Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutTC Digest 2012-07-27TOWN COUNCIL WEEKLY DIGEST Week of July 23 - 27, 2012 Tiburon 1. Email - Dellie Woodring - Regarding Library Project Agendas & Minutes 2. Minutes - Design Review Board - June 21, 2012 3. Action Minutes - Design Review Board - July 19, 2012 4. Agenda - Design Review Board - August 2, 2012 Regional o a) The Yodeler - Sierra Club Newsletter - August/September 2012 b) Rail-Volution - Conference - October 14-17, 2012 * c) The Voice - Newsletter - Sound & Communications Technology News d) Comcast California - Newsletter - June 2012 * Agendas & Minutes e) None * Council Only Page 1 of 1 Diane Crane lacopi From: Califdell@aol.com Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2012 2:20 PM To: Mayor, Jim Fraser Cc: askalicenow@usa.net; rctib2@gmail.com; Vice Mayor, Emmett O'Donnell; Councilmember Frank Doyle; Peggy Curran; Scott Anderson; Diane Crane lacopi Subject: Good job Hi Jim - thank you for hanging in there. You did a terrific job orchestrating a long evening and trying to guide your council down the right path. You and Dick truly have heard the community - to build consensus would not be a bad thing. Also, and I should have said this last night (of course) - part of the next generation's education is to realize and appreciate what those before them have accomplished. I am referring to the bond issue that was passed to pay for the preservation of Open Space and Old St. Hilary in that parcel. Sometimes less is more..... and we don't always need materialism to appreciate educational opportunities, beauty, learning environment. Thank you for understanding how important the preservation of that view from Tiburon Boulevard is to a large part of our town. A building can NEVER take its place. Sincerely, Dellie 7/27/2012 C2 0 MINUTES #9 TIBURON DESIGN REVEW BOARD MEETING OF JUNE 219 2012 The meeting was opened at 7:00 p.m. by Chair Kricensky. A. ROLL CALL Present: Chairman Kricensky, Vice-Chair Emberson and Boardmembers Johnson and Tollini Absent: Boardmember Chong Ex-Officio: Planning Manager Watrous, Associate Planner Tyler and Minutes Clerk Harper B. PUBLIC COMMENTS - None C. STAFF BRIEFING Planning Manager Watrous stated that the item for 87 Rancho Drive was continued to the July 19, 2012 meeting. He stated that no items were currently scheduled for the July 5th meeting, which may be cancelled. He noted that the Council will hear two appeals from neighbors opposing previously approved DRB items: l) 2308 Mar East scheduled for August 15~', and 2) 440 Ridge Road scheduled for September 5t". D. OLD BUSINESS 1. 10 CIBRIAN DRIVE: File No. 711124; Diane Lee, Owner; Site Plan and Architectural Review for construction of additions to an existing single-family dwelling. The applicants propose to construct a 546 square foot addition above the lower level of the existing house. The project would result in a total floor area of 3,772 square feet. Assessor's Parcel No. 038-011-40. The applicant has submitted revised plans which indicate that the area of addition has been pulled back horizontally four feet (4') on the west side and six feet (6') on the east side. This would scale back the size of the addition by approximately seventy (70) square feet. The proposal would therefore, increase the floor area of the home by 546 square feet, for a total gross floor area of 3,772 which is below the maximum permitted gross floor area for the property (5,625 sq. ft.). The chimney has also been pulled back with the shift in addition, and has been modified from a wood burning to a gas fireplace. The chimney is therefore smaller than the existing wood burning chimney. Tony Lee, designer, stated that they met with neighbors and their architect and all have mutual agreement to remove the existing horizontal chimney and to cut the addition back 4 feet on the front and 6 feet on the back. The public hearing was opened. Jim Mallot, representing Mark Loupe and Annette Harris, said they have met, agree with the plans, and felt that it was a reasonable compromise. The public hearing was closed. TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES #9 6/21/12 Boardmember Tollini thought that this was a fair outcome and he thanked the applicant for their patience and for coming up with something that works. The other Boardmembers agreed and thanked the applicant for working this out. ACTION: It was M/S (Tollini/Emberson) that the request for 10 Cibrian Drive is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act and approving the request, subject to the attached conditions of approval. Vote: 4-0. E. PUBLIC HEARINGS AND NEW BUSINESS 2. 1 BLACKFIELD DRIVE: File No. 712054; The Cove Shopping Center, Inc., Owner; Site Plan and Architectural Review for construction of exterior alterations to an existing commercial building for occupancy by a grocery store (Fresh & Easy Market). The project would modify the existing entrance of the building, parking lot and loading docks and would install additional rooftop mechanical equipment for the new grocery store. Assessor's Parcel No. 034-212-18. The applicant is requesting Design Review approval for the construction of exterior alterations to an existing commercial building for occupancy by a new grocery store (Fresh & Easy Market) on property located in the Cove Shopping Center at 1 Blackfield Drive. The commercial building on the subject site has been previously occupied by various different grocery store/markets, most recently Delano/IGA Market, and is currently vacant. The following improvements would be constructed as part of this application: • The entry would be modified with a new entrance at the center of the building, eliminating the two existing entrances on either side of the center of the building. A new handicapped accessible ramp would be leading to the new entrance, and the two existing ramps would be removed. An existing awning above the entrance would be removed. • Two new parking spaces would be installed in the location of the existing handicapped ramps, and one new parking space is proposed at the rear of the building. Three existing parking spaces would be removed to make room for shopping cart corrals and for better truck access to the rear of the site. • The existing loading docks on the rear of the building would be removed and replaced with new ramps, along with a mechanical lift. • Four (4) new pieces of mechanical equipment would be installed on the rooftop. Planning Manager Watrous stated that the Board was provided with revised conditions of approval. He stated that items D-G of Condition #10 were carried over from a different project and should be deleted. Staff also recommended that since the project is in a flood zone, a condition should require the project to comply with the flood damage prevention ordinance. He recommended Condition # 14, which would prohibit outdoor display of merchandise for sale. He stated that the current use has been a grocery store since it opened and the CUP on file does not have anything relating to hours of operation or delivery hours. He stated that neighbors notified staff that a sign on the back of the store indicating that delivery hours had for the previous grocery store had been from 7:00 a.m. until 11:00 a.m. only. He said that modification to extend these hours would normally require approval of a CUP. He said that staff would support extending the 11:00 a.m. time somewhat as noise impacts are generally created during the evening and suggested Board discussion on this point. TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES #9 6/21/12 Vice Chair Emberson questioned if limits on hours on Sundays was also mentioned. Mr. Watrous said that the sign did not state that deliveries were restricted on any particular day. Boardmember Johnson asked what the delivery conditions are for the CVS store. Mr. Watrous stated that CVS had a new CUP since the use was changed and did not believe they were prohibited on Sundays, but said deliveries could not occur before 8:00 a.m. Schuylar Jackson, real estate'director for Fresh & Easy Neighborhood Market, introduced Dan Scott, with Nadel Architects and said that they were available to answer questions about the store and design elements. Regarding delivery hours, Mr. Jackson said that it was imperative to be able to make deliveries every day because of their product line in the store. Regarding hours, he said that the 7:00 a.m. start would work for them, but they believed that ending at 11:00 a.m. was quite restrictive. He said that ideally they would like to be able to have flexibility for deliveries from 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. which would allow their trucks as well as third party vendors to deliver goods. Boardmember Tollini questioned and confirmed that a separate sign application would return to the Board. Mr. Jackson described their intent to add their panel onto the main Cove Shopping Center panel, with a sign on their store. Vice Chair Emberson asked for specifications for outside lights and the color and materials board. Dan Scott stated that the packet shows a dark grey color for the light fixtures and clarified that lights would be LED downlights. The public hearing was opened. Ghazaleh Jamei voiced concerns with the mechanical equipment on the roof which call for up to 95 decibels, while the Town regulations limit noise to 65 decibels. She said that this would cause background fan noise and constant noise from the mechanical units operating 8-10 hours a day and this would keep them from being able to use their backyard. She said that the screen proposed for the front of the unit would almost double the height of the existing building at the edge. She said that the building was already massive and covers her entire backyard. She said that they have one small corridor of a view of the hills which would be lost with the proposed wall. She requested the Board require relocation of the mechanical units to the west side of the building and away from residences. She referred to trimming of trees and said that she paid for and planted large bamboo trees which do not lean on their property and do not want them trimmed. She added that the narrow road adjacent to their fence has been hit by trucks numerous times and she requested installing bollards to protect the fence. Murray Dunn said that he lives next to the shopping center and while the community is very excited to have a new supermarket, it was difficult for those people who live next door to support a 7 day-a-week, 12-hour delivery window. He said that their backyards border this area and it would create tremendous noise pollution. He also questioned noise impacts from the new scissor lift which would be installed which had not been discussed. Mr. Scott referred to the rooftop mechanical unit and said that after- doing a study of this building and looking at how the roof is framed, it was challenging to place these units in any other location because of duct work inside the building. He described the interior framing of the building and the difficulties with placing the equipment elsewhere. He stated that the screen wall height had been raised 3 feet higher than the unit by recommendation of sound experts in order to mitigate the noise from the units. He said that they have designed the screen wall denser, using two layers of plywood, using sound dampening material between layers, lining the inside with sound absorbing materials, and raising the height of the wall to address sound energy which falls. He said that their sound expert was confident that the measures will TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES #9 6/21/12 reduce sound to 65 decibels as required by the Town, and noted that the staff recommendation calls for the design be tested after construction. He said that if the sound measures fail, they will address it at that time. Regarding trimming trees, Mr. Scott said that they would only trim plant material back that crosses over the fence line and interferes with trucks. He said that Fresh & Easy conducted a test to see if trucks could get their vehicle on site, and was willing to install a sign for the driver to warn them of the tight turn to avoid hitting the fence. Vice Chair Emberson questioned and confirmed that there was room to install bollards along the fence. She asked if there was a quieter HVAC unit and asked if CVS had to dampen the sound of their compressors. Mr. Watrous said that CVS did not have to and it was a completely different roof structure. Mr. Jackson said that when the issue came up they discussed other types of HVAC units, but unfortunately there were none that would make any less noise than what was proposed. He said that they are including several mitigation factors up front to attempt to get the noise level down or below 65 decibels which will be tested. He said that if the units fail the test, they will add further mitigation efforts. He stated that they were constrained in terms of relocating the mechanical equipment because of the duct work. Boardmember Johnson asked if there were existing HVAC units on the roof. Mr. Scott said that there is a shack behind the building and they believe this is the compressor house, but they have no as-built plans. Mr. Jackson said that the shack is also over a public utility easement which would make it difficult to put something like an HVAC unit or compression unit over it. Chair Kricensky said one speaker asked about the sound from the scissor lift and questioned if it would cause noise impacts. Mr. Jackson said that the only time the lift would be used is when making deliveries. Mr. Watrous noted that the scissor lift has a 5 horsepower motor, so it was most likely pretty quiet. Boardmember Johnson asked and confirmed that most deliveries are done with large trailers and that they did conduct a test to ensure the trucks could maneuver in and out easily. Mr. Jackson added that they would propose putting additional signage to warn drivers of the fence instead of bollards which would cause damage to their trucks. Mr. Watrous asked if the applicant wished to address the recommendation about the one parking space next to the shopping cart corral which was Condition #11. Mr. Scott said that they conducted a study which showed that a truck driver could run over a car or get stuck in the drive aisle and block everybody. They recommended removing the space and they will relocate it. He said that the net number of parking spaces would therefore not be reduced. Mr. Watrous confirmed that there would be no net change, and the parking lot today has enough or more parking for the center from a code standpoint. Vice Chair Emberson voiced concern with circulation out of the center and the steps coming out of the front of the store which opens up to moving vehicles. Mr. Scott noted that that area is very open and would not be the only way down, as there would be stairs on either side which would not be blocked. Vice Chair Emberson questioned and confirmed landscaping is not being proposed in the plan; however, Mr. Jackson stated that they would not object to this. In addressing the 12-hour delivery window, Mr. Jackson stated that typically retailers want to maximize hours for delivery and that their standard delivery hours are 6:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m. Knowing and taking TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES #9 4 6/21/12 into account the proximity of neighbors, he proposed a 12 hour window until 7:00 p.m. and clarified that the store hours would be from 8:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. The public hearing was closed. Vice Chair Emberson questioned if other boardmembers had concern regarding people walking out to the parking lot and safety issues. Boardmember Tollini said that he did not and thought that this would be an improvement over what currently exists and there are other ways of getting in and out. Mr. Watrous briefly described the Woodlands Market store entrance which leads people out to a one-way aisle which is narrower. Vice Chair Emberson voiced concern with the lack of landscaping. She suggested locating planter boxes or containers in front of the store and pointed out available space. Boardmember Tollini stated that while he supported greenery, there was a limited frontage and a lot of the space is taken up with the ramp. He would encourage hanging plants or pots, but did not believe it should be part of the design approval. Boardmember Johnson noted that there was opportunity for the entire center to add some landscaping and not for this particular applicant. Vice Chair Emberson pointed out the fact that there are a couple of bee hives in the back of the store and she asked that these not be destroyed, but relocated. Mr. Jackson agreed that these would be relocated. Vice Chair Emberson asked for ideas on the HVAC relocation. Boardmember Tollini said that as long as remediation techniques are used and it complies with the noise statutes, he thought that it would be better use of the space to put the units on the roof as long as the outcome will work. He said that the other alternative would be to put it in the front of the store which would hurt the aesthetics of the Spanish tile roof. Boardmember Johnson asked if the Town measures the noise levels. Mr. Watrous said that the owner would have to hire a qualified acoustical engineer to take measurements and present this to the Town for review. Vice Chair Emberson said that she supported installation of bollards to protect the neighbors' fence and did not think a sign would suffice, especially at night. In addition, she believed that the 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. delivery hours were too long a time to listen to delivery truck noise, and suggested it be changed to 7:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Boardmember Johnson agreed, stating that the previous delivery hours of 7:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m. were not realistic, and that allowing hours until 5:00 p.m. would be more realistic and align the hours with those of other businesses in the center. Boardmember Tollini stated that a 5:00 end time would align with most peoples' expectations of a workday and would prevent noises from occurring while neighbors are having dinner. Chair Kricensky agreed, stating that the store must realize how close the building is to residences, and that the residents have to realize that they bought homes next to a grocery store. Chair Kricensky voiced disappointment with the size of the screen walls but did not believe they could be set back. He asked about the Board's feelings about requiring bollards, and Boardmember Tollini suggested strategically locating them in a couple of areas that would likely be impacted by trucks. Mr. Watrous suggested a condition of approval be added to state that safety bollards be installed along the fence to protect truck traffic to the satisfaction of Town staff. Boardmember Tollini said that he had no concerns about the tree trimming as it sounded as if trimming would only occur if it overhangs onto the center's property. He said that while he wrestled with the TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES #9 6/21/12 HVAC and the new enclosures, in general, the location was probably about where they need to be and reducing the height of the screening would produce more noise. Vice Chair Emberson asked and confirmed that the colors presented were the company's colors. Mr. Scott presented a colored rendering. Chair Kricensky said that the screen walls call for a cream color and the backdrop would be the roof which would emphasize the walls more. He asked to replace the color of the screen walls with something that blends more with the roof color, and Mr. Watrous noted staff could condition this to match the color of the roof. Chair Kricensky asked that the applicant do everything possible to get the decibel level under 65 decibels, and Mr. Jackson said that they would try to bring noise levels down as low as possible. ACTION: It was M/S (Emberson/Tollini) that the request for 1 Blackfield Drive is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act and approving the request, subject to the attached conditions of approval, modified to delete Condition #10 D-G, adding a condition to require the project comply with the flood damage prevention ordinance; add a condition that prohibiting outdoor display of merchandise for sale; change Condition #15 for delivery hours to be set at 7:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., 7 days a week; add a condition for the applicant to install safety bollards at critical points to protect truck traffic at the satisfaction of Town staff, add a condition requiring that the HVAC enclosure/screen shall be painted to be similar to the color of the roof to be approved by staff; and add a condition that the applicant work with staff to install landscaping or planters near the front of the store. Vote: 4-0. 33 REED RANCH ROAD: File No. 21214; Brett Mock, Owner; Site Plan and Architectural Review for construction of additions to an existing single-family dwelling, with Variances for reduced front and side yard setbacks. The applicants propose to construct a second story addition and a lower story addition to an existing single-story house. The floor area of the proposed house would be increased by 1,284 square feet, resulting in a total floor area of 3,168 square feet. The additions would extend to within 21 feet, 3 inches of the front property line and 12 feet, 9 inches of the side property line, which are less than the respective 30 foot front yard and 15 foot side yard setbacks required in the RO-2 zone. Assessor's Parcel No. 034-301-01. The applicant is requesting to construct additions to an existing single-family dwelling with variances for reduced front and side yard setbacks on property located at 33 Reed Ranch Road. Currently the property is improved with a single-story dwelling. The proposal would incorporate a small addition at the back of the home and a second story addition above the existing lower level living room. The interior of the home would be slightly reconfigured as part of the project. The new lower level would include a living room, a combined kitchen and living area, two bedrooms, a bathroom, two guest bedrooms and bathroom, and a laundry room. The upper level would include a master bedroom suite and office. A new interior stairwell would service both levels. No work is proposed to the existing garage and no new color or materials are proposed for the exterior of the home. The proposal would add 1,284 square feet to the home, for a total gross floor area of 3,168 square feet, which is below the maximum permitted gross floor area ratio for the property (3,627 sq. ft.). The proposal would increase the lot coverage by 285 square feet, for total lot coverage of 2,169 square feet (13.3%) which is below the maximum permitted lot coverage in the RO-2 zone (15.0%). The existing dwelling is currently located within both the front and right side yard setbacks. The proposal to incorporate an addition above the existing lower level living room would continue to encroach into both the front and right side yard setbacks. The existing right side yard setback is 10' 4". The addition, at its closest point, would result in a reduced right side yard setback of 12' 9 3/". The existing front yard TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES #9 6/21/12 setback is 16' 4". The proposed addition, at its closest point, would result in a front yard setback of 21' 3". Therefore, the applicant has requested variances to continue to encroach into both the front and right side yard setbacks. J Peter Brandelius, designer, presented the project and pointed to a small clerical error on the noticing which went out at 21'9" and they originally proposed 21'3". He said that they amended the drawings to reflect this change to keep the project moving forward. He spoke about the ways they explored enhancing the homes for added daylight, flow, making the best use of the constrained lot. He said that they looked at any potential impact a second story addition might have on neighbors and propose a 10x26 foot addition at the north corner of the home and renovation of the existing kitchen, baths and bedrooms on the first floor. He said that the owners wanted to expand while also maintaining the existing continuity of the outside space. He stated that building up and into the existing hillside would prove to be costly, invasive and ultimately ineffective and that placing the structure on the southwest side was untenable due to an existing easement running the length of the property. He said that the proposed addition would mitigate view corridor issues and sit well below height restrictions and within FAR limits. He said that the owners invited neighbors to review the proposed drawings and provide feedback, many of whom were in the audience and have approved the plans. He provided findings regarding the request for front and side yard variance and asked for approval of the project. Boardmember Johnson clarified that the existing fireplace and chimney would remain, but would be converted to a gas insert. The public hearing was opened. Ernie Ware said that he and his wife, Carol live next door north of their property, fully support the project and had no objections. He noted that an issue arose regarding trimming of the trees which have encroached onto his property, and the Mocks have agreed to work with him to trim them. Barn Kaplan Bonapart, attorney, said that she represented Diana and Miguel Nhuch who live adjacent to the Mock's property. She said that they were not invited to look at plans or review the project and only found out about it just prior to leaving the country on a trip. She said that they would have liked to look at the plans and story poles but were not aware that the project was ongoing. She said that they have several concerns and ask that the matter be continued so they could have an opportunity to discuss the project and come to an understanding to support it. She stated that there have been ongoing issues with the Nhuchs and the Mocks for several years regarding the Mock's trees along their shared property line. She stated that an arborist report details the number and species of the trees, some of which are fire safety issues and safety issue because of overhanging limbs. Vice Chair Emberson asked if the Nhuchs have problems with the project or trees, as the Board does not have jurisdiction over trees and only deals with new landscaping for a project. Ms. Bonapart disagreed and said that the Board has the power per the zoning ordinance to consider overall property improvement. She said that the Board can require that certain upgrades or improvements to the entire site be made as part of the condition of approval. She said that the trees were related to this project because it was impossible for the Nhuch's to keep their privacy screening they have been trying to grow under the canopy of these trees from the new addition. She stated that the story poles could be clearly seen and the inability to create vegetative screening on the Nhuch's side is a problem. She said that the Fire District will require a vegetation management plan to be part of the project, but she requested that as a condition of approval that the trees be part of that plan, and that the Town require a condition that the tree issue be dealt with in conjunction with granting of the variance. TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES #9 7 6/21/12 Boardmember Johnson asked if there was a civil action in the matter. Ms. Bonapart stated that she was working to avoid this, and explained events leading up to her being hired to attempt to mediate the matter. Boardmember Johnson asked and confirmed that pictures of views before the Board were taken from the Nhuch's bedroom and bathroom. Ann Solomon said that she lives two doors down from the Mocks and spoke about all neighbors being held hostage to the demands of neighbors uphill from them on properties that were developed after their properties, and always on the subject of trees. She said that they have been threatened with lawsuits, people have been caught with chainsaws in trees, and it would be a shame to delay the project. She said that this side of the street had not had many remodels because of the need for variances. She said that even if the trees should come down and open up the rear yard something else would be planted in their stead. She asked the Board to approve the project. Mary Defenderfer said that the Mocks have a wonderful family, have gone over the plans in detail and she fully supported approval of the plans without addressing the separate tree issue. Brett Mock, applicant/owner, said that they began the project three years ago looking at options of where to put the added square footage and were sensitive to neighbors. He said that they have mature trees in the back of the property and they view this as a separate issue. He said that they will continue to find a resolution with the trees, but he hoped that this application would be about the design review of the house and the variance request. He spoke about alternatives to the plan and believed that the plan before the Board was superior. Dottie Lemieux, attorney for the Mocks, said that the Mocks approached their neighbors several times over two years with thoughts about trimming the trees to have more sunlight. She gave details about the history of discussions about the trees and believed that the trees could be dealt with in a neighborly fashion. The public hearing was closed. Mr. Watrous noted that in terms of what the zoning ordinance includes, Section 1652.020 (H[9]) allows the gradual upgrading of existing improvements "to the extent there is a reasonable relationship between the requested project and the changes and/or modifications required." He said that there must be a reasonable relationship between what is being requested and what is being requested, commonly referred to as a nexus. He said that it has been the Town's past practice when dealing with view issues that the Board has allowed the view ordinance to run its course and not involve such tree or view disputes in its decision on an application. Boardmember Johnson said that he knew this property well, as he had been interviewed by the Mocks to design a project that did not work out. He said that he spent a lot of time then looking at the site and understanding what their needs were. He believed that what was proposed was a clever solution in terms of dealing with the setbacks and a conscientious solution to the difficulties of the site. He said that the way the building would be pushed back on the second floor was helpful and a good decision. He said that he knew the trees well and believed that the Fire District will ask for some tree trimming or removal. He hoped that the neighbors could work on some windowing methods, but he did not see this as part of the process and supported the project as a sensitive solution to a difficult problem. Boardmember Tollim appreciated Boardmember Johnson's familiarity with the project and agreed with his comments relating to the trees. He said that his own inclination was to defer entirely to the Fire Marshal in terms of whether trees should or should not be removed. He did not think that it was right to TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES #9 6/21/12 use this application as a leveraging technique to force compliance with a tree issue. He said that the one nexus he saw was speculative in thinking that this may be an application sneaking a Trojan horse in while the trees are there only for the curtain to go up later for everyone to see the house. He said that the neighboring house was far away and downhill. He said that he sees many houses from his house and this is part of living in a suburb and he did not see it as a basis for delaying the project. He asked and confirmed with Mr. Watrous that the variance had been improperly noticed, but that the revised set of plans for the project now comply with the notice. He agreed with staff's conclusions and findings for the variances. He said that there would be a fair amount of glazing but this would be mitigated by distance from other homes and the topography of the site. He said that the only thing he did not like about the project was the addition's 10 foot plate height, stating that it looked a little disproportionately tall to him. Vice Chair Emberson said that she walked the back of the Nhuch's property and could only see the top 3 feet of the story poles and she felt that this was not unreasonable. She noted that the variances were requested for adding to an existing structure which had been there since 1965 and the Board has not been adverse to support similar requests. She voiced support for the project and felt that it was a nice addition. Chair Kricensky said that the applicant spoke about keeping the ceiling height down to 8 or 9 feet for the neighbors, but the drawings show 10 feet. Mr. Brandelius said that he had indicated that they would keep the building below the 30 foot limit. Chair Kricensky echoed comments of fellow Boardmembers and commended the applicant for setting the addition back which works better with the hillside guidelines. He thought that this was a reasonable addition, under the maximum square footage, and the design was sensitive. He said that if the trees happen to come out, a privacy screen would grow more so the addition would not be seen anyway. He said that the Fire Marshal would handle any safety or fire issues. He agreed with Boardmember Tollini that the addition was somewhat top-heavy and suggested the plate height be reduced from 10 to 9 feet. Vice Chair Emberson supported the revision, noting that 9 feet is not a low ceiling height and Boardmember Johnson concurred. The public hearing was closed. ACTION: It was M/S (Emberson/Johnson) that the request for 33 Reed Ranch Road is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act and. approving the request, subject to the attached conditions of approval, with the additional conditions to reflect the revised plans submitted that date and reducing the upper level plate height to 9 feet. Vote: Vote: 4-0. 4. 87 RANCHO DRIVE: File No. 21211; Terence Andrews, Owner; Site Plan and Architectural Review to legalize as-built construction of additions to an existing detached accessory building and walls and fencing, with Variances for reduced side yard setback and excess wall and fence height. The applicant has constructed a 287 square foot addition to an existing detached accessory building and also constructed a series of retaining walls and fences in the front yard. The addition extends to within 6 feet, 6 inches of the side property line, which is less than the 8 foot side yard setback required in the R-1 zone. The walls and fences have a maximum height of 12 feet, which is greater than the 6 foot maximum wall and fence height. Assessor's Parcel No. 034-202-14. CONTINUED TO 7/19/12 F. APPROVAL OF MINUTES #8 OF THE 6/7/12 DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MEETING Vice Chair Emberson requested the following amendment: TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES #9 6/21/12 • Page 4, 3rd paragraph which starts with "Vice Chair Emberson.... She said that she could easily make the findings for the requested variances and the floor area exception and agreed with staff's findings." ACTION: It was M/S (Emberson/Johnson) to approve the minutes of the June 7, 2012 meeting, as amended. Vote: 3-0-1 (Tollini abstained). G. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 8:50 p.m. TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES #9 10 6 /21 /12 TOWN OF TIBURON Action Minutes - Regular Meeting a3% Tiburon Town Hall Design Review Board 1505 Tiburon Boulevard July 19, 2012 Tiburon, CA 94920 7:00 P.M. ACTION MINUTES #10 TIBURON DESIGN REVIEW BOARD CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL At 7:00 PM Present: Chairman Kricensky, Vice Chair Emberson and Boardmembers Johnson and Tollini Absent: Boardmembers Chong Ex-Officio: Planning Manager Watrous, Associate Planner Tyler and Minutes Clerk Rusting OLD BUSINESS 1. 40 DELMAR DRIVE: File No. 712029; Ashley Anderson and Jennifer Wang, Owners; Site Plan and Architectural Review for construction of additions to an existing single- family dwelling. The applicants propose to construct a second story addition and attached to an existing single-story house. The floor area of the proposed house would be increased by 1,412 square feet, resulting in a total floor area of 4,399 square feet, with an additional 600 square feet of garage space. Assessor's Parcel No. 055-211-29. Continued to 8/2/12 PUBLIC HEARINGS AND NEW BUSINESS 2. 650 TIBURON BOULEVARD: File No. 712063; Lisa and Frederick Winston, Owners; Site Plan and Architectural Review for construction of a new single-family dwelling, with a secondary dwelling unit. The applicants propose to demolish and existing single- family dwelling and secondary dwelling unit and construct a two-story residence with an attached secondary dwelling unit on the lower level. The floor area of the proposed house would be 4,795 square feet, with a lot coverage of 12.9%. A swimming pool and spa would also be constructed. Assessor's Parcel No. 055-171-13. Approved 3-0-1 (Emberson recused) 3. 83 CLAIRE WAY: File No. 21213; Samsak and Nardrdee Kamloonwasaraj, Owners; Site Plan and Architectural Review for construction of additions to an existing single- family dwelling, with Variances for reduced front and excess lot coverage. The applicants propose to construct additions to the front and rear of an existing single-story house. The floor area of the proposed house would be increased by 890 square feet, resulting in a total floor area of 2,185 square feet. The additions would extend to within 16 feet of the front property line, which is less than the 20 front yard setback required in the R-1-BA zone. The project would cover 32.3% of the lot, which is greater than the 30.0% maximum lot coverage permitted in the R-1-BA zone. Assessor's Parcel No. 034-114-15. Continued to 812112 Action Minutes #10 7/19/12 Design Review Board Meeting Page 1 4. 488 WASHINGTON COURT: File No. 21215; Clinton and Tina Yee, Owners; Site Plan and Architectural Review for construction of additions to an existing single-family dwelling, with a Variance for reduced side yard setback. The applicants propose to construct an addition to the front of the house and a second story addition to an existing single-story house. The floor area of the proposed house would be increased by 1,731 square feet, resulting in a total floor area of 2,752 square feet. The additions would extend to within 6 feet, 10 inches of the side property line, which are less than the 8 foot side yard setbacks required in the R-1 zone. Assessor's Parcel No. 034-251-29. Continued to 8116112 5. 87 RANCHO DRIVE: File No. 21211; Terence Andrews, Owner; Site Plan and Architectural Review to legalize as-built construction of additions to an existing detached accessory building and walls and fencing, with Variances for reduced side yard setback and excess wall and fence height. The applicant has constructed a 287 square foot addition to an existing detached accessory building and also constructed a series of retaining walls and fences in the front yard. The addition extends to within 6 feet, 6 inches of the side property line, which is less than the 8 foot side yard setback required in the R-1 zone. The walls and fences have a maximum height of 12 feet, which is greater than the 6 foot maximum wall and fence height. Assessor's Parcel No. 034-202-14. Continued to 812112 MINUTES 6. Regular Meeting of June 21, 2012 Approved 3-0-1 (Tollini abstained) ADJOURNMENT At 8:15 PM Action Minutes #10 7/19/12 Design Review Board Meeting Page 2 TOWN OF TIBURON Tiburon Town Hall 1505 Tiburon Boulevard Tiburon, CA 94920 AGENDA TIBURON DESIGN REVIEW BOARD CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL 0/10 Regular Meeting Design Review Board August 2, 2012 7:00 P.M. Chairman Kricensky, Vice Chair Emberson, Boardmembers Chong, Johnson and Tollini ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Persons wishing to address the Design Review Board on any subject not on the agenda may do so under this portion of the agenda. Please note that the Design Review Board is not able to undertake extended discussion, or take action on, items that do not appear on this agenda. Matters requiring action will be referred to Town Staff for consideration and/or placed on a future Design Review Board agenda. Please limit your comments to no more than three (3) minutes. Any communications regarding an item not on the agenda will not be considered part of the administrative record for that item. STAFF BRIEFING (if any) ELECTION OF CHAIR AND VICE-CHAIR OLD BUSINESS 40 DELMAR DRIVE: File No. 712029; Ashley Anderson and Jennifer Wang, Owners; Site Plan and Architectural Review for construction of additions to an existing single- family dwelling. The applicants propose to construct a second story addition and attached to an existing single-story house. The floor area of the house would be increased by 1,412 square feet, resulting in a total floor area of 4,399 square feet, with an additional 600 square feet of garage space. Assessor's Parcel No. 055-211-29. CONTINUED TO 9/6/12 PUBLIC HEARINGS AND NEW BUSINESS 2. 1865 MOUNTAIN VIEW DRIVE: File No. 712064; Onne Broek, Owner; Site Plan and Architectural Review for construction of a new single-family dwelling, with a Floor Area Exception. The applicants propose to demolish an existing single-family dwelling and construct a two-story residence with a detached accessory building. A swimming pool would also be constructed. The floor area of the proposed house would be 4,088 square feet, with lot coverage of 14.7%. The floor area would exceed the 4,147 square foot floor area ratio for a lot of this size. Assessor's Parcel No. 059-022-07. [DW] Design Review Board August 2, 2012 Page 1 3. 7 VIA PARAISO EAST: File No. 712070; Ahmad Bayat and Lillie Mossaddegh, Owners; Site Plan and Architectural Review for construction of additions to an existing single-family dwelling. The applicants propose to construct a two-story exercise room and sun room addition and expand the existing master bedroom and family room. The floor area of the house would be increased by 915 square feet, resulting in a total floor area of 5,406 square feet. The project would cover 9.2% of the lot. Assessor's Parcel Nos. 039-290-15 & 16. [DW] - 4. 83 CLAIRE WAY: File No. 21213; Samsak and Nardrdee Kamloonwasaraj, Owners; Site Plan and Architectural Review for construction of additions to an existing single- family dwelling, with Variances for reduced front and excess lot coverage. The applicants propose to construct additions to the front and rear of an existing single-story house. The floor area of the house would be increased by 890 square feet, resulting in a total floor area of 21185 square feet. The additions would extend to within 16 feet of the front property line, which is less than the 20 front yard setback required in the R-1-BA zone. The project would cover 32.3% of the lot, which is greater than the 30.0% maximum lot coverage permitted in the R-1-BA zone. Assessor's Parcel No. 034-114-15. [LT] CONTINUED TO 8/16/12 5. 87 RANCHO DRIVE: File No. 21211; Terence Andrews, Owner; Site Plan and Architectural Review to legalize as-built construction of additions to an existing detached accessory building and walls and fencing, with Variances for reduced side yard setback and excess wall and fence height. The applicant has constructed a 287 square foot addition to an existing detached accessory building and also constructed a series of retaining walls and fences in the front yard. The addition extends to within 6 feet, 6 inches of the side property line, which is less than the 8 foot side yard setback required in the R-1 zone. The walls and fences have a maximum height of 12 feet, which is greater than the 6 foot maximum wall and fence height. Assessor's Parcel No. 034-202-14. [LT] CONTINUED TO 8/16/12 6. 22 MERCURY AVENUE: File No. 21216; William Taggart, Owner; Site Plan and Architectural Review for construction of additions to an existing single-family dwelling, with a Variance for excess lot coverage. The applicants propose to construct additions to the rear of the house to expand the family room and create a new master bedroom suite. The floor area of the house would be increased by 496 square feet, resulting in a total floor area of 2,337 square feet. The project would cover 35.6% of the lot, which is greater than the 30.0% maximum lot coverage permitted in the R-1 zone. Assessor's Parcel No. 034-262-31. [LT] CONTINUED TO 8/16/12 MINUTES 7. Regular Meeting of July 19, 2012 ADJOURNMENT Design Review Board August 2, 2012 Page 2 GENERAL PUBLIC INFORMATION ASSISTANCE FOR PEOPLE WITH DISABILITIES In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the Planning Division Secretary at (415) 435-7390. Notification 48 hours prior to the meeting will enable the Town to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to this meeting. AVAILABILITY OF INFORMATION Copies of Design Review Board Agendas, Staff Reports, project files and other supporting data are available for viewing and inspection at Town Hall during business hours. Agendas and Staff Reports are also available at the Belvedere-Tiburon Public Library and on the Town of Tiburon website (www.ci.tiburon.ca.us) after 5:00 PM on the Friday prior to the regularly scheduled meeting. Any documents produced by the Town and distributed to a majority of the Design Review Board regarding any item on this agenda, including agenda-related documents produced by the Town after distribution of the agenda packet at least 72 hours in advance of the Board meeting, will be available for public inspection at Town Hall, 1505 Tiburon Boulevard, Tiburon, CA 94920. Upon request, the Town will provide written agenda materials in appropriate alternative formats, or disability-related modification or accommodation, including auxiliary aids or services, to enable individuals with disabilities to participate in public meetings. Please deliver or cause to be delivered a written request (including your name, mailing address, phone number and brief description of the requested materials and preferred alternative format or auxiliary aid or service) at least five (5) days before the meeting to the Planning Division Secretary at the above address. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS AND BUSINESS ITEMS Public Hearing items and Business items provide the general public and interested parties an opportunity to speak regarding items that typically involve an action or decision made by the Board. If you challenge any decision in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the meeting, or in written correspondence delivered to the Board at, or prior to, the meeting. GENERAL PROCEDURE ON ITEMS AND TIME LIMIT GUIDELINES FOR SPEAKERS The Design Review Board's general procedure on items and time limit guidelines for speakers are: Staff Update on Item (if any) ❖ Applicant Presentation - 5 to 20 minutes ❖ Design Review Board questions of staff and/or applicant ❖ Public Testimony (depending on the number of speakers) - 3 to 5 minutes for each speaker; members of the audience may not allocate their testimony time to other speakers ❖ Applicant may respond to public comments - 3 minutes ❖ Design Review Board closes the public testimony period, deliberates and votes (as warranted) Time limits and procedures may be modified in the reasonable discretion of the Chairman Interested members of the public may address the Design Review Board on any item on the agenda. ORDER AND TIMING OF ITEMS No set times are assigned to items appearing on the Design Review Board agenda. While the Design Review Board attempts to hear all items in order as stated on the agenda, it reserves the right to take items out of order without notice. NOTE: ALL DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MEETINGS AREA UDIO RECORDED Design Review Board August 2, 2012 Page 3 TOWN OF TIBURON LATE MAIL POLICY (Adopted and Effective 11/7/2007) The following policy shall be used by the Town Council and its standing boards and commissions, and by staff of the Town of Tiburon, in the identification, distribution and consideration of late mail. DEFINITION "Late Mail" is defined as correspondence or other materials that are received by the Town after completion of the written staff report on an agenda item, in such a manner as to preclude such correspondence or other materials from being addressed in or attached to the staff report as an exhibit. IDENTIFICATION OF LATE MAIL All late mail received by Town Staff in advance of a meeting shall be marked "Late Mail" and shall be date-stamped or marked with the date of receipt by the Town. Late mail received at a meeting shall be marked as "Received at Meeting" with a date-stamp or handwritten note. POLICY For re ular meetings of the Town Council and its standing boards and commissions: (1) All late mail that is received on an agenda item prior to distribution of the agenda packet to the reviewing authority shall be stamped or marked as "Late Mail" and shall be distributed to the reviewing authority with the agenda packet. (2) All late mail received on an agenda item before 5:00 PM on the Monday prior to the meeting shall be date-stamped and marked as "Late Mail" and distributed to the reviewing authority as soon as practicable. Such mail shall be read and considered by the reviewing authority whenever possible. If the Monday, or Monday and Tuesday, prior to the meeting are a Town-recognized holiday, the deadline shall be extended to the following day at Noon. (3) Any late mail received on an agenda item after the deadline established in paragraph (2) above shall be date-stamped, marked as "Late Mail" and distributed to the reviewing authority as soon as reasonably possible, but may not be read or considered by the reviewing authority. There should be no expectation of, nor shall the reviewing authority have any obligation to, read or consider any such late mail, and therefore such late mail may not become part of the administrative record for the item before the reviewing authority. These provisions shall also apply to special and adjourned meetings when sufficient lead time exists to implement these provisions. If sufficient lead time does not exist, the Town Manager shall exercise discretion in establishing a reasonable cut-off time for late mail. For controversial items or at any meeting where a high volume of correspondence is anticipated, Town staff shall have the option to require an earlier late mail deadline, provided that the written public notice for any such item clearly communicates the specifics of the early late mail deadline, and the deadline corresponds appropriately to any earlier availability of the agenda packet. Pursuant to state law, copies of all late mail shall be available in a timely fashion for public inspection at Tiburon Town Hall, 1505 Tiburon Boulevard, Tiburon. Design Review Board August 2, 2012 Page 4