Corte Madera commissioners continue design‑review of 537 Tamalpais Drive after neighbors raise view, privacy concerns

The Corte Madera Planning Commission on May 26 continued a design‑review public hearing for an application to add a second story and modest first‑floor expansion at 537 Tamalpais Drive, directing staff to prepare a resolution and return the item to the commission on June 23.

The project, PL26‑00009, would add about 827 square feet on the second floor and 345 square feet on the first floor to an existing split‑level single‑family home (staff reported the existing house at roughly 1,362 square feet). The proposal also includes a new 198‑square‑foot detached one‑car carport; the resulting house would total about 2,534 square feet. Staff said the revised design meets R‑1 zoning standards for setbacks, parking, floor area and height (the proposed peak would be about 25 ft. 2½ in., under the 30‑foot maximum).

Tracy, a planning staff member, summarized site conditions, development standards, story‑pole observations and neighborhood outreach. She told the commission the project team installed story poles on May 7 and later modified the roof pitch and plate height in response to neighbor feedback. Staff flagged several landscaping and safety issues: one cedar tree the fire department requires removed and other trees that must be limbed for clearance.

The applicant, Corey (who identified himself at the hearing), described the expansion as necessary family space: "We want her to have privacy and we also want her to have her own space," he said, referring to his teenage daughter. Project architect Nora Fry outlined design constraints on the relatively small, substandard lot and detailed several changes since the initial proposal: the roof was changed from a gable to a lower‑pitch form, then to a double‑hip configuration; the top plate was lowered from 8 feet to 7 feet 6 inches; and the bedroom window on the east elevation was revised to a clear‑story window with a proposed sill height of 5 feet 4 inches to reduce sightlines into the neighboring primary bedroom.

Neighbors who spoke during public comment, including Bill Alexander and his wife, Naen Antbi of 208 Salelo Street, disputed some of the applicant’s photographic exhibits and said recent tree pruning and removals had altered their long‑standing view toward Mount Tamalpais. Alexander urged the commission to require stronger privacy protections for the neighbor’s bedroom and asked that the clear‑story window sill be set at 6 feet. "Please work with the neighbor to bring that tree back," he told the commission, requesting coordination on arborist work and a flatter rear roof as a potential compromise.

Commissioners asked detailed questions of staff, the architect and the applicant about tree control (staff explained view disputes are primarily neighbor‑to‑neighbor matters addressed by the town’s view‑protection provisions, mediation and ultimately the courts), story‑pole measurements, alternate roof profiles, and privacy mitigation options such as raising the sill, obscure glazing or making the window inoperable. Architect Nora Fry said some options—such as a fully flat rear roof—would materially change the design and neighborhood character, but the team said it could consider a taller sill if that were the only way to resolve the privacy concern.

Several commissioners praised the applicant for iterative design changes and outreach, while noting the complaint that the project would diminish an important, single view from the neighbor’s bedroom. Commissioner Margaret said the loss of sky and the ridge line made finding three (significant and adverse view impact) difficult to support without further mitigation. Commissioners Andrew and Daniel expressed support for preserving the double‑hip roof character and for resolving the privacy issue by conditioning the window; a commonly discussed compromise was the proposed 5'4" clear‑story sill with the possibility of obscure glazing up to a 6‑foot line to prevent direct sightlines.

Given the outstanding questions about tree pruning scope, view impacts and the final window treatment, the commission asked staff to draft a resolution incorporating the applicant’s revised attachment (attachment 5) and the clear‑story window detail. A motion to continue the public hearing to a date‑certain, June 23, passed unanimously. Chair Chase said the continuance would allow staff to prepare the resolution for commission action and for the applicant and neighbors to see additional illustrations or arborist input prior to a final vote.

The commission made no final decision on the design review at the May 26 meeting. The applicant is expected to work with staff on the requested changes and provide any supplemental materials before the June 23 hearing; the commission also suggested the parties consider an arborist review to clarify how pruning or tree removal would change sightlines.

Background and technical details: staff reported the second‑story addition would be set back about 17 feet from the front property line (15 feet required) and about 5 feet from the west property line (5 feet required). The project team said the current design reduces the previous roof massing and peak height by several inches and that exterior materials proposed include composition shingles, horizontal siding painted Benjamin Moore Simply White, white windows and dark‑sky‑compliant exterior lighting. The fire department’s review requires removal of one cedar tree within 30 feet of the residence and limbing of another cedar to 15 feet above grade, and several Italian cypresses along the west property line were identified as fire‑prone and subject to removal.

Next steps: Staff will prepare a resolution reflecting the commission’s direction and the attachment 5 drawing for the June 23 meeting. The commission suggested, and the record shows, that the applicant and neighbor coordinate arborist work and that staff include a clear description of any required conditions (window treatment, final roof details and any landscape/tree mitigation) in the resolution.