Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutTC Digest 2009-08-28TOWN COUNCIL WEEKLY DIGEST Week of August 24 - 28, 2009 1. Letter - Marylyn/Peter Siewert - Abandonment of Hacienda Dr. to Wayne Family 2. Letter - Tom Stevens - Complaint about Tiburon Police Log in the Ark 3. Letter - Ivan/Donna Terry - Thanks to Officer Rob Dehner 4. Staff Report - Scott Anderson - Major Peninsula Development Project Status Agendas & Minutes 5. Minutes - Planning Commission - July 22, 2009 6. Minutes - Design Review Board - August 6, 2009 7. Action Minutes - Planning Commission - August 26, 2009 8. Agenda - Design Review Board - September 3, 2009 Regional a) Report - Water Emergency Transportation Authority - August 2009 b) Comcast California - Newsletter - July 2009 * c) Call for Nominations - Jas. Irvine Foundation Leadership Award Agendas & Minutes d) None * Council Only DIGEST I %D August 22, 2009 Ms. Ann Danforth, Attorney Town of Tiburon Ladies and Gentlemen: RECEIVED AUG 2 52009 TOWN W MANAGERS ICE TON OF TIBURON This letter is in regard to the abandonment of a portion of Hacienda Drive to the Wayne family. All though this has been a named road in the county of Marin before the incorporation of the town of Tiburon, the Town has unilaterally deemed it no longer Hacienda Drive but now has designated it a private driveway. We are one of the concerned neighbors on Hacienda who have been affected by the Town's recent settlement with the Waynes as it relates to the extinguishment of the easement to the open space. Since the Waynes have now incorporated part of the road as their private property, we along with many of our adjacent neighbors believe we are no longer responsible for any assessments related to either of the two undergrounding districts. We would like you to forward our letter to Jones Hall, bond counsel for an opinion with respect to our individual rights and obligations concerning the matter. Since the Town has deemed the road from the stone posts east as exclusive-private property, we no longer have a frontage on Hacienda Drive or connect to it in any way. We therefore have no responsibility for bond payment for this project. It should be noted that the wires to our home are already underground. We therefore request that we be removed from responsibility for bond payment since we no longer have legal frontage to Hacienda Drive. Thank you for your consideration, Marylyn and Peter Siewert 146 Hacienda Drive, Tiburon, California Cc: Tiburon Town Council Town Manager, Town of Tiburon DIGEST RECEIVED; AUG 2 7 2009 TO: The Ark, P.O. Box 1054, Tiburon, CA 94920 TOWN MANAGERS OFFICE FROM: Tom Stevens (Address withheld for fear that the police might suspect me of loitering in tR9 TIBURON house and decide to raid it) CC: Town of Tiburon; Tiburon Police Department DATE: August 27, 2009 RE: Tiburon Police Log column of the August 19, 2009 Ark An item in the August 19, 2009 Ark might have puzzled some readers. It refers to a police report about "a 60-year-old man with long gray hair" who was "suspected of loitering" because he had been talking on a pay phone for two hours without depositing any coins, and to whom a police officer therefore presented an "offer of a ride out of town." Some ambient facts might clarify this event. I was the perpetrator of the phone call. The police report neglects to mention that the officer insisted on the call being abruptly suspended because of "police business." That insistence was overbearing and, under any constitutionally permissible theory of law, illegal. The not particularly recondite fact is that I was using a calling card. Calling cards have been around since well before my hair turned gray. Their use shouldn't alarm anyone, let alone police officers. If non- deposit of coins was the problem, the officer could have simply asked me how I was paying for the call and disposed of the matter in a few seconds. Instead, he interdicted the call and wasted about twenty minutes conducting an unpleasant interrogation on various irrelevant topics, an interrogation I certainly didn't feel free to walk away from. Absent the pretext of non-deposit of coins, the only possible explanation for the police intrusion is "telephoning while long-haired." With perhaps an enhancement for grayness. What sort of training are Tiburon officers receiving? What sort of policies is the Town of Tiburon developing? The algorithm of police officers disliking something about the appearance of various people, inventing preposterous reasons to suspect them of doing something wrongful, and offering them rides out of town doesn't qualify as community service. Especially if the officer is armed with a club and a gun and has two similarly armed gang members standing nearby. All across the country, police attacks on disfavored people are becoming as frequent and pernicious as they were before the radical civil rights movement of the sixties and the seventies brought about certain safeguards. This particular police attack was, although frightening, relatively innocuous. (Unless it was the iceberg tip of some demented vendetta, which I certainly hope it wasn't.) But an incident like this is the kind of thing that happens under fascism, not under a democracy ruled by law. And as Locke wrote, "Where law ends, tyranny begins." It has been observed before, but not often enough, that fascism is like a forest fire: the time to stop it is when it starts, not after it has become an uncontrollable conflagration. As we used to say back in the old days, support your local police but keep them honest. Tom Stevens 6134 Wood Dri ve, Oakland, California 94611, August 21, 2009 DIGEST Supervisor Michael Cronin 3% Tiburon Police Force, COPY 1155 Tiburon Blvd, Tiburon, Ca. 94920 Dear Supervisor Cronin, This letter is from my husband and me to tell you about the responsible help and kindness an officer on your staff gave to us Monday nite, August 17. Some very late work was being conducted on the highway as we left Belvedere and before you get to #101. We were the first car to lead a line of cars stopped until the one-way passage was open to our side. Something must have fallen from the working truck in front of us, and our front tire immediately collapsed when hitting it. It was about eleven p.m., and we were stranded. My husband is a relatively healthy eighty-three, and I am eighty, our fellow passenger has a health problem.,and none of us could do anything about the tire. just then, Officer Rob Dehner spotted us and immediately came to our rescue calling AAA for us. Unfortunately it was close to an hour before they appeared. Officer Dehner stayed with us. We couldn't risk getting back in the car as it was listing. It was chilly and windy, and cars were streaking by (but slowing instantly when they saw the officer's car). When we think of what could have happened to us being so vulnerable (and perhaps a bit older looking also) if the wrong type person would have stopped to "help us," I shudder to know how we would have handled it. We just wanted you to know what a fine, outstanding officer we think you have on your staff. Sincerely, U- Mr. and Mrs. Ivan and Donna Terry Date: To: From: Subject TOWN OF TIBURON 1505 Tiburon Boulevard 40A Tiburon CA 94920 . August 20, 2009 Mayor & Members of the Town Council, Planning Commission & Design Review Board Scott Anderson, Director of Community Development' Major Peninsula Development Project Status Update The following is a status report on major development applications on the Tiburon Peninsula. Applications currently being processed or in the stages of pre-submittal in the Town of Tiburon are as follows: • Achuck (formerly Amerippon/Parente Vista): 10 acres off Antonette Road • Tiburon Glen (a.k.a. Xanadu): 3 lots proposed on 26 acres off Paradise Drive • Ling (a.k.a. Stony Hill Development): 5.6 acres off Stony Hill Road • Kol Shofar Synagogue Expansion, 215 Blackfield Drive • Alta Robles (a.k.a. S.O.D.A./Rabin): 52+ acres above Paradise Drive near Seafirth Estates • Tiburon Court (a.k.a. Upper Trestle Glen): 3 homes on 13 acres of Trestle Glen Blvd. • Lower Trestle Glen: 14 acres off Trestle Glen Boulevard near Tiburon Blvd. • Belvedere-Tiburon Library Expansion • Harbor Light Building • Paradise Drive Prezoning In addition, several development applications are currently being processed or were recently being processed by the County of Marin Community Development Agency for large properties on the Tiburon Peninsula that are not within the Town of Tiburon's corporate limits. These projects are as follows: • Easton Point (a.k.a. Martha Company): 43 units proposed on 110 acres • Sorokko: 5 lots proposed on 16 acres below Paradise Drive near Seafirth Estates • Salvatore-Swahn: 1 home and a secondary dwelling unit proposed on 15 acres near Bluff Point • Pan Pacific Ocean (a.k.a. Habitat for Humanity): 7 units proposed on 17 acres above Bay Vista Drive near North Knoll Road • Paradise Cay North: 31 residential units and an expanded marina and new yacht club This report summarizes the current status of the above-listed applications. A map showing the general project locations is attached as Exhibit 1. Lf I* Status of Projects being (or to be) processed by the Town of Tiburon Achuck (formerly Amerippon/Parente Vista)----10 acres off Antonette Drive In 2004, the Town Council certified an EIR for this property based upon a 5-lot project. The EIR found significant unavoidable impacts would result from that project design. The applicants then submitted a re-designed and scaled-back plan calling for four (4) homes. The property was purchased by a new owner who has submitted revised drawings for two (2) homes on the site. The Planning Commission reviewed the project in April, 2009 and requested redesign of certain elements in order to lessen the scale of the proposal and pull elements away from the ridgeline on the site. The applicant has requested several continuances since that time. The project is currently scheduled to return to the Planning Commission in October 2009. Town Project Planner: Dan Watrous Tiburon Glen (a.k.a. Xanadu) 26 acres off Paradise Drive near Norman Way The Town Council approved a Precise Development Plan for three (3) homes on this site in April 2006 and a Tentative Subdivision Map application was approved in March 2007. Off-site tree mitigation plans were approved by the Town Council in 2008. The applicant has submitted the Parcel Map application and Subdivision Improvement Drawings, including the off-site tree replacement/invasive plant species mitigation work. This application is currently incomplete. Town Project Planner: Scott Anderson Ling (a.k.a. Stony Hill Development)----5 lots on 5.6 acres at the end of Stony Hill Road A Precise Development Plan application for three (3) lots was approved by the Town Council in March 2008, and is valid for three years. A Tentative Subdivision Map application has been filed and deemed complete and will be considered by the Planning Commission in September, 2009. Town Project Planner: Dan Watrous Kol Shofar Synago uu e Expansion Building permits have been issued for this project and the project is under construction. Town Project Planner: Dan Watrous Alta Robles (a.k.a. Rabin/SOD& 13 new homes on 52+ acres above Paradise Drive near Seafirth Estates In March 2007, applications for prezoning and Precise Development Plan were filed for 14 new homes on the 50-acre property. The draft Environmental Impact Report has been released for public review and comment, with public hearings beginning in September, 2009. Town Project Planner: Contract Planner Diane Henderson & Scott Anderson I~ Tiburon Court (a.k.a. Upper Trestle Glen): 3 homes on 13 acres of Trestle Glen Blvd. The Town has approved subdivision applications for this project. Economic difficulties have delayed the start of subdivision improvements and there is no known timetable for the commencement of work on the site. Town Project Planner: Scott Anderson Lower Trestle Glen: 3 homes on 14 acres off Trestle Glen Blvd near Tiburon Blvd. The owner of this property filed a Precise Development Plan for three (3) homes on this site in December, 2008. The drawing showed one home of Trestle Glen Boulevard, deriving access from a new driveway that would form a 4-way intersection at Juno Road and Trestle Glen Boulevard, and two homes served by an extension of Silverado Drive from the Little Reed Heights subdivision. The application remains incomplete. Belvedere-Tiburon Public Library Expansion In December 2008, the Library Agency submitted applications for an approximately 18,000 square foot addition to the existing Belvedere-Tiburon Public Library. The Environmental Impact Report for the project is being prepared at this time. Town Project Planner: Scott Anderson Harbor Light Building Replacement, 20/22 Main Street This 2,950 square foot project is now under construction and is being framed. Town Project Planner: Laurie Tyler Paradise Drive Prezoning Applications The Town received applications filed by nine property owners in the Old Tiburon and Paradise Drive unincorporated area for prezoning of their properties by the Town. The Planning Commission designated for study a larger prezoning area encompassing approximately 85 assessor parcels and 230 acres of territory. In July, 2009, the Town Council approved the prezoning and associated General Plan Amendments. A lawsuit was subsequently filed against the Town and the project applicants by the owners of the Martha Company property. Town Project Planner: Scott Anderson Status of Projects being processed by the County of Marin Easton Point (a.k.a. Martha Company)-43 units on 110 acres at the southeastern end of the Peninsula The owners of this property filed applications for a 43-unit project in December 2008, subject to an amended Stipulated Judgment reached with the County of Marin in 2007. An EIR is currently being prepared by the County. County Project Planner: Contract Planner John Roberto Sorokko---- 5 lots proposed on 16 acres off Paradise Drive The Board of Supervisors approved this 5-lot project in October 2008. The Parcel Map has since been recorded. Subdivision improvements and individual design review applications for each home would follow. County Project Planner: Jeremy Tej erian Salvatore-Swahn 1 residence and a secondary dwelling unit on 15 acres off Paradise Drive A Design Review application was filed with Marin County in 2008 for a very large single family dwelling (approximately 16,000 sq. ft.) and a secondary dwelling unit and a detached guesthouse on this property. The Board of Supervisors recently heard an appeal of the environmental determination for the project and appears to have supported the location of the buildings associated with the project. A decision on the merits of the application has not yet been reached. County Project Planner: Jeremy Tejerian Pan Pacific Ocean (a.k.a. Habitat for Humanity)----7 homes on 17 acres above Bay Vista Drive Master Plan, Tentative Map and Precise Development Plan applications were filed with the County of Marin for this parcel some years ago, and have been revised numerous times. The plan proposes three (3) large homes near the upper reaches of the property (adjacent to the Tiburon Crest Subdivision at the end of Via Los Altos), and four small affordable units (sponsored by Habitat for Humanity) near the intersection of North Knoll Road and Eagle Rock Road. The project remains incomplete and appears to be dormant at this time. Paradise Cay North----31 homes (Tiburon Mist), a new yacht club building and an expanded marina at Paradise Cay This project has been under development since the 1990's. The new yacht club building and expanded marina are complete, as are all of the 12 attached single family homes. Some of the 19 detached single family homes have been completed, but construction on the remainder of the homes appears to have stalled recently. S: IPlanningLStaff Folders lsandersonMiscellaneous lproject status report tc 8-20-2009.doc co (D y (S. N 0 N O O v' ' W N O co co v to co N - r Q ° 14 w ° m v m m c o Cf) nmi a b w r -i A ~ . ° o 77 * :3 0 Q o 0 z d CD CD O ' CD G7 m =r z c~ m .~y D N O m 3 tr (a N 0 G r- ~ o C 0 d ~ p 0 7 o Y CD m CD m z n n (D `G ' r. 0 o O C m "I CO) 500"1 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES NO. 985 Jul 22 2009 Regular Meeting Town of Tiburon Council Chambers 1505 Tiburon Boulevard, Tiburon, California CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL: Chair Kunzweiler called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. Present: Chair Kunzweiler, Commissioners Corcoran, Fraser, and O'Donnell Absent: Commissioner Frymier Staff Present: Director of Community Development Anderson, Planning Manager Watrous and Minutes Clerk Levison ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None COMMISSION AND STAFF BRIEFING: Planning Manager Watrous stated that, aside from the Zoning Ordinance updates, there are no items scheduled for the regular meeting on August 12th. He noted that both Chair Kunzweiler and Commissioner O'Donnell will be absent that date. He asked the Commission to consider holding the meeting with a bare quorum or continuing the updates to the August 26th meeting. Chair Kunzweiler said he is not yet certain he will return by August 26th. Vice-Chair Fraser said he may be absent from that meeting, as well. Director of Community Development Anderson reported that the Town received the anticipated lawsuit resulting from the Town Council's recent pre-zoning action. The initial brief was filed by Hanson-Bridgett LLP on behalf of Martha Company. PUBLIC HEARING: 1. END OF PARENTE ROAD AND END OF ANTONETTE DRIVE: PRECISE DEVELOPMENT PLAN TO CREATE TWO BUILDING SITES ON A 10.2 ACRE PARCEL; FILE #30703; Lionel Achuck, Owner; Tom Newton Applicant; Assessor's Parcel No. 038-111-16 (Continued from June 10, 2009) CONTINUED TO AUGUST 26, 2009 2. COMPREHENSIVE REFORMATTING AND TEXT AMENDMENTS TO THE TIBURON ZONING ORDINANCE; FILE #MCA 2008-09; CONTINUED FROM JULY 8, 2009 TIBURON PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - JULY 22, 2009 MINUTES NO. 985 PAGE 1 At the June 24, 2009 Planning Commission meeting, the Commission began its review of the Town's update to the Tiburon Zoning Ordinance. At that time, the Commission reviewed all of Article I and part of Article II. The Commission reviewed the remainder of Article II at the July 8, 2009 meeting. The public hearing was continued, with staff directed to prepare summaries of Articles III, IV & V for the July 22 Planning Commission meeting. Commissioners provided various corrections and minor wording changes. They discussed the following sections in greater detail for the purpose of clarification and/or further amendment: ARTICLE III Section 16-30.030 - Setback Requirements and Exceptions Referring to Subsection E (1), Vice-Chair Fraser noted that the maximum height for accessory buildings located in the rear yard setback has been increased from 12 to 15 feet. He said the change is unnecessary and that even 3 feet can greatly increase the impacts on neighbors from a privacy and view standpoint. Commissioner Corcoran said the View Ordinance would still apply and should address those concerns. Mr. Watrous clarified that the Hillside Guidelines would govern the matter. Commissioner Corcoran asked why the change was made. Mr. Watrous said it was amended to make the requirement consistent with the maximum accessory building height allowed elsewhere on a lot. He acknowledged that an additional 3 feet in height would create significant impacts in some situations but noted it would not in others. He said staff felt the design review process would aid in that distinction. Chair Kunzweiler suggested the maximum height remain at 12 feet. Vice-Chair Fraser stated concern that without the rear yard setback, a property owner could conceivably construct a 15 foot high structure right up against the fence line. Mr. Watrous said it would be possible but that it is usually very difficult from a technical standpoint. He also said that past attempts have usually resulted in objections from neighboring property owners; those objections were addressed during design review. Commissioner Corcoran suggested applying an alternative minimum setback to accessory buildings. He said that on larger pieces of property accessory buildings are often very nicely done and closely mimic the style of the main residence. He said he believed it would be difficult to compel those to comply with a 12 foot height limit. Commissioner O'Donnell questioned if a habitable structure qualified as an accessory building. Mr. Watrous said that accessory buildings can include structures such as a pool house, finished garage, or guesthouse. TIBURON PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - JULY 22. 2009 MINUTES NO. 985 PAGE 2 Chair Kunzweiler voiced concern that the allowable height is pushing towards what could accommodate 2 stories. Mr. Watrous said that 15 feet would not allow enough height for 2 stories, and Chair Kunzweiler suggested reverting to a maximum height of 12 feet. Mr. Anderson explained that the original height of 12 feet comes from the very first ordinance and this particular reference stands alone in that every other one states a maximum height of 15 feet for accessory buildings. He said staff has considered this an item in need of updating for some time. Vice-Chair Fraser asked if it is common for applicants to push for an additional 3 feet. Mr. Watrous said no, only occasionally when the slope of a lot makes it necessary. Vice-Chair Fraser acknowledged the desire to update for conformity but said that to allow a structure of this height, with no setback involved, allows a visual imposition on adjacent properties. Commissioner Corcoran said he has greater issue with the lack of a setback. Mr. Anderson offered to flag the issue of rear yard setbacks on accessory buildings for later discussion. Commissioner Corcoran suggested adding language to Subsection E (1) that would prohibit the placement of detached accessory buildings within a specified distance from the rear property line. Chair Kunzweiler disagreed, stating that it subverts the concept of setbacks. He supported Mr. Anderson's suggestion to revisit rear setbacks in their entirety. Vice-Chair Fraser said that perhaps the ordinance was originally crafted in this fashion because to place an accessory building within the setbacks could be onerous to adjacent properties. Section 16-30.040 - Fences and Walls Referring to Subsection B (2[a)i)]), Commissioner Corcoran said there are certain instances where a homeowner should be allowed a fence exceeding 6 feet in height and thought this may be too prohibitive in limiting it to the property line. Mr. Watrous said this section was written to recognize limited examples, such as in Bel Aire where there are a fair number of neighboring lots with differing elevations. He said the previous definition required the height of the wall or fence to be measured from the low side and resulted in numerous variance requests. He noted there are other properties and circumstances throughout town where a traditional variance procedure would be more suitable. Section 16-30.050 - Height Limits and Exceptions Referring to Subsection D (1), Commissioner O'Donnell suggested that solar panels be added to the list of height exempt roof top features. Mr. Anderson said that staff has avoided doing so as those listed features generally take up a very small portion of roof top area. He noted that solar TIBURON PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - JULY 22, 2009 MINUTES NO. 985 PAGE 3 installations are exempt from design review but may require a variance if their addition creates a roofline in excess of the 30 feet allowed. He said that to add them to this list would exempt them from any variance. Commissioner O'Donnell said he thought a maximum height on street side shrubbery would be nearly impossible to enforce. Mr. Anderson said that the Public Works Department does, on occasion, identify and enforce such issues. Mr. Watrous added that determination of an issue is very site specific and said this section is intended to provide Public Works with a means of recourse when necessary. Vice-Chair Fraser cited several locations in town where foliage has created a distinct lack of visibility and asked how these issues are identified and handled. Mr. Anderson said the best approach would be to contact the Public Works Department with a written complaint. Section 16-30.060 - Child Play Structures/Sports Courts Commissioner Corcoran asked if a tree house would be considered a "play structure" and be subject to design review. Mr. Watrous confirmed the first and then the latter only if the tree house had enough structure to require a building permit. Commissioner O'Donnell requested clarification on what would be considered a portable structure. Mr. Watrous said staff makes the distinction based on the method of construction. He said a portable structure would simply sit on the ground as opposed to being dug into a foundation. Chair Kunzweiler requested clarification on what constitutes a sports court. Mr. Anderson said that staff has intended to tie this to project that are above grade .and have attachments. He noted that normally flat surfaces, even those that are quite large and of poured concrete, do not require a building permit. Section 16-30.090 - Storage and Debris Boxes Commissioner Corcoran asked if this would apply to temporary storage boxes that are loaded on site and then stored elsewhere. Mr. Watrous said the regulations are aimed more at long-term storage. Section 16-30.120 - Lot Legality and Coverage Commissioner O'Donnell requested clarification on the relevance on trellises and canopies in terms of lot coverage. Mr. Watrous said that trellises, provided they are open, are typically not counted towards lot coverage. Chair Kunzweiler requested clarification on the term, "cantilevered elements." Mr. Watrous directed him to the definitions section and explained that it came about in response to a design review issue; there were an increasing number of homes coming in under the floor area TIBURON PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - JULY 22, 2009 MINUTES NO. 985 PAGE 4 requirements by extending a corner of the house only on the second story. The same homeowners would later request a floor area exception to fill in the first story space underneath. Section 16-32.010 - Purpose Chair Kunzweiler said he understood the intent to discourage overly large parking lots but found the wording so strong that it may discourage downtown growth and expansion. Mr. Anderson explained that the policy statement dates back from the 1970's when there were still areas of the town awaiting development, and is simply worded to encourage shared parking in the downtown area. Section 16-32.030 - General Parking Regulations Commissioner Corcoran suggested that parking in the rear of commercial buildings be incentivized in some fashion. Mr. Anderson said that both the General Plan policies and Downtown Design Guidelines are very clear in that this is a requirement, not an option. Commissioner Corcoran clarified that he would like something that would appeal more to developers. Mr. Anderson said that most developers understand the value in street-side retail or office space and that the requirement encourages the complete redevelopment of these lots as opposed to a simple remodel. Commissioner Corcoran requested clarification on Subsection B (2). Mr. Anderson said it is designed to prohibit the parking of commercial type trucks on private property while still allowing residents with work/personal vehicles to do so. He noted that this refers to trucks as defined by the vehicle code, not an average pickup truck. Referring to Subsection B (3), Vice-Chair Fraser asked why a public agency or utility company would be allowed to park in public zones but a private-sector employee with a personal car would not. Mr. Watrous said it generally has to do with vehicles that may respond to public emergency rather than private business. At Chair Kunzweiler's suggestion, the language was changed to specify "emergency responders." Chair Kunzweiler cited several instances of downtown commercial businesses with signs indicating 24-hour reserved parking in their lots. He said that those spots are sorely needed for evening parking in the downtown area and asked if the CUPs allow for this restriction. Mr. Anderson said that the parking stalls are on private property and may be labeled any way the owner wishes. He added that those owners have not been overly quick to enforce the restriction. Mr. Watrous confirmed and said that the restriction may stem from liability concerns. Section 16-32.040 - Number of Parking Spaces Required Chair Kunzweiler asked if a limit on the number of allowable parking spaces for single-family or multi-family homes would ever be considered. Mr. Watrous said that it would be difficult to control open parking spaces that do not count towards the floor area ratio but said restrictions could be imposed through the design review process. TIBURON PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - JULY 22, 2009 MINUTES NO. 985 PAGE 5 Mr. Anderson cited projects where staff actually required additional spaces to deal with a property's lack of street parking. He noted that setting a maximum would put the Town in opposition of its own rules. Section 16-32.050 - Disabled/Handicapped Parking Requirements Commissioner O'Donnell requested clarification on this section. Mr. Anderson explained that the handicapped parking spaces required on a property by state law can be included in the number of total spaces required by the Town. Commissioner O'Donnell asked about public requirements for handicapped accessible street side parking spaces. Mr. Anderson said that those were updated within the last 5 years to meet with current standards. Section 16-32.070 - Motorcycle Parking Commissioner O'Donnell questioned and confirmed that motorcycles are currently allowed to park at the ferry plaza. He voiced concern that the numbers of motorcycles traversing the sidewalk to park there are creating an unsafe situation in what is a family oriented plaza, stating that there is a difference between scooters and large motorcycles and his concern was focused on the latter. Mr. Anderson said that as a park, the issue is not one of zoning. He suggested Commissioner O'Donnell contact the Public Works Department and ask that they reconsider how parking is handled at that plaza. Chair Kunzweiler concurred with Commissioner O'Donnell who questioned why a motorcycle would be allowed on a sidewalk when it cannot be ridden down a multi-use path. ACTION: It was M/S (O'Donnell/Corcoran) to continue the hearing to August 26, 2009. Vote: 4-0. MINUTES: 3. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - Regular Meeting of July 8, 2009 Chair Kunzweiler provided the following amendment to the minutes: • Page 1, 1" paragraph - "Chair Kunzweiler stated his appreciation for former the Genwnissienef Chair O'Donnell's dedication..." ACTION: It was M/S (Fraser/Corcoran) to approve the minutes of July 8, 2009, as amended. Vote: 4-0. TIBURON PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - JULY 22. 2009 MINUTES NO. 985 PAGE 6 ADJOURNMENT: The Planning Commission adjourned the meeting at 9:20 p.m. JOHN KUNZWEILER, CHAIRMAN ATTEST: SCOTT ANDERSON, SECRETARY TIBURON PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - JULY 22, 2009 MINUTES NO. 985 PAGE 7 MINUTES #13 TIBURON DESIGN REVEW BOARD MEETING OF AUGUST 6, 2009 The meeting was opened at 7:02 p.m. by Chair Chong. A. ROLL CALL Present: Chair Chong, Vice-Chair Tollini, and Boardmembers Doyle, Kricensky and Wilson Absent: None Ex-Officio: Planning Manager Watrous and Minutes Clerk Rusting B. PUBLIC COMMENTS - None C. STAFF BRIEFING - None D. CONSENT CALENDAR 1. 1701-1801 TIBURON BOULEVARD TIBURON PLAZA, LLC, SIGNS AND SIGN PROGRAM The applicant is requesting a sign permit and approval of a sign program to construct two (2) freestanding signs on the Point Tiburon Plaza property, located at 1701-1801 Tiburon Boulevard, in downtown Tiburon. Currently the complex has awning signage and on-building signage. The applicant has proposed a multi-tenant sign and a directory sign to provide retail/business information for all tenants within the complex. Fred Potter, property manager, said he was available to respond to the Board's questions. Boardmember Wilson questioned why a height of 6 feet is needed for the sign at the front of the center. Mr. Potter explained that the sign must be viewable from the street as people drive on Tiburon Boulevard, and there will be a map at the top and a listing of all of the tenants. There was no public comment. Boardmember Doyle said he believed the height and location of signs were appropriate. Boardmember Wilson pointed out that there are two different signs; one in front and one in back, and stated that the rear sign would be low, angled, and pedestrian friendly and much more in line with the feel of Point Tiburon Plaza. He felt that the sign at the front on Tiburon Boulevard would be too large and would not fit the character of downtown Tiburon. TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES #13 8/6/09 Vice-Chair Tollini noted that the sign is going to be installed next to a planter and only viewed from at least a few feet away. He thought that the signs would help people see what is located in the center and serve a functional purpose. He said that the signs would not be oversized and would be consistent with the Downtown Design Guidelines. Boardmember Kricensky agreed with Vice-Chair Tollini and did not believe the signs would be overwhelming. He stated that commercial centers need appropriate signage and the potential for retail uses in this center was important to consider. Chair Chong agreed and said the signs serve a functional purpose by guiding people to the location they are trying to find. ACTION: It was M/S (Tollini/Kricensky) that the request for 1701-1801 Tiburon Boulevard is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act, and approved the project subject to the attached conditions of approval. Vote: 4-1 (Wilson opposed). E. OLD BUSINESS BEFORE THE BOARD 2. 526 COMSTOCK DRIVE SINGH, NEW DWELLING/VARIANCE 526 COMSTOCK DRIVE MOHINDER AND NIVEDITA SINGH EXISTING PROPOSED REQUIRED LOT SIZE 11,802 S.F. NA NA FLOOR AREA 15469 3,046 3,180 MAX LOT COVERAGE 12.4% 30.0% 30.0% MAX BUILDING HEIGHT 11'6" 17' 1" 30' MAX SIDE YARDS 42' & 4'9" 27'& 8' 8' FRONT YARD 11 11'6" 15' REAR YARD 61' 25'4'!' 2 5' VARIANCES/EXCEPTION REDUCED FRONT YARD SETBACK The applicant is requesting Design Review approval for the construction additions to an existing single-family dwelling on property located at 526 Comstock Drive, with a variance for reduced front yard setback. The project was reviewed at the May 21 and July 2, 2009 Design Review Board meetings. At the most recent meeting, the Design Review Board determined that the mass of the front entry within the required setback needed to be reduced and that the required findings could not be made for the requested variance for reduced side yard setback. The applicants have submitted revised plans for the proposed house. The location of the house has been moved slightly to the north, moving the footprint of the building out of the southern side yard setback. The height of the entry has been reduced by 9 inches to bring it below the height of the ridgeline of the house and closer to the eave height of the front of the house. The front of the house would still extend to within 11 feet, 6 inches of the front property line, again necessitating a variance for reduced front yard setback, although the variance for reduced side yard setback is no longer required. TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES #13 2 8/6/09 Jitender Makkar, designer, reviewed changes to the proposal. He stated that they have moved the building in to comply with setbacks on the left side and have reduced the height of the entry porch. The public hearing was opened. Enrique Sotomayor said that the entryway was still an issue. He disagreed that findings could be made for special circumstances related to the physical characteristics of the property and said that moving the house to the north would alleviate all of the neighbors' problems. He said that if the house was moved 4 feet back the front variance would not be required. He felt the granting of the variance would be injurious to other property owners because they would lose views and it would reduce their property values. He urged the Board not to grant the variance and require the applicant to change the proposal so that the house fits within the setbacks. Joan Sotomayor said that the Design Review Board has a responsibility to protect the neighborhood. She said that there are greater setbacks and lower rooflines in the neighborhood so that views are preserved. She felt that the house would be too large and too close to the street. She understood the difficulties of the lot, but said that there are many ways to design a house on this lot and still preserve the character of the neighborhood and neighbors' views. Becky Pringle said that there has been a lot of neighborhood concern about this project regarding blocking view corridors, the size of the house and the variances required to squeeze the house into the southern portion of the property. She disagreed that the Board could make the findings needed to approve the variance, stating that there are no special characteristics of this property that prevent the applicant from building on this lot as it is the largest lot on the street. She said that many homes in Tiburon have been built on downhill slopes and siting the home further north would solve many problems. She disagreed that there would be an unnecessary hardship and requested the Board to direct the applicants to work with neighbors to come up with a solution. Mohinder Singh, applicant, said they have tried to accommodate all of their neighbors' concerns, but the same issues keep coming up that have been brought up in previous meetings. He noted that they have moved the house so that it would no longer be in the side setback and were now only asking for one variance due to the shape of the lot. He said that if they move the house they would lose their view from a very small view corridor. The public hearing was closed. Boardmember Doyle noted that the Board often asks an applicant to make changes based on comments and concerns. He said that the applicant has done what the Board has requested and moving the house elsewhere on the site would not change anything. He acknowledged the compromises made by the applicants and said that he could make the findings for the variance based on the difficult curve of the front property line. Boardmember Wilson agreed that the applicant has made a lot of changes. He said that when he visited the neighbors' houses across the street he did not see a view at all. TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES #13 8/6/09 Vice-Chair Tollini agreed and pointed out the front lot line is 10 feet off the curb, which would mean that the house would be well over 15 feet away from the curb at the closest point. He supported the variance, adding that the curved property line in front creates a practical difficulty and special circumstance. He agreed that moving the house would not make a meaningful difference and that the impact on views would be minimal. He felt that this was a reasonable single story house with a mass and scale that fit the neighborhood and the site. Boardmember Kricensky said that he was pleased that the house has been moved out of the side yard setback, but the 10 foot plate height changes the whole dimension of the house in the front and made it more difficult for him to support. He was still hesitant about approving the front yard variance because he thought that the scale of the house in front was too big. Chair Chong said that the applicant had made substantial changes that addressed all of the Board's concerns. He stated that the revised design complied with the Board's direction and he supported the project. ACTION: It was M/S (Wilson/Tollini) that the request for 526 Comstock Drive is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act, and approved the project subject to the attached conditions of approval. Vote: 4-1 (Kricensky opposed). 3. 166 ROCK HILL ROAD ROBBERTS, NEW DWELLING 166 ROCK HILL ROAD WILLEM AND JULIA ROBBERTS EXISTING PROPOSED REQ UIRED LOT SIZE 2300 S.F. NA NA FLOOR AREA 2,195 4,357 4,366 MAX LOT COVERAGE 11.6% 14.8% 15.0% MAX BUILDING HEIGHT 12' 24' 30' MAX SIDE YARDS 15' & 273" 15' & 31' 15' FRONT YARD 24' 30' 30' REAR YARD 82' 75' 25' VARIANCES/EXCEPTION NONE The applicants have submitted a request for construction of a new two-story single-family dwelling on the property located at 166 Rock Hill Road. This application was reviewed at the June 18 and July 16, 2009 Design Review Board meetings. At thee most recent meeting, the consensus of the Design Review Board was that the general design of the house was appropriate, but that the proximity of the wall to neighbors, the height of the wall, and the removal of existing vegetation were still substantial concerns. The applicants have now submitted additional revised plans for the project. The two retaining walls along the southern side of the site have now been replaced by a single, 4 foot tall retaining wall that would be set back 12 to 17 feet from the side property line. The swimming pool would be moved further to the rear and a level lawn space established between the house and the pool. Two 5 foot tall retaining walls would be constructed to the rear of the pool. TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES #13 4 8/6/09 David Cincotta, attorney, said the applicants have attended two meetings with neighbors to come to a solution. He said that they came to an agreement that affords additional privacy and reduces the retaining walls considerably to 4 feet, which he felt was a good solution. He noted that there are no variances required for the project. Pete Pederson, landscape architect, reviewed the new landscaping plan. He said that the new plan would not require removing existing trees, provide more screening, and create a hedge along the front of the 4 foot retaining wall. He said that they would build one 5 foot wall behind the house, and another 4 foot wall behind it, with plantings in between. He said that the flat space would be moved to an area that will not affect the uphill neighbors. The public hearing was opened. Jim Malott said the landscaping plan was greatly improved, particularly saving the podocarpus trees and improving the screening. He said that the wall would now be far enough away that it will not have as much of an effect on the neighbors. He said that he was disappointed that more consideration was not given to the building and siting. He said that the height of the library roof in its new configuration would obscure more of the neighbors' water views than the previous version and that turning the house location slightly would greatly help to preserve the Lacey's view corridor, and that pushing the building back 6 feet would help even more. Jean Pelfini stated that the new plans are acceptable to theirs. She requested that the existing flowering plum trees and podocarpus trees be replaced in kind if they become damaged during construction. Tad Lacey acknowledged the cooperation that took place in the revision of the proposal, but he still had concerns with the size of the house. He said that the clear glass entryway would be over 23 feet high and would cause light pollution in the neighborhood. He said that the roof of the library in front of the building would be 3 feet higher than the garage, and he noted that the story poles do not currently show that height. Ian Pearson said they he had no objections to the project as it is currently proposed. However, the taller roof area on the west side of the house would be visible from all of the rooms in his house, and he was concerned about the light from the window on that structure. He suggested reducing the intrusiveness of the light from the window by tinting, frosting, and removal of light fixtures. He said that the size and function of that area make it a nonessential design element that would negatively impact all of the uphill neighbors. Mr. Cincotta said they have no objection to the condition to plant replacement trees if any are destroyed. He said that they were perplexed by some of the other comments because they have already been addressed in the revised proposal. Michael Heckmann, architect, agreed they have already resolved the issues that had been brought up. TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES #13 8/6/09 Boardmember Kricensky questioned and confirmed with Mr. Heckmann there are no plans for a decorative lighting fixture in the entry. Mr. Heckmann added that downlights are proposed to be focused to the floor below and not on the glass itself. Boardmember Doyle questioned the benefits of turning the house to improve the uphill neighbors' views. Mr. Heckmann said that a slight spin would not change things significantly for the uphill neighbors but, in fact, would cause the applicants to build higher retaining walls between their house and the Lacey's home. He noted that this change was proposed at the last meeting and did not seem to have support from the Board. Boardmember Wilson asked if there was a drawing of the retaining wall. Mr. Pederson explained that there were images of wood retaining walls contained in the last set of plans. Planning Manager Watrous said the final plan must include those drawings, or the Board can specify it as a condition of approval. The public hearing was closed. Boardmember Wilson said he believes there has been a lot of effort and time spent on the project to work with the neighbors. He said that visited the uphill neighbors' house and the view is tucked to the side and is currently obscured by an existing structure. He said that the proposed house would not impact any additional views. Vice-Chair Tollini said that there is a view impact from the master bedroom of the Lacey's home, but the view from downstairs, where the living room and communal spaces are located, would actually improve. He said light pollution is not much of an issue because this house has very little glazing, and he believed that the applicant had gone above and beyond to accommodate neighbors' concerns. He said that the entry was quite large, but was a fundamental part of the project design. He noted that the substantial change to the retaining walls satisfied the Pelfinis. Boardmember Doyle said that the pool location was much better and moving the retaining walls was a great compromise. He thought that the applicant had done a good job of compromising, have answered all of the Board's concerns and worked with neighbors to resolve problems. Boardmember Kricensky commended the applicants and the neighbors for working together. Regarding the light issue, the entry structure would be about 6 feet wide and 9 feet tall, just a little bigger than a standard sliding glass door. He was more concerned with the amount of glass on the south elevation, but acknowledged that this had been reduced. Chair Chong said the applicant had been more than generous to set the wall further back and give part of their yard to create some separation between the neighbors. TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES #13 8/6/09 ACTION: It was M/S (Wilson/Doyle) that the request for 166 Rock Hill Road is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act, and approved the project subject to the attached conditions of approval, with the additional conditions of approval that the plum and podocarpus trees be replaced in kind if removed or damaged during construction, and that the southern retaining wall be constructed of wood or timber materials. Vote: 5-0. F. NEW BUSINESS BEFORE THE BOARD 4. 1877 CENTRO WEST STREET LAMAR, ADDITIONS/VARIANCE/FLOOR AREA EXCEPTION 1877 CENTRO WEST STREET STEVEN & JENNIFER LAMAR EXISTING PROPOSED REQUIRED LOT SIZE 101208 S.F. NA NA FLOOR AREA 2,850 4,082 3,021 MAX LOT COVERAGE 18.0% 19.1% 35.0% MAX BUILDING HEIGHT 30' 34' 1" 30' MAX SIDE YARDS 14'& 14' 14' & 14' 8' FRONT YARD 0' 0' 15' REAR YARD 25' 25' 25' EXCESS BU ILDING HEIG HT AND VARIANCES/EXCEPTION FLOOR AREA EXCEPTION The applicant is requesting Design Review approval for the construction of additions to an existing three-story single-family dwelling on property located at 1887 Centro West Street. A new lower level of floor area would be added on roughly the same level as the existing garage, containing a new kitchen, living room, entry and powder room. A play room would be added to the second level. A small extension would be made to the front of the third level, with the existing kitchen and living room removed and the level reconfigured to include a master bedroom suite, two bedrooms and one bathroom. A new swimming pool and spa would be installed in the front of the site and new walls and fencing would be constructed in various locations on the site. The proposed project would increase the floor area of the house by 1,232 square feet to a total of 4,082 square feet, which is greater than the 3,021 square foot floor area ratio for a lot of this size. Therefore a floor area exception is requested. The lower floor addition would increase the calculated height of the house from 30 feet to 34 feet, 1 inch. As the maximum building height in the R-2 zone is 30 feet, a variance is requested for excess building height. Jennifer Lamar, applicant, said that the project involves converting the basement into the first level of the house. She said that they have arrived at a responsible design that lowers the living level and mostly maintains the exterior lines of the structure. She said that the addition would not impact anyone's views and would not be visible from the street. The public hearing was opened. TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES #13 8/6/09 Bob Hamer stated that he supports the project, but he said that there is an unresolved access easement issue so he is concerned about the auto gate in that area. Steven Lamar, applicant, asked the Board to not postpone their request because the easement issue is not relevant to the proposal. He said that they will resolve access to the back with their neighbor. Boardmember Doyle asked whether the Board could approve the additions but make the easement issue a condition of approval. Planning Manager Watrous replied in the affirmative, stating the Board could make a condition that the paved area at the top and the driveway gate are permitted only after proof of the access easement. Mr. Lamar said that the main reason for the outside area is to give their four children a place to play. He said that would rather not have the gate and easement issue become a condition of approval. Planning Manager Watrous noted that the survey submitted with the proposal shows an 8 foot roadway easement across the top of the property, and this is usually a good indicator that the easement exists. The Board decided to discuss the proposal first, followed by the easement issue. The public hearing was closed. Boardmember Kricensky said the project would significantly change the way the house works, but it would not change anything on the exterior. He liked the design and the landscaping plan. Boardmember Wilson said that this would be a great use of underutilized space and there would be no impact on any neighbors. Vice-Chair Tollini agreed and said that this would be a great use of space that would make the house more functional. He said that he was unaware of the easement issue, but was confident that it can be resolved. Boardmember Doyle said that he appreciates projects that do not impinge upon anyone's views or space. He praised the design and said that the neighbors can work out the easement issue. Chair Chong agreed and thought that the tunnel to connect the garage and the lower level was a creative idea that would not affect neighbors. Jill Hamer said that they were surprised to find the paved area in the plan. She was concerned that paving that area would encourage more access to the space. She said that the hillside along the unpaved access is not stable and cannot support more traffic than the original intent of the easement. Boardmember Doyle asked whether the issue is access to the space or the paving of it. Ms. Hamer replied that they are concerned about access, as it seems like the paved area was intended to become a driveway. She said that they want to work with the applicant but also want to be TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES #13 8/6/09 sure they are not opening up a possibility where that driveway becomes an ingress to the house, because of the potential to create a hazard for houses below. Chair Chong asked what was located in the space at present. Mr. Lamar said there is no gate right now and it is just open area. He said that if kids play in that area, he would like to have a gate blocking it off. Boardmember Wilson suggested approving the project with the stipulation that no gate be permitted. Boardmember Doyle said that a pedestrian gate would be beneficial to the owner and neighbors since it would prevent it from being used as a driveway and it would provide safety and privacy for the children playing there. Boardmember Kricensky suggested approving the project without the gate, and separately approving the gate when the easement issue is resolved. Mr. Lamar asked the Board to approve a pedestrian gate and then later seek to change it to a driveway gate if they resolve the easement issue with their neighbor. Vice-Chair Tolini pointed out that nothing the Board says from a design standpoint has any effect on the legality of the easement issue. ACTION: It was M/S (Doyle/Wilson) that the request for 1877 Centro West Street is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act, and approved the project subject to the attached conditions of approval, with the additional condition of approval that the gate in the rear of the site be allowed as a pedestrian gate until easement issues are resolved to the satisfaction of staff. Vote: 5-0. 5. 13 ROSEVILLE COURT VAN DUSEN, WALLS/VARIANCE The applicant is requesting Design Review approval to legalize the as-built construction of retaining walls for the existing single-family dwelling on property located at 13 Roseville Court. Portions of the walls within the required setbacks for this lot exceed the 6 foot maximum height limit, with a maximum height of 10 feet. A variance is therefore requested for excess wall height. James Bradanim, landscape architect, said they are requesting a variance for a 10-foot high wall to support a turnaround area required by the fire department. He said that the primary reason the wall has increased in height was due to the requirements of the soils engineer. He stated that the applicant has met with the downhill neighbor about the retaining wall and has received a letter of support from that neighbor. He described significant landscaping to be planted around the perimeter of the driveway, including a hedge and a row of screen shrubs along the property line. He said that the wall would not visually exceed more than 6 feet in height once they have re- graded some of the soil at the base of the wall, and the wall goes down to a 24-inch height as it goes down the hill. He noted that there has been some concern from the uphill neighbor, but from their perspective the footprint of the driveway and the uphill view are the same as previously approved. Stephen Van Dusen, applicant, said that they have tried to do everything within the Town's guidelines and have had a significant level of dialogue with neighbors. He firmly believed that the end product would be a great support to the hillside, along with new drainage. He described TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES #13 8/6/09 the area around the turnaround as a park-like setting that would be heavily landscaped and a vast improvement from what current exists: He noted that the turnaround will also provide emergency access for other neighbors. He said that he did not anticipate the uphill neighbors' concerns, but had he known, he would have visited them. The public hearing was opened. Irv Fong said that they have come to a mutual agreement with the applicant on the cabana and pool on the other side of the property, but he was dismayed to return to the Board with the same issues of noise and light pollution. Victoria Fong said that the original plans showed a driveway and turnabout closer to the applicant's garage, and they did not object because they could not see it from their property, but the turnaround has now been moved and would be visible from their home. She said that there would be increased noise and light pollution and traffic from the turnaround and the size and scope of the project would be out of character with the area. She said that several neighbors expressed concern about removal of mature landscaping and grading on a hillside that has tendency for slides. She requested additional replacement plants, minimizing light and noise impacts, and removing the fountain. Vivian Jacobs said that she has noticed many trucks removing rocks, and asked how long the project will be continuing. She requested the Board watch the progress of this large project. Ann Rice expressed concerns about setting a precedent by approving a 10-foot wall. She said that she has lived on the street for 37 years and remembered when a house did have land slippage and work needed to be done to prevent the hill from sliding. When she viewed the project, she immediately worried about drainage and slippage. Mr. Bradanini said there have been some misconceptions about the project. He said that they have not changed the plans for the turnaround which was previously approved in exactly the same location when the project as a whole was approved. He said that they are trying to complete the project within the allotted time to minimize noise for the neighbors. As far as removal of mature landscaping, Mr. Bradanini said that some myoporum shrubs in the way of the proposed driveway that had been removed, but he felt that the new landscaping would be a great improvement. He said that they are not destabilizing the hillside and are, in fact, providing more significant stabilization and are following the recommendations of the soil engineer. He said that the only change is that the wall has gotten a bit taller. Boardmember Doyle questioned and confirmed with Mr. Bradanini that the turnaround is asphalt with a small cobblestone band around the bottom. Mr. Bradanini also confirmed that the railing is more of a safety issue for the applicant's children. Boardmember Doyle asked about the size of plantings to be used in the landscaping. Mr. Bradanini stated that 15 gallon trees would be planted, and that the tree species grows fast and very tall. TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES #13 10 8/6/09 Boardmember Wilson asked if there is any landscaping on the inside of the wall, between the wall and the driveway. Mr. Van Dusen said that there would be a hedge that will show above the wall. The public hearing was closed. Vice-Chair Tollini said that he visited the applicant's property and the Fong's property and he understood how frustrating it is that the project has been for going on for a long time. He did not see a light and noise issue since any lights must be down lit and the small curb visible from uphill would not create any noise problems. He said that if trees were planted on the uphill side of the turnaround it might help screening for the uphill neighbor. He said that the panoramic view of the uphill neighbors would only change slightly and there is no where else to put the turnaround on the site without granting a variance. Boardmember Wilson said that he visited the site and the Fong's property. He said that the project would be beautiful and improve the neighborhood, as well as bringing the site up to code regarding fire, drainage, and landscaping. Boardmember Kricensky said that the practical issue is that there must be some method for turning around on the site, and a hammerhead turnaround would require even more pavement. He said that the landscape plan is elaborate and would change what the Fong's are seeing now from a big scar to something more pleasant to look at. He said that if the turnaround was moved closer to the garage, it would be more in view of the uphill neighbors and would require even taller walls. Boardmember Doyle said that he was on the Board when they approved the overall project for this property and he remembered a lot of the discussion. He agreed that there is nowhere else to put the turnaround. He said that the walls would disappear when the landscaping is put in and the stabilized hillside would be better for the downhill neighbors. He said that the walls are not in the primary view of the uphill neighbors since they look out at the panoramic view and not down toward the turnaround. He characterized the project as a great improvement, adding that nothing else could be done that makes sense. Chair Chong said that he understood the concern looking down from the Fong's house, but once the project is completed it will be much nicer and landscaped, with only a 6 inch curb visible. He felt that the center fountain and detailed landscape plan add to the property and that there is no other place to put the turnaround. ACTION: It was M/S (Kricensky/Tollini) that the request for 13 Roseville Court is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act and approved the project subject to the attached conditions of approval. Vote: 5-0. G. APPROVAL OF MINUTES #12 OF THE 7/16/09 DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MEETING TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES #13 11 8/6/09 ACTION: It was M/S (Kricensky/Wilson) to approve the minutes of the July 16, 2009 meeting as written. Vote: 5-0. H. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 9:25 p.m. TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES #13 12 8/6/09 7. TOWN OF TIBURON Action Minutes - Regular Meeting Tiburon Town Hall Tiburon Planning Commission 1505 Tiburon Boulevard August 26, 2009 - 7:30 PM Tiburon, CA 94920 ACTION MINUTES ti TIBURON PLANNING COMMISSION CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL At 7:30 PM Present: Vice Chairman Fraser, Commissioner Corcoran, Commissioner Frymier, Commissioner O'Donnell Absent: Chairman Kunzweiler ORAL COMMUNICATIONS There Were None Persons wishing to address the Planning Commission on any subject not on the agenda may do so under this portion of the agenda. Please note that the Planning Commission is not able to undertake extended discussion, or take action on, items that do not appear on this agenda. Matters requiring action will be referred to Town Staff for consideration and/or placed on a future Planning Commission agenda. Please limit your comments to no more than three (3) minutes. Testimony regarding matters not on the agenda will not be considered part of the administrative record. COMMISSION AND STAFF BRIEFING Commission and Committee Reports Director's Report PUBLIC HEARING 1. END OF PARENTE ROAD AND END OF ANTONETTE DRIVE: PRECISE DEVELOPMENT PLAN TO CREATE TWO BUILDING SITES ON A 10.2 ACRE PARCEL; FILE #30703; Lionel Achuck, Owner; Tom Newton, Applicant; Assessor's Parcel No. 03 8-111-16 [DW] Continued to October 14, 2009 2. REVIEW OF COMPREHENSIVE REFORMATTING AND TEXT AMENDMENTS TO THE TIBURON ZONING ORDINANCE: FILE #MCA 2008- 09 [DW] Articles IV and V Reviewed Tiburon Planning Commission August 26, 2009 Page 1 Action Minutes MINUTES 3. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -Regular Meeting of July 22, 2009 Adopted as Amended 4-0 ADJOURNMENT At 9:25 Tiburon Planning Commission August 26, 2009 Page 2 Action Minutes 9'' 40/o'~ DESIGN REVIEW BOARD AGENDA TOWN OF TIBURON DATE: 9/3/09 1505 TIBURON BOULEVARD MEETING TIME 7:00 P.M. TIBURON, CA 94920 AGENDA NO.: #15 PLEASE NOTE: In order to give all interested persons an opportunity to be heard, and to ensure the presentation of all points of view, members of the audience should: (1) Always address the Chair; (2) State name for the record; (3) State views/concerns succinctly; (4) Limit presentation to three minutes; (5) Speak directly into microphone and (6) All documents submitted at the meeting must first be submitted at the Staff table, to be entered into the record and retained by the Town. If an item is continued, it is the responsibility of interested parties to note the new meeting date. Notices will not be sent out for items continued to a specific date. Any documents produced by the Town and distributed to a majority of the Design Review Board 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 Board meeting, will be available for public inspection at Tiburon Town Hall, 1505 Tiburon Boulevard, Tiburon, CA 94920. A. B. C. D. ROLL CALL: Chair Chong, Boardmembers Doyle, Kricensky, Tollini and Wilson PUBLIC COMMENTS (FOR ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA) STAFF BRIEFING OLD BUSINESS BEFORE THE BOARD 1. 22 Juno Road E. 2. 3. Amir NEW BUSINESS BEFORE THE BOARD Additions/Variance 41 Mercury Avenue Tinto/DePaolo New Dwelling/Variances 12 Place Moulin Orvis Additions/Variance/Floor Area Exception F. ADJOURNMENT "PLEASE NOTE THAT AGENDA ITEMS MAY BE TAKEN OUT OF ORDER"