Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutTC Digest 2010-11-05TOWN COUNCIL WEEKLY DIGEST Week of November 1- 5, 2010 Tiburon 1. SmartMeter Open House/San Rafael, Monday, November 29, 6-9 p.m. - (E- mail from PG&E Public Affairs Manager) 2. Joint Workshop Agenda - Town Council/Planning Commission/Design Review Board - November 9, 2010 Agendas & Minutes 3. Agenda - Planning Commission - November 10, 2010 4. Action Minutes -Design Review Board -November 4, 2010 5. Adopted Minutes -Design Review Board -October 7, 2010 Regional a) Western City (November 2010) - League of CA Cities magazine's b) Transaction (Fall 2010) - Metropolitan Transportation Commission newsletter's c) "Connections" - Center for Civic Partnership; California Health Cities and Communities* d) Invitation to November 10 workshop in Los Angeles - Metropolitan Water District of Southern California's Agendas & Minutes a) None * Council Only SmartMeter Open House/San Rafael DIGEST Peggy Curran From: Townsend, Joshua [JDTO@pge.com] Sent: Monday, November 01, 2010 4:29 PM To: Nevin, Kelli Subject: SmartMeter Open House/San Rafael Importance: High Pacific Gas and Electric Company is committed to providing our customers will tools to control their energy usage and manage their energy costs. That is why we have been rolling out SmartMeter technology to nearly 10 million customers. SmartMeters are being installed in your community over the next few months. PG&E aims to fully inform our customers about this new technology and what it will mean to controlling their energy usage. One way we are doing this is by conducting SmartMeter Open Houses throughout our territory so customers are able to have one-on-one attention to address their questions and concerns. PG&E will be holding a SmartMeter Open House in your community: City: San Rafael Location: San Rafael Community Center, 618 "B" Street Date: Monday, November 29th Time: 6:00pm - 9:00pm In addition to increasing the number of Answer Centers PG&E is also committed to providing superior customer service by phone and online. To do this, PG&E has: o Dedicated 165 additional customer service representatives to improve customer service and help customers with billing questions, o Created a SmartMeter helpline at 866-743-0263, o Expanded and improved customer communications around the installation of SmartMeter devices, including a series of direct mail communications timed to introduce customers to their newly installed device and its benefits, and o Enhanced and updated our wwwpge.com smartmeter website to provide customers with up-to-date benefits and information. If you would like to tour the Open House in your community of if you have any questions, please contact Joshua Townsend at (415) 257-3467. Sincerely, josh Joshua Townsend Public Affairs Manager - Area 7 Pacific Gas & Electric Company Office: 415-257-3467 Email: JDTO@pge.com 11/1/2010 TOWN OIL TIBURON Tiburon Town Hall 1505 Tiburon Boulevard Tiburon, CA 94920 JOINT WORKSHOP AGENDA Special Meeting Tiburon Town Council/ Planning Commission/ Design Review Board November 9, 2010 6:00 p.m. Tiburon Town Council/Planning Commission/Design Review Board CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL Mavor Collins, Councilmember Fraser, Councilmember Fredericks, Vice Mayor Slavitz, Councilmember O'Donnell Vice Chair Corcoran, Commissioner Doyle, Chair Frymier, Commissioner Kunzweiler, Commissioner Tollini Boardmember Chong, Boardmember Emberson, Vice Chair Kricensky, Chair Tollini, Boardmember Weller ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Persons wishing to address the Town Council, Planning Commission, or Design Review Board on subjects not on the agenda may do so at this time. Please note however, that the Town Council, Planning Commission, or Design Review Board is not able to undertake extended discussion or action on items not on the agenda. Matters requiring action will be referred to the appropriate Commission, Board, Committee or staff for consideration or placed on a future meeting agenda. Please limit your comments to three (3) minutes. DISCUSSION ITEMS 2. 3. General Comments Commission & Board Training Council/Commission/Board Relations - Communications - Areas for improvement - Topics of concern - Other topics 4. Project Update by Staff Easton Point (Martha) Alta Robles (S.O.D.A./Rabin) Joint Recreation Facility (600 Ned's Way) d W Eclvcdere-Tiburon Library Expansion Trestle Glen Circle Downtown Tiburon update - Zoning Ordinance update Housing Element update Others Other Discussion Topics ADJOURNMENT 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 Town Clerk at (415) 435- 7377. Notification 48 hours prior to the meeting will enable the Town to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to this meeting. AVAILABILITY OF INFORMATION Copies of all agenda reports and supporting data are available for viewing and inspection at Town Hall and at the Belvedere-Tiburon Library located adjacent to Town Hall. Agendas and minutes are posted on the Town's website, wwvv.ci.tiburon.ca.us. 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 send 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. Requests should be sent to the Office of the Town Clerk at the above address. PUBLIC HEARINGS Public Hearings provide the general public and interested parties an opportunity to provide testimony on these items. If you challenge any proposed action(s) in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the Public Hearing(s) described later in this agenda, or in written correspondence delivered to the Town Council at, or prior to, the Public Hearing(s). TIMING OF ITEMS ON AGENDA While the Town Council 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 Town Council agenda. 3, TOWN OF TIBURON Tiburon Town Hall 1505 Tiburon Boulevard Tiburon, CA 94920 AGENDA TIBURON PLANNING COMMISSION CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL Chairman Fryinier, Vice Chair Corcoran, Commissioner Doyle, Commissioner Kunzweiler, Commissioner Tollini 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 NEW BUSINESS 1. 1600 MAR WEST STREET: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO MODIFY THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED USE PERMIT FOR A PRIVATE RECREATIONAL FACILITY; FILE #11003; Tiburon Peninsula Club, Owner and Applicant; Assessor's Parcel Nos. 058-171-17, 76 & 84, and 058- 240-21. [DW] 2. LOCAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN UPDATE - PUBLIC HEARING ON DRAFT MITIGATION STRATEGIES. [LT] Tiburon Planning Commission Agenda November 10, 2010 Regular Meeting Tiburon Planning Commission November 10, 2010 - 7:30 PM Paae 1 MINUTES 3. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -Regular Meeting of September 8, 2010 ADJOURNMENT Future Agenda Items Alta Robles Project (TBD) a111010 Tiburon Planning Commission Agenda November 10, 2010 Page 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 correspondence 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 Conunission 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 Agenda November 10, 2010 Page 3 TOWN OF TIBURON LATE MAIL POLICY (Adopted and Effective 11/7/2007) The following policy shall be used by the Town Council and its standing boards and commissions, and by staff of the Town of Tiburon, in the identification, distribution and consideration of late mail. DEFINITION "Late Mail" is defined as correspondence or other materials that are received by the Town after completion of the written staff report on an agenda item, in such a manner as to preclude such correspondence or other materials from being addressed in or attached to the staff report as an exhibit. IDENTIFICATION OF LATE MAIL All late snail received by Town Staff in advance of a meeting shall be marked "Late Mail" and shall be date-stamped or marked with the date of receipt by the Town. Late mail received at a meeting shall be marked as "Received at Meeting" with a date-stamp or handwritten note. POLICY For regular meetings of the Town Council and its standing boards and commissions: (1) All late mail that is received on an agenda item prior to distribution of the agenda packet to the reviewing authority shall be stamped or marked as "Late Mail" and shall be distributed to the reviewing authority with the agenda packet. (2) All late mail received on an agenda item before 5:00 PM on the Monday pri or to the meeting shall be date-stamped and marked as "Late Mail" and distributed to the reviewing authority as soon as practicable. Such mail shall be read and considered by the reviewing authority whenever possible. If the Monday, or Monday and Tuesday, prior to the meeting are a Town-recognized holiday, the deadline shall be extended to the following day at Noon. (3) Any late mail received on an agenda item after the deadline established in paragraph (2) above shall be date-stamped, marked as "Late Mail" and distributed to the reviewing authority as soon as reasonably possible, but may not be read or considered by the reviewing authority. There should be no expectation of, nor shall the reviewing authority have any obligation to, read or consider any such late mail, and therefore such late mail may not become part of the administrative record for the item before the reviewing authority. These provisions shall also apply to special and adjourned meetings when sufficient lead time exists to implement these provisions. If sufficient lead time does not exist, the Town Manager shall exercise discretion in establishing a reasonable cut-off time for late snail. For controversial items or at any meeting where a high volume of correspondence is anticipated, Town staff shall have the option to require an earlier late mail deadline, provided that the written public notice for any such item clearly communicates the specifics of the early late mail deadline, and the deadline corresponds appropriately to any earlier availability of the agenda packet. Pursuant to state law, copies of all late mail shall be available in a timely fashion for public inspection at Tiburon Town Hall, 1505 Tiburon Boulevard, Tiburon. TOWN OF TIBURON Action Minutes - Regular Meeting Tiburon Town Hall Design Review Board 1505 Tiburon Boulevard November 4, 2010 Tiburon, CA 94920 7:00 P.M. ACTION MINUTES # 17 TIBURON DESIGN REVIEW BOARD CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL At 7:00 PM Present: Chair Tollim, Vice Chairman Kricensky, Boardmembers Chong, Emberson & Weller Absent: None Ex-Officio: Planning Manager Watrous and Minutes Clerk Rusting OLD BUSINESS 2312 SPANISH TRAIL: File No. 710021; Bill and Joy Norris, Owners; Site Plan and Architectural Review for construction of a detached two-family dwelling, with a detached two-family exception. The applicants propose to construct a 1,180 square foot detached dwelling below the existing house on the site. APN: 059-201-32 Continued to December 2, 2010 2. 680 HAWTHORNE DRIVE: File No. 709044; Colleen Mahoney, Owner; Site Plan and Architectural Review for construction of additions to an existing single-family dwelling. The applicants propose to construct a 1,072 square foot second story addition to add a larger master bedroom suite, two bedrooms, one bathroom, a laundry room, and a guest suite for the existing dwelling. Four new skylights would be installed. APN: 055-191-18 Continued to November 18, 2010 NEW BUSINESS 3. 211 ROUND HILL ROAD; File No. 21018; Charles and Millie Froeb, Owners; Site Plan and Architectural Review for construction of additions to an existing single-family dwelling, with a variance for excess lot coverage. The applicants propose to construct a 1,054 square foot addition to the lower level of the house to create three bedrooms, two bathrooms, a family room, laundry room and wine room. As the maximum lot coverage in the RO-2 zone is fifteen percent (15.0%), a variance is required in order to construct addition that would expand the lot coverage on the site to 17.6%. APN: 058-111-21 Approved 4-0-1(Kricensky abstained) Action Minutes #17 11/4/10 Design Review Board Meeting Page 1 4. 12 APOLLO ROAD; File No. 710116; John Zeitz and Susan Travis, Owners; Site Plan and Architectural Review for construction of additions to an existing single-family dwelling. The applicants propose to construct an 814 square foot addition to the front of the house to add one bathroom and reconfigure the floor plan of the existing dwelling. The roof would be removed and replaced by with a new roofline that would increase the overall ridgeline height by 1 foot, 3 inches to a maximum height of 14 feet, 10 inches. APN: 034-271-06 Approved 5-0 MINI TTFq 5. Regular Meeting of October 7, 2010 Approved 3-0-2 (Chong and Kricensky abstained) ADJOURNMENT At 8:45 PM Action Minutes #17 11/4/10 Design Review Board Meeting Page 2 MINUTES #16 TIBURON DESIGN REVEW BOARD MEETING OF OCTOBER 7, 2010 The meeting was opened at 7:00 p.m. by Chair Tollini. A. ROLL CALL Present: Chair Tollini, Boardmembers Emberson and Weller Absent: Vice-Chair Kricensky and Boardmember Chong 1 Ex-Officio: Planning Manager Watrous, Associate Planner Tyler and Minutes Clerk Rusting B. PUBLIC COMMENTS - None C. STAFF BRIEFING Planning Manager Watrous noted the item for 680 Hawthorne Drive was continued to the November 4, 2010, meeting. He reminded the Board that the joint Town Council/Planning Commission/Design Review Board workshop has been scheduled for Tuesday, November 9, 2010, and an agenda would be sent out within the next few weeks. He noted that there are no items currently scheduled for the October 21, 2010, Design Review Board meeting which may be canceled. D. OLD BUSINESS 1. 2312 SPANISH TRAIL,: File No. 710021; Bill and Joy Norris, Owners; Site Plan and Architectural Review for construction of a detached two-family dwelling, with a detached two- family dwelling exception and a variance for reduced front yard setback. The applicants propose to construct a 1,180 square foot detached dwelling below the existing house on the site, along with a new two-car garage and a new parking deck. The parking deck would extend beyond the front property line into the Spanish Trail right-of--way, which would not comply with the 15 foot minimum front yard setback in the R-2 zone. APN: 059-201-32 The applicant is requesting Design Review approval for the construction of a new detached two family dwelling and two parking structures on property located at 2312 Spanish Trail. A detached Two-Family Dwelling Exception and a variance for reduced front yard setback are also requested. The property is currently developed with a single-family dwelling, a parking structure and two detached storage sheds, one of which would be removed as part of this project. This application was first reviewed at the July 15, 2010 Design Review Board meeting. At that meeting, several neighboring property owners raised concerns about potential view and privacy impacts from the proposed house, parking impacts on the surrounding neighborhood and whether the application was consistent with the guidelines for detached two-family dwelling units. The Design Review Board shared some of these concerns, but did not rule out the possibility of a detached two-family dwelling on this site. It was the consensus of the Board that a more modestly proportioned house moved further up the hill might be acceptable. The application was continued to allow the applicant time to redesign the proposed dwelling. TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES #17 10/7/10 Roger Hartley, designer, said that the Board previously identified a number of issues regarding the project and he had with the owners and completed a redesign addressing those issues. He stated that the size of the project and its proximity to the street had been reduced by moving the building back approximately 30 feet. He said that the roof had moved back and would be approximately 2 feet lower than the previous proposal. He said that the roofline was lowered by 1 foot, one of the dormers on the left side had been removed and a portion of the overhanging porch roof had been removed. He stated that the porch had been narrowed by 30%. He described how they had addressed the parking issue by providing a parking deck on Spanish Trail and a two-car garage below on Vista Del Mar. He noted that the Board felt that the existing garage was inadequate, so they opted to rebuild the garage so that it would be a full depth, two-car garage. He said that the roof of the garage would be flat with a hedge around the top so that views on neighboring sides will look down on landscaping and lawn rather than a roof. He said that the parking deck on Spanish Trail would allow more convenient parking for the main house and the garage below would provide two spaces for the second house. Mr. Hartley disagreed with Staff regarding the criteria for a detached two-family dwelling exception and he thought that an attached duplex would be a bad architectural design. He said that the narrow shape of the lot would create a long alleyway on the sides of the building and adding the bulk of a second unit to the existing house would have a negative effect on the property immediately above. He thought that the proposed project location was a natural place to build and said that they have made accommodations to drop the height of the structure to avoid impacting that neighbor's views. Mr. Hartley stated that they would excavate 4 feet to reduce the height of the structure, but if they had to move the structure up the hill to attach it to the house, they would have to excavate an 8-foot basement. He stated that moving the structure up the hill would block the view from the main house. He felt that the only reasonable solution was a second unit down the hill along with providing parking for each structure and landscaping to screen between the two. He said that the net effect would appear as two small cottage- like houses that would be in keeping with the style of Old Tiburon. The public hearing was opened. Robin Moore stated that she has lived in this neighborhood for 57 years and she likes the small houses and quiet street. She said that she was afraid that the look and feel of the neighborhood would be changed through completion of projects such as the one proposed for this property. J.J. Wintersteen said that he was concerned when the story poles went up because the visual impact from Vista Del Mar Lane would be quite substantial. He felt that the two separate structures would feel like San Francisco and that residents and pedestrians would be unable to enjoy the open space between the structures. He said that Vista Del Mar Lane is very small and the project would make the street into a back alley for driveways and carports. He said that he would like to see one structure instead of separating the proposed house and garage, with more excavation, or he would like the existing garage to be removed. Terry Schwakopf opposed the project for the reasons stated in her letter. She felt that the project was too dense and she did not want to see a garage up to the edge of Vista Del Mar Lane. She stated that this project does not meet the criteria for a detached unit, as there is no physical impediment that renders the attached unit impossible. She asked for a clear decision as to whether this project meets the exception before any discussion of the project design is undertaken. She said that no one objects to the Norris' improving their property and they are only discussing their concerns with the detached units and this specific project. TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES #17 10/7/10 Richard Wodehouse said that he lives above the property, and his property is the only one whose views would be affected by the project. He did not feel that the building should be built next to the existing house because it would impact his view and also take away any privacy and landscaping between his house and the new structure if it were moved up against the main house. Celia DeMartini, representing her mother Ann DeMartini, said that she owns and manages real estate and she was concerned that this project would affect her mother's property value, as the views of the Golden Gate in this area account for much of the property value. If built, she said that the two units would be smaller than most others in Tiburon and would exacerbate the visual density of the Vista Del Mar Lane neighborhood. She cited affected blockage of views from her mother's home and privacy issues involving the front deck and the new roof deck. She said that planting of screening vegetation on the Norris' property would block her mother's rental unit's views. She did not understand why the applicant was not building a single structure duplex. She noted that the main building already contains a duplex, and she felt that a single structure would be more compatible with the neighborhood. Shelley Brown said that she felt that there was no justification for granting an exception for a detached dwelling unit. She stated that at the previous meeting the Board asked the applicant to do three things, and instead the applicant had shrunk the house by less than 5%, had not moved the house back in line with the neighbors, and had created a new garage that would affect her view. She said that the parking deck on Spanish Trail would remove existing screening and look into her backyard. As a resident of Tiburon she said that she felt fortunate to have the DRB in place to protect property values and she asked for denial of the project. Gary Glover said that if he did not want to see neighbors he would not choose to live in Tiburon. He noted that the only variance requested was for the parking deck and he noted that his neighbors have carports on Spanish Trail. He felt that if people did not like the underlying zoning where they live, then they should move. Wally Quinn said that this should be a two-part application, with one part for the detached two-family dwelling exception and the other part for the design of the structure. He said that Staff does not support a detached two-family dwelling. If possible, he asked for a vote on the findings for the requested exception before the Board moves on to the design aspect of the application. He stated that the new garage would be 6 feet further out than it was before, which meani that instead of moving the structures up the hill, the buildings had been moved down the hill. He proposed placing the garage underneath the new house and moving the structure up the hill or eliminating the garage and creating an open car pad for 3 cars. He presented a sketch of how a second unit could be attached to the existing building, with a flat roof and stepped down the hill in accordance with the Hillside Guidelines. He requested that the Board deny the project and ask that the applicant return with an attached structure that all of the neighbors could support. David Kirchhoff said that he represents the Wittinghams whose views would be affected by the project and noted that they expressed appreciation to the Board for their suggestions at the last meeting. He said that the changes made to the project addressed their concerns and that they feel that the two structures would better fit the neighborhood and would not block the views. He said that a single duplex building would impose on their privacy and block views. Eugene Aureguy said that he owns the property directly across from the applicant which has been developed with two detached dwelling units. He said that when he went through the design review process the Board thought two smaller structures were more fitting for the neighborhood. He said that once the buildings were finished, Mr. Quinn came by and complimented the project. Mr. Quinn objected and said that he had never complimented Mr. Aureguy's project. TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES #17 10/7/10 Mr. Aureguy continued, stating that the garage would be an improvement and this new project would enhance the neighborhood. He said that this would take traffic off of Vista Del Mar and put it on Spanish Trail. He noted that not many lots have access to two streets, and this situation should be taken advantage of when it exists. He thought that it made no sense to attach another unit to the older existing building. Bill Norris, applicant, said that having two small homes made more sense than an ugly attachment to the older main home. He felt that having parking both up above and below was good planning and a good design. He said that the same people opposing his project also opposed Mr. Aureguy's project, but he felt that that project was well done and preserved the character desired by the neighborhood. He said that Ms. DeMartini's value would likely go up as a result of this project and the project would not affect her view. He said that Ms. Brown does not have a primary view across the site. He stated that the only primary view across the property is from Mr. Wodehouse's home, and he had spoken in support of the project. The public hearing was closed. Boardmember Weller said that this is a difficult project. He said that there were three possibilities: 1) nothing gets built, 2) the proposed two structures get built, or 3) an attached solution is built. He said that all of these options would result in someone unhappy with the result. He said that he would like to come up with a solution that everyone can live with. He stated that the property owner has the right to develop the property under the requirements of the R-2 zone and the Board is charged with determining whether the conditions exist to grant the exception. He did not think that physical conditions exist that would prevent building an attached unit to the existing structure. He agreed that the idea of keeping smaller units in the community is preferable, but was having trouble with the requirement that the superiority of a detached unit was "clearly demonstrated." He said that it was difficult to state that an attached second unit was clearly inferior when the existing building on the site has historically included an attached second unit. Boardmember Emberson said that she had visited almost every property in the area. She could see that there could be a substantial view impact on the property up above if the second unit was pushed back against the existing house. She said that an attached unit would also result in a very long driveway to the garage, which she felt would be visually unpleasant. She characterized the project as a handsome cottage design. She stated that there are physical conditions on the lot that render a true duplex impractical, as the lot is very narrow at the location of the existing building. She said that it would be difficult to make the existing downstairs floor area livable with another unit attached to the building. She felt that two detached units could reduce impacts rather than exacerbate them. She noted that the lot is wider toward the bottom and that that area would be more appropriate as a building site. She stated that only one window at Ms. DeMartini's unit faces the site, with most of that home's views away from the site. She said that she liked the lowered roofline and the portion of the proposed residence that would be stepped back on the site. Chair Tollini said that he visited the site twice and felt that he was looking at essentially the same application as last time. He felt that the visual impact was disproportionately huge for a relatively modest sized second unit. He said that the height of the structure makes it look like another house on a fully developed lot, creating the appearance of two tiny lots with massive houses on them. He had hoped to see a fairly significant redesign of the project and that is not what happened. He said that this project was not merely about finding the best way to build a second unit, but to look at the general impact on the neighborhood. He said that for almost every home in the vicinity two structures have more of an impact than a single structure. He does not see that the existing house makes having an attached unit impractical, although it might be less desirable. He noted that there are five criteria to be reviewed for a detached two- family dwelling exception and he still had problems with two of them. From a planning standpoint, he did TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES #17 4 10/7/10 not see how the project demonstrated the superiority of detached dwellings. He stated that the Town set a high threshold for when there can be a detached second unit, and he felt that this situation did not meet those criteria. He stated that he was not necessarily against detached units, but the project as designed did not meet the necessary criteria and an acceptable design would start with a second unit that has a lot less impact. Boardmember Weller agreed with Chair Tollini that this project would, in effect, split this lot in two. He said that the ordinance was designed to discourage two separate houses on an R-2 lot. One of the big problems he had with the design was the separate structure for a garage which would also have a roof deck. He said that it would be helpful to move the garage under the structure so that it would not sit almost directly on the street and create a visual block that does not exist anywhere else on Vista Del Mar. He said that there were also other ways to lessen the visual bulk of the project, including flattening the roof further. He agreed with Chair Tollini that this application did not represent enough of a change from the previous design one to convince him to approve it. Chair Tollini said there may be ways of designing the garage so it is less impactful, including reducing the building width and adding articulation to the project design. He said that this is an unusual enough lot that there could be ways to make the argument that a revised project design satisfies the criteria for the exception. Boardmember Emberson disagreed and said that she would not want to look up at an extremely long driveway. She said that there would not be space for many windows on the sides of the existing house where the current second unit is situated. She agreed that the proposed unit could be smaller and she did not like the sod deck on top of the garage. She thought that if the garage were moved, the neighbors would not be as concerned with the impact. Chair Tollini questioned whether a continuance would be appropriate. Planning Manager Watrous said continuance is a possibility, but Staff would only recommend a continuance if the Board felt that it would be possible to make the findings for the detached two-family exception. If the Board felt that there was a possibility of a redesigned detached second unit that met the required criteria and the applicant agreed to make such substantial changes, then a continuance would be appropriate. Otherwise, he suggested that the Board should direct Staff to prepare a resolution denying the application. Chair Tollini said he did not think that the project as designed could meet the findings for the second and third exception criteria. Boardmember Weller said if the structure could be moved back and reduced, then he could support the criteria that the detached unit would demonstrate site planning superiority and land use compatibility benefits. Chair Tollini suggested moving the garage away from Vista Del Mar and noted that there would be more traffic on Spanish Trail due to the proposed parking deck. Planning Manager Watrous summarized the DRB's suggestions as moving the house up the hill, making it substantially visually smaller, and tucking the parking underneath the house itself. Chair Tollini said that he was open to keeping the parking below but bringing it closer into the building footprint so that it would not appear as such a big block. He said that he would like to see the building design compressed so that it would look more like a consolidated unit, thereby mitigating the visual impact. Boardmember Weller said he did not want to tell the applicant how to redesign the project, but instead instruct the applicant to create a smaller overall building envelope and bring the structure together. He said that he would like to see the garage pushed back so that it would not be right on the street. Planning Manager Watrous asked the applicant if he was willing to accept a continuance to redesign the application. Mr. Hartley said yes, and asked for clarification from the Board regarding stacking the house TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES #17 5 10/7/10 on top of the garage, which he said would be inconsistent with the Hillside Guidelines. Chair Tollini said there is a balance that could be struck with stepping the house. Mr. Hartley suggested removing the garage altogether. All of the Boardmembers agreed that this could make the project more appealing. Boardmember Emberson said the lot is very unique and putting a rectangle on it does not work. She would like to see the structure articulated and stacked, and this would help the neighbors. ACTION: It was M/S (Weller/Emberson) to continue the application for 2312 Spanish Trail to the September 2, 2010 meeting. Vote: 3-0. 2. 680 HAWTHORNE DRIVE: File No. 709044; Colleen Mahoney, Owner; Site Plan and Architectural Review for construction of additions to an existing single-family dwelling. The applicants propose to construct a 1,072 square foot second story addition to add a larger master bedroom suite, two bedrooms, one bathroom, a laundry room, and a guest suite for the existing dwelling. Four new skylights would be installed. APN: 055-191-18 CONTINUED TO NOVEMBER 4, 2010 E. NEW BUSINESS 96 SUGARLOAF DRIVE; File No. 21016; Capucine & Andrew Hoybach, Owners; Site Plan and Architectural Review for construction of an addition to an existing single-family dwelling, with a variance for reduced side yard setback. The applicants propose to construct a 26 square foot addition to the master bedroom to create a larger bathroom area. As the minimum side yard setback in the RO-2 zone is fifteen feet (15'), a variance is required in order to construct the addition within the side yard setback a distance of one foot (1'), for a reduced side yard setback of fourteen feet (14'). APN: 058-281-13 The applicant is requesting to construct a minor addition with a variance for reduced side yard setback on property located at 96 Sugarloaf Drive. Currently the property is improved with a single-family dwelling. The proposal would expand the master bathroom at the upper level only. The proposed structure would result in a lot coverage of 2,332.5 square feet (12.4%) which is below the maximum permitted lot coverage in the RO-2 zone (15.0%). The proposed structure would result in a gross floor area of 3,375 square feet, which is below the maximum permitted floor area ratio for a property of this size (3,879.3 sq. ft.). The proposed minor addition (26 sq. ft.) would encroach into the right side yard setback a distance of one foot (1'), for a reduced side yard setback of fourteen feet (14') in lieu of the minimum fifteen feet (15') required. Therefore, a variance for reduced side yard setback has been requested. Kourash Baradaran, architect, said that they were granted planning approval for an addition and remodel of an existing house. After they were granted that approval, they looked at the master bath addition more closely and it felt very narrow and crammed. He said gaining the extra 12 inches would make a huge impact on the master bathroom. He said that they appreciate the side yard setback limitations, but noted that there is a 15 foot or wider easement dedicated to the lot immediately outside the property line which is used for the driveway in between the addition and the neighboring home, which would create a distance of over 30 feet to the neighbor. Andrew Hoybach, owner, said that his lot was subdivided in order to provide a driveway to the homes behind it. He thought that the strict application of the setback ordinance on his lot would create a hardship. TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES #17 10/7/10 Boardmember Weller asked the applicant to provide the DRB with evidence to make the finding for a practical difficulty or necessary hardship for the requested variance. Mr. Baradaran said that the bathroom is shaped in a way that makes it not useful and proper unless it is widened by 12 inches. He said that the master bathroom was the main reason for doing this project. Boardmember Weller noted that someone who is handicapped could more easily access the bathroom if it was widened. Mr. Baradaran agreed that this would definitely be an advantage, as the narrow spot is right around the toilet and there would not be enough room to turn around if one was in a wheelchair. Chair Tollini stated that Staff suggested to shift the addition back one foot and he asked if there was any reason that would not work. Mr. Baradaran said that the addition lines up with the garage below. There were no public comments. Boardmember Emberson said that one foot is a small request and this house is relatively small compared to the other homes in the area. She said that adding a one foot overhang would make sense because it would create a shield from the wind without changing the building footprint. She said that she could appreciate 12 inches of additional space for a master bathroom. Boardmember Weller said that the only issue he had with the project was making the findings. He was satisfied that the applicant needed to make the bathroom much more handicapped accessible and that the additional area would therefore alleviate a practical difficulty. Chair Tollini agreed and said that this was a very small request. He thought that it was possible to leave the bathroom as it was previously approved or to shift it back, but he believed that shifting it back would create a more complex design that be an unnecessary hardship. He thought that this was the cleanest and simplest way of solving the problem. ACTION: It was M/S (Emberson/Weller) that the request for 96 Sugarloaf Drive is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act and the approving the request, subject to the attached conditions of approval. Vote: 3-0. F. APPROVAL OF MINUTES #16 OF THE 9/16/10 DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MEETING ACTION: It was.M/S (Emberson/Tollini) to approve the minutes of the September 16, 2010 meeting as written. Vote: 3-0. G. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 8:45 p.m. TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES #17 7 10/7/10