Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutTC Digest 2014-07-25TOWN COUNCIL WEEKLY DIGEST Week of July 21- 25, 2014 Tiburon 1. Letter - Tiburon Peninsula Foundation - Phase H of Bladde's Berm Restoration 2. Letter - American Lung Association - State of Tobacco Control Report - Updated Grading Methodology Agendas & Minutes 3. Minutes -Planning Commission Minutes -June 25, 2014 4. Minutes - Design Review Board - June 19, 2014 5. Action Minutes -Tiburon Design Review Board -July 17, 2014 6. Action Minutes -Planning Commission -July 23, 2014 Regional a) None Agendas & Minutes b) None * Council Only Tiburon Peninsula Foundation P.O. Box 210 Belvedere- Tiburon, CA 94920 THE BOARD Sonja Bohannon Leslie Doyle David Holscher Art Kern Elizabeth Kilgore Ed Lynch Arlene Nielsen Steve Sears Jeff Slavitz Petey Stein Jim Wood EMERITUS Mogens Bach Piper Berger Robin Daly George Gnoss Barbara Mathew Jim Mitchell Arno Rayner Sylvia Ross Larry Smith Gary Spratling DIGEST fuly 15, 2014 To: PARKS, OPEN SPACE AND TRAILS COMMISSION From: Tiburon Peninsula Foundation Re: Phase II of Blackie's Berm Restoration The Tiburon Peninsula Foundation received a grant of $25,000 from the Carol Ann and Dennis Rockey Fund to improve the area around Blackie's Pasture and Berm. We presented to you a phased plan to clear the vegetation, clean away the debris and smooth the ground so it could be mowed and maintained by Town's Public Works Department. In May of 2011 your Commission endorsed the plan. Town Council approved the plan on June 7, 2011. We successfully completed Phase I in October of 2013, and we are here to inform you we are about to embark on Phase II. We propose to continue the clearing, cleaning and smoothing of the remaining area between the Berm and Tiburon Blvd. Our budget is more limited this year, and our efforts to plant wildflowers met with limited success so, for Phase II, we plan to leave the area to the native grasses. Redwood Engineering, our contractor again, recommends that we wait until after the first rain to limit the dust. He also recommends that the area be covered in straw to control erosion. The work could be completed in a few days. Together with Landmarks, we plan to install two historical plaques, similar to the others along Tiburon Historical Trail, to show and tell the history of the Tiburon Railroad Trestle Bridge. Last Thursday, July 10, we met at the site: Peggy Curran, Pat Bames and Joel Brewer from Town Staff. Rob Poole and Wes Poole, Redwood Engineering. Petey Stein, Ed Lynch and Arlene Nielsen from TPF. Dave Gotz from Landmarks We inspected the area and agreed that the plan was workable and opportune. P) This is the vegetation we plan to clear. It is impossible to tell exactly what we will find under it all. The plan is to put one plaque on top of the Berm where the trestle remains have been restored and another plaque close to the path. Town is planning to resurface the path parallel to the Berm and it will be an opportune time to frame and install the stand. i1 AMERICAN LUNG ASSOCIATION IN CALIFORNIA DIGEST State of Tobacco Control Report — Updated Grading Methodology Report will include tobacco control grades for all 482 incorporated cities and towns in California Dear Mayor and City Council Members: For over a decade the American Lung Association has released a national State of Tobacco Control (SOTC) report, with the next one scheduled to be released in January 2015. In conjunction with the national SOTC report, the American Lung Association in California releases a tobacco control report card for all 482 incorporated cities and towns and 58 counties in California entitled, State of Tobacco Control— California Local Grades Report. This year, the American Lung Association in California has developed a new grading methodology to use for the annual report to better reflect the strong local policies passing throughout the state. While we have made enormous progress in the fight against tobacco, it is still the number one cause of preventable death in the United States. Since 1964, we have cut smoking rates by more than half, dramatically reduced exposure to secondhand smoke, reduced rates of lung cancer and other tobacco - related diseases and fundamentally changed public attitudes about tobacco resulting in millions of lives saved. Despite this progress, tobacco remains a dangerous threat, killing almost 34,000 Californians each year, causing illness in even more and costing the state nearly $22 billion in health care bills and lost productivity. More needs to be done to decrease these numbers and to stop the 20,300 children in California who start smoking each year from picking up this deadly and addictive habit. Over the past 50 years, we have developed proven strategies that can achieve our public health goals if they are fully and effectively implemented. These strategies are reflected in the grading categories in both the national and local I SOTC reports. Here in California we've used the same methodology for grading the SOTC report for the past six years. This year we will use an updated methodology. In the six years since the original methodology was developed, the bar has been raised by cities and counties across the state passing strong policies. We want our grading methodology to reflect these strong policies that we know will improve the health of California residents. In the new methodology, grades are assigned for the following policy categories: Smokefree Outdoor Air, Smokefree Housing, and Reducing Sales of Tobacco Products. These three grades, plus an Emerging Issues bonus point section, are then averaged for one Overall Tobacco Control Grade. The updated grading methodology for the State of Tobacco Control Report — California Local Grades may result in jurisdictions receiving adjusted grades. We encourage you to work with us to improve your city's tobacco control grade. Please visit our About Us page at htta: / /www.lung.org /California to contact your local American Lung Association in California office for more information on the impact of smoking in your community and what can be done to improve your grade. We hope you will join us in the fight to breathe easier. Kimberly Amazeen Vice President, Programs & Advocacy aLk4 Anita Lee Interim Chief Executive Officer Contact: Kimberly Amazeen, Vice President of Programs and Advocacy at (916) 585 -7670 or Kimberly.Amozeen @lung.org DIGEST 3 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MINUTES NO. 1046 June 25, 2014 Regular Meeting Town of Tiburon Council Chambers 1505 Tiburon Boulevard, Tiburon, California CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL: Chair Weller called the meeting to order at 7:35 p.m. Present: Chair Lou Weller; Vice Chair Jon Welner (arrived at 7:40 p.m.), Commissioners John Corcoran, David Kulik, & Erica Williams Absent: None Staff Present: Director of Community Development Scott Anderson and Town Attorney Ann Danforth ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None COMMISSION AND STAFF BRIEFING: Director of Community Development Anderson reported that the Draft Housing Element will be reviewed by Commission in July. The Town has received a letter from HCD stating that if the Element is adopted in its current form, HCD will certify it as being in compliance with state law. Anderson also noted stated that at a recent meeting, the Planning Commission - recommended approval of Precise Plan Amendments regarding the Kahn subdivision and the Parente Vista subdivision were considered and approved by the Town Council. PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. 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 (Continued From June 11, 2014) Director of Community Development Anderson gave the verbal staff report, stating that at the Commission's last meeting, it held a public hearing on this matter and expressed concerns that the definition of marijuana dispensaries as put forth in the draft ordinance was perhaps too broad and could unintentionally be interpreted to include issues or activities other than actual marijuana dispensary type uses. The Commission also had concerns about a possible preventive action on the part of the Town to expand the prohibition beyond medical marijuana dispensaries to all TIBURON PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - JUNE 25, 2014 - MINUTES NO. 1046 PAGE I forms of marijuana dispensaries. He said that the Commission voted to continue the item and requested the Town Attorney be present to answer any questions. Mr. Anderson indicated that in an attempt to address the over - broadness issue that had been raised at the last meeting, staff proposed a revision to the definition of marijuana dispensary that removed the words "establishment" and "activity" and simply left "use," which is what zoning ordinances traditionally regulate. However, he said that staff was unable to address the issue of whether the ordinance was a bit of an overreach in essentially assuming that the state might someday adopt laws that would legalize more than "medical" marijuana use. He recommended that the Commission seek any appropriate clarifications from the Town Attorney, hold the public hearing, and then adopt the attached resolution, making whatever revisions or amendments the Commission deemed appropriate. Chair Weller noted that Commissioner Weiner had arrived and was noted present at 7:40 p.m. Commissioner Corcoran said the Commission had a question as to whether the draft ordinance language was modeled on ordinances from other towns or cities that have banned either medical marijuana dispensaries or marijuana dispensaries. Town Attorney Ann Danforth stated that originally the language came from the City of Riverside ordinance, which had been recently validated by the state Supreme Court, but that ordinance only addressed medical marijuana dispensaries. She said that to the best of her knowledge there are no ordinances in California that ban all marijuana dispensaries. She stated her understanding that the Council directed staff to broaden the definition because of the strong possibility that marijuana will become a legalized substance in California in the not too distant future. Commissioner Corcoran questioned the inclusion of the term "use" in the ordinance and felt that this seemed even broader than the way the previously proposed ordinance would have read. Ms. Danforth understood this concern but believed that the revised definition was more focused. She asked the Commission to bear in mind that this would be an amendment to the zoning ordinance and would not regulate individual activity, as the zoning ordinance regulates what sorts of uses that may be allowed in particular zones. She stated that just as the Town could forbid a saloon without forbidding people from offering drinks in their private home, she thought that there has to be some way to forbid regular, routine, non - social distribution of marijuana. She said that staff has not seen another model ordinance that would strictly and specifically separate out social use and sharing of these substances from more commercial, regular business- oriented uses, but she said that it is perfectly permissible for a town to adopt an ordinance like this and then interpret it in such a way that it is limited in its scope. Commissioner Corcoran asked what ordinances the other towns and cities in Marin passed as far as banning marijuana or medical marijuana dispensaries. Ms. Danforth said that Fairfax currently allows medical marijuana dispensaries but the cities of Larkspur, Mill Valley, San Rafael and Sausalito, at a minimum, have all banned medical marijuana dispensaries. She said that she was not aware of any city that has banned all marijuana dispensaries, but; unlike a year or two ago, it might be plausible that the State of California will in fact legalize distribution and sale of marijuana. She said that the question would then become whether the Town was interested in banning those uses as well. TIBURON PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -JUNE 25, 2014 - MINUTES NO. 1046 PAGE 2 Commissioner Williams said that she understands that the zoning ordinance would be applied rationally and also appreciated the desire to use terms from the definitions found in the zoning ordinance. She suggested a definition that included the words, "any business, industry or commercial use that involves making marijuana available" to refer to commercial use as opposed to the broader use that seems to be problematic to Commissioners. She said that medical marijuana facilities are not always for profit, but she does not know enough about how they operate and thought that this could be built into the definition. She agreed with Commissioner Corcoran that there still seems to be some ambiguity in the ordinance language. Ms. Danforth said in the nature of zoning ordinances, if someone happens to be weaving in their home, a municipality would not characterize the use of their home as a textile plant. She said that the use would still be defined as residential and if they are weaving for their own private enjoyment, there is nothing to be said. However, if someone is weaving and selling or carrying on some kind of operation, they might need a home occupation permit to the extent the activity is allowed at all. She did not think that the proposed ordinance would involve the person who is in some sort of non - commercial situation using and sharing marijuana with friends. She noted again that "use" implies that something that is a very significant component of what the property is being devoted to and not something incidental to the primary use. Commissioner Williams stated that it appears that the ordinance would not be applied to criminalize use in a person's home. Ms. Danforth clarified that right now if someone is in a house that is designated for residential use, the person is not supposed to be buying or selling anything without some kind of permit or providing services for revenue. She said that the primary use of the house is residential and if a business activity occurs, the person needs to apply for a permit for that. These types of use restrictions pertain to the primary allowed or conditional use of the property. She said that if a use is not explicitly allowed in the zoning ordinance but is not prohibited either, someone may request a conditional use permit, but this ordinance would let people know not to bother applying for a CUP because the use is not allowed in Tiburon. Director Anderson added that many of the dispensaries that were established in Marin County came in under the banner of "selling herbs or spices" and failed to mention the fact that they sold marijuana when they filed for whatever permits they needed. Based on those types of representations, the local agency often issued a business license and then had to go to court to have the dispensaries shut down after the fact. He said that this was the type of situation the Town would try to avoid with a broader ordinance. Commissioner Williams said that regarding the broader ban on all marijuana dispensaries, she did not find a definition in the Health and Safety Code for medical marijuana dispensaries. She said that she was initially troubled at the first hearing because the ordinance seemed to overreach because non - medical dispensaries are already illegal. She understood that the Town Council was trying to be ahead of the curve and anticipate changes and to be ahead of people who may be poised to file an application. Ms. Danforth agreed and said that if state law were changed to legalize an activity that his currently illegal and then the next day someone submits an application, municipalities frequently find themselves having to justify an urgency ordinance that adopts a moratorium. She said that it is more defensible for the Town to have something on the books via a conventional ordinance before any applications are filed. TIBURON PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - JUNE 25, 2014 - MINUTES NO. 1046 PAGE 3 Commissioner Welner said that Ms. Danforth has done an excellent job of fixing the definition to achieve the stated goals of the Town Council as conveyed to the Planning Commission by staff. However, he thought that it was inappropriate to extend the ordinance beyond what is currently legal. He stated that when the Commission previously discussed this item, one of the stated rationales for passing this ordinance was that the Commission was told that many of the other municipalities in Maria had passed bans and Tiburon did not want to be one of the few places with availability. He thinks that it was significant that all the other municipalities have banned medical marijuana dispensaries that are currently legal in California and he was willing to support that, but said that he would vote against a broader zoning ordinance that speculates about possible future state regulations. He thought that the Town would have plenty of time to adapt its zoning ordinance if there is a change at the state level. He said that he would be willing to support an amended version that uses the medical marijuana definition but opposed a broader ordinance. Commissioner Kulik asked if the broader ordinance would lessen the Town's exposure to litigation. Ms. Danforth said that she would never say the Town would totally avoid exposure to litigation by adopting this sort of regulation because litigation can be filed by anyone for a relatively small fee. She stated that the Council, at its retreat, directed staff to propose this broader ban because they were concerned that the Town might get an application more quickly than they could get an ordinance adopted and into effect through the normal process. She said that a legal vulnerability would be created if the Town has to conduct an urgency process for a ban in order to head off an application that has already been filed. She said that the Town could still be subject to a lawsuit, but its defensive posture would not be as strong without a prohibition already in place. Commissioner Kulik asked the Town Attorney how she viewed the Town Council's intent with the original language and this subsequent language. Ms. Danforth said that during the Council retreat she prepared a presentation on medical marijuana dispensaries. She said that the ability of cities to regulate and ban medical marijuana dispensaries has finally become clear and she put that option before the Council. When the Council started discussing her presentation and talking through what they actually wanted to do, the Council expressed interest in a broader ban because by the time of the retreat, Colorado had already legalized marijuana and recent polls suggested that California voters would also support a lifting of the criminal ban, and the trend is growing to legalize more types of marijuana use. She said that the Council did not want any kind of marijuana shop opening up in Town. She said that staff began with the definition of medical marijuana dispensaries considered by the California Supreme Court and then when they spoke with the Mayor, staff developed the broader definition. Commissioner Kulik asked Ms. Danforth to speak about the pre - emption for something not currently legal to do. Ms. Danforth said that from her point of view, pre - emption was the wrong term, as pre- emption in the law means that a higher body of law basically invalidates or shoves aside a lower body of law. For example, if the state enacted a law that said municipalities must allow marijuana dispensaries everywhere, that law would override any ban the Town might have and would be a true pre- emption. She said that it is legal for the Town to ban something currently illegal but that might become legal down the line. She stated that the Town has broad police power. Commissioner Kulik asked if this more or less came down to a local government TIBURON PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - JUNE 25, 2014 - MINUTES NO. 1046 PAGE 4 decision like banning a brothel. Ms. Danforth concurred, but noted that she has not seen any move to legalize brothels, while there has been a considerable amount of advocacy to legalize cannabis use. She emphasized that the proposed ordinance takes no position on the actual use of cannabis but would prevent an enterprise for the buying, selling or exchanging marijuana from opening up in Tiburon's small village -like community. Commissioner Kulik asked Ms. Danforth why no other municipality has adopted a ban this broad. Ms. Danforth said that most bans were adopted a couple of years ago and the landscape has changed. She noted that since then Colorado has legalized marijuana, there was a state -wide proposition to legalize recreational use of marijuana that failed, and in the last year the poll numbers supporting changes to marijuana laws have shifted. She reiterated that it was the Council's direction to staff that this ban be broadened. The public hearing was opened. No one spoke and Chair Weller closed the public hearing. Chair Weller stated that he disagreed with Commissioner Welner and had initially shared Commissioner Corcoran's concern with regard to the scope of the ordinance. He did not think that there was much question about the appropriateness of adopting a medical marijuana dispensary ban. He believed that the point Council made about what the Town will face if marijuana is legalized was exactly the reason to adopt a broader ban and he would much rather be in a position of having the ability to say "no" to any kind of commercial sale that may become legal. He felt that this seemed to be the more appropriate approach to dealing with an activity which is currently illegal where the consequences of making it legal are unknown. He said that if the Town only banned what is currently legal and did not deal with what is currently illegal it could face having to use extraordinary measures and not be able to appropriately deal with the issue when and if marijuana becomes legal. He said that he would rather be in the position of having this kind of ordinance on the books with the possibility that they would consider modification if the appropriate case was made at that time. He was satisfied that having been a lawyer for 35 years that this approach was appropriate for this community and he favored the ordinance as modified. Commissioner Corcoran said that he agreed with Commissioner Welner. He said that the Town is not going to ban meth or cocaine dispensaries as these drugs are illegal as well. He noted that state law changes all the time and when it does, the Town can make changes to its laws. He said that if the state or a ballot measure was to legalize marijuana, he was sure that there would be a period of time built in when local municipalities can make decisions on their regulations. He felt that the use language is subject to interpretation or is at least ambiguous and that the revised ordinance language reads as a broader ban than just of marijuana dispensaries. He believed that the much simpler thing to do would be to just ban medical marijuana dispensaries which are defined in the state code. Commissioner Williams said that she found the Commissioners' comments very persuasive and she was a bit undecided. She wished that the Commission could find a more clear and simple definition and she has looked at other definitions from other towns that seem to be much shorter and clearer. She did not feel that she had what she needed to make an informed decision. Her instinct would be to have the Town deal with the issue in the future if state law is changed, as TIBURON PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - JUNE 25, 2014 - MINUTES NO. 1046 PAGE 5 that would be the more appropriate time to deal with the issue. She said that she was inclined to support the broader ban but was still troubled by the definition as she finds it problematic. Chair Weller said that although it is instructive to hear what the Town Council might have indicated at the retreat, the Commission's role is independent and it should decide what it believes is in the Town's best interest as far as the zoning ordinance, and make that recommendation to the Town Council. He concluded that it is not all unlikely that the Town would face a need to deal with this issue in the future and that persuaded him that being somewhat pre - emptive on the topic is a better approach than having to face it later. Commissioner Welner thought that it was not very plausible that the state would pass this legislation and there would be an emergency situation with people opening dispensaries and the Town would not have time to deal with it. He said that both the Planning Commission and the Council have the opportunity to decide what is in character with the General Plan and zoning. He felt that this was more of a political statement opposing cannabis and he did not feel that this is the Commission's purpose and he did not support that kind of change to the zoning ordinance. Commissioner Kulik said that his concern was trying to derive the intent of the Town Council as the representatives for the Town in terms of setting policies and determining village character and compliance with the General Plan. He said that he would take the advice of the Town Attorney to adopt this as a measure of limiting exposure to litigation. He can easily see that there might be a rush to request these uses in the Town if personal or non - medical marijuana use was legalized. He agreed with Chair Weller and the Town Attorney that it is preferable to have a zoning position in place. MOTION: It was M/S (Kulik/Weller) to adopt the resolution recommending approval of the ordinance to the Town Council. The motion failed by a vote of 2 -3: (Ayes: Kulik and Weller; Noes: Corcoran, Welner and Williams). Commissioner Welner suggested revising all references to marijuana dispensary to medical marijuana dispensary. Chair Weller suggested a motion to prohibit marijuana dispensaries in all zones, and revise the definition to include a reference to the definition of medical marijuana under the Health and Safety Code. He asked if medical marijuana dispensary was a defined term under state law. Ms. Danforth said that making marijuana available for medical purposes is defined more narrowly in the Health and Safety Code and was referenced in the original ordinance definition. She said that if it was the Commission's intent to recommend of adoption of the ban solely as it applies to medical marijuana, she would recommend going back to the definition previously presented to the Commission in full, because this is the California Supreme Court's language. Commissioner Welner said the rest of the resolution should be changed so that wherever it states "marijuana dispensary" should read "medical marijuana dispensary." TIBURON PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - JUNE 25, 2014 - MINUTES NO. 1046 PAGE 6 Commissioner Kulik asked if the Commission were to vote in favor of this new proposal if it was possible to qualify it with a position that the broader definition was not supported. Director Anderson confirmed that Town Council will be reading the minutes closely and will learn that the recommendation for a "broader ban" ordinance was rejected on a 2 to 3 vote. Commissioner Kulik said that he was in favor of the broader ban but would like to do something that insulates the Town from litigation and is in compliance with the General Plan and consistent with the nature of the Town's village character. ACTION: It was M/S /C (Welner /Corcoran) to adopt the resolution recommending adoption of the ordinance, using the definition of medical marijuana dispensary upheld by the state Supreme Court, and making all necessary associated changes to reflect the narrower scope of the ordinance. The motion carried by a 5 -0 vote. Director Anderson suggested moving the minutes up on the agenda and the Chairman consented. 3. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES — Regular Meeting of June 11, 2014 Commissioner Corcoran requested the following amendment: • Page 5, 4`h paragraph: "Commissioner Corcoran thought that the narrow issue before the Commission was that if all other communities in Marin have banned the dispensaries, was it it was reasonable that Tiburon should ban them as well ?" ACTION: It was WS (Williams /Corcoran) to approve the minutes of the June 11, 2014 meeting, as amended. Motion carried: 5 -0. NEW BUSINESS 2. CONTINUING EDUCATION: PLANNING COMMISSIONER OVERVIEW PRESENTATION: The Commission Will Receive a Slide Presentation from Staff Covering Various Aspects of Planning Commissioner Duties and Responsibilities At 8:25 p.m., Director Anderson gave a Power Point presentation for continuing education purposes for the Planning Commission. TIBURON PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - JUNE 25, 2014 - MINUTES NO. 1046 PAGE 7 AwOURNMI ENT: The Planning Commission adjourned the meeting at 9:30 p.m. JON WE R, CHAIR Tiburon Planning Commission ATTEST: a;6t I A - Jzi SCOTT ANDERSON, SECRETARY TIBURON PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - JUNE 25, 2014 - MINUTES NO. 1046 PAGE 8 MINUTES #11 TIBURON DESIGN REVEW BOARD MEETING OF JUNE 19, 2014 The meeting was opened at 7:00 p.m. by Chair Chong. A. ROLL CALL Present: Chair Chong, Boardmembers Emberson, Kricensky and Tollini Absent: Vice Chair Cousins Ex- Officio: Planning Manager Watrous and Assistant Planner O'Malley B. PUBLIC COMMENTS - None DIGEST Planning Manager Watrous noted that the item for 1820 Mountain View Drive was continued to the July 17, 2014 meeting. 1163 a 13 1.111-1 1. 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. Boardmember Emberson was recused from the item. At the May 15, 2014 Design Review Board meeting, the Board considered an application for the construction of a new single - family dwelling, with a variance for excess lot coverage on property located at 693 Hawthorne Drive. During the meeting, the neighbors at 690 and 692 Hilary Drive stated their opposition to the new design of a split -level dwelling because of the high rooflines and large chimneys and felt that the new home would block views of the bay and would appear to be inconsistent with the character of the other homes in the neighborhood. Wbile some other neighbors agreed with these objections, other neighbors voiced support for the original proposed design. The Design Review Board determined that the proposed home would be consistent with the character of the Hawthorne Terrace neighborhood because the home would be a split level home TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES #11 6/19/14 with an excavated garage, which would appear as a one -story design from the rear and a split level from the front. However the consensus of the Board was that, the chimneys and roofline needed to be reduced in height and some of the dormers removed to limit the view blockage for the uphill neighbors on Hilary Drive. The Board provided direction to the applicant to design the home with modifications that would limit the potential of blocking views for the uphill neighbors and continued the project to the June 19, 2014 Design Review Board meeting. The applicant submitted revised plans for the project which included modifications to roof and other aspects of the project design. Andre Mancl, owner, reviewed changes they have made to the project since the last meeting. He stated that they have been very collaborative the entire time with the perspectives of neighbors that would be directly impacted. He said that the master bedroom chimney was eliminated, the living room chimney was moved to the front and the living room and master bedroom ridgelines were lowered. He added that they moved the front of the house away from the street by 40 inches and this reduced the lot coverage by 130 square feet and the floor area by 77 square feet. He showed a rendering of the original design and compared it to the new design, resulting in some dramatic changes. He said that because they lowered the ridgeline, they had to give up the dormers in front. He felt that they addressed all of the concerns. Jeff Mahaney, architect, stated that they have worked with the neighbors throughout the process and he felt everyone was pleasantly surprised by how much it helped to meet with the neighbors and their architect. He said that lowering the roof pitch helped and they also dropped the elevation of the garage. He said that they believed that it was important to not just address the views from Hillary Drive but also the dormer issue and bring the house down and have less of an impact so the house would fit better into the neighborhood. He said that the new design would be much better for the neighborhood and improve views. He said that it was difficult to give up the dormers architecturally and the natural light they would have provided, but they felt they could eliminate them in the front because of the amount of light and glass in the front. However, he felt that the dormers in the kitchen/family room were necessary because of the small amount of light coming from the northeast in that area. The public hearing was opened. Mariana Longstreth said that the changes were great. Sandra Smith stated that some applicants come through with projects that are too large and in the 9 years she has lived in Tiburon she felt that most of those projects have been supported. She said that people usually get their projects through if they do not break too many rules. She suggested that applicants need guidance so that the changes could have been made first. David Innes said that the applicants did a great job with the changes and reducing the impact on his views and that moving the house back made a huge difference. He said that his only concern was the master bedroom ridgeline may obscure his view of the bike path. Elena Stephens said that the project would be a wonderful addition to Hawthorne Drive TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES #11 6/19/14 The public hearing was closed. Boardmember Kricensky stated that he was surprised at how well the design came out and felt that it would really fit well with the neighborhood. He said that the view blockage was one concern, but the real concern was the exaggerated vertical mass that was inconsistent with the roof slopes in this neighborhood. He believed that the applicants did a good job and agreed with staff regarding the variance findings. Boardmember Tollini agreed with Boardmember Kricensky and felt that this new design was very close to what he was hoping for at the last meeting. He said that the changes made a big difference to the neighbors. He noted the request in the letter from the owners of 690 Hawthorne Drive for a survey to confirm the roof height, which he believed was a reasonable request. He said that the new design addressed his concerns and relocating the chimney was a very effective decision. He supported the project. Chair Chong said that he had the same concerns at the prior meeting and felt that the applicant did a good job of addressing the concerns. ACTION: It was NUS (Kricensky /Tollini) that the request for 693 Hawthorne 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 done to confirm that the roof height complies with the approved plans. Vote: 3 -0 -1 ( Emberson recused) Boardmember Emberson returned to the meeting. 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 (24.19/6). Assessor's Parcel No. 034 - 175 -04. The applicant is requesting Design Review approval to construct a guest cottage for an existing single - family dwelling on property located at 118 Leland Way in the Bel Aire Neighborhood. The property is currently developed with a one -story single - family dwelling. There would be no modifications or additions to the interior or exterior of the existing single - family dwelling. The majority of the proposal would be in the rear of the property towards the existing creek. The proposal consists of a 636 square foot guest cottage, which 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, which is below the maximum floor area ratio for the property (2,799 square feet). The proposal would result in lot coverage of TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES #11 6/19/14 1,928 square feet (24.1 %), which is below the maximum 30% permitted lot coverage in the R -1- B-A zone. Mohamad Sadrieh, architect, said his client requested to build a detached studio in the back yard. He acknowledged concerns from neighbors that this would be converted to a rental unit and that it would set a precedent in the neighborhood for detached structures. He said that the owners would like to build the studio so that they can practice and record music when they move into the home. He stated that the studio can be soundproofed to address concerns about noise. He stated that detached structures such as this are not uncommon in Tiburon and cited a detached structure at 357 Karen Way. He suggested providing a deed restriction on the property to prevent this or any future owner of the property from renting it. Charles Fuery, owner, said that he and his wife moved to Tiburon and lived here for 10 years, then moved back to the Silicon Valley about 5 years ago but they want to retire in Tiburon. He said that his wife taught many piano students when they lived in Tiburon, and she now drives up to Tiburon and teaches the children at their homes. He said that this application requires no variances or exceptions and they would like to resolve the issues with the neighbors. He said that they corresponded with neighbors by email and received several emails from neighbors who did not appreciate the separateness of the structure on the lot. He summarized the objections from neighbors that 1) the cottage would set a precedent for the neighborhood; 2) the cottage might be used for commercial purposes or might become separately rented and used as a multi - family space, and there was nothing to prevent future owners from using the cottage for commercial purposes or renting it; and 3) the cottage would be used for piano rehearsals and would be a neighborhood nuisance due to noise. He stated that they would take sufficient measures that there would be no seepage of sound from the studio. He stated that the Town does not allow commercial uses within a home and they will not have piano lessons in the space. He volunteered to place a deed restriction on the property stating it could not be separately rented and this would continue with any new owners of the property in the future. He stated that there are separate second dwellings in other locations, including 309 Karen Way and 357 Karen Way, and therefore they would not be setting a precedent in the neighborhood. He hoped that the DRB would see that they were making good faith efforts to resolve concerns for the neighbors. Boardmember Emberson asked about the purpose of the structure. Mr. Fuery said that it would have a recording piano studio and a separate bedroom and bathroom so that they could also sleep there. Boardmember asked who would sleep in the main house. Mr. Fuery said that that remains to be seen. He said that the piano studio would be a cottage like the one they have now in Palo Alto. Boardmember Tollini asked why a separate structure was needed. Mr. Fuerry stated that acoustically speaking it is much better to record in an insulated area and it is much better to work in a separate area dedicated to composing and recording. The public hearing was opened. TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES #11 4 6/19/14 Chair Chong stated 26 letters have been received on this project, plus 12 -13 late mails. He stated the Boardmembers have read all of those letters and that the Board would be most interested in hearing from immediate neighbors or if there is a point different from the issues in those letters. Joanie Cahill said that they have lived in Tiburon for 20 years and have been very supportive of remodels in the neighborhood. She said that they object to this project because the separate unit with a living room, bedroom, bathroom and wet bar would be 2/3 the size of the main house. She felt that the wet bar could easily be turned into a kitchen and redefine the project as a second unit. She said that the intent of the owners was not clear and commercial use of this property would create additional traffic and noise which the neighbors had experienced when the owners lived there previously. She said that cars were often parked in front of their homes with parents waiting for their children and their driveways were often used as turnarounds. She said that this project would set a precedent for allowing separate structures in Bel Aire and she felt that this was inconsistent with the character of the neighborhood. Mike Staton said that he supported the project and has known the owners as people of integrity and also as very creative artists. He said that the additional structure would be an outlet for their creative energies. He said that the soundproofing would work and would not be a problem for the neighborhood. He believed that this would be an excellent addition to the neighborhood. Matt Lincoln said he lives next door to the project. He stated that Mr. Fuerry is also a real estate agent and has an interest in real estate investments. Mr. Lincoln said that this project would be a clear departure for the neighborhood and they have been told many different reasons for the use of this structure, including as a cottage and now as a music studio. He felt that it was not conducive to the neighborhood to add a second rental income structure on the property or to have a separate music studio on the property or increased traffic and noise in the neighborhood. Darren Wein said that the structure would be centered in the heart of the yard and eliminate the utility of the back yard and he felt this was not pleasing to the eye. He said that the property is 8,000 square feet and is a fairly small area to be building a separate structure in the center of the yard. He said that he appreciates the creative process but also believed that the ways to eliminate noise in the separate structure could be used in an attached addition to the main house. Mindy Cantor said that the neighborhood is composed of single family dwellings and felt that the proposed use of this cottage keeps changing. She said that either a commercial piano studio to teach students or a recording studio does not fit with the zoning or their neighborhood. She saw no reason to make this a separate cottage rather than an addition to the house. She said that this would bring a lot more traffic and people into the family oriented neighborhood. Mr. Fuery said that he appreciated the discourse and heard the frustration and suspicion that they are going to do something different from what they have proposed. He said that this would be a cottage and they would have guests staying there from time to time and they would be recording in it. He said they do not plan to use it as a commercial space and are offering to put a deed restriction on the property stating they will not rent the cottage. He said that the cottage would be for their personal use. He addressed the.concern that there will be a commercial endeavor and stated that when he records there are microphones around the piano and he does not bring other TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES 911 6/19/14 instruments in. He stated that he offered an opportunity to meet with neighbors before the meeting but received no responses. The public hearing was closed. Boardmember Tollini said that the DRB does not see many applications for detached structures and there is generally a policy of discouraging detached structures. He said that the few times he had seen it had been when it was consistent with the neighborhood pattern and did not impact anyone. He felt that this project did not meet that description. He said that he could not find any evidence that the two structures on Karen Way went through design review. Planning Manager Watrous stated that he researched those two structures and both were approved prior to annexation of this area to the Town when it was unincorporated Marin County. He said that the structure at 357 Karen Way is a small 200 square foot cottage on a 14,000 square foot lot and the structure at 309 Karen Way is about 600 square feet and no kitchen was allowed at that time. He said that those are the only two detached structures in this neighborhood that are over 200 square feet. Boardmember Tollini said that the structure at 309 Karen Way was similar to the proposed detached cottage but is clearly not recent and did not go through any amount of design scrutiny. He did not feel that these two cottages made a precedent to allow detached structures in the neighborhood and this was inconsistent with the neighborhood pattern. He stated that the structure would be visible from the street and from the neighbors' back yards and felt that it would change the feel of the back yards. He felt that there were no compelling concerns to justify the design and the fact that it was proposed to be used as a recording studio was not relevant. He also questioned why a wet bar, bathroom, and accommodation for guests was needed for a recording studio. He could not support the project and said that he would welcome a design that was attached. Boardmember Emberson agreed with Boardmember Tollini's comments and pointed out that the main house could still be rented and that it would be a two family property. She stated that it was impossible to enforce the prohibition of renting the cottage and felt that it was unfair to the neighbors to have to fight that in the future. She characterized the project as a non - starter. Boardmember Kricensky said that he appreciates personal stories, but noted that the Board hears a lot of personal stories that change after the meeting. He said that this would not be a studio but rather a guest cottage, with a bedroom, sitting room, and a bar that could easily convert to a kitchen. He said that this was not appropriate for this neighborhood. He said that if it was a single room and was actually a studio and was related to the house then he might support it, but this would be a distinct and separate unit. He stated that the entry would not connect to the house, the main windows would face east, the building would turn away from the existing house, and the wet bar and counter would obviously become a kitchen. He disagrees that the structure must be connected physically and suggested it could be connected through a trellis. He was concerned that the front unit could be rented and this would become a two - family property. TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES #11 6/19/14 Boardmember Tollini agreed that a connection between the two units would make him more comfortable. Chair Chong said that he understood why the applicant would like to build the cottage because it would provide a separate place to work and for in -laws to visit. However, he thought that future owners need to be considered as well as what is right for the neighborhood and this property. He agreed with the comment about destroying the utility of the yard. He believed that the floor area could be added to the house rather than as a separate building, which would save the yard. He said that he could better support something that looks and feels more like the one -story additions that have been approved in this neighborhood. Boardmember Tollini said applications that he cannot support a detached building unless it was possibly only a one -room studio without a bedroom, bathroom and kitchen. Boardmember Kricensky agreed and stated that if it was a studio and only had a toilet and sink, with no extra room and no kitchen he could possibly support it. Boardmember Emberson said that it would have to be drastically different and she could not support a separate building unless it was extremely small. She said that it would be easier to support an addition to the house. Planning Manager Watrous stated that the applicant needed to grant an extension to the Permit Streamlining Act deadlines to continue the application to a later date. Mr. Fuery agreed to grant the extension. ACTION: It was M/S (Tollini/Kricensky) to continue the application for 118 Leland Way to the July 17, 2014 meeting. Vote: 4 -0. 3. 1820 MOUNTAIN VIEW DRIVE: File No. 21408; Vuemont, Inc., 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. 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%z 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. TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES #11 6/19/14 The applicant is requesting Design Review approval for the construction of additions to an existing two -story single - family dwelling on property located at 1823 Lagoon View Drive. The upper level of the house would include a living room, dining room, family room, kitchen, a master bedroom suite, two more bedrooms, 2'% bathrooms, a laundry room, office, and media room. The lower floor would include an entry, exercise room, bathroom and storage area. A two - car garage would be attached to the upper level. Several new retaining walls would be situated to the sides and rear of the house. The floor area of the house would increase by 833 square feet to a living area of 4,288 square feet, with a 573 square foot garage, which would be one square foot less than the floor area ratio for a lot of this size. The project would increase the lot coverage on the site by 1,166 square feet to a total of 5,019 square feet (21.9 %) of the site, which would be greater than the 15.0% maximum lot coverage permitted in the RO -2 zone. A variance is therefore requested for excess lot coverage. A portion of the proposed house would extend to within 18 feet, 11 inches of the front property line. As a 30 foot front yard setback is required in the RO -2 zone, a variance is also requested for reduced front yard setback. Donna Grant, owner, said that she has been working on this project for about 2 years with Jayni Allsep and deferred to her for comments on the project. Jayni Allsep, project planner, stated that she has been working with Ms. Grant on this project and a previous design generated some concerns. Ms. Allsep stated that they reached out to neighbors and staff, and she was pleased with the way the design evolved since she became involved. She said that there have been major design changes and with each iteration it moved toward a design that would minimize impacts on privacy and views. Robert Swatt, architect, described the project history and said that modifications resulted in the present design. He stated that the proposed design would have a small lower level almost identical to the existing lower level and a west wing of the building almost matching the existing footprint. He said that the major expansion of the building would be to the east and north sides and include a master bedroom, studio, and media room. He said that although the Town considers this a new building, in reality there were many aspects of the existing building that would be retained including the foundations, many of the walls, much of the east wing, and the lower level. He noted on the south side of the building has been pulled back from the property line further than the existing building, He said that there would be variety of plate heights ranging from 8 feet 6 inches in the garage to 13 feet in the main central area. Mr. Swatt stated that the main issues were view blockage for neighbors above and potential light problems for neighbors below. He acknowledged that there would be some view blockage and said that they were trying to mitigate that. He showed slides depicting the various iterations of the project showing the lowering of the roof and height, and noted the major difference between the current project and previous version was that they have pulled the east wing substantially to the north which would open quite a bit of the view that would have been blocked by the previous versions. He stated that they would like to reduce the height again by dropping the main public areas by one foot and the master bedroom by 6 inches and shorten the eaves 6 inches. TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES #I1 6/19/14 The public hearing was opened. Martin Lauber said that the revisions were well- suited to the neighborhood and the project will improve the overall aesthetic of the neighborhood. Paula Little said that she thought that the design was beautiful. She said that the house is old and needs to be redone and she thought that this would be a wonderful addition to the neighborhood. Chair Chong said that the letter from 1825 Lagoon View Drive included a number of items that do not fall under the purview of the Design Review Board, but included some comments about downlights and fencing that appears to be missing from the drawing. Mr. Swatt stated that there was no proposal to change any of the existing fencing on the property and there would be four downlights on that side of the building. The public hearing was closed. Boardmember Tollini said he visited the site and 1825 Lagoon View Drive and he did not see the concerns of 1825 Lagoon View Drive. He believed that this was a reasonable proposal. He agreed with staff's findings regarding the variances and felt that this was a great design. Boardmember Kricensky agreed with Boardmember Tollini and said that the proposal to lower the roof would make it similar to the existing roof and would look just as nice. He said that he liked the design and that this was a difficult site. He said that he was concerned about the view from the living room toward the west because the neighbor on that side has a pool in that area and there would be a very large set of windows looking in that direction. He said that he did not want to disrupt the design but was concerned about privacy in that direction. Boardmember Emberson agreed but noted that the area with the large windows is a formal dining room and fewer people would use that area than other areas of the house. She did not feel that the project would make as much of a difference since there is already a window in that area. Boardmember Tollini stated there is a large distance between the two properties as well and the pool is fairly distant, so he was not as concerned. Chair Chong said that this was a beautiful design and he appreciated the 3- dimensional models. He said that it was easy for him to support the project and he could make the findings for the variances. Boardmember Emberson said they should accept the offer of the architect to lower the height of the structure, and the other Boardmembers agreed. ACTION: It was M/S (Emberson/Kricensky) that the request for 1823 Lagoon View Drive is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act and to approve the request, subject to the attached conditions of approval, and the additional conditions of approval that the roof area over the family and dining room would be lowered by 1 foot and the roof over the master bedroom would be lowered by 6 inches and the eaves reduced by 6 inches. Vote: 4 -0. TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES #11 6/19/14 Boardmember Emberson left the meeting. 5. 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' /z 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. The applicant is requesting to construct a new 2'/2 story single - family dwelling on a currently vacant lot. The main floor of the house would include a living room, dining room, kitchen, family room, guest bedroom, study, one bathroom and a powder room. The upper floor would include a master bedroom suite along with three bedrooms, three bathrooms and a laundry room. A two -car garage would be situated at a level below the main floor, connected by a basement area. A swimming pool and spa, along with an outdoor bathroom building, would be constructed to the rear of the house. A driveway gate would extend across the new driveway leading from Antonette Drive. The proposal would include a 5,505 square foot house, 80 square foot bathroom building and a 666 square foot garage, which result in a gross floor area of 5,651 square feet, which would be the maximum floor area allowed for a lot of this size. The proposal would result in lot coverage of 3,700 square feet (10.1 %), which is less than the 15.0% maximum lot coverage permitted in the RO -1 zone. Mohamad Sadrieh, architect, said that the house was designed according to the Hillside Design Guidelines by locating the garage upslope and tucking the garage into the lowest part of the site. He said that the house would be narrow and stepped back. He stated that they reached out and met with all of the neighbors who contacted them and the downhill neighbors requested enhanced screening between the two homes that they are happy to provide. He said that after speaking with neighbors and going to their home to discuss their concerns they have agreed to lower the house by 2 '/2 feet. He said that this was a painful concession because it adversely affects their views from the lower level, but they respect the concerns of the neighbors about their view and were glad to compromise. He stated that a positive result of this change is that the house would now be further into the hillside and provide less visible mass from the downhill home as well as from the street. Don Blayney, landscape architect, stated that there y was a concern about providing more screening between the house and the downhill neighbor and they will provide additional screening in that corner on their final landscape plans. George Lee, owner, said that they have met with the neighbors and have tried to address all of their concerns. He said that they are glad to make compromises to be sure everyone is comfortable and gain their support. TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES #11 10 6/19/14 The public hearing was opened. Richard Payne said that they appreciate the willingness of the owner and architect to accommodate their concerns. He said that their views would have been impacted substantially and by meeting with them and reviewing it, they have agreed to reducing the overall height by 2 %2 feet. George Shen said that he understood that Mr. Lee has purchased an additional lot that shares a boundary with his own property. Mr. Shen said that if the oak trees are removed then the new house will look right into his back yard. He said that they have maxed out the size of the house and made it very large. He was unsure what the house will look like from his vantage point and did not want to look up at a very large building. Mr. Blayney stated that the trees are very important and they do not plan to remove them. Planning Manager Watrous stated the proposed landscape plan states that those trees must remain, which means they cannot be removed as part of this application and a tree permit would be needed to remove them. Mr. Lee stated that the trees will remain because they provide privacy also around the pool. The public hearing was closed. Boardmember Kricensky stated that he visited the site and the neighbors' property and noted that no variances are requested. He found that the elevations were well articulated and lowering the house 30 inches would do wonders for the neighbor's view and was quite a concession. He felt that the house works well with the Hillside Guidelines. Boardmember Tollini said that he visited the site and the uphill neighbors and thought that the height concession would help tremendously. He suggested a condition of approval requiring additional screening for the portion along the driveway near the border. He thought that this was a well - designed house and would be a nice addition to the neighborhood. Chair Chong said that he also had a chance to visit the uphill neighbor and the existing story poles prior to the revisions indicate that the house would have been too impactful for him to support. He liked that they were able to work together and come to an agreement and he felt that the revisions with the lower rooflines would make a big difference. ACTION: It was M/S (Kricensky/Tollini) that the request for 3 Antonette Drive is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act and to approve the request, subject to the attached conditions of approval, and the additional conditions of approval that reflect the revised plans to lower the house by 2'/2 feet and that additional landscaping and screening shall be planted on the downhill side of the driveway to the satisfaction of the Planning Division. Vote: 3 -0. 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 TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES 411 11 6119/14 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. The applicant is requesting Design Review approval to construct retaining walls for an existing single - family dwelling on property located at 10 Tara View Road. One of the walls would be situated within the required side yard setback and have a maximum height of 18 feet. As the maximum allowable height for walls and fences within a required setback is 6 feet, a variance is requested for excess wall height. In 2011, a landslide developed on the lower portion of the subject property. The landslide affected the subject site, the adjacent property at 120 Round Hill Road and threatened the Town right -of -way along Round Hill Road. Temporary repairs have been conducted to lessen safety concerns from the landslide while legal negotiations took place between the parties involved to determine responsibility for future repairs. Geotechnical investigations have been performed for the landslide and recommend the construction of a series of retaining walls to properly repair the landslide. The property owners at 10 Tara View Road and 120 Round Hill Road have reached a settlement agreement that would allow construction of the recommended improvements. The Town Attorney has indicated that the Town supports the terms of the settlement agreement between the neighbors as a means to eliminate this potential safety hazard. Craig Herzog, soil engineer, said that the biggest issue was the upper retaining wall. He said that there was a fairly large landslide that flowed towards Round Hill Road and emergency measures were put in including a diversion wall. He stated that there have been settlement agreements among the property owners and they have come up with a repair plan that includes two retaining walls: one short 3 foot wall down below and one upper retaining wall with an exposed height of about 10 feet. He said that much of the wall would be underground in the form of drilled piers. The public hearing was opened. Christy Swildens stated that she owns the property downhill from the slide. She noted that this would be a very large 10 foot wall and she requested vegetation to screen the wall, but otherwise supported the request. Mr. Herzog said that he would have the landscape issue addressed. Chair Chong suggested a condition of approval to landscape the wall. The public hearing was closed. Boardmember Kricensky said that this is an engineering solution to a potentially hazardous condition that has been endorsed by the Town and agreed to by neighbors, and there was no other solution. Boardmember Tollini said that this was a great solution. Chair Chong agreed and suggested the landscape condition of approval. TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES #11 12 6/19/14 ACTION: It was NVS (Tollini/Kricensky) that the request for 10 Tara View Road 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 a landscaping plan be submitted that shows adequate screening of the downhill face of the 10 foot wall to the satisfaction of the Planning Division. Vote: 3 -0. F. APPROVAL OF MINUTES #10 OF THE JUNE 5, 2014 DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MEETING ACTION: It was M/S (Kricensky /Chong) to approve the minutes of the June 5, 2014 meeting, as written. Vote: 3 -0. G. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 9:20 p.m. TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES 911 13 6/19/14 DIGS TOWN OF TIBURON Action Minutes - Regular Meeting Tiburon Town Hall Design Review Board 1505 Tiburon Boulevard July 17, 2014 Tiburon, CA 94920 7:00 P.M. ACTION MINUTES #12 TIBURON DESIGN REVIEW BOARD CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL At 7. 00 PM Present: Chair Cousins, Boardmembers Chong, Emberson and Kricensky Absent: Vice Chair Tollini Ex- Officio: Planning Manager Watrous, Assistant Planner O'Malley and Minutes Clerk Rusting ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None STAFF BRIEFING (if any) ELECTION OF CHAIR AND VICE -CHAIR Cousins elected Chair, Tollini elected Mce -Chair OLD BUSINESS 1. 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°/x). Assessor's Parcel No. 034 - 175 -04. Continued to 8121114 PUBLIC HEARINGS AND NEW BUSINESS 2. 1820 MOUNTAIN VIEW DRIVE: File No. 21408; Vuemont, Inc., 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. Approved 4 -0 Design Review Board Action Minutes July 17, 2014 Page 1 1/ , 3. 2300 VISTA DEL MAR LANE: File No. 21331; Shelley Brown, Owner; Site Plan and Architectural Review for construction of additions to an existing single - family dwelling, with a Variance for reduced side yard setback. The project would expand and reconfigure the existing second floor to eliminate one bedroom and expand the master bedroom suite by adding a library and study and a larger bathroom. A new family room, bathroom and expanded kitchen are proposed on the first floor and a new storage room and slightly expanded garage are proposed on the basement level. The proposal would increase the floor area of the house by 736 square feet to 2,159 square feet and would increase the lot coverage by 599 square feet to a total of 1,730 square feet (27.3 %). The house would extend to within 4 feet, 1 inch of the west side property line in lieu of the minimum 8 foot side yard setback for this property. Assessor's Parcel No. 059 -201 -11. Approved 4 -0 4. 8 ACELA DRIVE: File No. 21414; Tom and Carol 011endorff, Owners; Site Plan and Architectural Review for construction of additions to an existing single- family dwelling, with a Variance for excess lot coverage. The project would expand the existing master bedroom suite on the second floor and extend an existing deck along the front of the house. The first floor garage and office would be expanded and reconfigured to include a new two -car garage, a playroom, bedroom, bathroom, storage room, wine room and laundry room. The proposal would result in a gross floor area of 3,836 square feet and lot coverage of 3,772 square feet (20.5 %), which exceeds the 15.0 % maximum permitted lot coverage in the RO -2 zone. Assessor's Parcel No. 058- 231 -11. Continued to 8121114 MINUTES 5. Regular Meeting of June 19, 2014 Approved as amended 3 -0 -1 (Cousins abstained) ADJOURNMENT At 7.30 PM Design Review Board Action Minutes July 17, 2014 Page 2 DIGEST e. a TOWN OF TIBURON Dfi7 Action Minutes - Regular Meeting Tiburon Town Hall Tiburon Planning Commission 1505 Tiburon Boulevard July 23, 2014 — 7:30 PM Tiburon, CA 94920 ACTION MINUTES TIBURON PLANNING CON MISSION CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL At 7:30 PM Present: Vice Chair Welner, Commissioner Corcoran, Commissioner Williams Absent: Chair Weller, Commissioner Kulik 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 Meeting of'August 13, 2014 Cancelled ELECTION OF CHAIR AND VICE CHAIR MIS CorcoranlVilliams to Nominate Vice Chair Welner as Clair (3 -0) MIS Corcoran/Williams to Nominate Commissioner Kulik as Vice Chair (3 -0) PUBLIC HEARINGS GENERAL PLAN HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE: PUBLIC HEARING TO ACCEPT PUBLIC COMMENT ON THE DRAFT UPDATED HOUSING ELEMENT AND MAKE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE TOWN COUNCIL REGARDING ADOPTION [SA] Recommended Adoption to Town Council (3 -0) 2. 110 SOLANO STREET: REVIEW OF SEASONAL RENTAL UNIT PERMIT TO OPERATE A PORTION OF AN EXISTING TWO - FAMILY DWELLING AS A SEASONAL RENTAL UNIT; FILE #SRU 2013 -01; Courtney and Sandy Anderson, Owners and Applicants; Joe and Cathy Haraburda, Appellants; Assessor's Parcel Number 059- 143 -35 [DW] Continued to August 27 Tiburon Planning Commission Action Minutes July 23, 2014 Page 1 MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES —Regular Meeting of June 25, 2014 Approved as Amended 3 -0 ADJOURNMENT At 8:00 PM a072314 Tiburon Planning Commission Action Minutes July 23, 2014 Page 2