HomeMy WebLinkAboutTC Agd Pkt 2012-03-21 (2)To:
From:
TOWN OF TIBURON
1505 Tiburon Boulevard
Tiburon, CA 94920
Mayor and Members of the Town Council
Community Development Department
Town Council Meeting
March 21, 2012
Agenda Item:
I
Subject: 14 Cecilia Court; File #31103; Appeal of Planning Commission Denial of
a Request to Amend the Tiburon Highlands Precise Plan (PD #15) to
Increase the Maximum Allowable Floor Area for Lot 7; David and
Dipanwita Reis, Owners; Greg LeDoux & Associates, Inc., Applicant;
Assessor's Parcel No. 034-360-30
Reviewed By:
PROJECT DATA
Address:
Assessor's Parcel Number:
File Number:
Lot Size:
Zoning:
Precise Plan:
General Plan:
Current Use:
Owners:
Applicant:
BACKGROUND
14 Cecilia Court (Lot 7, Tiburon Highlands)
034-360-30
31103
10,535 square feet
RPD (Residential Planned Development)
Tiburon Highlands Precise Plan (PD # 15) [198 8]
M (Medium Density Residential)
Single-Family Residential
David and Dipanwita Reis
Greg LeDoux & Associates, Inc. (Architect)
On January 25, 2012, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 2012-02 denying an
application to amend the Tiburon Highlands Precise Plan to increase the maximum allowable
floor area for the property located at 14 Cecilia Court. The property owners, David and Dipanwita
Reis (hereinafter referred to as "appellants") have filed a timely appeal of the Commission's
decision to the Town Council. The appeal is attached as Exhibit 1.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The applicants propose to amend the Tiburon Highlands Precise Plan for property located at 14
Cecilia Court. The Precise Plan amendment seeks to increase the maximum floor area allowed for
this 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 enclosure of an existing courtyard into
living space.
TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 1 OF 6
Xla.rch 211, '2(, 12
BACKGROUND
The Tiburon Highlands Subdivision was approved by the Town Council following seven years of
intense review, controversial debate, development moratoria, and a lawsuit. The Town and the
developer eventually settled the lawsuit through a Development Agreement (DA) entered into on
March 31, 1988. The DA, relevant excerpts of which are attached as Exhibit 6, was the product
of detailed and extensive negotiations and contained several provisions addressing specific lots
within the project. Some provisions guaranteed the developer a minimum house size on certain
lots, while other provisions imposed maximum house sizes on other lots, generally as a means of
addressing concerns of nearby property owners in The Reedlands, above whose homes the
Highlands Subdivision was proposed. The DA explicitly required these provisions to be
contained within the Precise Plan to be subsequently adopted by the Town. The Town Council
approved the Tiburon Highlands Precise Plan by adopting Resolution No. 2535 (Exhibit 7) on
July 20, 1988, incorporating the provisions required by the DA. Condition of approval #18 (h)
states that:
"The living area (i.e. excluding garages and decks) of the residence constructed on lots 3-
11, inclusive, shall not be greater than 3,500 square feet."
This condition of approval applies to homes located at 2, 4, 6, 14, 16, 18, 20 and 22 Cecilia
Court, and to the home located at 8 Upper Cecilia Way. File research indicates that the probable
goal of the DA provision was to ameliorate long-expressed concerns by Reedlands residents
living below these lots that overly large homes would loom over their own homes, result in
privacy concerns and/or drainage and soil instability problems, and be out of character with their
older and smaller homes. The homes primarily benefiting from this house size limitation ranged
roughly from 31 to 45 Reed Ranch Road and 3-7 Warren's Way.
The DA itself expired in 1995, but the Precise Plan remains in effect as a primary element of the
zoning regulations for the Tiburon Highlands Subdivision.
REVIEW BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION
The Planning Commission reviewed this application on January 11, 2012. Prior to that meeting,
the Town received three letters and one petition (Exhibits 11-14) objecting to the application, all
from owners or residents of Reedlands lots located below. At the meeting, the Commission
determined that it was the Town's obligation to honor and uphold the decisions that had been
made regarding this precise plan and that the mere passage of time was not an adequate argument
to change the hard won compromises incorporated into the development agreement and precise
plan. Minutes of the meeting are attached as Exhibit 4. The Commission voted 3-0 to direct staff
to prepare a resolution denying the application.
At the January 25, 2012 meeting, the applicant asked the Planning Commission to reconsider its
decision prior to adoption of the resolution of denial. The Commission noted that the Tiburon
Highlands Precise Plan was the result of years of negotiation and compromise and reiterated that
the proposal was inconsistent with the provisions and intent of the development agreement and
the precise plan to limit the size of residences above neighboring Reedlands homes located along
TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 2 OF 6
Reed Ranch Road and Warren's Way. Additional details of the Commission's comments can be
found in the minutes attached as Exhibit 5. The Commission voted 3-0-1 (newly appointed
Commissioner Welner abstaining) to adopt Resolution No. 2012-02 denying the application. On
February 6, 2012, the applicant filed a timely appeal of this decision.
BASIS FOR THE APPEAL
The appeal is based on four grounds:
Ground #1: The requested changes would apply to internal space, would not change the
existing mass or bulk of the house and would not be visible from outside the
house.
Staff Response: The proposed living area additions would only be visible from the adjacent
homes on either side of the subject house. The only exterior changes resulting from the proposed
guest bedroom and bathroom would be new windows facing the residence to the east at 16
Cecilia Court. The proposed living room addition would only be visible from the home to the
west at 6 Cecilia Court. Neither addition would be visually apparent from either the street in front
of the house (Cecilia Court) or from homes below on Reed Ranch Road.
The Planning Commission acknowledged the limited visibility of the additions from off-site and
was sympathetic to the applicants' desire for more living space for a growing family, but found
on principle that these factors alone were insufficient to justify an amendment to the long-
standing provisions of the Precise Plan, which provide continuing permanent benefit to
Reedlands homeowners below. Furthermore, the Planning Commission concluded that the
proposal could set an inappropriate precedent for deviation from the house size limitations set
forth in the DA and Tiburon Highlands Precise Plan. The limit on maximum floor area applies
equally to Lots 3-6 and Lots 8-11 of the Highlands Subdivision. Although this amendment
application directly affects only Lot 7, there is a distinct possibility that other lot owners subject
to the same house size limitation would seek amendments in the future, especially if this
application is approved, thereby creating an indirect effect on eight (8) other lots, in the
subdivision. Alternatively, denial of the application would likely have a chilling effect on the
potential filing of future applications to amend the house size limitation on the fight other lots.
Ground #2: The Planning Commission staff report indicated that the project was
consistent with the purpose and goals of the Tiburon Highlands Precise Plan
and could have been consistent with the findings necessary for approving a
floor area exception.
Staff Response: The Planning Commission staff report dated January 11, 2012, attached as
Exhibit 3 noted (under the heading of "General Plan Consistency" on p. 5) that "the proposed
additions to the home would not be visible from the homes immediately below on Reed Ranch,
would not add to privacy impacts nor result in drainage or soil instability problems". The staff
report did not conclude that this would make the project consistent with the purpose and goals of
the Tiburon Highlands Precise Plan. The staff report noted the extensive and controversial review
process for the Highlands Subdivision that resulted in the floor area limitation for this lot and
eight other lots in this subdivision.
TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 3 OF 6
The Planning Commission staff report noted that, hypothetically, 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. The Town's default floor area ratio
(FAR) guideline for a lot of this size would be 3,054 square feet, with an additional 600 square
feet of garage space. The proposed amendment would result in a floor area of 3,884 square feet,
which would be 830 square feet above the FAR guideline for a lot of this size. The staff report
summarized the findings necessary to approve such an exception and concluded that there would
be sufficient evidence to support the findings for a floor area exception for a project of this type if
the Precise Plan limitation did not exist. However, staff noted that floor area exceptions for
projects exceeding the FAR of a lot by a figure as large as 830 square feet are uncommon, as the
Design Review Board and Town Council have increasingly discouraged the granting of large
floor area exceptions for the past several years.
Ground #3: The Planning Commission's denial is factually erroneous and reflects a
misunderstanding of the reasons behind the Tiburon Highlands Precise Plan.
Staff Response: At the January 11, 2012 meeting, Planning Commissioner Kunzweiler noted that
the Town had received other requests for amendments to the Tiburon Highlands Precise Plan that
were found to be inconsistent with the intent of the precise plan. The appellant notes that no other
amendment has been requested to the Tiburon Highlands Precise Plan to increase the maximum
floor area limitations for Lots 3-11. Both statements are accurate. There have been other
requests filed to amend provisions of the Tiburon Highlands Precise Plan that the Town has
found to be inconsistent with its intent. Most recently in 2009, an application to create a new
landscape envelope for property located at 9 Cecilia Court (File #30901) was denied, as the
Planning Commission found that the request would be inconsistent with the open visual character
intended by the building envelope limitations contained within the Tiburon Highlands Precise
Plan.
The appellant contends that a review of the other lots in the Tiburon Highlands subdivision that
are subject to the same floor area limitation reveals that none of these other homes have the
ability to expand without increasing the bulk or volume of the house, and therefore approval of
the subject application would not set a precedent for these other lots. The Planning Commission
acknowledged the limited physical impact of the proposed additions on surrounding properties,
and was clearly sympathetic to the personal circumstances of the applicants, but found on
principle that these factors alone were insufficient to justify an amendment to the long-standing
provisions of the Tiburon Highlands Precise Plan. The Planning Commission pointed out that it
must take a "longer-term" perspective in its consideration of applications in that both ownership
and the homes on Lots 3-11 themselves will change over time, and that circumstances of today
may not be reflective of future conditions. New homes will, over the long term, replace the
existing homes and the Precise Plan will limit those new homes to 3,500 square feet of living
area. The Planning Commission was clearly uncomfortable with sending a message that the Town
of Tiburon does not honor and stand by its agreements over time.
The appellant asserts that the passage of time since the approval of the Tiburon Highlands Precise
Plan has resulted in the construction of homes on Lots 3-11 with established mass and bulk that
was deemed to be acceptable, and that a request to expand the subject house should be based on
TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 4 OF 6
whether the requested additions result in impacts on the homes below on Reed Ranch Road and
Warren's Way. As noted above, the Commission concluded that it was their obligation to honor
and uphold the commitments made regarding the Tiburon Highlands project, and that the simple
passage of time was not an adequate argument to change the hard-won compromises
memorialized in the development agreement and the precise plan.
Ground #4: The resolution denying the application is a reversal of the draft resolution
recommending approval of the application.
Staff Response: The Planning Commission staff report did not make a recommendation for
approval of the subject application, but instead provided balanced analysis that could either be
used to support or oppose approval of the application (see p. 6 of Exhibit 3). As is customary,
staff prepared a draft resolution recommending approval of the application in order to speed
processing of the application in the event the Commission determined that it could support the
request. The language supporting the application contained within the draft resolution reflected an
attempt by staff to consolidate the potentially supportive arguments for this application, but
clearly did not constitute a recommendation by staff to approve the application. Staff was fully
aware that if the Commission chose to deny the application, the Commission would articulate its
reasons orally for inclusion in a resolution to be prepared for consideration at the next meeting.
CONCLUSION
This is clearly a policy determination for the Town Council.
In reaching its decision on this project, the Planning Commission found, largely on principle, that
the request to increase the maximum allowable floor area for this lot would be inconsistent with
the intent of the Tiburon Highlands development limitations that were specifically created to
benefit and protect Reedlands homes located below the project site. The Commission gave great
weight to the extensive deliberations and the hard-fought concessions that were incorporated into
the Highlands development agreement and the precise plan. The Commission concluded that the
mere passage of time and the limited visibility and physical impact of the proposed additions, in
this particular case, were insufficient rationale for the Town to deviate from its commitments set
forth in the Highlands project's development limitations. it
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the Town Council:
1) Hold a public hearing and take testimony on the appeal in accordance with the Town's
adopted procedure (see attached Exhibit 8), and close the public hearing.
2) Deliberate on the appeal and, if prepared to do so, indicate its intentions regarding a
decision on the appeal.
3) Direct Staff to return with an appropriate resolution for consideration at the next meeting.
TOWN OF TIBURON 'AGE 5 OF 6
EXHIBITS
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
Notice of appeal
Planning Commission Resolution No. 2012-02
Planning Commission staff report dated January 11, 2012
Minutes of the January 11, 2012 Planning Commission meeting
Minutes of the January 25, 2012 Planning Commission meeting
Excerpts from Tiburon Highlands Development Agreement (1988)
Tiburon Highlands Precise Plan approval (Town Council Resolution No. 2535)
Appeal procedures
Application form and supplemental materials
Graphic of project vicinity
Letter from Ann Solomon, dated January 9, 2012
Letter from Mary Defenderfer, dated January 9, 2012
Letter from Joanne and Tom Reilly, dated January 11, 2012
Petition of opposition to subject application, received January 11, 2012
Submitted drawings
Prepared By: Daniel M. Watrous, Planning Manager' 5~
Scott Anderson, Director of Community Development
TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 6 OF 6
r- Fp tt
' ;r- ff L7
L
c. L ►
TOWN CLERK
TOWN OF TIBURON
1) L,..-
TOWN OF TIBURON
NOTICE OF APPEAL
1505 Tiburon Boulevard
Tibtn-on, CA 94920 Phone 415-435- 73 73
www. ci. tiburon. ca. us
APPELLANT(S)
(Attach additional pages if'necessw-i
Name: j J A, O J A6%#4 ])I AL^w i+4 JZ e !x
Mailing Address: S mapper 6CC ► 1 7 Lo ro;,N , CA 9 Lf 1 -210
Telephone: L4I S- (0-7-7-6340
FAX and/or e-mail (optional):
ACTION BEING APPEALED
(Work) y 1,S-- 5 3 3- `i b (10 (Home)
I T
C~ w~ ~ SS ~~1
Review Authority Whose Decision is Being Appealed: 5GV to •1 P t A k-nt -us
Date of Action or Decision Being Appealed: T^^WA rl Za 1 Z..-
Name of Applicant: I")A v tj
n
Type of Application or Decision: 12.esallfio., 8,c''` A. rr.c~aw~e~~ ~ 1 % 4,1ry s
~✓'CCc~t' 04%
GROUNDS FOR APPEAL
(Attach additional pages if necessary)
SC:c- 'ti cG~w~eK~'
STAFF USE ONLY BELOU' THIS LINE
Last Day to File Appeal:
Date Appeal Filed: v2-6-12...
00 %
Fee Paid:
0 :nb.5~Tq Receipt No. Date of Appeal Hearing:
NOTE: Current Filing Fee is $500 initial deposit for applicant and $300 flat fee for non-applicant
S: lAdmirtistn-ationlFarmslNotice of Appeal form revised 3-9-2010.doc Revised Marcl 7010
EXHIBIT NO.
Attachment
We appeal from the Planning Commission's resolution denying an amendment to
the Tiburon Highland's Precise Plan (PD#15) for property located at 14 Cecilia Court.
The Requested Changes Apply To Internal Space, Do Not Change The Existing
Mass Or Bulk Of The House And Are Not Visible To The Outside. Our request is to
increase the maximum allowable living area of the home from 3,500 square feet to 3,884
square feet to allow us (1) to put up a wall in the garage to convert an internal third
tandem garage stall into a guest bedroom and bath, and (2) to convert an existing internal
courtyard into an extension of the adjacent living room.
As the Staff report concluded, these proposed additions would not change the
existing mass or bulk or overall building volume of the house. The tandem garage space
to be converted to a guest room is completely within the bulk of the existing house and
the courtyard is already completely enclosed on three sides, partially enclosed on the
fourth side with a wall that is approximately 4 feet high, and covered with a trellis on top.
In short, this too would not add to the existing volume of the house. The additions would
result in new windows on the sides of the house facing 6 Cecilia Court and 16 Cecilia
Court (there are already existing windows on both those sides of the house), but both
would be largely blocked from view by existing hedge. Neither of those neighbors
object.
Neither proposed addition would be seen from either the street in front of the
house or from homes to the rear below on Reed Ranch Road.
The Staff Report. The Staff report concluded that, hypothetically, if the Tiburon
Highlands Precise Plan did not limit the living area of the house to 3500 square feet and
we could have applied for a floor area exception, this project would have met the
requirements: (1) the house is consistent with the visual size and scale of other homes in
the vicinity and the proposed additions would not alter the visual mass and bulk of the
existing house; and (2) the proposed additions would not alter the existing relationship of
the house to the physical characteristics of the site.
The issue, however, is that in the 1980s, before the Tiburon Highlands
neighborhood was approved and built - and before this particular house was built - the
residents below on Reed Ranch Road objected to the project. Eventually the project was
approved, but with the following relevant restriction in the Precise Plan: "The living area
(i.e., excluding garages and decks) of the residence constructed on lots 3-11, inclusive,
shall not be greater than 3,500 square feet."
.I
1 EXHIBIT NO.
The Staff report concluded that the proposed project is consistent with the purpose
and goal of the Precise Plan. The Staff report finds that the goal of the 3500 square foot
living area restriction "was to ameliorate long-expressed 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." Consistent with that purpose, the report concluded:
"the proposed additions to the home would not be visible from the homes immediately
below on Reed Ranch, would not add to privacy impacts nor result in drainage or soil
instability problems."
The Planning Commission Meeting. At the Planning Commission meeting on
January 11, 2012, the Staff submitted a proposed resolution recommending approval of
the amendment to the Tiburon Highlands Precise Plan based on the following findings:
(1) the project is consistent with the intent of the Tiburon Highlands Precise Plan;
(2) the project is consistent with the goals and policies of the Tiburon General Plan
Land Use Element Policy LU-13; and
(3) the proposed increase in floor area would not materially contribute to the
appearance of visually massive homes above the existing residences along Reed
Ranch Road.
Although there was no dispute about the above findings at the Planning
Commission meeting and no contrary findings, the Planning Commission decided to deny
the proposed amendment. The two reasons for the denial that were offered by the
Planning Commission at the meeting were that (1) "these houses [in Tiburon Highlands]
have a history of coming back for exceptions and this would open the door for others to
come back for exceptions" and (2) "nothing has changed since the Precise Plan was
established and the passage of time is not a reason to make a change."
Both of these reasons for the Planning Commission's denial are factually
erroneous and reflect a misunderstanding of the reasons behind the Precise Plan.
First, as confirmed by Scott Anderson, no other house in Tiburon Highlands that is
subject to this living area restriction has ever asked for an exception to the Precise Plan.
And as for "opening the door" for others to request similar exceptions, we have reviewed
the architectural plans on file with the Town for the other 8 houses that are subject to this
living area restriction and none of them could expand their house without changing the
bulk or volume of the house. In other words, this proposed exception would affect no
other house subject to this Precise Plan because no other house has interior courtyard
space or a third tandem garage stall such that they could expand without changing the
exterior bulk of the house.
EXHIBIT NO.
2
Second, the statement that nothing has changed with the passage of time since the
original Precise Plan is simply untrue. When the Precise Plan restriction was adopted,
there was no development of the Tiburon Highlands homes and the size limitation served
as a guideline for future development to ensure, as the Staff Report noted, that the homes
were not "overly large and looming" above the Reedlands homes below. Conditions
have certainly changed since this Precise Plan restriction was adopted. Now there is a
fully-developed subdivision with known and established bulk and mass of the homes that
were approved and, with their architectural review and approval, have established what
was acceptable for these lots. Evaluating an existing and established home to determine
whether the proposed project will make the house any more bulky and looming to the
houses below on Reed Ranch Road is much different than setting an arbitrary square
footage guideline 25 years ago for houses that had not yet been designed or built. Unlike
25 years ago, we can now look at the specific house and the proposed project and
determine whether it would make the house any bulkier or looming to the houses below
on Reed Ranch Road.
There is an additional policy consideration that was raised by the Chairperson of
the Planning Commission that he found troubling and that is also applicable here. At the
January 11 meeting, the Chairperson said that he was concerned about denying projects
like this that cannot be seen and do not affect anyone because it would simply encourage
homeowners to bypass the system and complete them illegally. Ironically, unbeknownst
to the Chairperson, that is exactly what happened here. We rented this home for two
years between 2006 and 2008, and during that time the third car tandem garage stall was
a guest room. It was also a guest room when we later purchased the house in September
2011. We learned for the first time immediately prior to closing on the purchase of the
house that the guest room had been illegally divided from the garage space and
constructed. Moreover, the inspector from the Town of Tiburon who inspected the
property advised us that we could either tear down the wall or apply for permits. We did
both - we tore down the wall, and once we had purchased the property, hired an architect
to draft appropriate plans, and filed the current application to complete tie project with
the appropriate approvals and permits. (We did not realize there was a 3500 square foot
limitation in the Precise Plan until after the closing when we hired an architect.)
The Planning Commission's Resolution Denying The Amendment To The
Precise Plan. The Planning Commission's resolution denying the amendment to the
Precise Plan is a complete reversal of the Staff's original draft resolution approving the
amendment. However, as described above, none of the findings of the Staff Report that
supported the original draft resolution approving the amendment have changed, and
indeed, the reasons for denying the amendment that were given by the Planning
Commission at the meeting are factually inaccurate.
3 HIBIT NO.
The reasons articulated in the resolution denying the amendment to the Precise
Plan are all meritless, and we address each paragraph of the resolution specifically:
• Paragraph C. The resolution states that the "project is inconsistent with the
Tiburon Highlands Precise Plan, and inconsistent with the Development
Agreement provision from which the Precise Plan condition of approval
originated." But to say that a reason for denying an exception to the Precise
Plan is the language of the Plan itself is circular and meaningless- if the
words of the Precise Plan were themselves dispositive and thus prohibited an
exception, then there is no reason to have a process by which applicants can
seek an exception (and incidentally, charge applicants thousands of dollars in
the process). Notably, the resolution does not - because it cannot - say that
the proposed project is inconsistent with the intent and purpose of the Precise
Plan because, as the Staff report concluded, the project is consistent with the
intent and purpose of the Precise Plan.
• Paragraph D. The resolution states that the Tiburon Highlands project
approvals, including the Development Agreement and the Precise Plan, were
a "product of a contentious seven-year public process" which resulted in
"other highly specific provisions, such as setback minimums and height
limits, intended to provide permanent benefit to the properties and residents
living in the Reedlands subdivision below Lots 3-11 of the Tiburon
Highlands." The resolution's reference to this contentious process and the
highly specific provisions regarding setback minimums and height
requirements actually underscores why the Planning Commission's decision
in this case makes little sense. There is nothing in our request that would
implicate the setback minimums and height requirements or do anything that
compromises the permanent benefits to the properties and residents in the
Reedlands subdivisions in any way. Indeed, there is not a single home in the
Reedlands subdivision that could see any part of the proposed construction,
as all areas are internal to the existing structure of the home.
• Paragraph E. The resolution states that the requested amendment would be
"inconsistent with the Tiburon Highlands project history and the good faith
obligations memorialized in the detailed provisions contained in the Highland
approvals," and that the "mere passage of time is not sufficient cause for the
removal or weakening of these limitations, which continue to benefit the
affected Reedlands lots, several of whose owners have written in opposition
to the applicant's request." As described above, it is not the "mere passage of
time," but the fact that homes in the Highlands have now been built and we
can directly assess whether any amendment to the Precise Plan has an impact
on the Reedlands neighborhood below, that justifies the amendment we seek
4 EXHIBIT NO. I
here. Nothing about this project and amendment will weaken any of the
"benefits to the affected Reedlands lots" below as none of those lots are
affected by this project. Moreover, although a few Reedlands neighbors have
written in opposition to this project, none of them has articulated reasons why
this specific project should not be allowed. This is not surprising, as the
notice that was sent by the Town of Tiburon did not specify any details about
this project, most notably, that the project would only enclose space already
internal to the house and would not serve to expand the house beyond its
current footprint in any way.
• Paragraph F. The resolution's finding that the approval of this request
"would have the potential to affect eight (8) other lots within the Highlands
division (Lots 3-6 and 8-11) and would likely establish a precedent for future
removal or weakening of provisions of the Highlands approvals with respect
to these eight (8) other lots." As explained above, this is simply not true as
none of the other lots has asked for an amendment to increase the house size,
and none of these houses could do so without increasing the bulk, volume,
and outside footprint of the house.
In sum, we submit that where, as here, the proposed project:
(1) is consistent with the intent and purpose of the Precise Plan;
(2) does not change the existing bulk or volume of the house;
(3) is not visible from the street or rear of the house (including any homes below
on Reed Ranch Road); and
(4) has no precedential effect in that no other Tiburon Highlands home that is
subject to this size limitation could expand in this way without changing the
existing bulk or volume of the house;
the project and proposed amendment should be approved.
Thank you for you consideration.
EXHIBIT NO. I
5
RESOLUTION NO. 2012-02
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE TOWN OF TIBURON
DENYING AN AMENDMENT TO THE TIBURON HIGHLANDS PRECISE PLAN (PD #15)
FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 14 CECILIA COURT
ASSESSOR PARCEL NO. 034-360-30
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the Town of Tiburon does resolve as follows:
Section 1. Findings.
A. The Town has received and considered an application (File #31103) filed by David and
Dipanwita Reis for an amendment to the Tiburon Highlands Precise Plan (PD #15) to
increase the maximum allowable floor area from 3,500 square feet to 3,884 square feet
for the property at 14 Cecilia Court. The application consists of the following:
1. Application form and supplemental materials, dated November 3, 2011 and
December 8, 2011
2. Site Plan and Elevations, dated November 3, 2011
B. The Planning Commission held a duly-noticed public hearing on January 11, 2012, and
heard and considered any correspondence and/or testimony from interested persons.
C. The Planning Commission finds, based upon application materials and analysis presented
in the January 11, 2012 Staff Report, as well as visits to the area and other evidence in the
record, that the project is inconsistent with the Tiburon Highlands Precise Plan, and
inconsistent with the Development Agreement provision from which the Precise Plan
condition of approval originated.
D. The Planning Commission finds that the Tiburon Highlands project approvals, including
the Development Agreement and the Precise Plan, collectively called the, "Highlands
Approvals," were the product of a contentious seven-year public process that involved an
initial master plan approval, development moratoria, a lawsuit, and eventual settlement of
the lawsuit with a development agreement to set in place the major elements of the
project. Among the provisions specified in the Development Agreement were maximum
house size limitations on several lots immediately upslope from existing homes in the
Reedlands subdivision. Specifically, the Development Agreement limited the maximum
living area of homes to be constructed on Highlands Lots 3-11 to a not-to-exceed figure
of 3,500 square feet. For all other lots in the subdivision, the Development Agreement
specified a minimum living area square footage guaranteed to the developer that could
not be unilaterally denied or withheld by the Town. The Development Agreement
included other highly specific provisions, such as setback minimums and height limits,
intended to provide permanent benefit to the properties and residents living in the
Reedlands subdivision below Lots 3-11 of the Tiburon Highlands.
TIBURON PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2012-02 JANUARY 25, 2012
EXHIBIT NO.
E. The Planning Commission finds that the requested amendment would be inconsistent
with the Tiburon Highlands project history and the good faith obligations memorialized
in the detailed provisions contained in the Highlands approvals. The Planning
Commission finds that the emphasis placed within the Highlands approvals, pertaining
specifically to limitations on Lots 3-11, demonstrates that the benefits accorded to
Reedlands lots located below these lots were a significant and material consideration
given great weight in the formulation of said approvals, and finds that the mere passage
of time is not sufficient cause for the removal or weakening of these limitations, which
continue to benefit the affected Reedlands lots, several of whose owners have written in
opposition to the applicant's request.
F. The Planning Commission finds that the approval of this request would have the potential
to affect eight (8) other lots within the Highlands subdivision (Lots 3-6 and 8-11) and
would likely establish a precedent for future removal or weakening of the provisions of
the Highlands approvals with respect to these eight (8) other lots.
G. The Planning Commission finds that the unique history and circumstances surrounding
the formulation and adoption of the Highlands Precise Plan easily distinguish it from
other Precise Plan amendment applications in which the Town has modified house size
limitations to allow larger homes.
H. The Planning Commission bases its decision on the above and makes no judgment on the
merits or design of the physical improvements proposed by the applicant in association
with the Precise Plan amendment request.
Section 2. Denial.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that based on the above findings, the Planning
Commission hereby denies the Precise Plan amendment request for 14 Cecilia Court, also known
as Lot 7 of the Tiburon Highlands subdivision, Planned Development #15 (File #31103).
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Tiburon Planning Commission on
'January 25, 2012, by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Corcoran, Kunzweiler, Weller
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Tollini
ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: Welner
JOHN CORCORAN, CHAIRMAN
Tiburon Planning Commission
ATTEST:
DANIEL M. WATROUS, SECRETARY
TIBURON PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2012-02 JANUARY 25, 2012
02014
EXHIBIT NO.
TOWN OF TIBURON
1505 Tiburon Boulevard
All Tiburon, CA 94920
To: Members of the Planning Commission
From: Community Development Department
Planning Commission Meeting
January 11, 2012
Agenda Item:
Subject: 14 Cecilia Court; File #31103; Request to Amend the Tiburon Highlands
Precise Plan (PD #15) to Increase the Maximum Allowable Floor Area
for Lot 7; David and Dipanwita Reis, Owners; Greg LeDoux &
Associates, Inc., Applicant; Assessor's Parcel No. 034-360-30
Reviewed By:
PROJECT DATA
Address:
14 Cecilia Court (Lot 7, Tiburon Highlands)
Assessor's Parcel Number:
034-360-30
File Number:
31103
Lot Size:
101535 square feet
Zoning:
RPD (Residential Planned Development)
Precise Plan:
Tiburon Highlands Precise Plan (PD #15)
General Plan:
M (Medium Density Residential)
Current Use:
Single-Family Residential
Owners:
David and Dipanwita Reis
Applicant:
Greg LeDoux & Associates, Inc. (Architect)
PROPOSAL
The applicants propose to amend the Tiburon Highlands Precise Plan for property located at 14
Cecilia Court. The amendment seeks to increase the maximum allowable floor area for this 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 enclosure of an existing courtyard into living space.
In the absence of the Precise Plan house size limitation, the proposed additions would exceed the
"default floor area ratio limit" established in the Zoning Ordinance for a lot of this size by 830
square feet.
BACKGROUND
The Tiburon Highlands Subdivision was approved by the Town Council following seven years of
intense review, controversial debate, development moratoria, and a lawsuit. The Town and the
developer eventually settled the lawsuit through a Development Agreement (DA) entered into on
March 31, 1988. The DA, relevant excerpts of which are attached as Exhibit 1, was the product
TOWN OF TIBURON
EXHIBIT NO.
PAGE 1 OF 6
of detailed and extensive negotiations and contained several provisions addressing specific lots
within the project. Some provisions guaranteed the developer a minimum house size on certain
lots, while other provisions imposed maximum house sizes on other lots, generally as a means of
addressing concerns of nearby property owners in The Reedlands, above whose homes the
Highlands Subdivision was proposed. The DA explicitly required these provisions to be
contained within the Precise Plan to be adopted by the Town. The Town Council approved the
Highlands Precise Plan by adopting Resolution No. 2535 (Exhibit 2) on July 20, 1988,
incorporating the provisions required by the DA. Condition of approval #18 (h) states that:
"The living area (i.e. excluding garages and decks) of the residence constructed on lots 3-
11, inclusive, shall not be greater than 3,500 square feet."
This condition of approval applies to homes located at 2, 4, 6, 14, 16, 18, 20 and 22 Cecilia
Court, and to the home located at 8 Upper Cecilia Way. File research indicates that the probable
goal of the DA provision was to ameliorate long-expressed 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. The then-existing homes primarily benefiting from this provision
ranged roughly from 31 to 45 Reed Ranch Road and 3-7 Warren's Way. All of the current
property owners of these lots have been sent notice of the hearing, although notices to residents
more than 300 feet from the subject parcel were mailed on January 4, 2012. Property owners
within 300 feet of the subject lot were mailed notices on December 20, 2011.
The DA expired in 1995, but the Precise Plan remains in effect as an important element of the
zoning for all property contained within the Tiburon Highlands Subdivision.
ANALYSIS
Staff has identified three primary issues to be considered with this application: 1) the principle
established by the DA provision/condition of approval; 2) the precedent-setting potential of the
action; and 3) the practical effect of the proposed project in and of itself. Nearly-twenty-four
years have passed since the condition was imposed, and many (but not all) of the nearby
Reedlands property owners have changed. Conditions in the area have changed? considerably
with the build-out of the 42-lot Highlands Subdivision, but the sensitivities and concerns of
nearby neighbors may or may not have changed over these years. Staff is of the opinion that the
first two issues must be understood and evaluated prior to considering the practical effect of the
proposed residential addition at 14 Cecilia Court.
Principle
The Tiburon Highlands DA and Precise Plan specifically limited the maximum floor area for Lots
3-11, which are situated on the perimeter of that subdivision and above neighboring Reedlands
homes located along Reed Ranch Road and Warren's Way. The DA and Precise Plan did not
include floor area maximum limits for any of the other 33 homes in the Highlands Subdivision.
Between this fact and extensive oppositional comments by Reedlands residents living below
these proposed lots, as contained in the Town's project files, it can be safely deduced that the
house size limitation for these lots was a significant material consideration in the Town's
TOWN OF TiBBURON PAGE 2 OF 6
EXHIBIT NO. 3
negotiation and eventual approval of the DA. Furthermore, the homes in this portion of the
Highlands Subdivision were generally built within a short number of years following the Precise
Plan approval, and while the DA was still in effect.
Precedent
There are potentially precedent-setting ramifications from amending a Precise Plan condition that
applies equally to Lots 3-6 and Lots 8-11 of the Highlands Subdivision. Although this
amendment application directly affects only Lot 7, there is a distinct possibility that other lot
owners subject to the same condition would seek similar amendments in the future, especially if
this application is approved, thereby creating an indirect effect on eight (8) other lots in the
subdivision. Denial of the application would likely have a chilling effect on the filing of future
applications to amend the house size limitation applicable to these lots.
The Town has, on occasion, increased house size limits established in adopted Precise Plans.
However, as explained below, the circumstances surrounding those cases can easily be
distinguished from the proposed Highlands Precise Plan amendment. Staff therefore views this
current amendment request as a case of first impression without similar precedent, both because
of the Development Agreement and due to other differences in circumstances.
In 1991, the Town amended the Pellegrinelli Precise Plan, dating from 1979, to increase the
allowable floor area on two lots. One house size limit was increased from 1,962 square feet to
3,000 square feet, and the other was increased from 2,748 square feet to 3,850 square feet. Both
were large lots (approximately one acre in area). Although the lots had been created 11 years
earlier, none of them had ever been constructed upon, and the Town concluded that the
ori ginall y- approved house size limits were no longer representative of new homes being built on
large lots on the Tiburon Peninsula.
In 1999 and 2001, the Town approved two separate amendments to the Kuhns (Stevens Court)
Precise Plan, dating originally from 1980, to increase the maximum floor area allowed for each
of the three lots from "3,600 square feet, including garage space", to "3,600 square feet plus 600
square feet for garage space, but only if such space is attained entirely within undeveloped space
within the existing mass and bulk of the approved house, so long as the total floor area does not
exceed the floor area ratio otherwise permitted by the Tiburon Zoning Ordinance for a lot of this
size." The Kuhns Precise Plan was a relatively non-controversial project. It approved maximum
house sizes smaller than would have been allowed under default zoning in effect at the time the
homes were constructed, which was 15 to 20 years after the original Precise Plan approval. The
Town Council found that the additional garage space being allowed was minor, was consistent
with current practice, and also required that current zoning ordinance floor area ratio limits not be
exceeded.
The Town has also approved, over the course of several years, seven individual lot amendments
to the Cypress Hollow development, which was approved by the County of Marin in the 1980's
and constructed while still in County jurisdiction. The Town annexed Cypress Hollow, along
with other adjacent territory, in 1998. Many of the 42 non-custom homes in this development
were designed with under-floor space that could be easily converted to inhabitable space, but
would have exceeded the County's 0.3 FAR limit set forth in the Precise Plan for all the lots. Six
TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 3 OF 6
EXHIBIT NO.
of the seven Town-approved amendments allowing additional floor area included a condition of
approval permitting such space only "if attained entirely within undeveloped space within the
existing mass and bulk of the approved house." The Town Council has generally considered the
Cypress Hollow Precise Plan's floor area limit to be an aberration, given the design of the house
plans constructed by the developer, and has worked with owners to allow limited expansions into
the existing under-floor spaces while not allowing the visual mass or bulk of the homes to
increase. The parallels between the Cypress Hollow development and the Tiburon Highlands
Subdivision are few.
Project Design
The existing house on the site is a two-story structure with 3,527 square feet of living area and a
723 square foot, three-car attached garage. The original building plans approved by the Town
indicated a total of 3,493 square feet of living space. The garage includes two side-by-side
parking spaces and a third tandem parking space to the rear of the garage. The house includes a
trellised courtyard area on the western (right) side of the house that is surrounded on three sides
by the existing main floor living room, dining room and vestibule. The project would convert the
third, tandem garage space into a new guest bedroom and bathroom. The project would also
enclose the existing courtyard space into an extension of the living room. Application materials
and drawings are attached as Exhibits 3 and 5. A graphic of the project vicinity is attached as
Exhibit 6.
The proposed additions would only be visible from the adjacent homes on either side of the
subject house. The only exterior changes resulting from the proposed guest bedroom and
bathroom would be new windows facing the residence to the east at 16 Cecilia Court. The
proposed living room addition would only be visible from the home to the west at 6 Cecilia
Court. Neither addition would be visually apparent from either the street in front of the house or
from homes to the rear below on Reed Ranch Road. The proposed additions would not be visible
from any homes immediately to the rear of the site on Reed Ranch Road.
The default floor area ratio for the subject property would be 3,054 square feet, based on a lot
area of 10,535 square feet, with an additional allowance for up to 600 square feet of garage space.
The originally approved plans for this house included 3,493 square feet of flool'area and 723
square feet of garage space. The subject application requests 3,884 square feet of floor area and
523 square feet of garage space, which would be 830 square feet over the default floor area ratio
limit for this lot.
The tandem garage space to be converted to living space is completely within the existing mass
and bulk of the existing house. Although the proposed living room addition would enclose an
open courtyard, this area is already enclosed on three sides and covered with a trellis, making this
space part of the effective mass and bulk of the existing house. Neither addition would add to the
overall building volume, except when viewed from the adjacent home to the west at 6 Cecilia
Court.
Hypothetically, 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. In order to approve such an exception, the Design Review Board would have been
TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 4 OF 6
EXHIBIT N0. 3
required to make the following findings required by Section 16-52.020(I[4]) of the Tiburon
Zoning Ordinance:
1. The applicant has demonstrated that the visual size and scale of the proposed structure
is compatible with the predominant pattern established by existing structures in the
surrounding neighborhood.
The existing house was constructed at the same time as the neighboring homes in the
Tiburon Highlands neighborhood and is consistent with the visual size and scale of other
homes in the vicinity. As described above, the proposed additions would not alter the
visual mass and bulk of the existing house.
2. The applicant has demonstrated that the proposed structure is compatible with the
physical characteristics of the site. The characteristics include, but are not limited to,
shape and steepness of the lot, ease of access, and the presence of natural features
worthy of retention, such as trees, rock outcroppings, stream courses and landforms.
The proposed additions would not alter the existing relationship of the house to the
physical characteristics of the site.
Staff believes that there would be sufficient evidence to support the findings for a floor area
exception for a project of this type if the Precise Plan limitation did not exist. However, staff
notes that floor area exceptions for projects exceeding the FAR of a lot by a figure as large as 830
square feet are becoming uncommon, as the Design Review Board and Town Council have
increasingly discouraged the granting of sizeable floor area exceptions in recent years.
General Plan Consistency
The proposed project has been reviewed for consistency with the Tiburon General Plan and with
the requirements of the Tiburon Zoning Ordinance regarding precise plan amendments. Land
Use Element Policy LU-13 states that "Neighborhood character, which is defined by the
predominant architectural styles, type of buildings, building heights, mass, setbacks, landscaping,
and natural characteristics, shall be of material consideration and preserved in all construction
projects, including remodels and additions, to the maximum extent feasible." As noted
previously, the proposed additions to the home would not be visible from the homes immediately
below on Reed Ranch, would not add to privacy impacts nor result in drainage or soil instability
problems. From a physical impact standpoint, the proposed additions would be minor in nature
and scope.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
Staff has preliminarily determined that the subject application is categorically exempt from the
requirements of CEQA per Section 15301 of the CEQA Guidelines.
TOWN OF TIBURON
PAGE 5 OF f
EXHIBIT NO. 3
PUBLIC COMMENT
As of the date of this report, no comment letters have been received regarding the subject
application.
FUTURE ACTIONS REQUIRED
The Planning Commission's action on this project would be in the form of a recommendation of
approval to the Town Council or a denial by the Commission. A Commission denial could be
appealed to the Town Council, while a recommendation for approval would be automatically
forwarded to the Town Council. If the precise plan amendment is approved by the Town
Council, the proposed additions would require Site Plan and Architectural Review approval and
building permits.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission:
1. Hold a public hearing on this item and hear and consider all testimony.
2. If the Commission determines that approval of the amendment is warranted and
the project would be consistent with the overall intent of the Tiburon Highlands
Precise Plan, the Commission should adopt a resolution to that effect. Staff has
prepared a draft resolution (Exhibit 4) for consideration by the Commission.
3. If the Planning Commission determines that the amendment would violate, in
principle or intent, the Highlands Precise Plan, and/or set an undesired precedent
that would be inconsistent with the Tiburon Highlands Precise Plan, the
Commission should direct staff to prepare draft resolution denying the
amendment, for review and consideration at the next meeting.
EXHIBITS
w
1. Excerpts from Tiburon Highlands Development Agreement (1988).
2. Tiburon Highlands Precise Plan approval (Town Council Resolution No. 2535).
3. Application form and supplemental materials.
4. Draft Resolution recommending approval to Town Council.
5. Submitted drawings.
6. Graphic of project vicinity.
Prepared By: Daniel M. Watrous, Planning Manager
Scott Anderson, Director of Community Development
TOWN OF TIBUR®N 'S PAGE fi OF fi
EX~IBIT NO.
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 he aring, 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
EXHIBIT NO.- A/ -
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
INHIBIT NO.
PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES NO. 1016
January 25, 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, Commissioners Kunzweiler, Weller and Welner
Absent: Vice-Chair Tollini
Staff Present: Planning Manager Watrous, Director of Community Development Anderson and
Minutes Clerk Levison
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None
COMMISSION AND STAFF BRIEFING
Planning Manager Watrous welcomed Commissioner Jon Welner. He noted that the Commission
had no items scheduled for the February 2nd meeting and reported the following Town Council
agenda items:
• February 1 - Trestle Glen Circle Precise Development Plan
• February 15 - Alta Robles project
• March 7 - Tiburon Library Expansion project
He requested that a member of the Commission be present at the February 1St aid 15th meetings
to answer any questions that the Council may have.
Commissioner Weller volunteered to attend the Trestle Glen Circle hearing but noted that he was
not present for the Commission's Alta Robles hearing.
Planning Manager Watrous noted this would also be the last meeting of Minutes Clerk Levison
and thanked her for her service to the Town.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
1. 14 CECILIA COURT: FILE #31103; ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION DENYING
A REQUEST TO AMEND THE TIBURON HIGHLANDS PRECISE PLAN (PD
#15) TO INCREASE THE MAXIMUM FLOOR AREA FOR LOT 7; FILE #31003;
PAGE 1
TIBURON PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -JANUARY 25. 2012 MINUTES NO. 1016 ENli ~~....~jIBIT NO.
_S_
David and Dipanwita Reis, Owners; Greg LeDoux, Applicant; Assessor's Parcel No.
034-360-30 (Continued from January 11,2012)
Planning Manager Watrous introduced the item and noted that the applicant wished to address
the Commission.
David Reis, applicant, read from the draft resolution denying the application, specifically as it
stated that the project was inconsistent with the intent of the Tiburon Highlands Precise Plan. He
noted that the draft resolution approving the application in the previous Commission packet drew
exactly the opposite conclusion and that the current staff report contained no discussion to the
contrary. He summarized the positive aspects of the project described in the previous staff report,
and also noted that the proposed project would not alter the existing visual mass and bulk of the
home, nor its relationship to the physical characteristics of the site. He disagreed with statements
from the previous hearing that indicated that homes in this subdivision have a history of coming
forward with similar applications every few years, stating that he could find no example of any
request on record to increase the maximum allowable floor area. He did not feel that approval of
the application would set any relevant precedent, as no other homes subject to this size limitation
could increase the square footage without also changing the mass and bulk.
Mr. Reis said that during the time he rented this home, the tandem garage had been converted
into a guest room. He said that it was only during closing on the purchase of the home that he
learned that it was an illegal room and that he could either delay the sale or reconvert the space
into a garage. He asked the Commission to keep in mind that evaluating a neighborhood of
established homes for consistency is far different from the setting of an arbitrary square footage
to non-existent homes. He asked the Commission to reconsider its decision to deny the
application.
Chair Corcoran opened the public hearing and, seeing no speakers, immediately closed the
public hearing.
Commissioner Weller and Planning Manager Watrous confirmed that the Commission had the
ability to modify the project as proposed, if so inclined. Mr. Watrous noted that the action would
be to direct staff to return with a resolution recommending approval of the project, as amended.
He also noted that it would be most appropriate for Commissioner Welner, who was not present
at the last hearing, to abstain from any action on the item.
Commissioner Kunzweiler said this remained a straightforward issue in his mind; this home is
subject to a long-established precise plan that came about after years of careful negotiation and
compromise. He recognized that 23 years had passed since then and that things certainly change
in that period of time, but maintained that a change in family dynamics and typical use of space
are not the basis of findings.
Chair Corcoran said that the applicant had previously presented a very compelling personal story
about his attachment to the home. Despite this, Chair Corcoran explained that the Commission's
job is to interpret the agreements negotiated and guidelines established in the past and the simple
passage of time is not sufficient rationale to do otherwise. He acknowledged that the tandem
TIBURON PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - JANUARY 25. 2012 MINUTES NO. 1016 EXHIBIT NO. PAGE 2
garage seemed to be poorly configured in terms of garage space, that the applicant did the right
thing by removing the living space, and that the applicant now seems to be punished for acting
appropriately. He said that the Commission discussed this at the previous hearing and ultimately
felt that there was not sufficient reason to alter a development agreement.
Commissioner Weller said that he read the staff reports, both current and historic, examined the
plans and generally concurred with the decision of the Commission. He did not see how the
Commission could bend the law to suit individual circumstance on such a controversial and
heavily negotiated issue. He requested clarification on whether the application was inconsistent
with the provisions and intent of the development agreement or precise plan. Community
Development Director Anderson said that intent is always difficult to project backwards, but that
the request was clearly inconsistent with the provisions of the precise plan in the same way it
was with the development agreement. Commission Kunzweiler suggested and the Commission
supported dropping the word "agreement" from the resolution.
Commissioner Weller said that those called upon to make decisions are often bound by laws that
may differ from their personal desires and beliefs. He said that whatever the personal feelings of
the Commission, they are bound by the actions of their predecessors.
Commissioner Welner said that he would abstain from the item but requested clarification on
whether the floor area limitation applies to basement space. Mr. Anderson explained that the
floor area ratio was not established at the time of the development agreement and so the floor
area limitation in this case applies to all habitable space.
The Commission directed staff to modify the resolution as follows:
• Delete "the intentions of on the third line of 1(c).
ACTION: It was M/S (Weller/Kunzweiler) to adopt the resolution denying the application, as
amended. Vote: 3-0-1 (Weiner abstained).
2. 215 BLACKFIELD DRIVE: REVIEW OF CONDITIONAL USE VERMIT FOR
KOL SHOFAR SYNAGOGUE AND APPURTENANT DAY SCHOOL; File
#10404; Assessor's Parcel No. 038-351-34
Planning Manager Watrous presented the staff report, stating that on February 21, 2007, the
Town Council approved on appeal a conditional use permit to remodel and expand the facilities
and operations of the existing synagogue (Congregation Kol Shofar) and private day school uses
on property located at 215 Blackfield Drive. The application was ultimately approved and
included a provision for periodic review by the Planning Commission, of which this is the
second.
Mr. Watrous referred to the staff report for full details on all conditions of approval, but
described the following in further detail:
TIBURON PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES- JANUARY 25. 2012 MINUTES NO. 1016 EXH !BIT NO. PAGE 3
RECORDING REQUESTED BY AND:
WHEN RECORDED, RETURN TO:
Town of Tiburon
Tiburon Town Hall
1155 Tiburon Blvd.
Tiburon, California 99920
Attention: Mr. Jack Lohman
Tt
r1 C.
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
(Tiburon Highlands)
By and Between
R. C. Holdings, Inc.
and
Town of Tiburon
N
March 31, 1988
EXHIBIT NO.
P, t o~c(
1.38 MAY -3 M 11: 30
o.FlcI;RE-CORD'
JAMES, J. D/1%1- r5o"I
1+
~ C
with the construction of the residential structure to be situated
thereon (such as building pads, utility and sewer laterals,
drainage improvements) imposed upon the Project either by reason
of the Existing Approvals, this Agreement or the approval of the
Subdivision map shall be made and completely installed in connec-
tion with the first phase of the Project. Any other provision of
this Agreement notwithstanding;'the Town shall not have the right
to require Owner to develop the Project in phases.
3.3 Subdivision of Property. Owner shall have the
right to subdivide, and the Town shall have the obligation to ap-
prove the subdivision of, the Property in a manner consistent
with the Site Plan attached hereto as Exhibit "B". Owner shall
initiate such subdivision through an application for a vesting
tentative map (or, if Owner, in its sole and unfettered discre-
tion, so elects, a tentative map) (the "Subdivision Map") which
the Town shall process under and in accordance with the Existing
Ordinances. The boundary lines of the Lots and Parcels, the lo-
cation of,the streets, the Project open space and the areas to be
dedicated to the Town shall be as shown on the Site Plan. Owner
shall have the right, but may not be required, to merge one or
more of the Lots in order to create larger lots.
3.4 Precise Plan Approval. Owner shall have the
right to obtain precise plan approval, and the Town shall be ob-
ligated to grant precise plan approval, for the Property, pro-
vided that such precise plan is consistent w.ith.,.,.:...and otherwise
conforms to, the standards, terms and conditions contained in
this Agreement. Owner shall initiate such precise plan through
an application which the Town shall process under and in accord-
ance with the Existing Ordinances. The number of Lots, the loca-
tion of streets within the Property, the Project open space and
the areas to be dedicated to the Town which shall be incorporated
into the precise plan approval shall be as shown on the Site
Plan. The following criteria shall be incorporated into the pre-
cise plan and shall be adhered to by Town in connection with the
design review process for the individual Lots:
(a) The Town may not require that the
living area (i.e. excluding garages and decks) of the
residence constructed on Lots 3 through 11, inclusive,
be less than 21500 square feet unless the Owner of the
Lot applies for or consents to approval of a smaller
residence;
(b) The Town may not require that the
living area (i.e. excluding garages and decks) of the
residence constructed on Lots 1, 2 and 12 through 43,
inclusive, (excluding the Lot designated on the Site
Plan as Lot 30, which has been denied approval) be less
than 3,000 square feet, unless the Owner of the Lot
a
7 _
EXHIBIT NO. C
z 0 r Y
applies for or consents to approval of a smaller
residence;
(c) The living area (i.e. excluding
garages and decks) of the residence constructed on Lots
3 through 11, inclusive, shall not be greater than 11
3,500 square feet;
(d)
constructed on any
percent (25%) of t
than 17,400 square
Lot if the Lot has
less;
The lot coverage of the residence
Lot shall not exceed twenty-five
he Lot if the Lot has an area of more
feet or thirty percent (30%) of the
an area of 17,400 square feet or
(e) The front yard setback for all Lots
shall be a minimum of twenty (20) feet;
(f) The side yard setback for all Lots
shall be a minimum of ten (10) feet, provided, however,
that no two residences may be closer together than
twenty-five (25) feet at their adjoining side yards;
(g) The rear yard setbacks for all Lots
(measured from the edge of the ridge or the property
line [whichever creates a greater setback] in the case
of Lots 3 through 9, inclusive, and the
edge of the ridge in the case of Lot 29, and from the
property line in the case of all other Lots) shall be a
minimum of thirty (30) feet, provided, however, that on
Lots 20, 24 and 25 the residences on those Lots can be
as close as twenty-five (25) feet from the residences
on the Lots having a common boundary line with such
Lots, and provided further that the building envelope
for Lot 28 shall be designed to minimize the impact on
oak trees on the Lot and to preserve the two (2 oak
trees located on the Lot which are considered t~ be
over one hundred years old). It is the intention of
this Master Plan approval to allow the construction of
one story houses on Lots 3 through 9 and Lot 11 within
thirty (30) feet from the edge of the ridge and on Lot
10 within thirty feet of the rear property line; and,
(h) The residences to be constructed on
the Lots shall not have a height of greater than thirty
(30) feet, provided, however, that (i) any residence to
be constructed on Lots 3 through 10, inclusive, shall
be one story (i.e. eighteen [18] feet) wherever the
residence is closer than forty (40) feet from the crest
of the hill on such Lot or, in the case of Lot 10,
wherever the residence is closer than forty (40) feet
x
- 8 -
EXHIBIT N0.
P, -5 0~-- Y
C
t
from the rear property line of Lot 10, (ii) the resi-
dence to be constructed on Lot 11 shall be one story
(i.e. eighteen [18] feet), although consideration may
be given to a two story house if the rear yard set back
(measured from the edge of the ridge) in increased by
owner to such a degree that the residence does not un-
duly interfere with the privacy of the house below, and
(iii) the residence to be constructed on Lot 29 shall
not have a height greater than eighteen (18) feet.
The parties acknowledge that the precise plan contemplated
hereunder is an appropriate means to accomplish the purposes
herein specified.
3.5 Design Review Approval. In order to implement
the development provisions herein specified, Owner shall follow
the applicable design review procedures in effect under the Ex-
isting Ordinances. Town's review of owner's applications shall
be made based on the standards and criteria specified in this
Agreement and the Exhibits hereto, the applicable policies em-
bodied in the Town's Current General Plan, and the Existing
Ordinances.
3.6 Building Permits and Other Approvals. Upon ap-
proval of the Subdivision Map pursuant to Section 3.3 above, ap-
proval of the Project precise plan pursuant to Section 3.4 above,
and completion of the design review process ..wi.th^r.espect to any
given Lot or the entire Project pursuant to Section 3.5 above,
Owner shall have the right to apply for any necessary Approvals
under the Building and Fire Codes in effect as Existing Ordin-
ances, pursuant to which applications are judged solely on the
basis of structural and fire safety, as ministerial decisions of
the Town. Town shall issue to Owner, upon such applications, all
necessary building permits, occupancy certificates, or other re-
quired permits for the construction, use and occupancy of the
Project, or any portion thereof, as applied for, including con-
nection to all utility systems under the Town's Juri9diction,
subject to compliance with this Agreement and Town's Building and
Fire Code requirements under the Existing Ordinances.
3.7 Other Governmental Permits. In addition, Owner
shall apply for such other permits and approvals as may be re-
quired from other governmental or quasi-governmental agencies
having jurisdiction over the Project (such as public utilities or
utility districts) for the development of, or provision of serv-
ices to, the Project under the Existing Approvals.
3.8 Fees. Owner shall be obligated to pay the fol-
lowing fees to the Town:
9 EXHIBIT NO.
~ o~y
RESOLUTION NO. 2535
A RESOLUTION OF THE TOWN COUNCIL
OF THE TOWN OF TIBURON APPROVING ,
THE TIBURON HIGHLANDS PRECISE PLAN
AND VESTING TENTATIVE MAP
Section 1. Findings
A. Applicant, R.C. Holdings, Inc., has submitted, and the
' Town of Tiburon has approved, a Master Plan and
Development Agreement for the Tiburon Highlands
Subdivision to develop a parcel of 30 acres of land
located off the extension of upper Cecilia Way and
Warrens Way into 42 single family lots. The Tiburon
Highlands Master Plan was approved by the Town Council
in Ordinance No. 330 N.S., adopted on March 31, 1988.
The Tiburon Highlands Development Agreement was approved
by the Town Council in Ordinance No. 331 N.S., adopted
on March 31, 1988.
B. An Environmental Impact Report and addendum was prepared
1
by John Roberto Associates for this project; was -
reviewed by the Planning Commission, and was then
J' L certified by the Town Council on September 15, 1982.
The adequacy of the documents was reaffirmed by the Town
Council on March 31, 1988.
r C. The Town of Tiburon agreed, at applicant's request, to
consider the Precise Plan and Vesting Tentative Map for
the Tiburon Highlands development in accordance with
Section 3.4 of the approved Development Agreement dated
March 31, 1988.
D. Applicant has submitted a Precise Plan and Vesting
Tentative Map for Tiburon Highlands , proposing the
development of 42. single family residential lots. The
Precise Plan is dscribed as follows: w
1. Maps identified as:
a. Precise Development Plan, Tiburon Highlands,
with building envelopes, dated 4/18/88
(revised 6/88) sheet 1 of 1
b. Landscape Development Plan, Tiburon Highlands,
labelled Supplement to Precise Plan, dated
4/18/88 revised 6/20/88 (1 page)
C. Technical Site Plan/Vested Tentative Map,
Tiburon Highlands, dated 4/18/88 revised
6/30/88 sheet 1 of 3
!,XHIBIT NO.
1
d. Grading Plail/Vested Tentative Map, Tiburon
Highlands, dated 4/18/88 revised 6/30/88 sheet
2 of 3
e. Street & Utility Plan/Vested Tentative Map,
Tiburon Highlands, dated 4/18/88 revised
6/30/88 sheet 3 of 3
2. Written documents identified as:
a. Town Council Ordinance No. 330 N.S., adopted
March 31, 1988, approving the Tiburon
Highlands Master Plan.
b. Recorded Development Agreement, Marin County
Recorder's Serial No. 88-22935 dated March 31,
1988, approved by Town Council Ordinance No.,
331 N.S. on March 31, 1988.
C. Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and"
Restrictions for Tiburon Highlands, dated May
31, 1988.
E. The Vesting Tentative Map is identified as follows:
1. Maps entitled Precise Development Plan, Tiburon
Highlands, dated 4/18/88 (revised 6/88) sheet 1 of
1; Technical Site Plan/Vested. Tentative Map,
Tiburon Highlands, dated 4/18/88 revised 6/30/88
sheet 1 of 3; Grading Plan/Vested Tentative Map,
Tiburon Highlands, dated 4/18/88 revised 6/30/88
sheet 2 of 3; and Streets & Utility Plan/Vested-
Tentative Map, Tiburon Highlands, dated 4/18/88
revised 6/30/88 sheet 3 of 3. (These maps
were also included as items a, c, d and e of the
Precise Plan.)
F. The Town Council and the Planning Commission have held
duly noticed public hearings for the purpose of
reviewing the application and receiving comments and
recommendations from the public.
G. The Town Council finds that the facts presented
establish that the requirements of the Tiburon Zoning
Code for property zoned RPD-2 have been satisfied.
H. The Town Council further finds that the Tiburon
Highlands Precise Plan and Vesting Tentative Map, as
conditioned-herein, conform to the Town's General Plan
and other applicable requirements and regulations, and
substantially conform to the provisions of the approved
Master Plan. -7
I IT NO.
2
I. The Town Council finds that the 42 single family 'snits
proposed, subject to the conditions of approval herein,
are appropriate.
Section 2. Approval
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Town Council
hereby approves the Tiburon Highlands Precise Plan and
Vesting Tentative Map, subject to the following terms and
conditions and as modified herein:
1. The Town Council approves 42 single family residential
building sites as shown on the map identified as the
Precise Development Plan, Tiburon Highlands, dated
4/18/88 (revised 6/88), prepared by CSW Consultants.
2. All requirements and conditions of the Master Plan and
Development Agreement are incorporated herein and all
j such requirements and conditions shall be met.
3. Applicant shall comply with all applicable subdivision
regulations relating to the application for and
recording of a Final Map.
r
4. Applicant shall satisfy the requirements of the
Alto-Richardson Bay Fire District and the Marin
Municipal Water District.
5. All engineering requirements and standards including,
but not limited to, drainage, erosion control, grading,
soils, construction criteria, traffic, and individual
geotechnical evaluation of every lot shall be subject to
review and approval by the Town Engineer.
6. Applicant shall submit improvement plans for the
treatment of all retaining and catchment- walls, if any,
including proposed materials of construction,
landscaping and any other methods of# softening the
appearance of the retaining walls as well as such other
items as the Town may later require for review and
approval by the Board of Adjustments and Review.
7. The Declaration of Covenants, conditions and
Restrictions for the Tiburon Highlands subdivision,
together with all proposed deed and title restrictions,
including scenic easements and offers of dedication
shall be approved by the Town Attorney prior to
recording the Final Map.
ON&
EXHIBIT NO. 7
3
8. The building envelopes and
map entitled Precise
Highlands, dated 4/18/88
attached to and made a
Covenants,. Conditions and
Highlands Subdivision. The
shall minimize the impact
preserve the two oak trees
lot contours, as shown on the
Development Plan, Tiburon
(revised 6/88), shall be
part of the Declaration of
Restrictions for the Tiburon
building envelope for lot 28
on oak trees on the lot and
located on the lot which are
considered to be over 100 years old.
9. No building or grading permits shall be issued for the
construction of any residential or accessory structures
until they have received site plan and architectural
review and approval by the Board of Adjustments and
Review.
10. The design, location, and size of each proposed
residence shall be the subject of hearings before the
Board of Adjustments and Review, which shall give
consideration to whether reasonable efforts have been..
made to minimize the adverse impacts of the proposed
residence on adjoining residences and open space. The
Board may require modification to the design, location
and size of the proposed residence, where necessary to
minimize such adverse impacts, subject to limitations in
the Master Plan and Development Agreement.
11. All buildings and structures shall be designed to
conform to the height limits set forth in the current
Tiburon Zoning Code and as specified in the Master Plan
and Development Agreement.
12. No improvements of any type, including fences, temporary
or otherwise, shall be permitted outside the approved
primary building envelopes, except driveways, retaining
walls associated with driveways or which support
driveways, and decks, or as excepted in the Master Plan
and Development Agreement. w
Lza
13. Construction work shall be permitted Monday through
Friday only and between the hours of 8:00 am and 5:00 pm
only unless specifically authorized in advance by the
Town Manager in limited special circumstances. Noise
generating equipment shall not be started before 7:45
am.
14. No construction equipment or material or excavation
material shall be stored or stockpiled on Town open
space land.- Construction activity in open space areas
of the Tiburon Highlands subdivision shall be limited to
necessary slope, landslide, and drainage improvements as
'approved by the Town Engineer. There shall be minimal
intrusion upon open space areas during construction.
Site preparation shall be restricted to the period T,71y
EXHIBIT No. ~
4
_l
_ 'ti
to October, unless the Town Engineer agrees that
Orem% additional time is within the dry season and that work
can proceed outside such months.
15. The Street and Utility Plan dated 4/18/88 revised
6/30/88 shows all pedestrian trails to be constructed or
improved by the developers within the property and the
connections of those trails to open space, park areas,
adjacent residential areas, schools and local transit
facilities.
=r
J 16. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, an effective
erosion control and winterization plan to be implemented
during grading of the project site shall be submitted to
and approved by the Town Engineer. This plan shall
include detailed measures to control erosion of
stockpiled earth and exposed soil during construction.
Silt traps shall be provided at the project site. The
areas of disturbed soil shall be revegetated immediately
after grading. The applicant shall post a refundable-
security with the Town in a form satisfactory to the
Town Attorney and in an amount to be determined by the
f Town Council, to ensure that the erosion control plan is
effectively carried out. Topsoil is to be added by the
developer on the subdivision as required by the Town
Engineer to be bonded by the developer for a sum
established by the Town.
r,
17. All repair, stabilization and contour grading measures
are as identified on the Technical Site Plan and Grading
Plan, both dated 4/18/88 revised 6/30/88 and approved by
the Town Engineer. Additional assurances may be
required by the Town if additional hazards are
identified at the construction plan stage and throughout.
the period during which construction identified in the
Precise Plan is carried out. In addition to the
landscape plan required as part of the Frecise Plan, a
landscape plan shall be submitted showing proposed
berming, including fencing where appropriate, along the
border of the property, including elevations of existing
and proposed grades with appropriate contours and
elevations. The berms shall minimize the visual impact
of the development and maximize the privacy, peace and
tranquility of the existing neighborhood.
18. The Precise Development Plan dated 4/18/88 (revised
6/88) identifies and establishes the building envelopes
(i.e. building setbacks) and allowable heights for the
residential buildings to be constructed on the lots, per
elm m the following standards:
a. The front yard setback for all lots shall be a
EXHIBIT NO. _7
s
~I
minimum of 20 feet;
b. The side yard setback for all lots shall be a
minimum of 10 feet, provided that no two residences
may be closer together than 25 feet at their
adjoining side yards;
c. The rear yard setbacks for all lots (measured from
the edge of the ridge or the property line,
whichever creates a greater setback, in the case of
lots 3-9, inclusive, and lot 11, from the edge of
the ridge in the case of lot 29, and from the
property line the case of all other lots) shall be a
minimum of 30 feet, provided that on lots 20, 24 and
25 the residences on those lots can be as close as
25 feet from the residences on the lots having a
common boundary line with such lots. It is the
intention of this Precise Plan approval not to allow
the construction of one story houses on lots 3-9 and
lot 11 within 30 feet from the edge of the ridge and
on lot 10 within 30 feet of the rear property line;
d. The residences to be constructed on the lots shall
not have a height of greater than 30 feet, provided
that i) any residence to be constructed on lots
3-10, inclusive, shall be one story (i.e. 18 feet)
wherever the residence is closer than 40 feet from
the crest of the hill on such lot or, in the case of
lot 10, wherever the residence is closer than 40
feet from the rear property line of lot 101 ii) the
residence to be constructed on on lot 11 shall be
one story (i.e. 18 feet), although consideration may
be given to a two story house if the rear yard
setback (measured from the edge of the ridge) is
increased by the owner to such a degree that the
residence does not unduly interfere with the privacy
of the house below, and iii) the residence to be
constructed on lot 29 shall not have a height
greater than 18 feet;
e. The lot coverage of the residence constructed on any
lot shall not exceed 25% of the lot if the lot has
an area of more than 17,400 square feet or 306 of
the lot if the lot has an area of 17,400 square feet
or less;
f. The Town may not require.that the living area
(e.e. e:{cluding garages and decks) of the residence
constructed on lots 3-111 inclusive, be less than
21500 square feet unless the owner of the lot
applies for or consents to approval of a smaller
residence;
6 1 N~-1IBIT NO. _7__
S
The Town may not require that the living area
(i.e. excluding garages and decks) of the residence
constructed on lots 1, 2 and 12-42, inclusive,
(excluding the lot designated as lot ..;30 on the
Master Plan, which has been denied approval) be less
than 3,000 square feet, unless the owner of the lot
applies for or consents to approval of a smaller
residence; .
y1 ~R!
19 .
N-
MF{(
20•
h. The living area (i.e. excluding garages and decks)
of the residence constructed on lots 3-11,
inclusive, shall not be greater than 3,500 square
feet.
The applicant's sole obligation with respect to the
provision of low/moderate income housing shall be as set
forth in the Conditional Stipulated Settlement entered
into by and between the Town and the owner and
pertaining to the litigation described in the
Development Agreement. 11
Fees shall be in accordance with Section 3.8 of the
:approved Development Agreement dated March 31, 1988.
21. The Streets and Utility Plan dated 4/18/88 revised
6/30/88 shows a sidewalk on only one side of the street
as required by the Town Engineer. This sidewalk is in
front of lots 29 through 37 on that portion of Cecilia
Way and in front of lots 4 through 11 on the other
portion. The cul-de-sacs contain no sidewalks.
22. The Declaration of Conditions, Covenants and
Restrictions should be modified as stated in the June
..241 1988, letter from Thomas Sherwood, attached as
Exhibit A, and it is the intent of the Town Council that
the conditions in that letter be fulfilled.
23. The Declaration of Conditions, 4Covenants and
Restrictions (CC&R's) shall state that the street trees
are to be planted by the property owner in accordance
with the Master Landscaping Plan designating the type of
tree, height, etc. Language should be added to the
CC&R's that in the open space existing vegetation will
remain and that the Homeowners' Association is to
maintain existing landscaping and prohibit changing the
vegetation to a form of cultivated vegetation such as
vegetable gardens, etc. On CC&R's dated 5/31/88 page 17
item 3 third line the words "soils condition" should be
added between "improvement" and "or" to allow the
Homeowners' Association to repair slides and perform
other soils correction work as may be required upon
individual parcels if the individual owner fails to do
so. The CC&R's Architectural Review Section should
include notification to the Homeowners' that they must
7 EXHIBIT NO. '7
.
a
r;
comply with all Town ordinances and requirements in
addition to the architectural limitations listed in that
section.
24. The land shown
access easement
accepted by the
and conditions
Agreement.
on the tentative map as a pedestrian
and public utility easement shall be
Town in accordance with the provisions
of Section 4.4 of the Development
25. Lot 28 has been reduced in size to 10,400 square feet as
shown on the Precise Development Plan dated 4/18/88
(revised 6/88) and language shall be incorporated in the
deed restriction to lot 28 that designates the 2 large,
100 year old oak trees as part of the common open space.,.
26. The Landscape Plan dated 4/18/88 revised 6/20/88 that
has been submitted meets the requirements of the Town
Council, and has been revised to delete reference to the.-
removal of one redwood at the end of Southridge Drive
cul-de-sac because no redwoods will be removed from that
cul-de-sac. This revised Landscape Plan should be -
considered as a conceptual master plan for the planting
..of all areas outside the lots and those areas within the
tots 29 through 37 below the building envelope to
provide screening and other visual mitigations for the
property owners along Leland Way. This landscape plan `
sets the type of street trees or other street plants to
be used in the front yards. This landscape plan
indicates that the street trees will be planted by
individual homeowners and the CC&R's shall so state.
This landscape plan contains a well-thought-out concept
for landscaping the area below lots 29 through 37 that
emphasizes contours rather than lot lines. The
implementation of the Landscape Plan, guaranteeing the
plants through a maintenance period of 3 years, is
essential.
.PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meetins of the Town
Council of the Town of Tiburon on July 20, 1988 by the
following vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Coxhead, Logan, Mayberry,
Duke
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: Shaw
4 LAWRENCE DUKE, MAYOR
Town of iburon
ATTEST:
R. L. KLEINERT, TOWN MANAGER/CLERK
tcres7-6 . LTR
Includes Exhibit A
Draft 7/l/88mms
Revised 7/15/88mms
Revised 7/20/88tmh
w
i`
EXHIBIT NO.7
9
i
TOWN COUNCIL POLICY 95-01
PROCEDURE FOR APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION, DESIGN REVIEW
BOARD, OR ADMINISTRATIVE DECISION TO THE TOWN COUNCIL
An appeal form, along with the required filing fee, must be filed with the Town Clerk not more than 10
calendar days following the decision being appealed. If the final day to appeal files on a Town-recognized
holiday or a day when Town Hall is closed, the final day to appeal shall be extended to the next day at
which Town Hall is open for public business.
2. If the applicant files the appeal, a filing fee deposit of $500.00 is required. Any remainder will be
refunded; additional staff time or costs to process the appeal will be billed per the Town's hourly rate
schedule or at cost. If the appellant is not the applicant, then a flat $300.00 filing fee is required.
3. In the appeal form, the appellant shall state specifically the reasons why the decision is not in accord with
the purposes of the Zoning Ordinance or other applicable regulations, or the reasons it is claimed there was
an error or abuse of discretion such that the decision is not supported by evidence in the record or is
otherwise improper. As a general rule, all issues upon which an appeal is based must have been raised
prior to the decision being appealed.
4. All grounds on which the appeal is based must be stated in the appeal form filed with the Town Clerk.
Issues raised at a later time which were not raised in the appeal form need not be addressed by Staff nor
considered by the Town Council in making a decision on the appeal.
5. The Town Staff will notify the appellant and applicant of the Council hearing date as soon as it is
determined. Requests for postponement of an appeal hearing are not usually granted unless by mutual
agreement of applicant and appellant (see attached Resolution for further details).
6. The procedure for presentation of the appeal at the Town Council meeting is as described below. In cases
where the applicant and appellant is the same person, paragraph (c) below would not apply.
(a) Town Staff will make a brief presentation (10 minutes maximum) of the matter and then respond
to.Town Council questions.
(b) Appellant and/or appellant's representative(s) may make a presentation (20 minutes maximum)
and then respond to Town Council questions. Appellant may divide up the 20 minutes between
various speakers or have one speaker use all 20 minutes, so long as the time limit is observed.
(c) Applicant and/or applicant's representative(s) may make a presentation (20 minutes maximum)
and then respond to Town Council questions. Applicant may divide up the 20 minutes between
various speakers or have one speaker use all 20 minutes, so long as .the tine limit is observed.
(d) Any interested member of the public may speak on the item (maximum three (3)
minutes). A speaker representing multiple persons (homeowner's association,
advocacy group or official organization, etc.) will be granted a five (5) minute
speaking time.
(e) Appellant is entitled to a five (5) minute rebuttal of any comments previously made at the hearing.
The public portion of the item is closed and the item returned for deliberation by the Town Council. There
will be no more public input accepted unless specifically requested by the Town Council.
The Town Council will make a decision on the appeal or continue discussion to a specified date. Following
a decision by the Town Council, Staff will return with an appropriate resolution at the next meeting.
Accepted by Town Council 3/15/95
Revised 3/16/2003 to reflect new filing fees
EXHIBIT NO.__8
TOWN OF TIBURON
LAND DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION
TYPE OF APPLICATION
0 Conditional Use Permit
-b Precise Development Plan
0 Secondary Dwelling Unit
0 Zoning Text Amendment
0 Rezoning or Prezoning
0 General Plan Amendment
0 Change of Address
0 Design Review (DRB)
0 Design Review (Staff level)
O Variance
0 Floor Area Exception
O Tidelands Permit
O Sign Permit
0 Tree Permit
0 Tentative Subdivision Map
0 Final Subdivision Map
O Parcel Map
O Lot Line Adjustment
O Condominium Use Permit
O Certificate of Compliance
C,OtherSingle Lot Residential
Amendment
APPLICANT REQUIRED INFORMATION
SITE ADDRESS: 14 Cecilia Ct.
PARCEL NUMBER: 034-36030
PROPERTY SIZE: 0.24 acre
ZONING: RPD
OWNER OF PROPERTY: David & Dipanwita Reis
MAILING ADDRESS: 15 Upper Cecilia Way CITY/STATE/ZIPTiburon CA 94920
PHONE NUMBER: 415-888-3722 FAX
APPLICANT: (Other than Property Owner) Greg LeDoux & Associates,
MAILING ADDRESS: 48 West Sierra Avenue, Cotati, CA 94931
PHONE NUMBER: 707-795-8855 FAX
ARCHITECT/DESIGNER/ENGINEER: Greg LeDoux & Associates, Inc.
MAILING ADDRESS. 48 west Sierra Avenue, Cotati, CA 94931
Please indicate with an asterisk persons to whom Town correspondence should be sent.
BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED PROJECT (attach separate sheet if needed):
Expansion of Guest Room and Bathroom into the rear part of an existing
tandem aaraae stall Enclosina an existina courtyard.
The above work increases the approved floor area of the previous precise
plan for the lot
1, the undersigned owner (or authorized agent) of the property herein described, hereby make applicatio,p
for approval of the plans submitted and made a part of this application in accordance with the provisions
of the Town Municipal Code, and I hereby certify that the information given is true and correct to the best
-of my knowledge and belief.
I understand that the requested approval is for my benefit (or that of my principal). Therefore, if the Town
grants the approval, with or without conditions, and that action is challenged by a third party, I will be
responsible for defending against this challenge. I therefore agree to accept this responsibility for
defense at the request of the Town and also agree to defend, indemnify and hold the Town harmless
from any costs, ci rils or liabilities arising from the approval, including, without limitation, any award of
attorney's fees t .at n':ight. result frg.rfi the third party challenge.
*Signature: 1Ay 1441,_~ A5~2,-. Date:
~v~ 4!~/ ;
*/f other than owner, mu t have letter from owner
DO NOT WRITE BELOW THIS LINE
DE 'AP NtNTAE,,PROGESSIta (G?$a~sINEORtVIATION
I e - . } .ice ♦4 F•. J1Y .,,71't ; , ~2r•J.i rx a , J {
y a, l`~ ,fee De osit (~1
rt G t~
Application No ' ( " GPEDesinfionf b+ -AN
gel
I t i tf 1 n1' ,i+. '~-•'J'C.•'c'• K"< l` l I r F y z
J eceipt3f$"
Date Received L1 ~I u;Received4By i'Sp
L t w}
'-,''K^r_,• R,g
Date Deemed Complete !T~ IBy
f - i.- Y~ .t i 7 max, c ,xlY•~r , {
t: to r3 e`b { K ?41'. r ,
Actinq Body Action) r,,~~;~ r3 Date lT, r
.r R olution'or Ordlrance;#
Conditions 6'i4 pproval or Comments Jw } ;gij
Inc.*
707-795-0730
X11 BIT N0. 9
I? t c~ 3
L E D O U x RECEIVED
& ASSOCIATES, INC.
ARCHITECTURE & PLANNING
DECG6011
PLANNING DIVISION
Project Description of a Residential Remodel and Addition for:
The Reis Residence
14 Cecilia Court
Tiburon, CA
APN 034-360-30
This application is for a Precise Plan - Single Lot Residential Amendment. Please refer to the
Drawings and Project Data on sheet 'T1' for information not included in this description.
We are proposing to change the use of previously developed space which increases the original
maximum floor area of living space allowed by the prior approval.
The scope of work includes:
Remodel
A remodel of the kitchen and path to the garage (no area change).
Conversion of use
Infill of the rear portion of the existing tandem garage stall to create a Guest Room and Guest Bath.
(Change 203 s.f. of garage into Living Space and convert 4.4 s.f. of living to garage. Net change is 198.6
s.f. additional living.)
Infill
Expansion of the existing Living Room into the existing open Courtyard. (Change 116.7 s.f. of courtyard
with one open side into living space.)
The net additional area to living space is 315.3 square feet.
Fenestration Changes
East exterior wall: One door will be relocated and two windows added.
Courtyard: Two sets of windows and a pair of doors will be removed. A, pair of doors will be
included at the new exterior wall section and a flat roof will be added which replaces the trellis.
Discussion:
Tiburon Highlands Precise Plan
The precise plan was required by the Town as a way to control development within a newly created
subdivision that had various topographical and other features that were specific to that area. As such, it
became an amendment to the zoning ordinance controlling land use for residential development. Within
the document, standards were set forth regarding such items as:
1. Building Setbacks (envelopes and separation of buildings).
2. Building Heights (also relating to setbacks and views).
3. Minimum Floor areas (establishing building/property values).
4. Maximum Floor areas (controlling the bulk and mass and lot coverage).
5. Open space and preservation of various amenities.
6. Grading and drainage controls (also to reduce cut and fill on hillsides).
7. Landscaping (aesthetics and erosion control).
8. The structures on each lot required site plan and architectural review approval by the Board
of Adjustments and Review. Such approval then became part of the precise plan for that lot.
48 WEST SIERRA AVENUE COTATI, CA 94931
TEL. (707) 795-8855 FAY,. (707) 795.0730
E:XHIBIT NO.
P -2- 0 r ~
Requested Amendment to the Precise Plan
once approval has been granted, the only way to make changes which vary from the approval is to go
thru an amendment process as we are doing. Since each lot presented an individual case by case
subjective review of the project, relating to the intent of the precise plan, any amendments to that plan
should reflect the same criteria.
In considering the merits of our proposed changes, the thing that stands out the most is that we
developing living space with the confines of the existing structure. We are not reducing setbacks,
increasing height or changing the exterior in any significant way that would impact anyone in the
neighborhood. The limit of 3,500 square feet for the down-slope lots along this street was undoubtedly
established to control the building bulk and mass and allow for view corridors from the upper properties
in the neighborhood. By capturing some of the rear of the existing garage (tandem stall not required for
parking) and the courtyard (already enclosed by three walls, with the new wall in line with the other
corners) we do nothing to change the bulk or mass and little to the lot coverage (still within the
allowable). The original restriction of living space square footage has served its purpose for the already
built-out subdivision. As long as an application such as this does not change the intent of the precise
plan, then it should not set any precedent that may be of concern for future applications from other
properties. This is truly a unique situation that deserves a positive response.
EXHIBIT NO.
P, 3 of 3
.
° <3
,
ir-
.
N
41:
,
•
t
'
.
2.i
++iT
yP
Y
~ f .
,
I
Imp
y {
•
-
~
~
V
Y
•
4
~
u
d
e
fR♦F
d
'k.# .-',y
~y
#,~'3~_
t R. _
~ #
1
J
RS
-
a • ~ r
c
~
1N'.
~ " ~
•a' ~ ryi elm.
.
.
x"
42 A
l
ok
€ty~ _
+
~
: ~ ;
i 1 I
7
- ~
~~'16' la' 3
L
4
ate.
G
•
w
IWA
Y
lb.
74
to _
' S, Y.~..1a"ta. Y3.c
s~
~
'ti. : ~ Y
R// f'~ .
..c~t.G_
ct•~h. .
aL~~'s
■
•
It /
1
1
•
1 ~ ~
•
•
It
•
1
1
•
•
1
Page 1 of l
Connie Cashman 1r -.I~ tL_-#'--
From: Dan Watrous
Sent: Monday, January 09, 2012 3:11 PM
To: alIPC
Cc: Connie Cashman; Scott Anderson
Subject: FW: 14 Cecilia Court
RECEIVED
Late mail for 14 Cecilia Court...
JAN 0 9 2 012
-
Daniel M. Watrous
Planning Manager
PLANNING DIVISION
Town of Tiburon
(415) 435-7393
From: msceig [mailto:mscelg@yahoo.com]
Sent: Monday, January 09, 2012 2:27 PM
To: Dan Watrous
Subject: 14 Cecilia Court
Hi Dan,
Thank you for you help. I am sorry but for some reason I can not attach these files so I
am pasting instead. There are going to be 2 emails.
Best Regards,
Ann Solomon
January 9, 2012
Mr. Dan Watrous, Senior Planner
Town of Tiburon
1505 Tiburon Blvd.
Tiburon, CA 94920
Re: Tiburon Planning Commission January 11, 2012 hearing on proposal for 14 Cecilia
Court
I want to recommend a postponement of any action as: a
1.notification to nearby property owners was delayed and those who should have had
notification were not in receipt of the mailing as of 1/8/2012.
2.Town Hall was closed for the holidays 12123/2011 until 1/3/2012 and it was not
possible to review property information during that time.
3.The Town website was not functioning over the holidays.
4.The information relating to this proposal was filed under the wrong date at the
website, as of 1/8/2012.
Sincerely,
Ann Solomon
37 Reed Ranch Road
Tiburon, CA 94920
EXHIBIT NO.
P, i UF- 3
1 /9/2012
LATE MAIL # ?oow
REE ,
January 9, 2012 JAN 0 9 L U i l
Mr. Dan Watrous, Planning Manager PLANNING DIVISION
Town of Tiburon
1505 Tiburon Blvd.
Tiburon, CA 94920
Re: Tiburon Planing Commission January 11, 2012 hearing on proposal
for 14 Cecilia Court
I am concerned by the precedent the proposed amendment of The Tibu-
ron Highlands Precise Plan would create.
• The existing plan was the result of protracted and difficult compromises.
• The changes requested are not consistent with the overall intent of the
Tiburon Highlands Precise Plan.
• The relationship between Reedlands and Highlands residents is still fre-
quently delicate and contentious.
• The Marin County Assessor shows 14 Cecilia Court as currently having
3,546 square feet of living area not the originally approved 3,493 square
feet, nor the applicant's claim of 3,527 square feet. So it is unclear what
the final square footage would be if approved. Would it be 3,937 square
feet and not the applicant's 3,884 square feet? The submitted drawings
cover page states a proposed 3,844 square feet and the notice from the
town states a proposed 3,884 square feet.
• After construction of the Highlands homes above the Reedlands it was
found that some rear yard setbacks were not as approved. As a result 37
and 39 Reed Ranch sold a portion of land to the adjoining properties of
14 and 6 Cecilia Court, which had appropriated the land. Another
Highland neighbor of 37 Reed Ranch Road had expropriated the rear
contiguous 20 feet of that property. Oversized homes on undersized lots
create problems for all concerned.
The proposal is not consistent with stated Town of Tiburon guidelines.
The amendment if approved could encourage all 42 properties of the
Highlands to seek similar amendments. This is a potential to increase
development all along a ridge which is seen both coming into and leav-
ing Tiburon. It is not in the spirit of the Ridge Guidelines.
EXHIBIT NO.
l
P. z OFS
• Decreasing off street parking to 2 while increasing bedrooms to 5 most
likely would add to street parking which the town prefers to reduce.
• Because of the high percent lot coverage of the Highlands homes there
is no landscaping to break the facades and lessen the mass when the
homes are seen from afar or below. Other than low shrubbery, the
greenery seen is mostly from trees growing on the Reedlands lots below.
As the current trees die and are not replaced due to view ordinances the
homes of the Highlands will appear larger than they do now.
If this home were to be proposed today would be limited to 3,000 sq.ft.
Which is a FAR of 28.5%. The Highland Precise Plan allowed for a big-
ger house with a 33% FAR. If the plan is going to be changed then Ti-
buron's FAR, Setbacks and Coverage should apply. Whether the final
square footage is 3,937 square feet with a FAR of 37.4% or the appli-
cant's 3,884 square feet with a FAR of 36.9% the mass of this
home exceeds the most generous of the FARs currently in use.
14 Cecilia Court as well as some other homes in the Tiburon Highlands
are already massive and looming and prominently visible from many
parts of Tiburon.
As a recent renter for 2 years and purchaser of the subject property at 14
Cecilia Court and another home in the development, I feel the applicant
has been well aware of the Precise Plan. I hope that the Planning Com-
mission will determine that there is insufficient need to amend the Tiburon
Highlands Precise Plan at this time.
Sincerely yours,
Ann Solomon
37 Reed Ranch Road
Tiburon, CA 94920
EXHIBIT NO. 1)
P. 3 OF3
To Dan Watrous
Tiburon Town Hall Offices RECEIVED
1505 Tiburon Blvd LATE MAI-L #
Tiburon, Ca 94920 L JAN 0 0 2 0 11 2
Dear Mr Watrous,
PLANNING DIVISION
The Tiburon Highlands is asking to amend the maximum allowable floor area be amended
which would change their precise plan.
I am requesting that your office not allow this change regarding 14 Cecilia Court from 3,493 to 3,884.
Mary J 165e ~'Y
31 Reed Ranch Rd.
Tiburon, Ca 94920
EXHIBIT NO. I
Page 1 of 1
Dan Watrous LATE MAI-L # Zoo,
From: Jo Reilly L1o.reilly99@yahoo.com] RECEIVED
Sent: Wednesday, January 11, 2012 10:33 AM JAN 112012
To: Dan Watrous
PLANNING DIVISION
Subject: Public Hearing, January 11, 2012 14 Cecilia Court
We are not able to attend the public hearing tonight considering the application by
David andDipanwita Reis to increase the maxmum allowable floor area for their
lot from 3,500 sq. ft. to 3,884 sq. ft.
We live on Reed Ranch Road and request that your offce not allow this request.
Thank you,
Joanne and Tom Reilly
43 Reed Ranch Road
EXHIBIT N0. 103
1/11/2012
RECEIVED
JAN 11210112
To: the Tiburon Planning Commission
PLANNING DIVISION
Re: Application to Amend the Tiburon Highlands Precise Plan for increased maximum
allowable floor area for real property located at 14 Cecilia Court, Tiburon, Ca. Marin
County Assessor Parcel # 034-360-30.
The undersigned oppose the application.
'SIGNATURE
ADDRESS
PRINT`NAME
t
%,F
F5P~f~R
v i C~~;
7 u~!►~ a
Ll ~4
K
EXHIBIT N0.