has submitted a request to construct a new single-family dwelling located at 485 Irving Court. The property is located on the uphill (north) side of Irving Court. The property is currently developed with a single-family dwelling that is proposed to be demolished. The existing home is 1,101 square feet in size with a two-car garage. The existing home has three bedrooms, one bathroom, living areas and a kitchen. The floor area of the proposed home is 2,834 square feet and the home would cover approximately 24.5 percent of the property. The size of the residence meets the requirements for both floor area and lot coverage.

Rudy Bertolino, architect, discussed the project.

Wayne Snow, 100 Jefferson Drive, stated that this is the third house the architect has designed and the architect works with neighbors. Mr. Snow encourages support of the project.

Victoria, Sodaro 489 Washington Court, stated that she would like to add a second story to her house in the future, and hopes the owners do not oppose her project when she does.

Boardmember Teiser stated he likes the project. He said that the house to the south is in a similar scale and somewhat similar architecturally. He noted that there are no view issues with this project.

Boardmember Figour stated that he likes what the architect did by recessing the plate line of the upper level into the roof, which gives the house a lower profile than some designs the Board has seen. He said that this is an interesting floor plan, and that the clerestory light is an attractive approach.

Boardmember Kunzweiler concurred. He asked about the stucco courtyard and noted that everything else is compatible with the neighborhood. He asked how necessary the walls are down the middle of the yard.

Boardmember Comstock stated that he supports the project. He said that this portion of Belveron seems to be the best place to tuck two-story homes against the hill, so there are not view impacts.

M/S, Teiser/Kunzweiler, passed 4-0-1 (Beales recused) to approve the application with the conditions as set forth in the Staff report.

Boardmember Beales returned to the meeting.

F. APPROVAL OF MINUTES #8 OF THE 02/20/03 DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MEETING

Changes include:

Page 1 last sentence, change "72" to "42."

Page 2, 3^rd paragraph, change "Commissioner Figour" to "Boardmember Figour."

Page 2, 3rd paragraph, delete the last sentence.

Page 2, 4^th paragraph, change "Mik" to "Mr."

Page 2, 5^th paragraph, first sentence to state, "Mr. Flynn distributed clear and smoke glass samples."

Page 2, 7^th paragraph, second sentence, change "reflector" to "clips."

Page 3, the motion should state, …as shown on the architect’s drawings for the height and on the glass manufacturer’s drawings for the railing."

Page 6, 3^rd paragraph, 2^nd line to state, "He stated the height of the house was pushed down fourteen feet…"

Page 7, 2^nd to last paragraph, delete the sentence, "She said that a neighbor has not had interaction…" Change the phrase, "a for yellow flags on the story poles;" to "she requested yellow tape on the story poles to show where the walls ran;"

Page 9, 7^th paragraph, first line to state, "Boardmember Teiser noted that concerns about the structural integrity of the house being designed should be addressed to the Engineering Department."

Page 9, 5^th paragraph to state, "…that a fence around the pool would have a view impact."

G. ADJOURNMENT

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