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. STAFF BRIEFING

D. OLD BUSINESS BEFORE THE BOARD

1. 111 Sugarloaf Drive Grudnowski Dwelling/Variances/Floor Area Excpt. CONTINUED TO 7/17/03

E. NEW BUSINESS BEFORE THE BOARD

2. 5 MacAnnan Court Green Additions APPROVED

3. 1120 Mar West St. Roberts Dish Antenna APPROVED

4. 220 Diviso Street Mavromihalis Additions/Variance APPROVED

5. 118 Hacienda Drive Spatz Additions/Variances/Floor Area Excpt. CONTINUED TO 8/7/03

F. MINUTES OF THE 6/19/03 D.R.B. MEETING – APPROVED AS AMENDED

G. ADJOURNMENT – 9:30 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:

No one spoke during this time.

C. STAFF BRIEFING

Planning Manager Watrous noted the furniture supplement to the Downtown Design Guidelines was distributed to Boardmembers at this meeting. He asked opinions of the method of e-mail distribution.

It was Board consensus that Boardmembers would prefer receiving only one-to four-page documents via e-mail, and they would like to receive hard copies of any e-mail correspondence.

Planning Manager Watrous noted that the August 21 meeting might conflict with a Staff retreat. He will advise the Board if the meeting is cancelled.

D. OLD BUSINESS BEFORE THE BOARD

1. 111 SUGARLOAF DRIVE GRUDNOWSKI, NEW DWELLING/VARIANCES/FLOOR AREA EXCEPTION

On May 1, 2003, the applicant requested approval for a 3,749-square-foot home that was comprised of two levels, in addition to a garage, a swimming pool, and various landscaping improvements. The proposed home was located in an area of the property that was previously graded flat. The structure was to be recessed into the ground up to nine feet in certain locations. The roof of the structure had a slope of 3 and 12. The proposed home had a Mediterranean appearance with stucco siding, stone accents and pillars supporting the entryway and trellis at the rear of the building. When the Design Review Board first reviewed the application, there were several concerns regarding the potential view impacts of the project. The project would have appeared to impact the view from several properties in the vicinity, but especially from the property at 120 Sugarloaf Drive. Currently, the owners of 120 Sugarloaf Drive enjoy views to the south, east and west over the San Francisco Bay and in the southwesterly direct to the City of San Francisco and the Golden Gate Bridge. This southwesterly view would have been significantly impacted by the proposed dwelling. There were also some peripheral concerns about the possible loss of daylight for the properties to the east of the project and the potential view impacts from the landscaping improvements on the site. Based on these concerns, the Board continued the public hearing until the applicant could make modifications to address the concerns of the Board.

Planning Manager Watrous stated that he had spoken with the Town Attorney, who had reviewed the letter submitted by Mr. Lantier regarding this application. Mr. Watrous clarified that CC&R’s are part of an agreement between private property owners; as these are not Town regulations, the Town does not enforce CC&R's. He noted that the Board could defer a hearing until the homeowners association and applicant work things out, but the Board has generally granted such continuances only when the applicant and the neighbors agree to the time extension, and there is a reasonable expectation of a timely resolution to the dispute. He explained that a project is usually vested once a building permit has been obtained and at least a foundation is poured for the project. He stated that approval of an application without the homeowners association’s approval would not create liability issues for the Town, because any future legal actions would be between the homeowners association and the applicant. He also noted that the Town Attorney stressed that if an applicant ignores a homeowners association’s rules, proceeds with design review, and receives a building permit, there is the potential risk of the homeowners association filing suit and obtaining an injunction against the applicant to prevent construction of the project.

Joe Sherer, builder for the applicant, asked for a brief delay to allow discussion to take place with the homeowners association. The application was tabled until later in the agenda.

Mohamad Sadrieh, architect for the applicant, subsequently requested a continuance of this item to the July 17, 2003 meeting.

2. 5 MACANNAN COURT GREEN, ADDITIONS

The applicant is requesting design review approval to construct additions to an existing one-story, single-family dwelling located at 5 MacAnnan Court. The existing kitchen and living room would be expanded, and the existing entry would be relocated, resulting in a new study and storage area. The existing attached carport would be moved forward. A new second story area is proposed, which would include a master bedroom suite. A new gate and reconfigured fence are also proposed to be constructed toward the front of the property. The proposed additions would add 759 square feet of floor area to the existing house, resulting in a total floor area of 2,417 square feet, which is less than the floor area ratio for a lot of this size. The proposed additions would increase the lot coverage of this property by 256 square feet to a total of 1,914 square feet (22.2%), which is less than the 30.0% maximum lot coverage permitted in the R-1 zone.

Diane Green, 5 MacAnnan Court, owner, discussed her needs for the addition.

Boardmember Teiser stated the neighbors support the project, as does he.

Boardmember Kunzweiler stated that he visited the site, and the project seems to fit in well with the neighborhood. He thought that this project provided a good opportunity to enhance the entire street.

3. 1120 MAR WEST STREET ROBERTS, DISH ANTENNA

Boardmember Teiser recused himself from this item.

The applicant has submitted a request to install a satellite antenna on the property located at 1120 Mar West. The property is bounded by Mar West Street, Tiburon Boulevard and Mariner Way, and is currently developed with an office complex. The antenna would be located in the rear yard of the property, behind the parking lot, near Mariner Way. The antenna would be comprised of a six-foot diameter reflector dish on a mast approximately 42 inches high. The overall height of the unit would be approximately eight feet. The antenna would be used for data and video transmission and reception.

Jim Berman, applicant’s representative, noted that the antenna is intended to transmit and receive data for a new business. He answered questions regarding the specific design of the proposed antenna.

Boardmember Kunzweiler asked if there were any potential health impacts from this type of antenna. Stewart Gelfam, Burke Enterprises, responded that all of the proposed equipment is UL listed and if a signal is blocked, the signal shuts off completely. He stated that the antenna transmits with less than one watt of power. He added the trellis is intended to minimize any visual impacts. He noted that the antenna can be painted to blend in with the background, and that he would be willing to work with Staff on an appropriate color.

Boardmember Figour stated that the antenna would be pretty well hidden from view from nearby residences, and that there would be no safety problems with the antenna.

Boardmember Beales stated that the color of the antenna should be reviewed by Staff.

Chair Comstock agreed that a color should be picked by Staff, as he stated that the antenna would be seen from the reading room of the library. He thought that the height of the antenna should be limited to approximately 8 feet.

M/S, Kunzweiler/Beales (passed 4-0-1, Teiser recused) to determine that the project is categorically exempt from the provisions of CEQA and approve the application subject to the conditions of approval as set forth in the Staff report, with the color of the antenna to be reviewed by Staff, and the maximum height of the antenna not to exceed eight feet.

Boardmember Teiser returned to the meeting.

4. 220 DIVISO STREET MAVROMIHALIS, ADDITIONS/VARIANCE

The applicant has submitted a request to construct additions to an existing single-family dwelling on a property located at 220 Diviso Street. The property is located near the intersection of Diviso Street and Centro East Street, and has double frontage on these two streets. The topography of the property is relatively level, but the rear of the property drops down to Centro East Street. The existing home is a single-level building comprised of two bedrooms and two bathrooms. The proposal includes the construction of a garage addition, living area addition, a second-level bedroom addition, and an interior remodel. The resulting home would be comprised of four bedrooms and four bathrooms. The size of the home would increase from 1,693 square feet to 2,739 square feet including interior loft spaces. The lot coverage of the property would increase from 26.5% to 30%. The property would meet the requirements for both floor area and lot coverage. The existing north side of the house is within the required side yard setback area. The applicant is requesting to build a portion of the garage along the same line as the existing north wall, within the required setback area. Therefore, the applicant is requesting a variance for reduced side yard setback (6’7" in lieu of the standard 8’).

Steven Mavromihalis, owner, stated that he had met with all his neighbors to discuss the project.

Aleck Wilson, architect, discussed the project.

Don Foree, 265 Diviso Street, stated that he thought the project would enhance the neighborhood.

Nonie Greene, 200 Diviso Street, stated that although the project would impact her the most, she supports the project.

Boardmember Beales stated that the applicant has done a good job of working with his neighbors. He said that he has no problem with the variance. He stated that the height of the new structure troubles him, as it seems very tall and narrow, and is a matter of proportion.

Boardmember Figour stated it is pleasant to have a site where one can build up and achieve some building volume. He felt that it was important to keep this element, and that the project would be an asset to the neighborhood.

Boardmember Kunzweiler stated the variance is not a problem; however, the tower section climbs up, and he noted that the story poles can be seen from downtown. He thought that the project was almost unnecessarily too tall, and is proportionately awkward. He felt that the design made a bit strong of a statement. He stated that the colors and materials are acceptable, and noted that the ceiling heights are generous.

Boardmember Teiser stated that he agrees with these concerns, but does not know if the issues are significant enough to deny the application.

Chair Comstock stated that he can make the findings for the variance. He said that the design is not really a problem, and did not see a compelling reason to redesign the project. He noted that the project would not cause any view problems..

5. 118 HACIENDA DRIVE SPATZ, ADDITIONS/VARIANCES/FLOOR AREA EXCEPTION

The applicant is requesting design review approval to construct additions to an existing one-story single-family dwelling located at 118 Hacienda Drive. One existing bedroom would be expanded and another bedroom expanded and converted in to a media room. A new laundry room and a powder room would be added, along with a revised front entry. The existing garage would be expanded toward the front. A new second-story area would also be added, which would include a new master bedroom site, along with an office and a studio. Four new flat skylights and two new roof peak skylights are proposed to be installed, and the existing chimney is proposed to be raised to comply with building code requirements. A new fence is proposed in the front yard, along with an entry trellis above the walkway leading to the house.

The proposed additions would add 1,497 square feet of floor area to the existing house, resulting in a total floor area of 3,907 square feet. As the floor area ratio for a lot of this size is 3,388 square feet, a floor area exception is requested. The project would also exceed the maximum allowable lot coverage, and extend into the required front and side yard setbacks. Variances were therefore requested for excess lot coverage and reduced front and side yard setbacks.

David Spatz, owner, discussed the project.

Michael Heckmann, architect, stated that a concern had arisen about the height of the proposed addition next to the property at 118 Hacienda Drive; in response, the applicant decided to retain the eight-foot ceilings. He stated that the applicant is willing to negotiate landscaping with these neighbors. In response to questions from the Board, he stated that the fence would be six feet tall, and the trellis would be eleven feet in height.

Boardmember Beales asked if revised landscaping plans will be submitted. Mr. Heckmann responded that landscaping is intended to be a major part of this project, and revised plans will be submitted.

Boardmember Kunzweiler asked about removing two pine trees. Mr. Spatz stated that only one pine tree would be removed.

Boardmember Kunzweiler asked if the proposed garage and driveway revisions would be consistent with the recent Town discussions on parking within the front yard setbacks. Planning Manager Watrous responded that although a portion of the expanded driveway would be located within the front yard setback, the existing driveway would be removed and replaced with landscaping. Therefore, the project would be consistent with the recent zoning ordinance amendment regarding parking in the front yard setback.

Kurt Maier, 116 Hacienda Drive, stated that he and his family support the proposed landscaping and remodeling on the first floor. However, the story poles indicate that the proposed second story addition would be overwhelming. He said that the view of this addition from inside their courtyard and rear yard would be disconcerting. He said that he is generally in favor with what the applicant would like to do on the property, although he stills has a hard time with it.

Kevin Mostyn, 17 Noche Vista Lane, stated that he only learned of the project a few weeks ago when viewing the architectural drawings. At that time he expressed reservations, and when story poles were installed, he said that it became clear that the project’s scale and nature would be disproportionate to the neighborhood. He noted that his house and his neighbors’ houses are two stories. In the winter, he felt that the proposed second story would block light to the lower floor of his house. He was also concerned that trees would increase the shadowing of the house at 116 Hacienda Drive. He said that the project would impact his privacy and views. He said that he currently has total privacy, which would be invaded from his dining room, living room and kitchen by the proposed additions. He felt that the story poles did not give the whole story. He was concerned about the revised driveway, as parking is limited and a hedge would reduce parking even more.

Boardmember Beales asked Mr. Mostyn where a second story could be located that would not impact him or the other neighbor. Mr. Mostyn replied that such an addition could be constructed toward the front of the property. He further stated that the two-story is hidden from the street and is modest.

Charles Epstein, 19 Noche Vista Lane, stated he is only concerned about the deck that hangs off the back that overlooks the entrance to his house and the home at 17 Noche Vista Lane. He said that landscaping blocks most of his view of the applicant’s house.

Marvin Breen, 18 Noche Vista Lane, stated he lives adjacent to the applicant’s home, which is above his. He said that while Mr. Spatz is a fine neighbor, he is afraid that the proposed second story addition would overwhelm his home. He asked that the applicant consider a smaller second floor built closer to Hacienda Drive. He said that this would perhaps relieve his concerns, and, to a degree, the concerns of the home at 116 Hacienda Drive, because the deck would not overlook the two houses.

Mr. Spatz stated that the proposed deck would not extend out from the existing house, but would be on top of the existing roof. He stated that the house at 19 Noche Vista Lane is downhill but 150 feet away. He said that proposed deck would have glass railing, and therefore would not have the presence of a large structure. He said that the proposed landscaping would not increase shadows on the property at 116 Hacienda Drive.

Boardmember Teiser asked what would happen to the design if the pyramid roof on the west side elevation of the proposed second story was slid back to the east, because this would alleviate the issue to the neighbors to the south across Noche Vista Lane. Mr. Heckmann responded that this change would not be significant for the neighbors, as the visual impression would be from the eave line.

Anyi Spatz, owner, stated that most of neighborhood has two-story buildings. She said that the kitchen and dining room of the house at 17 Noche Vista Lane look into her back yard and the hot tub on her deck. She said that changes to move the deck to the front of the house would cause concerns for the neighbors across Hacienda Drive.

Boardmember Kunzweiler stated that he is struggling with the findings for the requested variances and floor area exception. He said that the reduced side yard is acceptable, but not the lot coverage, front yard or floor area. He stated that the purpose of the Town’s zoning regulations is to keep a reasonable shape on the property. He said that he cannot approve the design as submitted. He agreed with the Mr. Maiers’ issues regarding the size and bulk of the proposed second story area and the potential privacy impacts. He noted that other two-story houses in the neighborhood have different designs, and therefore do not have the visual appearance of a two-story wall to the neighbors.

Boardmember Teiser stated in the case of the recent application for 730 Hilary Drive, the multiple variance requests were because the owners were trying to mitigate impacts on neighbors. He felt that this project is different, as the purpose of these multiple variance requests is not to mitigate impacts of view and mass. He thought that the design is beautiful, but he cannot make the findings for the floor area exception and lot coverage variance.

Boardmember Beales stated that the side yard setback continues the line of the existing house, and that he could talk himself into accepting the front yard setback variance. However, as with the house at 730 Hilary Drive, he has trouble with the combination of excess lot coverage and a floor area exception. He believed that the applicant could possibly have a second story, but this is too much.

Boardmember Figour stated that this is a nice design, but there are problems with the design on the site. He did not think that the reduced side yard was acceptable, as he felt that it would be unfair to the neighbor to the north to load up too much of the building in an existing encroachment on that side yard. He noted that the house is already over the lot coverage, and the project would be over lot coverage even on a 20,000 square foot lot. He thought that this project was over the top, and would be inconsistent with the "open" character meant by the definition of the RO-2 zone. He thought that the fences, entry gates, second story area and excess lot coverage fill up too much of the lot. He suggested that the applicant prepare sun angle studies to examine the effect of the project on the northerly neighbor. He said that he cannot support the project.

Chair Comstock stated that he had a hard time figuring out where the additional lot coverage came from, as there does not seem to be much lot coverage that would be added toward the neighbors. He said that there appeared to be room for a lot coverage variance and floor area exception. Although only three homes in the vicinity exceed their floor area ratio, he thought that the RO-2 zone is a lousy zone because it makes houses smaller than they ought to be. He noted that the requested side yard variance involves building up, which would impose on the neighbor at 116 Hacienda Drive. He said that he can make the findings for the front yard setback as Hacienda Drive is wide and there is public landscaping. He said that he was concerned about moving the driveway to the side street because it would have a negative impact on the neighbor across Noche Vista Lane, who would look at a wide driveway and three-car garage from the kitchen and dining rooms. He would prefer a continuance until to allow the applicant to work with the neighbors on revised designs, following the Board’s concerns.

Boardmember Figour stated the project will take redesign. He said that he is concerned about the effect of added height to this building on the yards for the property at 116 Hacienda Drive, where the neighbor has built a low fence to keep an open look.

Boardmember Teiser stated that the garage entrance should be reconfigured. He thought that the lot coverage is not significant by itself, but is too much when combined with the proposed floor area. He said that if the house was reconfigured to mitigate the problems with the neighbors, he could then make the findings for the lot coverage variance and the floor area exception.

Boardmember Kunzweiler stated that the impact of the garage on neighbors on Noche Vista Lane is a concern. He thought that, given the points raised by the Board, perhaps it may not be possible to construct a second story addition on this lot. He also thought that relocating the driveway would have impacts.

F. APPROVAL OF MINUTES #11 OF THE 06/19/03 DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MEETING

Changes include:

Page 1, 3^rd paragraph, 11^th line, delete the "-".

Page 2, 5^th paragraph should be Gregory "Alen."

Page 4, 2^nd paragraph, 11^th line, change "fist" to "first." Line 16, change structures to structure.

Page 4, 3^rd paragraph, delete "but…neighbor.

Page 5, 1^st line to read, "…that an upper story in the guidelines would step back from…"

Page 6, 5^th paragraph, add, "Boardmember Beales suggested he not try to retain the existing walls and avoid the definition of new construction, but should go for the variances."

G. ADJOURNMENT  The meeting was adjourned at 9:30 pm.