Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutTC Digest 2008-12-05 TOWN COUNCIL WEEKLY DIGEST Week of December 1- 5,2008 Tiburon 1. Town Council Reorganization - Tiburon 2. Memo - Peggy Curran - Noise Ordinance Follow-up Agendas & Minutes 3. Minutes - Design Review Board - November 20,2008 4. Action Minutes - Design Review Board - December 4, 2008 5. Agenda - Planning Commission - December 10, 2008 6. Notice - Meeting Cancellation - Town Council- December 17, 2008 Regional a) Town Council Eeorganization - Corte Madera b) Notice - Public Hearing - Titles 209 and 22 c) Notice - Community Meetings - 12/2/08 & 1/15/09 * d) Notice - Public Health: Wood Smoke & Wintertime Air Pollution * e) Invitation - Reception - American Israel Public Affairs Com. -12/9/08 * f) Letter - The Helen Vine Detox Center - Request for Financial Help * g) Western City Magazine - December 2008 * Agendas & Minutes h) None * Council Only j , Town of Tiburon, 1505 Tiburon Boulevard, Tiburon, CA 94920 DIGEST NOTICE OF REORGANIZATION TIBURON TOWN COUNCIL On December 3, 2008, the Tiburon Town Council elected a new mayor and vice mayor and reorganized as follows: MAYOR ALICE FREDERICKS VICE MAYOR MILES BERGER COUNCILMEMBER DICK COLLINS COUNCILMEMBER TOM GRAM COUNCILMEMBER JEFF SLA VITZ s/~. Diane Crane Iacopi, CMC Town Clerk December 5, 2008 For more information, call 435-7377 or visit our website @ wWl'v.ci.tiburon.ca.us. /~ Town ofTiburon, 1505 Tiburon Boulevard, Tiburon, CA 94920 DIGEST NOTICE OF REORGANIZATION TIBURON TOWN COUNCIL On December 3, 2008, the Tiburon Town Council elected a new mayor and vice mayor and reorganized as follows: MAYOR ALICE FREDERICKS VICE MAYOR MILES BERGER COUNCILMEMBER DICK COLLINS COUNCILMEMBER \ TOM GRAM COUNCILMEMBER JEFF SLA VITZ s/~. Diane Crane Iacopi, CMC Town Clerk December 5,2008 For more information, call 435-7377 or visit our website @ www.ci.tiburon.ca.us. DIGEST :<~ TOWN OF TIBURON 1505 Tiburon Boulevard Tiburon, CA 94920 MEMORANDUM Date: December 3, 2008 To: Mayor and Town Council From: Peggy Curran, Town Manager Subject: Noise Ordinance Follow-up At its November 5,2008 meeting, the Town Council considered an ordinance that would have banned permitted construction activity on Saturdays. Council took no action on the ordinance and directed staff to rethink the issue and explore language that would allow quiet activities to occur on that day of the week. Staff has been working on this issue and will bring a revised ordinance back to the Council for consideration at its January 21, 2009 meeting. At that same meeting, in a follow-up motion, Council directed staff to write a provision into encroachment and tree removal permits that would prohibit these activities on Saturdays. After subsequent discussion with the Mayor, there was some concern that this approval may have been inadvertent. The Mayor thought the Council meant to consider a similar approach to that being considered for other construction activities, that is, that quiet work be permitted on Saturdays rather than that it be entirely prohibited. The attached language reflects this second approach. Allowing only quiet activity on Saturdays from 9:30 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. would be more restrictive than the current practice of permitting this work without noise conditions, but less restrictive than an outright Saturday prohibition. It is staffs intention to use this language until the subject of noise regulation is once again on the Council agenda on January 21, 2009 and the Town Council can provide additional direction if necessary. Noise-related Standardized Conditions for Tree Permits #. A copy of the enclosed Tree Permit Certificate must be posted on the site in a conspicuous place at all times during performance of work authorized by the permit. #. Tree work authorized by this permit shall be performed during the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. on Monday through Friday, and 9:30 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. on Saturday. Only quiet work is allowed to be performed on Saturdays, such that noise from any source associated with the permitted work, including but not limited to vehicles, saws, chippers or other machinery, amplified sound, and worker's voices, shall not be plainly audible at the property line. #. No work pursuant to this permit shall be performed on any Sunday or on holidays observed by the Town of Tiburon. These holidays are New Year's Day, Martin Luther King Day, President's Day, Memorial Day, Independence Day, Labor Day, Thanksgiving Day and Christmas Day. Noise-related Standardized Conditions for Encroachment Permits #. A copy of the enclosed Encroachment Permit Certificate must be posted on the site in a conspicuous place at all times during performance of work authorized by the permit. #. Work authorized by this permit shall be performed during the hours of7:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. on Monday through Friday, and 9:30 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. on Saturday. Only quiet work is allowed to be performed on Saturdays, such that noise from any source associated with the permitted work, including but not limited to vehicles, machinery, amplified sound, and worker's voices, shall not be plainly audible at the property line. #. No work pursuant to this permit shall be performed on any Sunday or on holidays observed by the Town of Tiburon. These holidays are New Year's Day, Martin Luther King Day, President's Day, Memorial Day, Independence Day, Labor Day, Thanksgiving Day and Christmas Day. S: IPlanninglStafJ F olderslsandersonlMiscellaneouslTree Permit standard conditions for noise. doc t Ii r \ L~/.1 " r"~;~ '[ f:'~ , '~, ; r=\ \. , '3~ MINUTES #17 TIBURON DESIGN REVEW BOARD MEETING OF NOVEMBER 20, 2008 DIG ~8.,.. The meeting was opened at 7:00 p.m. by Acting Chair Chong. A. ROLL CALL Present: Boardmembers Chong, Wilson and Tollini Absent: Vice-Chair Glassner and Chair Doyle (arrived later) Ex-Officio: Planning Manager Watrous, Associate Planner Tyler, Assistant Planner Phillips, and Minutes Clerk Rusting B. PUBLIC COMMENTS - None C. STAFF BRIEFING - None D. OLD BUSINESS BEFORE THE BOARD 1. 2 MCCART COURT KAISER, NEW DWELLING 2 MCCART COURT LOT SIZE FLOOR AREA LOT COVERAGE BUILDING HEIGHT SIDE YARDS FRONT YARD REAR YARD V ARIANCES/EXCEPTION EXISTING 13,559 S.F. 2,175 11.3% 21 ~ 26' & 34~7" 19~8" 21 ~ 8" NONE PETER KAISER PROPOSED REQUIRED NA NA 3,353 3,356 MAX 14.5% 30.0% MAX 24' 30' MAX 26' & 10~5" 8' 19~8" 15' 21'8" 21'8" On October 16, 2008 the Design Review Board reviewed an application for construction of a new single-family dwelling with a floor area exception for the property located at 2 McCart Court. During the meeting, the adjacent neighbors expressed concerns regarding privacy, view impacts, and the overall mass and bulk of the proposed structure in relation to the existing neighborhood character. The Board expressed concerns that the proposed third story bedroom would appear out of character with other homes in the vicinity, and also impact viewsheds for neighbors to the northeast on Felipa Court. The Board also expressed concern that the height of the stairwell was unnecessary. The Board continued the item with direction given to the applicant to explore other possibilities for relocating the third story addition, lowering the stairwell, reduce the massing of the home and to prevent view obstructions for the neighbors. TffiURON D.R.B. MINUTES #17 11/20/08 The applicant has now submitted revised plans for the new dwelling. Based on the comments and concerns received from the Board and the adjacent property owners, the applicant eliminated the third story bedroom, lowered the height of the stairwell to the existing roof ridge height and decreased the floor area so that a floor area exception is no longer required. John Swain, architect, described the changes made as part of the revised plans. He said that they climbed to the top of the story poles to see the impact on 1 McCart Court. He noted there are no windows on that side of the house and they could not see into their garden from the top of the story poles. He stated that the neighbors had some concerns about trees, and Mr. Swain said that Peter Kaiser, the owner, has agreed to trim those trees. Boardmember T ollini asked if the roof deck was intended to be used for recreation or purel y for accessing the solar heating system. Peter Kaiser, owner, responded that the deck has a dual function to accommodate access to the solar hot water and to enjoy the view. The public hearing was opened. Beth Logan said the project is definitely an improvement, but was still about nine inches higher than the current roofline and would impact her view. She said that she had a longstanding agreement with the previous owners about the trees and requested to Mr. Kaiser that the trees be trimmed a bit. The public hearing was closed. Boardmember Wilson said he was pleased with the responsiveness of the applicant to the Board's requests, particularly the elimination of the third floor bedroom and the decreased floor area. He described the h~ight increase as minor and supported the project as proposed. Boardmember Tollini urged the applicant to work with staff on a landscape agreement regarding the tree trimming. Planning Manager Watrous said that issues not related to the actual design are best addressed directly between property owners rather than including them as conditions of approval. Boardmember Tollini said that his only concern was the roof deck on top of the second story, noting that such decks have historically been discouraged. He suggested a continuance to better evaluate the roof deck for potential privacy concerns. Boardmember Chong noted that he adamantly opposed the previous design and said that this is definitely an improvement. He stated that the increase above the original roofline is not significant and the current proposal was a lot less intrusive than the original design. He felt the roof deck was not a concern as it would be distant from other properties and such decks are not used as often as other decks. TffiURON D.R.B. MINUTES #17 11/20/08 2 ACTION: It was MIS (Wilson/Chong) that the project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act and approved the project subject to the attached conditions of approval. Vote: 2-1. (Tollini voted no). E. NEW BUSINESS BEFORE THE BOARD 2. 5005 PARADISE DRIVE CHROMAN, ADDITIONSN ARIANCE/FLOOR AREA EXCEPTION 5005 PARADISE DRIVE LOT SIZE FLOOR AREA LOT COVERAGE BUILDING HEIGHT SIDE YARDS FRONT YARD REAR YARD V ARIANCES/EXCEPTION SUSAN AND LARRY CHROMAN EXISTING PROPOSED REQUIRED 24,545 S.F. NA NA 4,090 4,818 4,455 MAX 14.6% 14.6% 15.0% MAX 25' 25' 30' MAX 11' & 22'7" 11' & 22'7" 15' 35' 35' 30' 36' 36' 25' REDUCED SIDE YARD SETBACK AND FLOOR AREA EXCEPTION The applicant is requesting Design Review approval for the construction of an addition and alterations to an existing single-family dwelling located at 5005 Paradise Drive. The addition would include converting the existing basement into a bedroom, bathroom and multimedia room. Additional windows would be added along the areas of the basement that extend above grade. The calculated floor area, on the site would increase by 728 square feet to a total of 4,818 square feet. The maximum allowed floor area is 4,455 square feet. The proposed total square footage exceeds the maximum allowed floor area therefore; a floor area exception is requested. A variance is also requested for a reduced side yard setback. Joseph Ney, designer, said that the remodel includes a bathrooln, multimedia room, and bedroom in the existing lower level. He said that this level is partially underground and is not visible from the neighbor's yard. He said they are asking for an exception of 364 square feet and that the addition is completely within the existing footprint of the building. There was no public comment. Boardmember Tollini believed the request was more or less finishing of a basement and he believed the exterior window placement fit nicely with the house. He agreed with the staff report recommendation regarding the findings for the requested variance. Boardmember Wilson and Chong agreed and noted that there would be minimal impact to neighbors. TffiURON D.R.B. MINUTES #17 11/20/08 3 ACTION: It was MIS (Tollini/Chong) that the project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act and approved the project subject to the attached conditions of approval. Vote: 3-0. 3. 106 MT. TIBURON ROAD EXCEPTION NILES, NEW DWELLING/FLOOR AREA 106 MT. TIBURON ROAD LOT SIZE FLOOR AREA LOT COVERAGE BUILDING HEIGHT SIDE YARDS FRONT YARD REAR YARD V ARIANCES/EXCEPTION JENNIFER AND DAN NILES EXISTING PROPOSED REQUIRED 63,168 S.F. NA NA 8,010 8,334 8,000 MAX 9.7% 10.0% 15.0% MAX 31 '6" 30' 30~ MAX 84'&2r5'~ 63'&21'5" 20' 59' 59' 30' 89~ 89' 25' FLOOR AREA EXCPETION Chair Doyle arrived to the meeting. The applicant has submitted a request for construction of a new single-family dwelling on the property located at 106 Mt. Tiburon Road. Currently a single-family dwelling occupies the property. The proposal calls for the demolition of more than 50% the existing walls of the home. By demolishing more than 50% of the structure, the project is therefore classified as "new construction." The proposed. structure would create a gross floor area of 8,334 square feet, which is more than the pvrmitted floor area for a parcel of this size (8,000 sq. ft.). Therefore, a floor area exception is required. Daniel Piechota, architect, said the house has been added onto over the years and has different qualities on either side. He said that the house is surrounded by trees and does not impact neighbors. He stated that the owners wanted to create a larger master bedroom, reconfigure the kitchen, and add landscaping. He said that the proposal would eliminate the existing entry and tower and replace it with a master bedroom and the addition would be lower than the existing structure. The public hearing was opened. Bob Gloger said that he would be most impacted by the project but he has no objection to the project. He wanted to get a sense of the length of work, weekend work, and proposed start and end time. Chair Doyle said the Design Review Board could not dictate those items, and suggested that Mr. Gloger work with the owner on these issues. The public hearing was closed. TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES #17 11/20/08 4 Boardmember Wilson said that the project looks like two different houses but he supported the proposal as is. Boardmembers Tollini stated that this was a great design and said that this is a neighborhood of big homes. Boardmember Chong agreed and noted that this is a secluded piece of land the changes fit with the property. Chair Doyle agreed with the staff findings for the floor area exception. ACTION: It was MIS (Chong/Tollini) that the project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act and approved the project subject to the attached conditions of approval. Vote: 4-0. 4. 16 VENUS COURT PERPER/RAIcHE, NEW DWELLING 16 VENUS COURT LOT SIZE FLOOR AREA LOT COVERAGE BUILDING HEIGHT SIDE YARDS FRONT YARD REAR YARD V ARIANCES/EXCEPTION ALLEN PERPER AND JANET RAICHE EXISTING PROPOSED REQUIRED 11,210 S.F. NA NA 1,693 3,207 3,121 MAX 18.5% 26.4% 30.0% MAX 13' 24' 30' MAX 8' & 8' 8' & 8' 8' 15' 15' 15' 25' 25' 25' NONE Boardmember Tollini recused himself from this item. The applicant has submitted a request to construct a new single-family dwelling on the property located at 16 Venus Court. Currently the property is improved with a single-family dwelling. The applicant is requesting to demolish over 50% of the existing walls of the structure. By demolishing more than 50% of the structure, the project is therefore classified as "new construction." The existing dwelling is a single-story structure and would undergo an extensive interior remodel as part of the project. A new partial second story would be constructed to relocate the master bedroom suite up from the lower level. Allen Perper, owner, said they have presented sketches to neighbors and tried to come up with something that fits into the neighborhood. Michael Heckmann, architect, described the design process that responded to neighbor concerns and they are now confident that they have developed a solution that does not negatively impact the neighbor's property. He said that the additions are all toward the street and the remainder of the footprint would be the same as it is currently. He said that the upper story would be the TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES #17 11120108 5 master suite and there are good setbacks on all four sides. He stated that they also plan to do some landscaping in front of the house, but it was not yet fully developed. The public hearing was opened. Rebecca Elson noted when the owner first proposed the addition they had serious concerns, and the architect has Inade changes. They have recently renovated their own home and are concerned about the projecf s impact on their home. She was concerned about the loss of privacy in their bathroom and she proposed putting a frosted glass rather than clear glass on her own bathroom window. She asked that the fence between the two properties be replaced. She said that she would like to see more landscaping in front of the property to create more of a separation between their living room and the house. She also requested a temporary construction fence in that area to mitigate construction noise and dust. Mr. Perper said he received the letter expressing these four concerns today at noon. He agreed to build the fence and to work with neighbors on the landscaping. He was more concerned about replacing Ms. Elson's bathroom window, and alternatively suggested placing film on the window to create privacy. Planning Manager Watrous noted that the Board could not approve work be done on another owner's house. Chair Doyle asked if a tree might provide better privacy screening than tinting or frosting windows. Mr. Heckmann responded that it might eliminate some light, but they are not opposed to a landscape solution. The public hearing was closed. Boardmember Chong requested a landscaping plan, and supported neighbors working together to address the privacy concerns. He felt that a continuance was appropriate to deal with these matters. Boardmember Wilson believed that the project was consistent with the neighborhood, as it would not have a large mass on top and it feels like it fits on the corner lot. He noted that most people do not have clear glass windows for their bathrooms. Chair Doyle said that he originally thought that the house was big for the lot, but he felt that the house would not be obtrusive for the neighbors. He thought that Ms. Elson's requests were reasonable felt that the applicant and the neighbors could work on the fence and window issues. He said that he would like to see a more detailed landscaping plan. ACTION: It was MIS (Wilson/Chong) that the project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act and approved the project subject to the attached conditions of approval, and with the additional condition of approval requiring that a landscape plan be submitted for a staff level design review. Vote: 3-0 (Tollini recused). Boardmember Tollini returned to the meeting. TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES #17 11/20/08 6 5. 661 HILARY DRIVE GRASSO, NEW DWELLINGN ARIANCES 661 HILARY DRIVE LOT SIZE FLOOR AREA LOT COVERAGE BUILDING HEIGHT SIDE YARDS FRONT YARD REAR YARD V ARIANCES/EXCEPTION JOSEPH AND VICTORIA GRASSO EXISTING PROPOSED REQUIRED 21,852 S.F. NA NA 3,607 3,799 4,185 MAX 14.9% 15.9% 30.0% MAX 23 '2" 20'3'~ 30' MAX 6~3" & 5~4" 6'3'~ & 5~4" 8' 244' 244' 15' 29' 29' 25' REDUCED SIDE YARD SETBACKS The applicant is requesting Design Review approval for the construction of additions to an existing two-story single-family dwelling on property located at 661 Hilary Drive. As more than 50% of the existing house would be demolished as part of this project, the application has been deemed to be a request to construct a new single-fatuily dwelling. The proposed project would increase the size of the house from 3,607 square feet to a total floor area of 3,799 square feet, which is less than the floor area ratio for a lot of this size. The proposed additions would also increase the lot coverage of this property by 223 square feet to a total of 3,480 square feet (15.9%), which is less than the 30.0% maximum lot coverage permitted in the R-1 zone. Variances are requested for reduced side yard setbacks. Jared Polsky, architect, said the project goal is to create a more interesting and comfortable contemporary home. He said that this was not a major expansion and would encompass only 192 feet of new floor area. He said that the house would be slightly lower than the existing roof peaks. He said that there'is currently a triangular space built seven feet into the setback that would be reduced to a four foot setback. He said that the owners have met with the neighbors to discuss the plans and one neighbor said the kitchen window was overly large, so they have agreed to change it to a design that neighbor is now comfortable with. He said that another neighbor is concerned there will be light pollution into her windows, but he said that lighting would be low and not glaring. Victoria Grasso, owner, said they have lived in the house for 25 years and have met with almost all of their neighbors to discuss the plans. She said that that have changed window locations and agreed to install blackout shades on some of the windows to block out any light. The public hearing was opened. Jim Hannum said he lives on the west side of the property and that the two homes are very close in proximity, but a lot has been done to screen both homes over the years. He said that the project includes an enlarged deck that could create privacy problems. He said that although the height of the roofis going down, the wall near their house would go up two or three feet. He would appreciate anything that can be done to mitigate impact of lighting on their house. He felt TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES #17 11/20/08 7 that the placement of the air conditioner compressor is too close to his house, and would appreciate moving it to another location. Michael Heckmann said that he was contacted by Jane Mercer to assist with preserving privacy and light pollution impacts to her home. Mr. Heckmann presented sketches to show how the two properties are juxtapositioned. He said that she is concerned about the level of light emitted from the house at night. He said that her kitchen view would be impacted by windows from the new house's wall and that the entire property is visible from the master bedroom and the upper bedroom. He stated that the privacy of both parties would be severely compromised with the amount of windows on the wall facing her property. Mr. Polsky said Ms. Grasso intends to have shades on the windows to address the privacy problem. He said that the tall windows were an important part of the design and should not be compromised. Boardmember Tollini asked ifMr. Polsky could address the location of the air compressor. Mr. Polsky stated that new compressors are much quieter but agreed that it could be relocated. Chair Doyle referred to the five rear windows that would be 10 feet high and 23 feet wide. He said that although this looks great from a design perspective, the amount of light coming out of them would be tremendous. He suggested a trellis or awning to shield the windows of the house from above. Mr. Polsky said that this was a good suggestion and proposed a metal trellis to go out three or four feet to cut the view angle toward the windows. Chair Doyle asked about the front deck. Mr. Polsky said that the owners wanted to extend the deck fully across the garage roof in that comer and their intention is to have a landscaped nook off of the master bath, nO,t a deck to look over the neighbors. Chair Doyle asked if there was anything that could be done to create more open design for the deck, such as using glass. Mr. Polsky said it would not be his first choice, but they would do it if necessary for the Board's approval. Boardmember Chong asked if Mr. Hannum was concerned with increased mass or privacy with the deck, and Mr. Hannum said both. Boardmember Chong questioned if a solution might be the sides made of glass panels. Mr. Hannum believed this would be better, but they would still be looking right at it from their house. The public hearing was closed. Boardmember Tollini believed the design was great but he felt that there were still a few of the neighbors' concerns to be worked out. He said a trellis along the top of the rear windows would help solve the light pollution problem. He thought that the west side was a tougher problem and he felt that perhaps a landscaping screen would help provide a buffer. Boardmember Wilson believed it is a challenging site and impacts a lot of people. He said that he visited the site and Ms. Mercer's house. He said that there is a severe grade difference to the TffiURON D.R.B. MINUTES #17 11/20/08 8 rear between the two houses and he was unsure who controls the hedge between the two homes. He agreed that the air conditioning compressor would iInpact the neighbor and he questioned why the east side of the house needs to be situated within the side yard setback. Boardmember Chong said he really liked the modern design and he would hate to see the rear windows minimized. He said that there is an opportunity for a trellis or other solution to minimize light impact to neighbor. He said that he would also like to see a softening of the mass of the front comer. Chair Doyle believed is a great design and he liked that the roof was being brought down instead of up. He requested that the air conditioner compressor be moved away from the neighbor's property, that the east side windows be reduced and a different treatment for the deck off of the bathroom to minimize its effect on the neighbor. He said that th~ house needed more relief when viewed from the side and he also wanted to see a plan showing what would be done with an awning or trellis for the rear windows. ACTION: It was MIS (Tollini/Wilson) to continue the application to the December 18,2008 meeting. Vote: 4-0. 6. 22 MERCURY AVENUE DIBBLE, NEW DWELLING 22 MERCURY A VENUE LOT SIZE FLOOR AREA LOT COVERAGE BUILDING HEIGHT SIDE YARDS FRONT YARD REAR YARD V ARIANCES/EXCEPTION JENNIFER AND SAM DIBBLE EXISTING PROPOSED REQUIRED 7,884 S.F. NA NA 1,650 2,777 2,788 MAX 27.4% 26.9% 30.0% MAX 14'3" 26'S" 30' MAX 8' 5" & 5' 3 " 12' 7" & 8' 1 " 8 ' 22' 15' 15' 34' 40' 25' NONE The applicant is requesting Design Review approval for the construction of a new two-story single-family dwelling on property located at 22 Mercury Avenue. The subject property is currently developed with a one-story residence that would be demolished as part of this project. The main level of the proposed house would include a living room, family room, kitchen, dining room, laundry room and one half-bathroom. The upper level would include a master bedroom suite along with three additional bedrooms and two bathrooms. The floor area of the proposed house would be 2,777 square feet, which is 11 square feet less than the maximum floor area permitted for a lot of this size. The proposed house would cover 2,118 square feet (26.9%) of the site, which is less than the 30.0% maximum lot coverage permitted in the R-l zone. Samuel Dibble, owner, said that the Belveron neighborhood is relatively flat and there are a lot of kids. He wanted to take advantage of the open space on their property and pull the house as far away from neighbors as possible. He said that the footprint of the house would be smaller TIBURON n.R.B. MINUTES #17 11/20/08 9 than it is now, with larger setbacks. He said that they have been meeting with neighbors since before any drawings were done. He said that they wanted a larger house to accommodate two adults and two children. He said that they also wanted to have the master bedroom on the satne floor as their kids~ bedrooms. The public hearing was opened. Jeff Boris said that the proposed house would look directly into the back of their house, even at one story. He said that the story poles make it evident that the house would impact their privacy, and block the view of the sky out of the third bedroom and sunroom. He stated that he would not be able to view the sunset from half of the house and this would create mold and dampness problems on that side of the house. He voiced concern that the house would create a wind tunnel, noting that they have lost trees and a fence on that side of the house in previous windstorms. He said that the size and scope of the home was overbearing. Ann Lettrich said the Dibbles reviewed the plans with her, but when the story poles went up, the size and height of the structure was more apparent. She said she would lose a lot of sunlight on her property and privacy on her deck would be violated. Rodney McCleod said that he is not against the second story, but believed the house was enormous and would totally blanks out his view of the hills. He suggested a redesign of the house so that it would not impact the neighbors as much. N abil Halawa said the two-story house would block views on two sides from his house. He felt that the house was too massive with four bedrooms on top. He said that he did not want to take away the owners ~ dream, but would like to see the house redesigned with some of the bedrooms downstairs to reduce the mass of the second story and to lessen impacts on the neighbors. , Mr. Dibble addressed some of the neighbors' concerns, noting that Mr. Boris' property is directly to the south and so there would be no chance of blocking his light or sunsets. He said there are houses that have added a second story in their neighborhood, and in fact, plans were approved in 2001 to add a second story for this property. He said that they have included some stylistic elements to reduce the appearance of the second story. He said that some of the light and view issues would be there even with a one-story house. He said they were trying to create more space around the house to try to address neighbors ~ concerns. Chair Doyle asked about the height of the proposed ceilings. Mr. Dibble said his family is tall and that is the practical reason for having 10 foot ceilings. Chair Doyle noted that the scale of the second story and height of the house feel out of character with the neighborhood, noting that most houses in the neighborhood have 8 foot ceilings. Mr. Dibble said the houses that have two stories in the neighborhood are 23 feet high and they are requesting a house that would be a few feet above that. Boardmember Wilson asked about the roof deck. Mr. Dibble said the neighbors requested the master bedroom in the back and they added a deck. He said it could be scaled back if that is necessary for approval. TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES #17 11/20108 10 The public hearing was closed. Boardmember Wilson said this is a challenging neighborhood, and the way the back yards come together ilnpacts quite a few neighbors. He said that although there are other two-story homes in the neighborhood some abut open space. He felt that the house would have too much mass upstairs and looks top-heavy. He was unsure whether the top deck would cause privacy problems. He wondered if any of the bedrooms could be brought downstairs, perhaps into the location of the formal dining room. He believed that the project needed some compromise on many different levels and he was inclined to vote against it. Boardmember Tollini agreed with Boardmember Wilson~s comments and stated that the project does not fit into the neighborhood. He said that the 10 foot tall ceilings were higher than necessary. He said that one of the recurrent themes among neighbors is that they are often conceptually okay with a project until they see the story poles. He said that he did not object to a second story, but felt that the house was top-heavy and the overall height needed to be reduced. He felt it is difficult to fit 4 bedrooms and 3 full baths on a second story without creating a large mass, and suggested some way to move some of that floor area downstairs. Boardmember Chong said the neighborhood consist mostly of one-story houses. He cited the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance which states that in neighborhoods consisting primarily of one-story homes, second stories should be discouraged. He noted that there were other tow-story homes near the house at 16 Venus Court, but this lot was situated in the flat part of the neighborhood. He said that he would be hard pressed to approve a second story and it would need to be a fraction of the size of the proposed second story for him to approve it. Chair Doyle said he liked the design and the reasons the applicant is proposing it, but he did not like this house at this loc~tion. He said that the house feels out of place in the neighborhood and would work better if the lower level was expanded and some of the mass were taken off the second story. He said the houses in the neighborhood that have second stories are more articulated and not as top heavy and he suggested something similar be considered. ACTION: It was MIS (Wilson/Chong) to continue the application to the December 18,2008 meeting. Vote: 4-0. 7. 55 MT. TIBURON ROAD FAIDI, NEW SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLINGI V ARIANCEIFLOOR AREA EXCEPTION - WITHDRAWN F. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF THE 11/6/08 DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MEETING No changes were requested by the Board. ACTION: It was MIS (Doyle/Tollini) to approve the minutes of the November 6,2008 meeting as written. Vote: 4-0. TIBURON n.R.B. MINUTES #17 11/20108 11 G. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 9:20 p.m. TIBURON n.R.B. MINUTES #17 11120/08 12 L-() ACTION MINUTES #18 (JIG ~.s.,.. TIBURON DESIGN REVIEW BOARD THURSDAY, DECEMBER 4, 2008 1505 TIBURON BOULEVARD A. ROLL CALL: Present - Chair Doyle, Boardmembers Chong, Tollini and Wilson Absent - Boardmember Glassner Ex-Officio - Planning Manager Watrous, Assistant Planner Phillips and Minutes Clerk Rusting B. PUBLIC COMMENTS (FOR ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA) C. STAFF BRIEFING D. CONSENT CALENDAR 1. 2. 1 Main Street 9 Main Street Caffe Acri Servino Ristorante Sign Permit CONTINUED TO 2/5/09 Sign Permit CONTINUED TO 2/5/09 E. NEW BUSINESS BEFORE THE BOARD 3. 4. 5035 Paradise Drive Marsh 1865 Mountain View Drive Pearce/Grant New Dwelling CONTINUED TO 1/15/09 New Single-Family Dwelling WITHDRA WN F. MINUTES OF THE 11/20/08 DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MEETING - APPROVED G. ADJOURNMENT - 7:55 P.M. TOWN OF TIBURON Tiburon Town Hall 1505 Tiburon Boulevard Tiburon, CA 94920 / S. Regular Meeting Tiburon Planning Commission December 10,2008 -7:30 PM AGENDA 4().~. ~~r TIBURON PLANNING COMMISSION CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL Chairman O'Donnell, Vice Chairman Kunzweiler, Commissioner Corcoran, Commissioner Fraser, Commissioner Frymier ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Persons wishing to address the Planning Commission on any subject not on the agenda may do so under this portion of the agenda. Please note that the Planning Commission is not able to undertake extended discussion, or take action on, items that do not appear on this agenda. Matters requiring action will be referred to Town Staff for consideration and/or placed on a future Planning Commission agenda. Please limit your comments to no more than three (3) minutes. Testimony regarding matters not on the agenda will not be considered part of the administrative record. COMMISSION AND STAFF BRIEFING Commission and Committee Reports Director's Report PUBLIC HEARING 1. 2000 PARADISE DRIVE: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT; APPLICATION TO REPLACE AN EXISTING RESTAURANT BUILDING (THE CAPRICE) WITH A NEW RESTAURANT BUILDING; FILE #10707; Point Tiburon Plaza, Inc., Owner; Hank Bruce Architects, Applicant; Assessor's Parcel No. 059-172-46 [DW] MINUTES 2. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - Regular Meeting of October 10, 2008 ADJOURNMENT a121008 Tiburon Planning Commission December 10, 2008 Page 1 GENERAL PUBLIC INFORMATION 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 Planning Division Secretary at (415) 435-7390. 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 Planning Commission Agendas, Staff Reports, and supporting data are available for viewing and inspection at Town Hall and at the Belvedere-Tiburon Library located adjacent to Town Hall. Agendas and Staff Reports are also available on the Tiburon website (www.ci.tiburon.ca.us) after 5:00 PM on the Friday prior to the regularly scheduled meeting. Any documents produced by the Town and distributed to a majority of the Planning Commission regarding any item on this agenda, including agenda-related documents produced by the Town after distribution of the agenda packet 72 hours in advance of the Commission meeting, will be available for public inspection at Town Hall, 1505 Tiburon Boulevard, Tiburon, CA 94920. Upon request, the Town will provide written agenda materials in appropriate alternative formats, or disability-related modification or accommodation, including auxiliary aids or services, to enable individuals with disabilities to participate in public meetings. Please deliver or cause to be delivered a written request (including your name, mailing address, phone number and brief description of the requested materials and preferred alternative format or auxiliary aid or service) at least 5 days before the meeting to the Planning Division Secretary at the above address. PUBLIC HEARINGS AND DISCUSSION ITEMS Public Hearings and Discussion Items provide the general public and interested parties an opportunity to give testimony on items typically involving an action or decision of the Commission. If you challenge any decision in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the Public Hearing, or in written cdfrespondence delivered to the Planning Commission at, or prior to, the Public Hearing. GUIDELINES FOR TIME LIMITS ON PRESENTATIONS AND PUBLIC TESTIMONY The Planning Commission's general meeting procedure and time limit guidelines are as follows: .:. Planning Division Staff Report - 5 to 10 minutes .:. Planning Commission questions to staff .:. Applicant's presentation - 10 to 20 minutes .:. Public Testimony (depending on the number of speakers) - 3 to 5 minutes for each speaker. Members of the audience may not allocate their testimony time to other speakers. .:. Time limits and procedures may be modified in the reasonable discretion of the Chairman. Interested members of the public may speak on any item on the agenda TIMING OF ITEMS ON AGENDA While the Planning Commission attempts to hear all items in order as stated on the agenda, it reserves the right to take items out of order. No set times are assigned to items appearing on the Planning Commission agenda. NOTE: ALL PLANNING COMMISSION MEETINGS ARE AUDIO RECORDED Tiburon Planning Commission December 10, 2008 Page 2 ro~ biG ~a u~ NOTICE OF MEETING CANCELLA TION The regular Town Council Meeting scheduled for December 17,2008 has been cancelled. THE NEXT REGULAR MEETING will be on WEDNESDAY, January 7,2009, in the Town Council Chambers located at 1505 Tiburon Boulevard, Tiburon CA 94920. ~c:~. - DIANE CRANE IACOPI, TOWN CLERK Posted at Town Hall cc: The Ark and Marin Independent Journal THE TOWN OF CORTE lvIADERA ,\L\RIN COUNTY CAI.IFORNIA 300 TAMALPAIS DRIVE CORTE MADERA, CA 94925-1418 www.cLcorte-madera.ca.llS TOWN MANAGER TOWN COUNCIL 415-927-5050 TOWN CLERK 415-927-5086 FINANCE I Bus. LICENSE 415-927-5055 FIRE DEPARTMENT 415-927-5077 PLANNING I ZONING 415-927-5064 BUILDING INSPECTOR 415-927-5062 TOWN ENGINEER PUBLIC WORKS 415-927-5057 RECREATION DEPARTMENT 415-927-5072 SANITARY DISTRICT NO.2 415-927-5057 TWIN CITIES POLICE AUTHORITY 415-927-5150 DIGEST CORTE MADERA TOWN COUNCIL REORGANIZATION DECEMBER 2, 2008 Mayor John Dupar 22 Edgemar Duparl g@aol.con1 924-6426 Vice-Mayor Carla Condon 5132 Paradise Drive 435-4380 Condon94925@Yahoo.Com Councilmembers Alexandra Cock 33 Harbor Drive 250-3008 AlexandraH C((i~col11cast.net Michael Lappert 459 Redwood Ave. 927-7016 Michael@Lapperts.com Bob Ravasio 427 Oakdale Ave Bobravasio@comcast.net Town Manager David Bracken 927-5050 Mailing Address Town of Corte Madera 300 Tamalpais Drive Corte Madera, CA 94925 Email: administration@ci.corte-madera.ca.us RECEIVED DEe - 5 2008 4, i TOWN MANAGERS OFFICE TOWN OF TIBURON 11/09 11/09 11/11 11/09 11/11 Fax for all of the above: 927-5087 Y:\Oflice\ Wpwin \MANUALS\COUNCIL.doc (J '., I MARIN COUN1Y Ibl!::Sr ~ !i ..--. ~ COMMUNI1Y Df;Vf;LOPMf;NT AGI;NCY ~~.~~ BRIAN C. CRA'WmRD, DIRf;CTOR .. ........{ t) NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING MARIN COUNTY CODE TITLES 201 (INTERIM) AND 22 (DEVELOPMENT CODE) AMENDMENTS NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Marin County Board of Supervisors will hold a public hearing to consider a County-initiated amendment to Marin County Code Title 221 (Interi,m) and Title 22 (Development Code) to shorten the terms of office for all incumbent Planning Commissioners by five months in order to provide for a one-time transition to the terms of office from being based on a fiscal year calendar (starting on July 2) to a term that would start on February 1 and end on January 31 four years later (for District-based commissioner appointments) and two years later (for at-large commissioner appointments). The proposed amendments would also clarify that the two- and four- year terms would be extended until the successor commissioner is appointed by the Board of Supervisors. These amendments would be consistent with the terms of office contained in the proposed Planning Commission Bylaws, which has been scheduled for concurrent consideration by the Board of Supervisors. Copies of the proposed amendments may be obtained from the Marin County Community Development Agency Planning Division, 3501 Civic Center Drive, Room 308, San Rafael, between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m., Monday through Friday (excluding holidays). . The proposed project is not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act because it does not meet the requirements for a "project" pursuant to Sections 15378(a) and 15378(b)(2) of the CEQA Guidelines. NOTICE IS HEREBY FURl:HER GIVEN that said public hearing will be held at the regular meeting of the Marin County Board of Supervisors on Tuesday, December 9, 2008, in the Board of Supervisors Chambers (Room #330 - Administration Building), Civic Center, San Rafael, California, at the hour of 10:00 a.m. or later. Any interested party may appear and be heard at this time. Please call the Community Development Agency - Planning Division, at (415) 499-6269 on the Friday before the scheduled meeting to obtain a copy of the staff report, or visit out website at http://www.co.marin.ca.us/efiles/BS/AoMn/cvbaonda.htm. Written material for tt~e Board of Supervisors should be submitted to the Community Development Agency at least 10 days prior to the meeting date so that it can be distributed and considered by the Board of Supervisors with the staff report. Any written material submitted after this date will be distributed to the Board of Supervisors prior to or at the meeting. NOTICE IS HEREBY FURTHER GIVEN that if you challenge the action on this project in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the Community Development Agency - Planning Division at, or prior, to, the public hearing. (Government~od~5009(~)(2).) BRIAN C. CRAWFORD Thomas Lai Agency Director Deputy Director CurltkVpc admin/bylawsldevelopment code amendmentlbos-nt-12_ 09_ 08. doc 3501 Civic Cen-t:er Drive, Room 308 - San Rafael, CA 94Q03-4157 4154OQ-6'269 - +=ax 415-4Q9-7880 hHp:l / WW'<<f .co. marin.ca.us/ depts/CD/ main/index.cfm