Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutTC Digest 2012-01-27TOWN COUNCIL WEEKLY DIGEST Week of January 23 - 27, 2012 Tiburon 1. Email - Peggy Curran - CVS Signage 2. Email - Michael Roy - Thank You - Trestle Glen Project 3. Email - Jean Bonander - Thank You - Trestle Glen Project 4. Tiburon Town Council Committee Appointments - 2012 Agendas & Minutes 5. Agenda - POST - January 17, 2012 6. Agenda - Design Review Board - February 2, 2012 7. Minutes - Design Review Board - December 15, 2012 8. Minutes - Planning Commission - January 11, 2012 9. Action Minutes - Design Review Board - January 19, 2012 10. Action Minutes - Planning Commission - January 25, 2012 Regional o a) Conference Announcement - Building Livable Communities - March 16-18, 2012 b) Service Matters - ABAG newsletter - January/February 2012 * c) Invitation - Business/Environment Breakfast with Will Travis - Marin Conservation League - Feb. 16, 2012 * Aizendas & Minutes d) None * Council Only I am in receipt of an e-mail, attached below, which you sent on January 26, 2012 to numerous people regarding the CVS sign application. I want to assure you that the Town greatly values community input on applications. The CVS sign application has generated very strong feelings and consequently a great deal of debate at public meetings. Public input on the application has been heart-felt and I believe very important to the deliberations at hand. However, I see no reason to stoop to personal attacks on staff members when providing that input. Staff must always work with applicants as it is a necessary part of the process. Allegations of bad faith conduct and intentionally misleading actions by staff are untrue and unfair, and have no place in the application review process. I appreciate the valuable community input on this project and encourage it, but respectfully request that you do so civilly and refrain from personal attacks as this project continues through the process. Sincerely, Peggy Curran Town Manager cc: Tiburon Mayor and Town Council via weekly Digest Margaret A. (Peggy) Curran Tiburon Town Manager 1505 Tiburon Boulevard Tiburon, CA 94920 (415) 435-7383 pcurranC,aci.tiburon.ca.us www.ci.tiburon.ca.us i 1/26/12 Dear Supporters, All of you have indicated a desire for me to appeal the Beach Rd sign. Since the meeting, I have learned some very disturbing information. 1. The City Planner, Dan Watrous was working closely with CVS to help them prepare a revised plan two days before the meeting. Those plans included the new Beach Rd. Sign which his original staff report said to deny. I asked for all documents for the sign on Wed and Thursday before the meeting. Dan Watrous had revised plans but they were withheld from me on Thursday before the meeting and I did not know there was a revision. Worse still, at the meeting, the revised plans that Dan Watrous gave me were in fact not the final set, rather a draft set showing a much smaller Beach 1/27/2012 Page 2 of 2 Rd. sign. So the set the DRB discussed and voted on was significantly different from what I was given and the Beach Rd sign on the DRB plans was bigger. My understanding is that most people at the meeting did not even realize what the DRB was talking about regarding the big Beach rd sign and thought it was the very small Drive-thru sign. In all, public documents including the revised plans were withheld from the public entirely and I was intentionally misled with regard to what was being approved at the meeting. All of this is very bad and indicates extremely bad faith conduct on the part of the City staff, but the fact remains that the Beach Rd sign is approved. I would like to get permission from each of you to list your name on the appeal requesting removal of of the Beach Rd. Sign. I firmly believe the Beach Rd. sign violates the sign ordinance and the DRB was pushed into approving it. Please email me permission to list your names on the appeal. The more names we have, the more likely we will be will get the attention of the Town Council. I cannot do this by myself. I think we stand a good chance with an appeal. That Beach Rd sign sets a really terrible precedent for this community. I will send you a copy of the Appeal letter which is currently being drafted before I file the Appeal. Thanks Marcia 1/27/2012 DIGEST Peggy Curran From: Nicholas Nguyen Sent: Thursday, January 12, 2012 1:53 PM To: Peggy Curran Subject: FW: RECENT STORM DRAIN AND ROAD REPAIR WORK ON LOWER HACIENDA/TRESTLE GLEN FYI...... Nicholas T. Nguyen, P.E. Director of Public Works & Town Engineer Town of Tiburon 415-435-7388 www.ci.tiburon.ca.us A Think of trees before: you print please;. . From: Mike Roy [mailto:michaelgroy@comcast.net] Sent: Thursday, January 12, 2012 1:46 PM To: Nicholas Nguyen; Joel Brewer Subject: RECENT STORM DRAIN AND ROAD REPAIR WORK ON LOWER HACIENDA/TRESTLE GLEN Mr. Nguyen & Mr. Brewer-its always easy to communicate issues, problems, and dissatisfaction, but probably a little more rare to pass along appreciation. It's a very small thing, but I noted that as part of the completion of the subject work, the No Parking Anytime signs on Trestle Glen at the foot of Hacienda have just been replaced with new, readable signs. At least a couple of the original signs became so bleached out by the sun that they were plain white rectangles on a pole. For safety, congestion, and residential character purposes, it has been important that this stretch of Trestle Glen not be used for commercial or general parking, and the clear signage greatly assists in this cause. Thanks very much to your department for providing the new signage. (Perhaps the next cause will be a no semi-tractor/trailer sign at the base of the Hacienda hill.) I do also want to commend the project overseers and the contractors for their general consideration to the neighborhood during the extensive work done on lower Hacienda and along Trestle Glen. Living at the corner of Hacienda and Trestle Glen, I was pretty much at the intersection of much of the work. It was appreciated that there was both a "consultant" overseer, and seemingly capable on- site contractor management. As you know, in recent months, this area has been bombarded with sewer line replacement, water line replacement, gas line replacement, and most recently this storm drain work and road repair. Working from an office from my home, it was not an easy process. I found those involved with the storm drain and road repair work to be generally courteous and considerate during the project. It was appreciated. In that the road surface on Trestle Glen had deteriorated to the point that it almost mandated navigation by off-road vehicles only, it is a pleasure to have a smooth and genuinely useable road. While I am skeptical as to the amount of time that will pass before we see the return of bone-rattling potholes, I will enjoy what has been done for as long as possible. Bottom-line-thanks very much for the good work all around. It is much appreciated. Best regards. Michael Roy 1 Hacienda Drive Tiburon Page 1 of 1 I* 1/13/2012 Page 1 of 1 Peggy Curran DIGEST 3,f From: Jean Bonander Deanbonander@sbcglobal.net] Sent: Wednesday, January 25, 2012 5:15 PM To: Peggy Curran; Nicholas Nguyen Subject: Compliments on the Trestle Glen Project Hi Peggy and Nick, Thank you so much for your efforts, oversight and project management of the Trestle Glen project. We were impressed with the entire work effort - beginning with the patching and coordination with the utilities, then foliage removal, followed by drainage improvements and finally the resurfacing and restriping. We are all grateful that the weather allowed the project to progress in a timely manner. Please also accept our compliments for the courtesy of the traffic control staff who cheerfully moved us along in a timely and safe manner. The whole project was very professionally managed and the final result is improved and durable infrastructure that we hope will last us all a long time. With appreciation, Jean and Jim Bonander 56 Hacienda Drive Tiburon CA 94920 415-435-1450 415-794-7333 jeanbonander cgsbcglobal.net 1/25/2012 TIBURON TOWN COUNCIL COMMITTEE APPOINTMENTS 2012 1. STATE & REGIONAL AGENCIES 1. ASSOCIATION OF BAY AREA GOVERNMENTS (General Assembly meets in April and October) Jim Fraser, Delegate Emmett O' Donnell, Alternate 2. MARIN ENERGY AUTHORITY BOARD OF DIRECTORS (Meets IS` Thursday_fr-om 7-9 p.m. at 1 McGinnis Parkway, San Rafael) Dick Collins, Delegate Emmett O' Donnell, Alternate 3. PRIORITY-SETTING COMMITTEE FOR COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PROGRAMS (CDBG' (Meets twice a year in Mai-in City and at Civic Center) Frank Doyle, Delegate Jim Fraser, Alternate 4. LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES //0 a JJ (Meets quarterly and at the Annual Conference in September; other- events as published) • State Director, representing North Bay Division (elected July 2008; re- elected 2010) Executive Committee, North Bay Division • Transportation, Communication & Public Works State Policy Committee - (2-year appointment by League President) Alice Fredericks 5. INSTITUTE FOR LOCAL GOVERNMENT (ILG) BOARD OF DIRECTORS (Research affiliate of California State Association of Counties & League of California Cities) (Meets quarterly; meetings rotate between Northern & Southern California) Director (appointed by League of CA Cities Board of Directors) Alice Fredericks 6. MARIN CLIMATE ENERGY PARTNERSHIP (ICLEI) Local Governments for Sustainability (Meets IS` Thursday, San Rafael City Hall) Laurie Tyler, Staff Liaison & voting board member (Marin Climate Energy Partnership) 7. MARIN EMERGENCY RADIO AUTHORITY BOARD OF DIRECTORS (Meetings scheduled as needed) Police Chief Michael Cronin Dick Collins, Alternate Capt. David Hutton, 2"d Alternate Adopted January 18, 2012; distributed January 23, 2012 Page I of 4 8. MARIN TELECOMMUNICATIONS AGENCY BOARD OF DIRECTORS (Meets 2"d Wednesday f-om 7-9 p.m., San Rafael City Hall) Jim Fraser, Delegate Frank Doyle, Alternate 9. RICHARDSON BAY REGIONAL AGENCY BOARD OF DIRECTORS (Meets monthly on 2nd Wednesday at 6:00 p.m. - Sausalito City Hall) Emmett O'Donnell, Delegate Jim Fraser, Alternate 10. TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY OF MARIN BOARD OF DIRECTORS (Meets monthly on 4th Thursday, at 7:30 p.m. - Board of Supervisors Chambers, Civic Center) [Four year terms, effective May 1, 2008] Alice Fredericks, Delegate Dick Collins, Alternate • Fredericks serves as the cities" Southern Marin Representative to the TAM Executive Committee • Fredericks serves as TAM's representative to MCCMC • Fredericks serves on the TAM Legislative Committee • Fredericks was appointed to serve on the SB 375 Marin SCS Ad Hoe Committee formed by TAM in February 2011 • Fredericks was elected Chair of TAM in 2011 12. CITIZEN'S ADVISORY COMMITTEE OF THE WATER EMERGENCY TRANSIT AUTHORITY (Meetings scheduled as needed) Emmett O'Donnell, Delegate Alice Fredericks, Alternate II. LOCAL AGENCIES/COMMITTEES 1. BELVEDERE-TIBURON JOINT DISASTER ADVISORY COUNCIL (Meets bi-monthly on 2"d Tuesday from 4:00 - 5:30 p.m. in the Town Council Chambers) Jim Fraser, Town Council Representative 2. BELVEDERE-TIBURON JOINT RECREATION COMMITTEE (Meets bi-monthly on 3'-d Monday in the Town Hall Community Room) Jim Fraser, Town Council Liaison Adopted January 18, 2012; distributed January 23, 2012 Page 2 of 4 III. TOWN AD HOC COMMITTEES (Meetings scheduled as needed) 1 2012-2013 BUDGET i. Alice Fredericks ii. Jim Fraser 2 CART i. Jim Fraser ii. Frank Doyle 3 DOWNTOWN REVITALIZATION i. Dick Collins ii. Jim Fraser 4 MARTHA PROPERTY APPLICATIONS i. Dick Collins ii. Alice Fredericks 5 NED'S WAY PROJECT i. Jim Fraser ii. Emmett O'Donnell 6 LEGISLATIVE ACTION i. Alice Fredericks ii. Dick Collins 7 LITIGATION i. Alice Fredericks ii. Dick Collins 8 LYFORD DRIVE PARKING i. Dick Collins ii. Emmett O'Donnell Adopted January 18, 2012; distributed January 23, 2012 Page 3 of 4 V. MCCMC APPOINTMENTS • Elected by MCCMC Golden Gate Bridge, Highway & Transportation District Board of Directors (Meets 2"' & 4" Fridays at10 a. m., GGBHTD offices) Alice Fredericks • Town Appointments to MCCMC Committees 1. Legislative Committee (Meets4thd Monday at 8:00 a.m., San Rafael City Hall) Alice Fredericks (also serves as Chair) [Vacant], alternate 2. JPA Oversight Committee (Meetings scheduled as needed) Jim Fraser, delegate [Vacant], alternate VI. TOWN APPOINTMENTS IN OTHER AREAS OF INTEREST MarinMap Steering Committee- (Meetings scheduled as needed) Nicholas Nguyen Chad Monterichard, Alternate Marin County Hazardous & Solid Waste JPA (Meets quarterly) Town Manager Peggy Curran Marin Green BERST (Green Building, Energy Retrofit and Solar Transformation Collaborative) (Meetings scheduled as needed) John Kunzweiler, delegate (Planning Commissioner) Emmett O'Donnell, alternate Adopted January 18, 2012; distributed January 23, 2012 Page 4 of 4 L)~ TOWN OF TIBURON REGULAR Meeting Tiburon Town Hall Parks, Open Space and Trails Commission 1505 Tiburon Boulevard January 17, 2012 - 6:00 PM Town Hall Council Chambers Tiburon, CA 94920 AGENDA PARKS, OPEN SPACE AND TRAILS COMMISSION CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL Chair Winkler, Vice-Chair McMullen, Commissioners Feldman, McDermott, and Allen ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Persons wishing to address the Parks, Open Space & Trails Commission on any subject not on the agenda may do so under this portion of the agenda. Please note that the Parks, Open Space & Trails Commission is not able to undertake extended discussion, or take action on, items that do not appear on this agenda. Matters requiring action or follow-up may be referred to Town Staff or placed on a future Parks, Open Space & Trails Commission agenda. Please limit your comments to no more than three (3) minutes. Testimony regarding matters not on the agenda will not be considered part of the administrative record. MINUTES • Approval of Minutes - Meeting of November 15, 2011 COMMISSION AND STAFF BRIEFING • Bay Trail Gap Closure Study - Update SUBCOMMITTEE REPORTS • n/a BUSINESS ITEMS 1. Multi-Use Path Adjacent to 2 Palmer Court; File #Tl 1-41; Tree Permit Request to Remove Three (3) Pine Trees from Town Property ADJOURNMENT Agenda - Regular Meeting January 17, 2012 Page 1 Tiburon Parks, Open Space & Trails Commission TO'1ATN OF TIBURON Tiburon Town Hall 1505 Tiburon Boulevard Tiburon, CA 94920 AGENDA TIBURON DESIGN REVIEW BOARD CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL Regular Meeting Design Review Board February 2, 2012 7:00 P.M. Chairman Kricensky, Vice Chair Emberson, Boardrnernbers Chong, Johnson and Tollini 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 comments 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) PUBLIC HEARINGS AND NEW BUSINESS 428 GREENWOOD BEACH ROAD: File No. 21202; Lou Gerken, Owner; Site Plan and Architectural Review for construction of additions to an existing single-family dwelling, with a Variance for reduced side yard setback and a Floor Area Exception. The applicant proposes to construct a 160 square foot office/bedroom at the upper level. of the home. The addition would extend to within 5 feet of the left side property line in lieu of the minimum 8 foot setback required in the R-1 zone. The project would result in a total floor area of 2,401 square feet, which would exceed the floor area ratio of 2,322 square feet for a lot of this size. Assessor's Parcel No. 05 5-031-07. [LT] MINUTES 2. Regular- Meeting of January 19, 2012 ADJOURNMENT Design Review Board Agenda February 2, 2012 Page 1 7,4o MINUTES #18 TIBURON DESIGN REVEW BOARD MEETING OF DECEMBER 15, 2011 The meeting was opened at 7:02 p.m. by Chair Kricensky. A. ROLL CALL Present: Chair Kricensky, Vice-Chair Emberson, Boardmembers Chong and Tollini Absent: Boardmember Johnson Ex-Officio: Planning Manager Watrous, Associate Planner Tyler and Minutes Clerk Rusting B. PUBLIC COMMENTS - None C. STAFF BRIEFING Planning Manager Watrous announced that the January 5, 2011 Design Review Board meeting was canceled because of the holidays and the next DRB meeting will be on January 19, 2012. D. CONSENT CALENDAR Chair Kricensky requested removing both items from the consent calendar due to speakers on both items. 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. On November 3, 2011, the Design Review Board held a public hearing for a Site Plan and Architectural Review application for the construction of deck additions to an existing single-family dwelling, with a Variance for reduced side yard setback, on property located at 8 Wilkins Court. At that meeting, the Design Review Board voted (5-0) to direct Staff to prepare a resolution denying the application. The draft resolution was prepared and presented at the December 1, 2011 Design Review Board meeting. At that meeting, several Boardmembers stated that they had visited the site since the November 3ra meeting and discussed the possibility of whether there should be additional discussion regarding whether the necessary findings could be made to support the requested variance. The Design Review Board voted to continue discussion regarding the draft resolution to the December 15, 2011 meeting. Miles Berger, architect, thanked the Board for a chance to reconsider the proposal. He said that the proposal was to extend the deck, and the property is an unusual shape that necessitates the variance for the setback. He said that a portion of the house is within the side yard setback, and there is no way to do any work in the side yard without going into the setback. He said that they have support from the neighbors and there are other variances in the neighborhood. He presented a modified version of the project in which they reduced the bumped out semicircular portion of the deck so that it would be no closer to the side yard setback than the originally approved deck extension. He said that the practical hardship was the extreme angle of the setback, making it impossible to furnish the deck without blocking TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES #18 12/15/11 the view. He thought that they now can make made all four of the findings necessary to support the variance. Randall Doctor, owner, said that the revised plan would eliminate some of the square footage of the side yard variance that was originally granted. Boardmember Tollini asked if the stairs going down would be within the house itself, and Mr. Berger said that the stairs are separate and there is a space between them and the house. Boardmember Tollini asked if the lower staircase could be brought into the setback. Mr. Berger said that it could be done, but he liked the angle of the stairs. There were no public comments. Boardmember Tollini said that he visited the site again and saw the view from the inside the house. He said that what was presented last time was an add-on to the originally approved project. He said that he was satisfied with a modification of what was originally approved, but not an expansion. He noted that the current plan would not encroach into the setback any more than the original plan. He said that if the stairs could be brought in line then he would be inclined to support the project. Vice-Chair Emberson agreed with Boardmember Tollini and said that she could support the project now because it would not encroach more into the setback than the originally approved plan. Boardmember Chong agreed with the other Boardmembers. He said that the issue with the previous application was that it did not respect the setbacks as much as was necessary. He said that this proposal was now more in line with the setback variance approved in the original project. Chair Kricensky agreed and said that the impact from the road below would be lessened. He also noted that the alignment of the stairs may appear unusual at first glance, but at-grade stairs are allowed to encroach in the setback. Boardmember Chong said that he was fine with the stairs as proposed. ACTION: It was M/S (Chong/Emberson) that the request for 8 Wilkins Court is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act and approved the request, subject to the attached conditions of approval and the additional condition of approval that the project follows the revised plans received this evening. Vote: 4-0. 2. 1599 TIBURON BOULEVARD: File No. 51110; Zelinsky Properties LLC, Owners; Armstrong Development Properties LLC, Applicant; Sign Permit for installation of exterior signs for a drug store and pharmacy (CVS/pharmacy). The project would include a 61.38 square foot, indirectly- illuminated under marquee sign; one 3.19 square foot non-illuminated under marquee sign, and three 4.60 square foot non-illuminated window signs. Assessor's Parcel Nos. 058-171-88 & 89. The applicant is requesting approval of a sign permit for the installation of signage for the soon-to-be- opened drug store and pharmacy (CVS/pharmacy) at 1599 Tiburon Boulevard. The proposal includes the following signs: • A 61.38 square foot, indirectly-illuminated under marquee sign above the store entrance. The sign would consist of red plastic letters with the words "CVS/pharmacy" mounted on a white rectangular background. The sign would utilize individual letters, with LED halo-lit illumination. TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES #18 12/15/11 • A 3.19 square foot non-illuminated under marquee sign mounted below the canopy of the drive- through pharmacy. The sign would consist of red acrylic letters with the word "Drive-thru" on a white rectangular background. • Three 4.60 square foot non-illuminated signs in the storefront windows. Each sign would consist of red vinyl film mounted on the window with the words "CVS/pharmacy." Planning Manager Watrous stated that sign ordinance laws are unique, and there are more limitations in the discretion the Town has in approval of signs. He said that the Town consulted attorneys in drafting the sign ordinance so that it is consistent with free speech protections and the way entitlements are treated. He stated that sign ordinances are much less subjective and state that if one complies with the sign ordinance requirements, then one is entitled to what is allowed. He noted that the sign ordinance allows for illuminated signs and it allows for a certain area. He referred to Section 16A-515 which states that if a project complies with all aspects of the ordinance, rules, and regulations then the project shall be approved and issued within the time limit specified. He added that the section of the ordinance that includes the design principles encourages signs to employ the following principles of design: that it should be physically compatible with buildings and surroundings, that high quality and durable materials should be used, and that it should be compatible with the downtown design guidebook. He stated that the Town cannot require that a sign not be illuminated, but they can suggest or recommend that to the applicant. He said that there is some limited ability to deal with color, but there is uncertainty as to whether one's corporate colors can be changed. He noted that the three previous occupants of this building all had red-letter signs on the building. He stated that the Board has some discretion about the background color of the sign, the color of the LEDs on the back sides of the sign, and whether the sign is turned off when store is not opened. Josh Eisenhut, representing Armstrong Development, said that the materials of the letters on the sign would be aluminum, which is industry standard. He said that the sign is proposed to have halo illumination, and he presented a photo as an example of a similar sign from the CVS in San Rafael. He said that the sign itself would not be illuminated, but instead the lighting would be behind it as a halo and produce a glowing effect. He said that the proposed sign package adheres to all sign requirements. He noted that there was a recommendation to modify the color of the panel on which the sign is installed, and he said that they had no objection to that change. He suggested a "minced onion" color for the background to match the color of the rest of the building. Boardmember Chong asked if the wattage on the photo was the same as the wattage that would be used on the proposed sign, and Mr. Eisenhut said it is the same wattage. He also said that the letters in "Pharmacy" are a smaller size than the letters in "CVS". Vice-Chair Emberson asked if there was any interest in installing a wood sign instead of the proposed sign. Mr. Eisenhut said that wood would not be good from a maintenance perspective. Vice-Chair Emberson pointed out that there is a wood sign across the street and that most of the people in the audience object to an illuminated sign. Mr. Eisenhut said that they proposed an indirect lighting source which is toned down. Boardmember Tollini asked if it was possible to do a backlight halo sign substituting wood materials instead of aluminum. Mr. Eisenhut said that he was not a professional sign consultant and out of all of the signs they have placed in the country they have never used those materials. Boardmember Tollini asked if everything viewable on the sign was aluminum. Mr. Eisenhut said that the main identifier would be all aluminum. He said that the back and all of the letters would be made of aluminum. The public hearing was opened. TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES #18 12/15/11 Marcia McGovern said the application needed to be denied to make CVS design a sign that is consistent with the sign ordinance. She said that she would like to use this situation as a learning experience for future similar decisions. She said that the vision of the Town of Tiburon includes buildings that are right up to the sidewalk with parking lots in the back and small attractive deciduous trees lining the sidewalk. She said that instead of implementation of that vision, all of the trees lining Tiburon Boulevard were removed. She said that she had 230 signatures on a petition opposing the sign permit for this project. She said that the people of the community do not want a huge glowing red sign. She said that there has never in the history of Tiburon or Belvedere been such opposition to a project. She said that the project violates provisions to enhance property value, views of open space, aesthetics of Tiburon, and does not promote the purpose of the General Plan. She said that the location and placement of under marquee signs are not supposed to exceed 10 square feet in area, and the CVS sign would be five times the allowed square footage. She said that CVS added three frontages together to arrive at that allowed size and pointed out that a sign exception is therefore required. She said that CVS currently has more construction signs than they are allowed. She recommended the application for the sign permit be denied and that the Board direct CVS to reapply for a sign permit that conforms to the sign ordinance, and to submit a revised plan for landscaping to replace the removed trees. Tom Bauch said he and his wife have been residents of the Tiburon peninsula since 1981 and he owns property in both Belvedere and Tiburon overlooking the site of development. He said that illuminating the sign would be inappropriate for the Town and for the site. He said that the sign was more appropriate for a strip mall, which was the basis for his objection. Ken Gerstman thanked Ms. McGovern and Mr. Bauch for their opposition to the signage and wished to add his voice to that opposition. He said that his property would be affected by the signage and that the lighting would affect his children whose bedroom faces the property. Barbara Patten said that the community has not changed radically until CVS, a big box store, has come to a small town. She said that she and a group of women considered boycotting CVS. She discussed all of the fighting that had to be done over a small sign for a hairdresser sign recently. She said that CVS should not be allowed to come in and change the feeling of their whole community. Chris Dennison said that she opposed the signs. She said that the view toward St. Hilary's is one of the main reasons they purchased their home and that the red lit sign would mar that view. She did not see a need for a large lit sign to find the stores where she will shop. She understood the need for a pharmacy but she did not want CVS to mar the character of their community. Bobby Buich said that she shopped twice at the CVS store in Marin City. She said that there is no lighted sign in that location and she asked for something to be done that is subtle. She said that the halo lighting would ruin the character of the Town. Vera Guerta said that she would like to see an article in the Ark for all of the people who could not make it to the meeting tonight. She would like to understand why there was a fight regarding the signage for the hairdresser while CVS's sign is not an issue. The public hearing was closed. Bill McDermott, representing Armstrong Development, said that the process for this store involved many public hearings and a lot of direction to work with neighbors and listen to design standards. He said that they listened and met with members of the Pt. Tiburon Marsh Homeowners Association. He said that certain standards are allowed by the sign ordinance, and he felt that they were well within those standards. TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES #18 4 12/15/11 He said that the sign would not be lit up because the way it is illuminated would make it look like it is not illuminated. He said that this was something they had spent a lot of time on and they were confident that the building will blend well into surroundings. He said that the aluminum material is durable and will not wear over the years. He said that they spent a great deal of money improving the building and the parking lot to ensure it will be a safe attractive place for years to come. He said that they are willing to change the color of the background of the sign to taupe or onion. He pointed out the photograph of the San Rafael sign and said that it looked clean and sharp and the lighting is only on the front of the building. Vice-Chair Emberson asked if CVS in Marin City is not lit. Mr. McDermott said that it was a former Longs Drugs and he was not familiar with that project. He said that he had done one project in Napa without letters being directly lit. He said that that sign had a light shining down on it and created a brighter effect than the halo design. He said that the halo design does not have glare and spots of bright light. Vice-Chair Emberson asked if the Napa sign has the same metal letters, and Mr. McDermott said that does, but with lighting from the front. Chair Kricensky questioned how the sign would be attached to the building. Mr. McDermott said that the rear assembly hangs below the eave and the letters project out from that. Planner Manager Watrous asked and confirmed with Mr. McDermott that the sign is attached to the post and would not be suspended from the eave. Boardmember Chong applauded working with the neighbors, but asked if the applicant worked with residents on Corinthian Island and other communities facing the sign. Mr. McDermott said that they worked with neighbors directly adjacent to the store and not with neighbors further away facing the sign. Chair Kricensky pointed out that both Guaymas and US Bank have similar signs that are backlit and asked if this sign would have similar wattage. Brian Durkin, Durkin Sign and Graphics, said that the halo effect can be reduced by using fewer LED lights, but that would leave hot spots instead of a halo effect. Boardmember Chong asked why they chose not to go with a more traditional sign with lights in the front. Mr. McDermott said that a more traditional sign would include lighting interior to the letters which would be brighter. Boardmember Chong asked about a wood sign with lights to illuminate the sign. Mr. McDermott said that that would be similar to what they did in Napa, with lights shining down on individual letters and he felt that it looked cluttered. He said that they felt the halo sign is much cleaner. Vice-Chair Emberson asked if the people in Napa are happy with the sign. Mr. McDermott responded that he was unsure if they would ever be happy and noted that it took five years to approve that building. In his opinion, the proposed sign would have looked better backlit. Chair Kricensky asked if there are lights in the drive-through, and Mr. McDermott said that there are downlights. Chair Kricensky asked for explanation of the vinyl letters on windows. Mr. McDermott said that the code requires windows to not be completely clear, and they have included historic photographs of Tiburon with the CVS logo in between. He said that there is shelving in those areas, and the vinyl graphics will cover the view of the back of that shelving. Planning Manager Watrous clarified that those are shelves that are behind the checkout counters. Boardmember Tollini asked for additional explanation of the lighting on the Napa store. Mr. McDermott said that it uses gooseneck lighting, with one individual light fixture for every letter. Boardmember Tollini said that one light would not be needed on every letter, and fewer could be used if the gooseneck lights were large enough to illuminate the sign. Mr. McDermott said that architecturally the light would come off of the flat roof and stand out. Boardmember Tollini believed that people would rather look at the TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES #18 12/15/11 back of the light than the sign and it would look charming. Mr. McDermott said that he could not imagine the flat roof of the building with that type of lighting on top. Vice-Chair Emberson said that Tiburon has a certain aesthetic they want to maintain. She hoped that there can be more give and take on this sign, especially since people across from it with a view were not consulted on the design. She stated that signage that works in San Rafael may not work in a small town like Tiburon. Mr. McDermott said that he has spent a good deal of time in Tiburon and they have tried to create something that would be appealing and meets the needs of clients, and also breaks the mold of what they normally do. He said that they came in with a modified package that was set up to try to appeal to this community. Planning Manager Watrous clarified the definition of an under marquee sign, and pointed out that the current sign does not meet the definition of an under marquee sign because it would be attached to the posts. He also said that there were several construction signs in violation of the sign ordinance that have now been removed and the remaining signs are construction safety signs and comply with the requirements for construction signs. Planning Manager Watrous said that the issue of frontages is correct and an exception is required in adding frontages together. He recommended that the application be continued to another meeting so it can be noticed that the exception as required. He suggested that the Board deliberate on the current sign proposal to see if there are other actions the Board would like the applicant to address before the continued meeting. Chair Kricensky asked for clarification of internally illuminated signs. Planning Manager Watrous said that internally illuminated and "box" signs are prohibited by the sign ordinance. He said that many cities allow internally illuminated channel letters, and those are also strictly prohibited by the sign ordinance. Vice-Chair Emberson asked if there was any way to help people who have to look down on the roof. Planning Manager Watrous said that that is not part of the application, and pointed out that the roof is not the "minced onion" color. He said that it is a light beige color required by state building codes and they are looking into whether the roof color can be changed. He said that the beige color is the darkest he has seen that meets the code requirements; they are often white or silver. Boardmember Tollini asked where the IGA sign was located on the previous building in this location. Planning Manager Watrous showed illustrations from old files depicting the location of the sign. Boardmember Tollini said he thought that the CVS proposed sign was better because the previous sign was internally lit. Chair Kricensky said that it would be less impact to have a halo-lit sign. Planning Manager Watrous said that the previous sign was 32 square feet, and the Bell Market sign was 100 square feet. Boardmember Tollini pointed out if they are not able to make the exception for combining frontages the approximate size that would be allowed would be between the columns. Boardmember Tollini asked about the scope of the Board's discretion on the illumination of the sign. Planning Manager Watrous said that the Board can look at some of the aspects of the illumination, but they cannot say it cannot be illuminated. Boardmember Tollini asked if the size is an entitlement and whether the Board can mandate the sign be shrunk. Planning Manager Watrous said they cannot mandate shrinking it below the minimum that is permitted. Boardmember Tollini pointed out if they cannot make the finding for the exception then the minimum would be smaller than if they can make the finding. Boardmember Tollini acknowledged there has been a good deal of uproar to the signage on this project. He said that the things that people were most upset about were things the Board cannot mandate-the size and whether it is lit. He said that he was ecstatic that CVS is coming to the location. He pointed out that signs are needed in Town for various things. He said that he spent a good deal of time with the downtown design handbook and his opinion is the halo look is not particularly suited to downtown Tiburon. He said TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES #18 6 12/15/11 that the problem was not that it would be bright but that it would not be charming. He said that the downtown handbook encouraged striving for a charming appearance for signs and this project was consistent with that. He said that he would personally prefer to see a more traditionally painted wood sign with gooseneck lighting that would be more in keeping with the downtown handbook. He did not think that one light would be needed for each letter. Boardmember Chong pointed out that in Hilton Head, South Carolina, even McDonalds has been able to design their building and signage to conform to the look of the town. He thought that a large corporation such as CVS should be able to conform to the downtown guidelines. He said that his home would be impacted even though it is over 500 feet away. He said that he would much prefer a nice classic wood sign. He said that the Town has guidelines because they do not want downtown to look like a strip mall. He said that effort could be put forth to create a sign more fitting with the community. Vice-Chair Emberson said that she would like to see an effort made to bring in more aesthetically pleasing elements to the sign. She said that CVS had helped its neighbors with other issues and it can do likewise with the sign. She said that there was more that could be done creatively to make the community happy. Chair Kricensky said he realized a certain amount of sign area is allowed. He said that the sign would have no relation to the architecture of the building at all. He said that adding lighting with the flat roof would look contrived and he did not think that outside lighting would work with that design. He suggested placing the sign in between the columns and integrating it with the architecture, with some creative connections to the columns. He thought that the backlit lettering was better than lighting the letters themselves, and the DRB cannot change the logo. He said that signs with the shadow effect are influenced by the background. He noted that the background of the US Bank sign is dark and disappears, and he thought that would look more elegant. Chair K icensky believed that many people will use the CVS, including visitors to the town. Chair Tollini suggested moving the sign under the eave and between the posts so that people in Belvedere would not see it. He said that he would like to see two alternatives, one for if the fmdings for the exception are made and one for if the exception is not approved. He said that he would also like to see a wood alternative with lighting, so they can compare options. Vice-Chair Emberson and Chair Kricensky agreed that they would also like to see those alternatives. ACTION: It was M/S (Emberson/Tollini) to continue the application for 1599 Tiburon Boulevard to the January 19, 2012 meeting. Vote: 4-0. E. PUBLIC HEARINGS AND NEW BUSINESS 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. The applicant is requesting to construct a new single-family dwelling with a floor area exception, located at 91 Sugar Loaf Drive. Currently the property is improved with a two-story dwelling. As more than 50% of the existing perimeter walls of the dwelling will be demolished, the application has been deemed a new single-family dwelling. The new lower level of the home would include three bedrooms, two bathrooms, TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES #18 12/15/11 an exercise room, laundry room, mechanical room, and a three-car garage. A deck would extend off one of the bedrooms at the rear of the dwelling. The upper floor would include the master bedroom suite, the family room, living room, dining room, kitchen, guest bedroom and bathroom, wine storage, a powder room and two terraces. An elevator and interior stairwell would service both floors. The proposal would result in lot coverage of 3,705 square feet (14.54%) which is below the maximum permitted lot coverage in the RO-2 zoning district (15.0%). The proposal would result in a gross floor area of 4,900 square feet, which exceeds the maximum permitted floor area ratio by 352 square feet, for a parcel of this size (4,548 sq. ft.). Therefore a floor area exception has been requested. Jarrod Polsky, architect, said that his client has lived at the property for 20 years and they want to convert the property into their dream contemporary home. He said that they wish to entirely rebuild the upper floor to include a living room, dining room, powder room, master suite to achieve one-floor living. They intend to use stucco and the front wall would use stone, the garage door and front door would be stained wood. He said that the railings would be clear glass with a small aluminum cap. He said that the size of the proposed house was slightly over the FAR because of cantilevers at the corners. He said that they visited neighbors to discuss the project, and there were a few objections from the neighbors once the story poles went up. He presented an aerial view of the neighborhood and pointed out the affected properties. He noted that after the neighbor built her kitchen addition she asked the owners of the current proposal to remove a tree. He provided a view of where that tree would have been to show that the tree would have blocked the view of the proposed addition. He said that the owners should not be penalized for being good neighbors. He presented photographs showing the view from the neighbor's window showing the story poles. He said that the story poles show that the house would take out a small portion of water view of Richardson Bay, but it would not be centered in the view and would not take out any major significant features or come close to the horizon. He believed that the house was consistent with the principles of the hillside design guidelines. Mr. Polsky said that there was also some concern expressed by the neighbors at 95 Sugar Loaf Drive. He said that when the owners visited those neighbors they felt their project had no impact, but after the story poles went up, they did have concerns. He pointed out that the story pole that can be viewed would be at the corner of the glass railing. He said that the neighbors felt that it would block the edge of the Bay Bridge, however, he did not feel that this would be a major view blockage. He presented more photographs of the view from that neighbor's house showing a minimal view blockage. He thought that this would be a huge architectural improvement and a credit to the neighborhood. He said that he would like to see a balance between property rights and neighbors' views. He said that they worked hard to provide a sensitive design that follows the hillside guidelines and would be very sensitive to neighbors. Boardmember Chong asked what other siting or alternative options they considered to minimize the impact on 89 Sugar Loaf Drive. Mr. Polsky said that they did not see the impact until later in the process. He said that it would not work to put the master bedroom downstairs because they wanted to have one- level living. He felt that nothing significant could be done to mitigate views, and the house would not create significant view blockage. Lopa Choksi, owner, said that they have lived at the address for 20 years and would like to create a contemporary home. She said that they took the neighbors' concerns seriously and sent them all letters. She said that they have been good neighbors and would not obstruct any views. She said that she met the Wongs and took photos from their main living areas and they agreed there would be no impacts on their views. She said that she met with April Rox and there would only be a minor impairment of the view from her kitchen window. She said that Ms. Rox did not have the view when she moved into her house and only gained it when the Choksi's removed a tree on their property. She said that the house would not block any significant view. She said that she wants to be a good neighbor but did not want to be a victim TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES #18 12/15/11 of the removal of that tree. She said that they met the neighbors at 97 Sugar Loaf Drive and they mentioned that they had some concerns about the view from their deck. She said that they had taken great pains to sensitively design the home. The public hearing was opened. Colin Wong said that they have lived in their home for 38 years and over that time they have seen houses built around them and their panoramic view has been compromised. He said that both 95 and 91 Sugar Loaf Drive are on the street level, while 93 Sugar Loaf Drive is below street level and was not impacted. However, as he looks toward San Francisco, the proposed house would be directly in their view. He said that they have no objection to the design of the house but they object to the deck. He said that at the early stage of the project they had no idea how the project would affect his property, but once the story poles went up they could see the obstruction of the view. He said that if the deck is expanded to accommodate a fire pit it would obstruct his living room view of Angel Island, the Bay Bridge, and the Embarcadero. He said that the kitchen view would not be impacted, but the living room view would be severely impacted. He said that there was no way that they could see through glass to see those landmarks and would have no problem with the design if the deck could be brought within it existing boundaries. He said that they were only asking for a small modification on the deck. Silvana Wong said that in addition to the beauty of Angel Island it has special meaning to her because her great aunt was detained at Angel Island and whenever relatives came to her house she would point to the island and tell the story. She said that they had not been able to stop the building of the other houses around her property, and some of the view had been taken away. She said that they can still see Angel Island from their bedroom, but this view would be removed if this house is approved and she would not be able to tell her grandchildren the story of her late great aunt. April Hopkins Rox said that she purchased the property with her late husband in 1983 and she has lived there for 23 years. She said that the Choksi's are the closest neighbors to her west. She said that her two letters summarize her concerns and thanked the members of the Board for visiting her property. She said that her kitchen is a primary living area, and she is now single and spends most of her time in the kitchen. She said that the kitchen has a good view and she enjoys the view over the kitchen sink. She said that she loves the expanse of that view and was concerned about the view impact of the proposed residence. She said that she was also concerned about the density of the structure and pointed out that the properties are uncomfortably close together. She hoped that extra consideration would be given to the request for the floor area exception and its impact on neighbors. She agreed with staff's recommendation to move the master bedroom to the lower level to mitigate view blockage. Pari Choksi thanked the Board and pointed out that he has been a good neighbor. He said that he had enhanced the view of Ms. Rox by removing a tree. He said he would like to take some of the view back and not be punished for a good neighborly act. He said they will work on it if the DRB feels it is a significant blockage of the view. However, they would like to live on one level and that requires the master bedroom to be upstairs. The public hearing was closed. Boardmember Chong said that the house design was architecturally beautiful and he liked the mixed use of materials and oversized eaves on the top floor. He said that he was concerned about the view impacts. He believed that the findings could be made for the floor area exception. He said that the view of the window above the sink is as primary as any other part of the house since people spend a good deal of time in that location. He also felt that there would be a significant water view blockage in that location. He said that there are ways the house could be built down the hill, and asked if there was a way that the house TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES #18 9 12/15/11 could be sited on the lot and not impact neighbors' views. He thought that there was a lot that could be worked with, and the house's location on top of the hill was inconsistent with the hillside guidelines. Vice-Chair Emberson agreed with Boardmember Chong that the kitchen window view is a primary view. She thought that the design was beautiful and hoped that there was a way to minimize its impact on neighbors. Boardmember Chong added that the project was bumping right up against the maximum lot coverage and he thought that he would be able to make findings for a lot coverage variance if they were to flatten out the structure and move it on the lot. Boardmember Tollini said that he liked the design but it was in conflict with the slope of the lot. He said that he would be able to support the cantilevering and top-heaviness of the house if it did not affect neighbors so much. He said that such house designs tend to work only in isolated locations that do not affect neighbors. He said that the design was conflict with the hillside guidelines and would affect neighboring views. He said that the tree could have died or been removed at some point, and that did not matter to him because trees come and go. He said that the Board does not allow people to build a house and fill up the space behind a tree anyway, and so he rejected the argument that the applicants should be allowed to block the view because they removed the tree. He said he visited both neighbors and the intrusion on the view from the Wong's house would be de minimis. However, the kitchen is defined as primary living space and the extraordinary view in Ms. Rox's home would be fundamentally affected because the house would completely block the view of Richardson Bay from the kitchen. Chair Kricensky agreed with Boardmember Tollini and said that building upon the edge and massing the cantilevering goes against hillside guidelines. He said that in its proper place, this would be a dramatic house. He agreed with Boardmember Tollini's take on the tree issue. He said that the proposed house would result in a major interruption of a water view from the kitchen. Boardmember Tollini added that it was true that the horizon view would be unaffected but the water view would be completely wiped out. ACTION: It was M/S (Tollini/Emberson) to continue 91 Sugar Loaf Drive to the January 19, 2012 meeting. Vote: 4-0. 4. 290 CECILIA WAY: File No. 21108; Candace and Jason Washing, Owners; Site Plan and Architectural Review for construction of a new one-story single-family dwelling, with Variances for reduced rear yard setback and excess lot coverage. The applicants propose to demolish more than 50% of an existing one-story dwelling and construct a new one-story dwelling. The new dwelling would be increased in size by 1,274 square feet, resulting in a total floor area of 2,854 square feet. The house would extend to within 6 feet of the rear property line, which would be less than the 23 foot rear yard setback required in the R-1-BA zone. The proposed lot coverage of 3,454 square feet (40.5%) would be greater than the 30.0% maximum lot coverage permitted in the R-1-BA zone. The house would Assessor's Parcel No. 058-282-04. The applicant is requesting Design Review approval for the construction of a new one-story single-family dwelling on property located at 290 Cecilia Way. The subject site is currently developed with an existing one-story dwelling and detached garage. The project would demolish most (over 50%) of the floor area of the existing building and completely reconfigure the interior of the house. The house would include a master bedroom suite, along with three additional bedrooms, two more bathrooms, a living room, kitchen, den and entry. The house would connect to a new two-car garage in the same general area as the existing detached garage, which will be demolished. Three new skylights would be installed. The ridgeline of the house would increase in height from the existing 12 feet, 8 inches to a new height of 14 feet, 8 inches. TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES #18 10 12/15/11 The floor area of the proposed house would increase by 1,274 square feet to a total of 2,854 square feet, which is the maximum floor area for a lot of this size. The house would cover a total of 3,454 square feet (40.5%) of the site, which would be greater than the 30.0% maximum lot coverage permitted in the R-1- BA zone. A variance for excess lot coverage is therefore requested. The house would be connected to the existing detached garage, which is situated 6 feet from the rear property line. By connecting to the house, the rear yard setback for the garage becomes the rear yard setback for the house, and would be less than the 23 foot rear yard setback required for this lot. A variance is therefore also requested for reduced rear yard setback. Jason Washing, owner, said that this is a project they have been working on for years. He said that they are very close to the neighbors and they are all in support of the project. He said that they have tried hard to make this a simple, small-scale project and it is the result of the life needs of a growing family. There were no public comments. Vice-Chair Emberson said that a second story would likely never happen in this neighborhood and therefore they are limited to going into setbacks. She liked the design of the house and agreed with all of the findings made by staff. She did not think that this would grant special privileges because everyone in the neighborhood has done the same thing. She said that the project would not be detrimental or injurious to the neighbors and she thought that it would be a nicer looking house. Boardmember Chong said that the only concern he had was the height of the story poles on Harriet Way. However, upon looking closer he felt that they were in line with the design. He agreed with staff's findings for the variances. Boardmember Tollini said that the house looked bigger and taller when he visited the site than he thought it would be. He said that the ceilings are 9 feet and the ridge is under 15 feet, and directly across Harriet there is a very similarly expanded house. He agreed with staff's findings and supported the project. Chair Kricensky agreed with the other Boardmembers thought that the house expansion worked well. ACTION: It was M/S (Chong/Emberson) that the request for 290 Cecilia Way is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act and approved the request, subject to the attached conditions of approval. Vote: 4-0. 4 MCCART COURT: File No. 711022; Bruce Lavine and Lisa Zimmerman, Owners; Site Plan and Architectural Review for construction of a new 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 two-story dwelling. The house would have the same size and dimensions of previously approved additions to the existing single-family dwelling on the site and would increase the total floor area to 3,592 square feet, which exceeds the maximum floor area ratio of 3,408 square feet. Assessor's Parcel No. 055-171-22. The applicant previously received design review approval for construction of a major addition and remodel, including a floor area exception, to the property on May 5, 2011. During construction of the project, more than 50% of the existing perimeter walls were removed. Once more than 50% of the existing perimeter walls are removed, the applicant is required to resubmit the project as a new single- family dwelling for the Design Review Board to re-review and consider. TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES #18 11 12/15/11 The applicant has now submitted plans which propose the construction of a new single-family dwelling with a floor area exception, located at 4 McCart Court. The property was previously improved with a two- story dwelling, which has now been demolished. The plans submitted do not indicate any modifications from the previous approval. The proposal would result in a dwelling with a gross floor area of 3,592 square feet, which exceeds the maximum permitted floor area for a property of this size (3,409 sq. ft.). Therefore, a floor area exception has been requested. The proposal would also increase the lot coverage by 546 square feet, for total lot coverage of 2,218 square feet (16.0%), which is below the maximum permitted lot coverage in the R-1 zone (30%). Phil Rossington, architect, said that the project was approved by the Board last May and they are before the Board again now because more than 50% of the walls were removed during construction. He said that the project was exactly the same as what was proposed and approved earlier. Vice-Chair Emberson said that she trusted the previous review of this project by the Board and understood the circumstances of the demolition. Chair Kricensky and Boardmembers Chong and Tollini agreed that it was the same house as approved before and could support the request. ACTION: It was M/S (Emberson/Tollini) that the request for 4 McCart Court is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act and approved the request, subject to the attached conditions of approval. Vote: 4-0. F. APPROVAL OF MINUTES #17 OF THE 12/01/11 DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MEETING ACTION: It was M/S (Emberson/Tollini) to approve the minutes of the December 1, 2011 meeting, as written. Vote: 3-0-1 (Chong abstained). G. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 9:30 p.m. TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES #18 12 12/15/11 "ati7 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES NO. 1015 January 11, 2012 Regular Meeting Town of Tiburon Council Chambers 1505 Tiburon Boulevard, Tiburon, California CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL: Chair Corcoran called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. Present: Chair Corcoran, Vice-Chair Tollini, Commissioner Kunzweiler Absent: Commissioner Weller Staff Present: Director of Community Development Anderson, Planning Manager Watrous, Planning Consultant Jeff Baird and Minutes Clerk Levison ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None COMMISSION AND STAFF BRIEFING Planning Manager reported that the Kol Shofar use permit annual review is scheduled for January 25th. The Town Council is scheduled to hold continued interviews for the open Commission seat on January 18th. Review of the Trestle Glen Circle Precise Development Plan is scheduled for February 1St and the Alta Robles project tentatively scheduled for February 15th. PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE: REVIEW AND CONSIDER RECOMMENDING TO THE TOWN COUNCIL ADOPTION OF AN UPDATED HOUSING ELEMENT OF THE TIBURON GENERAL PLAN Community Development Director Anderson presented the staff report, stating that in January 2011) the Planning Commission reviewed the Preliminary Draft Housing Element and forwarded its comments and recommendations to the Town Council. Following the incorporation of changes made by the Commission and Council, the Element was submitted to the State Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) for preliminary review. In October, the Town received written confirmation from HCD that the revised draft element would meet the statutory requirements for housing elements and would be certified as "in compliance." Several HCD comments focused on the Town's affordable housing and inventory of available sites, while others sought clarification on the removal of government constraints and provision of incentives to promote affordable housing construction. TIBURON PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - JANUARY 11, 2012 MINUTES NO. 1015 PAGE 1 An Initial Study was prepared for the Housing Element update, concluding that no adverse environmental impacts would result from the update project and that it would be eligible for a mitigated negative declaration. The number of housing units necessary to accommodate the Town's regional fair share housing need has dropped since the prior housing element cycle. Staff recommended that the Commission hold a public hearing, discuss and make any recommended revisions, and adopt the resolution recommending adoption of the updated Housing Element to the Town Council. Mr. Anderson introduced Planning Consultant Jeff Baird. Chair Corcoran opened the public hearing and, there being no comment, closed the public hearing. Vice-Chair Tollini provided the following minor corrections/clarifications: • Page 59, 3rd line - "Hence, the Marin Housing Authority..." Page 65 - clarification on the table referenced • Page 68 - update occupancy status of several retail locations • Page 83, 3rd paragraph - "...information required for application to be deemed complete..." Vice-Chair Tollini requested clarification on a cross-reference on Page 85, which Mr. Anderson advised should be deleted. Commissioner Kunzweiler remarked on the narrative and flow of the document, which provides a comprehensive set of guidelines. He called out interesting data such as projected growth and demographics, though he questioned what seemed to be a high number of persons with disabilities (1,488). He found the decrease in regional housing needs assessment numbers, which have always been controversial and frustrating, particularly interesting. He complimented Mr. Baird on crafting such a transparent review of the Town's planning process and fees and noted that the latter are not out at all out of line with those of other communities, despite what some residents may assert. He referred to Page 106, which notes the severe lack of water pressure on the southern unincorporated portion of Paradise Drive. He could not recall any dialogue on this during the recent coverage of the Alta Robles project. Chair Corcoran said he would submit his minor comments in writing to staff. ACTION: It was M/S (Kunzweiler/Tollini) to adopt the resolution recommending adoption of the updated Housing Element to the Town Council. Vote: 3-0. TIBURON PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - JANUARY 11, 2012 MINUTES NO. 1015 PAGE 2 2. 14 CECILIA COURT: REQUEST TO AMEND THE TIBURON HIGHLANDS PRECISE PLAN (PD #15) TO INCREASE THE MAXIMUM FLOOR AREA FOR LOT 7; FILE #31003; David and Dipanwita Reis, Owners; Greg LeDoux, Applicant; Assessor's Parcel No. 034-360-30 Planning Manager Watrous presented the staff report. The applicants propose to amend the Tiburon highlands Precise Plan for property located at 14 Cecilia Court to increase the maximum allowable floor area for the home from 3,500 square feet to 3,884 square feet. The new floor area would result from the conversion of an existing garage space to living area and the enclosure of an existing courtyard into living space. Planning Manager Watrous summarized the history of the Tiburon Highlands Subdivision and Precise Plan, noting that the project was approved by the Town Council following seven years of intense review, controversial debate, development moratoria, and a lawsuit. He stated that the probable goal of the floor area limitation was to address concerns by Reedlands residents below the proposed lots that overly large homes would loom over their own homes, result in privacy concerns and drainage and soil instability problems, and be out of character with their older and smaller homes. Planning Manager Watrous described the proposed additions and noted that the default floor area ratio for the subject property would be 3,054 square feet, with an additional allowance for up to 600 square feet of garage space, while the subject application requests 3,884 square feet of floor area and 723 square feet of garage space, which would be 830 square feet over the default floor area ratio limit for this lot. He said that if the Tiburon Highlands Precise Plan did not include a specific floor area limitation for this lot, the applicants could have requested a floor area exception for the proposed additions. He believed that there would be sufficient evidence to support the findings for such a request if the Precise Plan limitation did not exist, but also noted that floor area exceptions as large as 830 square feet are becoming less common, as the Design Review Board and Town Council have increasingly discouraged the granting of sizable floor area exceptions in recent years. Planning Manager Watrous recommended that the Commission hold a public hearing, consider all testimony and either adopt the draft resolution amending the Precise Plan or direct staff to prepare a draft resolution denying the amendment. Dipanwita Reis said she and her husband were married in this home as renters several years before and were very excited to finally have the opportunity to purchase the home for their family. She explained that the proposed amendment would seek to accommodate their family of 6 by creating an additional bedroom and bathroom as well as enclosing the internal courtyard to house their daughter's piano. She said that the project would simply enclose internal space and would have no affect on the surrounding neighborhood. She felt that a specific and unique project such as this, which would not alter the envelope of the home in any way, would not likely set a precedent for other homes within the Precise Plan area. Greg Ledoux, architect, briefly described the external changes proposed to the house, which would consist of two windows and a low slope roof the follows an existing overhead trellis. He TIBURON PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - JANUARY 11, 2012 MINUTES NO. 1015 PAGE 3 said that the amendment was clearly specific to this lot and any future applications for surrounding property owners would have to demonstrate the same lack of impacts to surrounding neighbors. Chair Corcoran opened the public hearing and, there being no comment, closed the public hearing. Vice-Chair Tollini requested staff's opinion on the mail item requesting additional time because of late notice. Mr. Watrous stated that staff mailed out notices to all property owners within 300 feet in December 2011 and that additional courtesy notices were mailed to an expanded area along Warren's Way and Reed Ranch Road in early January. It was the consensus of the Commission that all notice requirements were sufficiently met and that it could proceed with the hearing. Commissioner Kunzweiler said that the matter was very clear and straightforward. He recalled that the Town has received occasional but regular requests for similar projects that are inconsistent with the intent of the Precise Plan. He acknowledged that property owner's needs and uses change but said that there is clear disclosure on the limitations attached to these properties. He believed that it is the Commission's responsibility to respect the decisions of its predecessors who spent a lot of time making their decision, and said that he could make no findings to support the project. Vice-Chair Tollini said she felt for the applicant and, in absence of the Precise Plan, would likely have no issue making the findings for a floor area exception. While she did not see the rationale for perpetuity of every Precise Plan, she felt that the Commission should adhere to the history of the project and the work that came before. Chair Corcoran said that the applicant made a compelling presentation and had a sympathetic story, but the decisions of the Commission are separate from personal feelings. He said that the Commission's obligation is to honor and uphold the decisions that have been made and simple passage of time is not an adequate argument to change such hard won compromises. He acknowledged he was a bit torn with regards to the interior nature of the space, but ultimately concurred with Commissioner Kunzweiler that there were no grounds to approve the amendment. He felt that the only reason that there was room for discussion was that the project was approved 23 years ago. ACTION: It was M/S (Kunzweiler/Tollini) to direct staff to prepare a resolution denying the application, for review and consideration at the next meeting. Motion carried: 3-0. TIBURON PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -JANUARY 11, 2012 MINUTES NO. 1015 PAGE 4 MINUTES: 3. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - Regular Meeting of December 14, 2011 Chair Corcoran requested the following clarification: • Page 10, 4th paragraph - "Community Development Director Anderson confirmed this that state policy encourages second dwelling units, ACTION: It was M/S (Tollini/Kunzweiler) to approve the Minutes of December 14, 2011, as amended. Motion carried: 3-0. ADJOURNMENT: The Planning Commission adjourned the meeting at 8:10 p.m. JO ,//o RC , ATTEST: SCOTT ANDERSON, SECRETARY (ACTING) TIBURON PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -JANUARY 11, 2012 MINUTES NO. 1015 PAGE 5 TOWN OF TIBURON Action Minutes - Regular Meeting Tiburon Town Hall Design Review Board 1505 Tiburon Boulevard January 19, 2012 Tiburon, CA 94920 7:00 P.M. ACTION MINUTES #1 TIBURON DESIGN REVIEW BOARD ,F R. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL At 7:00 PM Present: Chairman Kricensky, Vice Chair Emberson and Boardmembers Chong and Johnson Absent: Boardmember Tollini Ex-Officio: Planning Manager Watrous and Minutes Clerk Rusting OLD BUSINESS 1. 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 2116112 2. 1599 TIBURON BOULEVARD: File No. 51110; Zelinsky Properties LLC, Owners; Armstrong Development Properties LLC, Applicant; Sign Permit for installation of exterior signs for a drug store and pharmacy (CVS/pharmacy), with a Minor Exception. The project would include one or more indirectly-illuminated signs; one 3.19 square foot non-illuminated under marquee sign, and three 4.53 square foot non-illuminated window signs. Assessor's Parcel Nos. 058-171-88 & 89. Approved 4-0. 3. 91 SUGAR LOAF DRIVE: File No. 711085; Pari and Lopa Choksi, 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 2116112 Action Minutes #1 1/19/12 Design Review Board Meeting Page 1 PUBLIC HEARINGS AND NEW BUSINESS 4. 1600 MAR WEST STREET: File No. 711131; Tiburon Peninsula Club, Owner/Appellant; Appeal of Staff-level conditional approval of Site Plan and Architectural Review for installation of eight (8) exterior lighting fixtures on a trellis adjacent to the clubhouse of a private recreational facility (Tiburon Peninsula Club). Assessor's Parcel No. 058-240-21. Appeal Granted (4-0) 5. 4 OLD LANDING ROAD: File No. 711134; Laureen Seeger and David Cohen, Owners; Site Plan and Architectural Review for construction of additions to an existing single-family dwelling. The applicants propose to expand the existing family room, living room, and master bedroom, and make minor landscape improvements, including a new cedar trellis over the existing patio area and a new outdoor kitchen adjacent to the dwelling. The 225 square foot addition would increase the total floor area of the house to 3,998 square feet. Assessor's Parcel No. 038-162-55. Continued to 2116112 MINUTES 6. Regular Meeting of December 15, 2011 Approved (4-0) ADJOURNMENT At 8:15 PM Action Minutes #1 1/19/12 Design Review Board Meeting Page 2 TOWN OF TIBURON Action Minutes - Regular Meeting Tiburon Town Hall Tiburon Planning Commission 1505 Tiburon Boulevard January 25, 2012 - 7:30 PM Tiburon, CA 94920 ACTION MINUTES TIBURON PLANNING COMMISSION CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL At 7:30 PM Present: Chairman Corcoran, Commissioner Kunzweiler, Commissioner Weller Commissioner Welner Absent: Vice Chair Tollini ORAL COMMUNICATIONS There Were None Persons wishing to address the Planning Commission on any subject not on the agenda may do so under this portion of the agenda. Please note that the Planning Commission is not able to undertake extended discussion, or take action on, items that do not appear on this agenda. Matters requiring action will be referred to Town Staff for consideration and/or placed on a future Planning Commission agenda. Please limit your comments to no more than three (3) minutes. Testimony regarding matters not on the agenda will not be considered part of the administrative record. COMMISSION AND STAFF BRIEFING Commission and Committee Reports Director's Report OLD BUSINESS 1. 14 CECILIA COURT: CONSIDER ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION DENYING A REQUEST TO AMEND THE TIBURON HIGHLANDS PRECISE PLAN (PD #15) TO INCREASE THE MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE FLOOR AREA FOR LOT 7; FILE #31103; David and Dipanwita Reis, Owners; Greg LeDoux & Associates, Inc. Applicant; Assessor's Parcel No. 034-360-30 [DW] R esolution Adopted (3-0-1) Welner Abstained) NEW BUSINESS 2. 215 BLACKFIELD DRIVE: PERIODIC REVIEW OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT COMPLIANCE FOR KOL SHOFAR SYNAGOGUE AND APPURTENANT DAY SCHOOL; FILE #10404; Assessor's Parcel No. 038-351-34 [DW] Review Conducted Tiburon Planning Commission Action Minutes January 25, 2012 Page 1 MINUTES 3. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - Regular Meeting of January 11, 2012 Approved (4-0) ADJOURNMENT At 9:05 PM Tiburon Planning Commission Action Minutes January 25, 2012 Page 2