The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutTC Agd Pkt 2001-05-02 If c' Jj..y TOWN OF TIBURON Regular Meeting Town Council Chambers 1505 Tiburon Boulevard Tiburon, CA 94920 7:00 p.m. - Closed Session 7:30 p.m. - Wednesday, May 2, 2001 ASSISTANCE FOR PEOPLE WITH DISABILITIES In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the Town Clerk at (415) 435-7377. Notification 48 hours prior to the meeting will enable the Town to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to this meeting. AVAILABILITY OF INFORMATION Copies of all agenda reports and supporting data are available for viewing and inspection at Town Hall and at the Belvedere- Tiburon Library located adjacent to Town HaiL PUBLIC HEARINGS Public Hearings provide the general public and interested parties an opportunity to provide testimony on these items. If you challenge any proposed action(s) in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the Public Hearing(s) described later in this agenda, or in written correspondence delivered to the Town Council at, or prior to, the Public Hearing(s). AGENDA CLOSED SESSION Pursuant to California Government Code Sections 54950 et seq., the Town Council will hold a Closed Session. More specific information regarding this meeting is indicated below: CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATOR (Section 54957.6) Bargaining Unit - Tiburon Police Association Negotiator - Town Manager CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL Councilmember Bach, Councilmember Gram, Councilmember Slavitz, Vice Mayor Matthews, Mayor Thompson ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Persons wishing to address the Town Council on any subject not on the agenda may do so now. Please note however, that the Town Council is not able to undertake extended discussion or action tonight on ~ems not on the agenda. Matters requiring action will be referred to the appropriate Commission, Board, Committee or staff for consideration and10r placed on a future Town Council meeting agenda. Please limit vour comments to no more than three (3) minutes. Agenda - Town Council Meeting May 2, 2001 Page 2 of 2 APPOINTMENTS TO BOARDS. COMMISSIONS & COMMITTEES (1) Belvedere-Tiburon Library Agency Board of Directors (a) Appointment to fill One Tiburon Vacancy (b) Ratify Appointment of Reed Union School District Representative (2) Heritage & Arts Commission (a) Appointment to fill One Tiburon Vacancy CONSENT CALENDAR All items on the Consent Calendar may be approved by one motion unless a request is made that an item be transferred to the Regular Agenda for separate discussion and consideration. Any item on the Regular Agenda may be moved to the Consent Calendar. (3) Approval of Town Council Minutes - April 4, 2001 (continued from Apri/18, 2001) (4) Approval of Town Council Minutes - April 11 ,2001 (continued from Apri/18, 2001) (5) Bay Trail Grant Application - Request for Funding for Bicycle & Pedestrian Improvements on Trestle Glen Boulevard and Paradise Drive (a) Adoption of a Resolution of the Town Council of the Town of Tiburon Assuring Compliance with all Conditions and Requirements of the California State Coastal Conservancy Associated with the Allocation of Bay Trail Grant Funds for Tiburon's Paradise DrivefTrestle Glen Boulevard Bicycle and Pedestrian Improvement Study (6) Notice of Completion - Spring 2000 Street Rehabilitation Program (a) Adoption of a Resolution of the Town Council of the Town of Tiburon Accepting Town of Tiburon Street Rehabilitation Project No. 6940-E-9907/10 PUBLIC HEARING (7) Appeal Design Review Board Denial of a Request for Site Plan and Architectural Review for construction of additions to an existing single-family dwelling, with a Floor Area Exception, 2090 Centro East, AP No. 59-133-02 - (Larry & Lacy Lang, Applicants/Appellants) , REGULAR AGENDA (8) Review of LAFCO Dual Annexation Policy WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS ~ Town Council Weekly Digest - April t, 2001 Town Council Weekly Digest - APril";J:2001 ADJOURNMENT FUTURE MEETING DATES . May 9, 2001 - Special Meeting - Stewart Drive Undergrounding Assessment District TOWN OF TIBURON STAFF REPORT lTEMN~ If;L To: MAYOR & MEMBERS OF THE TOWN COUNCIL From: TOWN CLERK CRANE IACOPI Reviewed by TOWN MANAGER McINTYRE Subject: APPOINTMENTS TO BOARDS, COMMISSIONS & COMMITTEES Date: May 2,2001 There are currently three vacancies on Town Boards, Committees and Commissions: I. BELVEDERErrmURON LmRARY AGENCY BOARD OF DIRECTORS -Vacancy created by the resignation of Carol Forell; deadline for applications was April 27, 2001. At its April 18, 2001 regular meeting, the Town Council interviewed Victoria Fong, 182 Stewart Drive, for the vacancy on the Library Board. The Council also received a letter from the Library Agency strongly endorsing Ms. Fong's candidacy. No other applications were received. In addition to the above vacancy, the Council must ratifY the appointment of Reed Union District library liaison and Tiburon resident Bonnie Ross, 122 Jefferson Drive, who is currently in the middle of her second term (see attached letters). 2. HERITAGE & ARTS COMMISSION - Two (2) vacancies created by the resignation of Cindy Marques and Priscilla Miller; deadline for applications was May I, 2001; On February 27,2001, the Town Council interviewed David Gotz, 4645 Paradise Drive, for a vacancy on the Planning Commission. At the interview, Council encouraged Mr. Gotz to also seek involvement in other boards or commissions if he was not successful in his bid to be appointed to the Planning Commission. On April 24, 2001, Mr. Gotz attended the regular meeting of the Heritage & Arts Commission and, according to Chair Donna Kline, has received the endorsement of that commission to join, if appointed. RECOMMENDATION I. That Council consider appointing Victoria Fong to fill the current vacancy on the Library Board; 2. That Council ratify the appointment ofRUSD library liaison Bonnie Ross; 3. That Council consider appointing David Gotz to fill the current vacancy on the Heritage & Arts Commission (the other vacancy will remain open until filled). IJ{!LI~ . D. Crane Iacopi Town Clerk EXHIBITS --Letter from Mary Vella re: RUSD appointment, dated February 2,2001 --Letter from Christine Carter re: RUSD appointment, dated December 13, 2000 Belvedere- Tiburon Library 1501 Tiburon Boulevard Tiburon, California 94920 (415) 789-2665 February 2, 2001 Diane Crane lacopi Tiburon Town Clerk 1505 Tiburon Blvd. Tiburon, CA 94920 Re: Reed Union School District Appointment Dear Diane: In response to your questions about the RUSD library liaison term, the Belvedere-Tiburon Library Agency Bylaws, revised January 8,2001, state: 'The at-large member as recommended by the Reed Union School District Board of Trustees shall have a term of two (2) years and may reapply for one (1) additional term of two (2) years. " We received a copy of the December 13, 2000 letter to Alex Mclntyre,Tiburon Town Manager, from the District stating that Bonnie Ross was reappointed for a second term two-year term from July 1, 2000 to June 30, 2002. The term dates noted here agree with our records. Sincerely, CP;dj~~:(llL& Mary vella() Administrative Assistant to the Director cc: Jenny Ko, Deputy Clerk, City of Belvedere Christine M. Carter, RUSD Superintendent ~ '1 -~ CoJ z; 1000 So. ~ ~ ....::: ,.~ . · Tea'''' REED UNION SCHOOL DISTRICT 1 05-A Avenida Miraflores . Tiburon, CA 94920 . tel: 415.435.7848 . fax: 415.435.7843 December 13, 2000 . ---"';ovciO Board of Trustees Merrill Boyce Grace Livingston Robert Weisberg laurel Wilson Jeff Winkler Christine M. Carter Superintendent DEe 1 4 2000 TOWN MA~'AGERS 0FFICF TCJ','.'j"j ~r- ii:L:;~QN Mr. Alex McIntyre Town Manager Town of Tiburon 1505 Tiburon Boulevard Tiburon, CA 94920 Re: Appointment of School District Library Liaison Dear Town Manager McIntyre: Tbe Reed Union School Board of Trustees highly recommends that Bonnie Ross be appointed for another two-year term (2000-2002), as the parent Library Liaison between the Reed School District and the Belvedere- Tiburon Library Agency Board. Ms Ross has done an excellent job serving as the Library Liaison during her previous two-year term (1998-2000); helping to promote better communication between the school district and the town library. On behalf of the Board of Trustees, I hope you will give serious consideration to this request. Sincerely, cM;v~ Christine M. Carter Superintendent CMClsn Cc: B. Ross D. Mazzolini, Belvedere-Tiburon Library TOWN COUNCIL MINUTES ~iJ'J DR4Fl CALL TO ORDER __-:- Mayor Thomp called the re on Wednesda , April 4, 2001, in California. ar meeting of the Tiburon Town Council to order at 7:41 p.m. own Council Chambers~ 1505 Tiburon Boulevard, Tiburon, ROLL CALL PRESENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: Matthews, Slavitz, Thompson Bach, Gram PRESENT: EX OFFICIO: Town Manager McIntyre, Town Attorney Danforth, Planning Director Anderson, Chief of Police Odetto, Town Clerk Crane Iacopi CLOSED SESSION CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - ANTICIPATED LITIGATION (Section 54956.9{c)) Two Cases CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATOR (Section 54957.6) Bargaining Unit - Tiburon Police Association Negotiators - Town Manager and Town Attorney REPORT OUT OF CLOSED SESSION Mayor Thompson reported that the above items were discussed but no action was taken in closed session. INTRODUCTION OF NEW TOWN EMPLOYEES ROBERT LAW - Police Officer Trainee TRA VIS mGGINS - Police Officer Trainee Chief Odetto introduced the two police officer trainees who then gave brief speeches thanking the Chief and the Town Council for giving them the opportunity to participate in this new program. RECOGNITION OF OUTGOING COMMISSIONERS JEFFREY SLA VITZ - Planning Commission JORDAN ETH - Parks & Open Space Commission WAYNE SNOW - Design Review Board, Parks & Open Space Commission Mayor Thompson presented plaques to the above gentlemen along with congratulatory remarks. Town Council Minutes # 10-2001 April 4. 2001 Page 1 Mr. Eth said that although it sometimes seems that not a lot is being accomplished when one sits on a commission, he noted a number of accomplishments ofthe Parks & Open Space during his tenure: the transition ofBlackie's Pasture from a dirt parking lot to the current pasture; the Gazebo and playground at South Knoll Park; and the Ridge TraiL Mr. Snow and Mr. Slavitz also commented about the quality and level of work of the various commissions and that it was a pleasure to serve with such dedicated residents of the Town. APPOINTMENT TO BOARDS. COMMISSIONS OR COMMITTEES One Vacancy - (Design Review Board) Item continued pending further interviews. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Bruce Abbott, Greenwood Beach Road, said the drainage project was essentially complete and was a "masterful job." He praised the project, a joint venture between the Town and its citizens, and said it was something the Town could be proud of CONSENT CALENDAR (I) Approval of Town Council Minutes - March 7, 200 I (2) Recommendation to Deny the Appeal of Design Review Board approval of request for Site Plan and Architectural Review for construction of additions to an existing single- family dwelling located at 757 Hawthorne Drive, AP. No. 55-222-07 - (Steve Bendinellil John Medricky, Appellants; M/M Ezcurra, Applicants) (a) Adoption ofa Resolution of the Town Council of the Town ofTiburon Denying an Appeal by John Medricky and Steve Bendinelli of the Approval of Site Plan and Architectural Review for Property Located at 757 Hawthorne Drive (3) Recommendation to Adopt a Resolution - Energy Conservation (a) Adoption of a Resolution of the Town Council of the Town ofTiburon Encouraging Energy Conservation Efforts (4) Recommendation by the Finance Director - Acceptance of Monthly Investment Report - (February 2001) (5) Recommendation by the Finance Director and Public Works Superintendent- Authorization to Proceed with Additional Sidewalk Curb Cuts (ADA) Town Council lv/inures # 10-2001 April 4, 2001 Page 2 MOTION: Moved: Vote: To adopt Items 1-5 above. Matthews, Seconded by Slavitz AYES: Unanimous ABSENT: Bach, Gram REGULAR AGENDA (6) PUBLIC HEARING Request for Reconsideration of Town Council Decision Not to Waive Processing/Annexation: SorokkolWilson (Former Lower Kilgore Property); 3820 Paradise Drive, AP No. 39-302-01; 19+ Acres Downslope of Paradise Drive Immediately Southeast of Seafirth Estates Planning Director Anderson gave the Staff Report. He said that Mr. Sorokko had filed a development application with the Town but that it was still incomplete. In the meantime, Anderson said, the Town had received a letter from LAFCO (dated February 2001) which said that the subject property if annexed by the Town would be surrounded by an "unincorporated island" of several other properties, namely the Kilgore, Winslow & Snyder properties. Anderson said the LAFCO letter contained three suggestions to avoid this situation, which was contrary to LAFCO policy and State Law: I. That the County process the application versus the Town; 2. That the three adjoining properties could be included in the application; or 3. LAFCO could add the three properties during its review process and essentially force their annexation. With regard to the third suggestion, Planning Director Anderson said that the Town's position had been that properties not capable of further subdivision do not require annexation, and that more recently, the Town had started to obtain agreements with property owners in unincorporated areas that would require future annexation when an application was submitted. Anderson also said that a small strip ofland connected the three subject properties to the other unincorporated area so that technically they were not "an island." Planning Director Anderson recommended that Council consider three options: I. To deny the applicant's current request for reconsideration of annexation to the Town, but to send a letter to LAFCO urging it not to force the annexation of the three surrounding properties; 2. To deny the applicant's request for reconsideration and let LAFCO rule on the entire matter; or 3. To grant the request and agree to allow the County of Marin to process the application. Town Council AIinutes # 10-2001 April4, 2001 Page 3 Mr. Anderson said that Staff favored Option No. 1. Councilmember Slavitz asked whether Staff would recommend that future annexation agreements be obtained from the surrounding properties. Anderson said that obtaining agreements had more or less become a LAFCO requirement in order to waive the dual annexation policy, and the agreements favored the Town with regard to its future annexation rights. He said the Town had obtained about 10 such agreements. Mr. Slavitz wondered whether it would be appropriate to let LAFCO handle the current request, or Option No.2. Vice Mayor Matthews asked about the location of the Norman Estates. Planning Director Anderson said the development consisted of 12 homes upslope and to the South from the Sorokko/Wilson property, and that they were already part ofTiburon. Mayor Thompson opened the public hearing. Neil Sorensen, attorney representing the owners (Sorokko/Wilson) asked that Council consider Option No.3 and let the County process the application and avoid pulling in the surrounding properties against their will. He said if the other three properties were pulled in, it would create problems for his clients' application and that if the annexation went through, a "domino effect" of annexations would take place in the Paradise Drive area. Mr. Sorensen said his clients were opposed to "piecemeal annexation" and that they would like to see an overall plan for the area and for Town services to be provided, including maintenance of Paradise Drive, if annexation were considered. Finally, in response to the objection that the Town's review of the application would somehow be different from the County's, Mr. Sorensen disagreed, stating that the objectives of Paradise Drive Visioning Plan were consistent with the Town's General Plan. Sorensen also cited Norman Estates as an example of a parcel that was subdivided while it was under County jurisdiction and that it had worked out fine. Vice Mayor Matthews asked to clarify a point. He said that while the Town was aware of and had attended meeting of the Paradise Drive Visioning Plan, no Town officials had served on the committee that drew up the plan. Vie Canby, President of the Paradise Drive Property Owners Association, said Vice Mayor Matthews was correct on the above point. Mr. Canby said the POA was formed in 1958 as a 501c(4) organization whose purpose was to work against annexation of the area. He said what led to the "visioning" was a feeling that the Town Council Minutes # 10-2001 April4. 2001 Page 4 "identity" of the area needed to be preserved, and that the issue of annexation was far from resolved. He said the opinions of the homeowners in Seafirth and Norman Estates were different because they were already part of the Town. But Mr. Canby said that in a recent poll, 80% of the people polled in the area were opposed to annexation. Mr. Canby said another reason they were opposed to annexation was that the Hochstrasser report stated there would be no benefits to annexation. He said that a new study was needed and that the Town should have a comprehensive plan (to provide services) ifit wanted to annex properties in the area. Finally, Mr. Canby said that if annexation occurred, the area needed to have a representative on the Town Council. Harry Snyder, owner of one of the properties adjacent to SorokkolWilson, said people in the area were happy and there was no reason to arbitrarily annex them. Snyder said the area where he lived consisted oflarge lots and that "we don't bother each other." He also said he had not yet heard of even one benefit of annexation, but he might consider it in the future if the Town changed its system of government (to district representation), with a member of the Council guaranteed to be from the Paradise Drive area. Mayor Thompson commented that there had been several members ofthe Town Council in past years from the Paradise Drive area, namely Joan Bergsund and Bill Bremer, as well as Planning Commissioners. Becky Pringle, resident of Tiburon, representing the Winslow interests, confirmed the poll results stated by Mr. Canby. She noted that the Paradise Drive POA predated both LAFCO and the Town of Tiburon. Ms. Pringle said the Town could provide no services other than police and that they were happy with the (County) sheriffs. She also said the Hochstrasser report showed that total buildout of the area could not be supported by the Town. Ms. Pringle contended that the SorokkolWilson property was separate from the other three properties and that the Council really should consider continuing the matter after it had time to study it further. She said she had the impression that the Town had the final say in the matter of annexation, not LAFCO, and she surged the Council not to force any annexations. Louis Soldavini, 1801 Mar West Street, said the Town had "no business over there" on Paradise Drive and that it was unable to fix its own streets, much less Paradise Drive. Mr. Soldavini cited an example of an ongoing drainage problem on his property that the Town had been unable to address. Walter Shanford, 49 Seafirth Place, representing the 29 homes in Seafirth Estates, asked the Council to deny the SorokkolWilson request for reconsideration of annexation. He said the development of the property was "in our backyards" and that they wanted the Town to control Town Council Minutes # 10-2001 April 4, 2001 Page 5 and manage the processing of the application, which would ensure that the development would be more "in line with Tiburon" versus the "less restricted" development standards of the County. However, in response to a question from Mayor Thompson, Mr. Shanford said they believed that the other properties should not be forcibly annexed to the Town. Sandra Swanson, 2 Seafirth Lane, said neither the law nor the Town's policies had changed since the Council's March 2000 decision to deny the SorokkolWilson annexation waiver request. However, Ms. Swanson said that a portion of the property had been "clear cut" and that the County had issued a stop work order on the project. Ms. Swanson said they looked to the Town for oversight of the project, but to leave the Kilgores and the other property owners out of the (annexation) process. Randy Greenberg, Norman Way, said a previous speaker had suggested allowing development now and annexation later that she said would be her "worst nightmare." Ms. Greenberg said her subdivision had been developed while under County jurisdiction and that the streets were failing and there were other problems. For this reason, and the fact that Council had decided not to waive its right to annex the property, the request should be denied. Ms. Greenberg said that the applicant's request for reconsideration came because he did not want to be further delayed by LAFCO proceedings. She said this was not a reason for Council to change its mind. Regarding the other issues raised by LAFCO, Ms. Greenberg said the "spirit" of the dual annexation policy was to allow local government to administer and serve residents in its sphere of influence. She said if everyone, including the adjacent property owners, worked together, then LAFCO would not force annexation. In response to a question from Mayor Thompson, Ms. Greenberg said the Town should talk seriously with the three (opposing) property owners about future annexation rights, otherwise LAFCO might annex the area at their wilL Councilmember Slavitz sought clarification about the "island" being created by the three properties. Planning Director Anderson said that the LAFCO executive officer considered it an island but that the Commission could find otherwise. However, Anderson noted that the Town supported LAFCO's dual annexation policy. Attorney Sorensen said during his rebuttal that the Town really had no power over the Winslows, Kilgores or Snyders and that he did not think LAFCO did either. However, he saidLAFCO could not annex one property without the other(s) so he suggested that the Town ask LAFCO to leave the three adjoining properties out ofthe annexation of the SorokkolWilson property. Mayor Thompson closed the public hearing. Town Council Minutes # 10-2001 April 4, 2001 Page 6 Vice Mayor Matthews said that Councilmember Bach now served as the Town's representative to LAFCO. He reiterated the Council's past position that "we're not in the annexation business," and suggested that LAFCO be informed that the Town was not interested in annexing the three adjoining properties. However, Matthews gave examples of how Town oversight of development applications made a difference. He said the 46 homes of the Cypress Hollow area would have been half that if processed by the Town versus the County. Councilmember Slavitz concurred that the Town should process new development applications and that the decision made a year ago should stand. He said the "wrinkle" of the LAFCO review might cause a delay in the development but that was not a good enough reason to change the decision. Slavitz said he was concerned about the (lack of) annexation agreements with the other properties, but suggested that LAFCO be allowed to deal with the issue rather than the Town. Mayor Thompson said the oversight of development applications was one primary reason for the incorporation of the Town. He said the Paradise Drive area was part of the community. He said he would support Option No. I and not encourage forced annexation of the other three properties because there were no development applications or issues with those properties. Thompson pointed out that there were unincorporated "islands" allover the Paradise Drive area, including Seafirth Estates. MOTION: Moved: Vote: To deny the SorokkolWilson request for reconsideration of waiver of annexation to the Town ofTiburon, and to send a letter to LAFCO asking that the three adjoining properties not be forced to annex at this time. Slavitz, Seconded by Matthews AYES: Unanimous ABSENT: Bach, Gram (7) PUBLIC HEARING Proposed Precise Plan Amendment to the Del Madera Precise Plan (pD #23) to expand the Building Envelope at 2 Via Paraiso East (AP No. 39-290-17) David Hui Liu, Owner; Don Blayney, Applicant (a) Adoption ofa Resolution of the Town Council of the Town ofTiburon Approving an Amendment to the Del Madera Precise Plan to Modify the Building Envelope for Property Located at 2 Via Paraiso East Planning Director Anderson gave the Staff report. He said the purpose of the requested amendment to the Precise Plan was for suitable accommodation of a pool. Anderson said the Town Counci/Minutes # 10-2001 April 4, 2001 Page 7 Planning Commission had agreed to the request with a condition that a portion of the approved building envelope on one side be "shaved off" to allow for the pool on the other end. Planning Director Anderson showed Council on the plans where the proposed "shaving" would occur and noted that a previous lot line adjustment on the property had actually expanded the setback in the area that the pool was going. Don Blayney, architect representing the property owner David Liu, said the Planning Commission vote was unanimous. He showed Council the other options (locations) that had been considered for placement of the pool, and noted that the newest (approved) location stayed out of the way and view of the uphill neighbors. Mr. Blayney said that, in designing the pool, Mr. Liu's first consideration was not to disturb his neighbors. In response to a question from Vice Mayor Matthews, Mr. Blayney said that Mr. Liu would move into the house at the end of May. Mayor Thompson opened and closed the public hearing. There was no public comment. MOTION: To adopt the resolution approving the amendment tothe Del Madera Precise Plan to modifY the building envelope at 2 Via Paraiso. Matthews, Seconded by Slavitz AYES: Unanimous ABSENT: Bach, Gram Moved: Vote: COUNCIL. STAFF. COMMITTEE REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS (8) Request by Tiburon Boulevard Median Landscape Committee - Maintenance Agreement for Landscape Medians Town Manager McIntyre said the Committee had requested the Town take over the contract for landscape maintenance of three median strips within the CAL/TRANS right of way on Highway 131 (Tiburon Boulevard). He said that he had found no historical record of the Town agreeing to take over the maintenance although the committee had said that was the case. McIntyre said that both the Public Works Superintendent and Town Attorney had expressed concerns about the Town's involvement. He said the Public Works Superintendent was concerned about the safety of Town personnel working within the CAL/TRANS right of way on a state highway, and the Town Attorney had questions about both liability and jurisdiction, as well. McIntyre said at the very least the Town Attorney recommended that if the Town assumed maintenance for the medians an agreement would have to be reached with CAL/TRANS that the Town was not assuming any other level of responsibility for them. Town Council Minutes # 10-2001 April 4. 2001 Page 8 T own Manager McIntyre said the cost to assume the agreement with TruGreen (originally negotiated by the Median Landscape Committee) would be $650 per month, or $7,800 in the 2001-2002 fiscal year budget. He recommended that Council direct Staff to negotiate and take over the agreement. Councilmember Slavitz asked if the City of Belvedere had been asked to contribute to the cost since it was a shared benefit to both cities. Town Manager McIntyre concurred but said he had not approached the City. Mayor Thompson stated emphatically that the Town had never agreed to take over the maintenance of the subject medians and further stated that the Committee was supposed to create an endowment fund for this purpose. He said it was understood that the Belvedere and Tiburon Councils would "chip in," but he strongly encouraged the Committee to continue with its endowment fund-raising. Vice Mayor Matthews said the contributions from Belvedere and Tiburon municipalities should be pro rata based upon population. Councilmember Slavitz commented that the Committee might have plans to take over "new" medians. MOTION: Moved: Vote: For the Town Manager to negotiate a contract with TruGreen for maintenance of the three medians on Tiburon Boulevard; to seek reimbursement from the City of Belvedere; to direct the Median Committee to continue its endowment efforts for this purpose. Slavitz, seconded by Matthews AYES: Unanimous ABSENT: Bach, Gram (9) Recommendation by Town Manager - Funding for Late Night Ferry Service Town Manager McIntyre said that Committee for Late Night Ferry Service members Allan Littman and Vice Mayor Matthews had worked very hard on the new Friday night proposal but said that Blue & Gold Fleet would need additional funding to cOmmence the service. McIntyre said the Chamber of Commerce had stepped forward with a contribution of$I,OOO, and that the County (through Supervisor Rose's office) had agreed to $6,000. He said that still left a shortfall of$9,000. Vice Mayor Matthews noted that this was a one-time funding request, and if the Friday night run proved unsuccessful, it would probably be dropped. He said it would start in late May and be evaluated in the Fall. Town Council Minutes # 10-2001 April 4, 2001 Page 9 Matthews also said that the City of Sausalito had been asked to contribute but it seemed that their priority was to start their downtown "jitney" service. Councilmember Slavitz asked about the overall cost of the program. Vice Mayor Matthews said the only halfwas operations, the rest being advertising and marketing. Matthews said that any profits would go to Blue & Gold. MOTION: To approve a $9,500 contribution from the Town of Tiburon to Blue & Gold Fleet for the proposed late night Friday ferry service. Slavitz, seconded by Matthews AYES: Unanimous ABSENT: Bach, Gram Moved: Vote: (10) Request by Heritage & Arts Commission - Removal of Calving Barn Town Manager McIntyre said the barn was in the way of the new garage for the Maintenance Mechanic at the Corporation Yard. He said everyone agreed with the Heritage & Arts Commission recommendation to donate the historic building to the Landmarks Society for use at its new Art & Garden Center. However, McIntyre said there was no urgency to remove the barn at this time because although the Town had budgeted funds for the study of rebuilding the Corporation Yard, he was not convinced that it made sense to add another position to the Department in the coming fiscal year. Council concurred with the Town Manager's recommendation to leave the calving barn where it was until further notice. WRITTEN COMMUNICA nONS Town Council Weekly Digest - March 23,2001 No comments. Town Council Weekly Digest - March 30, 2001 Item No.2. Town Manager commented on recruitment schedule for new Director of Public Works/Town Engineer. Item No.3. Grand Jury investigation of Building Fees charged by cities. CounciImember Slavitz asked if the Town was using 100% UBC valuation. Planning Director Anderson affirmed. No.5. List of Streets prepared by Town Engineer Schwartz for upcoming rehabilitation. Item noted. Town Manager McIntyre also said there was a reception for the weavers' exhibition on Friday night, April 6, 2001. Town CouncilAlinutes # 10-2001 April 4, 2001 Page 10 Vice Mayor Matthews said the Town HaD lobby looked very good. Town Manager McIntyre said the Tiburon Peninsula Foundation wanted to donate a statute ofBlackie for the lobby. Mayor Thompson asked that the Council dais be refinished. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business before the Town Council of the Town of Tiburon, Mayor Thompson adjourned the meeting at 9:40 p.m., to a special meeting on April II, 2001 at Guaymas Restaurant to review Ferry Improvements Plan. ANDREW THOMPSON, MAYOR ATTEST: DIANE CRANE IACOPI, TOWN CLERK Town Council Minutes # 10-2001 April 4, 2001 Page 11 I -Ie Y"-;{)~ 4 ~ TOWN COUNCIL MINUTES Dl~4J:r CALL TO ORDER Mayor Thomp e t e . meeting of the Tiburon Town Council to order at 5:00 p.m. on Wednesd y, April II, 2001, a Guaymas Restaurant, 5 Main Street, Tiburon, California. ROLL CALL PRESENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: Bach, Matthews, Slavitz, Mayor Thompson Gram PRESENT EX OFFICIO: Town Manager Mcintyre, Planning Director Anderson, Director of Public Works Wilson, Deputy Town Engineer Huginin ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None. INTERVIEWS AND APPOINTMENT TO BOARDS AND COMMISSION (One Vacancy - Design Review Board) 5:00 p.m. - Richard Collins, 660 Tiburon Boulevard MOTION: Moved: Vote: To appoint Richard Collins to the Design Review Board. Bach, Seconded by Matthews AYES: Unanimous ABSENT: Gram REGULAR AGENDA (I) Recommendation to Adopt a Resolution - Recognition of Penny V orster (a) Adoption of a Resolution of the Town Council of the Town ofTiburon Commending Penny Vorster for her Distinguished Service to the Town MOTION: Moved: Vote: To adopt above Resolution. Bach, Seconded by Slavitz AYES: Unanimous ABSENT: Gram (2) Presentation James McLane & Associates and Request for Direction - Ferry Access and Safety Improvement Project. Planning Director Anderson presented a brief staff report highlighting the specific areas for which further direction was needed from the Town Council in order to complete final design drawings. Architect McLane and Landscape Architect Wheeler presented in some detail each of the areas where a specific decision regarding design or materials was being requested from the Town Town Council Minutes # 11-2001 April 11,2001 Page 1 CounciL Revised drawings and materials samples were provided for review. The Town Council then proceeded to discuss and vote upon the specific areas in the order set forth in the staff report. With respect to Area #1, the Ferry Plaza Area, Councilmembers unanimously preferred the light- colored granite paver, to be set in sand, rather than a continuation of the red brick paver found along Main Street. The paver must be compatible with the existing pavers along Main Street. The Town Council agreed that an increased capacity of the bicycle parking in the linear guardraillbicycle rack was a good idea. The grass areas of Shoreline Park could continue to be used as overflow on heavy use days. Motorcycle parking was not to be allowed in the new bicycle parking area. Signs should be placed directing motorcycle users to other parking areas, either in the Point Tiburon Plaza Parking Lot or in a new motorcycle parking area to be established along Paradise Drive east of the traffic circle, or both. The Council agreed that the proposed 42" guardraillbicycle rack was acceptable, and that the selected bench style should be a combination wood/metal bench, rather than all wood. Councilmember Bach, while generally agreeing with the specific direction provided above, did not support the overall Ferry Plaza Area design as proposed. He preferred an earlier design prepared by LSA Associates that contained seat walls on either side of a new and relocated walkway from Tiburon Boulevard through Shoreline Park to Zelinsky Bridge. Councilmember Bach was also uncomfortable with the new guardraillbicycle rack design and location. The final vote on the Area #1 questions was 3-1, with Councilmember Bach opposed. With respect to Area #2, the Widening of Bridges and Walkways, the Council unanimously voted in favor of widening the various bridges and walkways that currently meet to form a "congestion point" between Guaymas Restaurant and the Blue & Gold Ferry dock, and agreed that the widened bridges should have handrail and materials designs consistent with the proposed Allan Thompson Walkway and guardraillbicycle parking fence. Lights should be low to the ground downlights and located on the shore side of the Allan Thompson Walkway to minimize any light intrusion impacts. With respect to Area #3, Fountain Plaza, the Town Council acknowledged that funds might not existJo perform any of the specified improvements. However, for future design purposes, or should sufficient money become available, the Town Council agreed that the existing fichus trees should be replaced with recommended deciduous trees provided that replacement trees of suitable height and canopy spread could be found. Trees on either end of Fountain Plaza could be removed and not replaced. Any improvements in the Fountain Plaza Area would be bid as alternates. With respect to Area #4, Improvements on the North Side of Tiburon Boulevard at the Point Tiburon Plaza, the Town Council unanimously agreed to delete these improvements from further Town Council Minutes # 11-2001 Apri111,2001 Page 2 design and consideration based on a lack of funding to implement them and the very low priority of their installation in relation to other portions of the project. Mayor Thompson thanked the design team for its thorough presentation and thanked the audience for its helpful participation. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business before the Town Council of the Town ofTiburon, Mayor Thompson adjourned the meeting at 7:30 p.m., to 5:00 p.m. on April 12, 2001 (Joint Workshop with Planning Commission and Design Review Board). ANDREW THOMPSON, MAYOR ATTEST: DIANE CRANE IACOPI, TOWN CLERK Town Council Minutes # 11-2001 Apri/11,2001 Page 3 1}tu- Ale_ s- . RESOLUTION NO. - 2001 A RESOLUTION OF THE TOWN COUNCIL OFTHETOWNOFTIrnURON ASSURING COMPLIANCE WITH ALL CONDmONS AND REQUIREMENTS OF THE CALIFORNIA STATE COASTAL CONSERVANCY ASSOCIATED WITH THE ALLOCATION OF BAY TRAIL GRANT FUNDS FOR TmURON'S PARADISE DRIVE/TRESTLE GLEN BOULEVARD BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN IMPROVEMENT STUDY WHEREAS, in March 2000 the California voters approved a parks and open space bond measure (proposition 12) and $7.5 million of the bond has been designated for use by the State Coastal Conservancy for development of the 400-mile Bay Trail; and WHEREAS, the Coastal Conservancy has announced a competitive grant program administered by the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) Bay Trail Project which encourages the planning and construction of trails shown in the San Francisco Bay Trail Plan; and WHEREAS, the existing 2.4 mile stretch of Trestle Glen Boulevard and Paradise Drive, from Tiburon's Multi-Use Path to the Town Limit of Corte Madera, is a strategic cross-link between the north and south sides of the Tiburon Peninsula, and is heavily used by cyclists and pedestrians in certain areas; and WHEREAS, these roadways are very substandard, having roadway shoulders generally less than 1.5 feet in width, requiring cyclists and pedestrians to share the travel way with high- speed automobile traffic, and the proposed study will suggest and plan bicycle and pedestrian- oriented roadway and shoulder improvements over deficient sections of both Trestle Glen Boulevard and Paradise Drive; and WHEREAS, the total estimated cost of the Paradise DrivelTrestle Glen Boulevard Bicycle and Pedestrian Improvement Study is $120,000, which consists of $105,000 in grant funds and $15,000 in local funds; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Town ofTiburon approves the submittal of a grant application and will commit in its Fiscal Year 2001-2002 budget the required local funding as set forth by the California State Coastal Conservancy grant allocation requirements; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Town ofTiburon will accept the grant, if awarded; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Mayor or his designee is hereby authorized to execute the grant contract and related documents; and Bay Trail Grant Application - Paradise DriveiTrestle Glen Boulevard Page lof2 May 2, 2001 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Town's authorized representative for this project is the Director of Public WorksITown Engineer, whose office is located at the Tiburon Town Hall, 1505 Tiburon Boulevard, Tiburon, CA 94920, telephone number (415) 435-7388. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Tiburon Town Council on May 2,2001, by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: ANDREW THOMPSON, MAYOR TOWN OF TIBURON ATTEST: DIANE CRANE IACOPI, TOWN CLERK Bav Trail Grant Application - Paradise Driveffrestle Glen Boulevard Page 20f2 May 2, 2001 TIBURON TOWN COUNCIL STAFF REPORT MEETING: TO: FROM: May 2, 200 I TOWN COUNCIL RICHARD STRANZL, FINANCE DIRECTOR IRVING SCHWARTZ, ofl.L. SCHWARTZ ASSOCIATES AGENDA ITEM: (0 SUBJECT: REVIEWED: STREET REHABILIT A nON PROGRAM Resolution accepting improvements performed by North Bay Construction) ALEX D. McINTYRE, TOWN MANAGER BACKGROUND This item is for adoption of a Resolution accepting the street improvements recently performed and completed by North Bay Construction of Petaluma, California. RECOMMENDATION That Town Council adopt the draft resolution accepting the contract street improvements performed by North Bay Construction during the period November 2000 through January 200 I. ATTACHMENTS 1. Draft Resolution R. Stranzl -1- RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF TIBURON ACCEPTING TOWN OF TIBURON STREET REHABILITATION PROJECT NO. 6940-E-9907/10 WHEREAS, Irving'Schwartz, Town Engineer, and the Engineer of Work for Town of Tiburon Street Rehabilitation Project No. 6940-E-9907/10 has stated that, as of January 29, 2001, the work was satisfactorily completed in accordance with the contract specifications awarded in August 2000 to North Bay Construction, Petaluma, CA. WHEREAS, the aforementioned improvements consist of the following streets: Centro East, Irving Court, Jefferson Drive, Solano Avenue, Virginia Drive, Vistazo West Street, Washington Court, Lower North Terrace, Upper North Terrace, Venado Drive, Greenwood Beach Road, SugarIoaf Drive. NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS RESOLVED that the Town Council of the Town of Tiburon accepts the street improvements, which are more fully described in the aforementioned contract, located within the offices of the Town of Tiburon. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Town Council of the Town of Tiburon on, Wednesday, Mav 2. 2001, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: BY: ANDREW THOMPSON MAYOR ATTEST: DIANE CRANE IACOPI TOWN CLERK -2- COMPLETE TIllS INFORMATION: RECORDING REQUESTED BY: AND WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO: Town Clerk Town of Tiburon 1505 Tiburon Blvd. Tiburon, CA 94920 TIllS SPACE FOR RECORDERS USE ONLY TOWN OF TIBURON NOTICE OF COMPLETION NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN: I. That on the 29th day of January 2001, the public works project known as: Spring 2000 Street Rehabilitation Program was completed upon the property at the following location: Various Town streets including Greenwood Beach Road 2. That the name and address of the party filing this Notice is: Irving L. Schwartz, Town Engineer, 1505 Tiburon Blvd., Tiburon, CA 94920 3. That the name and address of the contractor responsible for the construction of said public projects is: North Bay Construction, Inc. P.O. Box 6004 Petaluma, CA 94953 4. That the name of said contractor's surety is: Fireman's Fund Insurance Company of California 5. That the general description of the public project was: Repaving of Centro East Street, Irving Court, Jefferson Drive, Solano Avenue, Virginia Drive, Vistazo West Street, Washington Court, Greenwood Beach Road, Lower North Terrace, Upper North Terrace, Lyford Drive, Sugar Loaf Drive, Venado Drive 4./1. 01 Date TOWN OF TIBURON STAFF REPORT AGENDA No.:L TO: MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE TOWN COUNCIL FROM: SENIOR PLANNER WATROUS REVIEWED BY: TOWN MANAGER MCINTYRE SUBJECT: APPEAL OF DESIGN REVIEW BOARD DECISION TO DENY SITE PLAN AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF ADDITIONS TO AN EXISTING SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING, WITH A FLOOR AREA EXCEPTION (2090 CENTRO EAST STREET) APPELLANT: LACY LANG APPLICANT: SAME MEETING DATE: MAY 2, 2001 PROJECT DATA: ADDRESS: ASSESSOR'S PARCEL: FILE NUMBER: LOT SIZE: ZONING: GENERAL PLAN: FLOOD ZONE: DATE COMPLETE: 2090 CENTRO EAST STREET 59-133-02 701029 8,140 SQUARE FEET R-l (SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL) MEDIUM HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL C FEBRUARY 23, 2001 BACKGROUND: On March 15, 2001, the Tiburon Design Review Board denied a Site Plan and Architectural Review application for the conversion of unfinished lower floor area into habitable space for an existing single-fiunily dwelling, with a Floor Area Exception, on property located at 2090 Centro East Street. Lacy Lang, owner of the subject property, has now appealed this decision to the Town Council. T1BURON TOWN COUNCIL STAfF REPORT MAY 2, 2001 1 The subject house was approved by the Design Review Board on December 4, 1997. During the review ofthat application, concerns were raised regarding the mass and bulk of the proposed structure, as well as the potential for the crawl space areas to be later used for additional floor area. Minutes of the Design Review Board meetings during which this house was reviewed are attached. The applicant (Larry Lang) was the developer for both the subject house and the adjacent residence at 2100 Centro East Street. Both homes have similar designs, with considerable crawl space below two floors of living area. The architect for the adjacent homeowner has also discussed the possibility of requesting a floor area exception similar to that of the subject application to convert the lower crawl space into living area. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant requested Design Review approval for the conversion ofunfinjshed lower floor area into habitable space for an existing single-family dwelling on property located at 2090 Centro East Street. The site is currently developed with a two-story residence. The lower level area of the house, which was originally approved as crawl space area, would be converted into an exercise room, recreation/media room and a bathroom. The only proposed exterior changes would involve the installation of several windows to provide better light and ventilation to the subject rooms. The proposed construction would increase the floor area of the house by 596 square feet, to a total of3,437 square feet of floor area, which is 596 square feet more than the maximum floor area permitted for a lot of this size. A Floor Area Exception was therefore requested. REVIEW BY THE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD: The Design Review Board reviewed the project (File #701029) at its March 15, 2001 meeting. At that time, an objection was raised to the proposed project by the president of the Lyford Cove/Old Tiburon Homeowners Association, who encouraged the Board to promote houses that are compatible with the existing older character of this part of community. The applicant indicated that several other property owners immediately surrounding the subject site had indicated that they had no objections to this application. The applicant also presented the floor areas of other homes in the vicinity of the subject residence that were not included in the analysis presented with the Staff report. The Design Review Board was split in its evaluation of the subject application. Two of the Boardmembers felt that the existing house was originally sited to address the concerns of the neighboring property owners at that time, who do not object to this application, and that the proposed floor area would no result in visual changes to the house that would impact any nearby residences. The other two Boardmembers present cited the historical concern regarding the potential for converting the crawl space to floor area, and felt that the proposed floor area would be inconsistent with the surrounding neighborhood. T1BURON TOWN COUNCIL STAfF REPORT MAY 2.2001 2 Motions to approve, deny and continue this application to a future Board meeting all failed with 2-2 votes. As the application failed to receive approval of the Board, the application was deemed to be denied. Mrs. Lang subsequently filed a timely appeal ofthis decision to the Town Council. BASIS FOR THE APPEAL: There are three grounds upon which the appeal (Exhibit 1) is based: Ground # I The only Boardmem ber who was on the Design Review Board at the time the existing house was approved was not present at the meeting for the subject application. Staff Response: Boardmember Beales was out of the country on the date of the Design Review Board hearing for this application. The other four Boardmembers in attendance had the opportunity to review the history of the project, and were given minutes for the two Design Review Board meetings in 1997 during which the project was discussed. Due to personal scheduling conflicts for individual Boardmembers, the Town cannot always guarantee that all Boardmembers will be present at any particular meeting. With the gradual turnover ofBoardmembers over time, it is also difficult to guarantee that Boardmembers who have previous history with a property will be present to act upon subsequent applications for the same property. As indicated in the minutes for the March 15,2001 Design Review Board meeting, Staff informed the Board that they had the option to continue this application to the next meeting at which Boardmember Beales would be present, but the motion to continue the hearing to a later date failed. Ground #2 The two Boardmembers who voted against the subject application did not visit the existing residence. Staff Response: As the applicant has acknowledged, the subject application does not involve significant exterior modifications to the existing residence. No concerns were raised by Staff, the Design Review Board or any Tiburon residents regarding the appearance ofthe proposed exterior changes. The concerns raised by Boardmembers Smith and Figour were not related to the outward physical appearance ofthis house, but instead centered on the history of the subject property, the lack of justification for a floor area exception, and the comparison of the site to others in the whole neighborhood. Although all Boardmembers are strongly encouraged to conduct site visits for all applications to be reviewed, there is no requirement for such field inspections. Given that the only significant issues associated with this application did not involve the exterior modifications proposed for this project, the failure of two Boardmembers to visit the site was not an important factor in their decision regarding this application. T1BURON TOWN COUNCIL STAFF REPORT MAY 2.2001 3 Ground #3 Tbe proposed application would involve minimal exterior modifications and is supported by tbe surrounding neigbbors. Staff Response: As noted above, the Design Review Board was not concerned with the exterior modifications proposed for this project. The Board recognized that the immediately surrounding neighbors support the proposed project, with Boardmember McLaughlin in particular acknowledging the support of the neighbors. The Board also heard from the president of the Lyford Cove/Old Tiburon Homeowners Association, who placed the requested Floor Area Exception in the context of the entire Old Tiburon neighborhood. In making decisions on Site Plan and Architectural Review applications, the Design Review Board is not charged with simply measuring the support of the immediately surrounding neighbors for a project. Although the Board will factor such support into its decision, the Board is expected to determine if the application is consistent with the pertinent requirements of the Tiburon Zoning Ordinance and the Hillside Design Guidelines. As two of the four Boardmembers present at the meeting determined that the subject application was inconsistent with these requirements, the application was therefore denied. CONCLUSION: As noted in the Staff report to the Design Review Board for this application, in the past few years the Design Review Board has been faced with several other applications similar to the subject request, in which a home is designed at or near the floor area ratio for the property and with undeveloped space beneath, for which subsequent requests are made to permit additional floor area. Staff and the Design Review Board have previously noted that although such applications are often consistent with the findings required for approval of a floor area exception, the additional floor area itself may be undesirable for other reasons. In Staff's opinion, the subject application would result in a circumvention of the Town's floor area ratio requirements. Although the Design Review Board could have arguably done a better job in requiring a building design for the subject residence that conformed to the terrain ofthe site and would have elirninated the potential for additional floor area, the Board certainly did not intend to approve a house with this amount of floor rear currently requested. If such a request had been made at the time the house was originally designed, the Board almost certainly would have denied the request. Staff does not believe that there is any reason to treat the current application differently than how such a request would have been reviewed at the time of original construction. Section 4.02.08 of the Tiburon Zoning Ordinance (Floor Area Ratio Guidelines) states that the floor area ratio for a property "is not intended as a target to be achieved, but is intended to indicate a reasonable maximum." The existing house was originally designed with the maximum floor area allowed for this property; any increase in floor area would exceed the "reasonable maximum" floor area established for this lot by the Zoning Ordinance. The size of the subject TIBURON TOWN COUNCIL STAFF REPORT MAY 2. 2001 4 house with the proposed additional floor area would also be inconsistent with the general development pattern of the surrounding Old Tiburon neighborhood. This request would be incompatible with the character of Old Tiburon, and inconsistent with the principles ofthe Tiburon Zoning Ordinance. Staff therefore concludes that the Design Review Board appropriately followed the guidelines for Site Plan and Architectural Review applications in its review of this project. RECOMMENDATION: 1) That the Town Council indicate its intention to deny the appeal; and 2) That the Town Council direct Staff to return with a Resolution to that effect for consideration at the next meeting. EXHIBITS: I. Notice of Appeal filed by Lacy Lang, dated March 26, 200 I 2. Staff Report ofthe March 15, 2001, Design Review Board meeting 3. Minutes ofthe March 15, 2001, Design Review Board meeting 4. Table showing lot sizes and floor areas in the vicinity of2090 Centro East Street 5. Application and supplemental materials 6. Minutes of the November 20, 1997 Design Review Board meeting 7. Minutes of the December 4, 1997 Design Review Board meeting 8. Letter from A.K. Strotz, dated March 9,2001 9. Letter from Lacy Lang, submitted at the March 15, 2001 Design Review Board meeting 10. Submitted plans TIBURON TOWN COUNCIL STAFF REPORT MAY 2, 2001 5 TOWN OF TIBURON cc: ;; n~ ij ~~~~W~ ~ ~ MAR 2 6 ZOOl ~ NOTICE OF APPEAL TOWN CLERK TOWN OF TIBURON APPELLANT Name: LAC~ , LhNlr Address: l~ \~,.'~-f"-_' '-El':lli"" en' <;-'I - ' :,' I I "" - ,- -" ',\,- ,1. --;1 ~- I -,-, Telephone: ~. -::>"y (" f Ii:' .1 Z. -,I '-(' " (Work) "T.).':) c\ ! _~'" (Home) ACTION BEING APPEALED DR?:, Body: Date of Action: -, I\~ -, \ _-:-11 I:::, i c Name of Applicant: LJ\C~ ~,;- , Nature of Application:\=hR t:. \(CC~TICT ~ GROUNDS FOR APPEAL (Attach additional pages, if necessary) \: n'\f ~ ';'J '." .~\ , 1 " - . I 'r . '\ '_- ( "',l- .,\11 i,....(',..:;..~......\ 'It<\,l ,- -; ~;.- . _. .....; '.-- \J:"\"f'~; \j"'4~ ('I;/\'J, r , ~. I; ".' ! (' ;=\\,\~ ~\V',J.'lkJ,'\.'_'\i"J1Tl\ 'cY.1{k:.o\\C;;'v\C) ('7'"~ ..j ~4 ,.,-,1",," '~,. ,rr:..,_.']" ,,,~, ,_,',""'" --.~~.-__ _ " , ."",\,.....,....:,.\. ".,. ......,. \, ,,,1\ ,^, ,,- , . ~ I I '\\"1 ' .~ \ I \1.~I.__'\'-'\, i, .JI....I.\ _ _. '1\1...,_,;) ...../,_, '_'?' ~""'i' '.' i... i"\':-:)V ( 'I-G) 1:,(1'::" ('!O\ ,Di:J~) -\. ,,\1 . , _ ' . _ \ J ,/> Ii '--I-Dj \'~(....?-" i~~nL...t , .. I _I .' i~,I~..':,.\,p-2L. ~ \\~\ \~) , '''<> 1-' Y' - ~ r ,-\\ ;r-"'"I' J~' I _';. "-, -... I ~r \'\:1 ',,\:, i'1 n-'1 I'c ,) \,,: '., t\--h cs,r"''''p':' '\=-'1-',;,\'-. v'" \'\1\ ne.cL)k b2\' .:r:.IJpcv~'~\. ...j J ' \ \ \c,\::\ (_)J''-~ 1'''-,\(._\ \'Y e ).A-f~\ iC ,- -' \ \,s;-\ ~) " _, "1 GOC'ilrl,'.,.i '7\ V\.' I '{~';c'l ~LI:> ~'(:( ., .1 (}'*o.,nt.1 i lJi~ /It ,A" rE5 ( k V- . rJ~.../f< Last Day to File: ;.-\Mct.-t z..{.,. 2G6 I Date Received: I Fee ($300.00) Paid: C/t(.~ .:f:i:- D:3 7) Date ofHearing: ,M2.-?...A... 2-c;../ L,O()/ ;11~.;).., l-~( January 1996 EXHIBIT NO. ......, /! /l---;'fi/'/ // l ,1///'/- ...../- ;' ., ,. ,- ,.//~i.-r l :1 "" --~'\ ._.-' '"., '- . -.-..~-- TOWN OF TIBURON STAFF REPORT TO: FROM: SUBJECT: REPORT DATE: MEETING DATE: DESIGN REVIEW BOARD AGENDA NO.: 6 SENIOR PLANNER WATROUS 2090 CENTRO EAST STREET; FILE # 701029 SITE PLAN AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF ADDITIONS TO AN EXISTING SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING, WITH A FLOOR AREA EXCEPTION MARCH 9, 2001 MARCH 15, 2001 APPLICANTS - BRADLEY GROUP (ARCHITECTS) PROPERTY OWNERS - LACY AND LARRY LANG PROJECT DATA: ADDRESS: ASSESSOR'S PARCEL: FILE NUMBER: LOT SIZE: ZONING: GENERAL PLAN: FLOOD ZONE: DATE COMPLETE: CEQA EXEMPTION: PERMIT STREAMLINING ACT DEADLINE: 2090 CENTRO EAST STREET 59-133-02 701029 8,140 SQUARE FEET R-l (SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL) MEDIUM HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL C FEBRUARY 23, 2001 MARCH 9, 2001 MAY 8, 2001 ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: This proposal is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) as specified in Section 15301. TlBURON OESIGN REVIEW BOARD STAFF REPORT I MARCH 15.2001 T71y,..r"p.T'j' 'T\"'O Z. .:L.-'-'.'Llu'~?, .! l~f= 5" PROPOSAL: The applicant is requesting Design Review approval for the conversion of unfinished lower floor area into habitable space for an existing single-family dwelling on property located at 2090 Centro East Street. The site is currently developed with a two-story residence. The lower level area of the house, which was originally approved as crawl space area, would be converted into an exercise room, recreation/media room and a bathroom. The only proposed exterior changes would involve the installation of several windows to provide better light and ventilation to the subject rooms. The proposed construction would increase the floor area of the house by 596 square feet, to a total of3,437 square feet of floor area, which is 596 square feet more than the maximum floor area permitted for a lot of this size. A floor area exception is therefore requested. A color and materials board has not been submitted, as no changes to the existing colors and materials of the house are proposed. ANAL YSIS: Zoning Staff has reviewed the proposal and finds it to be in conformance with the development standards for the R-l zone with regard to setbacks, lot coverage and height limits, with the exception of the requested floor area exception. Design Issues The subject house was approved by the Design Review Board on December 4, 1997. During the review of this application, concerns were raised regarding the mass and bulk of the proposed structure, as well as the potential for the crawl space areas to be later used for additional floor area. Minutes of the Design Review Board meetings during which this house was reviewed are attached. During the construction of this home, inspections by Planning Staff revealed that flooring was being installed in portions of the crawl space that would have allowed this space to be converted into habitable area. The applicant was informed again that this space was not approved as floor area for the house, and was instructed to lower the ceiling heights to elirninate the potential use of this space as floor area. The applicant was the developer for both the subject house and the adjacent residence at 2100 Centro East Street. Both homes have similar designs, with considerable crawl space below two floors of living area. The architect for the adjacent homeowner has also discussed the possibility T1BURON DESIGN REVIEW BOARD STAFF REPORT MARCH 15.2001 2 '8Xn:CBI'T' NO. 2- 'P. z..OF5"' of requesting a floor area exception similar to that of the subject application to convert the lower crawl space into living area. The subject property is a substandard sized lot under the current R-1 zoning requirements. The applicant was only able to build two homes on this property by reverting the land back to an older lot configuration which pennitted two undersized lots and demolishing the previous structure on the site. Even if the subject lot met the current 10,000 square foot minimum lot size, the size of the house with the proposed crawl space conversion would exceed the floor area ratio for this property by 437 square feet. Section 4.02.08 of the Tiburon Zoning Ordinance (Floor Area Ratio Guidelines) states that the floor area ratio for a property "is not intended as a target to be achieved, but is intended to indicate a reasonable maximum." The existing house already is at the maximum floor area for this property; any increase in floor area would exceed the "reasonable maximum" floor area established for this lot by the Zoning Ordinance. Section 4.02.07 (c) of the Tiburon Zoning Ordinance states that in reviewing Site Plan and Architectural Review applications, the Design Review Board should consider if "the height, size, and/or bulk of the proposed project bears a reasonable relationship to the character of existing buildings in the vicinity." The attached table shows the lot sizes, floor area, and floor area ratios for 30 homes in the vicinity of the subject property. The size of the house with the proposed floor area increase would exceed the size of every other residence in the immediate area with the exception of the home at 2050 Centro East Street, which is situated on a lot more than 2.5 the size of the subject property. Although several other homes in this portion of Old Tiburon also exceed their respective floor area ratios, the requested floor area exception would exceed the pennitted floor area ratio for the subject property by a greater margin than any other home in the vicinity. It would appear, therefore, that the requested increase in floor area would result in a house size that does not bear "a reasonable relationship to the character of existing buildings in the vicinity." Old Tiburon is one of the most sensitive neighborhoods in Tiburon. This area consists primarily of older, smaller homes on relatively small lots, served by a substandard street system. Any proposed construction that would significantly intensifY the use of a property needs to be carefully scrutinized for incremental impacts on the surrounding area and its effect on the character of the neighborhood. Although the proposed additional floor area would not change the exterior appearance ofthe subject house, the request would increase the floor area of the house by over 20%. The Design Review Board should carefully evaluate the potential impacts of this floor area increase on the surrounding Old Tiburon neighborhood. Floor Area Exception Section 4.02.08 of the Tiburon Zoning Code states that the Design Review Board may grant exceptions to the required floor area ratio requirements if it makes the following two findings: TIBURON DESIGN REVIEW BOARD STAFF REPORT MARCH 15.2001 3 '?VUTTIT'r!\Tn Z L_....::'J.. :_.i..._...1__ __ ._ .... i '~ , ~. ~i>{C;: I. The applicant has demonstrated that the visual size and scale of the proposed structure is compatible with the predominant pattern established by existing structures in the surrounding neighborhood; and 2. The applicant has demonstrated that the proposed structure is compatible with the physical layout of the site. The characteristics include, but are not limited to, the scale of trees, rock outcroppings, stream courses, land forms, and the dimensions of the lot. The proposed additional floor area would affect the existing visual size and scale of the subject house, or alter the residence in comparison with other existing structures in the surrounding neighborhood. The proposed floor area would also not change the relationship of the existing house to the physical layout of the site. Staff believes that there is sufficient evidence to support the findings required by the Zoning Ordinance for the requested floor area exception. Public Comment To date, Staff has not received any letters regarding the proposed project. CONCLUSION: In the past few years, Staff has repeatedly discussed applications similar to the subject request, in which a home is designed at or near the floor area ratio for the property and with undeveloped space beneath, for which subsequent requests are made to pemrit additional floor area. Staff and the Design Review Board have noted that although such applications are often consistent with the findings required for approval of a floor area exception, the additional floor area itself may be undesirable for other reasons. Several property owners have received floor area exceptions for similar requests when asking to fill in undeveloped space many years after the house was originally approved. In Staff's opinion, the subject application is an attempt to circumvent the Town's floor area ratio requirements by designing a house at the absolute maximum floor area with the intention of requesting additional floor area at a later date once the house is completed. Although the Design Review Board could have arguably done a better job in requiring a building design for the subject residence that conformed to the terrain of the site and would have eliminated the potential for additional floor area, the Board certainly did not intend to approve a house with this amount of floor rear currently requested. If such a request had been made at the time the house was originally designed, the Board almost certainly would have denied the request. Staff does not believe that there is any reason to treat the current application differently than how such a request would have been reviewed at the time of original construction. The size of the subject house with the proposed additional floor area would be inconsistent with TIBURON DESIGN REVIEW BOARD STAFF REPORT MARCH 15.2001 4 TT:Y..1-EBI'r NO. Z. 9. 4 oP ~ the development pattern of the surrounding Old Tiburon neighborhood. The request would exceed the floor area ratio by 596 square feet, a margin which is unequalled in the vicinity. This request would be incompatible with the character of Old Tiburon, and inconsistent with the principles of the Tiburon Zoning Ordinance. RECOMMENDATION: The Board should review this project with respect to Zoning Ordinance Section 4.02.07 (Guiding Principles). If the Board concurs with Staff's findings, the proposed application should be denied. If the Board wishes to approve the project, Staff recommends that the attached conditions of approval be applied. ATTACHMENTS: I. Conditions of approval 2. Table showing lot sizes and floor areas in the vicinity of2090 Centro East Street 3. Application and supplemental materials 4. Minutes of the November 20, 1997 Design Review Board meeting 5. Minutes of the December 4, 1997 Design Review Board meeting 6. Submitted plans TIBURON DESIGN REVIEW BOARD STAFF REPORT MARCH 15.2001 5 EX,U,JBJT NO. 'Z. cr. <)Ov> 6. 2090 Centro East Street Lang, AdditionsIFloor Area Exception The applicant is requesting Design Review approval for the conversion of unfinished lower floor area into habitable space for an existing single-family dwelling on property located on 2090 Centro East Street,. The site is currently developed with a two-story residence. The lower level area of the house, which was originally approved as crawl space area, would be converted into an exercise room, recreation/media room and a bathroom. The only proposed exterior changes would involve the installation of several windows to provide better light and ventilation to the subject rooms. The proposed construction would increase the floor area of the house by 596 square feet, to a total of 3,437 square feet offloor area, which is 596 square feet more than the maximum floor area permitted for a lot of this size. A floor area exception is therefore requested. Lacy Lang, owner, discussed the project and stated she has neighborhood support, with signatures and letters of support. Senior Planner Watrous added that Ms. Lang was correct in her assertion that this crawl space is in a separate area of the house from the crawl space mentioned in the Staff report which was required to have lower ceiling heights. Ms. Lang stated the request for is for 596 square feet because that is the area of this crawl space. She added that the homes in Staff's survey did not include several larger homes very close to her property. The crawl space results from building the home on a hill. The home was sited and designed to accommodate the neighbors. She identified homes near hers that have received approvals for floor area exceptions. Bill Lukens, 160 Los Lomas, president of the Lyford Cove/Old Tiburon Homeowners Association, said he believes the FAR should be preserved. The homeowners association is trying to promote houses that are compatible with the existing older character of this part of community. The two houses built by the Langs appear quite large on the small lots. The FAR gives an advantage to smaller lots, such as this property. A precedent will be established for others to fill in their crawl spaces. There has been opposition to the larger houses with the crawl spaces. His homeowners association opposes this application. Ms. Lang added a house on Mar East Street was granted a 59 percent FAR exception, as was a neighbor with a 22 percent exception. Chair Smith agreed that the way the findings for a floor area exception are written, this item could be approved. He read from the Design Review Board minutes regarding the approval ofthis house, which noted concerns about the floor area and the crawl space. A deed restriction was suggested at that time by one Boardmember, but was not made a condition of approval. He noted that there was a clear history that concerns over the conversion of the crawl space to floor area had been previously raised. Boardmember Figour stated there have been reasons for juggling lot coverage and floor area TffiURON D.R.B. 3/15/01 1l EXIUBI'1' NO. 3 7, 16~L exceptions by the Design Review Board. This application supersizes a house that was at the 30 percent lot coverage and now wants to increase the floor area beyond the FAR. The development is inconsistent with the neighborhood, with large houses on smaI1lots. He felt that the applicant should not be rewarded when they already have a large home on an undersized lot. Chair Smith added that Design Review applications are viewed on a long-term basis, not on the current personal issues of the property owner. One could say the application would have no impact on anyone, but to allow the exception would do a disservice to the Board. Boardmember McLaughlin stated it would be unfortunate to saddle the current application with perceived history and perceived attitude. The current design and whether it fits into old Tiburon is moot because the houses were approved and are there. The houses were adjusted to meet the needs of the neighbors and the slope dictated what was approved by the Design Review Board. Neighbors who opposed the original project have signed off Ms. Lang's application and support the project; hence, either concerns were addressed or neighbors have come. to accept the status quo. Approval would not set a precedent, since exception requests are reviewed on a case-by-case basis. Cypress Hollow had three applications to complete the crawl space, which no one can see. With the support ofthe neighbors for this application, he can support it. Boardmember Stroub stated the damage was done by the prior approval of the house. This application will not impact the neighborhood, or change the mass, and the proposed windows might actually help the design. Boardmember McLaughlin added all the neighbors have approved this application, even those most adamantly opposed to the original development. M/S, McLaughlin/Stroub, to approve the application based on the findings and conditions as set forth in the Staff report. The motion tied 2-2-1, with Smith and Figour dissenting and Beales absent. M/S, SmithlFigour, to direct Staff to prepare a resolution denying the application. The motion tied 2-2-1, with McLaughlin and Stroub dissenting and Beales absent. Senior Planner Watrous noted that another alternative was to continue the application to another meeting, as this was Chair Smith's last meeting as a Design Review Board member, and Boardmember Beales could be present at the subsequent meeting. Chair Smith noted that Boardmember Beales had been on the Board when this house was originally approved. M/S, McLaughlin/Stroub, to continue this item to April 5, 2001. The motion tied 2-2-1, with Smith and Figour dissenting and Beales absent. Senior Planner Watrous stated the application is denied because of a lack of approval. TmURON D.R.B. 3/15/01 EX}FBIT NO. .3 p. 2.. by 'L--- 12 LOT SIZES AND FLOOR AREAS IN THE VICINITY OF 2090 CENTRO EAST STREET Address Lot Size Floor Area Floor Area Area Above/Below (S.F.) (S.F.) Ratio (S.F.) FAR. (S.F.) 2000 Centro East Street 17,280 2,949 3,728 -779 2040 Centro East Street 7,811 2,029 4,236 -2,207 2050 Centro East Street 22,360 3,979 4,236 -257 2051 Centro East Street 8,349 2,613 2,835 -222 2070 Centro East Street 7,770 3,273 2,770 503 2077 Centro East Street 17,400 2,920 2,740 180 2090 Centro East Street 8,441 2,841 2,841 0 2097 Centro East Street 9,500 1,631 2,950 -1,319 2100 Centro East Street 7,985 2,781 2,798 -17 2111 Centro East Street 14,220 1,981 3,422 -1,441 2122 Centro East Street 9,569 2,699 2,957 -258 2140 Centro East Street 8,130 2,635 2,813 -178 2145 Centro East Street 8,170 2,171 2,817 -646 2195 Centro East Street 7,477 2,665 2,617 48 2201 Centro East Street 8,631 1,293 2,863 -1,570 2235 Centro East Street 12,349 2,630 3,235 -605 2251 Centro East Street 15,873 1,367 3,587 -2,220 2260 Centro East Street 7,235 3,009 2,532 477 160 Solano Street 11,391 3,139 3,139 0 171 Solano Street 6,217 2,427 2,176 251 180 Solano Street 7,553 1,533 2,755 -1,222 185 Solano Street 7,600 1,721 2,760 -1 ,039 2195 Paradise Drive 11 ,100 1,720 3,110 -1 ,390 2205 Paradise Drive 8,891 2,969 2,889 80 2277 Paradise Drive 5,000 1,043 1,750 -707 1 Tower Point Lane 11,369 2,887 3,137 -250 3 Tower Point Lane 8,613 1,780 2,861 -1,081 5 Tower Point Lane 8,610 2,393 2,861 -468 9 Tower Point Lane 9,900 2,471 2,990 -519 10 Tower Point Lane 10,000 2,050 3,000 -950 TIBURON DESIGN REVIEW BOARD STAFF REPORT MARCH 15.2001 7 EXIrmrI' NO. L./ TOWN OF TIBURON LAND DEVELOPMENT APPLlL;ATION I' ;.', TYPE OF APPLlCATI.QM 0 Conditional Use Permit li Design Review (ORB) 0 T.mtative Subdivision Map 0 Precise Development Plan 0 Design Review (Staff levell 0 Final Subdivision Map 0 Conceptual Master Plan 0 Variance 0 ;)arcel Map 0 RezonillglPrezoning 0 Sign Permit 0 Lot line Adjustment 0 Zoning Text Amendment 0 Tree Pe,mit 0 Certificate of Compliance 0 General Plan Amendment 0 Underground Waiver 0 Other -----~ APPLICANT REQUIRED INFORMATION SITE ADDRESS: j,(')C(", (' ENTRe r=-"'~T c" T PARCEL NUMllER: t;.:; - \ '" "- -(~ ' PROPERTY SIZE: ZONING: 3...\\O';.r 1:1'-1 OWNER OF PROPERTY: MAILING ADDRESS: CITY 1ST A TEIZIP: PHONE NUMBER: L/'-.CY " 1 I"1<Q, l..c~C (F~II\~U', II G,.,~( i'>.1 C P- \-;7- '/7' ~ -..'--,-!~ (.. ! /1.1\;(- ,~ co"',,! ,~T, '.,.-:f...1-C. ') (-, FAX ..1.'::,:::-. 7/.(;7 APPLICANT: (Other than Property Owner) MAILING ADDRESS: CITYISTATEIZIP: PHONE NUMBER: " "1 E: ' - 'II \ . / j'- ' FAX ARClIlTECTfDESIGNER/ENGINEER: (\"1'1";=', (::'IV'I.<J MAILING ADDRESS: "7<::',\ II.' ~",=--'I1."lr 1"- \"1.,?p..\i!=' l',\ CITY/STATE/ZIP:\~i'~ P.\\\(FI~'C~ [ A-=r-t'.1/'-f PHONE NUMBER: +, ", - 1(, - 1 ,C ' FAX v....., Iff=- ..:1.';;" ./(. )-"- Please indicate with all asterisk (*) persolls to whom correspondence should be sent. . BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED PROJECT (attach separate sheet if needed): [::o::.':-:"L;::"'.."I:[\,:_ ~U::c.,"'" r-:.~"\E!"I FY( -t:l~'j;-". ;:-.(' ";::'-':"1- i=",c"Cl I ,i\.)I!i~l- \~I ',j:- t'i:_ I.. t4..:'\.~~r:= I!\; C-('II)I:'li\,iT I, the undersigned owner (or authorized agent) of the property herein describeu, hereby make application fur approval of the plans submitted and made a part of this applicarion in acconlance with the provisions of the Town Ordinances, and I h~rcby certify that the information given is true and correct to the best of my knowleuge and belief. i ulluerstand that the requested approval is for my benefit (or that of my principal). Therefore, if the Town grants the approval, with or without conditions, and that action is challenged by a third party, I will be respl)l1sib!e for defending against this challenge. I therefore agree to accept this responsibility for defense at the request of the Towll and also agree to defend, indemnify and hold the Town harmless from any costs, claims or liabilities arising from the approval, including, without limitation, any award of attorneys fees that might result from the third party challenge. Signature: <~,/(-"'L ("l, --",:1:0. l;C.... (I f other than owner, must have letter from owner)) Date: Y'''1\-:J.'J[(1 , ) nn NnT wmn= J:I~I nw THI.~ f INr:: L<;{T-IIBIT NO. 5 1>, I cE 1- He t::: 'I' .~: DESIGN REVIEW SUPPLEMENTAL APPLICATION FORM reS ~ 7 2001 Please fill in the information requested below (attach separate sheet as needed): PLANNING LIEPAH-(r~~t:N-< TO\NN OF TiSURON 1. Briefiy describe the proposed project: Q,EOvES.il N(<Y s,pAc...E: o'{::- .c:::,QG l=-El;?T i Ji\il1;::;e E"I.,s.,II~r(.... 1+':, ~i=- I'JC) !=-r,(YTP12I/\Jj C>-t-ql\i(~. Oldl... OAdGt-tfE:r2_,- ""gC' ibCr.oJY\ 11\1 (0- ll"';:NAG-!;:Q.<.. - ~ NF1=C> L sA") V"Gl'GE? "I 'I\'r- 01 P\1\iiO i ,(;::- ,+-If' '''f'\L~ ;:="'0 n.N(~ A:-N(~J TAi\I)::,o{.,j - Ty?;::;A,{)M II I p'~ ('1\,-,",,'. '''I;;: "'JI'>.N, null G-ll?u..' l=<J;J"\1=NO<; "'r(" roO/VIr::.. "'rr, Que. \+P, /5,1::. C6+1 () S,~ Cl9 f\.U/"QJZoning: R- \ 2. Lot area in square feet (Section 1.05.12"): 3. Proposed use of site (example: single family residential, commercial, etc.): ~~~~~nS~d NO eM-AN &E 4. Describe any changes to parking areas including number of parking spaces, tumaround or maneuvering areas. 'I re ,~ I C}-tf\ \"\G C Yards (Setbacks from property line)(Section 1.05.25)" Front Rear Right Side Left Side Maximum Height (Section 5.06.07)' Lot Coverage (Section 5.06.08)' Lot Coverage as Percent of Lot Area Gross Floor Area (Section 1.05.06)' 1'1~.qP()S~DADDITlqN . .ANDIORALTERATION . -- NO (,\-\I1N 6- E- ft. ft. ft. NO Gt'I~NGE ___ft. NO C-l-\t'<N G-E ft. fL NO CB~N(,~r: ----rt. No Cttt\l~ Gv~ ~ :]\lC) GMNC:-I:sq.ft sq.ft. ~% >~Q Ct-\~ 0-2. % ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. . ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. sq.ft. sq.ft. sq.ft. % % % n"l sq.ft. 5910 sq.ft.3431 sq.ft. sq.ft. sq.ft. 'Section numbers in parentheses refer to specific provisions or definitions in the Tiburon Zoning Ordinance. DESIGN REVIEW SUPPLEMENTAL APPLICATION FORM 4/99 -0 5' TOWN OF TIBURON b.;XE1BT1' N . 'P, 2- 6v 2.- 6. 2090 Centro East Lang New SFD/Variance Chair Howard reiterated that the Design Review Board was not empowered to act on legal subdivision issues, but upon what is being built, so it would be pointless to bring up the legality of a lot split at this meeting. Steve Merch, Architect, gave a history of the design development. He explained that the house was sited as it was and rotated slightly so as to not block the views of the neighbors. The house was wide and shallow for this same reason. He also described the old world effect they were striving for with the trellis and board shutters. The client chose flat tiles for the roof. Boardmember Beales asked if the story poles were correct. Mr. Merch replied that they were not, as they were based on the previous submittal. Revisions were made to the drawings and there was no time to change the story poles. The height of the house had not changed. Asked if the house was stepped, he said it does have that effect. Mr. Merch eXplained the landscape plan had a front yard that would blend in with the neighbors. The back had trees to shield the view of other houses. These trees grow to 30-40 feet, but they are intending to top them for a hedge. They would be willing to substitute something else in this area. Discussion was opened to the public at 8:00 p.m. Gus Strotz, 2070 Centro East, next door neighbor, stated that Mr. Lang had showed him the plans and made some changes. For the record he wanted to challenge the legality of the two parcels on one lot. He felt the design of the house would be better with two of the four bedrooms placed below the main level, rather than all four on the second story. He had no qualms about the landscape p Ian except for the trees for the hedge which in the future may not be kept at hedge level. He took exception with the overall design of the house. He felt the two houses were too close together and that the massing would be better if they were stepped back. Chair Howard asked if there were other Mediterranean style homes close by, and Mr. Strotz stated that he did not recall any, that there was a variety of styles in the neighborhood. There are other large homes near him, but they do not appear big, because there are no large volumes. Jim Malott, Architect, stated that the 1000 square feet in the deck and crawl space make the house way over the floor area ratio. Mr. Watrous replied that this is not habitable space and is not counted as floor space. Mr. Malott stated that another house filled in that space and while Mr. Lang has no intention of doing that, a future buyer may. Chair Howard asked what would he suggest as a solution. Mr. Malott felt the house should be brought down by seven feet. Mr. Lang felt that to build out the crawl space would be a tremendous drop. They tried to be sensitive to the views of the neighbors. He mentioned that the front elevation shows the true building without landscaping. TIEURON DRB November 20, 1997 H:XIIIBITNO. G -p, ItF2- Page 7 Discussion was closed to the public at 8:20 p.m. Boardmember Beales stated that while this house is within the FAR, he would like to see the upper story rerluced and set back from the first floor about 4 feet in order to reduce the mass of the building. Boardmember Snow did not like to make a decision without story poles. He thought that the elevation of the roof and siting of the house was good and the variance on the Strotz side was not an issue. The two story house meets the FAR with no problem, but he would like to see less mass. He likerl the design, but was concerned about the crawl space. Although he did not think: it was inviting for future expansion, he thought there needed to be some assurance the space would not be built out. Mr. Watrous indicated it could be a condition of approval. Mr. Snow also thought the trees should be more appropriate, as 30 feet was too high. Chair Howard thought 30 feet might be acceptable, but 40 feet would be too high and the trees needed to be changed. She looked at the property to see the impact on the neighbors and felt that the impact was minimal from Paradise Drive, as well as from the neighbors on the east. Her issue was with styling. There will be three Mediterranean styled houses in that area, and they are doing that because that is what sells. The house appears to be a box with Mediterranean ornaments and she felt the columns could be simplified and the round windows squared off to make it all more harmonious. She was also concerned about the height at the back of the house and thought it could set into the hill more. Boardmember Snow felt the item should be continued for the story poles to be adjusted. Boardmember Beales added that the Board and neighbors were not getting the correct impression if they were not right. Mr. Merch commented that the change would be negligible. Chair Howard stated that the Board had to consider that this house will be here for 50 years and asked if it adds to the town. She wanted the colors to blend into the scenery as much as possible so as to not have an eye-stopper. Mr. Strotz added that this house has a major impact on the whole neighborhood. Boardmember Snow suggested they continue the request to correct the story poles, modify the colors, and perhaps remedy the second story issue by putting space down below. Chair Howard stated the second story change would have an impact on the selling price of the house. She added that the trees should be different. M/S Snow/Beales to continue to the December 4, 1997 meeting to allow the applicant time to revise the story poles, select a darker exterior color, and select different trees for the intended hedge area. (3-0) If the applicant could not complete the requested changes for the December 4th meeting, it would be continued to December 18, in which case the applicant would need to grant an extension of the permit streamlining deadline. TIBURON DRB November 20, 1997 EXHIBIT NO.~ 'P. 2-- /) ~ 2- Page 8 Dec-12-97 14;15 town of san anselmo 415-454-4683 P.03 F. OLD BUSINESS BEFORE THE BOARD 3. 2090 Centro East Lang, New SFD/Vari2oce The applicant is reqt;esting Design Review approval for tte construction of a single- family dwelling on property located at 2090 Centro East A variance has been requested for a 5 foot front yard setback. At the November 20, 1997 meeting, the Design Review Board expressed several concerns regarding this project This item was continued to the December 4. 1997 meeting, with direction that the applicanl: . Place story poles on the site that accurately reflected the plans submitted . Revise the proposed landscaping plan to include shorter trees that would not result in pctcntial view impacts for surrounding residents; · Revise the proposed color palette to include darker color, that would provide some contrast to the proposed house at 2100 Centro East; and · Address concerns over the mass of the second story portion of the house. Steve Murch, Architect representing the owner, presented the modifications. He felt that the most prominent issue at hand was that the story poles had not been moved prior te the rotation of the house. That has since been done as well as making a few adjustments to the floor plan which reduce the mass and bulk of the elevation. They took a portion. of the upper floor and moved it back approximately 2'3" from the garage, which allowed them the opportunity to provide a low roof. The shutters have been removec and have been replaced with stucco foam trim. If the house is moved tUrther cown the hill, it will encroach on the downhill neighbors. Looking at the streetscape, it is important to see the two houses as equal heig.lJt and bulk. and not much higher than the neighbor to the south The overall effect is the appearance of the two houses together. They also made changes to the landscaping by adding shrub materials. They have also added treatment to the columns and pedestal. noting that the column heights are approximately 20' in heIght at the tallest portion. They would be willing to tint the skvlights so they will not be visible to the uphill neighbors. In response to Boardrnember Beales, Larry Lang, applica.~t, stated that the concerns of the lower neighbor have been satistied regarding the landscaping issues. August Strotz, 2070 Centro East, stated that the changes are rather superficial and decorative. The facade does look much better but the two sections have not changed. He felt two bedrooms could be removed from the upper floor, which would reduce the mass and make a better flOaT plan and the other two bedrooms could be placed under the waterproofed deck. The lower yard will be useless. TIBURON DRB 4 12/04/97 j~XHIBIT NO. 7 1. 1 DF) Dec-12-97 14;15 town of san anselmo 415-454-4683 P.04 Mr. Lang stated that there are reasons that all the rooms are on the second floor. If there are bedrooms on two levels, it would be a true three-story house, and it is also not practicaL The house was rotated away from Mr. Strotz's house and, in addition, there is a large tree that separates the houses. This house is to work in conjunction with the house next door that they are also developing. He stated that he wot:ld also try te relocate the date palm. Bcardmember Doane stated that it might not be the best thing to have the two houses viewed as a pair. The story poles are very tall viewed from Tiburon Boulevard, and in a neighborhood of relatively small houses this house stands out. The idea of the houses being the same height is also not so important. The columns below the deck c,eate a fa9ade equal to the size of the rest of the hOllse and that troubled him. He was not convinced that the placement of the house was in the right location because it is situated as if this was a flat lot. Boa'1irnember Snow did not fee! much had ,:hanged 011 the design. He would like to see a deed restriction ,ecorded to ensure the crawl space is never developed because it would exceed the FAR. He would also like the skylight tinted but could support the proposed exterior colors. Boardmernber Beales felt the changes were made in the right direction and the project has improved from an appearance standpoint. He noted that it is important for many families to have the bedrooms next to each other, rather than two stories away as proposed by Mr Strotz. He could support the colors as proposed. Cl:air :roward stated that she felt like she was looldng at a house sitting on a table, rather than stepping into the hillside. A house sitting on pIers trot:bled her. She also noted that the t"im color was too light. Mr. Lang ~xplained that they required a variance from the Fire District for the driveway because of the steep slope. He said that he designs houses that he would live in ar1d is using the finest materials (0 construct the house. They are trying to create similar houses and want to caprure the beautiful views. He noted that Mr. Strotz':; house is also m'o stories and placed on piers. The lot is a dov,;ns'ope, the uphill neighbors are 30 feet away, a.'lJ it will only impact the down hill neighbors. Boardmember Doane stated the roofs of the two houses are different and will be viewed only from above and the elevations won't be seen by anyone. In response to Boardmember Doane, Mr. Mt:rch stated the driveway lighting would have do"'!! lights. !o.1/s Beales! Howard, and passed (3-1 Doane to deny), to approve the architectural review and variance based on the staff findings and conditions as set forth in the staff report. Additional conditions are that the owner of 2129 ParadIse Drive be present as the TIBURON ORB 12/04/97 5 T:'yr:r'B-IT NTO L...:L~_...}_ . 7 2..- of 3 ~. Dec-12-97 14:15 town of san anselma 415-454-4683 P.05 landscaping is planted at the corner of his propcrty and that thc landscaping shall be rapid growing to a maximum hcight of 20'. The trim shall be darker and reviewed by the Administrative Pancl. TIBURON ORB 12/04/97 6 EXHIBIT NO. P. r 3bF3 . A. K. STROTZ + ASSOCIATES RECEIVED MAR 1 4 2001 Architecture Planning Interior Design Tiburon Design Review Board 1505 Tiburon Blvd. Tiburon Town Hall TffiURON, CA 94920 PLANNING DEPARTMeNT Marvch 9, 1997 TOWN OF TIBURON (2090CE\04)-J Attn. Dan Watrous, Planner RE: DRB Submittal, Mr. Lang 2090 Centro East Lot # 59-133-02 Notice for 3115101 Gentlemen, We are the owners of 2070 Centro East. We have reviewed the drawings for the build out of the lower floor and have NO objection to the project. If you have any questions please call us. Sincerely, 11'\, ynWy{ A K. and M. STROTZ (+ Associates) Architects 1647 Tiburon Blvd. Tiburon, phone 435-3800 Res. 2070 Centro East, Old Tiburon cc. Mr. and Mrs. L Lang LATE MAIL ,~ A CORPORATION Membe, AIA RXHIBIT NO.~ Po. Box 1046 Tiburon California 94920 Fax (415) 435-1920 Tel. (415) 435-3800 ...,.; . ~;.::~ ., ',' ..;m~l IjFb ;vlA,P 1 :3 ~U;j 3010 ~ ~ Dear Board Members, :':'-.':"i'''I'j:;'.>~: ,_:=: '",-,', "(:",_,',,1, ;~.i: -!-:i::,I__:::, -~':\: My request for a FAR exception involves no exterior changes but the addition of windows. I have two girls about to be in teenagedom. I intend to use the space for a ping-pong table, TV, and a treadmill. I have signatures from the following neighbors. ,S1R01Z iCLlFFORDS !MOODY iALSRIGHT iHOSKINS I FAIRCHILD ISUCHERFIELD jJONES ,LYNCH 12070 Centro East !2100 Centro East !2111 Centro East 12122 Centro East 12097 Centro East 120n Centro East ;2305 Centro East I !2129 Paridise Dr. I 1171Solano L_~~ I was quite taken aback at staffs response to my request. Recently, two homes have been granted FAR exceptions with controversial situations. A home at 2234 Mar East was supported by staff for a FAR exception that exceeded the lot by 59%. It was in a sensitive area and physical changes were required on the outside. There were also objections by neighbors. A home at 168 Avenida Miraflores was supported by staff for a 15% FAR exception again involving physical changes to the outside and as stated by staff it would increase the overall mass. My next door neighbor was just granted a FAR exception that increases his home sq. ft. to 3,393 sq. ft. on a 7,700 foot lot. The home is 22% over the FAR. Staff supported it and so did we. It was done over the counter because the request was for less than 500 square feet. Staff seems to be wrestling with three issues on our request. 1. SQUARE FOOTAGE OF SURROUNDING HOUSES\ Staff submitted a list of 30 homes in the neighborhood to support the fact that we would be the 2nd largest home in the area. Missing from this list were: 2153 Centro East at 3.795 sq.ft. 2177 Centro East at 3.632 sq.ft. 2305 Centro East at 4.225 sq.ft. 2131 Paradise Drive at 5.183 sq.ft. The homes selected by staff seemed to be randomly chosen and provided G .-~;TTTnT17'll\TO I ...,_"..1.L'i . ~. t oFL{ ~. some incorrect information. Staff also deleted the homes DIRECTLY to the north, south, and east of me -- in other words all my surrounding neighbors. Staff did include the neighbor on my west, 2070 Centro East, but failed to reflect the FAR exception granted in January, that put him at 3390 sq. ft. The neighbor to the south of me at 2131 Paradise was not included in the report. That home is 77% over the FAR at 5,183 sq. ft. I have prepared a map to show the square footages of the homes that are in my immediate area and will bring it to the meeting The ones that I don't have staff couldn't locate in a file, on microfiche, or the parcel book. This leads to the second issue brought up by staff. 2. A BETTER JOB COULD HAVE BEEN DONE BY THE BOARD TO ELIMINATE THE POTENTIAL FOR ADDITIONAL FLOOR AREA One only needs to look at the ALL the notes from Design Review to come to the conclusion that we had no choice but to site the house any other way than it was. We.had five major issues to contend with. They were as follows: o The home to the south of me (the one that was over 5000 feet) had no less than 8 pink bubble skylights, 3 chimney stacks and a variety of sewer vents on the flat gravel main roof, and 2 clear skylights on the lower roof. This greatly influenced the positioning of our home. It is a rental and the owner was a Spanish consular living in Tokyo. He did support our plan, but of course his desire was to have us as far away from him as possible. o Our next door neighbor, Gus Strotz's wanted to protect his views to the east. o We were building the house next door as well, and had to consider their views and the views of its next door neighbor at 2120 Centro. o The driveway slope, distance and turnaround had to be addressed for fire code and parking. o The lots had cross slopes. They sloped steeply south and west. Crawl space was inevitable. As a sideline to this whole thing, we had Nat Merrins with the mobs carrying torches and stones--protesting that we shouldn't even build at all, a board member who didn't personally like Mediterranean styling, and our neighbor who is also an architect with very specific opinions about design. Frankly, the last thing on our mind was crawl space. We just wanted to get out of there alive and start our project. Remember--these were spec houses. At this time no decision had been made for us to move in to one of them. Had it been a house that I knew for sure was going to be mine--I would have been much more adamant about sticking to my original design. I gave up shutters, a beautiful D7TT'TTrlr[' NTO Q ;.'~L:i..-~.l_.,,--' _.L. .-1- ~. ~t;rL( i I II . , ., ...., ~, ' . .1 L_d - --- - ~ --~ .~ l> 01 ~ " ..~. ~. \ ~ ~~. f ; ~h ~ < '_ "I:'. ~~ , ~, ~ ' ~ ~,~, 1 '.'j:-' ' "',' ~ ~oh ,~ 1 r\~' ~ ^ .... '. ,,\)\ "'-...'7--" , ~.__._--.~ .' .. \. :. ~, ~~{ ~"l ~i \\, , ~~~ ~~ .... >-. " .... .-. - --,""""-- i /1 . './ ~ ,.1 1U: ~ .:~" ~ . vl':!l ~ h~ C Er N T~~ llE::L ~ t '1 i~:r ": 'f"'f-i<. t:~ j ( I - ,. ~./--- --' -. . ' zz:".l\\{~~!~::~:- ~'.~ .) . \.~ '- ~ -;-->( i'~' e") 7, ~. ~ 'IU5\'" r. ."f. ~ ". f~ -t' ."-.~.. \>-~h..' . - l ,- . , , ,}o.f'\ , " "' ~ , "' , (~ 'IL I. '___. >> :14 " , \. \~ ~.... ~ ~\ Jiq- , I / --i..,. \ ~ 'R P. ~~'l!'-'" .n I:' !&~ ~~\.y ,,:--1:4~ . ~t. - I - - --=1" >. "" "\ ~ -- ~~b- '--<c ,_., .. 'ij j.~~t' '';,:i? U ~ , r ~r;'~k\ \1.' i -~-:[;< ~...~~ if:~.,:=-:'C~-~~ j~/j ~-/ .1\' \ I rJj / '\ '. Ilr ~ IJ I : ~ / " leo, . + I' I r~~: i - = ! ~ / - 0 :/), (, t,/I ...... - / / 1~ If ti~J~1~lfF.Y.L~"-i J;,F 'c/~~~ a 1"\ I /I~~- .J.':.L -. 'Wo,1 LIr' ../ ~.-- '~. ;fl/ '-r--, . 'fCj/ '''' \. &. \. I ' '. \/~ II-- " " I, I ~1t I II'> I i I.. - - ...;:,;;.:.::........_ )1 jl..fr.j/I 1\ '. - {iF:./ ',__ _'. I I J I \. :1t~~ \ /,~ H l~i, i~ , '1-1' ~J~~ \~ 1 t '" ~ ,/ '1~~~~'" Ilf I '"\ ~~~t i' j' / ~~n~i~l~~ ,G<\ "".I, .~ ~~~~l,h J - - . ~:ie_-i'i4 I.~'I i I ~ d,:-/~~t" ~\) '1'1)" ~"-- '~rp- - ~~i ~ -;~& ~ ~ ~~t " 1:>' .; I, I ~ "- . . .... I !t " ~7.1 ~- , I- . ~ , /. I ',".;.- y: "I -- -..---.J If l"'~ --~, --' Ii ~ ",t .-1 '-.., - 1/"" r~ . ~"rt .' . . " ~.:: ~ -- ~i~~~~ - - ~ ~~ij~~ ~~~:~ ~- {~ .,~ ~~ ~ . - ....... r "-- > ""I --".. . -.f.~" ,~. . ~, r:>o pr~~.:..~~~ !_~<XIQ. CENTRO EAST STREET . '. TIBURON. CALIFORNIA / OWNER, LANG DEVELOPMENT 14151 435-6098. ':: ~ja, t. On.. aa::1-_ )> -'- i Contents. . OVERALL SITE PLAN Tho Bradley Group -_...........-~ So... 1I.-.I'.elO "'1~"''''_ UU ...-c;.AL_...... P'WOJCf_.,oIo__, ,,_./_,___.,., Nrt!1 ........ " ,I ',..' '{".' ~. tt..-_(.t!'l<T~'~ ....1Io"'1"INIIO.II1r.).0l./1__ 11UIM-QAlliIZfAICI":INI'MoIIlKl~( .....)((ltI'O. P609.S&~ CSI~) lN3YjdOl3^30 9NYl V:> 'NOllngll 'AlNllO:> N111YYj lrlru ... ...to ,r.I.. VIV '40Jn~ aMtS I l lSV3 O~lN3~ 060l . NOI.ld30X3 V3llV llOOl:! II I II 1 ' ,.oltfOJd II ::..-==-== .pe~.H 1:;>~11l.P"'V l=-rO"d ===-JIS .....JQ ~ .qor ___UIrI ....0 ....1....11....::>>9 ."-",",,,-..ta.13?e!1"'oI'!l,llI099~<;;'t'" 1 I. SNOll V ^313 t . SNVld ~OOl~ i I a3S0dO~d I i: n. .. ........UO:>II! " ^111 <(" "I r i 0' I 1 .VI 9-.U I .fI-.- l .1-, C!). ~~ ~o (/)W I )(0 w I .t-, ... ~. . '.' ~r 1 '.' . .".,." .".".,~";:'...:;,.!>. .foo I'L'P /HIIrQlC.C , '~~ ' J.! ---".: ~)(~ · ~ ~/"/~ ~\~ . _____ /i - , _-;~o ~.i~;-;o 1---1 L"Ur.. h OH..I(.......C 0<.. .c I I ~ ~ I II I r I . I . I f \ ,----~~~::~- \ I i'I :z 10 , i= o :> [[ l- f/) Z o o ,---------------------------------------------------------------------------, ~ .....V"i .~-.. ...... 9Xi .f.-.a ..... '!*i1.ftt-.ac ..... 9><:3 .I-,Ii " 0 I tl'OI!?~"l'r'RYoI.NlIftOGN'III1!Olll'l~ I <: I ~..~H::wr9><":a~!V<01i11.. "96 I W I 9O'f'~.c..!"~,,..!..,(!QN 'iNOU?\1'i:1"rl'I"i1..NI~H!OIll""'U !J~;_ : 0: ~=.~~~ =",rp(,:iJ"",~:; ~:iJI~ ~ r ~ I c: ~d IV ~' - ~ ~ , )~ 4~ . : . I :,:g . 0 , ,~~ . ~i . .. J "" o. \ l~ .f>O'.' ,p' .. o D .f- .. -~ ~r 0 . 0..- . Z ~ t.i , """,,,i;;;t/tl _"t.,/tI I ~o~ 10 OH .... .. 10 01 .... .. """"~ """"...- P:l . ~ '9. r . ... '~~iIl ~ 1:- ... .' fi90 ::! W 0 n.. - ~ r:t.\ ::! o o a:"'" ii'd C!)q. z Z i5 E ~~I 0 ~ Ii ~z 81 QUI..\.'! , .:r:&'..J . ~OQ~ I ...c'J "" .f'-,'" 'l ~9' '.~ i.. ~.. .. . .~. ~-~---. . . ~. Q :;w. T ;; "" "" .;.. ~ . -.f' . -.f' 1- ::l! 0 . 0 !! a: r" . ...... i'd ,--------------- ~~ . " ~~.. h , ~~ " ::! ~~ ::! . \j i~ ~! ex: ~! ex: ~~ ~ .0 (/) ., ~~ .Q (/) ~ ~~ => "u :).: \ ~1. Z 2' Z . .f ~ ' ' 0 t"l 0 '"'-, .3 m > ' m . , .3 '----- - , - ...,,~ w o <( 0. oJ 3: <( ex: o ---.l,---------- \~ :Jm 1t, ._~I) .' ..~ "0 3_ -" '. J, , , ...-------------, n , , \ I I I I I I ----...., , I I I I I I I I I I I I , , , ....-----------..... (ijD( '. t! z o i= o :> [[ l- f/) Z o .....-----------.... 0(\ IL I I 0: : I --------..----------, ~~' 4( I I I ( I I I z o i= <( > W ..J W :I: I- :> o (/) I I , , , ...--- -------, .j' , \ I I I I "{- I-~~ (~ I 9>';1 ~~ \ '...._-----..~--- j, ,:, o. " .' n ~. u ~~ '. J, z' O. i= <( >. w oJ w h (/) <( W, Q " ~ ..; &I ~p 4( .n ~ o (!l z o ..J 5 m o z < W I- in ~ R; ~ .. fj\ fj\ [:.;j \V\Vm 11 .. ~~ - C\ Zl 11I(: oJ' 0.1 ex: o o ..J IL [[ w, 0.1 o.i =>1 oJ, <( i= ex: <( 0. C\ Zl ~I ex: o o ..J IL [[ w 3: o oJ 3: w z ~ Q '" ~ Q '" ... '" Q ~ .. .. &I .. ..l W ~ .. .. ~ .. N ! zl o! i=1 <, > w' oJ W ~ (/) w 3: . ~~~i "'UII- <(Q"~ ~~.w ..J<(eaJ. ;Hl't; I l~...../ ~~9~, tj~~ ~ IIIWs.l' ii& t I " ~, u.; u.; '" '" $ ~ ~ '1"_ u.; u;.u.; II., ~ of) of) of) of) cq ~ .Q.n r Q '" "'.. :.' .. .n ~! !fl' ~ I\! o u ~ o ..l.. ~::; ;:" '!)'!/ x . w~ ~i ~~ ~... 0'" -'" 3" W". Z~ 0: ~ '" r ~ ~ N .~ " I\! I\! W W ..l ..l ~ Z "' " & r: " .. &I .. ~ o o () ~ .-- ~ ~ ;: of '!) &I I:; .. <i ~ b g , 0 .. III .. ~ o 3 () ~ ~ ~ ~ ;: of '!) &I I:; .. -' ~ ;! 8 o ..l ~ ~ t ~ , -' U ~ I\! 0 wZ ..l ~ ..l ~ ..l I\! ~ I\! 5 w ~ ...J...J (r "", I/' w" t Z r: " trellis and color choices. 3. THE DEVELOPER INTENDED TO CIRCUMVENT THE RULES OF THE TOWN This is the single most important issue here. (Incidentally and for the record, the crawl space Dan Watrous says we put a floor in, and he forced us to lower the ceiling, IS NOT the space we are requesting at all.) This has been clarified with him. The space he is referring to, is the space where the furnace and water heater is, and we use it for storage. We have built 12 homes in the last 10 years in Tiburon. We have had similar downsloped lots on 7 of them. They all ended up with crawl space such as this. Even when you step down with the hillside, you end up with this space because people do require light and windows. Neither us, nor any of our clients have ever requested a FAR exception in the past. To imply that this is our method of doing business is harmful to our reputation -- particularly to a board who doesn't know us. To request a FAR exception for a space created by our need to accommodate everyone else--is not out of line. I need the space, I want the space, and I'm certainly not hurting anyone by using it. We don't deserve the kind of biased staff reporting we are getting. No one has done more complying than my husband has. We always work with neighbors BEFORE coming to the board. Staff said that the board would have never approved additional space at the time we built. No one knows, because we didn't ask. If they wouldn't have, I would attribute it more to the political climate with the Nat Merrins group than anything to do with an exception for FAR, since so many have been granted one around here. The same arguments could have been made then as now. At the time there were designed, they were spec houses. My decision to move in to one was made long after they were complete. We didn't move into 2090 until last year. Had I known it would be mine, I would have done things differently--including asking for a FAR exception. Perhaps we would have been treated better had we been potential neighbors instead of spec builders. THIS SPACE WAS A RESULT OF THE TOPOGRAPHY, NEIGHBORS NEEDS, THE TOWN RULES, AND THE DRB'S DESIRE TO KEEP PEACE. Q, WE TOOK DOWN 8 PINE TREES THAT LINED THE DRIVEWAY, OPENING UP THE VIEWS FOR THE UPHILL NEIGHBORS, AND WALKERS Q, WE USED THE BEST MATERIALS T;1vrFPTT ", >TO q .:;.....:L'l.....:..~.~._"'-'_,_. _ ~l - . '[>.,DpL( Q WE ADDED 2 PARKING SPACES AT THE STREET LEVEL. d WE INSTALLED AN $8,000 STORM DRAIN ACROSS A NEIGHBORS DRIVEWAY ON PARADISE DRIVE AT THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT'S REQUEST AFTER WE HAD APPROVALS AND A PERMIT WITHOUT ONE. Q, WE PUT IN STREET LAMPS, PRETTY MAILBOXES, AND LANDSCAPING. Q, THE LOTS--PRIOR TO US, HAD A CONDEMNED DUPLEX WITH OPEN SEWERS ON IT g WE PUT IN BRAND NEW FENCING FOR THE SOUTH, EAST, AND WEST NEIGHBORS. WE FEEL WE HAVE IMPROVED OUR NEIGHBORHOOD AND SO DO MY NEIGHBORS. PLEASE GRANT ME THE FAR EXCEPTION. Q, LACY LANG T<:XEIBIT NO. 9 p. l{ bt=- L( TOWN OF TIBURON STAFF REPORT ITEM NO. MEETING DATE 5/212001 ~ To: TOWN COUNCIL From: SCOTT ANDERSON, PLANNING DIRECTOR ~ Subject: REQUEST FROM MARIN COUNTY LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION FOR COMMENTS ON THE DUAL ANNEXATION POLICY Date: APRIL 27, 2001 BACKGROUND Last month the Town received a written request (Exhibit 1) from LAFCO to review possible changes to its "dual annexation policy" (DAP). The DAP has been the subject of inconclusive "reviews" on numerous occasions, including but not limited to 1990, 1996 and 1998. In the past, the Town has generally been opposed to significant changes to the DAP, either because they conflicted with Town policy or practice, or seemed ill-conceived. The current adopted DAP is attached as Exhibit 2. A "discussion draft" of a revised DAP is attached as Exhibit 3. ANAL YSIS Dual Annexation Policy The DAP was originally adopted in 1977, with amendments made in 1983. No formal changes to the policy have been adopted since. Actual application of the DAP over the years has been far more flexible than the wording would imply is possible. At the current time, the DAP impacts the Town ofTiburon primarily with respect to the unincorporated Paradise Drive area. The StrawberrylBay Vista area no longer appears to be an area that the Town is interested in annexing; this constitutes a change from past (and current written) Town policy and will be addressed in the upcoming General Plan revision. The Town ofTiburon's relationship with LAFCO has been quite good over the past approximately 20 years, and has improved in recent years as LAFCO has evolved into a fully independent, professionally staffed and managed, and less political agency Tiburon Town Council Staff Report 5/2/200 I On first impression, this review of the DAP appears to be a comprehensive, thoughtful, and realistic attempt to adapt the policy to changes in circumstances that have occurred over the past 25 years. These changes include land use policy and density changes (both municipal and county general plans), tax revenue/finance changes (Prop 13, etc.), recent State law changes (Cortese- Knox-Hertzberg Act), and others. The proposed review squarely addresses several of the DAP issues that the Town ofTiburon and LAFCO have grappled with in recent years. In fact, some of the suggested changes incorporate practices used by Tiburon (for example, annexation agreements) to meet the spirit of the adopted DAP, ifnot the letter. Therefore, Staffis cautiously optimistic and generally supportive of the changes to the DAP as described in the "discussion draft". However, the LAFCO letter of referral poses a series of policy questions, some of which are quite complex and deserve more attention than can be addressed in this report. Changes to the DAP could affect the Town of Tiburon in the following areas: . . Land use policy (especially with respect to annexation) . Financial (especially maintenance of Paradise Drive) . Long-range planning (General Plan "Planning Area" is affected) . Politically (annexation of large new areas is involved) Staff therefore believes that it is prudent to establish an ad-hoc committee to review the proposed DAP changes as they relate to the above-described Town issues. As a suggestion, the Town Council may wish to consider appointing the Mayor and Councilmember Bach (a municipal representative on LAFCO) from its membership, Planning Commission Chairman Stein, and others if deemed appropriate. Sphere ofInfluence Review Each LAFCO is also statutorily obligated to periodically review "Sphere ofInfluence" boundaries for all municipalities and special districts over which it has authority. Marin LAFCO has not performed a thorough update of such spheres in approximately 15 years. The law requires these spheres to be updated by January I, 2006. Staff believes the sphere review should proceed posthaste, and would ask the Town Council to so recommend to Marin LAFCO. Ttburon Town Council Staff Repor' 5:2/200 J 2 Paradise Drive Maintenance Staff believes that it is only a matter of time before the maintenance of Paradise Drive in that portion of the Tiburon Peninsula becomes an issue of concern with Marin County. This is because continued annexation ofIarge properties in that area reduces the portion of roadway in County jurisdiction. Staff recommends that the ad-hoc committee also address this DAP-related issue. RECOMMENDA TION 1. Appoint an ad-hoc committee as described above to review and provide recommendations on the DAP changes as they relate to Town issues, including Paradise Drive maintenance. 2. Recommend that LAFCO proceed in a timely manner with Sphere ofIntluence reviews. 3. Authorize the Town Manager to convey the thrust of the Town Council's discussion and action to the LAFCO Executive Officer in a letter prior to the May LAFCO meeting. EXHIBITS I Referral letter from LAFCO dated March 19, 2001. 2 Text ofLAFCO's adopted dual annexation policy. 3. Dual Annexation Policy Discussion Draft dated March 15, 2001. \Scott\dual annex Ie report. doc T1huro!l Town Council Staff Repo,., 5/]/2001 3 DATE: March 19, 2001 EXHIBIT NO.L RECEIVED MAR 2 1 2001 TO: Marin County Cities & Special Districts Marin County Conununity Development Agency PLANi"ING DEPARTMENT TOWN GF TiBURON FROM: Peter Banning, Executive Officer SUBJECT: Potential Changes & Policy Choices to LAFCO's Dual Annexation Policy For the past year, Marin LAFCO has been studying its Dual Annexation Policy and related boundary policies in the Novato area. The Novato Area Boundnry Policy Study was published on December 1, 2000. A copy of that Report's summary is attached to this memorandum as Attachment 1. The Report contains reconunendations concerning the interactions of the Dual Annexation Policy, adopted spheres of influence in the Novato area and the City of Novato's Urban Growth Boundary. Much of the report focuses on issues that are unique to Novato (e.g., the interaction of the Policy with the City's urban growth boundary). We are providing a copy of the Report because it also identifies shortcomings in the text of the Dual Annexation Policy and reconunends changes to remedy those shortcomings. Staff's view is that the current policy is incomplete without clear statements of purpose and procedure and that it has become outdated. The problem of potential urban sprawl that the policy was set up to control has receded through a combination of open space protection and strengthened County planning regulations. Infill of existing semi-rural residential areas has replaced the prospect of disorderly growth. The extension of sewer service to such unincorporated areas would no longer have a significant growth-inducing effect on land use. The policy is still useful as a long-term means of implementing city spheres of influence, but a more up-to-date approach to the Dual Annexation Policy is called for to reflect changes that have accumulated over the past twenty years. The current text of the policy is included with this memo as Attachment 2. Changes to the policy text could affect cities and districts other than Novato and the Novato Sanitary District. The purpose of this memo is to describe the policy issues and choices that LAFCO will consider in reviewing the text of the Dual Annexation Policy and to request the conunents and suggestions of cities and districts that may be affected by changes to the policy. Chairperson: Jeffry Blanchfield Members Mogens Bach, Judy Chapman, Barbara Heller, John Kress, Cynthia Murray Alternates: Hal Brown, Pat Eklund, George C. Quesada, Richard Rubin Executive Officer: Peter V. Banning Marin Local Agency Formation Commission 165 N. Redwood Drive, Ste. 160. San Rafael, California 94903 . Telephone (415)446,4409 . Facsimile (415)446-4410 LAFCO Dual Annexation Policy 2 March 19, 2001 In briet those policy issues and choices are as follows: Policy Issue #1: Should parcels contiguous to city boundaries always be required to annex to the city? That is, are there conditions in which unincorporated land contiguous to a city boundary should be allowed to annex to a special district, but annexation to the city should be delayed or waived? Policy Issue #2: Should the purposes of the Dual Annexation Policy include control of inappropriate or premature growth within city spheres of influence? Policy ISSue #3: When LAFCO makes findings on the four criteria for waiving the Dual Annexation Policy, should the waiver require affirmative findings on just one of the four criteria or on all of the criteria for waiver listed in the policy? That is, are the four criteria for waiver of the policy linked by "and" or "or" in the policy text? The current policy is not clear on this point. Is it realistic to require that all of the listed criteria be met? Policy Issue #4: Is the support of the city council for a waiver of the Policy to be required in eVery instance or will LAFCO consider approval of a policy waiver based on other criteria? Should citeS have the pOWer to terminate a single district annexation through withholding approval of a requested waiver? Policy Issue #5: Should a new criteria for waiver of the Dual Annexation Policy be added for parcels within 400 feet of an existing sewer line where only existing uses or new uSeS exempt from CEQA review would be served? Policy Issue #6: When a waiver of the Policy is sought, how should requests for waivers of the Dual Annexation Policy be set in motion? Should the Policy's procedure require applicants to make their request for a waiver to the city council or should applicants request the waiver as part of their application and LAFCO staff refers the request for waiver to the city for the city's input? Are there better alternatives? Policy Issue #7: If applicants seeking waiver of the Dual Annexation Policy are required to apply directly for city council support for the waiver, what is a reasonable city process for waiver of the Policy in terms of fees charged and processing time so that it is not unduly costly or burdensome? Should the city be permitted to attach conditions to its support for the requested waiver? Policy Issue #8: In caseS where waiver of the policy is sought, should LAFCO require formal action of the city council (as required under the current policy) or written recommendation from staff or should that determination be left to each city? Policy Issue #9: Overall, would the proposed revision of the Policy on page 10 of the Novato Area Boundan) Polict) Review work better for your agency? Why/Why not? LAFCO Dual Annexation Policy 3 March 19, 2001 The above policy issues are detailed in the attachments to this memo. Attachment 2 presents the current text of the Dual Annexation Policy. Attachment 3 adds sections to the current text for Legislative Authority, and statements of policy purposes and procedures. With the proposed additions to the text, policy issues and choices are inserted in boxed italic type to show where and how each policy choice would operate. The Commission opened the public hearing on the recommendations in the Novato Area Boundanj Policy Review in February. The hearing will remain open until cities and special districts have had an opportunity to respond to this request for comment. The Corrunission requests that cities and districts respond by Friday, April 13, 2001. If more time is required for your response, please inform LAFCO staff at 446-4409. We recognize that some agencies will be more concerned with these changes than others and that particular aspects of the policy may be important to individual circumstances or locations. If you or your board members would prefer an in-depth discussion of LAFCO policy prior to providing input, I am available to meet with you to provide additional background or respond to questions. Thank you very much for your time and a ttention to this policy review. Yours very truly, m~~ Peter V. Banning, 25 Executive Officer Enclosures: Attachment 1: Novato Area Boundanj POliC1j Review (summary) Attachment 2: Dual Annexation Policy - Current Adopted Text Attachment 3: Dual Annexation Policy - Discussion Draft, annotated EXHIBIT NO. ~ Attachment 2 Ad.o p+ -e d Dual Annexation Policv The Dual Annexation Policy applies to property situated in the "City-Centered Corridor" as defined in the Marin Countywide Plan and located within a city's sphere of influence. A. Land Contiguous to Municipal Limits: Annexations of unincorporated land to special districts which provide services necessary for urban development shall require concurrent annexation to a city if the land is located within the city's sphere-of-influence boundary. B. Lands Not Contiguous To Municipal Limits: For noncontiguous properties, LAFCO may grant an exception to Policy A where the site adjoins an established unincorporated community which is currently provided water, sanitary sewer, police, or fire protection services by the county and/or special districts. In order to grant a policy exception, LAFCO may grant an exception to Policy A where the site adjoins an established unincorporated community which is currently provided water, sanitary sewer, police, or fire protection services by the county and/or special districts. In order to grant a policy exception, LAFCO shall make findings of fact based on compliance with applicable criteria listed below: 1. The County Board of Supervisors has adopted a community plan governing the unincorporated area, and that a community plan is deemed by the Commission to be appropriate for the area in question. 2. Approval of policy waiver has been submitted in writing to LAFCO by the city council whose sphere of influence includes the site. 3. Affected special districts are presently willing and capable of extending urban services. 4. County Board of Supervisors has approved a master development plan project which will not promote further development beyond the farthest extension of service on the subject property. (Originally Adopted: July 13, 1977; Revised: January 13, 1983) EXHIBIT NO. j Attachment 3 Policy issues and choices for LAFCO are inserteq in the text of the draft policy in boxed italic type. Dual Annexation Policv - Discussion Draft. March 15. 2001 Legislative Authority Government Code Section 56844 and its subsections give LAFCO broad authority to add conditions to the approval of boundary changes: Any change of organization or reorganization may provide for, or be made subject to one or more of, the following terms and conditions. However, none of the following terms and conditions shall directly regulate land use, property development, or subdivision requirements: (0) The initiation, conduct, or completion of proceedings on a proposal made under, and pursuant to, this division. (v) Any other matters necessary or incidental to any of the terms and conditions specified in this section. Policy Annexations of unincorporated land to special districts which provide services necessary for urban development shall require concurrent annexation to a city if the land is located within the city's sphere-of-influence boundary. The Dual Annexation Policy applies to property situated in the "City-Centered Corridor" as defined in the Marin Countywide Plan and located within a city's sphere of influence. Policy Issue #1: Should parcels contiguous to city boundaries always be required to annex to the city? That is, are there conditions in which unincorporated land contiguous to a city boundary should be allowed to annex to a special district, but annexation to the city should be delayed or waived? The Commission has processed a number of district annexation proposals for areas contiguous to cih) boundaries in which annexation to the city was possible, but undesirable because annexation to the city would result in an awkward city boundary or an illogical extension of city services. Usually, the Commission has approved district annexation with a condition requiring properh) owner to enter in to an agreement with the city not to oppose city annexation in the future. 1 The purposes of this policy are: 1. To allow the Commission to encourage orderly growth and development by determining logical and timely boundary changes of local agencies 2. To provide a mechanism through which the Commission may shape boundary decisions in the long-term best interests of the efficient provision of local services and the assignment of appropriate local political responsibility for those services as generally set forth in Government Code 56001 et seq. 3. To establish priorities among agencies providing community services that reflect local circumstances, conditions and limited financial resources. 4. To provide for the orderly implementation of adopted city and special district spheres of influence. 5. To restrict annexations of unincorporated territory to special districts to those annexations which are consistent with the creation of more rational boundaries of both city's and districts. Policy Issue #2: Should the purposes of the Dual Annexation Policy include control of inappropriate or premature growth through the extension of special district boundaries? In other words, are the unincorporated areas within cin} spheres of influence (where this poliC1) would apply) subject to urban sprawl or are these areas subject only to in-fill of established low densin} residential development anticipated by adopted planning regulations? If this PoliC1} is still required to control growth, a statement should be added to reflect that purpose: 6. To restrict extension of urban services where such services would create pre-mature or un-planned urban growth. Exceptions LAFCO may grant an exception to dual annexation policy requirements where the site adjoins an established unincorporated community which is currently provided water, sanitary sewer, police, or fire protection services by the county and/or special districts. In order to grant a policy exception, LAFCO shall make findings of fact based on compliance with applicable criteria listed below: Policy Issue #3: VVhen LAFCO makes findings on the four criteria for waiving the Dual Annexation PoliC1}, should the waiver require affirmative findings on just one of the four criteria or on all of the criteria for waiver listed in the poliC1}? That is, are the four criteria for waiver of the policy linked by "and" or "or" in the POlzC1} text? The current poliC1} is not clear on this point. Is it realistic to require that all the listed cntena be met? 2 1. The County Board of Supervisors has adopted a community plan governing the unincorporated area, and that a community plan is deemed by the Commission to be appropriate for the area in question. 2. Approval of policy waiver has been submitted in writing to LAFCO by the city council whose sphere of influence includes the site. Policy Issue #4: Is the support of the city council for a waiver of the Policy to be required in even) instance or will LAFCO consider approval of a poliC1) waiver based on other criteria? Asked another way, the question is, Should cities have the power to terminate a single district annexation through withholding approval of a requested waiver? How much power should LAFCO grant to cities to terminate district annexation proposals in their sphere of influence? The current policy appears to restrict LAFCO from approving waivers of the Policy if the affected city council does not support the requested waiver thereby potentially terminating the proposal. If so, this extension of a city's role in the LAFCO process is unique in California and is not based on any provision in the Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Act. On the other hand, if under Policy Issue #3 above, the Commission determines that any of these waiver criteria would be sufficient to support a waiver (rather than all criteria), only LAFCO would make the decision on the requested waiver. The city council would not control the outcome of the request for waiver and would therefore not be in a position to terminate the proposal. 3. Affected special districts are presently willing and capable of extending urban servIces. 4. County Board of Supervisors has approved a master development plan project which will not promote further development beyond the farthest extension of service on the subject property. Policy Issue #5: Should a new criteria for waiver of the Dual Annexation PoliCl) be added for parcels within 400 feet of an existing sewer line where only existing uses or new uses exempt from CEQA review would be seroed? If so, additional criteria for waiver or exemption from the policy would read as follows: 5. The subject properf:t) is within 400-feet of a sewer main and no extension of the main is required; and, 6. The area is substantially developed or the anticipated development is consistent with the General Plan of the local land use authorif:t), and considered exempt from CEQA, providing limited development potential. 3 Procedure Applicants seeking annexation of unincorporated territory within a city sphere of influence are required to include in their applications either . A request for concurrent annexation to that city and evidence of approved pre-zoning approval by that city, or . Written request by that city to defer annexation to the city and that LAFCO require the landowner to enter into an agreement with the city not to oppose annexation when the city determines services could be extended efficiently, or . Written approval of a waiver of the Dual Annexation Policy by the city council whose sphere of influence includes the site. LAFCO staff will review the proposed annexation or reorganization according to applicable procedures. The staff recommendation and draft resolution shall include recommended findings on the criteria for exception when exception to the policy is granted by LAFCO. Policy Issue #6: When a waiver of the PolictJ is sought, how should requests for waivers of the Dual Annexation PolictJ be set in motion? Should the PolictJ's procedure require applicants to make their request to the city council for support for the waiver or would it be sufficient for applicants to apply to LAFCO for district annexation only and LAFCO staff would refer the request for waiver of the PolictJ to the city for the cih/ s input? Can applicants request a waiver of the polictJ directly from the Commission based on criteria other than the city's support, such as the inclusion of the area in a Counh;-adopted community plan or master development plan? If single annexation proposals with requests for waiver of the polictJ are referred to the cihJ for comment only, the Commission may reasonably expect the city to process the waiver within the 60-day period provided prior to hearing by LAFCo. Depending on information developed prior to the hearing, the applicant might elect to amend his proposal to include city annexation or might choose to proceed with a single district annexation proposal with the possibility that the Commission may require annexation to the city as a condition of approval or impose other conditions. Policy Issue #7: If applicants seeking waiver of the Dual Annexation PolictJ are required to apply directly for cihJ council support for the waiver, what is a reasonable city process for waiver of the PolictJ in terms of fees charged and processing time so that it is not unduly costly or burdensome? Should the cih} be permitted to attach conditions to its support for the requested waiver? If requests for polictJ waiver require formal action by the cih} council, the city may elect to charge a substantial fee and take six to eight weeks to get the matter on the council's agenda. The city may Iso attempt to add conditions to the waiver that have no basis in autllOrihJ under the Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Act. 4 Policy Issue #8: In cases where exception to the policy is sought, should LAFCO require formal and affirmative action of the city council in suppon of the exception (as required under the current policy) or written recommendation from staff? Or should this each city detennine whether staff input is sufficient? 5