Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutTC Minutes 2012-02-01TOWN COUNCIL MINUTES CALL TO ORDER Mayor Fraser called the regular meeting of the Tiburon Town Council to order at 7:30 pan. on Wednesday, February 1, 2012, in Town Council Chambers, 1505 Tiburon Boulevard, Tiburon, California. ROLL CALL PRESENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: Collins, Fraser, Fredericks, O'Donnell Doyle PRESENT: EX OFFICIO: Town Manager Curran, Town Attorney Danforth, Director of Administrative Services Bigall, Director of Community Development Anderson, Director of Public Works/Town Engineer Nguyen, Police Chief Cronin, Planning Manager Watrous, Town Clerk Crane Iacopi Prior to the regular meeting, at 7:15 p.m., the Council interviewed a candidate for a vacancy on the Heritage & Arts Commission, as follows: INTERVIEWS FOR TOWN BOARDS, COMMISSIONS & COMMITTEES Two vacancies - Heritage & Arts Commission • Daniel Amir, 22 Juno Road CLOSED SESSION ANNOUNCEMENT, IF ANY There was no closed session. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None. CONSENT CALENDAR 1. Town Council Minutes - Adopt minutes of January 18, 2012 meeting (Town Clerk Crane Iacopi) 2. Library Streamlining Ordinance - 2"d reading and adoption of an ordinance establishing a streamlined review procedure and exemption from the Zoning Ordinance for the Town Council Minutes #02 -2012 February 1, 2012 Page I Belvedere-Tiburon Public Library Expansion Project located at 1501 and 1505 Tiburon Boulevard; AP Nos. 058-171-92, 93, 94 and 058-171-62 (Director of Community Development Anderson) 3. Tiburon Boulevard/Paradise Drive Security Cameras - Adopt annual operations report (Chief of Police Cronin) 4. Marin Energy Authority Grant Support - Adopt resolution in support of Marin Energy Authority (MEA) grant application for start-up funding for Property Assessed Clean Energy (PACE) program (Town Manager Curran) MOTION: To adopt Consent Calendar Item Nos. 1 through, as written. Moved: Collins, seconded by Fredericks Vote: AYES: Unanimous ABSENT: Doyle ACTION ITEMS 1. Appointments to Boards, Commissions & Committees - Consider appointment to fill one vacancy on Heritage & Arts Commission (Town Clerk Crane Iacopi) Item continued without discussion. PUBLIC HEARINGS Mayor Fraser took Public Hearing Item Nos. 1 and 2 out of order, with the Housing Element being heard first. 2. Housing Element Update - Review and consider adoption of a revised Housing Element of the General Plan and an Accompanying Negative Declaration (Director of Community Development Anderson) Director Anderson gave the report. He said that the Town has been working toward this latest housing element update since 2009, that the Town Council had reviewed a preliminary draft element last year, and that the Town had received preliminary certification from the State Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) for its latest update of the Tiburon General Plan Housing Element in October. The Director said that HCD's comments focused on affordable housing sites and removal of governmental restraints, as well as provision of incentives to develop housing. He said that HCD had 90 days to certify the document once adopted, but that he expected approval sooner than that. Anderson also noted that the next housing element update adoption deadline would be probably be less than three years away. Anderson said that the Planning Commission held a public hearing on the document last month and had recommended adoption to the Town Council. He said the Town Council must also hold Town Council Minutes #02 -2012 February 1, 2012 Page 2 a public hearing prior to final adoption of the updated Housing Element. He recommended that the Town Council hear any public testimony, make any desired changes, and adopt the Resolution adopting the updated Housing Element. Mayor Fraser opened the floor to Council questions. Councilmember Fredericks said the report referred to the splitting of RHNA number 75/25 between the County and cities; she said there had been discussion of a 50150 split and wondered if this information should be included in the report. Anderson said this altered formula might apply to the next housing element cycle but not to the current one under consideration this evening. Fredericks also questioned a reference to population growth on page 13, and wondered if the methodology to compute population based on the rate of births minus deaths might be accurate. Anderson said he would review and clarify that paragraph. Vice Mayor O'Donnell wondered why the element had to be re-done so frequently. Director Anderson said that the State had very stringent requirements and that regulations were detailed and lengthy. He said that the review cycle was typically five years and that after 2014, he believed it would become eight years provided that a community adopted its element on time; otherwise the five year cycle would continue. In sum, he stated that the Town currently had no discretion or control over the review cycle or frequency of state-mandated updates. The Vice Mayor asked if it was possible to re-use some of the data or whether the Town had to "start from scratch" to prepare its housing element. Director Anderson said that the Town did indeed re-use sections of its housing element during subsequent updates. Councilmember Collins asked whether the language concerning the Town's Redevelopment Agency should be updated to reflect the winding down of the agency. Director Anderson said he believed it had been updated but said he would double-check it and correct it if necessary. Collins also asked about the description on page 48 of the estimated number of housing units within the town needing rehabilitation. Director Anderson said that this information was obtained from building inspectors and was primarily anecdotal. Councilmember Fredericks said that the last housing element update was well done. She said that this element could have been written more clearly. She said that the information pertaining to SB 375 could use more clarification and should be less cursory. Mayor Fraser referenced page 66, revised Exhibit 2, to ask whether there was a conflict in the potential use of the Reed School site for affordable housing. Anderson replied that if the site appears to be unavailable in the near term going forward, that the Town would have to find a replacement site or sites by the time of the next housing element update. It was noted that unexpected student enrollment increases are a primary factor in the site perhaps not being available in the near future. Town Council Minutes #02 -2012 Februaill! 1, 2012 Page 3 Councilmember Fredericks asked if the RHNA numbers would place a greater burden on the Town to identify affordable housing sites. She noted that the Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS) had changed these numbers for some communities. Anderson said that the Town's regional housing numbers would most likely not change substantially for the next housing element cycle. Mayor Fraser opened the public hearing. There was no public comment. Mayor Fraser closed the public hearing. MOTION: To adopt resolution, as written. Moved: Fredericks, seconded by O'Donnell Vote: AYES: Unanimous ABSENT: Doyle 1. Trestle Glen Circle Precise Development Plan (PDP) -Review and consider adoption of Mitigated Negative Declaration for a Precise Development Plan for three, single-family residential lots on a 14.46 acre site on the south side of Trestle Glen Blvd between Tiburon Boulevard and the upper intersection of Juno Road, AP No. 039-061-91 (Planning Manager Watrous) Planning Manager Watrous summarized the written staff report which detailed the history of the project, the hearings before the Planning Commission, and the steps taken by the applicant to address the issues and concerns raised by the Planning Commission and the public. Mayor Fraser opened the public hearing to a presentation by the applicant. Applicant ("project sponsor") Art Giovarra made a brief presentation. He thanked the Town staff for its thoughtful work on the project over four and a half years. Mr. Giovarra said "we've made many changes to the project" after listening to the neighbors and the Planning Division staff which resulted in a project he felt was one of the better proposals to come before the Council. Scott Hochstrasser, environmental consultant and project manager, also noted that when the project first was under consideration in 2008, it was a four-unit plan which was subsequently withdrawn and resubmitted as a three-lot project after a series of public workshops with the neighborhood. At the recommendation of Town staff, Hochstrasser said that a Master Plan concept was developed with five key points: 1) A 3-lot project; 2) no homes at the top of the property or on the ridgeline; 3) no access from Silverado Drive and access from the creation of a intersection at Juno Road at Trestle Glen; with 4) lots to range in the approximate four-acre size; and 5) reduced house size and more overall open space. Hochstrasser elaborated that the plan now contained 67% open space which far exceeded the Town's guidelines. He said that when the plan was presented to the Planning Commission, the environmental impact analysis was shown to have avoided significant impacts and/or to have Town Council Minutes #02 -2012 February 1, 2012 Page 4 been mitigated. Overall, Hochstrasser said it was demonstrated to be an environmentally superior project. Hochstrasser said that there was a question raised about neighborhood compatibility but that it was difficult to assess which surrounding neighborhood was being impacted in this regard. He said that in his presentation, architect Miles Berger would show how the house sizes and floor areas were compatible with adjacent properties. Hochstrasser said that while each lot met the Town's standards, they had been further modified at the Planning Commission's request. He also said that the Planning Commission had not favored the "estate uses" (tennis court, separate studio, etc.) shown in Lot 3, even though the lot size would support them. He said that Lot 1 had reduced its residential use to 1.8 acres. He said the house on Lot 3 had been moved and reduced in size after the Planning Commission had asked for a reduction of mass in response to a neighborhood concern about the impacts of viewing a large house in that location. In commenting about the view impact, Hochstrasser noted that the closest neighbor in Belveron was 200 feet away and that there was a drop in elevation of 70 feet in the view. Hochstrasser said that the applicant offered to remove the tennis court and studio but the Planning Commission went even further and asked for a reduction of the Residential Use Area (RUA). He said that the applicant had reduced the RUA in Lot 3 but that rather than increasing non-contiguous open space on the lot, the applicant now proposed an increase in the landscape buffer to 45 feet. He said there was also a 10-foot dedicated area for a [future] bikeway and a 20-foot landscape buffer in the previous plan. Finally, Hochstrasser responded to comments submitted in a "late mail" letter from Randy Greenberg by stating: 1) the house sizes have been reduced; 2) excess grading and hydrologic impacts had been addressed and mitigated; 3) the off-site watershed problem is addressed in condition No. 3 of the Town's draft resolution; 4) requiring that retaining walls be made of stone might not make sense since the walls were located behind the homes reducing their visibility from afar; 5) fencing would replace existing fencing to keep deer out; 6) the estimated 30,000 cubic feet of dirt being moved would not be removed from the site; and 7) native plantings could be incorporated into the landscape plan; 8) hydro-seeding was standard practice. He said that Ms. Greenberg's concerns could all be addressed through the conditions of approval set forth in the resolution. Councilmember Fredericks asked if the vertical height of the house on Lot 3 was the same as before. Berger said that it was, however, the house had been lowered and stepped back into the hillside. Berger also noted that the requested increase in the landscape buffer from 20 to 45 feet had been made at the recommendation of Town staff. Architect Berger reviewed photo simulations submitted to the Council. He showed how the applicant had tried to move the homes our of the view corridors visible from anyone exiting off Juno Road and to preserve the sense of open space on the hill. He noted that the views toward the proposed homes would have far less impact than looking up at the homes on Turtle Rock Court. Berger noted that the homes had been placed farther down the hill so as not to impact the Town Council Minutes #02 -2012 February 1, 2012 Page 5 beautiful Bay trees uphill and to not disturb the views of the secondary ridgeline. He said the result was the preservation of the overall ""green" of the existing hill. Berger said that the plans for a 234-foot "tip-to-tip" house on Lot 3 would have had too much prominence on the hill, according to the Planning Commission, so the applicant had "chopped down" the length. He passed out a photo simulation of the new version which was now 136 feet (a 42% reduction). Berger described how the house would be pushed back and dug into the hill with only the top floor coming above grade. He said the Planning Commission had asked this to be in the guidelines that went to the Design Review Board and also to give comfort to the neighbors. He said that 134 feet would be the benchmark for the home that would eventually be designed. Architect Berger said that the Tiburon Court project had set the goal and model for the Trestle Glen Circle project in terms of square footage and house size. He said that Trestle Glen would be slightly less square footage in total and that in order to be consistent [with Tiburon Court], they had used the same approximate floor areas. Berger said that the Planning Commission had also asked for darker colors of the future homes. Finally, in response to a question about whether the house on Lot 3 could be moved [to the west], architect Berger said that the Design Review Board could decide the precise location during its review. He noted that moving the home would create an impact on the neighbors to the west that would no doubt have to be considered at that time. Councilmember Collins asked about the retaining walls; Berger said that the majority would be located behind the homes. He asked how high the driveway was above grade up to Lot 3. Mr. Hochstrasser said that it was 31/2 to four feet. Berger noted that the landscape plan had lots of trees and shrubs that would shield these structures from view. Councilmember Collins asked if there was enough room on Lot 3 to move the house to the west. Mr. Berger said that yes, there was a ``fudge factor," but he suggested that the right time to review this was during the Design Review process. Councilmember Collins asked if there were any problems with incorporating native plants into the landscape plan and whether the more prominent walls could be made of stone or stone facade. Mr. Berger noted that the walls would eventually be covered by plants so that expensive stone walls might not be necessary. Collins asked about the proposed fencing along Trestle Glen Boulevard. Berger said that fencing would be "extremely modest" and "not estate-like". He said that it was only important to control wildlife. He described it as "utilitarian" and a "deer fence". Planning Manager Watrous said there were larger walls (up to 12 feet tall) between Lots 2 and 3. He said that was the only place in the project that the visible walls would be taller than six feet. Mr. Berger added that the retaining walls played an important role in keeping the amount of necessary grading to a minimum. Town Council Minutes #02 -2012 February 1, 2012 Page 6 Councilmember Fredericks asked whether it would be possible to step back the walls. She also asked if there was room on Lot 3 for a swimming pool and cabana. Berger said that there was. Fredericks noted that State law said that a secondary dwelling was allowed on a property up to 500 square feet. Planning Manager Watrous said that this square footage would have to count toward the total floor area allowed for each lot. Vice Mayor O'Donnell asked whether the studio was now out of the plans. Berger said that it was. O'Donnell asked if the house could be shifted over more to that side of the lot. Berger said that it could but that it could not be "stretched" out because the Planning Commission had approved the 134-foot length as a maximum. O'Donnell asked about the shed described in the plans and the vineyard below (Lot 3). Architect Berger said that there was enough acreage that it could be used as a vineyard or orchard and that there could be a storage shed or basement that could house agricultural equipment. At present, he said it was shown on the plans as below-ground basement space, a storage area that could be accessed through the garage. Vice Mayor O'Donnell asked whether the home designs were conceptual or styles that "we are married to." Berger said no, that that the concepts were guidelines to show height and home configuration on the property. He noted that the recommended "darker hue" was merely to be used as a guideline for DRB review. Mayor Fraser asked whether the location of the "accessory buildings" on Lot 3 was fixed. Planning Manager Watrous said no, but that they would have to remain within the RUA; he added that some structures, like fencing, would also be allowed in the secondary RUA. Planning Manager Watrous also pointed out that pools, spas, gazebos, arbors, patios, decks, water features, and the like would be allowed in the RUA under Town guidelines, subject to DRB approval. Mayor Fraser said that condition No. 9 of the draft resolution contained a fairly specific statement regarding house design. Berger said this was because the Planning Commission was concerned with mass and articulation of the home designs. Councilmember Fredericks asked about parking. Mr. Berger said that each house in the project would have guest parking and apron space. Fredericks asked if there would be any parking other than on private property. Berger said no, parking was on the property. Fredericks asked where contractors would park. Mr. Hochstrasser said that all the staging for the project could happen on site. Fredericks asked if this meant during all phases of construction, road grading, etc. Mr. Hochstrasser said that the site could accommodate it. Mayor Fraser opened the hearing to public comment. Daniel Amir, representing the Belveron East neighborhood, said that there were three main concerns: size, privacy and traffic, which he and two other speakers would address. Town Council Minutes #02 -2012 Februan., 1, 2012 Page 7 Mr. Amir said that the main issue with size was the lack of compatibility with homes in Belveron East, especially the one proposed for Lot 3. He said that the Town's General Plan policies LU-5 and L-12 addressed this issue. He said that there were positive outcomes form the Planning Commission hearings. However, Amir said that the neighbors would like the house on Lot 3 to be more like the houses on Lots 1 and 2 and like the houses in the already-approved Tiburon Court project (4,300 square feet). He also said the neighbors were opposed to tennis courts on any of the properties. Mr. Amir said that this was the first time the neighbors were seeing the revised plans, submitted by the applicant at the meeting. He said that 136 feet was too long for a home [on Lot 3] and that it would look too large. However, he said the neighbors had hoped for it to "tucked in" so he recognized this as a positive step by the applicant. Amir also asked that the guest house be eliminated and that the house on Lot 3 be moved to the west. He said this was because the way the road curved up it would look less obtrusive to Belveron. Mr. Amir said that the house on Lot 2 would have significant impact on privacy and views and asked that it be "tucked in" as well. He said that the neighbors were not "against" the owner of the property but asked the Council to limit the house size and lessen the impact to the neighborhood. Karen Halsey said she was one of the neighbors most impacted by Lot 3. She said that the hill is very close and that Lot 3 would look into her backyard. She said that the Juno Road neighbors wanted to maintain their privacy and wondered if the roadway in the new development that ran parallel to Trestle Glen Boulevard would be hidden. She said that trees take time to grow. She also said that the neighbors enjoyed their sunshine and views during the day, and the dark sky at night. She asked that light pollution be mitigated through size and placement of the homes in the development. With regard to the vineyard, Ms. Halsey said that this was a residential, non-rural setting and she worried about tractors and the use pesticides. She asked that this "commercial, non-residential use'' be removed from the project. Marti Andrews, President of Belveron East Neighborhood Association, said she spoke for most of the residents when she expressed concerns about traffic impacts from the new development. She said that there no concrete solutions offered to existing problems at the Tiburon Boulevard and Trestle Glen Boulevard intersections, and that it didn't take into account future developments along Paradise Drive. Ms. Andrews said that turning left onto Trestle Glen from Juno was "scary." She noted that Trestle Glen Boulevard was the only cross-peninsula road and that there were many speeders and accidents. She said that the road carried 5,000 cars a day and that number was increasing all the time. She said the solution was 1) slower traffic on Trestle Glen and 2) to ensure that the Trestle Glen Boulevard and Juno Road intersection was made safe for everyone-cars, bikes and Town Council Minutes #02 -2012 Februanv 1, 2012 Page 8 pedestrians. She also asked for consideration of a four-way stop sign at Juno/Trestle Glen. Finally, Ms. Andrews said that the neighbors did not want any construction traffic because there were no sidewalks [on Juno Road] and that there were lots of kids in the street. She asked that the Council not approve the project until the traffic issues were decided and resolved. Mayor Fraser asked if there were additional speakers. Rod McLeod said that during recent road construction on Trestle Glen Boulevard, Ghilotti had parked heavy equipment in the neighborhood and that the asphalt pavement on the street was breaking down. He said the narrow streets of the neighborhood presented a hazardous condition; he asked that the Council prohibit parking during the project construction. Mr. McLeod also expressed concerns about a drain field and suggested that drainage from the project would exacerbate the flooding at the end of lower Mercury Avenue that had historically been a problem. He said that the neighborhood got "backwater" during high tide and he worried that if the project used the neighborhood's drain field, homes would be in jeopardy. Richard Vasicek said that he and his family spent a lot of time outdoors and that the projects' sight and noise pollution by day, and light pollution at night, were issues for him. He said that a balance should be struck and that the larger homes on smaller lots like Turtle Rock Court were preferable to estate-size lots in Trestle Glen Circle. Margaret Peterson, resident since 1954, agreed that traffic was terrible and would get worse; said that the one traffic accident ended up in her back yard. She questioned whether a vineyard could be planted "facing north" and also asked questions about where the entrance to the project would be. Randy Greenberg said that she had travelled back and forth on Trestle Glen Boulevard for 27 years. She said that traffic impacts were cumulative and that no one project was responsible for them. However, she said that "we're at the breaking point" and cited an example of backed up traffic at Tiburon Boulevard and having to wait a minimum of three traffic lights to get through during rush hour. She said that the subtle curves and sight lines of Trestle Glen Boulevard exacerbated the problems. She opined that a stop sign would not be the answer. Greenberg questioned whether the proposed fence would completely front Trestle Glen Boulevard and stated that it should be behind the landscape easement and in the RUA. Ms. Greenberg also questioned the "narrowing" of the 234-foot house and said that if compressed, it would result in a bigger vertical mass. Greenberg said that she had not seen the newest plans and could not understand what was being proposed. Instead, she recommended that the Council reduce the square footage of the house on Lot 3 to avoid the issue of mass; also require stone facing on the retaining walls because they would be visible from off-site and would look like "shining lights"; she questioned the definition Town Council Minutes #02 -2012 Februmy 1, 2012 Page 9 of basement in the context of storing equipment on Lot 3 and said that basements in the Trestle Glen Circle development were the size of houses in Belveron; she asked for less grading because there were numerous underground waterways on the site and you "don't know what you're digging up." Dorata Wisner said she was a new resident with two children who were for the first time enjoying seeing the stars at night from their home. She said that the fagade of the proposed home [Lot 3] was so big it would "look down on us" with wide, tall windows. She asked whether the house could be turned or moved, or whether a smaller house might be built in that location. Mayor Fraser asked if the applicant or representatives would like to reply to any of the comments. Mr. Hochstrasser commented on the extent of the landscaping buffer with its trees, perennials and ground cover which would soften the view of the house on Lot 3. He reiterated that the distances were 200 feet to the closest house in Belveron, and 70 feet below the proposed house on Lot 3. Hochstrasser objected to the idea of arbitrarily limiting the size of the house on Lot 3, or reducing it below 5,000 square feet. He said that RUAs were not defined in the Town's General Plan and that the applicant had come forward with this on their own. With regard to traffic issues, Mr. Hochstrasser said that the project plan met all the requirements but that there might be a way to improve upon the existing problems with increased enforcement. He wondered whether the 5,000 cars a day on Trestle Glen Boulevard might not have a greater impact on the homes along Juno Road than the construction of three new homes. Hochstrasser said that the proposed deer fencing would be located behind the bicycle access lane in the landscaping plan and would probably be removed eventually if the town builds a bikeway in that location. Mr. Hochstrasser clarified that the house designs in the photo simulation were conceptual and were meant to show that what the Planning Commission was requesting was "doable". Councilmember Collins asked if a knoll needed to be lowered to improve the left turn out of the project onto Trestle Glen Boulevard. Mr. Hochstrasser answered that it was in the design plans. Councilmember Fredericks asked what Mr. Hochstrasser meant by his statement that the RUA was discretionary. She asked whether a large part of the RUA was not, in fact, useable or buildable. Mr. Hochstrasser said that a tennis court and other structures had been part of the RUA in the previous plans. He clarified that the applicant had taken an approach that seemed to be effective in towns such as Tiburon in which the building envelope was further refined to create an RUA so that the future owner would have open and full use when the lot was developed and also to give clear definition of what could be in the RUA. He said the effect was one of Town Council Minutes #02 -2012 February 1, 2012 Page 10 restricting development of the property and also giving some measure of control. Councilmember O'Donnell said that the idea of shifting the house on Lot 3 did not seem to follow the idea of clear definition of house locations. Mr. Hochstrasser said that condition No. 9 of the draft resolution locked in the location on the site, and that if it were to be moved, it must be shown that it did not adversely impact another property. Mr. Berger said that the compatibility comparison to Turtle Rock Court had come up at the Planning Commission hearing. He said that that development contained several houses in excess of 6,000 square feet on lots one-fifth the size of the proposed development. He marveled that the neighbors would find that a desirable comparison. He said that instead, the applicant had made the houses on Lots 1 and 2 smaller and the house on Lot 3 larger to remain in total concert (match the square footage) of the adjoining Tiburon Court development. Berger disputed Ms. Greenberg's comments about the vertical height and mass of the house on Lot 3. He said that the house was 24 feet tall at its highest point and was not "raised up" as stated by Greenberg. He said that it was "stacked behind and into the hill" rather than creating more mass. He said that the photo simulations had been prepared "to prove to ourselves that we could do it," not to increase the height or decrease the length. Councilmember Fredericks questioned Berger's statement about the size of the house for Lot 3 and said it was bigger than the square footage stated in the staff report. Mr. Berger said that the square footage in the staff report was correct. Ms. Fredericks commented that even stepped into the hill, the house on Lot 3 might appear massive depending on how close you were to it. Councilmember Collins asked whether there was enough room on site for staging all the trucks and equipment during construction. Berger suggested that the Town Council could stipulate that in its approvals. Director of Community Development Anderson said that condition of approval 17 called for a construction management plan and could designate the number of employees, and the like, on site. Collins asked whether the solar panels could be located behind the house on Lot 3. Mr. Hochstrasser and the applicant's engineer in attendance said that they could be either on the roof or behind the house. Mayor Fraser closed the public hearing at 9:30 p.m. Vice Mayor O'Donnell opened the Council deliberations. O'Donnell said that he had visited the site and had given the project a lot of thought. He said he liked the re-construed project and stated that the applicant had done a much to accommodate the concerns of the neighbors and had followed the direction of the Planning Commission to remove Town Council Minutes #02 -2012 February 1, 2012 Page 11 the tennis court and shorten the house length in Lot 3. He said this was a major achievement and would greatly lessen the impact on the Belveron neighborhood. The Vice Mayor said that the increased size of the landscape buffer also had benefit in that it would create a noise buffer on both sides and was a tremendous asset in a suburban neighborhood. He said that the approval should ensure that the deer fence was not at the edge of the property and that room was left for a bikeway. He said the fence should be substantially within the RUA or near the side of the home. Planning Manager Watrous clarified the last point, stating that currently the conditions of approval state that the fence must be located only within the RUA. O'Donnell said that a condition of approval requiring on-site construction staging was a good idea. He warned against the installation of a stop sign, stating that it might create more of a noise impact than increase safety. However, O'Donnell said that the HOA should continue to work with the Town on addresses the traffic safety issues. Vice Mayor O'Donnell said that he was not troubled by the home sizes. He said that first of all, it was not fair to compare them with the house sizes in Belveron. Secondly, O'Donnell said that they were appropriately sized for the size of the lots and that the project would maintain the pastoral quality of the site with the dedication of open space. The Vice Mayor said that he could support the project as revised, however, he asked for some tweaking of the condition No. 9 regarding the conceptual design. He said it would be helpful to add something to the effect of "same articulation of design or roof height" or something that would provide clarification and direction to the DRB. Councilmember Fredericks said that she understood the issue of neighborhood compatibility. However, she said that taken as a whole, Belveron East was its own unique neighborhood where people talked and interacted with each other, and that it was surrounded by houses that were „much larger. But taken as a whole, and looking at an aerial photo, Belveron was a compatible unit. She said that the houses in the new development could never be downsized enough to be invisible and that with the wide, planted landscape buffer, their size could be mitigated. She said the test would be how the whole plan was executed; she suggested that the neighbors remain involved in the DRB process. Fredericks said that the nature of the lot and its existing landslides would result in a lot of grading. She said that fences and walls should be dark [color] and stepped back. She said she agreed with Vice Mayor O'Donnell to tighten up the language concerning the design concepts. A question about solar panel placement arose. Planning Manager Watrous said that placement would only be allowed within the RDAs and that the most appropriate place for them would be south-facing. Councilmember Fredericks commented that the orientation of the site would dictate their placement. She noted that the Town's policy on solar panels offered an incentive to place them on the roof rather than on the ground. Town Council Minutes #02 -2012 February 1, 2012 Page 12 Fredericks also said that enforcement was the only hope in the ongoing struggle of speeding cars on Trestle Glen. She said that the increased traffic on narrow or existing roads was a struggle faced by many communities as they were built out. Councilmember Fredericks said that the vineyard idea raised questions regarding the intensity of use, and she questioned the idea of storing tractors and equipment in a basement. Planning Manager Watrous noted that the Town did not have restrictions on equipment in residential areas, such as tractors or mowers. He pointed out that it was not a large vineyard and that the Town did not have restrictions on the kinds of plants or landscaping on residential properties. However, he said the Town's basement regulations were very restrictive. He commented that it would be difficult but not impossible to get a tractor in or out of a basement. Fredericks asked if a barn door could be put on the basement. Watrous said that it could not, in the Town's definition of a basement. Fredericks said that she supported the project with the conditions stated in the resolution, along with her comments and those of the Vice Mayor. Councilmember Collins thanked the Town staff for four-plus years of work and said he supported the project. He pointed out that it was located right next to a same-size project and was therefore compatible. He said that condition of approval 17 should be modified to require that construction parking for the project should be elsewhere [not in the Belveron neighborhood]; he said that a requirement for planting native plants and grasses should be added to the landscape plan. Collins asked if the landscaping could be trimmed at the Juno Road/Trestle Glen intersection to lengthen the sight line. Collins said that language should be added to state that retaining walls should be stepped back if they were more than 3'/2-feet high and faced something. And that a note should be made to the DRB to remain flexible on the location of the house on Lot 3 to address the impact on neighbors. But Collins said that the house design concept should be left up to whoever builds the house and that flexibility in this area was important, as well. Vice Mayor O'Donnell asked if he supported the idea of articulation [to avoid mass and bulk]. Collins said that he agreed with that concept but not to lock in a particular style, e.g. Spanish-style, Cape Cod, etc. Mayor Fraser also thanked Town staff, the applicant, and the neighbors for their efforts to better understand the issues of all parties concerned. He said that he, too, supported the project as presented but that he was a fan of "more direction" rather than less. In this regard, he asked that the language of the resolution be tightened to indicate that the homes should " ...not to be dramatically different" from what was presented to the Council. Planning Manager Watrous said that language could be crafted to state that the house design [on Lot 3] shall closely resemble articulation of the building in the conceptual design. Town Council Minutes #02 -2012. February 1, 2012 Page 13 Fraser said that the applicant had made a good move to request an increase to the landscape buffer from 20 to 45 feet which would provide privacy to the new homes and shield the neighborhood below. He said that the fence should be behind the landscaping which would be more pleasing to the eye. He also said that direction should be given to the DRB to require down- lighting to avoid light pollution and glare. Planning Manager Watrous said that condition of approval 9 of the resolution could be modified to allow flexibility of the location of the house on Lot 3 to minimize the impacts on neighboring residents and to carefully review lighting. With regard to traffic safety, the Mayor asked if the HOA would be willing to work with the Chief of Police and the Traffic Safety Committee to come up with solutions to the problems. He said this might include a slower speed limit on Trestle Glen Boulevard, lights, speed bumps, or signs. The Mayor agreed that the conditions for construction staging should be strengthened. Director of Community Development Anderson recited a condition of approval from the tentative map of the Tiburon Court project that would be added for this project. With regard to retaining walls, the Director suggested language for an added condition that would address the appearance of "publicly visible walls" and those in excess of 42 inches, which would be subject to design review. Anderson suggested that the walls "shall have the appearance of rock" and be medium to dark, and that walls in excess of six feet might possibly be divided into two lower walls. Councilmember Collins said that the reference to CCRs in the mitigation measures should be in sync with the language in condition of approval 12 in the resolution. O'Donnell asked whether a minimum 45-foot landscape buffer as shown on the revised plans was included in the resolution. Staff said that it would be. MOTION: To adopt resolution as amended in Council discussion. Moved: O'Donnell, seconded by Collins Vote: AYES: Unanimous ABSENT: Doyle TOWN COUNCIL REPORTS Vice Mayor O'Donnell said that he would attend a meeting with Supervisor Sears and representatives of BCDC to discuss a mooring plan in Richardson Bay. TOWN MANAGER'S REPORT None. Town Council Minutes #02 -2012 Februaiy 1, 2012 Page 14 WEEKLY DIGESTS • Town Council Weekly Digests - January 20, 2012 • Town Council Weekly Digest - January 27, 2012 At 10:07 p.m., Allan Bortel asked to address the Council on the Housing Element item. (He came to the meeting not realizing that the item would be been taken out of order on the agenda.) Mayor Fraser invited him to address the Council. Mr. Bortel said he hoped that the 2010 census data had been included in the report. He also referenced the mention of the property located above Reed School for possible future housing uses. He said that he would like to be kept apprised of any town meetings on this topic. Otherwise, Bortel said that it seemed liked a decent report and that he hoped the State would approve it. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business before the Town un it of the Town of Tiburon, Mayor Fraser adjourned the meeting at 10:10 p.m. JIM fFRIASHR." MAYO ATTEST: DIANE CRANE IACOPI, TO CLERK Town Council Minutes #02 -2012 February 1, 2012 Page 15