Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutTC Digest 2014-06-13TOWN COUNCIL WEEKLY DIGEST Week of June 9 -13, 2014 Tiburon 1. Letter - Diane Lynch - Traffic Issues in Tiburon Agendas & Minutes 2. Minutes -Planning Commission- May 14, 2014 3. Minutes -Design Review Board -May 15, 2014 4. Action Minutes -Design Review Board -June 5, 2014 5. Action Minutes - Planning Commission - June 11, 2014 6. Agenda -Design Review Board -June 19, 2014 Regional a) LW V - Bay Area Monitor - June /July 2014 * Agendas & Minutes b) None * Council Only DIANE LYNCH 171 SOLANO STREET 94920 June 9, 2014 Scott Anderson, Director of Community Development Tiburon Town Council Town of Tiburon 1505 Tiburon Boulevard Tiburon, CA 94920 Dear Scott and members of the Town Council, TIBURON CA ,JUN 0 9 ZU 14 U PLANNING DIVISION In regard to the traffic issues in Tiburon I suggest that there are several entities that need to be working together to fund school busses as a way to diminish traffic on Tiburon Boulevard: -Reed Union School District -Town of Tiburon • City of Belvedere •St Hilary School -Tiburon Peninsula Foundation -Belvedere Community Foundation -Foundation for Reed Schools -St. Hilary foundation if there is one -Belvedere-Tiburon Joint Recreation Department Every one of these organizations is in the business of helping our community. The traffic in the morning is mostly one parent/one child in a car. There needs to be some serious education of the parent population in this community to get kids on the bus, in the morning especially. We currently have a small transit bus that traverses the peninsula and it's sadly empty a good part of the day. Could someone possibly make it cool to ride that little bus to school? Could the above entities provide passes for local kids? We could lose this transportation if it's not better utilized. This is not just Tiburon's problem and it's not up to Tiburon to solve it alone. Belvedere children go to school also, and St. Hilary School pulls children from other parts of Marin so they need to be part of the solution also. The Foundation for Reed Schools raises close to $2,000,000 every year and there are at least 2 other foundations on the peninsula that should be asked for help. Our towns should be helping to fund this transportation as an expense that benefits all citizens. Why would Tiburon even think about the option of spending thousands of our dollars to put in parking meters when no one wants to brave the traffic to get downtown and then have to pay to park? Put the money toward the traffic issue. I have heard that the bus company won't supply a bus for a partially full route --I hope this isn't true but the school district should not let the bus company off the hook by filling one bus and not supplying a second bus that might not fill with paying students. Tiburon and Belvedere should be investigating state and county funds that might be available for busses. We should not have the traffic situation that exists every school morning. Even without busses, if parents worked together to carpool we could have half the cars on the road and that would solve the problem too. Certainly a plea for contributions toward bus transportation could be made to the greater community and might collect significant funds as people happily anticipate being able to get to the freeway in under an hour. Another thing that might help the traffic situation would be making use of our local police, both from Tiburon and Belvedere, to direct traffic through some of the more crowded intersections. The afternoon traffic situation is more complicated than the morning problem. As children are driven to their after school activities this creates terrible traffic for everyone who has to go out in the hours after schools let out. If there were busses in the afternoon children could ride the bus to their activities on the peninsula, meaning parents would only have to pick up after activities, creating far fewer trips up and down Tiburon Boulevard. The recreation department has built a new center near Reed School, which means that some of the classes that used to take place at Del Mar School and Bel Aire School now cause more after school traffic on Tiburon Boulevard as children are moved to the new center. This probably even affects Reed parents who will feel the need to escort their children up the hill. The rec department needs to be part of the solution too. Since the choking traffic on Tiburon Boulevard twice a day is considered by many people to be the most challenging problem on our peninsula I think it's very important that all of the above mentioned entities be brought to the table to begin discussions about what to do. If this were to happen over the summer months it's even possible that some positive changes could be in place for the start of school this fall. We're lucky that traffic is one of our worst problems, but it's time to get on with solving this problem. The children of this community are the transit riders of tomorrow and should be taught to be the transit riders of today also. Their parents obviously need to be onboard and helping with the solution. Thanks for your hard work on behalf of the citizens of Tiburon, .i1GEE T PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MINUTES NO. 1044 May 14, 2014 Regular Meeting Town of Tiburon Council Chambers 1505 Tiburon Boulevard, Tiburon, California CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL: Vice Chair Welner called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. Present: Vice Chair Welner, Commissioners Corcoran and Kulik Absent: Chair Weller Staff Present: Director of Community Development Scott Anderson, Planning Manager Watrous, and Minutes Clerk Harper ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None COMMISSION AND STAFF BRIEFING: Director Anderson reported that Item 3 regarding marijuana dispensaries had been pulled from the agenda and would not be discussed, and most likely continued to the June 11 meeting. Planning Manager Watrous stated that there were no items currently scheduled for the May 28 agenda. PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. TIBURON GLEN PREZONING: VICINITY OF 3700 BLOCK OF PARADISE DRIVE; CONSIDER MAKING A RECOMMENDATION TO THE TOWN COUNCIL REGARDING PREZONING OF AN APPROXIMATELY 0.29 -ACRE PARCEL TO THE RESIDENTIAL PLANNED DEVELOPMENT (RPD) ZONE; FILE #R2014 -01; Xanadu Property Holdings, Inc., Owner and Applicant; Adjacent to Marin County Assessor Parcel No. 039 - 241 -01 Director Anderson gave the staff report, stating this is a request for a prezoning for a small parcel of land that forms the entryway to a previously approved subdivision by the Town. The subject area was part of a Town- approved Precise Development Plan and subsequent Tentative Map for a project called Tiburon Glen, which is a 3 -lot project off 26 acres. The parcel in question forms the entry to that project. On the Precise Development Plan it is shown as including the entrance roadway, some landscaped areas, a widened and paved shoulder for Paradise Drive, and would also have a below grade storm drain system and a sewer pump system to serve the development. The subject 2.9 acre parcel has no development potential on its own and would be absorbed into the two lots that make up the subdivision. TIBURON PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES-MAY 14, 2014 - MINUTES NO. 1044 PAGE 1 Director Anderson stated that staff reviewed this and concluded that it is a minor procedural matter that would rationalize the jurisdictional boundaries in the area and constitute sensible planning. He stated that there would be not be any additional maintenance costs for the Town because the area would not be a publicly maintained street. He recommended the Commission hold a public hearing, close the hearing and adopt the draft resolution recommending prezoning to the Town Council. Scott L. Hochstrasser said that he is the planning consultant for the owner and supported the findings to approve the resolution and hoped for approval, as recommended. Vice Chair Weiner opened the public hearing and, as there were no comments, closed the hearing. Commissioner Kulik asked what would happen if the property was not annexed. Mr. Anderson said that this would put all parts of the project into Tiburon instead of splitting it between the County and the Town. Commissioner Kulik agreed with the staff recommendation and saw no reason not to do this. Commissioner Corcoran said he also agreed with the staff report and could find that the proposed prezoning is consistent with the General Plan, the Tiburon Glen Precise Development Plan and the zoning ordinance. Vice Chair Weiner asked if there had been any conversations with the County. Mr. Anderson said they are in favor of the annexation and would vacate the portion of the Paradise Drive right - of -way and deed it over to the property owner so they can make improvements without needing to obtain an encroachment permit from the County. ACTION: It was M/S (Kulik/Corcoran) to recommend to the Town Council Prezoning of an unincorporated 0.29 -acre Parcel within the Tiburon Planning Area (Tiburon Glen Property; Paradise Drive; adjacent to Mann County Assessor Parcel Number 039 - 241 -01). Motion carried: 3 -0. 2. 168 ANTONETTE DRIVE AND 4885 PARADISE DRIVE: REQUESTS TO AMEND THE PARENTE VISTA PRECISE DEVELOPMENT PLAN (PD #4) AND KAHN PRECISE PLAN (PD #3) TO REMOVE AN AREA FROM THE PARENTE VISTA PRECISE DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND ADD THE AREA TO THE KAHN PRECISE PLAN; FILES #31404 & #31403; Engelbert Bangayan and Julie Song and Achuck Family Partnership, L.P., Owners and Applicants: Assessor's Parcel Nos. 038 - 111 -35 & 038- 091 -37 Planning Manager Watrous gave the staff report, stating these amendments would be precursors to a lot line adjustment that would transfer a portion of the lot that is currently on 168 Antonette Drive to the adjacent property at 4885 Paradise Drive. The area is currently governed by the Parente Vista Precise Development Plan and is located outside the building envelope across the way from the roadway serving both Lots 1 and 2 and is in an area that was intended to be a TIBURON PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - MAY 14, 2014 - MINUTES NO. 1044 PAGE 2 landscaped area, but was not subject to any private open space requirements. The amendments would allow certain improvements that would include some retaining walls for landscaping and provision of a parking pad. Staff reviewed the retaining walls and generally believe they are consistent with the intent of the Parente Vista Precise Development Plan although there is a requirement that wildlife travel is allowed through there, so staff encourages a condition of approval that would ensure any walls in the future in the area be reviewed to make sure they do not preclude wildlife travel through the area. The parking pad would be an extension of the existing parking pad for 4885 Paradise Drive and would not connect through to the roadway that serves the Parente Vista Precise Development Plan. Mr. Watrous stated that staff reviewed the applications and felt that these improvements would be consistent with both precise plans. He recommend that the Commission hold the public hearing on the item, hear and consider all testimony and adopt the draft resolutions recommending condition of approval of these amendments to the Town Council. Commissioner Corcoran asked for the percentage of the larger area being transferred that would be covered by the parking pad. Mr. Watrous guessed that it would be about '/ of the area. Commissioner Corcoran asked if retaining walls would be around this parking pad area. Mr. Watrous deferred to the applicant to best address this question, but said that his understanding was that the retaining walls were designed more for the landscaped area. Tom Newton, planning consultant, stated that the owner read the staff report and concur with all the findings and the resolution. He spoke to the issues raised by two letters from some of the neighbors that share the driveway off of Paradise Drive regarding the potential extension of the driveway beyond to connect with Parente Vista Lane. He stated that both property owners share this concern but that is not being proposed and would object to it if anyone else proposed it. Commissioner Kulik stated that the site has a pretty steep grade and asked about the elevation of the parking pad relative to the private roadway. Mr. Newton clarified that the parking pad would be slightly above the roadway, but essentially at the same grade. Commissioner Corcoran asked if some of the retaining walls would be around that parking area. Mr. Newton said that there would be four retaining walls, one below the parking area and the others near the lawn area. Commissioner Corcoran asked if there was an issue with the conflict in language between the grant of easement agreement and the limitations addressed in the Parente Vista EIR. Mr. Watrous said that the area was indicated to be landscaped when it went through the EIR process and staff believes that the intensity of the proposed improvements would not result in any additional environmental impacts. Commissioner Corcoran noted that staff's previous determination was that adding a pool and other features would be inconsistent with the Parente Vista Precise Development Plan. Mr. Watrous said that staff believes that those improvements would be a greater intensification of the use of the area that was intended by the Parente Vista Precise Development Plan. TIBURON PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - MAY 14, 2014 - MINUTES NO. 1044 PAGE 3 Mr. Newton answered a question about the retaining walls by stating that the walls would have a maximum height of 4 feet where it comes from 4885 Paradise Drive and goes down to about a foot closer to Parente Vista Lane, so any deer should be able to get through the area fairly easily. Commissioner Corcoran asked and confirmed with staff that the wildlife referenced in the EIR is primarily deer. Commissioner Kulik said if the wall goes over 3 feet, they will need to have some protection in terms of a guardrail. Mr. Newton said he read this in the staff report, but he was unaware of this requirement. Mr. Watrous stated that from a safety standpoint, especially in a scenario intended as lawn area to be used for recreation, a wall over 3 feet will require some sort of safety railing there so no one would fall off the wall. Commissioner Corcoran asked how much of the retaining wall would be 4 feet in height. Mr. Watrous noted that most of the walls would drop off quickly from a height of 4 feet to much lower heights. Vice Chair Welner opened the public hearing. Michael Heckmann, architect, said that he represents James Demmert and Sam Dibble and met with them to walk the property and review the plan to understand what was being proposed. He felt that the grading and retaining walls were not clearly defined and he was unsure whether this was something that would be later reviewed. He felt that there should be a clear demarcation of where the improvements would be and the location of the property line, which would not just prevent traffic between the two subdivisions but would be a positive step in that direction. He questioned the reason why all of the improvements at 4885 Paradise Drive should run right up to the property line in a suburban setting. He said that it made more sense to have at least a 3 foot setback, which would allow maintenance or repair done to the parking area, lawn area and any landscaping. He recommended installing a short retaining wall of perhaps 2 feet which could be an extension of the other walls intended there. He questioned the grading information and did not think that how the grades and retaining walls are resolved was presented properly. He referred to the lawn area and said it looks like there are 4 or 5 feet of slope. He said that it was good to hear that the applicants do not want to encourage traffic between the two subdivisions, as the cul -de- sac limited traffic and noise and provided greater security. Commissioner Kulik asked how Mr. Heckmann felt about the landscaping plan between the subject area and the access road serving to impede traffic between the access road and the Kahn subdivision. Mr. Heckmann said that they have some idea of the planting choices, but it was hard to tell, and if the area was densely planted as indicated and the plants thrive and are cared for, this would be a reasonably effective barrier. However, he thought that the setback was still a good idea to incorporate into a suburban setting like this. He also noted that it may be difficult for landscape service people having to work on these areas without the setback. He thought that this was a minor change and the applicants would still be able to achieve all of their goals in terms of more parking and more lawn. TIBURON PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -MAY 14, 2014 - MINUTES NO. 1044 PAGE 4 Commissioner Kulik clarified that the neighbors' main concern was vehicular and not pedestrian traffic. Commissioner Corcoran asked whether he Town has previously required some kind of barrier to prevent vehicles from crossing over between two areas. Mr. Watrous did not recall such a - requirement but had seen other design review applications where a small barrier serves as a demarcation and a barrier to impede pedestrians from crossing or to shield headlights. Commissioner Corcoran asked what the Town's remedy would be if a future owner buys 4885 Paradise Drive and just blatantly drives through the area because it is more convenient. Mr. Watrous noted this would be a violation of the Parente Vista Precise Development Plan, the owner would be subject to fines and the Town would try to make sure that any grading done to allow vehicles to pass in that fashion be reinstated to the way it was previously. Commissioner Kulik asked what would happen to the easement if the lot line adjustment was denied. Mr. Watrous said that the easement could not allow the parking area because that is a change of use of the property that would require approval of the Parente Vista Precise Development Plan. If someone decided to pave a parking pad there without getting permission from the Town, the Town could make them remove it. Commissioner Kulik confirmed that this area is currently unimproved except for the modified access road. Mr. Watrous said yes, and that the Town is dealing with one of the property owners regarding that road. Commissioner Corcoran said asked Mr. Heckmann if the buffer and/or low retaining wall would be adequate to address the concerns of the Dibbles and Demmerts. Mr. Heckmann stated that the wall, in concert with the setback of at least 3 feet, would be appropriate and said that he presumed during the permitting process that they would get more details about the walls. Mr. Watrous stated that any walls over 3'6" require staff level design review. Sam Dibble said that it is important to note that there is no commonality between the Kahn and Parente Vista plans. He said that they are particularly concerned about vehicular traffic notwithstanding assurances heard earlier about not wanting to have a connection. He said that he spoke with Mr. Achuck on a number of occasions about his project and was told that his intentions was to have an access through Antonette Drive and the Parente Vista Road to 4885 Paradise Drive and in fact, for the last year and one half during construction at 4885 Paradise Drive, he was driving across the land to do just that. He stated that they did not find out about the easement agreement until they read the staff report. He believed that recording the easement violated a requirement of the approval of the Parente Vista Precise Development Plan that any CC &R's or other roadway agreements are supposed to be approved by the Town Attorney in advance. He was concerned that a future easement could be easily granted identical to this one that would allow other uses. He asked that the Commission require a specific condition that any easement be specifically approved by the Town Attorney before it is recorded or entered into. He felt that there should be consequences for not honoring the process leading up to this hearing, but their main concern was with the possibility of a connection for this road. James Demmert voiced opposition to a connection through to the Parente Vista road, as they all have children and they are sensitive to safety issues. He said that the setback seemed like TIBURON PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -MAY 14,2014- MINUTES NO. 1044 PAGE 5 common sense and he felt that there should be some barrier. He doubted the veracity of the property owners at 4885 Paradise Drive and getting requirements in writing. Jennifer Kleinfeld stated that many young children live on their street and they are very concerned about extra traffic. She asked that any changes or amendments she go through the proper channels so neighbors can have input. Jennifer Dibble reiterated that kids play on the street and one of the reasons they bought their house is its quietness. She was concerned about the traffic connection and what could happen if someone treats it as private property. She requested that any easements be approved prior to recording. Mr. Newton explained that there would be a 12 foot setback between Parente Vista Lane and the new property line after the lot line adjustment. He said that they propose to heavily landscape the area and once plants grow and mature an automobile would not be able to drive across this and it would provide a natural transition between the lawn area and the roadway. He said that the 12 foot setback would be on Lot 1 of Parente Vista. He thought that the landscaping would be sufficient and said that they would not be interested in building any further retaining walls. He stated that Mr. Achuck did use that area during his remodeling for workmen and so forth to get access to it so they would not have to come all the way up from Paradise Drive via the private driveway past neighbors' homes to get to his house. Mr. Newton said that Mr. Achuck ever told him that he planned to put a roadway through and there is no proposal for a road to go through. To satisfy Mr. Heckmann's concerns, Mr. Newton suggested instead putting larger trees or more landscaping in the 12 foot setback. Commissioner Corcoran asked how close the new parking pad would be to the lot line. Mr. Newton said that it would come right to it and from there it is a very gentle slope down to the road. Commissioner Corcoran asked about the condition requiring the Town Attorney to approve easements or other changes. Mr. Watrous referred to Condition No. 12 of the Parente Vista Precise Development Plan which states that "the draft CC &R's, deed restrictions and/or joint maintenance agreements or other similar instruments for the subdivision shall be prepared and reviewed by the Town Attorney and the Director of Community Development." He said that the intent of this requirement was not to necessarily require any and all easements that are ever going to be recorded against this property to be reviewed by the Town. Mr. Anderson further clarified that these are standard conditions placed on all projects of this type and list what is required before the parcel map is recorded. However, this easement was recorded after the map had been recorded so it is not something that would have come to the Town's attention, nor would it in the future. Vice Chair Welner asked what recourse neighbors have with regard to easements if they are inconsistent with the precise plan. Mr. Watrous said that an easement in and of itself does not grant the use change. TIBURON PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - MAY 14, 2014 - MINUTES NO. 1044 PAGE 6 Commissioner Corcoran asked what remedies exist if there was a use that was in violation of the Precise Development Plan. Mr. Watrous stated that the Town would compel them to comply and cease the inconsistent use or seek approval of a Precise Development Plan to allow it. Commissioner Kulik asked if the Town had any jurisdiction if the easement allowed a use that inconsistent with the original proposal, such as the swimming pool. Mr. Watrous said that ultimately it is up to the Town to determine whether or not to approve to approve an amendment to the Precise Development Plan. Vice Chair Welner asked for the basis of staff's conclusion that the proposed retaining walls would not substantially impede wildlife travel. Mr. Watrous said that staff frequently deals with deer protection measures in the design review process that necessitate at least a 6 foot fence to ensure deer do not get into yards and the proposed walls would have a maximum height of 4 feet and taper down to grade. He raised a concern about heavier landscaping in the setback between the roadway and the proposed new property line, which could create some sort of barrier to wildlife getting through that area. He felt that shorter shrubs would be enough to create a visual barrier but not create any sort of impediment to wildlife travel. Vice Chair Welner asked if the existing landscape plan is of concern to staff. Mr. Watrous said that staff had not seen any landscaping that would appear to block the area for wildlife. He noted that the walls that are over 3 feet tall would need guardrails and those walls up to 4 feet tall require a staff -level design review, at which point staff would review the landscaping in the area. Vice Chair Welner asked about observed unpaved roadway leading across the site. W. Watrous described how staff discovered the roadway grading during the design review process for the new house at 168 Antonette Drive and explained that staff had notified the owner that this was a violation of the Precise Plan to utilize this for access and that the work required a grading permit. Vice Chair Welner asked if the history of this gives staff concern about compliance issues with this applicant. Mr. Watrous said that he tends to rely on the actual physical improvements the Town would approve in terms of compliance instead of worrying about individual motives in the future. Vice Chair Welner asked if these were conditions that could be included in the resolution, or were there additional options staff could recommend that address the issue of connection to the private roadway. Mr. Watrous said that the Commission can make this as an explicit condition of approval, stating that vehicular access from this property across the Parente Vista property is prohibited. He recommended something at the end of the parking pad would be more effective in terms of demarcation and from a practical standpoint to make it difficult to get across that area. He said that he was not as concerned that Mr. Heckmann is in terms of maintenance of landscaping, as landscape maintenance can be done from the side of the property owner. Mr. Anderson added that from a Town enforcement issue, it would be cleaner to add a condition to both resolutions that state, "There shall be no vehicular access of any kind permitted between 4885 Paradise Drive and 168 Antonette Drive." The resolutions get recorded and this requirement would appear on a title report. TIBURON PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -MAY 14.2014 - MINUTES NO. 1044 PAGE 7 The public hearing was closed. Commissioner Corcoran asked if the EIR for Parente Vista dealt with any wildlife issues other than deer. Mr. Anderson confirmed that there were no endangered or other species in the area. Commissioner Corcoran said that the roadway is an issue and he thought that there should be some kind of physical barrier on the property line for 4885 Paradise Drive and a prohibition on vehicular travel across this area. Additionally, he suggested installing some other barrier, like shrubbery, that deer can navigate around. He said that he was not satisfied that the 12 foot setback on the 168 Antonette Drive side would be adequate, as the issue should be addressed on both sides of the property line. He suggested a 2 foot wall would suffice as a barrier. Commissioner Kulik said that he walked the site today and the main issue was not so much the lawn or retaining walls, but the parking area. He said that the improvised roadway makes access easier to 4885 Paradise Drive and is a valid concern of the neighbors. He stated that landscaping could be a solution, but would impede animals as well as vehicles. He thought that a wall or some kind of permanent structure would serve several purposes by preventing access between the two roads, protecting the landscaping within the 12 foot setback from vehicles going too far off the paved area, and providing a measure of safety. Vice Chair Welner noted that there appeared to be a consensus for a condition in both resolutions prohibiting vehicular traffic between the two properties and a condition requiring some physical demarcation of the barrier on the 4885 Paradise Drive side. Mr. Watrous suggested two conditions which state "there shall be no vehicular access of any kind permitted between the property at 168 Antonette Drive and the property at 4885 Paradise Drive," and "a wall at least two feet in height, or similar physical barrier acceptable to Planning Division staff, shall be installed at the end of the parking pad in the area described in Condition No. 1 above, sufficient to prevent vehicular access and not impede wildlife into this area." Mr. Newton accepted these conditions. ACTION: It was M/S (Corcoran/Kulik) to adopt resolution recommending conditional approval of the amendments to the Parente Vista Precise Development Plan with the two additional conditions of approval. Motion carried: 3 -0. ACTION: It was M/S (Corcoran/Kulik) to adopt resolution recommending conditional approval of the amendments to the Kahn Precise Plan with the two additional conditions of approval. Motion carried: 3 -0. 3. CONSIDER RECOMMENDATION TO THE TOWN COUNCIL REGARDING TEXT AMENDMENTS TO TITLE IV, CHAPTER 16 (ZONING) OF THE TIBURON MUNICIPAL CODE FOR THE PURPOSE OF PROHIBITING MEDICAL MARIJUANA DISPENSARIES — REMOVED FROM AGENDA TIBURON PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - MAY 14, 2014 - MINUTES NO. 1044 PAGE 8 NEW BUSINESS 4. REVIEW OF DRAFT ANNUAL CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN (CIP) BUDGET FOR CONSISTENCY WITH THE TIBURON GENERAL PLAN Mr. Anderson gave the staff report, stating that the purpose of this review is to ensure CIP efforts are not at odds with the policies of the General Plan. He said that in Tiburon, this review tends to focus CIP on street and storm drain maintenance and various community projects that deal with parks and open space projects and public buildings. Mr. Anderson presented an overview of the draft CIP budget for the next year. He noted that street projects were proposing a slight decrease because the Town has upgraded streets over the last 10 years. He stated that there would be a decrease in budget for drainage, with proposed projects for this year including flushing out of lines so they are not silting up, repairs and replacements as necessary to the storm drain system and a specific drainage project off of Lower Lyford Drive. He described a utility undergrounding project between the new parking lot along Tiburon Boulevard near Lyford Drive and Mar West Street and other miscellaneous projects, including improvements for parking, trail, pedestrian access associated with the new Dairy Knoll facility and Tiburon Boulevard median improvements between Cecilia Way and Vista Drive. He stated that staff reviewed the draft CIP budget items and recommended that the Commission review the CIP budget and find it consistent with the goals and policies of the Tiburon General Plan. Commissioner Kulik referred to drainage improvement projects and asked if the Tiburon/Beach Road intersection that floods was part of this scope. Mr. Anderson said that it was not, but the Town is looking for causes of this problem to see if something can be done shy of a major CIP project, as a cost estimate for to deal with this was approximately $500,000. He noted that the Caltrans study being done as a prelude to the possibility of relinquishment will provide a better idea of what is under the street. He clarified that the ponding is the result of a combination of high tides and very heavy downpours where water cannot get out to the Bay because the tides have closed the flood gates. Commissioner Corcoran asked about a small allocation at $700 for rehabilitation of 700 feet of pathway at the South of Knoll Park. Mr. Anderson believed that this was for part of the pathway closer to the water. Vice Chair Welner opened the public comment period and there were no comments. ACTION: It was M/S (Corcoran/Kulik) that the Planning Commission finds the draft CIP Budget consistent with the goals and policies of the Tiburon General Plan. Motion carried: 3 -0. MINUTES: 3. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES — Regular Meeting of April 9, 2014 Commissioner Kulik requested the following amendment: TBURON PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -MAY 14,2014- MINUTES NO. 1044 PAGE 9 Page 3, second paragraph, third line: "the improvements would be a slightly more intensive and less frequent use." Commissioner Welner requested the following amendment: • Page 3, second to the last paragraph: "He said that his only concern with precise plan amendments is whether or not there are neighbor concerns or whether the proposed amendments are inconsistent with any key elements protected by the initial precise plan." ACTION: It was WS (Corcoran/Kulik) to approve the minutes of the April 9, 2014 meeting, as amended. Motion carried: 3 -0. ADJOURNMENT: The Planning Commission adjourned the meeting at 8:55 p.m. JON WELNER, VICE CHAIR Tiburon Planning Commission ATTEST: DANIEL M. WATROUS, SECRETARY TIBURON PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -MAY 14, 2014 - MINUTES NO. 1044 PAGE 10 3o MINUTES #9 TIBURON DESIGN REVEW BOARD MEETING OF MAY 15, 2014 The meeting was opened at 7:05 p.m. by Vice Chair Cousins. A. ROLL CALL Present: Vice Chair Cousins, Boardmembers Emberson, Kricensky and Tollini Absent: Chair Chong Ex- Officio: Planning Manager Watrous, Assistant Planner O'Malley and Minutes Clerk Rusting B. PUBLIC COMMENTS - None C. STAFF BRIEFING Planning Manager Watrous noted that the item for 118 Leland Way was continued to the June 5, 2014 meeting and would not be considered this evening. D. OLD BUSINESS 1. 145 STEWART DRIVE: File No. 714027; Moonhie and Jerome Chin, Owners; Catherine and Bart Gershbein, Appellants; Adoption of Resolution Denying Appeal of Staff -level Site Plan and Architectural Review approval of installation of one new skylight for an existing single- family dwelling. Assessor's Parcel No. 055- 101 -26. ACTION: It was M/S (Emberson/Tollini) to adopt the draft resolution denying the appeal for 145 Stewart Drive. Vote: 4 -0. E. PUBLIC HEARINGS AND NEW BUSINESS 2. 118 LELAND WAY: File No. 714024; Charles and Suzanne Fuerry, Owners; Site Plan and Architectural Review for construction of a detached guest cottage for an existing single - family dwelling. The proposed 636 square foot guest cottage would include a bedroom, bathroom, and sitting area with a wet bar. The proposal would result in a floor area of 1,558 square feet and lot coverage of 1,928 square feet (24.1 %). Assessor's Parcel No. 034 - 175 -04. CONTINUED TO JUNE 5.2014 Boardmember Emberson recused herself from the following item. 3. 693 HAWTHORNE DRIVE: File No. 21405; Andre and Casey Mancl, Owners; Site Plan and Architectural Review for construction of a new single - family dwelling, with a Variance for excess lot coverage. The proposed partial two -story home would include a living room, TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES #9 5/15/14 office, dining room, kitchen, family room, powder room, two bathrooms, three bedrooms, mud room, laundry room, and a two- car garage on main level, a master bedroom suite on the second level and a basement level with an extra room and powder room. The proposal would result in a gross floor area of 2,731 square feet and lot coverage of 2,881 square feet (38.4 %), which is above the maximum permitted lot coverage in the R -1 zone (30.0 %). Assessor's Parcel No. 055- 212 -09. The applicant is requesting design review approval to construct anew single - family dwelling, with a variance for excess lot coverage on property located at 693 Hawthorne Drive. The property is currently developed with a one -story single- family dwelling. The applicant intends to demolish the existing structure and build a new partial two -story dwelling. The proposed 2,731 square foot home would include a living room, office, dining room, kitchen, family room, powder room, two bathrooms, three bedrooms, mud room, laundry room, and a two- car garage on main level and a master bedroom suite on the second level. A basement level with an extra room and powder room would extend off the mud and laundry room. Two new skylights would be installed on the roof; one above the powder room towards the street and the second one above the stairwell. The proposal would result in a gross floor area of 2,731 square feet, which is below the maximum permitted gross floor area for the property (2,750 square feet). The proposal would result in lot coverage of 2,881 square feet (38.4 %), which is above the maximum permitted lot coverage in the R -1 zone (30.0%); therefore, the applicant has requested a variance for excess lot coverage. Andre Mancl, owner, said that he believes that Hawthorne Drive has changed demographically over the last few years and many children have moved into the neighborhood. He said that they knew that the house was small when they purchased it, but they have become vested in the house and the neighborhood and would like to enlarge their house so it will fit the size of their growing family. He said that when they decided to go down this path they were careful to choose an architect and design that would fit the neighborhood and with neighbor support. He said that they brought in their neighbors early in the process and met with their neighbors over nine times since January and kept them involved. Jeff Mahaney, architect, said that their challenge was to create a home that works for the family and the neighborhood. He said that the courtyard concept was important as a way to keep the majority of the home at a single level. He said that they spent a good deal of time with the neighbors above to understand their perspective and how the roofline might affect their views. He said that the roof structure was designed to allow views to continue between the roof planes. He said that they spent a lot of time looking at how the house would relate to the street as well, and lowered the height by several feet after meeting with neighbors to reduce its street presence. He said that they went to each of the neighbors' properties and took photographs of different perspectives inside their residences, and he distributed those photographs to the Board. Boardmember Kricensky asked if both fireplaces would be gas powered and Mr. Mahaney confirmed this. TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES #9 2 5/15/14 The public hearing was opened. Jenny Crowe -Inns stated that she lives in the home that would be most affected from a view standpoint and expressed strong concern for the view blockage. She said that the roofline and chimneys would directly impact her views and the value of her property, as the house would block her water view and the chimney would be close to her view of the Golden Gate Bridge. She said that the chimneys would be large and extensive structures. She said that when she bought her house she was told that Hawthorne Terrace is a one -story area, and all of the homes in the neighborhood are one -story. She said that her goal was to not have any of their water and bridge view blocked by the project, as this view is the value of her home. David Innes said that he did not realize that there would be a ridgeline running from the living room straight to the back of the property that would be the same height as the master bedroom and create a large mass in the view from his home. He hoped that they could lower the roof and preserve the view. Michael Heckmann, architect representing Jenny Crowe -Inns and David Innes, said that their view to the water and bridge is the most critical thing for them. He stated that their main living space focuses on that view and blocking it would affect their property value. He said that they suggested lowering the master bedroom roof by one foot and living room roof by two feet. He asked that the portion of the roof with dormers facing their house be marked with story poles, adding that he felt that there would be a lot of light pollution in their direction from the dormer windows. He said that it was hard to determine the extent of the chimneys from the plans because there was no detail regarding their height and the chimney cap. He said that the chimneys could be eliminated since gas fireplaces do not require a chimney. Mariana Longstreth stated that this neighborhood has had some second story units proposed over the years that have all generated conflict because of views, privacy, and precedents. She said that this house would not block her views, but she was concerned about it setting a precedent. She said that this is a really nice neighborhood and there are still a fair number of people who have lived there since the 1950s. She said that the house next to her was sold when the owner died and will eventually be torn down and rebuilt and she was sure that the new owner would like to build up. She said that she was concerned about the precedent being set if a two -story home is allowed elsewhere in the neighborhood. Abby Fox said that she is a real estate agent who recently sold 688 Hawthorne Drive. She said that when they first looked at the house, they went to all of the neighbors and were told clearly that this is a one -story neighborhood. She said that a two -story addition would affect their view of the Golden Gate Bridge and the bike path. Margaret Di Mare stated that she lives directly above the project and supported the comments of her neighbors on Hillary Drive. She said that this project would result in excessive lot coverage and a huge house dissimilar to other recent remodels in the neighborhood. She said that this would be a huge roof with a lot of mass viewed from her home. She said that the house would affect property values and not fit in with the neighborhood. TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES #9 5/15/14 Carol Weiss shared a photograph taken from the stoplight at Tiburon Boulevard looking at the story poles and showing which houses would be affected by the project. She also shared a photograph taken of the Stevens' house below hers and stated that the Stevens' remodel was similar to the proposed project and she hoped that the Board will consider that type of project in this location. Jack Ryan said that his views would not be affected by the project. He agreed that most of the houses are one story in that part of the neighborhood, but he had never heard that this is a one- story neighborhood. He said that a lot of the houses have views and it is also a flat neighborhood and he believed that the Mancls did a good job to try to balance all of the elements at play. He said that where there are no view impacts there are bigger houses, and he wanted to be careful not to characterize the neighborhood as a one -story neighborhood. Darryl Smith said that he would not characterize Hawthorne Drive as a one -story neighborhood. He said that he has a two -story house, but acknowledged that on the flat side there are more one- story houses. He characterized this as a previously "dying" neighborhood with little interaction, but one that has seen a number of younger families come into the neighborhood. He felt that this house was the right thing for the neighborhood. He said that the house was part of his view and he did not have an issue with it. Mr. Mahaney described their efforts to communicate with neighbors since the beginning of the project. He felt that it was deceiving to describe the house as two stories because it would really be a split level building. He said that it was never their intent to impact the views of the neighbors above. He said that due to their attempts to keep the roof heights lower, they spread the house out and this would create more roof area. He stated that they were comfortable with eliminating the chimney in the master bedroom and they also considered pulling the structure back slightly and pulling the ridgeline towards the back to reduce the view issues for the neighbors above. He said that they felt like they have spent an enormous amount of time and effort engaging everyone, that the home would fit in with the neighborhood and the home provides the area the Mancls need in the home. Andre Mancl stated that his home was not a precedent and he felt that each home should be viewed on its own merits and not as a statistic for the future. The public hearing was closed. Boardmember Kricensky said he is always surprised how a project with small changes can affect other homes. He stated that the original houses in this neighborhood are very small with low sloped roofs and the houses that have been approved recently are not really two stories because the garage was cut underneath the level of the existing house. He said that the new house would be more vertical, with a 10 foot plate combined with a 6 %z and 12 pitch roof, which would artificially raise the roof in front of the views of residents on Hilary Drive. He said that the master bedroom chimney should be removed since this was a gas fireplace. He was concerned that the dormers would essentially add second story windows and would move too many elements up in the air, which would be contrary to the look of the neighborhood. TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES #9 5/15/14 Boardmember Tollini agreed with many of Boardmember Kricensky's comments. He said that the immediate vicinity is composed of one -story homes and consistently flat - roofed dwellings. He said that normally any changes in the rooflines would affect views. He did not consider this to be a two -story house because it would dig down and put the garage underneath the existing house. He said that he viewed satellite photos and found that the surrounding homes that have been improved in the immediate vicinity are consistent with the lot coverage of this proposal. He agreed with the staff findings for the variance and believed that the requested lot coverage was in keeping with the neighborhood. However, he had issues with the roof height, dormers, and chimneys, and said that those items would need to be changed for him to approve the project. He said the roof needed to be flatter or lower to open up views which would otherwise come at the expense of the neighbors on Hilary Drive. Vice Chair Cousins stated that the idea of putting the garage below the house was very sensible. He also saw the house as a split level home that would maintain the single story character of the neighborhood. He said that the roof height would be above the level of the other surrounding houses and would have a major impact uphill of the site, noting that small changes in elevation height have big impacts on other houses in the area. He said that all elements, including the roof height, dormers, and chimneys, need to be looked at to create a more modest proposal. ACTION: It was WS (Tollini/Kricensky) to continue the application for 693 Hawthorne Drive to the June 19, 2014 meeting. Vote: 3 -0 -1 ( Emberson recused). Boardmember Emberson returned to the meeting. 4. 120 HOWARD DRIVE: File No. 21410; Sudhir and Janet Daru, Owners; Site Plan and Architectural Review for construction of additions to an existing single - family dwelling, with a Variance for reduced side yard setback. The proposal would include a 763 square foot second story addition, which would consist of one bathroom, bedroom, and a new master bedroom suite on second level, and a 32 square foot expansion to an existing room on the first level. The proposal would result in lot coverage of 2,703 square feet (21.0 %) and a gross floor area of 3,001 square feet. The proposed addition would be located 12 feet from the side property line, which is less than the 15 foot minimum side yard setback in RO -2 zone. Assessor's Parcel No. 039 - 141 -05. The applicant is requesting Design Review approval for construction of additions to an existing single - family dwelling, with a variance for reduced side yard setback on property located at 120 Howard Drive. The modifications include an addition of a partial second level within the same footprint of the existing residence. The proposal would add 795 square feet of floor area, which would consist of one bathroom, a bedroom, and a new master bedroom suite on the second level and a minor expansion to an existing room on the first level. In addition, one new skylight would be added to the roof and a new deck with metal railing would extend off the new master bedroom towards the front of the home. The proposal would result in lot coverage of 2,703 square feet (21.0 %), which currently is above the maximum permitted lot coverage in the RO -2 zone (15.0 %); however, the addition TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES #9 5/15/14 would add less than 1% of additional lot coverage and therefore would not require a variance for excess lot coverage. The proposal would result in a gross floor area of 3,001 square feet, which is below the maximum permitted gross floor area ratio for the property (3,288 square feet). The proposed addition would be within the same footprint as the existing house and would be located 12 feet from the side property line. As the minimum side yard setback in RO- 2 zone is 15 feet, the applicant has requested a variance for reduced side yard setback. Sudhir Dam, owner, said that they are requesting a modest increase of about 760 square feet for an addition on the westerly side of the home over the garage. He said that they have had positive input from the entire neighborhood. He stated that the neighbor on Mark Terrace has a southerly view and the addition would not impact them because their view is of hills and trees. He said that the other neighbors on his court are all very positive and support the project. James Kautz, architect, said that he was very careful in this design to be sure that any changes and additions would be in keeping with the neighborhood. He said that they have talked with their neighbors and the design of the addition was created to maintain the character of the house and the neighborhood. He said that when the house was built there was a 12 foot setback requirement, and now there is a 15 foot setback requirement and so that corner of the addition is what requires the minor variance to provide for a more orderly design. There were no public comments. Boardmember Emberson stated that she can easily make the findings to grant the variance because the setback was changed. She said that she went up to 31 Mark Terrace and could not see any view blockage and supported the project. Boardmember Tollini said that he also visited 31 Mark Terrace and saw no negative effect on the property. He agreed with staffs findings regarding the variance request. Boardmember Kricensky and Vice Chair Cousins agreed with the other Boardmembers that they could not see any impacts on 31 Mark Terrace and that they could make the findings for the variance. ACTION: It was M/S (Emberson/Tollini) that the request for 120 Howard Drive is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act and to approve the request, subject to the attached conditions of approval. Vote: 4 -0. 5. 2370 PARADISE DRIVE: File No. 21411; Paul and Kathryn Blystone, Owners; Site Plan and Architectural Review for construction of a new single - family dwelling, with a Variance for excess lot coverage. The new one -story house would include a living room, dining room, family room, kitchen, a master bedroom suite, two more bedrooms, 2'/2 bathrooms, a pantry/laundry room and a two -car garage. The project would increase the floor area by 1,352 square feet to a total of 2,853 square feet of living space. The lot coverage would increase by 1,433 square feet to a total of 4,026 square feet (47.2 %) of the site, which would be greater than the 35.0% maximum lot coverage permitted in the R -2 zone. Assessor's Parcel No. 059- 191 -05. TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES #9 5/15/14 The applicant is requesting Design Review approval for the construction of additions to an existing one -story single - family dwelling on property located at 2370 Paradise Drive. As more than 50% of the existing dwelling would be demolished as part of this project, the application is classified as the construction of anew single- family dwelling. An existing detached accessory building will also be demolished as part of this project. The main level of the house would include a living room, dining room, family room, kitchen, a master bedroom suite, two more bedrooms, two bathrooms and a pantry /laundry room. An existing deck to the rear would be expanded and trellises would be added to the front and rear of the building. A two -car garage would be provided. The floor area of the house would increase by 1,352 square feet to a living area of 2,853 square feet, with a 542 square foot garage, which would match the floor area ratio for a lot of this size. The project would increase the lot coverage on the site by 1,433 square feet to a total of 4,026 square feet (47.2 %) of the site, which would be greater than the 35.0% maximum lot coverage permitted in the R -2 zone. A variance is therefore requested for excess lot coverage. Miles Berger, architect, said this is a new design and is a redo of previous versions that were not approved. He said that they were now proposing a one -story scheme that would preserve views across the property and keep the roof close to the existing height. He said that the problems with the previous design were view obstruction from across the street, primarily because of the two - story design, and excessive mass, which affected the neighbors. He said that the revised design was now one story and broke up the mass. He said that they did not notice that the view from 2360 Paradise Drive would be impacted until after the story poles went up, but they came up with a solution to preserve that view, and he distributed photographs of that view before and after the changes to the plans. He said that they also spoke with the other next door neighbors who had concerns about the bathroom windows, but Mr. Berger believed that the hedge would take care of that problem. He complemented the applicants for making these changes before going to tonight's meeting to take care of the neighbors' concerns. The public hearing was opened. Pete Tymstra thanked the applicants and the architect for a design that would have very little impact on his property. He agreed that the issue with the window seemed small but he was concerned about the privacy of people on both sides of the window. He said that the hedge is thick and lush and virtually obscures the wall, but he thought that the fire district may require portions of the hedge to be removed and he was concerned about it surviving. He suggested that the window in the shower could have smoky glass or anything that could preserve privacy. Mr. Berger said that they are sensitive to the window and the hedge issue, but he noted that there are windows in that location currently and he believed that this would not be a big change. He said that the windows would be frosted glass and suggested that the hedge could grow up a bit for privacy. The public hearing was closed. TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES #9 7 5/15/14 Boardmember Tollini said that he liked the redesign and remembered the prior application well. He said that the primary problem with that application was the second story and its height. He said he visited the Tymstra home at that time and the hedge is substantial. He thought that the windows on that side would be fairly large, but would be concealed by the hedge. He was concerned about the view of the East bay that would be lost but with the revised plans that effect would be insubstantial. He said that the application was well designed and he supported it. Boardmember Emberson agreed with Boardmember Tollini and expressed kudos to the applicants and Mr. Berger for the changes that were made. She believed that the neighbors would be well - protected by the frosted glass windows. Boardmember Kricensky agreed with the other Boardmembers and said that this design really fit the site and the neighborhood and would preserve the views. He appreciated that they reached out to neighbors and made the necessary adjustments. Vice Chair Cousins stated that this revision would fit in much better to the site and neighborhood than the previous plan. He felt that the changes in this revision satisfied all of their concerns and he had no issues with approving the variance. ACTION: It was M/S (Kricensky/Emberson) that the request for 2370 Paradise Drive is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act and to approve the request as submitted, as modified by the May 7, 2014 plans, subject to the attached conditions of approval. Vote: 4 -0. 6. 545 SILVERADO DRIVE: File No. 714046; Brian and Sue Peery, Owners; Site Plan and Architectural Review for construction of a new single - family dwelling. The project would involve additions to the upper and ground levels of the house, with raised rooflines and a new garage at the front of the property. The floor area of the house would be increased by 111 square feet, resulting in a total floor area of 1,769 square feet, with an additional 361 square feet of carport space, and would increase the lot coverage on the site by 39 square feet to 1,596 square feet (14.5 %). Assessor's Parcel No. 055- 082 -23. The applicant is requesting Design Review approval for the construction of a new two -story single - family dwelling on property located at 545 Silverado Drive. On July 18, 2013, the Design Review Board approved a Site Plan and Architectural Review application (File #713029) for construction of additions to the existing house on this property. Building permits were obtained for the project, but during construction, more than 50 percent of the existing structure was demolished. The Tiburon Zoning Ordinance classifies project that demolish more than 50% of the existing dwelling as the construction of anew single - family dwelling and requires separate Site Plan and Architectural Review approval for a new dwelling. The project would expand an upper level master bedroom suite to add closet space, a larger bathroom and a deck off the front. A bridge would connect the rear of the upper level to the upper portion of the rear yard. An existing carport on the lower level would be removed and replaced with anew garage closer to the street, connected by anew driveway. A new family room would be added to the front of the ground floor and a new bedroom would be added to TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES #t9 8 5/15/14 the rear of that level. The rooflines of the house would be modified, most notably the steeply pitched upper level roofline that would be changed to a shed roof sloping upward toward the front of the site. An existing chimney would be removed. A new level rear yard area is proposed to the rear of the site. The floor area of the house would be increased by 111 square feet, 453 square feet less than the previous project design, resulting in a total floor area of 1,769 square feet, with an additional 361 square feet of carport space, which would be less than the floor area ratio for this site. The additions would increase the lot coverage on the site by 39 square feet to 1,596 square feet (14.5 0/o), which is less than the 30.0% maximum lot coverage permitted in the R -1 zone. Chriss Daniels, contractor, said that their architect passed away and she was therefore presenting tonight. She said that there were no changes to the previous design except the roof pitch and the driveway to the carport, and the floor area has increased to 1,069 square feet. She said that they talked with neighbors and she clarified that window #7 would be a 4' x 4' window 11 feet from the property line. She stated said that this is an older home that needed a new roof and with the roof pitch and walls more than 50% will be rebuilt it is therefore considered a new dwelling. She said that the applicants looked forward to moving into this home and she thanked the Board for their patience and time. The public hearing was opened. Margarita Perry said she lives next door on the downhill side of the home. She asked for clarifications of the roofline on the east side which appeared to have been raised about 2 feet and submitted photographs of the construction. She asked if the new window could be changed to a fixed window on that side, as the new window would be right across from her living and dining area. Wilhelmine Roenau said that she was very concerned about the windows on this property shining into her house. She requested some stipulation that the lights be reduced by eliminating the additional windows. Ms. Daniels said their engineer's calculations for the roofline and pitch and the trusses were approved for this house with the prior architect. Boardmember Tollini pointed out that the approved design did not raise the roof higher and asked for an explanation why it appeared to be higher. Ms. Daniels said that she believed that it was the way the photograph was taken and that the roof did not change that much. Vice Chair Cousins noted that the approved plans show the roof should not have changed. Planning Manager Watrous said that they will require an as -built survey to verify the height and suggested that it be done sooner rather than waiting until the very end, since there seems to be some question about the height of that roof. The public hearing was closed. TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES #9 5/15/14 Boardmember Tollini said that he had no issues with the other minor changes that were made to the design. He said that he was not inclined to revisit anything that the Board had previously worked out. Boardmember Emberson agreed with Boardmember Tollini, noting that the Board had gone through these discussion twice before. She agreed that the as-built survey should be required. Boardmember Kricensky agreed and said that the Board should not haggle over what was decided previously. Vice Chair Cousins agreed with the other Boardmembers and noted that the approved design was a considerable reduction from the original design. He acknowledged that the extent of the existing needed to be confirmed. ACTION: It was M/S (Emberson/Tollini) that the request for 545 Silverado Drive is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act and to approve the request, subject to the attached conditions of approval and the additional condition of approval that an as -built survey be submitted to the Town within 30 days. Vote: 4 -0. F. APPROVAL OF MINUTES #8 OF THE MAY 1, 2014 DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MEETING Vice Chair Cousins requested correcting the last sentence of page 11: change "mro" to "more" ACTION: It was M/S (Emberson/Cousins) to approve the minutes of the May 1, 2014 meeting, as amended. Vote: 3 -0 -1 ( Tollini recused). G. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 8:45 p.m. TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES 99 10 5/15/14 e�r�a;.) yRy G+11��4� TOWN OF TIBURON Action Minutes- Regular Meeting Tiburon Town Hall Design Review Board 1505 Tiburon Boulevard June 5, 2014 Tiburon, CA 94920 7:00 P.M. ACTION NUNUTES #10 TIBURON DESIGN REVIEW BOARD CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL At 7.00 PM Present: Chair Chong, Vice Chair Cousins, and Boardmember Kricensky Absent: Boardmembers Emberson and Tollini Ex- Officio: Planning Manager Watrous, Assistant Planner O'Malley, and Minutes Clerk Rusting ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None STAFF BRIEFING (if any) None OLD BUSINESS 1. 3 PALMER COURT: File No. 713109; Tracey Turner, Owner; Interpretation of condition of approval for Site Plan and Architectural Review for construction of a new single - family dwelling, with a Floor Area Exception. The applicant has requested an interpretation of compliance with a condition of approval regarding the maximum allowable floor area for this previously approved application. Assessor's Parcel No. 055- 201-01. Upheld Staff Interpretation 2 -1 (Chone opposed) PUBLIC HEARINGS AND NEW BUSINESS 2. 118 LELAND WAY: File No. 714024; Charles and Suzanne Fuerry, Owners; Site Plan and Architectural Review for construction of a detached guest cottage for an existing single - family dwelling. The proposed 636 square foot guest cottage would include a bedroom, bathroom, and sitting area with a wet bar. The proposal would result in a floor area of 1,558 square feet and lot coverage of 1,928 square feet (24.1 %). Assessor's Parcel No. 034 - 175 -04. Continued to 6119114 3. 6 SOUTHRIDGE EAST: File No. 21409; Mo and Parvaneh Nobari, Owners; Site Plan and Architectural Review for construction of additions to an existing single- family dwelling, with Variances for reduced front yard setback and excess lot coverage. The proposal would expand the upper level entry, add a new powder room to the upper level and create a new interior stairway between the two levels. The proposal would result in a gross floor area of 3,226 square feet. The additions would extend to within 24 feet, 6 inches of the front property line in lieu of the minimum 30 foot front yard setback for this property. The additions would cover 19.3% of the site in lieu of the maximum 15.0% lot coverage for this property. Assessor's Parcel No. 034- 243 -04. Approved 3 -0 Design Review Board Action Minutes June 5, 2014 Page 1 4. 3 SEAFIRTH LANE: File No. 21413; David and Sydney Joyner, Owners; Site Plan and Architectural Review for construction of a new single- family dwelling, with a Variance for excess building height and a Floor Area Exception. The proposed three -level home would include a family room/guest room, bathroom, and crawlspace on the lower level; two bedrooms, two bathrooms, formal entry, laundry room, wine cellar and a garage on the ground level; and a living room, TV room, dining room, kitchen, bathroom, master bedroom suite, and office on the upper level. The proposal would result in lot coverage of 2,106 square feet (12.0 %) and a gross floor area of 3,854 square feet, which is greater than the 3,753 square foot floor area ratio for this lot. The proposed house would have a maximum height of 34 feet, 2 inches in lieu of the maximum building height of 30 feet. Assessor's Parcel No. 039 - 092 -14. Annroved 3 -0 47 UPPER NORTH TERRACE: File No. 21412; John Harrington and Ida Baugh, Owners; Site Plan and Architectural Review for construction of additions to an existing single- family dwelling, with Variances for reduced front yard setback and excess lot coverage. The applicants propose to construct 176 square feet of additions to expand the existing living room, dining room, entry and storage area of the house. The additions would extend to within 15 feet, 6 inches of the front property line in lieu of the minimum 30 foot front yard setback for this property. The additions would cover 30.0% of the site in lieu of the maximum 15.0% lot coverage for this property. Assessor's Parcel No. 034- 304-01 Approved 3-0 MINUTES 6. Regular Meeting of May 15, 2014 Approved as amended 2 -0 -I (Chong recused) ADJOURNMENT At 7.45 PM Design Review Board Action Minutes June 5, 2014 Page 2 � - L 1GEZ ;T TOWN OF TIBURON Action Minutes - Regular Meeting Tiburon Town Hall Tiburon Planning Commission 1505 Tiburon Boulevard June 11, 2014 — 7:30 PM Tiburon, CA 94920 ACTION MINUTES TIBURON PLANNING COMMISSION CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL At 7.35 PM Present: Commissioner Corcoran, Commissioner Kulik, Commissioner Williams Vice Chair Weiner arrived at 7:42 PM Absent: Chair Weller ORAL COMMUNICATIONS There Were None Persons wishing to address the Planning Commission on any subject not on the agenda may do so under this portion of the agenda. Please note that the Planning Commission is not able to undertake extended discussion, or take action on, items that do not appear on this agenda. Matters requiring action will be referred to Town Staff for consideration and/or placed on a future Planning Commission agenda. Please limit your comments to no more than three (3) minutes. Testimony regarding matters not on the agenda will not be considered part of the administrative record. COMMISSION AND STAFF BRIEFING Commission and Committee Reports Director's Report PUBLIC HEARINGS 1600 MAR WEST STREET: REVIEW OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT GRANTED TO EXPAND A PRIVATE RECREATIONAL FACILITY ( TIBURON PENINSULA CLUB); FILE #10406; Southern Marin Recreation Center, Owner and Applicant; Assessor Parcel Nos. 058-171-17,76 & 84 and 058- 240 -21 [DW] Found in Comotiance— Removed Periodic Review Requirement (4 -0) 2. CONSIDER RECOMMENDATION TO THE TOWN COUNCIL REGARDING AMENDMENTS TO TITLE IV, CHAPTER 16 (ZONING) OF THE TIBURON MUNICIPAL CODE FOR THE PURPOSE OF PROHIBITING MARIJUANA DISPENSARIES IN ALL ZONES [DW] After Discussion, Continued to June 25.2014 (4 -0) Tiburon Planning Commission Action Minutes June 11, 2014 Page 1 S' NEW BUSINESS 3. REVIEW OF PROPOSED REAL PROPERTY ACQUISITIONS FOR CONSISTENCY WITH THE GENERAL PLAN; PORTION OF 2 -98 NED' S WAY FOR FEE ACQUISITION; PORTION OF 35 LYFORD DRIVE FOR DRAINAGE EASEMENT PURPOSES; Assessor Parcel Nos. 058- 460 -26 (Portion and 058- 301 -38 [SA] Found Consistent with General Plan (4 -0) MINUTES 4. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES — Regular Meeting of May 14, 2014 Approved as Submitted (3 -0 -1) ADJOURNMENT At 8:47PM Tiburon Planning Commission Action Minutes June 1 1, 2014 Page 2 TOWN OF TIBURON DIGEST Tiburon Town Hall 1505 Tiburon Boulevard Tiburon, CA 94920 AGENDA T IBURON DESIGN REVIEW BOARD CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL Regular Meeting Design Review Board June 19, 2014 7:00 P.M. Chair Chong, Vice Chair Cousins, Boardmembers Emberson, Kricensky and Tollini ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Persons wishing to address the Design Review Board on any subject not on the agenda may do so under this portion of the agenda. Please note that the Design Review Board is not able to undertake extended discussion, or take action on, items that do not appear on this agenda. Matters requiring action will be referred to Town Staff for consideration and /or placed on a future Design Review Board agenda. Please limit your comments to no more than three (3) minutes. Any communications regarding an item not on the agenda will not be considered part of the administrative record for that item. STAFF BRIEFING (if any) OLD BUSINESS 693 HAWTHORNE DRIVE: File No. 21405; Andre and Casey Mancl, Owners; Site Plan and Architectural Review for construction of a new single - family dwelling, with a Variance for excess lot coverage. The proposed split level home would include a living room, office, dining room, kitchen, family room, powder room, two bathrooms, three bedrooms, mud room, laundry room, and a two- car garage on main level, a master bedroom suite on the second level and a basement level with an extra room and powder room. The proposal would result in a gross floor area of 2,654 square feet and lot coverage of 2,751 square feet (36.6 %), which is above the maximum permitted lot coverage in the R -1 zone (30.0 %). Assessor's Parcel No. 055- 212 -09. [KO] PUBLIC HEARINGS AND NEW BUSINESS 118 LELAND WAY: File No. 714024; Charles and Suzanne Fuerry, Owners; Site Plan and Architectural Review for construction of a detached guest cottage for an existing single - family dwelling. The proposed 636 square foot guest cottage would include a bedroom, bathroom, and sitting area with a wet bar. The proposal would result in a floor area of 1,558 square feet and lot coverage of 1,928 square feet (24.1%). Assessor's Parcel No. 034 - 175 -04. [KO] Design Review Board June 19, 2014 Page 1 61? 1820 MOUNTAIN VIEW DRIVE: File No. 21408; Vuemont, hzc., Owner; Site Plan and Architectural Review for construction of additions to an existing single - family dwelling, with a Variance for reduced front yard setback. The proposal would convert an existing carport into an enclosed two -car garage and includes other minor site improvements. The proposal would result in a gross floor area of 3,937 square feet and lot coverage of 4,021 square feet, or 17.5% of the site. The garage would extend to within 13 feet, 10 inches of the front property line in lieu of the minimum 30 foot front yard setback for this property. Assessor's Parcel No. 059- 012 -02. [KO] CONTINUED TO JULY 17, 2014 4. 1823 LAGOON VIEW DRIVE: File No. 21404; Donna Grant, Owner; Site Plan and Architectural Review for construction of a new single - family dwelling, with Variances for reduced front yard setback and excess lot coverage. The proposed two -story home would include a living room, dining room, family room, kitchen, a master bedroom suite, two more bedrooms, 2'/2 bathrooms, a laundry room, office and media room on the upper level and an entry, exercise room, bathroom and storage area on the lower level. The proposal would result in a gross floor area of 4,288 square feet and lot coverage of 5,019 square feet (21.9 %), which is greater than the 15.0% maximum lot coverage permitted in the RO -2 zone. The house would extend to within 18 feet, 11 inches of the front property line in lieu of the minimum 30 foot front yard setback for this property. Assessor's Parcel No. 059- 042-09. [DW] 3 ANTONETTE DRIVE: File No. 714043; Goodview Holdings LLC, Owner; Site Plan and Architectural Review for construction of a new single - family dwelling on a vacant lot. The proposed 2'/: story home would include a living room, dining room, kitchen, family room, guest bedroom, study, one bathroom and a powder room on the main floor, a master bedroom suite along with three bedrooms, three bathrooms and a laundry room on the upper floor and a two -car garage at a level below the main floor, connected by a basement area. The proposal would result in a gross floor area of 5,651 square feet and lot coverage of 3,700 square feet (10.1%). Assessor's Parcel No. 038- 111 -03. [DW] 6. 10 TARA VIEW ROAD: File No. 21415; Koffman Family Trust, Owner; Site Plan and Architectural Review to construct a retaining wall for an existing single - family dwelling, with a Variance for excess wall height. The retaining wall would be constructed to facilitate landslide repairs. The wall has a maximum calculated height of 18 feet, which is greater than the maximum allowable wall height of 6 feet. Assessor's Parcel No. 058 - 201 -30. [DW] MINUTES Regular Meeting of June 5, 2014 ►_�lr�Yi NITUIZ)20 Design Review Board June 19, 2014 Page 2