The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutTC Digest 2011-12-02TOWN COUNCIL WEEKLY DIGEST Week of November 28 -December 2, 2011 T;1kr rnr, 1. Email - Behrooz Sarafraz - Thank You for Exceptional Police Department Service - 2 Mariposa Court 2. Memo - Scott Anderson - Major Peninsula Development Project Status Update 3. Email - Jeanette Carr - Comments on CVS Sign 4. Letter - Caroline Coon - Canine Fecal Matter 5. Yearly Recap - Design Review Submittals - November 2011 6. Monthly Report - Design Review Board - November 2011 Agendas & Minutes 7. Minutes - Design Review Board - November 3, 2011 8. Agenda - Design Review Board - December 1, 2011 9. Action Minutes - Design Review Board - December 1, 2011 Reizional a) Fundraising Letter - Angel Island Immigration Station Foundation b) Fundraising Letter - Buckelew Programs c) Comcast California -October 2011 * d) UC Davis Extension - Land Use and Natural Resources Courses - Winter 2012 e) GovLink Review - Government Technology Newsletter -Dec. 2011 /Jan. 2012 * Agendas & Minutes f) None * Council Only Ur% IGES 7 Page 1 oft Peggy Curran From: BSarafraz@aol.com Sent: Monday, November 28, 2011 7:29 PM To: Peggy Curran Subject: A Letter of Commendation For Police Chief Michael Cronin Attention: Ms. Peggy Curran Tiburon Town Manager November 28, 2011 Dear Ms. Curran: My wife, Dr. Ruth Rassel and I, would like to express our highest gratitude for the exceptional manner with which Tiburon's Police Chief, Michael Cronin, responded so effectively to our sudden very serious safety concerns throughout today. Our house at #2 Mariposa Court, was burglarized by a life-long criminal, Steven Joseph O'Brien, back in February of 2007, for which he received a 9-year prison sentence. This was the first time I had been the victim of any crime, and certainly the first time I had experienced such a terrible violation of our personal house during my nearly 14 years of having lived incident- free in Tiburon. That was quite a traumatic event for us. Last Wednesday evening, one of Tiburon's most outstanding Police Officers, Shane Ford, came to our house to personally deliver to us the shocking news that Steven O'Brien, had in fact already been released from prison early, having only served one-half of his original prison sentence, and that he now lives in San Rafael in an unknown address, as a "transient" with no fixed address. (At the time of his sentencing, his prosecutor had assured me several times that once O'Brien is released from prison, he would never be allowed to live anywhere near Tiburon.) Such heads up news, by a very well-meaning and caring Officer Ford, who displayed clear concern for our safety, was highly valuable to us, for "information is power". However, this news also served to completely take away all our sense of personal security, especially since we had learned shortly after his arrest that this particularly "brazen" life-long criminal has had a long history of somehow always returning to Tiburon to break into multiple houses after each of his previous releases from prison. (The fact that Tiburon police had discovered two stolen guns and duct tapes in his car at the time of his last arrest in February of 2007, strongly convinced us that he had been prepared to conduct an armed home-invasion of our house, except that luckily we were not at home during his break-in.) After having spent several sleepless nights during the past days with my frightened and shaken wife, I decided to spontaneously visit Tiburon's Police Department this Monday morning and requested to speak directly with Police Chief Cronin. To my pleasant surprise, Chief Cronin came to personally greet me and then carefully listened to our very serious concerns regarding Mr. O'Brien having been shockingly allowed to reside in San Rafael upon his early release, only five miles away from the scene of his latest crime for which he was arrested, and with NO travel restrictions placed on him whatsoever! After our conversation, Chief Cronin surprised me again by actually offering to follow me to our house. He then spent well over an hour of his valuable time with my wife and I, utilizing decades of his own personal law enforcement experience, by carefully going over all the security matters that my wife and I can immediately implement to best protect ourselves, such as creating a "safe room" at our house and installing special locks. 11/30/2011 Page 2 of 2 His mere presence and personal guidance at our house served to greatly calm down my wife, who is a general surgeon and the Director of Surgery for both the Fairfield and Vacaville hospitals, since it clearly displayed to us that Chief Cronin genuinely and personally cares about the safety of his Tiburon residents. A few hours later, Chief Cronin pleasantly surprised us again by calling to inform us that he had spent some time speaking with the Chief of the Parole Division in Santa Rosa, in order to fully clarify to him that allowing Mr. O'Brien to live such a short distance from Tiburon, the scene of his many burglaries, including his latest one, was a terrible and dangerous idea and that it was literally affecting the well- being of his last victims, namely us. Chief Cronin further expressed to him the sheer fright and nervousness that my wife and I have been experiencing since learning of the early release of Mr. O'Brien. (I actually purchased a semi-automatic weapon for my wife this past weekend, and she is a pacifist, but such has been her level of discomfort with having Mr. O'Brien being allowed to live so close to us, especially with me traveling abroad nearly 250 days each year, and with her being home alone, while being on call.) Chief Cronin's conversation with the head of the Santa Rosa Parole Office, Mr. Scott McCloud, had obviously been taken very seriously, because I received a phone call from Mr. McCloud, less than an hour later, confirming with me that he will order the transfer of Mr. O'Brien to a location at least fifty miles away from Tiburon by no later than this Friday. He further confirmed that Mr. O'Brien would have to receive a written permit from his parole officer, each and every time he visits Tiburon. He assured me that such permits will not be granted to him. All this came as most comforting and great news to us! Finally, Chief Cronin contacted me once again later this afternoon, personally confirming the above planned transfer of Mr. O'Brien to Sonoma County by Friday and further informed me that with this new restriction placed on Mr. O'Brien, that now he and his officers can immediately arrest Steven O'Brien, if he is ever spotted anywhere in Tiburon, which would be a clear violation of his parole and would result in him being sent him back to prison. On behalf of my wife, myself and as the former President of our closely-knit community of Ring Mountain Homeowners' Association, and all our other neighbors on Mariposa Court and Reed Ranch road, we wish to present our Highest Commendation to Police Chief Michael Cronin for having taken our genuine concerns so very seriously as clearly indicated by all his decisive and prompt actions throughout today to best protect us all. Please be kind enough to relay our commendation and gratitude to Tiburon's most capable Police Chief. Respectfully, Behrooz Sarafraz & Dr. Ruth Ann Rassel Behrooz Sarafraz Chairman Roya Resources, LLC Golden tat- Capital Tel: +1-415-435-5090 Fax:+1-415-435-5064 Cell:+1-415-518-5090 Behrooz anroyaresources.com BSarafraz(a-aol.com 11/30/2011 TOWN OF TIBURON 1505 Tiburon Boulevard Tiburon, CA 94920 a. ~K ~y. -MEMORANDUM Date: November 29, 2011 To: Mayor & Members of the Town Council, Planning Commission & Design Review Board From: Scott Anderson, Director of Community Developme Subject: Major Peninsula Development Project Status Update The following is a status report on major development applications on the Tiburon Peninsula. Town of Tiburon applications with approvals or currently being processed are as follows: • Achuck (formerly Amerippon/Parente Vista): 2 lots on 10 acres (Antonette Road) • Tiburon Glen: 3 lots on 26 acres (Paradise Drive) • Ling (a.k.a. Stony Hill Development): 3 lots on 5.6 acres (Stony Hill Road) • Alta Robles (a.k.a. S.O.D.A./Rabin): 14 lots on 52+ acres (Paradise Drive) • Tiburon Court (Upper Trestle Glen): 3 lots on 13 acres (Trestle Glen Blvd.) • Trestle Glen Circle (Lower Trestle Glen): 3 lots on 14 acres (Trestle Glen Blvd.) • Belvedere-Tiburon Library Expansion (1501 Tiburon Boulevard) • Paradise Drive Prezoning (prezoning. of 85 parcels comprising 230 acres) County of Marin applications involving major unincorporated peninsula properties are as follows: • Easton Point (a.k.a. Martha Company): 43 units on 110 acres (various streets) • Sorokko: 5 lots on 16 acres (Paradise Drive) • Salvatore-Swahn: 1 home on 15 acres (Paradise Drive) • Pan Pacific Ocean (a.k.a. Habitat for Humanity): 7 units on 17 acres (Bay Vista Drive) This report summarizes the current status of the above-listed applications. A map showing the general project locations is attached as Exhibit 1. Status of Town of Tiburon Projects Achuck aka Ameri-ppon &Parente Vista)----10 acres off Antonette Drive The Town Council approved a Precise Development Plan for two lots in 2010. The Planning Commission approved a Tentative Subdivision Map application in April 2011. The next steps would be the Parcel Map & Subdivision Improvement Plan approvals, followed by design review and building permit approval for the two homes. Due to state-authorized automatic time extensions, the Tentative Map approval is valid until April 2016 and may be further extended. Town Project Planner: Dan Watrous Tiburon Glen (aka 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 and dormant, and the property is being marketed for sale. Due to state-authorized automatic time extensions, the Tentative Map approval is valid until March 2015 and may be further extended. Town Project Planner: Scott Anderson Ling (aka Stony Hill Development)— 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 a Tentative Subdivision Map application was approved by the Planning Commission in September 2009. The applicant is currently working toward submittal of the Parcel Map and Subdivision Improvement Drawing applications to the Town. Due to state- authorized automatic time extensions, the Tentative Map approval is valid until 2014 and may be further extended. Town Project Planner: Dan Watrous Tiburon Court (aka Upper Trestle Glen)----13 acres of Trestle Glen Blvd. The Town has approved a 3-lot Tentative Map application for this property. Economic difficulties delayed the start of subdivision improvements for several years, and there is no known timetable for the commencement of work on the site, if it is to proceed at all. Due to state- authorized automatic time extensions, the subdivision approvals remain valid until October 2013, and can be further extended. However, the property was acquired by new owners in 2011. Their plans for the undeveloped site are unknown. Town Project Planner: Scott Anderson Alta Robles (a.k.a. Rabin/SODA)----52 acres above Paradise Drive near Seafirth Estates The Town Council certified the Environmental Impact Report for the project in August 2011. At its November 16, 2011 meeting, the Town Council reviewed a conceptual site plan that pulled all proposed new homes off the significant ridgelines on the site. Revised story poles will be erected, revised building envelopes will be staked, and revised drawings will be submitted for the January 18, 2012 Council meeting. Town Project Planner: Dan Watrous Trestle Glen Circle (a.k.a. Lower Trestle Glen)----.14 acres off Trestle Glen Blvd. The Planning Commission is currently reviewing a Precise Development Plan application to allow three homes on the lower reaches of this site. In 20105 the Planning Commission provided feedback to the property owner as part of a Conceptual Master Plan Review process. The Planning Commission suggested no more than three lots, keeping home sizes modest, and having all homes receiving access from a single new roadway off Trestle Glen Boulevard rather than through existing Little Reed Heights streets. The Precise Development Plan application appears to largely comport with this direction, and is scheduled to be heard by the Planning Commission in December 2011. Town Project Planner: Dan Watrous Belvedere-Tiburon Public Library Expansion In November 20115 the Town Council approved the initial legislative applications associated with this expansion project. Detailed site and architectural plans will still need to be approved by the Town Council through a streamlined review process. The Town Council has directed that the proposed 17,000 square foot addition be reduced in size and visual mass and bulk, with reductions to be determined at the architectural plan review stage. Town Project Planner: Scott Anderson Paradise Drive Prezoning Applications The Town approved prezoning of approximately 230 acres of land at the southeastern corner of the Tiburon Peninsula in July 2009. The approval was subsequently challenged in court by the Martha Company property owners. In concert with the Memorandum of Understanding reached between the Town Council and the Martha Company, the prezoning and litigation are on indefinite hold pending the outcome of the Easton Point development applications being processed by the County of Marin (see below). Town Project Planner: Scott Anderson Status of Projects being processed by the County of Marin Easton Point (a.k.a. Martha Company)----1 10 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. The Town and the Martha Company subsequently entered into a Memorandum of Understanding that would offer- a reduced-density (32-lot) alternative to be considered for approval. The Draft EIR for the project was released in 2011 and the response to comments document and Final EIR are currently being prepared by the County. There is no firm date established for public release of the Final EIR at this time, although it could be in early 2012. County Project Planner: John Roberto; Town of Tiburon contact is Scott Anderson Sorokko---- 16 acres off Paradise Drive The Board of Supervisors approved this 5-lot project in October 2008. The Parcel Map has since been recorded and the lots created. The Town is eligible to annex this property as early as May, 2012. No home designs have yet been filed or approved for any of the lots. County Project Planner: Jeremy Tejerian Salvatore-Swahn----- 15 acres off Paradise Drive The Marin County Planning Commission very recently approved the Design Review application 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 approval may be appealed to the Board of Supervisors. County Project Planner: Jeremy Tejerian Pan Pacific Ocean (a.k.a. Habitat for Humanity)----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 single family homes near the upper reaches of the property (adjacent to the Tiburon Crest Subdivision at the end of Via Los Altos), with access from Bay Vista Drive. In addition, four (4) affordable two-family units (sponsored by Habitat for Humanity) are proposed near the intersection of North Knoll Road and Eagle Rock Road. The project remains incomplete and appears to be dormant at this time. County Project Planner: Ben Berto S.•IPlanrringlStaff Folder•s~saitdersonlMiscellmteoitslproject status report tc 11-2011.doc DIGEST 3. Peggy Curran From: Jeanette CARR [carr.jeanette@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, December 02, 2011 9:12 AM To: Peggy Curran Subject: CVs I can't find the contact address for the town council members on the web site, hence this email to you. PLEASE DO NOT ALLOW THE CVS SIGN TO BE ILLUMINATED. We know CVS is in town and that's bad enough. Jeanette Carr, Belvedere DIGEST I. I .►t-tle Black: I )r-css. H ,C _t : RECEIVED 20 N Iain Srrccr Iihurt,n. ( :aht(~r-nia 949`0 Z r? 61 ~O Cr11hCr 28. 2011 TOWN MANAGERS OFFICE TOWN OF TIBURON I3v I land TOW Of'I'IhrrrOn 'I`ihLrr-On 111W. TINW(M. ( ;alittfrnia 94o 2o VI-FI"N I'ION: -10, A Rc: ( .aninc Decal N latrcr- I )car- J( )art: First]\. happy ho~lida\s' l'nti>rrirnatclO I OOritc for hrirl ; all 1StiuC tr> rur artcrlti~~n OO~hich 1 find dep1( ~rahlC and disZ;ustin~;. I ~tst cO cmn~ at arOLIIld 6:1opm a resident stopped in ti-t rrlt e,f I11v huSinCSs Ot-)v ~irsl~ rte O icOO m~ ('hristmas OOindo~OO s. Whilc sdrain Z" Cn ;their I I c ( r Ci~;a~;Cd in an cnOr-mtA IS 1)(AVI r11O1'cnlcrlt. "1his pcrst~n lCftOOirh()utcleanim, up the fecal nlatter. It is Ocredart. in this area. I C0~nriiued to OO(wk On Im windows and Lill 11111MVirlk,(-lrStepped uirt Of my Stare to OieOO rl1O displaOS tour owrcct halancc Obeli I Stepped hack and into the dog(; dirmp. I almost thrcOV Lill. I t(sOk im h~x~ts Ott . entered im store. wcnt to the sink: and with the small OOaterin"; ctflntainer for m\ plants dumped 12 pictures ()f water (m top ()f the crap in all attempt try wash it avO a\. This action did n()t Clean the SidcOOalk. I slid mV hest to alert patrons of the hOtcl that were ahandom their- cars to a cress m-er to the hOtcl that they WO-C (;Cttin(; Mit to step rotor dog()_ shit. Waslilm, it Off was sending it straight into the drain oft11c hay. I ant so appalled hO rhis unl:nr}OO r1 pet mvncr's actl(ms that I intend to dismantle my ( :hristnlas windows today and place a lar-c ohstructiOi1 that vvIll causC 110 pCrsOll to stop to 1o~rk. It's nOt \\'()I-tll it. I my ncr's ahand(m thch, pct crap rC(1;irlar1y . This plac:c is sick. I-O c raised this issue OOith \()u hCtt~rC. If v OLI OO A do vv n .\rk Row there is dO()- fecal matter- (m the sidov alks on a wcckh hasis as there is (m Blain Strcet. A short time ap) a larp;c do" dumped in ti-()nt ()f the guitar Store. The pct oOOncr ahando~ncd cleaning it rrp. N Ian~ pedestrians Stchped in it and tracked it and nlasllCd it into the co~ncretc. The stains arc still there. 'l,he cl()(; crap remained. The rain that came ashcd sonic ()f it avO a\. I t'S not a matter 4 a pct OOOTncr haO inks a dO- had; tow waste (m hand. It's a mattcr ()f "if dicrc's no i rnC around--vvlly hothcr -let s()mcOnc else Clcan it up." `1-here is do- shit in ncc parkin-1()r. (m Juanita Lane. and OO Cckly (m Main Strccr. I'O c no cr seen am thin- ti .Ills nature in my retail career. Mill VallcO do~csn't hay e this issue OO it11 the residcnrs. `pan Anschilo~ do csn't hay e this issue With the residents. I'm S() repelled h\ this on;, >ing lack of respect tr(>m ]Ocal resiclerlrs towards their lirtlc do wnro vv n. Wlicre is this tcllmv Jim FraAcr- and the rcvItalii.arion Of the dr~OO nto~Ov n' I'm dismantling my ('hristmas wlnd(m .This town lacks co~hcsi()n ofpcopic OO hO care. I'Ica,;c Send m cr so >n1co Inc ti-()m the town to ~ Spray ash the ,i(lcvv a] la. Please put will this task c, erg month to insrrr-C a l~r~~pcr shr~l~pin~; cnOirOnrlicnt When Nv as the last tulle the town marla"cr- arran0;Cd ti>r- the clcanin- of ncc sidcOO°alks d(m nto wn: 1'11c gut )d 11cvN S to )l r )L 1r to AN n 11r111a~;c r 1 si tlcc~ a ;o \car Icasc i 11 an()thcl Mari I Ito 11. , to ~\,A,Il that ahhrcclatcs alli~ i c~~hccts Its i-ctall ~ ~~7c 1'at(t>llti III all cCjllal 111,11111 CI- to the 1 c~~~cct that 1 (211.1m cc! h\ the har rc staLlrallt ()pcrato )hs. ]III so rn tti lla\c to dl-Ol-) 5lICll a lcttcr O11 MLI]-dCS'I, JOall. I`\(211 to rCald tllIs --\V.It11 all\ ScIISc )t ima~ inatio n--- It 15 (ILIItc a diti(;uSti11~ tt)l)ic. S i liccrc k . :arc )i l lie (:OOIl TOWN OF TIBURON OFFICE OF DESIGN REVIEW MONTHLY REPORT NOVEMBER 2011, DESIGN REVIEW BOARD APPLICATIONS: NUMBER SUBMITTED ■ NEW SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCES ■ MAJOR ADDITIONS/ALTERATIONS ■ MINOR ADDITIONS/ALTERATIONS ■ (not eligible for Staff Revien) ■ SIGN PERMITS ■ TREE PERMITS ■ VARIANCE REQUESTS ■ FAR EXCEPTIONS REQUESTS ■ EXTENSION OF TIME STAFF REVIEW APPLICATIONS: Review of minor exterior alterations and additions of less than 500 square feet. 1 1 0 1 2 0 1 0 13 APPEALS OF DESIGN REVIEW BOARD DECISIONS TO TOWN COUNCIL 0 rvf~ a; ~ ae Smote, nr~ 2010 0 2 0 1 6 3 4 0 12 0 REPORT PREPARED BY: Connie Cashman, Planning Secretary DATE OF REPORT: December 1, 2011 ~o Q N H co O r r M N co M N N ~ 0 r- O N. ~ O r O r ~ 00 M N O c- M M rn N W 0 > O O O z N O N O r W M O COI V- > 0 z r r O r N O r O I Q U O T- O M N O cy') O N ~ C GM W CL W O O LO N 00 O C) D U) ' v♦ w 0 :D Q r O O d O O 00 O co W Z O O O O CO O O LO O 0 _ w Q W z ~ O N M T- M LO O 00 N a a ui T- N N N M co N O CVO J J Q O M O r O M CO O ~ 000 W Q O IT M N O CN O I N I m `W O N O 14- M M CN O 1 N I Q N O O co O O) N m i 1 A W IL t- I N w F- Q 0 a J Q z ~ a z o W a w W U z Q Q W U x W Q W LL n w a . Cl) 0 DIGEST G• TOWN OF TIBURON Regular Meeting Tiburon Town Hall Design Review Board 74 1505 Tiburon Boulevard December I,.,- Tiburon, CA 94920 7:00 P.M. AGENDA TIBURON DESIGN REVIEW BOARD CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL Chairman Kricensky, Vice Chair Emberson, Boardmembers Chong, Johnson and Tollim ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Persons wishing to address the Design Review Board on any subject not on the agenda may do so under this portion of the agenda. Please note that the Design Review Board 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 Design Review Board agenda. Please limit your continents to no more than three (3) minutes. Any communications regarding an item not on the agenda will not be considered part of the administrative record for that item. STAFF BRIEFING (if any) CONSENT CALENDAR 1. 8 WILKINS COURT: File No. 21103; Randall Doctor, Owner; Adoption of resolution denying Site Plan and Architectural Review for construction of deck additions, with a Variance for reduced side yard setback. On November 3, 2011, the Design Review Board directed Town staff to prepare a resolution denying this application, for adoption at the December 1, 2011 meeting. Assessor's Parcel No. 039-032-10. [DW] OLD BUSINESS 2. 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, with a Floor Area Exception. 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 4,681 square feet, which is 202 square feet greater than the 4,479 square foot floor area ratio for a lot of this size. Assessor's Parcel No. 059-082-04. [DW] Design Review Board Agenda December 1, 2011 Page 1 PUBLIC HEARINGS AND NEW BUSINESS 3. 2308 MAR EAST STREET: File No. 21116; Peter Wilton, Owner; Site Plan and Architectural Review for construction of additions to an existing single-family dwelling, with Variances for reduced side yard setbacks and excess lot coverage, and a Floor Area exception. The applicants propose to construct several additions and expand existing decks to the side and rear of the existing building. The additions and decks would extend to within 6 inches and 4 feet, respectively, of the side property lines, in lieu of the minimum 8 foot setback required in the R-2 zone. The additions would cover 71.1 % of the dry land area of the lot, in lieu of the maximum 35.0% lot coverage pennitted in the R-2 zone. The project would result in a total floor area of 2,900 square feet, which would exceed the floor area ratio of 706 square feet for a lot of this size. Assessor's Parcel No. 034-271-0-31. [LT] 4. 91 SUGAR LOAF DRIVE: File No. 711085; Amalfi West, LLC, Owner; Site Plan and Architectural Review for construction of a new two-story single-family dwelling, with a Floor Area Exception. The applicants propose to demolish more than 50% of an existing two-story dwelling and construct a new dwelling. The new dwelling would result in a total floor area of 4,900 square feet, which would exceed the floor area ratio of 4,548 square feet for a lot of this size. Assessor's Parcel No. 058-282-04. [LT] MINUTES 5. Regular Meeting of November 3, 2011 ADJOURNMENT Design Review Board December 1. 2011 Page 2 TOWN OF TIBURON Action Minutes - Regular Meeting Tiburon Town Hall Design Review Board 1505 Tiburon Boulevard December 1, 2011 Tiburon, CA 94920 7:00 P.M. E ACTION MINUTES #17 TIBURON DESIGN REVIEW BOARD CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL At 7:00 PM Present: Chairman Kricensky, Vice Chair Emberson and Boardmembers Johnson and Tollini Absent: Boardmember Chong Ex-Officio: Planning Manager Watrous, Associate Planner Tyler and Minutes Clerk Rusting CONSENT CALENDAR 1. 8 WILKINS COURT: File No. 21103; Randall Doctor, Owner; Adoption of resolution denying Site Plan and Architectural Review for construction of deck additions, with a Variance for reduced side yard setback. On November 3, 2011, the Design Review Board directed Town staff to prepare a resolution denying this application, for adoption at the December 1, 2011 meeting. Assessor's Parcel No. 039-032-10. Continued to 12115111 OLD BUSINESS 2. 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, with a Floor Area Exception. 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 4,681 square feet, which is 202 square feet greater than the 4,479 square foot floor area ratio for a lot of this size. Assessor's Parcel No. 059-082-04. Approved (4- PUBLIC HEARINGS AND NEW BUSINESS 3. 2308 MAR EAST STREET: File No. 21116; Peter Wilton, Owner; Site Plan and Architectural Review for construction of additions to an existing single-family dwelling, with Variances for reduced side yard setbacks and excess lot coverage, and a Floor Area exception. The applicants propose to construct several additions and expand existing decks to the side and rear of the existing building. The additions and decks would extend to within 6 inches and 4 feet, respectively, of the side property lines, in lieu of the minimum 8 foot setback required in the R-2 zone. The additions would cover 71.1 % of the dry land area of the lot, in lieu of the maximum 35.0% lot coverage permitted in the R-2 zone. The project would result in a total floor area of 2,900 square feet, which would exceed the floor area ratio of 706 square feet for a lot of this size. Assessor's Parcel No. 034-271-03. Continued to 1119112 Action Minutes #17 12/ 1 /11 Design Review Board Meeting Page 1 4. 91 SUGAR LOAF DRIVE: File No. 711085; Amalfi West, LLC, Owner; Site Plan and Architectural Review for construction of a new two-story single-family dwelling, with a Floor Area Exception. The applicants propose to demolish more than 50% of an existing two-story dwelling and construct a new dwelling. The new dwelling would result in a total floor area of 4,900 square feet, which would exceed the floor area ratio of 4,548 square feet for a lot of this size. Assessor's Parcel No. 058-282-04. Continued to 12/15111 MINUTES 5. Regular Meeting of November 3, 2011 Approved as amended 4-0 ADJOURNMENT At 9:05 PM Action Minutes #17 12/1/11 Design Review Board Meeting Page 2 APPROVED MINUTES #16 TIBURON DESIGN REVEW BOARD 119 MEETING OF NOVEMBER 3, 2011, The meeting was opened at 7:03 p.m. by Chair Kricensky A. ROLL CALL Present: Chair Kricensky, Vice-Chair Emberson, Boardmembers Chong, Johnson and Tollini Absent: None Ex-Officio: Planning Manager Watrous, Associate Planner Tyler and Minutes Clerk Rusting B. PUBLIC COMMENTS - None C. STAFF BRIEFING Planning Manager Watrous announced no items are currently scheduled for the November 17, 2011 meeting, and it will likely be canceled. D. 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. 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. This application was first reviewed at the October 6, 2011 Design Review Board meeting. At that meeting, several neighbors raised concerns about the location of the house in relation to present and future homes in the vicinity; light and glare from windows of the proposed house; potential privacy impact; and the amount of grading and landscaping to be removed associated with the project. The Design Review Board shared many of these concerns. The Board determined that the project did not reasonably minimize grading on the site and that the landscaping plan was inadequate. The Board determined that the amount of glazing on the house was excessive and would result in nighttime light impacts on nearby residences. The Board also felt that the location of the new portions of the house would be inconsistent with the pattern of development in the vicinity and could affect the placement of a new home or future additions on the adjacent property at 480 Ridge Road. The application was continued to the November 2, 2011 meeting to allow the applicant time to redesign the proposed project to address these concerns. The applicant has now submitted revised plans for the project, which include the following changes to the project design: • The master bedroom suite has been modified to reduce the size of the bedroom and bathroom, but to increase the size of the closet. The pantry has been reduced by almost 8 feet and the kitchen has been reduced in width by one foot. The foyer has been expanded. • The floor level of the lower level and basement areas has been raised 3 feet, lowering the ceiling heights in the lower level from 15 feet to 12 feet. The floor level of the garage has been raised 4.5 feet. The roof elevation of the proposed house remains unchanged. Action and Approved Minutes #16 11/3/11 Design Review Board Meeting Page 2 • The windows on the front of the house have been slightly modified. The number and location of the upper floor windows are unchanged, but the windows are somewhat smaller. The lower level windows have been more substantially reduced in size. • The overall height of the retaining walls along the driveway has been reduced. However, the proposed walls are over 6 feet in height in certain areas within the required side yard setback; these walls would need to be reduced to 6 feet to comply with the maximum wall height allowed within a required setback. • A new two-car parking bay is proposed adjacent to the driveway within the front yard. • The terraced patio and lawn areas to the rear of the house have been scaled back to a series of decks that would not extend as far into the rear of the site. A swimming pool and fire pit are now requested. Screened pool equipment would be located on the lower portion of the site. • More detailed landscaping plans have been provided that would keep much of the existing screening vegetation along the front of the property. A new fenced lawn area is now proposed between the front of the house and the driveway. Michael Rex, architect, introduced his team and discussed the changes made to the project since the last hearing. He presented a new landscape plan that addressed the concerns previously raised. He said that they had removed the terraced area of the landscape and the only walls that remain would be 18 inches high. He said that grading had been reduced by 58% and the entire ground floor had been raised by 3 feet without raising the roof. Mr. Rex stated that the uphill neighbor was previously concerned about looking over the addition, and they addressed that concern by removing the pantry and reducing the kitchen and also removed an 8 foot portion above the garage on the east end of the house. He said that Compared to the existing structure, the new structure would be in exactly the same position as the original house. He said that the pool terrace would be very close to grade and that had kept the house very low so the neighbors across the street can look over it. Mr. Rex said that there was previously concern about the amount of windows, and to address that they had reduced the size of several windows and removed the windows from the garage and the clerestories to reduce the window area in total by 20%. He said that they also prepared a color board showing the neutral colors of the house. He added that the ceilings would be natural wood instead of sheetrock so they would not be reflective. He said that they would use downlights to prevent uphill neighbors from experiencing any glare. He showed photos of several houses in the neighborhood that include glass facing views. Mr. Rex showed a view of the house from the Reynolds/Halpem home, and pointed out that the story poles demarcating an 8 foot hedge and screening. He stated that only the upper roof of the kitchen/dining area would be seen once the plantings are installed. He showed a view of the home from the Bernhisel home and noted that the story poles could not be seen because of the dense amount of vegetation and trees. He said that the Bernhisels' views would be preserved with this expansion. Mr. Rex then showed several views reconstructed from Google Earth demonstrating that the views would not be impacted by the construction of the home. He mentioned that the view is more panoramic than just a view of the Golden Gate Bridge and that throughout Tiburon many of the homes look out over the roofs of other homes at views. He said that it would be unusual to deny a proposal for a home that meets all setbacks and does not block any views. John Merten, landscape architect, reviewed the new landscape plan and said that the plan would be dominated by evergreens and plant massings with various textures. He said that they would conform to contours to the existing site, have introduced native bunch grasses to the east, and have introduced some off-street parking, as well. He said that they tried to retain existing vegetation because it was considered important to preserve the existing look. He said that they had introduced some physical separation and layering on the east side and at the lower part of the property, will preserve the entire bank of vegetation Action and Approved Minutes #16 11/3/11 Design Review Board Meeting Page 3 to the west, will include a short vehicular gate set back down the driveway, have introduced a separate pedestrian gate and a small enclosed outdoor space, and will introduce some additional shrubs between the two retaining walls to complement the pine trees and existing acacia. He said that the existing plants on the north side of the driveway would remain and he showed photos of the shrubs they are planning to plant in the double retaining wall area. Mr. Rex pointed out that there was concern at the last hearing about the steepness of the driveway and height of walls on the sides. He said that one of the walls was changed to a 3 foot wall from a previous height of 6 feet. He said that they would keep the new vegetation at the street low so the neighbor across the street could view over it. He noted that the tall walls on either side of the driveway had been eliminated. Lowell Strauss, owner, said that he had spoken to all of the neighbors and reviewed some of those conversations. He said that he was sensitive to the view impacts and they had agreed to lower the roof by 12 inches. He reported that the neighbor affected by that change now approves of the project. He also said that that neighbor had concerns about shifting the house to the west as the house would now be in a location that would not impact any views and if moved, would impact other neighbors' views. Mr. Rex further described the roof elevation change and said that they would not plant any vegetation that would grow past the roofline or above 7 feet from the road. He believed that they had mitigated the concerns and asked the Board to approve the project. Vice-Chair Emberson said that Lisa Lowell's letter claimed that there is a tree in the landscape plan growing to 20 feet. She asked if this is true and if it is what would be planted. Mr. Merten said that he met with Ms. Lowell, discussed the plantings and agreed to revise the plans, and he hoped to return to staff with revised plantings that would not exceed the specified height. Vice-Chair Emberson said that she would like to avoid the neighbor being responsible for asking plants to be trimmed. Mr. Merten said that their intention was to revise the plans to avoid planting anything that would grow to that height. Boardmember Tollini asked if the acacias would be preserved or removed, and questioned whether it would survive the construction. Mr. Merten said that one acacia is on the property line and the other is below the property line, and he assured the Board that it would not need to be removed or would be hurt by construction of the wall. Boardmember Tollini questioned how a massive wall could be built in such close proximity to the acacia tree without damaging it. Mr. Rex said that they shoot concrete against the slope and add rebar so that no shoring is needed, and therefore they do not have to over-excavate or backfill and this would help preserve the tree. The public hearing was opened. Jerry Reynolds agreed with the staff report that few changes had been made to address the lighting impact and the effect on other homes in the vicinity. He disagreed with Mr. Rex about moving the location of the home, and pointed to what he thought was an example of a good project at 490 Ridge Road. He suggested that the Boardmembers view that house to see a perfect example of what the neighbors would approve. James Bernhisel said that the Board made two very clear points at the prior meeting. He said that the Board asked that the house be moved 45 feet to the west, similar to the neighboring home, but the applicant only moved it 2 feet and have raised it 2 feet higher in the area in front of his house. He also pointed out the story poles were not really covered by his trees, which are dying and which he could cut down. He said that the Board also requested that the driveway should remain in the same location as the existing driveway. He said that when he bought his property the house was put down as far as possible, and now the applicants plan to completely change that. Mr. Strauss agreed that the trees on the Bernhisel property could be removed, and they do block views of the neighbors across the street. He said that they would change the plan if the house would block the Action and Approved Minutes #16 11/3/11 Design Review Board Meeting Page 4 Bernhisels' views. He said that no screening or privacy currently exists and they are proposing to install screening and privacy to address these concerns. He also said that many of the letters that came in are from people he used to live near, and he felt that the letters were submitted in spite because those neighbors had complained about his dogs. Mr. Rex said that they met with Mr. Reynolds and he had wanted them to move the house further away from his property. Mr. Rex said that they want to expand the house_ without blocking views and if they move the house to the other location it would block views. He said that they might make one neighbor happy by moving it but would hurt another. He said that the distance of the Reynolds home from the project is large and that home has very few windows facing uphill. He stated that they were never mandated by the Board to move the house 45 feet and have not raised the roof and, in fact, tonight offered to lower the roof by another foot. He also had never seen any evidence from an arborist confirming that the trees are dying, and felt that this should not impact their ability to develop the property. The public hearing was closed. Vice-Chair Emberson asked if the floor area had increased. Planning Manager Watrous said that a late mail item from the architect corrected the information shown on the plans. The floor area had been redistributed through the house but it was still the same as previous and still required a floor area exception. Vice-Chair Emberson said that there was a lot of information being stated that was not really requested by the Board. She said that the window reductions did not address her concerns and did not think that vegetation could be counted on to screen all of the windows. She agreed that Mr. Bernhisel's Pine trees are dying. She did not have information on pool equipment screening and noted that many things had changed but the main concerns of the Board had not been addressed. She said she was still bothered by placing the development on the other side of the lot instead of in the middle of the lot. She felt that if the house was moved the neighbor would not be impacted. She requested more information about walls and fences and believed that the problems noted last time had not been adequately addressed. Boardmember Johnson said that it would be extremely helpful if they could put proposed and existing information on the same page when presenting the project. He said that they had addressed a lot of his concerns and comments from the last meeting. He liked the color palette and the location of the house on the site which made logical sense to him, but there were still a lot of questions about the amount of grading that would be done and screening. He thought that the complexity of the site requires a more unified approach. Boardmember Tollini said that he reviewed the minutes of the last meeting and he tried to look at whether the project was responsive to the concerns raised at that meeting. His conclusion was that the plans were somewhat responsive, but not as much as it could be. He complemented the team on their presentation, but felt that the concerns about lighting and glazing had not been fully addressed. He said that he was not concerned about the grading, as similar hillside projects with the same amount of grading have come to the DRB. He said that it was difficult to see the impact on 480 Ridge Road from its primary living space because of the overgrown vegetation. He thought that a lot of the vegetation would be affected and the impact of the house would be major. He said that the house would clearly cut under the view of the Golden Gate Bridge from the primary living space of the neighbor's house and the story poles can be seen from the patio. He thought that the house would frame in the main view more than he could support. He understood why the applicant wanted to build in the proposed location, but that location would have the most impact on the neighbors' views. He felt that pulling the house back was a valid direction to the applicant. He said that the glazing on the north side of the house troubled him, and the windows in the master bedroom were too large. He said that a reasonable amount of screening could work but even with the screening, the house would be visible. Boardmember Chong said that this was a beautiful project and he liked the style and layout. However, he felt that the neighbors on all sides would be affected. His biggest concern was the impact to 480 Ridge Road. He said that the amount of windows was too large and comes at the expense of that neighbor. He Action and Approved Minutes #16 11/3/11 Design Review Board Meeting Page 5 said that the most logical place for expanding the house at 480 Ridge Road would be affected by the proposed house location. He said that the project would affect not just the existing neighboring home but what would clearly be built in the future. He said that there are other areas of the site to add floor area without affecting neighbors. He felt that homes should not have to peer around their neighbors. He said that the grading did not bother him and he did not have a problem with the height of the walls since they are not looming over a neighboring property. Chair Kricensky said that he appreciated the presentation and that the applicant made some significant progress on the landscape plan and grading. He said that the off-street parking and separate pedestrian access works well. He felt that the glazing was significantly reduced from where it was before, and some windows would be architectural rather than functional. He agreed with the comment made about the Acacias and that some could be saved, but at least one would be lost because of its location on the property line. He said that it is a balancing act between views and the location of homes. He was concerned that other future expansions would need to perform the same balancing act to avoid blocking neighbors' views and that the location of the home in relation to other nearby houses was not really addressed. Vice-Chair Emberson suggested continuing the project and said siting the project differently would address many of the Board's concerns. ACTION: It was M/S (Emberson/Tollini) to continue 460 Ridge Road to the December 1, 2011 meeting. Vote: 5-0. E. 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. The applicant is requesting Design Review approval for the construction of deck additions to an existing single-family dwelling on property located at 8 Wilkins Court. The existing deck to the rear of the main level living room would be expanded. A new exterior stairway would connect the deck to the rear yard below. Several windows on the rear of the house would also be expanded. On May 5, 2011, the Design Review Board approved a previous Design Review application for a deck addition for this property, with a variance for reduced side yard setback. The previous deck extended to within 7 feet, 4 inches of the left (western) side property line, within the 15 foot side yard setback required in the RO-2 zone. The applicant now wishes to further expand the previously approved deck to a location within 5 feet of the side property line. A new variance is therefore requested for this additional encroachment into the required side yard setback. Miles Berger, architect, said that they brought this project to the Board previously regarding the addition of a deck to the house. He said that because of the pie-shaped nature of the site, one piece of it sits within the side yard setback. He noted that they received approval from the Board for the variance, but just as the project began his client said that the deck design would not work for them because the dining table location on the deck would block views. Mr. Berger said that they would like to add a small area to the deck so they can put their dining table outside without blocking views from the living room. He said that all of the findings could be made except for practical difficulty. He noted that they have a letter from neighbors approving,of the project and he felt that the project would not affect any of the neighbors. He said that the practical difficulty was that they need a location to put the dining table where it would not block the view from the living room. Boardmember Tollini asked for the height of the wood railing. Mr. Berger said that it would be 44 inches and would match the existing height of the railing. Action and Approved Minutes #16 11/3/11 Design Review Board Meeting Page 6 There were no public comments. Boardmember Chong said he was struggling to make the hardship finding for this application. He felt that the previous addition made sense. He said that there were clear reasons why the Town created setbacks and he did not think that furniture should be considered as creating a hardship. Boardmember Tollini said there are actually two findings that need to be made--the hardship finding and the unusual physical characteristics of the site. He said that the only hardship concern was the chair heights for the furniture. He found this to be similar to an item on Spanish Trail where it did not impact neighbors but the Board voted it down because the finding could not be made. Boardmember Johnson said that he also had a hard time making the hardship finding, given the size of the approved deck. He did not think the table would really block the view. Vice-Chair Emberson said that she had the same concerns and had a hard time especially since it would not affect any of the neighbors, but she could not make the finding. Chair Kricensky said at the previous meeting the applicant was interested in making the deck symmetrical and creating space for the stairs leading to the rear yard. He said that there were other areas where the table could be located and he suggested expanding the deck on the other side by the kitchen. Mr. Berger said that they chose not to expand the area by the kitchen because that side is a small deck off the family room and they do not like to use it. He said that the larger deck has the view and that is where they would like to have their activities. He said that the practical difficulty was that they would lose their views from the dining and living room. Planning Manager Watrous asked if the semi-circular deck addition could be moved to the right and down. Mr. Berger said that it would then be in front of the dining room. He said that the current location would be under the trees and out of the view from the rooms. He said that the deck addition needed to be in that location to be in the most highly usable part of the space. Vice-Chair Emberson said the deck area could be easily moved out of the setback and there would not a big view impact from every room in the house. Boardmember Tollini said that if the view was really the issue then there were better solutions than the proposed addition in the setback. He said that it defeats the purpose of the zoning to allow building in the setback without making the findings. Mr. Berger said that the proposed addition would be 2 feet, 6 inches further into the setback. He asked whether or not it would be acceptable to move it back so it aligns with what was approved last time. Planning Manager Watrous said if it the additional deck area was still in the setback then it would still need a variance. Planning Manager Watrous said the findings would still need to be made and he stated that no variance would be necessary if the project was revised so that no portion of the new deck addition would be within the setback. ACTION: It was M/S (Emberson/Johnson) to direct staff to prepare a resolution denying the request for the variance at 8 Wilkins Court. Vote: 5-0 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. A 412 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. Action and Approved Minutes #16 11/3/11 Design Review Board Meeting Page 7 The applicant is requesting to convert an existing 2-car garage into living space at an existing single- family dwelling located at 6 Apollo Road. The existing 2-car garage would be converted into either a bedroom or a family room with a bathroom. The garage door would be removed as part of the conversion and a boxed bay window would be installed, modifying the appearance of the front elevation of the home. The proposed garage conversion would add 412 square feet of floor area to the dwelling, which would result in a gross floor area of 1,526 square feet, which is 1,233 square feet below the maximum permitted gross floor area (2,759 square feet). The addition of a boxed bay window would increase the lot coverage by 21 square feet, which would result in total lot coverage of 1,834 square feet (24.2%), which is below the maximum permitted lot coverage in the R-1 zone (30.0%). The proposed garage conversion does not meet the standards set forth in the Town's garage conversion policy; therefore, in accordance with that policy, this application has been referred to the Design Review Board for review and consideration. Simon Barker, owner, said that the project was consistent with other homes in the neighborhood. He presented photos of various houses on the street with the same garage conversion they are proposing and said that it was the lowest impact method of gaining floor space. He stated that there is plenty of off-street parking and they never used the garage. There were no public comments. Boardmember Tollini said that this is a fairly traditional neighborhood with wide streets with ample room for parking on both sides. He said that if this was a narrower street it would be a different scenario. He said that many other houses have done this exact same modification. Planning Manager Watrous said the Town has never had a policy requiring covered, enclosed parking, but in cases where a garage conversion is being done, the Town would like more thought to go into parking and whether the neighborhood can support the extra cars on the street. The purpose for referring this application to the Board was to provide that thought and discussion. Boardmember Tollini said that the actual determination of the Board should depend on whether the addition of the extra cars on the street would negatively impact the neighborhood. Boardmember Chong thought that the project was a fair way to develop the existing home and supported the project. Vice-Chair Emberson voiced her complete support of the project. Chair Kricensky said that the cars are almost all in the driveway in this neighborhood and so they already have two off-street parking spaces. He supported the project as well and said that this is part of the fabric of the neighborhood and allows expansion of small houses to allow families to live in them. ACTION: It was M/S (Tollini/Emberson) that the request for 6 Apollo Road is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act and approving the request, subject to the attached conditions of approval. Vote: 5-0. F. APPROVAL OF MINUTES #15 OF THE 8/18/11 DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MEETING ACTION: It was M/S (Emberson/Johnson) to approve the minutes of the October 6, 2011 meeting, as written. Vote: 3-0-2 (Chong and Tollini abstained). G. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 9:00 p.m. Action and Approved Minutes #16 11/3/11 Design Review Board Meeting Page 8