Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutTC Digest 2011-11-04TOWN COUNCIL WEEKLY DIGEST Week of October 31-November 4, 2011 1. Letter - Caregiver Compassion Group - Municipal Support for Prop. 215 and Legal Collectives 2. Application to Planning Commission - Rick Waterman 3. Application to Planning Commission - Patrick McNerney Agendas & Minutes 4. Minutes - Design Review Board - October 6, 2011 5. Action Minutes - Design Review Board - November 3, 2011 Regional a) Invitation - Participation in Research Survey - Sharing Local Govt. Svcs * b) Invitation - AIPAC - Northern California - Annual San Francisco Membership Dinner -December 6, 2011 * c) Invitation - Annual Moose Feed Luncheon - December 9, 2011 d) Conference Announcement - LGC -11th Annual New Partners for Smart Growth e) Sierra Club Yodeler -Newsletter - November/December 2011 f) Comcast California -September 2011 * g) Imagine - Marin Philanthropist Magazine - Fall 2011 h) Western City - November 2011 Agendas & Minutes i) None * Council Only mightbe interested Feel free to respond: I NOV -1 2011 FINANCE DEPARTMENT TOWN OF TIBURON Dear Governor Brown, October 245 2011 I am writing to you in complete frustration and am asking you to hear me out. I do not know what else to do. I have been a medical cannabis patient since 2000, in the medical cannabis industry since 2004. What I have witnessed through the years is a backlash in the industry based in greed and fear. What we read as the printed law and how that law is manifesting in real time are two different realities. Our dispensary began in 2004 before our city created a dispensary ordinance. By the fall of 2006, in collaboration with our city council, city planning department, representatives from ASA, our asso- ciation attorney, and our city's attorney, a comprehensive dispensary ordinance was created and im- plemented in December of that year. This ordinance required that our dispensary be set up in strict compliance with Prop. 215, which included the creation of our not-for-profit status. We were happy to comply, thinking it would be a positive step to becoming an accepted part of our community. But, alas, the ambiguity in the law, fear by our local politicians, and greed from our association's president brought the association to its knees. First of all, our association's book-keeper informed us that our president was sequestering our accounting information. It appeared inventory and cash were missing. We all noticed behavior changes, and these changes were negatively impacting our patient base. Contacting the association's attorney, it was determined that, in strict accordance with the association's by-laws and articles, the president was to be removed for dereliction of duty. Once he was removed, we went to our city's planning department to inform them of our change of offi- cers, and to our surprise, they now refused to comply with their own requirements regarding our not- for-profit status. They allowed, and continue to allow, our ex-president to HAVE AND HOLD the dispensary permit, knowing full well that NO ONE MEMBER of the association can possess any real property or contract; those items belong ONLY to the association and not to any one person. Without cooperation from the city, our association attorney abandoned us, informing us that because the city was not now honoring its commitment to procedure there was nothing we could do to re- trieve our permit. Thus began our quest for an attorney who understood the importance of challeng- ing the ambiguities in Prop. 215. Each attorney we talked with either did not understand the law, did not understand how a not-for-profit operates in California, or did not want to risk the financial obligation and time involved. 2353 Mikayla Dr. Phone: 415-289-1111 Santa Rosa CA 95403 Fax: 415-480-5551 E-mail: ccg420@att.net p~EG1 V~ 4 + . n ~ o % vio% Ultimately, our association has been floating from one tentative situation to another. Every opportu- nity to acquire a permanent location has been stifled by one or more of the following: 1) each city or township's outright banning of dispensaries 2) a moratorium in place that a city or township refuses to rescind 3) an ordinance in place that is so restrictive there is little, if any, available zoning 4) an ordinance in place that is so obscure the overseeing government body refuses to arbitrate. Now, Governor Brown, you have signed a bill that solidifies the ability of municipalities and counties to justify their discrimination of medical cannabis patients and collectives. If our law-makers con- tinue to marginalize this segment of our population, the necessary regulations to allow differentiation between medical situations and illegal, for-profit ventures will never come to fruition. Medical canna- bis patients will continue to be stigmatized until media's continued glorification of the for-profit market and the government's refusal to recognize the difference between them and the medical can- nabis community ends. The line between COMPLETELY legal, medical operations and illegal, com- mercial facilities has become severely blurred, and with no continuity between city and county laws and no state oversight it appears everyone is making up the rules as they go along, thinking there will be no consequences (and that truly seems to be the case). I am fully aware that at this point in time, the momentum for an equitable outcome for those of us who have attempted to conduct business with the true intent of Prop. 215 in mind has swung far afield against us. The mission that our association envisioned from its inception has always been that of service. We are a collective of patients who want only to provide the same level of relief from suffering that we have received. We have fought to keep our integrity intact, to maintain our facility as a haven for those truly in need, consistently providing pro-medical cannabis education to ensure that the true spirit of the "Compassionate Use Act" remains intact. So, Governor, where do we go from here? Our reserve funds are depleted with no city or county in a radius of 150 miles willing to even dialogue with us. Do we disregard the law and conduct business underground? Do we storm city council and board of supervisors meetings and demand fair play? Do we become violent to make our point? When do LEGAL COLLECTIVES receive the same rights as those who have circumvented the law? WHAT IS OUR NEXT ALTERNATIVE? Thank you for your time. I hope to hear back from you. With respect, ' Berta Bollinger Co-President CCG NFP Association 2353 Mikayla Dr. Phone: 415-289-1111 Santa Rosa CA 95403 Fax: 415-480-5551 E-mail: ccg420@att.net DIV A ~ 0 to stoo 'i W11 cc: Belvedere City Council Belvedere City Attorney Corte Madera City Council Corte Madera City Attorney Larkspur City Council Larkspur City Attorney Mill Valley City Council Mill Valley City Attorney Novato City Council Novato City Attorney Petaluma City Council Petaluma City Attorney Rohnert Park City Council Rohnert Park City Attorney San Rafael City Council San Rafael City Attorney Santa Rosa City Council Santa Rosa City Attorney Sausalito City Council Sausalito City Attorney Tiburon City Council Tiburon City Attorney Windsor City Council Windsor City Attorney Marin County Board of Supervisors Sonoma County Board of Supervisors Marin County District Attorney Sonoma County District Attorney Kamala Harris, Ca. District Attorney Michael Allen, Ca. Assemblyman Torn A~mmiano, Ca. Assemblyman Wes Chesbro, Ca. Assemblyman Noreen Evans, Ca. State Senator Jared Huffman, Ca. Assemblyman Mark Leno, Ca. State Senator 2353 Mikayla Dr. Phone: 415-289-1111 Santa Rosa, CA 95403 Fax: 415-480-5551 E-mail: ccg420@att.net G + ' e'7 d O w ~~$1ON ~+`fi 11/03/2011 09:46 4153614460 PAGE 01 NOV 3 2011 TOWN CLERK TOWN OF TIBURON strtictions and lication to SexVe on, a Town Board • A ~,m,~ittee Commission or Co The Town Council considers appointments to various Town . boards, and commissions and coInniittees throughout the year due to. term eXa lies dents in vacancies. In an effort to broaden participation b needs to know your unforeseen ron's governmental process and activities, the Council n Tibu interest in serving the Town in some capacity. Please indicate your specific areas of interest and special skills orexperience forms and which would be beneficial to the Town, by completing bTiburonoth C pAa,ges of this 94920, or fax it to returning it to 'Town Hall, 1505 Tiburon Blvd, (415)435-2438. n will be forwarded to the Town Council ands 11 Copies of the application occurs. Your application informal interview will be scheduled when Hone aear. remain on file at Town Hall for a period of (1) y Thank you for your willingness to serve the Tiburon community. Diane Crane Iacopi Town Clerk ~~****~(cok*~'~k~l~~k*•k~k*ck~kek~kck~k~koK*~k~k~k~w**'k AREA or JN~'FR]Esr Please To left a Your AM `no9C~c1~est J.~Icrcot)mcricnl order (#1 Bung 1 PLANNING # PARJKS &OPEN SPACE 1I, ~CREA''1,ON 00 .~DEST,GN REVIEwTS -1:1DISASTER PREPAREDNESS IxA GE & AR MART.N COMMISSION ON AGING !LIBRARY--'_ 4 RiCY CLE/PEDESTRIAN A,DV .SORX COMMITTEE 1 11/03/2011 09:46 4153814460 PAGE 02 pERSONAL DATA will be accepted; ewriit" copy Only cotr►puter-generated or VP Attach sccrate pages, including resumes sncl cover lett.crs, il'neces9a.ry. Att~► P Klak Waterman NAME: 36 South.ridge West T -buron, Calif. 9492U MAILING ADDRESS= No. 3A1-4!t60 ~dl-y~~.nl • HerF• Work: Fax TF,LEPR.ONE: Boyne. tceedlauo.s ROPLRTY OWNEIRS' ASSOC- (1f"Pl "ble) 1)./03/20].1 " TED 14 DATE SUBMIT TIRURON RESIDENT: (Years) gEASONS FOR SELECTING YOUR AREAS Or INTEREST ^ Past 4 e.nefits of being a. Tiburon homeowner over -the paw the b Z have enjoyed :I.n. a way that would y~~1L5- community I Would like to give beck to rttY affords us. Of 1J.fe that ov.r community cvntinue to fo gter. the' gv.a.l.itY APPLICABLE UALIFICADONS A] W~D EXPFRall -4CF involved w;.th pg an a er 9on.a.l .Level f T have been con. ttorr,Ey, anal on a n pVeinmen~h'.a]. :l.s9uFs latini.ng, and va.rious 9 ~.tectua]. p h the Process I have gone ~throug n ,strucr,lon► p'1.ann;.g arch : houses :for over 35 years. T have bu~.1t many w;,th the pxocEdt~ral and substantive mlancES . a„e lamiliarity and the president of many time3 and. h res;talent of a very large nonprofit organtizaty.on, s of experience in ~a the p ~ wners agsociati.on, S also have over two decade ew, and, in :F.aah7.ona.ng a xom.-o working nc~ col.laborata.velY with people of all. points o vi.. compromises. Date Hit11 Use _ _ - Date Application Received: Interview Date: Appointed to: (CommiSSlOn, Board or Committee) (Date) Date Term Expires: Length of Term: nov-3rii z TOWN CLERK TOWN OF TIBURON NOV R D EG E ~v E 0 30 - 3 2011 s> G E 3 T TOWN CLERK TOWN OF TIBURON Instructions and Application to Serve on a Town Board, Commission or Committee The Town Council considers appointments to various Town boards, commissions and committees throughout the year due to term expirations and unforeseen vacancies. In an effort to broaden participation by local residents in Tiburon's governmental process and activities, the Council needs to know your interest in serving the Town in some capacity. Please indicate your specific areas of interest and special skills or experience which would be beneficial to the Town, by completing both pages of this form and returning it to Town Hall, 1505 Tiburon Blvd, Tiburon CA 94920, or fax it to (415)435-2438. Copies of the application will be forwarded to the Town Council and an informal interview will be scheduled when a vacancy occurs. Your application will remain on file at Town Hall for a period of one (1) year. Thank you for your willingness to serve the Tiburon community. Diane Crane Iacopi Town Clerk AREAS OF INTEREST Please Indicate Your Area(s) of Interest in Numerical Order (#I Being the Greatest Interest) #1 PLANNING # PARKS & OPEN SPACE #z DESIGN REVIEW # RECREATION # HERITAGE & ARTS # DISASTER PREPAREDNESS # LIBRARY # MARIN COMMISSION ON AGING # BICYCLE/PEDESTRIAN ADVISORY COMMITTEE 1 PERSONAL DATA Only computer-generated or typewritten copy will be accepted; Attach separate pages, including resumes and cover letters, if necessary. NAME: Patrick McNerney MAILING ADDRESS: 1691 Mar West Street, Tiburon TELEPHONE: Home: /tiy-~ti4t5 Work: 415-601-2200 Fag No. 415-348-8058 PROPERTY OWNERS' ASSOC. (If applicable) TIBURON RESIDENT: (years) 5 months DATE SUBMITTED: 11-2-11 REASONS FOR SELECTING YOUR AREAS OF INTEREST Having been a multi-family home builder in San Francisco for the past 20+ years, I am passionate about great design, the integration of developments into the community, and sustainable practices. See attached for added info. APPLICABLE QUALIFICATIONS AND EXPERIENCE Applicable experience includes the following: * President, Martin Building Company (resume and sample portfolio attached) (www.martinbuilding.com) * Board of Directors - member, San Francisco Architectural Heritage (www.sfheritage.org) * Secretary, Urban Preservation Foundation (www.urbanpreservation.org) ----------------------------------------------Town Hall Use Date Application Received: ) Interview Date: Appointed to: (Commission, Board or Committee) Date Term Expires: NOV H D E C E ~ V E - 3 2011 2 (Date) Length of Term: TOWN CLERK TOWN OF TIBURON 1ViARTIN`J ,i BllILDING C° OVERVIEW Founded in 1989 and located on the edge of San Francisco's SoMa District, Martin Building Company is a multi-disciplinary design, construction and development firm. Renowned for its commitment to quality design, historic preservation and neighborhood-oriented urban infill development, Martin Building Company strives to craft an intriguing blend of contemporary design and civic spirit into all of its projects. A full-service firm with special expertise in historic preservation, its expanding portfolio consists of a wide range of new construction and renovations in diverse buildings and sites primarily in San Francisco. Martin Building Company's credentials include single-family residential, multi-unit residential, commercial office buildings, restaurants, multi-building urban developments, adaptive reuse projects, and historic renovations. Services Martin Building Company provides expertise in every stage of the real estate process, from acquisition, design and general contracting through marketing and management. • General contracting • Architectural design • Real-estate acquisition • Property management • Real-estate marketing • Urban planning • Historic preservation PATRICK MCNERNEY, PRESIDENT Patrick McNerney, owner and president of Martin Building Company, is responsible for the restoration and adaptive re-use of more than twenty historically significant buildings in San Francisco. Demonstrating a great deal of initiative and success in the urban revitalization of the Central Market district, centered around 5th and Jessie Streets, he has successfully transformed a group of underutilized, seismically unsafe, vacant historic buildings into an attractive and safe urban neighborhood. Among these notable developments are Mint Plaza, San Francisco's newest public outdoor space; Mint Collection, a mixed-use residential/live-work/commercial development (buildings include 2 Mint Plaza, 6 Mint Plaza, 10 Mint Plaza, and 14 Mint Plaza); and Mezzanine, a richly diverse music and events space located at 444 Jessie Street. Mr. McNerney has provided oversight for all of his firm's architectural operations including design review, action and coordination with government agencies. His expanding portfolio includes a range of new construction and renovations in diverse property types in San Francisco, Los Angeles, and New York including single-family housing, live/work spaces, custom residences, commercial office buildings, restaurants, multi-building urban developments, and adaptive reuse projects. Mr. McNerney is a broker member of the National Association of Realtors and California Associations of Realtors, and serves on the advisory boards for the San Francisco Architectural Heritage and Urban Preservation Foundation. He is a graduate of California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo. COMPANY ADDRESS 14 Mint Street, Fifth Floor San Francisco, California 94103 Telephone 415.442.4800 Facsimile 415.442.4811 www.martinbuilding.com www.mintcollectionsf.com www.mintplazasf.org 1Y16 MINUTES #15 TIBURON DESIGN REVEW BOARD W MEETING OF OCTOBER 6, 2011 The meeting was opened at 7:00 p.m. by Chair Kricensky. A. ROLL CALL Present: Chair Kricensky, Vice-Chair Emberson, Boardmember Johnson Absent: Boardmembers Chong and Tollini Ex-Officio: Planning Manager Watrous and Minutes Clerk Rusting B. PUBLIC COMMENTS - None C. STAFF BRIEFING Planning Manager Watrous welcomed Greg Johnson, the newest Boardmember, to the Design Review Board. He also announced that no items are currently scheduled for the October 20"' meeting. D. PUBLIC HEARINGS AND NEW BUSINESS 460 RIDGE ROAD: File No. 711085; Amalfi West, LLC, Owner; Site Plan and Architectural Review for construction of a new two-story single-family dwelling. The applicants propose to demolish more than 50% of an existing two-story dwelling and construct a new dwelling. The house would have a total floor area of 4,340 square feet. A series of retaining walls up to 6 feet in height would be constructed on either side of the relocated driveway, along with a series of retaining walls creating a terraced lawn area at the rear of the property. Assessor's Parcel No. 059-082-04. The applicant is requesting Design Review approval for the construction of a new two-story single-family dwelling on property located at 460 Ridge Road. The subject site is currently developed with an existing two-story dwelling. The project will demolish most (over 50%) of the floor area of the existing building. The upper floor of the house would include a master bedroom suite, along with four additional bedrooms and two more bathrooms. The lower floor would include a living room, dining room, kitchen, den and powder room. A "basement" level off the lower floor would include a storage room, laundry room, bathroom, and one additional "basement room" with closet. A two-car garage would be attached to the lower level. A terraced lawn area would be created to the rear of the house, supported by low retaining walls. A series of retaining walls up to 6 feet in height would be constructed on either side of the relocated driveway. A driveway gate would be installed closer to the new driveway apron at Ridge Road. The house would cover a total of 3,670 square feet (14.8%) of the site, which would be less than the 15.0% maximum lot coverage permitted in the RO-2 zone. The floor area of the proposed house would be 4,840 square feet, with 700 square feet indicated as basement space. The total floor area requested of would exceed the floor area ratio of 4,340 square feet, which is less than the floor area ratio for a lot of this size. Michael Rex, architect, said that his firm had been added to the team as a planning consultant. He explained the existing site is over one-half acre and includes a relatively small 2,600 square foot house. TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES #15 10/6/11 He said most people would knock down the house, but the owner would like to save portions of it and work with the existing footprint. He said that the new home would be sited in the center of the lot and expand to the east side. He pointed out a large amount of open space around the house and said that all of the neighbors look away from the site except for the homes across the street. He said that there are potential view issues from three homes and their goals for the project involved staying out of those views and honoring the Town's Hillside Guidelines. He described the side elevations showing the house stepping up the grade and noted that much of the house would be underground. They proposed to remove the fill from the original house construction and build in that area on the original grade. He said that there would be some terracing in the back of the property and they would like to stack up the rock on the site into some low retaining walls, each no more than three feet high. Mr. Rex said that there have been some concerns from neighbors regarding the eastern expansion. He said that the proposed house would be well below the other homes and dug into the hill, which would allow the house to be lower into the hill than originally proposed. He shared photos taken from the neighboring property showing the existing home and explained that the chimney would be removed and the tallest part of the house would be in the middle, at the same height as the highest point of the current roof. He addressed the concerns about view blockage by the owner at 480 Ridge Road by sharing a photo taken from that location showing mature pines that block the story poles. He stated that after the story poles went up the owner at 480 Ridge Road went onto the subject property and trimmed those trees without permission. He stated that even that amount of view blockage would be very minor, and he did not know how the photo submitted by the neighbor of the story poles blocking a view of the Golden Gate Bridge could have been taken. He said that they propose to install a 10-foot hedge to block the view from the lower neighboring property. He said that there are only two small windows at the back of that neighbor's home and all of his views are in the other direction. Mr. Rex acknowledged that there had been some questions about light and glare. He said that there would be very little glass facing the home at 480 Ridge Road, and the garage and walk-in closet in the master bedroom would block a lot of the light. He also stated that the neighbor's Pine trees would only allow him to see the rooftop. He stated that some screening that is mostly Acacia exists between the property and 480 Ridge Road, but would be removed for the modified driveway. He said that they would replant this area and take the opportunity to bring in better plantings and screen the walls. He explained that the owner wants privacy and it is in everyone's mutual interest to put in the plantings and maintain them. Mr. Rex said that the biggest concern raised by staff was the grading. He said that a fair amount of excavation will be needed to sink a house down on the site. He said that the plantings would soften views of the house and make it barely visible. He said that the grading would involve about 200 trucks driving down to remove the dirt from the site, but that amount of excavation would not be unusual and the house will be there for decades. He characterized the excavation as a reasonable request given the permanent solution the house will provide and said that they were willing to better develop the plans to clarify the landscaping plans. Mr. Rex said that he had just finished another project in Sausalito with similar view issues and it went well. He believed the owner is very sincere and wants to protect privacy and views of neighbors, but in order to do this, they needed this amount of grading. He also said that the floor area exception was necessary so the house would not look out of place, stating that much of the floor area of the home would be below grade. He stated that the additional 360 feet they were requesting was similar to other projects recently approved with floor area exceptions. He compared the current project's lot to other recent examples in the vicinity and said that they were asking for 1.4% over what is allowed, while other projects had higher percentages. TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES #15 2 10/6/11 Lowell Strauss, representing Amalfi West, LLC, presented photos of similar projects recently approved with retaining walls and graded driveways. Vice-Chair Emberson requested clarification regarding the roofline. Mr. Rex explained that the plans show an eight foot ceiling height rising an additional four feet in the master bedroom. He said that it was higher originally and they brought it down after talking with neighbors. He said that the word "new" was added to distinguish the revision, and there should be a line at the top that says "proposed roofline." The public hearing was opened. James Bernhisel said that the project represents a critical change- in the development pattern of the neighborhood. He said that this project would alter that pattern by moving the house all the way down to the south and east of the property. He said that this would reduce the value of his home and limit his ability to add onto his home. He pointed out that the existing structure is to the side of his property, and the new proposed structure would be in front of his home. He also said that the landscaping plan was inadequate. He was concerned about the lighting affecting his nighttime view and replacing the existing vegetation with large trees would block his views. He would like to see vegetation that does not need to be trimmed, screening of all the windows to the north that face his property and was concerned that cars entering the driveway would be visible. Lark Halpern questioned the description of the project details. Planning Manager Watrous responded that the numbers listed in the agenda were incorrect, whereas the numbers in the staff report were correct. Ms. Halpern read a letter from Lynn Garay stating that the home would be interesting and attractive but the concerns of the neighbors have merit. She said that she would like to see them build a home which takes into account the concerns of the neighbors and requested the Board postpone the project to address those concerns. Ms. Halpern also read a letter signed by six other neighbors which said that they object to the floor area exception. Vice-Chair Emberson asked who those neighbors are. Ms. Halpern listed some of the names. Planning Manager Watrous said that those names do not own properties within 300 feet and asked to be given a listing of the addresses, which Ms. Halpern provided. Ms. Halpern stated that she was concerned about the location of the project so far down the hill. She was also concerned about light pollution and privacy did not see how planted screening would mitigate that. Angela Danadjieva said that she has lived in her home to the west for over 35 years and knows the neighborhood well. She was pleasantly surprised when she saw the plan. She said that most of the building would be into the hill and she had the same situation in her location but has 25 foot high walls to keep the neighbor above from seeing the house. She thought that the upper neighbors would benefit because currently the house has a pitched roof. Lisa Lowell, representing her mother Ingrid Freeman who lives across the street, said that they were concerned about a tree that has been a constant headache for decades, and she would like the applicant to state the types of trees that would be planted so they know what to expect. She said that the trees have grown very high and it is hard to see the roofline from across the street. She requested trees to be planted that would not grow above the roofline. She also said it would be great if there could be screening to block the light at night from the windows. Steve Schwartz said that he had just completed a project on the street. He said that this would be a beautiful addition to the neighborhood. He said that none of the houses on that ridge should expect to have privacy because no one does now due to the open space. He said that he cannot see the existing TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES #15 3 10/6/11 house at all from his own home and can only see the top of the story poles, which was revealed when the trees were trimmed. He also said that when he looks out of his own house all he sees are lights from the houses below and felt that this is an interesting but not disturbing view. Jerry Reynolds said that he sees lights of houses below but they are very far away. The concern his wife was discussing was the huge glass area from the dining room that would advance towards the property line that they share. He hoped that the Design Review Board would not see plantings as a solution to privacy issues. He understood that the Board can make a condition of approval for the upkeep of the plantings, but expressed concern about a future property owner who might change the landscaping. Mr. Strauss addressed some of the neighbors' concerns and said that he was most concerned with affecting people's views and the values of neighboring properties. He said that the first thing he did was spend a lot of time walking around the neighborhood and he approached all of the neighbors to determine any concerns. He said that they would dig the house into the hillside to address concerns of neighbors about view blockage. He said that he had not received any of the letters from neighbors and said that the letter with six signatures was from neighbors that do not live anywhere near the property. He said that the project would improve the view for two of the neighboring properties by removing the chimney on the sloping roof and stated that it would be a tremendous expense to dig the house into the hillside. Mr. Rex clarified the siting of the existing house relative to the proposed building. He said that they would move the garage to the east and move the driveway entry to get a longer run down to the garage. Otherwise, he said that the house the house would be in exactly the same place in the north-south direction and the bedroom wing would be in the same place. He said that the only part that would extend to the south was a one-story living room. He objected to the idea that plant material cannot be used to provide privacy and screening and said that this is a standard way of addressing such issues. He said that a condition of approval that landscaping must be cared for would run with the land and not change with ownership of the property. He acknowledged that they need an improved landscape plan and will work on this. He said that trees do not need to grow above the roofline and they would not object to a condition of approval stating that. He said that there are many opportunities to screen the windows. He said that because the house would be so far down he believed that the windows would not be seen, and the height and location of the windows would be similar to those of the existing house. He said that the four foot eaves mean that the story poles make the house look bigger than it would be, and he asked the Board to consider their efforts and support the design. Chair Kricensky questioned and clarified with Mr. Rex that the areas around the driveway would all be planting area. Planning Manager Watrous pointed out that the landscape plan shows only two trees in that area, and Mr. Rex agreed with the need for a better landscape plan and agreed to provide one. The public hearing was closed. Vice-Chair Emberson said that using floor area exception data of other houses is not relevant because every project depends on the site, topography, and other factors. She said that this project involves a tremendous amount of grading. She liked the design of the house but felt that there was too much glass which would affect the neighbors. She said that the driveway would be very steep and seemed like a tunnel. She said that she spoke with the uphill neighbor and once the existing plantings are removed the house would have a large impact on his property. She said that she would like to see some reworking of the plan including a landscape plan that is more complete, and did not think that the amount of grading was sensitive to the site. TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES #15 4 10/6/11 Boardmember Johnson asked if conditions of approval can be granted into the deed. Planning Manager Watrous said it is rarely done because it becomes difficult to enforce. He said it is reasonable to have some reliability on landscaping. Mr. Johnson said that he liked some components of the design. He shared Emberson's sentiments regarding the amount of grading being done, thought that it would be close to being in balance with what the neighbors want and suggested bringing it up a few feet. He thought that did the amount of glazing on the house would create a lot of indirect lighting impacts. He pointed out that the south-facing windows would require coverings and agreed more work needs to be done on the landscape plan. He said that he would like to see a view showing the perspective of the house in relation to the downhill neighbor with screening ideas. He said that the project design was close, but needed more work. Chair Kricensky said that he was also concerned about the amount of glass on the front of the building. He liked the house and the concept for its design, and felt that lowering the house an extra 2 to 3 feet would make a difference. He suggested that the proposed leveled landscape area would take away some of the naturalness of the site which serves as a buffer for the neighbors. He felt that it is important to look at the overall planning of the area, not just the house. He said that building the house out will limit the area in which the other houses can build. Vice-Chair Emberson agreed with Chair Kricensky that there is a domino effect that limits the ability of houses below to develop their properties. Chair Kricensky suggested that other portions of the site could be used and suggested that the house not go so far to the east. He also discussed the view blockage issue and said that even if the trees were not there, there would be very little view blockage from the existing house. He said that most of the grading did not bother him because it was proposed for a reason and he thought that the applicant made a good case for keeping the house down lower to protect views. He said that the hardscape in the lower garden felt unnatural to him. He was not as concerned about the driveway, but was concerned about its direction near the bedroom of the neighboring house. Vice-Chair Emberson said she did not think that a small re-working of the design would be enough and said that it would help to try to push the addition closer to the center. Mr. Rex said that if the house was low enough they could slide back the upper floor and shift the lower floor more toward the center. Chair Kricensky said the design then becomes almost a two-story building on the first floor if that shift was made. Vice-Chair Emberson pointed out there is a large flat area that is not being used, and Chair Kricensky reiterated that he was concerned about the impact on future development patterns. ACTION: It was M/S (Emberson/Johnson) to continue 460 Ridge Road to the November 3, 2011 meeting. Vote: 3-0. E. APPROVAL OF MINUTES #14 OF THE 8/18/11 DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MEETING ACTION: It was M/S (Emberson/Johnson) to approve the minutes of the August 18, 2011 meeting, as written. Vote: 3-0. F. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 8:30 p.m. TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES #15 10/6/11 TOWN OF TIBURON Action Minutes - Regular Meeting Tiburon Town Hall Design Review Board 1505 Tiburon Boulevard November 3, 2011 Tiburon, CA 94920 7:00 P.M. ACTION MINUTES # 16 IF) I Cw, 17-- Z3 T TIBURON DESIGN REVIEW BOARD CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL At 7.-00 PM Present: Chairman Kricensky, Vice Chair Emberson and Boardmember Chong, Johnson and Tollini Absent: None Ex-Officio: Planning Manager Watrous, Associate Planner Tyler and Minutes Clerk Rusting OLD BUSINESS 1. 460 RIDGE ROAD: File No. 711085; Amalfi West, LLC, Owner; Site Plan and Architectural Review for construction of a new two-story single-family dwelling. The applicants propose to demolish more than 50% of an existing two-story dwelling and construct a new dwelling. The house would have a total floor area of 4,431 square feet. A series of retaining walls up to 6 feet in height would be constructed on either side of the relocated driveway, along with a series of retaining walls creating a terraced lawn area at the rear of the property. Assessor's Parcel No. 059-082-04. Continued to 1211111 PUBLIC HEARINGS AND NEW BUSINESS 2. 8 WILKINS COURT: File No. 21103; Randall Doctor, Owner; Site Plan and Architectural Review for construction of deck additions, with a Variance for reduced side yard setback. The applicant proposes to modify a previously approved deck additions to the rear of the living room. The deck would extend to within 5 feet of the western side property line, which would be less than the 15 foot required side yard setback in the RO- 2 zone. Assessor's Parcel No. 039-032-10. Directed Staff to prepare resolution of denial for 1211111 meeting (5-0) 3. 6 APOLLO ROAD: File No. 711105; Simon and Jennifer Barker, Owners; Site Plan and Architectural Review for conversion of a garage into living space for an existing single- family dwelling. A412 square foot two-car attached garage would be converted into a bedroom or family room and a bathroom. Assessor's Parcel No. 034-271-03. Approved S-0 MINUTES 4. Regular Meeting of October 6, 2011 Approved 3-0-2 (Chong and Tollini abstained) ADJOURNMENT At 9:00 PM Action Minutes # 16 11/3/11 Design Review Board Meeting Page 1