HomeMy WebLinkAboutTC Digest 2012-02-10TOWN COUNCIL WEEKLY DIGEST
Week of February 6 -10, 2012
Ti 1-rv rnrn
1. Letter - Scott Anderson - Town of Tiburon Housing Element Adoption
2. Application - Heritage & Arts Commission - Suanne Bassett
3. Yearly Recap - Design Review Submittals - January 2012
4. Monthly Report - Office of Design Review - January 2012
Agendas & Minutes
5. Minutes - Design Review Board - January 19, 2012
6. Action Minutes - Design Review Board - February 2, 2012
7. Meeting Cancellation - Planning Commission - February 8, 2012
8. Agenda - Design Review Board - February 16, 2012
Regional
o
a) Invitation - Sierra Club David Brower Celebration & Fundraiser - 3/9/12
b) Great Age - Marin Commission on Aging - Newsletter - Winter 2012
c) Western City - February 2012 *
d) Bay Area Monitor - LWV Newsletter - February/March 2012
e) Awards Program Announcement - ABAG - Feb. 17, 2012 *
f) GGNRA Draft Dog Management Plan - Environmental Impact Statement
Agendas & Minutes
g) None
* Council Only
Town of Tiburon - 1505 Tiburon Boulevard - Tiburon, CA 94920 - P. 415.435.7373 E 415.435.2438 - wwwci.tiburon.ca.us
Community Development Department February 7, 2012
Robin Huntley
Department of Housing & Community Development
Division of Housing Policy Development
1800 Third Street, Room 430
P. O. Box 952053
Sacramento, CA 94252-2053
RE: TOWN OF TIBURON HOUSING ELEMENT ADOPTION
Dear Robin:
We are pleased to submit the Town of Tiburon's adopted Housing Element and the
accompanying Town Council Resolution 08-2012, adopted on February 1, 2012.
All revisions requested by HCD during out 2011 exchanges have been incorporated.
I would like to personally thank you for your helpful approach and valued assistance
during this update process. The Town looks forward to having its element certified
pending final review by HCD.
Please call me at 415-435-7392 or e-mail if you have any questions.
Very truly yours,
Scott Anderson
Director of Community Development
Enclosure: Housing Element Adopted 2-1-2012 with Resolution 08-2012
Jim Fraser
Mayor
Emmett O'Donnell
Vice Mayor
RichardCollins
Councilmember
Prank Doyle
Councilrnember
Alice Fredericks
Councl:member
Margaret A. Curran
Town Manager
1•
Cc: Jeffery Baird, Baird + Driscoll Community Planning
Digest
~'T dues .
-1 nv
V~A6(<-Xj
TOWN OF TIBURON
e
ic"
COMMISSION, BOARD & COMMITTEE
APPLICATION
a.
VED
r=►i 2 L u 12
TOWN MANAGERS OFFICE
TOWN OFTIBURON
The Town Council considers appointments to various Town commissions,
boards and committees throughout the year due to term expirations and unforeseen'
vacancies. In an effort to broaden participation by local residents in Tiburon's.
governmental process and activities, the Council needs to know your interest in
serving the Town in some capacity.
Please indicate your specific areas of interest and special skills or experience
which would be beneficial to the- Town, by completing both sides of this form and
returning it to Town Hall. The application form can also be found on the Town,9s
website, www. ci. tiburon. ca. us.
Copies of the application will -be forwarded to the Town Council, and an
informal interview will be scheduled when a vacancy occurs. Your application will,
remain on file at Town Hall for a period of one (1) year.
Thank you for our willingness to serve the Tiburon community.
~A' i 3.0 2012
TOWN CLERK Diane Crane Iacopi
TOWN OF TIBURON Town Clerk
AREAS OF INTEREST
Please Indicate Your Area(s) of Interest in Numerical Order
(#1 Being the Greatest Interest)
PLANNING
DESIGN REVIEW
HERITAGE & ARTS
LIBRARY
PARKS, OPEN SPACE '&-TRAILS
JT. RECREATION COMMITTEE
DISASTER PREPAREDNESS
MARIN COMMISSION ON AGING
PERSONAL DATA
(PLEASE PRINT OR TYPE -,A. RESUME MAY BE ATTACHED AS WELL)
NAME: ~ L ,~.~N Nc ~ ~ P~S~ E ► ~
MAILING ADDRESS: WAKI l lt~JjZz
~An2~c
)tA, -&0 TELEPHONE: fl(ome: Work: Fax No.
PROPERTY OWNERS' ASSOC. (If applicable)
TIBURON RESIDENT: (Years) O~• DATE SUBMITTED:
REASONS ::FOR SELECTING
'YOUR AREA, OF'INfi.ERE;ST'
A PPT.Tf A RI F 0VA I TFTrATIOXV
Appointed to:
Date Term Expires:
(Date)
Length of Term:
2
FI: 61 V e7)
----------------------------------------------Town Hall Use
r
Date Application Received: Interview Date:
a~
N
H
a
c
c
a
N
O-
CV)
O-
o
0
O`
3 m
c`
~
O.
m m
3 L m 2
o
r
O`
r
d)
r
r
a -a
r
O
m m L
C
N
O
O
a)
O
O
c
O
00
_C IL
10
y
c u -a
c
M
o~
N
o.
a
O-
o-
m
oo
01
a
t 0
00
a
-
N
a) c
o c a
u
~
CAP
r
3
r
Q L
0
C N
o
o 3
•
E `D
O -
V
0
E
y
0-
c
CL
p
O
N c
c
ca 0
m
u
::E
0 0.
m
a
N
E
C y
c
a m a
a c
t.
N
a c
U -.v
0
°c)
N m}
0
'
Cal
m
s a
0 C 'a
- a o " m
O
a) 3
O c
im
c > >
0--a 0
L
a)
c
o L
m
-a
c
3 E
O m
L C
U
_
m
C
O
c
-a 'C
m `5 E
E
L
= 0 3
o m~
m
s
a a O
oA
v~
as
0
3
.2°
DJo- s-u~
C
s
m
C
N a
s .
O
.t
a C N
m
3
= m
a)
a
`v
3
5
L
L
'40 • w o
c
u
c m
N
0
L
o) Q
c V
m m
as
N _E
c a) a
c
ai
Q
c m 3 `a' o
m- m -a L
a)
L
c
c
.G
03
C
N V Z m 0
C
O OQ
a)N
? O
-
2sZ
pZ
-0•0 ~
°
_0
U
-V
r-~`
an
- `a
c
aim ---a
°,a m a
i N c
om a
~.N
~3~
m~
'
" a o
n a ~s
o m
m
-o
(D
O
~
u
3
-Eo
cn r
a c
a~
3
-a m e
CO
c 3
> a -0
-
a 0
L
N m
O a
x cn a
L
N m
Z
0 v O
N
LLNZ
a
c c
O>- 3 a
E o
co tor
VO
simV)
U a
Lum
a. N V
tn
z
01
yl..
t z-
~ C
a
m ~
UP
L
o .2
(D m
c V
> - s
s
0 ` Q
a. Q
c c
X Q
Q .c s
E 3 U aci
a o o °
V
ai (D C7
LL
a m a -a
c
.c s to 0
N -0 LZ
c N 0 m
0 D
3
Q °
• . s e
i
s~
V L
a m
m
U
L
O
o 'c
O
Ln
C
v
s
UP
LL
.c
•c
L
a
L
O O
m
m cn
c
m
N
N
a
0
O_
O
N
t
L
a
z
LL;
LU
Lij
z
0
vi
f j~
AMY
00
O
N
0
n
O
O
N
O
O
N
~ N
E
t V)
} a
L a)
C
m
`QNV
E
av)V
•
O
.N
O
m
L N
E
Q
Q Q 'V
c
o
a
+ a D
L-
C
wil
N a
m
O a
cn 0
ca 10 V)
mV)
C) o a c m
C
c.a c
p
0 a
a~
c C C o
O
T ;
a)'N 0 N
c 0 0-0
V
a Q a 0 r
m a a
C3 . ~s
m m V
c o E a- a
CL m o
O U-j o C u
V
C: O "
0 r- ::E a
0- v aL.
V
Q ° o O- c
Q ° c h o
C: 0
cC 0 oil o c -a
`o o E >-0 0
0- m c
f- 0 ~ F 5
(n co
c `0
j C a) a
0 „ :_O c a c
r- c ~ -a a
" ° CA- o
L =:D
'
a
CL-
o~ E -Q L W
CL a o ~
L
0
c
a
10
a
U
a. c
0 c
z J
o
a °a
N
_
c
o,
0
~
0
o E
.
a
_
a
.
N Qm
c
r
C
a
O
0
a 0 C C3
E
0 }
CL
u
16-
c
O
O 0 0
w O
N
-0
a) C Q
,c O
>
> c
S E
>
o
,
)
-"e a O a
V -a ~
N
Q
>
° -a
o
_
a
Q m }
-a
-0 E c
E
B v
c
U .
a m ~ E
N
o o a
CL
c
L
s
m
~
i
a o
Q
o
E D c L
as
^
c o m y
.a
(D
s ° o
Q
4
s
N V
m
-a
.
cc
o
E s c
m
E
E
°
m o i
C
O
F%
Q
O
a) s
c ~
L
a
O m V
o E ~
m o m
O
> a
c
N O
c o
N 0 N
c O 0
W X V
' N a) V
a) Q
~ a
aai
c N
L
V V
s
° o
c`n = V
Cy-
0-
O~
r
0
0,
r
a
o
N Q
Q ~ V
h ~ H
d v
a o c
s a. O
r LL
G o V)
a~
V
c
N
a~
LL-
V)
ct~
a-
N
O
O
O
0
N
V
m
C
a
I.D
c
O
y
a
_c
E
-a
a
c
O
V
c
O
V
D
a~
b
r
o
H O
N
N
r
O
O
M
r
O
O
r
F-' N
Q Q
r
r
O
O
M
r
N
N
N
LU
0
z
N
0
Q
a
W
~
C
G
M
M
W
❑
vJ
J
W
Wy
It
LLJ
z
z
f
V
w
V
W
J
Q
y
L4
J
Q
Q
W
co
w
LL
4
z
N
r
O
O
M
r
O
Or
O
1-
3
Q
r
O
O
M
r
N
N
N
U
w
z
J
a
m
J
Q
a:
Z
m
1-'
a
-
cn
F-
oW
.
w
t-
Co
U
zz
a
>
F-
W
U
x
Q
LL
W
>
W
LL
U)
N
a
a
Q
O
VJG~
9-
TOWN OF TIBURON
OFFICE OF DESIGN REVIEW
MONTHLY REPORT
JANUARY 2012
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD APPLICATIONS: NUMBER SUBMITTED
2011
■ NEW SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCES
1
2
■ MAJOR ADDITIONS/ALTERATIONS
1
1
■ MINOR ADDITIONS/ALTERATIONS
0
0
■ (not eligible for Staff Review)
■ SIGN PERMITS
0
0
■ TREE PERMITS
3
3
■ VARIANCE REQUESTS
1
1
■ FAR EXCEPTIONS REQUESTS
2
0
■ EXTENSION OF TIME
0
0
STAFF REVIEW APPLICATIONS:
Review of minor exterior alterations and additions of less than 500
square feet.
11
10
APPEALS OF DESIGN REVIEW BOARD DECISIONS TO TOWN COUNCIL
Armstrong Development Properties Appeal from Design Review Board Approval of a Sign Permit
to install signs for a drug store and pharmacy at 1599 Tiburon Boulevard
Appellants Against the CVS Beach Road Sign - Appeal from Design Review Board Approval of a
Sign Permit to install signs for a drug store and pharmacy at 1599 Tiburon Boulevard
2 0
REPORT PREPARED BY: Connie Cashman, Planning Secretary
DATE OF REPORT: February 6, 2012
•
A, Olt
MINUTES #1
TIBURON DESIGN REVEW BOARD
MEETING OF JANUARY 19, 2012
The meeting was opened at 7:00 p.m. by Chair Kricensky.
A. ROLL CALL
Present: Chair Kricensky, Vice-Chair Emberson, Boardmembers Chong and Johnson
Absent: Boardmember Tollini
Ex-Officio: Planning Manager Watrous and Minutes Clerk Rusting
B. PUBLIC COMMENTS - None
C. STAFF BRIEFING
Planning Manager Watrous noted that the items for 2308 Mar East Street, 91 Sugar Loaf Drive and 4 Old
Landing Road have been continued to the February 16, 2012 meeting.
D. 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 2/16/12
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.
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 original proposal
included the following signs. The application was reviewed at the December 15, 2011 Design Review
Board meeting. At that time, it was determined that the requested sign permit required a Minor Exception,
as the proposed total sign area involved the transfer of sign area from one establishment frontage to
another. The subject building has three frontages and all of the sign area was proposed to be installed
along the frontage facing Tiburon Boulevard.
Numerous objections were received from local residents regarding the size, design and illumination of the
proposed signs. The Design Review Board felt that the aluminum materials for the main store sign were
TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES #1
1/19/12
inconsistent with the character of Downtown Tiburon and suggested that the applicant explore a wooden
sign. Similarly, the Board asked the applicant to consider replacing the indirect, red LED halo-lit
illumination with a different indirect lighting system. The Board also encouraged the applicant to submit
two different sign proposals, one which would require a Minor Exception and one that would not require
an exception. The Design Review Board continued the application to the January 19, 2012 meeting to
allow the applicant time to revise the proposed signage.
The applicant has now submitted revised plans for the proposed signs. The revised project design includes
four options for a primary sign facing Tiburon Boulevard, a drive-through pharmacy sign, window signs
and/or an additional sign facing Beach Road. The signs would utilize either halo-style lighting or
gooseneck indirect lighting.
Bill McDermott, representing Armstrong Development, clarified his comments regarding gooseneck
lighting at the CVS store in Napa made at the last meeting and said that since that time he had driven by
the CVS store in Napa and revised his opinion, stating that the sign's lighting at that store looks nice. He
said that the staff report summarized four options with none of them completely conforming to the
guidelines of the Town. He presented two additional alternatives which fell within the square footage
limits, using the same proposed materials because they were concerned about wear and tear. He said that
the first alternative, Option V, would use halo illumination, similar to Union Bank at the other end of
town. He said that they chose a minced onion color instead of a highly reflective white. He said that the
second alternative, Option VI, includes gooseneck lighting instead of halo illumination. He said that both
the sign on Beach Road and the one facing Tiburon Boulevard could be illuminated this way, but they felt
that the gooseneck lighting would be better on the Beach Road side of the building and the halo lighting
would be better on the Tiburon Boulevard side.
The public hearing was opened.
Jeannette Carr said that she was extremely disappointed that CVS would be coming to Tiburon as her
neighbor. She said that Chase Bank has a white sign and she did not see the issue with the sign. She felt
that a down-lit white sign the same size as Delano's would be a start to mending the store's relationship
with neighbors.
Maryalana Ellis said that she would like to underscore the fact that other CVS pharmacies have not had
similar illuminated signs and described gold-colored wooden signs she saw at CVS store in Washington,
D.C. She asked that these alternatives be pursued.
Holly Nyerges said that the proposed sign was too heavy-weighted, did not look good architecturally,
would be too far out front and looks as though it would be suspended on two posts. She wondered why
the sign could not be set further back where it could be seen and with the same feeling as Woodland
Market across the street. She said that she could not find the CVS sign at all on the Mill Valley store on
East Blithedale Avenue. Planning Manager Watrous noted that the CVS store in Mill Valley on East
Blithedale Avenue has red plastic, internally illuminated, channel lettering facing East Blithedale, and that
the store in Marin City also has red plastic internally illuminated channel letters.
Marcia McGovern, Tiburon Belvedere Coalition, said that she had 266 signatures all of whom say "no" to
a red sign and halo lighting. She was happy that CVS was not now asking for an exception, and said that
the sign type proposed did not fall within any definition of the ordinance as it is not a wall sign or an
under marquee sign. She said that by not specifying the sign type, the applicant had skirted the restrictions
on those types of signs. She stated that a specialized attorney drafted the sign ordinance and the intent was
to keep the signs within the ordinance. She said that neighbors do not want a red sign, and they would
appeal a red sign, but they would like a white sign with a grey background. She did not want four or five
TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES #1 2
1/19/12
gooseneck lights because that would provide too much light, would like a specified beam spread and
maximum wattage for the lighting, and a requirement that all exterior lights be extinguished when the
store is closed. She showed a photo of a CVS sign in Chatham, Cape Cod, which has a custom color, a
backer panel, white gooseneck lighting, and matches the rest of the signage in its vicinity. She presented a
photo of Bank of America across the street with a small sign integrated on the wall. She pointed out that
90 days after opening their doors, the CVS conditional use permit will come up for review and if residents
have any problems they can complain about it at that time. She also noted that there are five new large
parking lot new lights and 14 lights on the exterior of the building.
Bill Lukens, member of the Lyford Cove Old Tiburon Homeowners Association, said that they have
approximately 200 households and they are the local residents that will be patronizing this store. He said
that he had been authorized by the Board of Directors of the Association to state that they formally
support the position described by Ms. McGovern. He said that the trees and signs are very important to
the community.
Jeff Goddard said that he has lived in Belvedere long enough to remember the sign which Bell Market
had, which he thought was ghastly and would not like to see again. He said that the staff
recommendations went a long way toward meeting people's needs. He thought that the gooseneck
lighting was the only alternative that should be approved, and that the lettering should be white or a more
neutral color.
Klaus Meinberg pointed out that local residents will be visiting the CVS store and he said that all the
residents of Belvedere and Tiburon already know where it will be. He said that tourists will not go to the
CVS and there was no need for the sign to attract anyone. He said that he has a small business in town
with wooden signs that have never deteriorated in 25 years and he did not see the reason for a metal sign
Mr. McDermott said that they felt that they were given clear direction at the last meeting. He said that
they reduced the size of the signage, reduced lighting, changed to goosenecks, and changed the backer
panels. He stated that it was evident that the other signs referenced at the meeting were the result of
requirements of the shopping centers regulating their color. He said that the subject property does not
have those restrictions and they would like to keep the sign with the corporate red color and made of
metal. He deferred to the Board regarding lighting.
Boardmember Chong asked if the only reason CVS was reluctant to use a wooden sign was maintenance
and Mr. McDermott answered yes. Boardmember Chong asked and confirmed that other colors were not
considered because CV S's corporate color is red.
The public hearing was closed.
Vice-Chair Emberson said that it seemed like CVS was alienating their demographic, which was sitting in
the room, but she was not sure if the Board could make CVS use white lettering. Planning Manager
Watrous said that the Board has some discretion in terms of color, the type of lighting, and materials, but
they do not have discretion over size of the sign if the sign does not require an exception.
Vice-Chair Emberson said that she loved the gooseneck lighting. She was glad that the signs were
reduced in size and preferred a white sign if that was the consensus. She said that the sign on Beach Road
would have to be very small for her to support it.
Boardmember Johnson said that the discussion presented at the meeting was extremely relevant. He felt
that a sign was not needed at all, as everyone in town will know where to find the store. He thought that
the sign design missed the nature of the community, which is similar to what was shown in the
TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES #1 3
1/19/12
photograph of Chatham. He believed that a corporate store should be designed to fit within the
community. He cited the fact that many residents are upset, and encouraged CVS to think about making
the signs fit the town.
Boardmember Chong said that the main issues were color, size, materials, and lighting. He agreed with
staff's conclusions regarding size. He did not buy into the argument that a wooden sign would require
maintenance, pointing out that landscaping also requires maintenance, and artificial landscaping would
have been rejected if maintenance was the only issue. He said that a wooden sign needing to possibly be
replaced should not be the determinant of the materials. He appreciated the gooseneck lighting solution,
said he saw the photograph of the Chatham sign lit up at night and felt that three gooseneck fixtures
clearly provided enough illumination. He felt that the color was the most difficult decision and he
understood the corporate branding around red signage. However, he said that it was not necessarily true
that everyone who shops at the store will live in Tiburon, although he thought that 80-90% of the
customers will be from the area and most will know where it is. He said that it was clear that CVS has
made exceptions in other areas of Marin and even the east coast to fit more within the community, and he
would like to see the colors changed to fit in better.
Chair Kricensky agreed with some of what other Boardmembers said. He found the size of the sign to be
mote reasonable with the revisions. He understood the desire for the corporate color, but felt that the red
sign would clash with the colors of the building. He said that lie would like to see colors that complement
the building color more and believed that it would be hard to see the sign if it were moved back to the
wall of the building. He also said that the other tenant that would go into the building needed to be
considered and signage would need to be consistent.
Mr. McDermott said that the primary sign would be back in between the columns and not extend past
them. He reviewed the detail of the sign showing it mounted on the front of the columns, and noted that
the letters themselves would be located between the columns below the eave. He requested the Board be
specific if it chooses another color so they know how to proceed. Planning Manager Watrous said that one
of the colors in the approved palette for the building is an equestrian grey which might be an appropriate
color for the backing.
Chair Kricensky suggested using the equestrian grey for the backing, with white lettering. He asked and
confirmed with Mr. McDermott that any sign proposed on the Beach Road side of the building would be
the same size as the other sign. Mr. McDermott agreed to make both signs the same size, and Planning
Manager Watrous noted that the Board does not have the authority to require the sign to be smaller since
it is under the maximum required size.
Chair Kricensky said lie is torn on the materials. He pointed out one does not notice the materials until
one is right upon it. He noted that the sign for Kol Shofar had very weathered letters with upkeep
involved. He said that a dark colored backing with white letters would work much better with the building
itself. He suggested the connections to the columns could be an architectural element instead of a
utilitarian bracket.
Vice-Chair Emberson said that a rectangular wooden sign painted equestrian grey with white lettering
would be agreeable to the residents. She felt that the Beach Road sign was large for that side of the
building, since the only time it would be seen would be when driving out of Tiburon.
Planning Manager Watrous said that it appeared to be a consensus to approve Option V with
modifications: All signs have white letters with equestrian grey, rectangular background, made of wood,
gooseneck lighting, non-illuminated drive-through sign and reducing the size of the Beach Road sign to
30.48 square feet. All Boardmembers agreed.
TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES #1
1/19/12
ACTION: It was M/S (Emberson/Johnson) that the request for 1599 Tiburon Boulevard is exempt from
the California Environmental Quality Act and approved the request, subject to the attached conditions of
approval, and the additional conditions of approval that Option V be used with the following
modifications: all signs have white letters with equestrian grey, rectangular background, made of wood,
gooseneck lighting, non-illuminated drive-through sign and reducing the size of the Beach Road sign to
30.48 square feet. Vote: 4-0.
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
45900 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 2/16/12
E. PUBLIC HEARINGS AND NEW BUSINESS
4. 1600 MAR WEST STREET: File No. 71113 l; 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.
On November 285 2011 the Planning Division conditionally approved a Site Plan and Architectural
Review application for installation of exterior lighting fixtures above a patio adjacent to the clubhouse of
the Tiburon Peninsula Club (TPC) on property located at 1600 Mar West Street. The applicant has now
appealed this decision to the Design Review Board.
The applicant submitted a request to install eight (8) low level lighting fixtures in an existing trellis above
a patio outside the clubhouse building of the Tiburon Peninsula Club. The proposed fixtures are rated at
50 watts but were proposed to be limited to 20 watts per fixture. Tile submitted plans indicate two rows of
four fixtures: one row at the midpoint of the trellis and one row at the outside edge of the trellis. The
lights are intended to illuminate the patio outside the clubhouse for occasional evening activities.
During the ten-day courtesy public review period, the Town received no complaints from neighboring
residents. However, it has been the practice of Planning Division staff to discourage double rows of
exterior lighting in instances where one row of lighting will suffice as a means of curbing excessive
exterior lighting. On November 28, 2011, staff conditionally approved the subject application. Condition
of Approval No. 1 required that "the number of lighting fixtures shall be reduced from eight (8) to four
(4)." During the five-day appeal period, the applicant appealed Staff's decision to the Design Review
Board.
David Holscher, past President of the Tiburon Peninsula Club, distributed drawings showing the planned
location of the lighting and a sample of the Lumiere 235 light. He said that the reason they need 8 lamps
is-well documented in the site plan. He said that the circle on the drawing shows the area illuminated. He
said that the fixtures would be downlights that create light in very specific locations. He said that if they
remove any of the fixtures any they would create a dark space in the trellis. He said that the fixtures
would be narrow spectrum downlights and therefore more of them are needed to properly light the
outdoor space.
TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES #1
1/19/12
Planning Manager Watrous noted that the drawing was a slightly different lighting solution than what was
proposed and the lighting would be more centralized over the area beneath the trellis.
Boardmember Johnson asked about the wattage, and Mr. Holscher said that they have downgraded the
wattage by using 20 watt bulbs for each fixture.
Vice-Chair Emberson said that she visited the site and it did not look like anyone would be severely
affected by the lights. She said that the Belvedere Tennis Club has the exact same lights and they are truly
downlights and do not shed light around them. She said that she had a hard time with the lights on the
outside of the trellis, but because they would now be situated inside the trellis, she supported the project.
She agreed that people need to see where they are going given the outside seating.
Boardmember Chong voiced support of the project now that he had seen the exact type of lighting being
proposed. Boardmember Johnson and Chair Kricensky agreed and both said they had no issues with the
lighting.
There were no public comments.
ACTION: It was M/S (Emberson/Johnson) that the request for 1600 Mar West Street is exempt from the
California Environmental Quality Act and granting the appeal, subject to revised conditions of approval
reflecting the plan submitted at the meeting and requiring that the lighting use 20 watt bulbs. Vote: 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 2/16/12
F. APPROVAL OF MINUTES #18 OF THE 12/15/11 DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MEETING
ACTION: It was M/S (Chong/Emberson) to approve the minutes of the December 15, 2011 meeting as
written. Vote: 4-0.
G. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 8:15 p.m.
TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES #1
1/19/12
TOWN OF TIBURON Action Minutes - Regular Meeting
Tiburon Town Hall Design Review Board
1505 Tiburon Boulevard February 2, 2012
Tiburon, CA 94920 7:00 P.M. CIL
ACTION MINUTES #2
TIBURON DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL At 7:00 PM
Present: Chairman Kricensky, Vice Chair Emberson and Boardmembers Chong, Johnson
and Tollini
Ex-Officio: Associate Planner Tyler and Minutes Clerk Rusting
PUBLIC HEARINGS AND NEW BUSINESS
1. 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. 055-031-07. Approved 5-0
MINT TTF S
6. Regular Meeting of January 19, 2012 Approved (4-1)
ADJOURNMENT At 7:12 PM
Action Minutes #2 2/2/12 Design Review Board Meeting Page 1
~'fx'
NOTICE OF MEETING
CANCELLATION
THE REGULAR
PLANNING COMMISSION
MEETING SCHEDULED FOR
WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 8, 2012
HAS BEEN CANCELLED.
THE NEXT MEETING OF THE
PLANNING COMMISSION
WILL BE THE REGULARLY
SCHEDULED MEETING ON
WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 22, 2012
SCOTT ANDERSON, SECRETARY
D I G ,Ew Ar S' T
TOWN 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 16, 2012
7:00 P.M.
Chairman Kricensky, Vice Chair Emberson, Boardmembers 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)
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. [LT] CONTINUED TO 3/1/12
2. 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. [LT]
Design Review Board Agenda
February 16, 2012 Page 4
PUBLIC HEARINGS AND NEW BUSINESS
3. 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. [LT]
4. 48 MERCURY AVENUE: File No. 21119; Derek Burke and Stephanie Alberti,
Owners; Site Plan and Architectural Review for construction of a new single-family
dwelling, with a Variance for excess lot coverage. The applicants propose to demolish
more than 50% of the existing dwelling and add to the front and rear of the house and
alter the existing roofline. The floor area of the proposed house would be increased by
1,036 square feet to a total of 2,065 square feet. The project would cover a total of 2,469
square feet (31.5%) of the site, which would be greater than the 30.0% maximum lot
coverage permitted in the R-1 zone. Assessor's Parcel No. 034-262-11. [DW]
MINT TT.,
5. Regular Meeting of February 2, 2012
ADJOURNMENT
Design Review Board February 16, 2012 Page 2